Article:"Rewarding Failure Diminishes Sport"

SkateFiguring said:

Whether a jump is taken off the right edge is verifiable with video, with benefits given to the skater when it's not absolutely clear. Why project poor ethics on the technical pane without supporting facts?

Click to expand...

Having sat on a few Technical Panels the past few years, and having listened in on many others (in the U.S) my observation is most U.S. TPs just try and get through the events as best they can without beating each other up in the process, and show each other respect. But I also know a few Controllers who think they are by far the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree and do sometimes in effect intimidate the rest of the panel to their point of view by their attitude. This is not so much about ethics as the arrogance of some know it alls who are sure their perceptions and knowledge are perfect. As for outside the U.S. I can't speak from personal experience, but I suspect it is pretty much the same from what I have been told. I have heard some U.S. tech panel officials make the same criticism of some European controllers they work with.

And God help the event referee who ends up with two brightest-bulbs on the same techincal panel. You can kiss your event schedule goodby!

wallylutz said:

Kwan had TWO falls, one step out on 3F, doubled a 3Lz, no Triple-Triple.

Click to expand...

That's why she lost.

People act like this new. It's always been a part of skating. Many great champions have won with falls in thier programs, even over cleaner competitors. Just like gymnasts have won with out perfect landings, or missing a handstand at the top of a bar, or divers have won without every entry being a perfect zip.

skateflower said:

You're manufacturing some facts to suit your pnt oiof view. Brian/Plusenko never argued a fall on 3a/quads were greatly penalized. Why should they especially Plusenko who landed tons of quads.

Click to expand...

uh...I guess you missed the parts that both of them complained about Quads worth nothing or men without quads are like ladies skating. They were the ones responsible for the ISU to:

- Raise the base value of Quads

- Diminish the GOE penalty on Quads

I am sorry if your selective memory omits the raison d'etre why the ISU again tweaked the value and penalty on Quads post 2010 season. These two men were the main reasons why these changes happened and their complaint for the lack of Quad in Men's skating and its lower value at the time resulted in what we have today. You called that "manufacturing facts", I think you refuse to see the pink elephant in the room, waving at you.

What they argued was that the low value given to the difficult quads was not fair. The ISU has indeed increased the value of quads, which is the primary drive for quad-boom. I think they can increase the value to quads (an actually executed one, not simply 'rotated' fallen ones) even further, but give 0 to a fall. This will discourage skaters from trying something they don't truly master, at the same time, give more credit to guys who can do it properly.

Click to expand...

Only if you don't selectively omit the fact that they also decreased the GOE penalty from a maximum of -4.2 down to -3.0 (no change to the mandatory deduction).

gsrossano said:

Having sat on a few Technical Panels the past few years, and having listened in on many others (in the U.S) my observation is most U.S. TPs just try and get through the events as best they can without beating each other up in the process, and show each other respect. But I also know a few Controllers who think they are by far the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree and do sometimes in effect intimidate the rest of the panel to their point of view by their attitude. This is not so much about ethics as the arrogance of some know it alls who are sure their perceptions and knowledge are perfect. As for outside the U.S. I can't speak from personal experience, but I suspect it is pretty much the same from what I have been told. I have heard some U.S. tech panel officials make the same criticism of some European controllers they work with.

And God help the event referee who ends up with two brightest-bulbs on the same techincal panel. You can kiss your event schedule goodby!

Click to expand...

Are you a Tech Panelist? Such revelation is going to get you lots of questions people are dying to know the answers to!

In any case, I wouldn't project the attitude and "competence" of the much criticized US Tech Panels onto the international experts.

Mathman said:

That's why she lost.

Click to expand...

As a Kwan fan, I wish her two Olympic skates were judged under CoP in which case she might have been two-time Olympic champion already.

Mathman said:

That's why she lost.

Click to expand...

Win or lose wasn't the question. Why was she still getting such high Technical Merit mark for all these errors including two nasty falls if supposedly, there is no partial credit for falling as a poster incorrectly states? Are we trying to argue those marks are the result of landing 3 clean Triple jumps under the 6.0 system?

And if you must argue that's why she lost, I got news for you. She was still winning and still beat everyone else until that point. Lipinski had yet skate her FS and if she had any errors, judges would have handed Kwan the Gold because even with such skate, it still ended up being a split panel between her and Lipinski, who skated flawlessly under the 6.0 system on that night.

wallylutz said:

I think you could use some refresher to your memory:

Click to expand...

You are correct. A fall on a jump would get a deduction of 0.4 vs an omission of 0.5, so the skater keeps 20%

As for the free skate, in principle a skater could do no jumps and still be given a 6.0 if a judge felt like it and be within the rules.

As for Kwan's FS marks, you and others are forgetting, under 6.0 although we tried to give marks that were "reflective" in the end all that mattered was getting your order of finish the way you wanted it regardless of whether the marks you needed to give to make that happen made any sense. Which made marking the SP a bit of a black art, since the marks on the one hand were relative and only am eans to get to the order of finish one wanted, but the deductions were absolute. That meant that the base value from which the deductions were taken had to be carefully considered.

SkateFiguring said:

Are you a Tech Panelist? Such revelation is going to get you lots of questions people are dying to know the answers to!

In any case, I wouldn't project the attitude and "competence" of the much criticized US Tech Panels onto the international experts.

Click to expand...

Yeah, Canadian and Russian tech panels are so much superior. Denial and denial.

skateflower said:

Yeah, Canadian and Russian tech panels are so much superior. Denial and denial.

Click to expand...

I don't know about the Russians, but Canadian skaters don't get all kinds of calls internationally that they get away with nationally. As picked apart as Chan is, there have not been charges that deserved calls are not made against him at international events.

gsrossano said:

As for the free skate, in principle a skater could do no jumps and still be given a 6.0 if a judge felt like it and be within the rules.

Click to expand...

In theory, anything is possible. But such theory is as plausible as neutrino traveling faster than the speed of light. Although the FS under 6.0 had few concrete requirements, there was what's called "Balanced Program", of which "recommendations" were highly advised. Some of those recommendations "suggest" that programs much be well balanced with jumps, spins and footwork sequences (in ladies, also to include a spiral sequence) and at least one jump combination. An ISU program at that time without any jumps would undoubtedly violate the concept of Balanced Program since it was not recommended that a skater exceed 4 spins or more than 2 steps sequences, therefore, a 4.5 minutes FS with just 6 elements are going to have a lot of voids, almost like Ice Dance by a single person. So no judge in their sound mind would dare to give 6.0 to such a skate in an ISU sanctioned event. Pro competition was another matter since they fell outside the ISU's jurisdiction, they could do whatever they want. So no, I have to disagree with your interpretation once more - it has never happened because no sane skater would do such a thing and no self-preserving judge would do such blatant & controversial action that was pretty much guaranteed to result in an immediate removal from future competition.

As for Kwan's FS marks, you and others are forgetting, under 6.0 although we tried to give marks that were "reflective" in the end all that mattered was getting your order of finish the way you wanted it regardless of whether the marks you needed to give to make that happen made any sense. Which made marking the SP a bit of a black art, since the marks on the one hand were relative and only am eans to get to the order of finish one wanted, but the deductions were absolute. That meant that the base value from which the deductions were taken had to be carefully considered.

Click to expand...

You just tried to make us believe virtually all judges in the 6.0 system disregard falls on jumps as having no credit. But when shown a clear example to the contrary, your statement now shape-shifted? I know the 6.0 system very well, thank you very much because I really not that young anymore, unfortunately.

Anyway, no point in beating a dead horse. 6.0 system is by most definition history. It's no longer used in any international events and for the vast majority of skating fans, it is at best an artifact, a memory - that is if they even know about it.

wallylutz said:

In theory, anything is possible.

Click to expand...

Ah. I get it now. Thanks for explaining it to me. You have taught me more in a few posts than all I learned in 26 years of judging experience (and tech paneling, and refereeing and now accounting). Maybe I will come back for more of your wisdom tomorrow.

Not.

gsrossano said:

Ah. I get it now. Thanks for explaining it to me. You have taught me more in a few posts than all I learned in 26 years of judging experience (and tech paneling, and refereeing and now accounting). Maybe I will come back for more of your wisdom tomorrow.

Not.

Click to expand...

The fact you chose to respond to my detailed response with such a childish reply only reflects poorly on you. I am not going to lower myself to your level. You are welcome to dispute any part of my statement if you really are as experienced as you claim to be. But 26 years of experience can't even get the amount of deduction for falling in a SP correctly? 26 years of experience doesn't know the balanced program mandate in the FS which clearly names jumps and such inclusion of at least one jump combination? Gotta love the anonymity of internet - we can imagine who we want to be, easy eh?

wallylutz said:

Win or lose wasn't the question.

Click to expand...

Here's the thing. Michelle fell twice, had other serious and visible errors, and she lost because of it. If she had not fallen she would have won.

If Michelle had won in spite of her falls, the audience would have gone away with a certain amount of puzzlement and disgruntlement, muttering WTH was that?

The same is true today. When someone falls and has multiple serious and visible errors, and wins anyway, the audience feels like WTH?

I do not know the answer. What I wish is that enthusiastic supporters of the CoP would step back a moment and say, oh, yeah, that is sort of a problem.

Mathman said:

Here's the thing. Michelle fell twice, had other serious and visible errors, and she lost because of it. If she had not fallen she would have won.

If Michelle had won in spite of her falls, the audience would have gone away with a certain amount of puzzlement and disgruntlement, muttering WTH was that?

The same is true today. When someone falls and has multiple serious and visible errors, and wins anyway, the audience feels like WTH?

I do not know the answer. What I wish is that enthusiastic supporters of the CoP would step back a moment and say, oh, yeah, that is sort of a problem.

Click to expand...

So let me ask you this, Mathman. Do you feel Michelle would have won under the CoP over Tara Lipinski for such skate at the 1997 U.S. Nationals (video link provided above)? This is a yes or no question but you may elaborate if you wish.

Goodness no. How could that disaster of a skate win under any legitimate scoring system?

No matter what the scoring system, it is not good when someone wins with a bad skate. Sometimes it is unavoidable, like when everyone messes up and you have to give the prize to the least bad.

This, too, is not good for the sport, IMHO.

Mathman said:

What I wish is that enthusiastic supporters of the CoP would step back a moment and say, oh, yeah, that is sort of a problem.

Click to expand...

It is a bit of a problem, and I love the CoP.

prettykeys said:

It is a bit of a problem, and I love the CoP.

Click to expand...

:agree:

skateflower said:

You're wrong. Any athlete is risk taker by nature if sufficient incentive is given. Skaters will have to sort out themselves if it's worthwhile to put a half-baked skill in a competition. Sure you may see more falls. But you will not see a champion who falls repeatedly by just trying. A competition is not about 'trying'. It's about crowning a champion who can actually execute difficult skills.

Gymnastics, diving, etc, common sense approach applies to every other sport except for figure skating.

Click to expand...

A half baked skill can become fully baked the more it is done. No skill like a quad toe was going to become widely done when if you underrotated a 4T you were dropped down to triple toe value and if you got -3 GOE your 3+ rotations would be knocked down to 1 or 2 (weir 2008 worlds) points and if you fell no points whatseover (takahashi 2010 olympics). Plushenko fell on his quad attempt at 2002 olympics and was able to remain in 4th place. That would be more likely to happen now than it would have under the previous COP. The slightest underrotation 1 or 2 points total! Someone who did a triple toe would get more points for 3+rotations! The valuing of quad toes from toe jump base value was not good.

Mathman said:

Goodness no. How could that disaster of a skate win under any legitimate scoring system?

Click to expand...

My point is, it wasn't because 6.0 was used that Kwan lost. But it was because it used 6.0 that she were given such ridiculously high Technical Merit marks. You may also want to take a look at her Artistic Impression marks because they were even more atrocious, speaking as someone who was very disheartened when Kwan lost her national title in 1997.

No matter what the scoring system, it is not good when someone wins with a bad skate. Sometimes it is unavoidable, like when everyone messes up and you have to give the prize to the least bad.

This, too, is not good for the sport, IMHO.

Click to expand...

But how do you define "bad skate"? If we were to use the GPF Men's LP as an example, Chan had only one fall. Even if you give zero value to that fall, he would still have won comfortably. Why? Because Takahashi didn't do a lot of things, like a 2nd 3-3, a second Quad or any Double Axel. All of which would have been important considerations under 6.0 as well. Not doing enough (i.e. having less jumps and/or combos than your competitors) could also hurt you in the eyes of judges under both systems. Figure Skating never had a litmus test on falls or any elements under either system of scoring. Plenty of skaters have won with just one fall under 6.0. Likewise, skaters who skated clean programs have lost to those who didn't skate clean under 6.0 as well, notably the 2002 Olympics Pairs event. Even today, many still believe B/S legitimately won gold that night even though they were flawed while the Canadians were clean.

The bottom line is no system is perfect. You tweak one thing, some people aren't happy. You change it back, then the other group complains. This has been the story of CoP. No one is ever happy. There is a saying: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except all others that have been tried." You feel skaters who had several visible errors shouldn't win, but how does that work? How do you input that into an evaluation framework - a scoring model - so that it can churn out results that are fair? Again, using the GPF as an example, if we use your logic, then Takahashi shouldn't win either. He had too many visible errors in the SP, 3 major ones in fact - on 4T, on 3F and on the missing 3T. Combined with his visible miss in the FS, he had 4 major visible errors. Should he have won the GPF? Chan had a total of 5 visible errors, but only 4 were somewhat major, that is more than -1 in negative GOE. Difference between Chan and Takahashi technically came down to just one minor hand down in terms of # of errors but overall, Chan had more content. So should the person with the least visible error wins then? If so, who should that be. I guarantee if you ask that to 10 people, you are not going to find any unanimity, even those who subscribe to your viewpoint. So the question to ask is then, what's the value of such proposal then?