Article:"Rewarding Failure Diminishes Sport"

Isn't there a guideline in Dance PCS for recommended lowering of certain components due to falls?

gkelly thanks for taking time to put together a thoughtful post. In general I enjoy thoughtful discussions of the rules of skating and how they might be changed. Not that I expect my ideas to go anywhere, but I am enlightened by the responses.

skatinginbc - I think you're right about about -goes. I'd like to see the range go from -5 to +5, so maybe a hand down or a step out would get -3 while a fall could get -5. It also would futher reward those elements of exceptionally good quality.

What if the PCS scores were ordinal markers, as in the old 6.0 system. Would it make it harder for a judge(s) to be overly generous here and affect the outcome?

Someone mentioned 'instant scoring' which I think could be exciting. As the skater performs a score board totes up the base value of the executed elements with goe's and level adjustments added in the kiss and cry. It wouldn't be that hard to do. Maybe then PCS scores are held back till each group of skaters have gone - they're all in the K&C ranked by TES and then PCS are added! The drama! Probably would lead just to more complaints of rigging though

gkelly said:

So an error that anyone with no skating knowledge can see, and that is ugly and disruptive, should be penalized more than a brief, nondisruptive, not-unattractive fall?

That means that the degree of disruption, the level of ugliness, etc., is subject to the subjective judgment of the judges on the panel (and the subjective opinions of fans).

Actually I think this is a good starting place for changes in rules or guidelines.

Click to expand...

To me, this is just common sense. Why would judges need "rules and guidelines" to do this?

But if both partners fall in perfect unison perfectly in time with the music, then maybe the good aspects of the fall can add to the PCS enough to counteract the recommended reduction in the component score. (They'd still get 2.0 mandatory fall deduction though)

Click to expand...

Or a skater who falls and plays it off as part of the choreography could earn back as much in goodwill as s/he loses to the recommended reduction.

Click to expand...

gkelly said:

So an error that anyone with no skating knowledge can see, and that is ugly and disruptive, should be penalized more than a brief, nondisruptive, not-unattractive fall? That means that the degree of disruption, the level of ugliness, etc., is subject to the subjective judgment of the judges on the panel (and the subjective opinions of fans).

Click to expand...

Yes, and rightfully so in terms of its impact on presentation, interpretation or performance. If there is no subjectivity in judging, why do we need nine judges on the panel? Do you think figure skating can be measured by a ruler or a timer?

Mathman said:

To me, this is just common sense. Why would judges need "rules and guidelines" to do this?

Click to expand...

I think they do already do this.

But their threshold for what they consider disruptive will vary from judge to judge (i.e., some penalize more than others) and will likely be different from the average fan's.

E.g., look at the Alizah Allen program I posted earlier in this thread. A casual fan might look at that performance and see one cringe-inducing failed jump. A judge would probably see three (same number as in Kwan's more difficult program the same day).

But there's also a lot of good stuff in that program too.

Placements aside, do you think there's a difference in the disruptiveness of these two falls and how much they should be penalized, from whatever score(s) the judge was going to give the performance otherwise?

0:44
1:35

skatinginbc said:

Yes, and rightfully so in terms of its impact on presentation, interpretation or performance. If there is no subjectivity in judging, why do we need nine judges on the panel? Do you think figure skating can be measured by a ruler or a timer?

Click to expand...

I'm agreeing with you.

But pointing out that you and I and an experienced judge and a casual fan might all disagree on just how much any given fall (or other error) disrupts the performance and how much it should be penalized.

Mathman said:

It is not possible to tell from the protocols whether a majority of judges favored Chan or Takahashi in P/E. The random order in which the judges' scores are presented is as follows....

Click to expand...

Gee, I didn't realize the scores were presented in a random order. Thanks for pointing that out. Somebody claimed in the GPF Men FP thread that Judge #2, #3, #4, #6, and #9 gave Takahashi higher PE than Chan. And so I assumed that he was correct and that the order was not random.

I’m someone who is largely inclined to defend the CoP, but I would readily admit that it is not perfect. One thing I would say in its defense, and here I am admittedly being very general, is that the problems it has can be fixed within the same system. For example, I believe many of the complaints people have could be addressed by revising the point values assigned to elements or errors. For instance, the mandatory deduction for a fall (in addition to the -3 GoE) could be 3 points instead of 1. This kind of change would seem to largely pacify the writer whose blog/article stirred up the controversy on this forum and leave the CoP essentially intact.

On the other hand, the biggest problems with the 6.0 system—subjectivity, corruptability—are inherent to it. Judges assigned scores that were proxies for ranks, ranks that could be determined by just about anything—personal preference, bribes, politics, or actual skating merit. (I’m aware that I’m oversimplifying a bit, but the point still holds.)

I’d also make a plea for a distinction that is frequently overlooked. There is a difference between (1) a flaw in the CoP itself and (2) error in judges’/technical panels’ application of it. More often than not, it seems to me that competition results that stir up controversy about the CoP are really complaints about (2) rather than (1). However, (2) is an inevitable problem of any judging system; it is not a special feature of the CoP.

gkelly said:

(1997 Nationals?)

(Michelle Kwan} fell twice, had other serious and visible errors, and beat skaters who did not fall or have disruptive errors.

(BTW, here's one of my favorite performances from that competition with only one fall)

Mathman said:

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?

Click to expand...

Really, even if Lipinski had withdrawn or also fallen at least twice? Yeah, Bobek would probably have won the LP but was too far behind in the short program (with falls) to win the title.

Sometimes the best skater falls.

Click to expand...

This was actually a pretty cool competition, except for Michelle's meltdown. Thanks for posting the links.

I don't know. There are a lot of ifs. In fact, Tara did not withdraw or fall. She skated circles around everyone else, including (in this competition) Michelle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4GkLbzBQitg

If Tara had not competed and Michelle had eked out a win in spite of herself, I think the audience's reaction would have been, "Well, that was a disappointment. I thought Nikodinov should have won, but I guess being the world champion carries some brownie points with the judges. Oh well."

gkelly said:

E.g., look at the Alizah Allen program I posted earlier in this thread. A casual fan might look at that performance and see one cringe-inducing failed jump. A judge would probably see three (same number as in Kwan's more difficult program the same day).

But there's also a lot of good stuff in that program too.

Click to expand...

I saw a bad fall, two other bad landings, and almost every jump landing was double-footed. Also, her overall skating is nowhere near the league even of Amber Corwin , much less Nicole Bobeck.

But the music was great She adapted her style perfectly to the music. Very enjoyable.

gkelly said:

Placements aside, do you think there's a difference in the disruptiveness of these two falls and how much they should be penalized, from whatever score(s) the judge was going to give the performance otherwise?

Click to expand...

I think the judges would have to penalize them both, especially in ice dance

But the first one was actually kind of cool. Pasha dragged him along on his belly then snatched him to his feet, as if to say, "get up, you big lug!"

The second one, he just fell flat on his face with no saving graces.

I think the biggest misconception and misconnection with casual fans about COP is spelled out in the thread title - Rewarding Failure.

In actuality, COP rewards all the accomplishments a skater brings on the ice, the sum of which being the final total scores. But many proverbial casual fans are not able, and some refuse, to see the accomplishments. Falls are obvious and easier to focus on, especially for the semi casual fans with favorites and sentiments against their chief rival, but not the technical knowledge or willingness to accept expert opinions.

However, I'm not too sure all casual fans are as represented on this board. A very casual fan was with me briefly at the beginning of the Men LP on TV. He was aware of Chan controvery since it was in the general news. Referring to his SP fall from crashing into the board, he voluntarily commented to me that Chan got up so fast like nothing happened. I told him some fans insisted any fall disrupted the program and should be reflected in skating skills scores. He emphatically said, "But there was no disruption of flow at all with Patrick! Not with the fall or the hand down in the jump after!" He also said that there was such elegance in Patrick's skating. This was someone who thought Patrick was 25, had no knowledge about scoring and current skaters, had no time to watch figure skating these days, but remembered Browning, Stojko, Kwan, as well as how artistic Lu Chen was. As far as I know. this was his first glimpse of Patrick Chan.

So that was what a true casual fan noticed, without biases or agenda.

BTW, I have to call out Mathman and skatinginbc, two very articulate skating fans with strong interest and devotion to their favorite skaters, as masquerading as "casual fans". The number of posts on this fan board alone say otherwise.

Mathman said:

Here is where we are helpless. It is not possible to tell from the protocols whether a majority of judges favored Chan or Takahashi in P/E. The random order in which the judges' scores are presented is as follows.

Chan 9.25 8,00 8.25 8.50 9.50 8.50 8.75 8.50 8.75
Taka 8.00 9.50 8.50 9.00 8.75 9.00 8.00 8.00 9.00

If you compare the two lists ordered in this way, Takahashi is favored by the judges listed 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th and 9yh. Takahashi wins, 5 judges to 4.

But if we take the same scores and put the second set in a different order we get:

Chan 8.00 8.25 8.50 8.50 8.50 8.75 8.75 9.00 9.25
Taka 9.50 9.00 9.00 9.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.75 8.50

Now Chan wins judges 5,6,7,8 and 9. Chan wins, 5 judges to 4.

Which order is right? The ISU isn't telling.

Click to expand...

Oh, no! This is the first time I've heard it. So there is no way to analyse it!:scowl:

Is it not favoristism- I have not read this thread so excuse me- that Patrick won over Daisuke with what happened in PC's SP and LP? How many here felt Dai deserved the gold? Or is PC the 'pet" here at GS with all the Canadian members?

Guess I should head to the poll folder to see what is the consensus about GP Final....

skateluvr said:

Is it not favoristism- I have not read this thread so excuse me- that Patrick won over Daisuke with what happened in PC's SP and LP? How many here felt Dai deserved the gold? Or is PC the 'pet" here at GS with all the Canadian members?

Guess I should head to the poll folder to see what is the consensus about GP Final....

Click to expand...

I guess you've totally forgotten that Takahashi had an over 10 points deficit from SP. Dai could never win gold even if he won LP. Of course you can always day-dream about it.

SkateFiguring said:

I think the biggest misconception and misconnection with casual fans about COP is spelled out in the thread title - Rewarding Failure.

In actuality, COP rewards all the accomplishments a skater brings on the ice, the sum of which being the final total scores. But many proverbial casual fans are not able, and some refuse, to see the accomplishments....

Click to expand...

I think that sports fans in general are not used to a sport that adds up little hundredths of a point for every twist and turn the athlete makes. In golf, you do not get any points for lining up your putt, for reading the green, for having a smooth putting stroke -- the only thing that counts is, does it go in the cup. All of those things may add up up to a putt that has a higher probability of going in, but at the end there is that yes or no that defines the sport.

Under the CoP judging system, figure skating is not like that. Maybe it is not like that under any scoring system, but to the fan who has been schooled in other sports and is not an expert in skating, under the 6.0 system skating seemed more like other sports. You prepare for your big element, you take off on a secure edge, straight body position in the air, good height, quick rotations -- all of those things increase the probability that you will score. Then BAM you hit that perfect landing, or AWWWW, you fall. To me, the CoP kind of takes away that thrill. Instead of the thrill of victory and agony of defeat, we have a sequence of so-so, half OK, half could-be-better moments.

BTW, I have to call out Mathman and skatinginbc, two very articulate skating fans with strong interest and devotion to their favorite skaters, as masquerading as "casual fans". The number of posts on this fan board alone say otherwise.

Click to expand...

If only I could tell what edge a skater is on in real time, or learn the difference between a Chocktaw and a Mohawk, as easily as I can bang away at the keyboard!

SkateFiguring said:

BTW, I have to call out Mathman and skatinginbc, two very articulate skating fans with strong interest and devotion to their favorite skaters, as masquerading as "casual fans". The number of posts on this fan board alone say otherwise.

Click to expand...

have either ever said they were? or are they just referring to casual fans while not including themselves in it.

And MM's large post count is because he's the longest lasting moderator, he's had to deal with more headaches than the rest of us combined...

I believe the Decathlon is like that, each athlete get so many points based on how close they are to the World Record. Gymnastics. But there are not many. I like it though. It forces athlete to give 100% or loose by the smallest margins. Still waiting for the day we have a gold medal tie at a major event. Pairs was so close at the GPF.

For me when Daisuke fell in the Olympics and then went on and everything else beautifully, I had no problem with him getting higher PCS than Evan. My reasoning being that it was a difficult element and Evan didn't even attempt that element. Although of course I'm not so sure how sorry I feel for Daisuke, because he knew that jump wasn't inconsistent. But do I feel bad for Daisuke that he only got one point for that fall NO.

This being said when I see skaters make multiple mistakes, it bugs me. It stops becoming one mistake on a bad element. I also want to say how objective is IJS when it comes to elements when you add in GOE? For example, add in GOE and it can shave off the objective " lead" one person gets over another. In general though I think that at times the judges need to be able to look at what the skater did as a whole technically and judge the WHOLE rather than the parts.

I mean yes Chan had an extra quad attempt, but Daisuke had an extra triple axel attempt, and unlike Chan, Daisuke actually landed his triple axel beautifully (vs Chan's quad attempt).

And as for using Sonia's quotes about Patrick to suggest that she would never agree with this article. Wally Lutz, I seem to recall Sonia complaining about Chan's win at Skate Canada/Cup of Russia before. Believe it or not there are some who can like a skater a lot when they skate well, and still think they should be marked accordingly when they skate poorly. I adore Yu-na Kim, but I don't think Yu-na deserved to win the free skate in Turin vs Asada.

Surely there is a way for the system to find a balance between rewarding difficulty and execution. I've said this on FSU, but maybe there should be a seperate point system for this level. I'd be all for saying no points for solo doubles, singles etc. If people really wanted to encourage the quad, one could say a quad attempt leads to an extra jumping pass and leave it at that, but the person who fell would have to actually complete the other pass to get points. There's tons of ways to reward difficulty/taking the risk, without also rewarding people for failure on that risk.

Bluebonnet said:

I guess you've totally forgotten that Takahashi had an over 10 points deficit from SP. Dai could never win gold even if he won LP. Of course you can always day-dream about it.

Click to expand...

But the favorite pets get higher points. The inflation in skating scores is reaching hyperinflation and often means nothing. Did he really deserve the 10 point spread? Gee, he ran out of room on an Olympic rink and smashed into the boards with that Oh, well, look of his. Yes, more points for Patrick. CoP needs to be overhauled. I'm sure people will say they just love his speed. Isn't control a desired quality? Speed is useless without control. It reminded me of Midori ito when she jumped out of the rink. They didn't reward Midori for that!.

Mathman said:

I think that sports fans in general are not used to a sport that adds up little hundredths of a point for every twist and turn the athlete makes. In golf, you do not get any points for lining up your putt, for reading the green, for having a smooth putting stroke -- the only thing that counts is, does it go in the cup. All of those things may add up up to a putt that has a higher probability of going in, but at the end there is that yes or no that defines the sport.

Under the CoP judging system, figure skating is not like that. Maybe it is not like that under any scoring system, but to the fan who has been schooled in other sports and is not an expert in skating, under the 6.0 system skating seemed more like other sports. You prepare for your big element, you take off on a secure edge, straight body position in the air, good height, quick rotations -- all of those things increase the probability that you will score. Then BAM you hit that perfect landing, or AWWWW, you fall. To me, the CoP kind of takes away that thrill. Instead of the thrill of victory and agony of defeat, we have a sequence of so-so, half OK, half could-be-better moments.



If only I could tell what edge a skater is on in real time, or learn the difference between a Chocktaw and a Mohawk, as easily as I can bang away at the keyboard!

Click to expand...

You speak good analogies that people understand to make your point so well. I am guessing you are a teacher. I think a fall should get o points. Call me crazy. It seems crazy to reward attempts that fail completely

bekalc said:

I mean yes Chan had an extra quad attempt, but Daisuke had an extra triple axel attempt, and unlike Chan, Daisuke actually landed his triple axel beautifully (vs Chan's quad attempt).

Click to expand...

Along this line ...then after all the base value of the technical points added up. Chan had 83.75. Takahashi had 78.79.