What Do You All Think About CoP Now?

mskater93 said:

The biggest problem with IJS is that who the judges and tech panel believe is the winner does not mostly agree with who the audience thinks is the winner. This turns people off because it doesn't make sense to them and they think the results are from "cooking the books" so to speak.

Click to expand...

This was a problem with 6.0 as well, though. However, since the way the scoring was presented focused more on the nationality of the judges (in international events) than on the content of the programs, the conspiracy theories tended to focus on nationalistic cooking

Any judging system needs to take into account (somewhat) what the fans want (the ones who pay the money, buy the sponsors' products, etc) when it comes to a winner. If the fans don't "get" the result, they tune out and go watch football, basketball, baseball, a beauty pageant, soap opera or something else. Without fans, the sport dies or is relagated to some niche that shows at 1am on tape delay....

Click to expand...

This is more true if the fans are paying the bulk of the costs. For most of figure skating, the skaters themselves are paying the bulk of the costs . . . even at the elite levels. So what's most important is that the skaters "get" the result. Of course, they often don't, under either judging system. But I think the IJS does a better job of conveying reasons to the skaters . . . as well as to serious fans who are willing to make the effort to learn the rules and study the protocols.

TV and other media could do a much better job of explaining the basics so that casual fans would understand the basis for the scores, under either judging system.

Traditionally, US media have treated fans as too stupid to learn the fine points of the sport, so US audiences tend to look primarily at aesthetic appeal, obvious errors, and jump difficulty and to ignore everything else that both skaters and judges consider important.

That's the media's fault more than the sport's itself.

However, if most skaters, and knowledgeable fans, and even judges on the panels, think that the way that the point values are balanced too often results in counterintuitive winners, then the rules and point values need to be adjusted to match the knowledgeable gut feelings of who skated best overall. But dumbing down the scores to match the gut feelings of casual fans would not be the way to go.


ETA:

I like to watch freestyle skiing aerials at the Olympics or other times if I just happened to turn on the TV and see it while I'm waiting for a skating or other program to start -- I like watching the suspension in midair, and I like the expertise of twisting and flipping in the air.

(But it's not something I would follow as a serious fan. Compared to figure skating, it's missing the complexity and potential for artistry that attract me to skating, as well as the ability to see the athlete's facial reactions while performing)

The commentators tell me that the scores are a combination of points for distance, difficulty, and style/execution. Sometimes they break down the details of the subjective parts of the scoring along with the objectively measured parts and even identify the individual judges.

But usually we just get total scores or a breakdown of distance vs. style scores without detail. I don't have strong opinions about who should have won based on which jumps I enjoyed watching the most. Sometimes I can see obvious differences in difficulty or execution, but most of the time I figure it comes down to fine points of technique that I don't have the knowledge to perceive

I've never seen a ski jumping contest where commentators offered conspiracy theories about the results based on nationality of the officials

Maybe another reason that figure skating is more popular than freestyle skiing is that fans had traditionally been taught that the enjoyment factor and obvious points were more important than the fine points. There were always plenty of controversy and apparently wrong decisions in figure skating under 6.0. That seems to have been a big part of the appeal of figure skating for some fans -- feeling superior to the officials who got it wrong

While the burden is mostly shouldered by the skaters (and families) themselves, big time winners used to get big sponsorship $$$ and that has gone the way of the dodo bird. Lysacek was reportedly disappointed in his post OGM sponsorship $ while Kwan got big $$ for winning an OSM from her sponsors.

If the fans don't buy tickets or the sponsors' products, the ISU doesn't get the money to rent the venue and bring in the judges for the international events. I didn't say it needed to be dumbed down to match the gut feel of the casual fan, but it does have to somehow take into account what the casual fan wants to see in a winner (difficulty + cleanliness) which doesn't always happen.

SkateFiguring said:

Such a lead created an euphoria and exuberant exaltation at the most recent Japan Nationals. Talk about interest and excitement!

Click to expand...

I think the fans would have been just as thrilled if Takahashi had blown the roof off the place in the short program, as he did, but still had been required to come back in the long and skate for the championship.

It has to be a let-down, even for Takahashi fans, when someone backs into the title with a three-fall whimper instead of a bang.

Mathman said:

I think the fans would have been just as thrilled if Takahashi had blown the roof off the place in the short program, as he did, but still had been required to come back in the long and skate for the championship.

It has to be a let-down, even for Takahashi fans, when someone backs into the title with a three-fall whimper instead of a bang.

Click to expand...

He was required to come back for the LP. But the point is instead of grumbling and losing interest in the LP after an insurmountable SP lead, there was an almost unprecedented excitement and a collective bated breath for the Long, contrary to what you stated. Apparently, it's not the size of the lead but rather who the leader is that generates complaints or celebration. In the recent cases, the complaints led to a historical skate while the exuberant anticipation was let down. C'est la vie sur glace glissant.

It's important for any sports to have a super star, regardless of the judging system. Tiger Woods made golf popular and Micheal Jordan attracted more audience to watch NBA games. I think Patrick Chan is generating the same effect in Canada now. People went to the Nationals to see if he could create another record(s) and he didn't disappoint them. He revives figure skating to some extent, at least in Canada. In a way I agree the rules should be revised to give more deduction on falls, because clean programs are more appealing to the general public.

Back to the topic. I think the COP is better than 6.0 system, because it's easier to understand.

eta. One advantage of COP over 6.0: there will be world records which can create some excitement.

I think having a star(s)is definitely important. Suddenly, with 2 world medallists, NBC actually broadcast five ice dance FDs and two SDs. Never happened before!!

dorispulaski said:

I think having a star(s)is definitely important. Suddenly, with 2 world medallists, NBC actually broadcast five ice dance FDs and two SDs. Never happened before!!

Click to expand...

May this be a continuing trend.

Dragonlady said:

And then there were the flip flops under 6.0. Sally could skate and be in first place and then Mary skates right after her and goes into first and Sally falls to 3rd????? How can that be? How can one skater cause a previous skater to drop 2 places? Well that's because the marks were meaningless. Only the ordinals mattered. So those who said they understood 5.7 as a mark were clueless because the 5.7 meant nothing and was only the holding place for the real mark, the ordinal.

Flip flops were said to drive Speedy crazy. He absolutlely wanted a less confusing system where flip flops did not happen.

Also, skaters would often receive 6.0's for less than perfect performances (Yagudin at the Olympics for one). That's because the judges boxed themselves in giving Plushenko 5.9's. In order to place Yagudin 1st, they had to give him higher marks than Plushenko, hence the 6.0's.

I loathed the old system. It was open to manipulations as we saw over countless competitions, it was confusing. The scores meant nothing. And you didn't get much in the way of feedback from the judges. This system forces the skaters to do more than jump, it has scores you can read and understand, and it's far easier to learn and understand than 6.0 and its scoring grids. I don't need to be an accountant to figure out why someone one.

Click to expand...

I have to say, I never did understand ordinals, they completely confused me, I always thought (even as a teen) why bother giving scores when you're just going to place them where you want anyway??? And as for the actual scores, it was fun to see if the judges scores matched what you thought they'd get, but it was all pretty predictable and almost funny since when I'd think someone would get 5.7, low and behold, most of the scores were 5.7's. It was almost too simplistic and my father always laughed and made fun of my mom and I for watching because him and my brother said they had already picked the winners the week before lol.
I realize this isn't an insightful post and I don't profess to be any form of expert on CoP, but I have to say, I really don't mind it. JMO

mskater93 said:

Under factored placements, the long WAS worth more than the SP. SP was factored at 0.5 and the LP at 1.0 with the LP as the tie breaker. It makes plenty of sense in Math's example:
SP 7th, LP 1st, Factored Placements: 4.5
SP 5th, LP 2nd, Factored Placements: 4.5
SP 3rd, LP 3rd, Factored Placements: 4.5
SP 1st, LP 4th, Factored PlacementsL 4.5

Final result in the order above (sorry, Math, 1+4 does NOT beat 3+3 in the FP example)

Click to expand...

Hey that's right! In fact, now that i think about it, under ordinal scoring if you get third in the short and third in the long you automatically get third or higher overall. Just as it should be.

Under CoP you could get third in the short, third in the long, and finish fifth.

SkateFiguring said:

He was required to come back for the LP. But the point is instead of grumbling and losing interest in the LP after an insurmountable SP lead, there was an almost unprecedented excitement and a collective bated breath for the Long, contrary to what you stated. Apparently, it's not the size of the lead but rather who the leader is that generates complaints or celebration. In the recent cases, the complaints led to a historical skate while the exuberant anticipation was let down. C'est la vie sur glace glissant.

Click to expand...

Well, OK. But I think the excitement would have been just as unprecedented and the collective breath just as bated if Takahashi had blown the roof off in the SP under 6.0 but still was required not only to show up but to skate well in the LP to claim the championship.

On the other hand, at Skate America Brezina had such a big lead after the short that his coaches told him it would be downright un-CoP-ish to attempt a quad in the long. So he fooled around, no quad, did a 1 Loop, did a 1 Axel, fell on a 3Lz, held on for third -- and won the event. A scenario like that would be impossible under ordinal scoring.

Under CoP judging, the most exciting thing that could happen is if the top three are neck-and-neck going into the championship round. Only 2 points separates first from third! They skate for the championship tomorrow!

With ordinal judging, this was guaranteed to happen in every event. For the top three in the short, win the long, win the championship.

And it was still possible for someone to get lucky and strike from fourth, like Sarah Hughes at the Olympics.

I don't see how you can beat that.

But that argues that the top three should be neck-and-neck after the short program, which is rarely the case, imo. And if that isn't the case, then why artificially create excitement as opposed to respect the skater's achievements.

^ IMHO that's CoP-think. Add up some points, then add on some more points. Yes, if you have already decided that this is the way figure skating should be scored, then there is nothing further to discuss.

But I like better the model of the semi-finals, then the finals. If you do well in the semi-finals, your reward is that you make the finals. You don't get to carry your score over, however impressive it may be.

As for "artificially" creating excitement, it is artificial only if you have already bought into the CoP model. I don't see anything artificial or disrespectful to tell the athletes that in order to win the championship they must skate two excellent programs.

I think the unit to be judged should be the program. If you win the short program over your opponent, then you are ahead going into the long by a score of 1 to 0. (I do realize that I am a voice crying in the wilderness in this regard. )

Mathman said:

Hey that's right! In fact, now that i think about it, under ordinal scoring if you get third in the short and third in the long you automatically get third or higher overall. Just as it should be.

Click to expand...

That's not necessarily true, if there were any ties in the first three places of either of the programs.
(Figures and qual rounds that counted also complicated matters)

Below third place, you don't even need ties to end up with such paradoxes -- e.g., 6th in the short and 6th in the long could end up 7th overall (Eldredge at 1992 Worlds)

On the other hand, at Skate America Brezina had such a big lead after the short that his coaches told him it would be downright un-CoP-ish to attempt a quad in the long. So he fooled around, no quad, did a 1 Loop, did a 1 Axel, fell on a 3Lz, held on for third -- and won the event. A scenario like that would be impossible under ordinal scoring.

Click to expand...

Depends on skate order more than scoring system. If the SP leader skates last (guaranteed under this year's GP rules, usually not the case with the random draw in use during 6.0 days), then if he knows in general how everyone else skated he can strategize risks accordingly.

Skating at the beginning of the final warmup group, even the leader has to take risks if there are others capable of catching him.

Under CoP judging, the most exciting thing that could happen is if the top three are neck-and-neck going into the championship round. Only 2 points separates first from third! They skate for the championship tomorrow!

Click to expand...

Sometimes it's more than the top three -- would that make it more exciting?

With ordinal judging, this was guaranteed to happen in every event. For the top three in the short, win the long, win the championship.

Click to expand...

But fodder for complaints from people who actually saw the SP if, as mentioned above, Dan squeaks out a narrow win over Jim in the long after Jim completely blew away the rest of the field in the short.

ImaginaryPogue said:

But that argues that the top three should be neck-and-neck after the short program, which is rarely the case, imo. And if that isn't the case, then why artificially create excitement as opposed to respect the skater's achievements.

Click to expand...

Yup.

There are valid arguments on either side about preserving margin of victory from one phase to the next. And the calculations under either system could be tweaked to make it more or less likely for more skaters to have a chance to win. But it makes more sense to have those calculations based on the content of what the skaters actually did than on the number of other skaters in the field who came between them.

Mathman said:

Hey that's right! In fact, now that i think about it, under ordinal scoring if you get third in the short and third in the long you automatically get third or higher overall. Just as it should be.

Under CoP you could get third in the short, third in the long, and finish fifth.

Click to expand...

I don't think that's 100% accurate. Remember that there have been many instances over the years under ordinal scoring when there were not just two scored segments. Ordinals were used during the last few years of figures under 6.0. Therefore, there have been instances where a skater's placement in the SP and LP might not add up to the obvious result. Of course that was true in ice dance over virtually the entire life of 6.0 if the placements actually ever moved around. Also as I understand it, the ordinal system came about in partial response the the 1980 Olympics. Had the system the existed for the last decade of figures been in place in Lake Placid, Hoffman would have won rather than Cousins despite the fact the Cousins won both the SP and LP. Under the old 6.0 (pre-ordinals) Cousins won not because of his placement in those segments, but because of the sufficient margin between his scores and Hoffman's. In truth it was actually a ridiculously close event. In a way so long as figures remained (and later under the qualifying rounds), quality or margin of victory did not matter, only placement. So, unintentionally I think, ordinals actually led to further entrenchment of placement rather than creating movement. Another example is Ito's second place finish at Worlds in 1990. She blew away the field in the SP and LP in Halifax by such a large margin that the other medalists paled in comparison, but her low figures placement cost her the gold. Had her significantly higher difficulty and speed been a consideration in her placement, she would likely have won the event. I love Jill's skating, but she kind of won on a technicality.

Also, at Nats this weekend, any one of the top 5 women had a very realistic shot at winning. In pairs, the top three all had a solid mathematical shot at victory. At Euros this a young Russian skater pulled up from 12th to 4th. Movement is possible under both systems.

ETA: Looks like gkelly and I were thinking along the same lines.

Then why both having two programs at all? Why not just one, Mathman? If you truly believe in all-or-nothing, winner-takes-all.....

Ordinals were always used in 6.0 judging

The change that was introduced after 1980 was factored placements

I.e., instead of adding up the (factored) scores for each phase of the competition to get ordinals (rankings by judge) for the whole event, after 1980 only the placements in each phase carried over instead of the total scores for each skater from each judge

The fact that even long-time fans have trouble keeping the details of the 6.0 scoring straight argues against its simplicity

You're correct gkelly, I misspoke. My mistake. Also, you're right that the supposed simplicity of 6.0 is inaccurate. It was always a terribly confusing system for the skaters and often for the fans. At least there is a system of assigned and accounted values in IJS.

gkelly said:

But fodder for complaints from people who actually saw the SP if, as mentioned above, Dan squeaks out a narrow win over Jim in the long after Jim completely blew away the rest of the field in the short.

Click to expand...

Did people actually complain about that when it was the rule under 6.0 scoring, or did they accept it as a feature of the scoring system?

I don't think that baseball fans complain when their team wins 20-0 in the first game, loses 2-1 in the second, and splits the series at a game apiece.

To me, a complaint would come about only if you have already decided that adding up the points for the two games together was a good idea. Yes, if you like the CoP then you like the CoP, and you will complain if something non-CoPish happens.

But it makes more sense to have those calculations based on the content of what the skaters actually did than on the number of other skaters in the field who came between them.

Click to expand...

Under CoP scoring, this is true. Under ordinal scoring the number of skaters that came between is exactly what the scoring system measures. One method does not "make more sense" than another -- it depends on your underlying assumptions. If your underlying assumption is that adding up the points is better, then of course you will conclude that adding up points is better.

Who won? Who came in second? Who came in third? There is nothing a priori "senseless" about a scoring system that takes that idea as its fundamental.

I think figure skating is too complicated to be judged by 6.0 system.

US ladies skating was the biggest victim of the IJS, which may explain that most negative reactions to IJS come from US fans.

ImaginaryPogue said:

Then why both having two programs at all? Why not just one, Mathman? If you truly believe in all-or-nothing, winner-takes-all.....

Click to expand...

I think you could just as well say, under CoP scoring why have two programs at all? Just have one program, whoever scores the most points wins.

Under 6.0, each of the two programs had a unique role to play in the outcome. You had to place well in the short program to position yourself for the winner-take-all finale.

Mathman said:

Did people actually complain about that when it was the rule under 6.0 scoring, or did they accept it as a feature of the scoring system?

Click to expand...

I don't think fans complained, but I think some casual observers could wonder why, e.g., if Kerrigan could win the short program at 1994 Olympics decisively and lose the long on a 5-4 split, wouldn't it be fairer to carry over the margin of victory from the short

To me, a complaint would come about only if you have already decided that adding up the points for the two games together was a good idea. Yes, if you like the CoP then you like the CoP, and you will complain if something non-CoPish happens.

Click to expand...

Or if you're used to sports like speedskating where total points (times) from a first race carry over to the second race, so that it makes no difference who wins the second race, just whether they beat the "time to beat"
It's no coincidence that some of the specifics touted in the change of scoring system were championed by a speedskater

Under CoP scoring, this is true. Under ordinal scoring the number of skaters that came between is exactly what the scoring system measures.

Click to expand...

Which is most meaningful when there's a large field with many skaters at similar or overlapping levels of general skill, so that expert comparisons of how many competitors I was better than today is reasonably correlated with how well I skated today

Two skaters could perform the exact same programs against each other and end up with completely different results depending on who else was in the field, which leads to more paradoxes. Fans and skaters learned to live with them, but speedskaters and other outsiders were often infuriated.

With smaller fields and wider ranges of ability, it often doesn't make any difference how well each skater performs her program from one day to another

And there were LOTS of complaints from fans and competitors about ice dancing where the placements hardly ever changed regardless of how much better each team performed relative to their usual standard

Who won? Who came in second? Who came in third? There is nothing a priori "senseless" about a scoring system that takes that idea as its fundamental.

Click to expand...

Is the question "Who won the long program?" or "Who won the whole event?" In many cases the answers are different, under any scoring system. If there's going to be more than one phase of the competition, then there needs to be a way to combine the results of the various phases. No choice of how to do so will lead to obviously intuitive results every time. As you point out, one's frame of reference creates different expectations. Can't please fans of all other sports since there are lots of different possible analogies -- which may be good for explaining how a system works but less useful for arguing in favor of how skating should work