Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 106

Thread: You Be the Judge

  1. #16
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,753
    I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to measure.

    It might be more useful to choose one phase of one competition, give us several performances (some with falls, some without), and ask how we would rank them and why.

    If it was a real competition held under IJS, we should probably rank them holistically by 6.0-style ordinals, and if it was an older 6.0 competition we should probably score them by some version of IJS and then add up our scores.

    Or choose performances that were not all from the same competition, so we can use whatever method we like without being influenced by knowledge of the real-life results.

    What I think you'll find is that we don't all agree on how to rank the performances because we each have different priorities in what we look for and what we give the most weight.

    If you can get enough people to participate, maybe you'll find a consensus on rankings that might give some answer to the question of whether number of falls is or should be directly correlated with results for that program.


    Or, if you're more interested in the question of how short and long program results get combined by the scoring system, choose a competition in which each skater only had one clean performance across two programs and let us try to rank each skater's pair of performances.

  2. #17
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,235
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to measure.
    I'm just exploring, to "get a sense" of their validity and reliability, as I said. I'm not doing quantitative analysis at this moment. Through this early stage, I've pretty much ruled out 6.0 system, whose demise was for a good reason. The "no-credit" proposal is an extreme case to test the water. It can be easily relabeled as "more penalty for a fall". But from the ratings Blades (a choreography expert) and you (a skating expert) have provided so far, I got the impression that experts seem to have a greater tolerance for falls. Given that your ratings for Japanese Nationals LPs are significantly different from the official results, it leads to two areas for research focus: (1) Inter-rater reliability and (2) Weights for each criteria (a validity issue). Apparently you weighed certain skills in a manner different from that of the judges who gave the official results.

    So, through this preliminary exploration, one can save the cost and time of doing studies that would eventually prove irrelevant.
    Last edited by skatinginbc; 02-26-2012 at 02:25 AM.

  3. #18
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    27,963
    Quote Originally Posted by SkateFiguring View Post
    We have currently a champion who never holds back but goes for broke even after a huge lead from the SP, but people complain constantly about the undeserved win and/or too big the winning margin due to favoritism. What gives?
    I think the complaint is that a skater can build up such a big lead in the short program that when it comes to the long program it doesn't matter whether he goes for broke or not.

  4. #19
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    5,353
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    I think the complaint is that a skater can build up such a big lead in the short program that when it comes to the long program it doesn't matter whether he goes for broke or not.

    so why such comment as

    Quote Originally Posted by drivingmissdaisy
    I think this aspect of 6.0 also meant you have to really go for your jumps in the long program. Sometimes I feel like when I'm watching a skater with a big lead, it seems like they are skating to hold on to that lead, rather than skating to win.
    with which you agreed?

  5. #20
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    5,609
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    I think the complaint is that a skater can build up such a big lead in the short program that when it comes to the long program it doesn't matter whether he goes for broke or not.
    Does that happen often enough at major competitions for it to be a fair complaint?

  6. #21
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,235
    I agree with that as well: "Sometimes I feel like when I'm watching a skater with a big lead, it seems like they are skating to hold on to that lead, rather than skating to win." The key word is "sometimes", not "always". It is very true that I sometimes feel that way.

  7. #22
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3,521
    Yes, please stop construing my comments as an attack on Chan. It is how I feel watching SOMETIMES, and actually I was thinking this was the case more with the ladies. And it isn't a complaint IP; it is an observation, an opinion. It was very rare under 6.0 to have a skater hold back and skate safe because there were always 2 people within striking distance. Now, sometimes there are 5 within reach and other times there is no one (realistically) within reach.

  8. #23
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    5,353
    I certainly didn't accuse anyone of attacking Chan. I used him as the counter example of your complaint who gets the opposite complaint. Thus I asked "What gives?"

    Now how about examples of skaters with huge lead holding back?

    eta. Usually the last skater has the advantage of knowing how the others have skated as a basis of deciding how much risk s/he needs to take. It's called strategy, though Chan just sticks to his plan. Is this what you mean by holding back?
    Last edited by SkateFiguring; 02-26-2012 at 01:19 AM.

  9. #24
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3,521
    Quote Originally Posted by SkateFiguring View Post
    Usually the last skater has the advantage of knowing how the others have skated as a basis of deciding how much risk s/he needs to take. It's called strategy, though Chan just sticks to his plan. Is this what you mean by holding back?
    I don't think this happens that frequently, simply because right before a skater performs he isn't paying attention to what others are doing. He is preparing to give the best performance at the time.

    OTOH, after a short program a skater typically has 2 days to prepare for the long, and I think this is where a skater can change up a program if he has a big enough lead.

    I am fully aware of the meaning of "strategy". "Holding back" is quite obviously a strategy, as is "going for it". I prefer witnessing the "go for it" strategy.

  10. #25
    Wicked Yankee Girl dorispulaski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Staring at the ocean and smiling.
    Posts
    15,116
    An example of holding back versus going for it would be the attitude of Brian Orser at the 1988 Olympics, where Orser said in the post skate interview that he decided it was better not to go for his second triple axel and do a double instead because it was "better to stay up".
    Orser's LP 1988
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1TLmtf0CzI

    Boitano at his interview said he knew he had to do everything, and went for it

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmPt90PnRf4

  11. #26
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    5,609
    Quote Originally Posted by drivingmissdaisy View Post
    I don't think this happens that frequently, simply because right before a skater performs he isn't paying attention to what others are doing. He is preparing to give the best performance at the time.

    OTOH, after a short program a skater typically has 2 days to prepare for the long, and I think this is where a skater can change up a program if he has a big enough lead.

    I am fully aware of the meaning of "strategy". "Holding back" is quite obviously a strategy, as is "going for it". I prefer witnessing the "go for it" strategy.
    a) Brian Joubert dumbed down his program quite significantly at the 2008 Worlds, opting to do only one quad and two combinations, one which was a 2A-1T. He did this because he saw those skate before him (Verner, Lambiel, Takahashi, Wier) post poor scores. He got hammered by Buttle, who skated flat-out and won (and Buttle was the one who had the lead from the short).

    b) Again, my question is does the "play-it-safe" happen often enough for it to be a real stain on the scoring system? Is skating tentatively a sign of holding back (for example, can't an athlete just be nervous as opposed to strategic?)? Is not doing the full planned content holding back, or can it just be screwing up a landing or something. Looking at the World championships and the Olympics, how many of them were decided by a huge lead in the short leading to a conservative skate in the long?

  12. #27
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    27,963
    Quote Originally Posted by SkateFiguring
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman
    I think the complaint is that a skater can build up such a big lead in the short program that when it comes to the long program it doesn't matter whether he goes for broke or not.
    so why such comment as

    Quote Originally Posted by drivingmissdaisy
    I think this aspect of 6.0 also meant you have to really go for your jumps in the long program. Sometimes I feel like when I'm watching a skater with a big lead, it seems like they are skating to hold on to that lead, rather than skating to win.
    with which you agreed?
    ? Aren't Miss Daisy and I saying the same thing?

    There are many, many, many contests where the winner of the short program has such a substantial lead that he still hangs on for the win despite a substandard performance in the long. Takahashi at Japanese Nationals for instance. Agnes Zawadski for bronze at U.S. Nationals over Caroline Zhang is another.

    Under the 6.0 system, the short program and the long program each had its own special role to play. In the short program you had to score well enough to "make the finals" -- that is, to put yourself in a position where you can skate for the championship in the long.

    But then, no matter how well positioned you were, you still had to skate for the championship.

    In other words, if you wanted to be champion you had to go out and skate a good short and then you had to go out and skate a good long.

    Under CoP scoring, a point is a point, whenever and however you score it. There is, in fact, no rational reason, only tradition, for having a two-part competition at all.

  13. #28
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    409
    Under 6.0, it seems like falls were more severely penalized. Those who won never fell in the long program unless everyone else did, too (Kristi Yamaguchi is one example I can think of).

    There has always been a problem of fallers being held up in the short program. I remember Ina and Dungjen (IIRC) skating clean but coming in behind a falling
    Russian team in the Olympics one year (1998, I believe). The Russians were the favorites, and did medal despite their fall. So did Evgeni Plushenko. He fell but was kept in 4th in '02. I believe they skated clean in the long program.

    With COP, someone can fall more than once in the short and still be in the running, and fall again in the long and still get a gold or silver. Some multiple mistake-filled performances have won top medals. I won't get more specific, but there's one from last year that was infamous. Under 6.0, if someone fell or even made a visible mistake in the long and someone in the top 3 was clean, you knew it was pretty much over. Michelle in 2002, Brian Orser in 1988, etc. That's why everyone thought the Sale and Peltier should
    ve won.

    Here's an easy suggestion: If there is ever again a program where there are no falls, and no hands or feet down, they get a 50 point bonus in the long and 25 in the short.

  14. #29
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3,521
    Quote Originally Posted by ImaginaryPogue View Post
    a) Brian Joubert dumbed down his program quite significantly at the 2008 Worlds, opting to do only one quad and two combinations, one which was a 2A-1T. He did this because he saw those skate before him (Verner, Lambiel, Takahashi, Wier) post poor scores.
    I wouldn't cite a 2A-1T as an attempt to "dumb down" a program. That is quite obviously an error; are you suggesting he would have done a 2A-2T had the skaters before him skated well?

  15. #30
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    5,609
    Quote Originally Posted by drivingmissdaisy View Post
    I wouldn't cite a 2A-1T as an attempt to "dumb down" a program. That is quite obviously an error; are you suggesting he would have done a 2A-2T had the skaters before him skated well?
    His intitial plan was to do a 3S-2T-2T combo there. Doing a double axel was definitely dumbing down. The single toe was an error. Anyway, I'm more curious about my second question.

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •