Should Gracie or Caroline or Agnes or Mirai replace Alissa for Worlds?

R.D. · Mar 14, 2012

oh, skating fans.

Totally NOT the same thing. In a 4th down situation, the team has a CHOICE whether to go for it or to kick the FG. And if they do the latter it still requires EFFORT from the kicker in particular to get it through the uprights, otherwise too bad.

In basketball, the ball must go through the basket to count. Nothing doing if the shot rims out as opposed to an airball shot. If you're fouled in the act of shooting (or your team reaches the foul limit), the fouled player gets to shoot free throws. But he still has to MAKE them to get the point(s).

____________

So, with that in mind, why should a failed attempt at a jump get any points? You either complete the jump or you don't...

Now, of course you can create situations where it's possible to make up at least some of the points lost. Tack on an extra jump elsewhere (as is already done), etc.

dorispulaski · Mar 14, 2012

The old saying "Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades" has to be appended to "Almost only counts in horseshores,figure skating, and hand grenades."

R.D. · Mar 14, 2012

...Oh yeah, and for those arguing that giving 0 points for falls will make skaters go for one less rotation instead- here's a fix. You spread the point value- make the point difference between, say, a 3Z and a 2Z substantial enough to balance out the risk. For sake of comparison I'll just make up some numbers here- let's say it's 7 pts vs. 2 pts. If you land 3Z, you get 7. If you fall/stumble on 3Z, you get nothing. But if you double it, you get 2, and if you pop it, maybe 0.5. But instead of intentionally doubling the jump for the 2 pts, perhaps you're better off going for 3S (if it's something much easier for you) and getting, say, 5 pts. Something like that, anyway.

Mathman · Mar 14, 2012

I think that what we are talking about is the difference between 6.0 judging and CoP scoring.

In an ordinal system, a skater's performance is judged. That is why, in the example that gkelly posted above, I (playing at 6.0 judge) said that I thought Petrenko's attempt should have a negative overall effect on the quality of the program and Browning's a net zero effect, while I rated Oikawa's unsuccessful attempt as "better than nothing." That is judging.

But the CoP is a scoring system. Instead of judging that one skater was better than another, the burden of the CoP is to specify what a skater needs to do to score points.

OK, so to score 6 points you need to do a triple Lutz. So far so good. Next question, what does it mean to "do a triple Lutz?" According to the IJS this means to jump off either an outside edge, an inside edge, or no edge, either twirl around three times or not, and land either on your feet, on the seat of your pants or somewhere in between.

Judging versus scoring. To continue R.D.'s basketball example, suppose we have two players, Petrenko and Browning. Petrenko squares up nicely, releases at the top of his jump, has a nice arc on the ball, and even attends to subtle factors like shot-clock management. The shot clangs off the rim.

Browning throws up an off-balance prayer that goes in by luck.

Judging (6.0). Based on this performance only, who do you think is the better player? Answer: I think Petrenko is.

Scoring (CoP). What's the score? Browning 2, Petrenko 0.

So what we have to decide is, do we want a judging system or a scoring system?

PolymerBob · Mar 14, 2012

That may be, but should Gracie Gold or Caroline Zhang replace Alissa CZISNY for the upcoming worlds?

demarinis5 · Mar 14, 2012

PolymerBob said:
That may be, but should Gracie Gold or Caroline Zhang replace Alissa CZISNY for the upcoming worlds?

I know. This thread has really gone off topic. Not sure if the Kween has been mention in this thread yet. lol

R.D. · Mar 14, 2012

So what we have to decide is, so [do] we want a judging system or a scoring system?

Think you're onto something here. This is the very core of where I think the biggest flaw in Cop lies. It's a system APPEARING to be objective (giving an absolute score at the end) when it is really SUBJECTIVE (attempting to quantify elements that are really qualitative). In its current form, Cop is BOTH a judging AND scoring system. What the skating community should ask themselves is, is this what we want?

The one way to make skating as objective as possible is to count ONLY the elements performed (forget about skating skills, interpretation and all that junk). I mean jumps, spins, elements. Who cares HOW they are performed, what matters is only THAT they are performed. But then the purists will jump in and say, no, we don't want a bunch of sloppy programs scoring well, to which a response might be, well, do you want SPORT or beauty pageant?

R.D. · Mar 14, 2012

PolymerBob said:
That may be, but should Gracie Gold or Caroline Zhang replace Alissa CZISNY for the upcoming worlds?

Ha, true. We have gotten sidetracked...

(But I say, NO. For reasons already mentioned)

Mathman · Mar 14, 2012

R.D. said:
...Oh yeah, and for those arguing that giving 0 points for falls will make skaters go for one less rotation instead- here's a fix. You spread the point value- make the point difference between, say, a 3Z and a 2Z substantial enough to balance out the risk. For sake of comparison I'll just make up some numbers here- let's say it's 7 pts vs. 2 pts. If you land 3Z, you get 7. If you fall/stumble on 3Z, you get nothing. But if you double it, you get 2, and if you pop it, maybe 0.5. But instead of intentionally doubling the jump for the 2 pts, perhaps you're better off going for 3S (if it's something much easier for you) and getting, say, 5 pts. Something like that, anyway.

That's pretty much how it is now.

3Lz 6.0
2Lz 2.1
1Lz 0.6

3S 4.2

R.D. said:
Do you want SPORT or beauty pageant?

My answer to that is, if we want SPORT then we don't need figure skating in the first place. There are plenty of sports already. Do you want to see someone jump high? We've got high jumping. Do you want to see someone go fast? We've got track.

Do you want to see someone jump high and go fast on ice skates? Why in the world would you want to see, or do, that?

(But to do all that with grace and beauty, OK, now we're getting somewhere. :yes: )

mskater93 · Mar 14, 2012

I am a huge football fan, I know the rules and the game and that is why I am using that as my example (it's one of the few sports with a gradiated scoring system kind of like "partial credit").

R.D. said:
oh, skating fans.

Totally NOT the same thing. In a 4th down situation, the team has a CHOICE whether to go for it or to kick the FG. And if they do the latter it still requires EFFORT from the kicker in particular to get it through the uprights, otherwise too bad.
Now, of course you can create situations where it's possible to make up at least some of the points lost. Tack on an extra jump elsewhere (as is already done), etc.

Attempting a jump and landing fully rotate and on one foot but falling during the check out is the equivalent of the kicker putting in the effort to put the ball through the uprights on fourth down when you start first and goal. They attempt to get the points (take off-first down, air position/rotation-second down, landing-3rd down) but just don't get in on third down and so kick the field goal (fall).

Mathman · Mar 14, 2012

mskater93 said:
Attempting a jump and landing fully rotate and on one foot but falling during the check out..

You know, I think that would be a satisfactory criterion for whether a skater should get gets 0 points or some partial credit for a jump that ends with a fall.

If you land the jump on a clear running edge, then you have "done the element" even if you can't hold the edge and you fall.

gkelly · Mar 14, 2012

Mathman said:
You know, I think that would be a satisfactory criterion for whether a skater should get gets 0 points or some partial credit for a jump that ends with a fall.

Yes, I'm in favor of partial credit for elements that show enough partial success.

Because there's a wide range of possibilities between, on the one hand, doing nothing (neither adds nor subtracts points), attempting and failing in a way that should neither add nor subtract, or failing so badly that the attempt should subtract points, and on the other hand succeeding completely and deserving full base value (but not so well as to deserve +GOE).

How to define the penalties or amount of partial credit for each kind of flaw or partial failure and combinations thereof is the tricky part.

If you land the jump on a clear running edge, then you have "done the element" even if you can't hold the edge and you fall.

This seems like a reasonable criterion if the tech panel can make those calls.
As it stands now, those falls usually get full credit for rotation, which with triples and quads they still have positive points left after the -GOE and fall deductions.

Jumps that fall without establishing a running edge first are much more likely to deserve and receive < or << calls and have negative net points after -3 GOE and fall deduction.

fairly4 · Mar 14, 2012

no-she shouldn't yes alissa bomb, chances are she won't skate well at worlds, but we should give her the chance.
maybe unlike challenge cup-she will fight for it and alissa and her coaches will focus on present (worlds) and not past ie(4cc and challenge cup).

it doesn't look good, but she should have the chance to skate well and or bomb again.
yes i would like zhang, agnes, gold to maybe change but alissa did her job at nationals and earned the right no matter what happened afterwords.

R.D. · Mar 14, 2012

Mathman said:
That's pretty much how it is now.

3Lz 6.0
2Lz 2.1
1Lz 0.6

3S 4.2

Good. Now just invalidate said jumps if the skater fails to execute them. :yes: Maybe you could even bump up the value of 3Lz to 7.0-8.0 and 3S to 5.5 while keeping others the same to offset the increased risk.

(Kinda funny though, I just made those numbers up out of thin air- pretty amazing how close I got to their actual Cop values :laugh:

)

You know, I can understand partial credit if the jump is 2-footed, for example, but a fall to ME illustrates total failure to execute the jump and thus, like a missed shot in basketball, should be worth 0.

gkelly · Mar 14, 2012

R.D. said:
You know, I can understand partial credit if the jump is 2-footed, for example, but a fall to ME illustrates total failure to execute the jump and thus, like a missed shot in basketball, should be worth 0.

I can live with partial credit for a touchdown of the free foot while landing on the correct edge, or for a step out after landing on the correct edge, and no partial credit for falls, IF you also give no partial credit for jumps that are both heavily two-footed and severely underrotated (<<), as in the Petrenko example I posted earlier.

Mathman · Mar 14, 2012

gkelly said:
Yes, I'm in favor of partial credit for elements that show enough partial success.

Because there's a wide range of possibilities between, on the one hand, doing nothing (neither adds nor subtracts points), attempting and failing in a way that should neither add nor subtract, or failing so badly that the attempt should subtract points, and on the other hand succeeding completely and deserving full base value (but not so well as to deserve +GOE).

How to define the penalties or amount of partial credit for each kind of flaw or partial failure and combinations thereof is the tricky part.

That is why, to me, an ordinal approach is a better match for what we are trying to judge than a point-based system is. Trying to translate continuous gradations into discrete point values is tricky indeed.

R.D. · Mar 14, 2012

gkelly said:
I can live with partial credit for a touchdown of the free foot while landing on the correct edge, or for a step out after landing on the correct edge, and no partial credit for falls, IF you also give no partial credit for jumps that are both heavily two-footed and severely underrotated (<<), as in the Petrenko example I posted earlier.

If we assume "partial credit" means 1/2 point value of jump, say you attempt 3Z, severely UR it (so it is effectively a 2Z), then 2-foot it. If we're in the habit of giving partial credit to 2-footed jumps, then such an attempt would be called as "2Z with partial credit", which is 1 pt (if 2Z is worth 2)- not 0 for fall, but FAR less than the 7 pts for a successfully completed 3Z jump. Still a heavy penalty paid- but in the end, the skater remained upright. And that's the whole goal, right? (I think.)

Mathman · Mar 14, 2012

R.D. said:
(Kinda funny though, I just made those numbers up out of thin air- pretty amazing how close I got to their actual Cop values )

Here is how I think it should go. Half a point gradations from easiest to hardest jump, factor of three for each additional rotation. The .5 gradation was used in the original CoP. I don't think the tinkering and micromanaging of base values in the meantime have improved anything.

2A = 3.5
3T = 4
3S = 4.5
3Lo = 5
3F = 5.5
3Lz = 6.0 (better -- for ladies, combine the 3F and 3Lz into a single scoring category.

)

3A = 10.5
4T = 12
4S = 13.5

Going back the other way, divide by 3.

2T = 1.3
2S = 1.5
2LF = 1.8
2Lz = 2.0

That is so logical, right?

R.D. said:
If we assume "partial credit" means 1/2 point value of jump, say you attempt 3Z, severely UR it (so it is effectively a 2Z), then 2-foot it. If we're in the habit of giving partial credit to 2-footed jumps, then such an attempt would be called as "2Z with partial credit", which is 1 pt (if 2Z is worth 2)- not 0 for fall, but FAR less than the 7 pts for a successfully completed 3Z jump. Still a heavy penalty paid- but in the end, the skater remained upright. And that's the whole goal, right? (I think.)

That's pretty close to what it is now. The Petrenko example would be scored as 3Lz<< (base value of 2 Lz, 2.1), with -0.9 GOE) = 1.2 points.

If besides all that he had fallen, too, then he would have got 0.2 total for his element.

mskater93 · Mar 14, 2012

Mathman said:
You know, I think that would be a satisfactory criterion for whether a skater should get gets 0 points or some partial credit for a jump that ends with a fall.

If you land the jump on a clear running edge, then you have "done the element" even if you can't hold the edge and you fall.

Then you get to the next question: where do you draw the line? ie how much of a clear running edge is "enough". You are headed down a slippery slope now...

R.D. · Mar 14, 2012

Mathman said:
That's pretty close to what it is now. The Petrenko example would be scored as 3Lz<< (base value of 2 Lz, 2.1), with -0.9 GOE) = 1.2 points.

Except my way is much simpler. :laugh:

No GOE stuff to further complicate things...

ETA: How much would he have gotten had he FULLY ROTATED the jump, then fell?

Should Gracie or Caroline or Agnes or Mirai replace Alissa for Worlds?

R.D.

dorispulaski

Wicked Yankee Girl

R.D.

Mathman

PolymerBob

demarinis5

Gold for the Winter Prince!

R.D.

R.D.

Mathman

mskater93

Mathman

gkelly

fairly4

R.D.

gkelly

Mathman

R.D.

Mathman

mskater93

R.D.

Similar threads

Connect with us