Men's PCS at Worlds.

[skateflower]

Finally got a chance to watch the top 4 men's performances. This result was outrageous. Bravo to the French audience.

How would you have scored the PCS for the following performances in the men's LP:

Components are

Skating Skills

Transitions/Linking Footwork

Choreography/Composition

Interpretation

Performance/Execution

Scores are given in increments of 0.25.



Takahashi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64QdX...eature=related

Hanyu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZA2Ks...feature=relmfu

Chan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8Nzn...feature=relmfu

Brian
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97I4QNoR4cg

[Olympia]

I'm not touching this one with a thirty-foot pole.

[Spun Silver]

I guess you didn't see the thread where we watched the vid of Dai and Patrick at the small medals ceremony and decided to call off the wars.

[skatinginbc]

As far as Skating Skills and Transitions/Linking Footwork are concerned, I trust the opinions of the judges. I'm curious about PE, CH and IN though. I wonder what the result would be if we ask a panel of experts from other performance arts such as dance, music, theater, circus arts, and so on. If the consensus among experts of other disciplines differs significantly from that of the skating judges, then it suggests that figure skating is an art that can be appreciated only by a selected few.

[skateflower]

I guess you didn't see the thread where we watched the vid of Dai and Patrick at the small medals ceremony and decided to call off the wars.

You're switching the topic. I was specifically referring to the PCS gap in men's long programs. The 5 pts gap between Dai and Chan is similar to the gap between Kostner and Elenova. Really??

Outrageous results and corrupt judging.

[skatinginbc]

This is what I saw with my untrained eyes:

Chan's LP presentation:

He skated to the music for the first 50 seconds, outstanding start. After completing his 4T3T, he lagged behind all the way through his 3A and his circular step sequence, caught up, lagged behind again….and started to play catch-up. Thenceforth his choreographic highlights seldom matched the notes. For instance, he raised his both arms to highlight the music when the note (quarter E) was in the middle of "fermata" (i.e., pause)(3:36, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8Nzn...eature=relmfu)--He highlighted a PAUSE!!! Similarly, he raised his both arms to highlight an off-beat chord (the 2nd beat, root note G♯)(4:18)--He highlighted an UNACCENTED beat!!! Even some of his transitional moves looked out of place due to the musical mismatch (e.g., the little running steps at 4:22 after his 2nd 3Lz, although originally choreographed to the music, now lost its meaning and looked as if he was hurrying to catch up). "Highlighting almost all of the notes", a praise for Chan's skating I read somewhere, means no note actually highlighted. A busy bee showing "I can do this (e.g., hops, directional changes) and I can do that (e.g., raising one leg up high while skating on a deep edge) deserved claps for his tricks (skating skills) but not his musical interpretation if failing to match tricks with music. Watching his LP was like having audio out of sync. I felt as if my eyes and ears were disconnected, which pricked my brain. To be able to interpret music well, one needs to live in the music or be one with the music. How well could he interpret it with honest emotions if he was off-beat more than half of his program?
I am no skating expert. But some of his flaws were plainly visible to my untrained eyes. For instance, his camel spin during the flying spin combination (FCCoSp) was way off—off center and off balance. His 3Lz+1Lo +2S combo looked like a sequence of awkward hops with one flaw after another. And of course his wild fall on the planned final axel generated ohs and ahs from the crowd.

Dai’s LP presentation:

Besides the jumps (4T, 3A, 3S), the first 50 seconds of his program was rather “simple” as if out of spontaneity and improvisation, which was exactly what the music dictated and what characterizes Blues, and with which he successfully set up a languid mood--even the way he raised his arms looked lazy. Then there came the drum and shortly the camel spins, whose entrance, foot change and exit went well with the music. During his circular step sequence, his arms and upper body highlighted the melody right on the downbeat (e.g., 1:51, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64QdX...eature=related), and his feet not only danced to the rhythm but also made small quick steps to reflect the synchopation (e.g., 1:57). Indeed, there were great uses of synchopation throughout his program (e.g., 2:25) with small steps or subtle kicks, so many I cannot name them all. The foot change and position change during his flying spin combination (FCCoSP), however, were not choreographed to the music, apparently as a trade-off for a level 4. As the music built up, he performed a series of jumps, which inspired cheering wows till the end of his straight-line step sequence executed with great musical precision, the climax of the program. Then the music calmed down, and he performed his final spins and ended with a pose that mirrored the starting pose, perfectly reflecting the musical construction of Blues—a cyclic form with reoccurring thematic/melodic materials. Variations unified by repetitions---great choreography, true to the music. And I cried, “Mommy, it’s over.” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZVmV7c2TY4). I am no skating expert. All I could detect was a minor imperfection in his 4T (a small 2-foot maybe, I’m not even sure). I didn’t notice underrotation in his 3F till I read the protocols.

[Bluebonnet]

^^^Through the untrained (as you said) and biased eyes!

[skatinginbc]

That is, they should demonstration acquaintance with and mastery of the "full skating vocabulary," as they say.

Why "mastery of the full skating vocabulary" should be the concern of transitions? Shouldn't it belong to the Skating Skills department? Or should it be called "field moves" or "figures" or whatever so that we know it is there for the purpose of demonstrating skating vocabulary? Those choreographic transitions whose purpose are to link elements or movements together in line with the music probably should belong to the CH category. Just my opinion.

[Mathman]

Why "mastery of the full skating vocabulary" should be the concern of transitions? Shouldn't it belong to the Skating Skills department? Or should it be called "field moves" or "figures" or whatever so that we know it is there for the purpose of demonstrating skating vocabulary? Those choreographic transitions whose purpose are to link elements or movements together in line with the music probably should belong to the CH category. Just my opinion.

Oh. Yes. Hmm. Here is the overview of Skating Skills

Skating Skills

Definition: Over all skating quality: edge control and flow over the ice surface demonstrated by a command of the skating vocabulary (edges, steps, turns, etc), the clarity of technique, and the use of effortless power to accelerate and vary speed.

That's such a cool use of the word "vocabulary" that I wouldn't mind if it were repeated five times, one for each component.

Now I am not sure what Transitions are. (In the old days skaters spoke of "in-betweens.") Does this mean Ina Bauers, spread eagles, split jumps, Charlottes, and spectacular highlight moves of that sort?

If so, then yes, making it work with he music is paramount. Like for instance Michelle Kwan's falling leaf into a change-edge spread eagle right smack in the middle of that expectant pause between the swelling crescendo of the bridge and the first grand downbeat of the return of the major theme in East of Eden.

The longer this discuss =ion goes on the more strongly I am pulled toward having two equally weight program components, skating skills and performance. The teo together mean "sking well...to music." (We could call them the first mark and the second mark. )

[skatinginbc]

The longer this discuss =ion goes on the more strongly I am pulled toward having two equally weight program components, skating skills and performance. The teo together mean "sking well...to music." (We could call them the first mark and the second mark. )

Isn't that close to my proposal: Skating Skills × Presentation (although the multiplying part needs further debate; Even I myself is not totally convinced with the multiplication )?

[gkelly]

Responding to gkelly.

Is the following a fair way to look at it? The Skating Skills component measures the level of mastery of a competitor's fundamental blade-to-ice skills. This is clearly the most important thing in a skating contest -- who can skate the best? Then the artistic components like Interpretation measure how well the skater put those skills to the service of the music.

The problem is, I do not see that the judges are doing anything more than copying the SS mark over into the INT column, regardless of skill level or evidence of musicality. I just looked at the men's SS scores at Worlds versus their INT scores. The biggest difference was 0.36 points, and except for two exceptions no one had a difference of more that .25 -- the smallest possible individual increment.

A few points of response:

The averages of the whole panel are going to flatten out the differences between highest and lowest components -- some judges will give wider ranges. In this event, as unfortunately in many events, the widest range is rarely over 0.75 for a given skater. I would expect something like 0.75 or 1.0 to be the average difference (i.e., larger than 0.36). But I would expect differences on the order of 1.5 or 2.0 or more to be exceptions, because of the correlations between the skater's skills and the way the programs are designed to showcase skills, as SkateFiguring discusses.

One would think that once in a while a skater would exhibit strong skating skills but deliver a performance that was not exceptional in terms of musicality.

I think that actually happens pretty often.

Conversely, it seems like it is possible for a skater to have less secure mastery of complex technique but still to give a performance of relatively high musical merit.

This is less likely because 1) skaters (especially those who make it to the top levels) have spent a heck of a lot more time studying and training skating skills than they have spent on music education, and 2) skaters who are especially talented or well trained in music but who struggle with their technique will not be able to perform up to the level of their musical ability . . . unless they keep the skating content undemanding so they can focus on expressing the music.

(The latter -- for top skaters as well -- is why exhibitions are often so much more satisfying musically than competition programs. There's less mental energy devoted to concentrating on challenging technique and so more available to focus on the music.)

But this never happens. For the PCS we might just as well take the SS score and multiply it by 5. Why pretend?

The program components are factored so that, in theory, on average across a field of skaters some of whom are stronger in technique and some in performance, the TES and PCS will be approximately equal.

For senior men, the factors are nice round 1.0 for short programs and 2.0 for long.

If the number of components were broken down differently, the factors would have to change.

E.g., suppose it were decided that you're right, everyone is just pretending, there is never any meaningful difference between the way the judges award scores for any of the five components and there's no hope of training them better or dividing the officials' responsibilities differently to make the differences meaningful, so let's just combine all five components into one score similar to the second mark under the 6.0 system. In that case, to keep the TES/PCS balance the same as it is now, the factor for the combined single second mark would need to be 5.0 in men's short programs and 10.0 for long . . . assuming that the maximum value for this score remains 10.0. (If it were reverted to a 6.0 standard, then the factor would need to be significantly larger than 10.0.)

So let's say a judge wants to distinguish among three skaters who are approximately the same level, but within that level the judge sees a clear overall hierarchy in presentation ability that day. She decides to give one skater a score of 5.0 for this combined second mark and another skater a score of 5.5, and slips a third in between at 5.25. As close as they can get? Not really, when you multiply the differences by 10. The difference between the first two skaters ends up as 5.0, a gap wide enough to drive an average triple jump through. Yet there's only room for one skater between them and no means to differentiate on a finer level than those three.

Well, that's easy to solve. Let the judges use increments of 0.1 again instead of 0.25.

A compromise approach would be to have a Skating Skills/Transitions component with a factor of 2.0 SP/4.0 LP, and a Performance/Execution/Choreography/Interpretation (i.e., Presentation) component with a factor of 3.0 and 6.0 respectively. Or, if it's felt that skating skills should carry more weight (by the ISU; I know the music fans won't feel that way), then factor each of those two scores at 2.5 and 5.0.

I could live with the two scores factored to add up to 5.0 and 10.0 (it gets tricker in other disciplines and at lower levels) if the judges get the finer 0.1 scoring increments to work with.

On the other hand, I think that dividing the scores into five areas gives the judges not only a way to make fine distinctions among skaters who are more or less at the same basic skill level (a purpose that tiebreakers also served under 6.0), but also it's a way to communicate to skaters: This is your general skill level (e.g., low 5s). Within that general level, I thought you were strongest on Performance/Execution (nice posture, beautiful extension, good connection with the audience, totally committed to the movement) and weakest on Skating Skills (your edges weren't very deep or steady, and you were pretty slow out there).

Even within the three final "performance" components, I think it's useful to be able to say within your general level I think you were strongest on Interpretation (great connection to the music, lots of little nuances with your arms, facial expression, even the rhythm of your stroking) but actually weakest on Choreography (whose dumb idea was it to have the new section of music start in the middle of a spin? Why are all the elements placed between the blue lines except for the toe jumps, with all three spins in the same part of the ice? Could those arm movements be any more cliche?)

For the latter purpose, I agree, the judges would need to make more of an effort to separate the five components.

[Mathman]

A few points of response:

The averages of the whole panel are going to flatten out the differences between highest and lowest components -- some judges will give wider ranges.

I do not see any a priori reason to think that this might or might not happen. You mean that one judge might say, this guy has great skating skills but he is not interpreting the music very well, while another might think he is interpreting the music well but not showing good skating skills? ETA: Yes. This happened with judge #2 and judge #6 for Hanyu.

Since I didn't know, I looked it up. Here are the scores for the nine judges for the first three men at Worlds.

Chan

Judge SS INT diff
#1 9.25 9.25 0.00
#2 9.25 9.25 0.00
#3 9.50 9.00 0.50
#4 9.25 9.25 0.00
#5 8.50 8.25 0.25
#6 8.50 9.50 1.00*
#7 9.25 9.25 0.00
#8 9.25 9.25 0.25
#9 9.25 9.25 0.00

For five out of nine judges, the difference was 0.

Hanyu

#1 7.75 7.75 0.00 (This is a different judge #1 from Chan's judge #1 )
#2 8.50 9.50 1.00*
#3 8.50 8.50 0.00
#4 9.00 9.25 0.25
#5 8.00 8.25 0.25
#6 9.00 8.25 0.75*
#7 7.50 7.50 0.00
#8 8.75 8.75 0.00
#9 8.25 8,25 0.00

For five out of nine judges, the difference is 0.

Takahashi

#1 8.50 8.50 0.00
#2 8.75 8/75 0.00
#3 8.25 9.00 0.75*
#4 9.00 8.75 0.25
#5 8.50 8.75 0.25
#6 8.50 8.75 0.25
#7 8.75 8.75 0.00
#8 8.75 8.75 0.00
#9 9.00 9.00 0.00

For five out of nine judges the difference was 0.

Takahashi

I am not sure what to conclude from this.

I think that actually happens pretty often.

But we rarely see that reflected in the scores.

The program components are factored so that, in theory, on average across a field of skaters some of whom are stronger in technique and some in performance, the TES and PCS will be approximately equal.

For senior men, the factors are nice round 1.0 for short programs and 2.0 for long.

If the number of components were broken down differently, the factors would have to change.

The factors would be the same. 1.0 for the short, 2.0 for the long. These factors would be applied to 5xSS instead of to SS+TR+PE+CH+INT.

E.g., suppose it were decided that you're right, everyone is just pretending, there is never any meaningful difference between the way the judges award scores for any of the five components and there's no hope of training them better or dividing the officials' responsibilities differently to make the differences meaningful, so let's just combine all five components into one score similar to the second mark under the 6.0 system. In that case, to keep the TES/PCS balance the same as it is now, the factor for the combined single second mark would need to be 5.0 in men's short programs and 10.0 for long . . . assuming that the maximum value for this score remains 10.0.

Yes, that is what I had i mind.

So let's say a judge wants to distinguish among three skaters who are approximately the same level, but within that level the judge sees a clear overall hierarchy in presentation ability that day. She decides to give one skater a score of 5.0 for this combined second mark and another skater a score of 5.5, and slips a third in between at 5.25. As close as they can get? Not really, when you multiply the differences by 10. The difference between the first two skaters ends up as 5.0, a gap wide enough to drive an average triple jump through. Yet there's only room for one skater between them and no means to differentiate on a finer level than those three.

A single judge already faces that challenge, unless she want to get cute with the five components.

For instance, I suppose now she could say, overall I want Skater A to get 5.00 and skater B to get 5.10. So I will give skater A program component scores of 5.0, 5.0. 5.0, 5.0, 5.0, and I will give skater B scores of 5.0, 5.0. 5.0 5.0 and 5.5. ETA: OK, you addressed this point below. Maybe a judge would have a legitimate reason to do that.

But this is cheating. Under the current system that 5.5 is supposed to have something to do specifically with interpretation, not just a nudge to make the ordinal placements come out right. (That's 6.0 ).

Well, that's easy to solve. Let the judges use increments of 0.1 again instead of 0.25.

I would definitely be against that, and I don't think it is necessary. Just let all judges just what they see fairly. The averaging over the nine judges (or seven) would mitigate the unwanted gap between scores all by itself.

We don't really need to speculate as to what might happen. Here is how the Worlds men's LP would have trubed out by the "Skating Skills only" method compared to the "five different components" method. (Posted by skatinginbc in post 197 above).

SSx10...PCS

91.10...90.14 Chan
83.90...83.00 Hanyu
87.10...85.78 Takahashi
81.80...81.66 Amodio
82.10...81.94 Joubert
75.70...74.92 Ten
78.90...77.02 Brezina
82.10...81.56 Abbott
5.00...75.50 Contesti
70.40...67.80 KVDP
75.70...73.30 kOZUKA
70.40...67.22 Song
71.80...70.80 Reynolds
76.80...75.66 Fernandez
68.90...66.14 Voronov
74.60...73.84 Rippon
76.10...74.34 Verner
76.10...74.08 Gachinski
63.20...59.78 Liebers
62.50...61.50 Caluza
62.90...60.36 Pfaifer
59.60...59.20 Lucine
65.40...64.50 Ge
59.30...58.02 Raya

On the other hand, I think that dividing the scores into five areas gives the judges not only a way to make fine distinctions among skaters who are more or less at the same basic skill level (a purpose that tiebreakers also served under 6.0), but also it's a way to communicate to skaters: This is your general skill level (e.g., low 5s). Within that general level, I thought you were strongest on Performance/Execution (nice posture, beautiful extension, good connection with the audience, totally committed to the movement) and weakest on Skating Skills (your edges weren't very deep or steady, and you were pretty slow out there).

That is an excellent point. By looking at the protocols I am not sure that the judges are actually doing that. I think that would be more valuable at lower levels that at the World Championships. Good point, though.