Men's PCS at Worlds.

Robeye said:

My take: while skating bodies philosophically buy into the idea that artistic components are independent factors in scoring, they are somewhat fainthearted in the actual application.

Click to expand...

I think the judges do not have uniform competence in judging the artistic components. All of the judges can tell a rocker from a Mohawk, but not all have a background in music and dance.

Which is why I focus on two aspects (as per my previous posts) that could go a long way to addressing the issues:

1) separate the technical judging from the artististic judging (which, in the most rigorous version, would include some mechanism for preventing the two groups from sharing scoring information),...

Click to expand...

Again, recruiting and certifying the artistic panel might be a challenge.

As for the sharing of information, my eyes were opened by the discussion going on over on the Canadian dance thread. It seems that not only do the judges hobnob among themselves, they also solicit information from coaches as to what areas the coaches' students are superior to their rivals in, and what specific weaknesses those rival skaters have that the judges ought to on the lookout for.

One post in particular (by Doris Pulaski) mentioned that at one competition two members of the tech panel buttonholed one of the judges to make sure he understond why one couple should be placed ahead of another.

Lori Nichol (don't get me wrong, she is my favorite person in all of skating ) gives seminars to ISU judges about how to score Choreography. In this instruction she uses tapes and examples of her students, who are still in competition, doing exemplary choreography. "See, that's what good choreography is!"

This seems to be accepted by everyone in the sport, including skaters, fans, and federation and ISU officials. Indeed, your coach is not doing his job if he is not constantly pimping you to the judges.

If this is true, there is not much point in worrying about tweaking the CoP.

and

2) a procedure for artistic scoring that would force a scoring differentiation between skaters.

Click to expand...

Ordinals.

ISU Public Education Frequently Asked Questions:
1. Why the scoring trend in TR seems more about quantity than quality? As the CoP prescribes, transitions can be short or long, including the use of blade, body, head, arms, legs as dictated by the MUSIC. We often hear that so-and-so lacks transitions (i.e., quantity), but rarely hear that someone's transition does not go with the music (i.e., quality). Why does TR become a synonym of busy feet? Isn't the use of body, head, and arms also part of TR? Isn't transition considered a transition only if it is dictated by the music?
2. One of the criteria for skating skills is "balance, rhythmic knee action, and precision of foot placement". When a skater is obviously off balance in his footwork or makes a little stumble or misstep (imprecision of foot placement) leading up to his jump, should that be reflected in his Skating Skills? How much?
3. As the wording "flow over the ice" is included in the official definition of Skating Skills, can we assume it has more weight than those criteria (e.g., one-foot skating) not mentioned in the SS definition? By the same token, can we assume that "sincere in emotion and equal in comprehension of the music" carries more weight than others since the emotional and intellectual involvement of the skater in the music is included in the official definition of Performance?

skatinginbc said:

"sincere in emotion and equal in comprehension of the music"

Click to expand...

Maybe a little bit off topic, but does anyone have a guess as to what the word "equal" means in that sentence?

skatinginbc said:

Based on Skatefiguring's data, the correlation coefficient (r) between SS and PCS is 0.9943. And the result proves Mathman's claim that having all those subcategories of PCS is merely an act of pretense. The ideal correlation coefficient should be somewhere between 0.85 to 0.95 given that SS and PCS should be highly correlated, but not perfectly correlated. The 0.9943 coefficient tells us PCS contains one category and one category only, which is Skating Skills. The evidence suggests that the ISU should either abandon the existing components or have a major surgery on CoP. And those who champion the current scoring methods are either fooled by the system or fond of fooling themselves and others. I'm thinking: Are people so easily fooled? Or is it not so much about logic as about politics or power or existing status?

Click to expand...

So many quick conclusions building up one on top of another from the data! Could they be entrenched opinions waiting for the first possible support to expand on?

I didn't make any conclusions except a couple of obvious observations.

I am still not making conclusions while presenting some counter arguments to the view that having high correlation between SS and IN or PCS is corrupt or ineptitude on the judges' part: The components scores are from a highest level COP competition. The are many technical requirements in each program and each skater is attempting the highest degree of difficulty they could or even beyond their normal capacity. TR and CH are usually tailored to the skater's SS for maximum effects and the three are naturally correlated with a well designed choreography. The skater's artistry, PE and IN, has to be expressed within the constraints and demands of such difficult programs. Unlike in an exhibition program, the PE and IN do depend very much on the skater's SS, or they may be discounted when performed with easy program with lesser SS required. Is it unreasonable and unfair that PE and IN expressed with great SS and within a more difficult program are valued higher? Or should someone's choreographed moves and facial expressions while skating slowly and upright, or even standing in place, gain more points for artistic value to compensate for lower skills and degree of difficulty? Especially if there are few energy draining high level technical elements in the program?

Yes, skaters have different talents and competence in different components. I don't dismiss further tweaking and improving the scoring system. However, correlation with SS, the basis and foundation of figure skating, is natural and unavoidable in the highly technical and demanding COP competition. Now, maybe ISU should bring back Interpretive Skating competition like at SC 1990 when 12 year old Joanna Ng won Gold with no big jumps required:

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

Then Patrick Chan can skate his Elegy with only 3 jumps and no technical panel counting rotations, turns, and seconds and giving out levels. I will really welcome and enjoy such a competition.






:

Mathman said:

Ordinals.

Click to expand...

I saw my old friend coming.

SkateFiguring said:

I am still not making conclusions while presenting some counter arguments to the view that having high correlation between SS and IN or PCS is corrupt or ineptitude on the judges' part....

Click to expand...

I'm surprised that you missed the point. High correlation is not only expected but also welcomed. It is the near perfect correlation that tells us something is going wrong, badly wrong.

Well, don't forget all the highest and lowest scores being thrown out so the ranges are purposely narrowed for an even closer correlation.

skatinginbc said:

ISU Public Education Frequently Asked Questions:
1. Why the scoring trend in TR seems more about quantity than quality? As the CoP prescribes, transitions can be short or long, including the use of blade, body, head, arms, legs as dictated by the MUSIC. We often hear that so-and-so lacks transitions (i.e., quantity), but rarely hear that someone's transition does not go with the music (i.e., quality). Why does TR become a synonym of busy feet? Isn't the use of body, head, and arms also part of TR? Isn't transition considered a transition only if it is dictated by the music?

Click to expand...

I think that the line about arms, legs and music is just tossed in for effect. Leaving out that throw-away sentence, the criteria are:

Variety
Difficulty
Intricacy
Quality

The first three are certainly "quantity" (busy feet). And even the last, "quality," I think means things like deep edges, precision in turns, doing clearly recognizable skating elements, etc. That is, they should demonstration acquaintance with and mastery of the "full skating vocabulary," as they say.

I have no quarrel with this. Give skaters credit for all the cool stuff they are doing with their blades, and let the other three criteria address the question of music.

SkateFiguring said:

Well, don't forget all the highest and lowest scores being thrown out so the ranges are purposely narrowed for an even closer correlation.

Click to expand...

The would narrow the range of the judges' scores [/i]within[/i] each component, but I do not believe it would have much effect on the correlation between components.

Here is the thing: We want the inter-rater reliability to be high (e.g., coefficient = 0.90) but not near perfect (e.g., coefficient = 0.99). Otherwise, we can simply use one judge and get rid of all others.

Mathman said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

SkateFiguring said:

I am still not making conclusions while presenting some counter arguments to the view that having high correlation between SS and IN or PCS is corrupt or ineptitude on the judges' part: The components scores are from a highest level COP competition. The are many technical requirements in each program and each skater is attempting the highest degree of difficulty they could or even beyond their normal capacity. TR and CH are usually tailored to the skater's SS for maximum effects and the three are naturally correlated with a well designed choreography. The skater's artistry, PE and IN, has to be expressed within the constraints and demands of such difficult programs.

Click to expand...

All quite true. But 99% correlation is just impossible to achieve in situations like this. You cannot take a pencil and deliberately draw dots on a piece of paper that line up straight enough to achieve 99% correlation if you do it on purpose.

It is like the statistical tests that proved tampering or scientific dishonesty in the results of the experiments of Mendel that set the foundations of genetics. It wasn't that the experimental outcomes were a bad fit to his theory, but rather that were too good a fit. Too good, that is, to be true. (This was established by the statistics pioneer Fisher -- the F in the "F distribution" means Fisher. )

Fisher essentially said, "OK, genetics is true, but come on."

This does not mean that the judges are cheating or incompetent. In my opinion it means that they are overwhelmed by all the criteria and bullets that they are supposed to be constantly juggling in their heads, and in fact are just giving out a gut feeling "second mark" as they always have.

"This guy has great skating skills: 9.0. Because he has great skating skills he is doing good transitions: 9.00. (No wait, this is transitions. I better go 8.75.) Since he has great skating skills he can use his skills to handle more complex choreography, to interpret the music more profoundly, and to project his performance to the audience with greater elan. 9.00, 9.00, 9.00."

The point is, why not just have one score: 9.00. This would save both the judges and the computer a lot of grief and produce the same results.

skatinginbc said:

Here is the thing: We want the inter-rater reliability to be high (e.g., coefficient = 0.90) but not near perfect (e.g., coefficient = 0.99). Otherwise, we can simply use one judge and get rid of all others.

Click to expand...

Um...but that's another question. Here it means we can use one component mark, averaged over all judges, and get rid of all the other component, right?

skatinginbc said:

Based on Skatefiguring's data, the correlation coefficient (r) between SS and PCS is 0.9943. And the result proves Mathman's claim that having all those subcategories of PCS is merely an act of pretense. The ideal correlation coefficient should be somewhere between 0.85 to 0.95 given that SS and PCS should be highly correlated, but not perfectly correlated. The 0.9943 coefficient tells us PCS contains one category and one category only, namely, Skating Skills. The evidence suggests that the ISU should either abandon the existing components or have a major surgery on CoP. And those who champion the current scoring methods are either fooled by the system or fond of fooling themselves and others. I'm thinking: Are people so easily fooled? Or is it not so much about logic as about politics or power or existing status?

Click to expand...

Too soon to draw a conclusion from just one competition, although some people are too happy to hold back such a conclusion.

Have you studied other ISU competitions yet?

For example

TEB 2011:

Oda:

SS 6.86
TR 5.71
PE 5.46
CH 6.57
IN 5.71

Total PCS 60.62

Song:

SS 7.00
TR 6.14
PE 6.96
CH 6.93
IN 6.79

Total PCS 67.64

SC 2011:

Rippon:

SS 7.39
TR 6.43
PE 7.21
CH 7.07
IN 7.46

Total PCS 71.12

skatinginbc said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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. )

Bluebonnet said:

Too soon to draw a conclusion from just one competition, although some people are too happy to hold back such a conclusion.

Have you studied other ISU competitions yet?

For example TEB 2011:

Oda:

SS 6.86
TR 5.71
PE 5.46
CH 6.57
IN 5.71

Total PCS 60.62

Song:

SS 7.00
TR 6.14
PE 6.96
CH 6.93
IN 6.79

Total PCS 67.64

SC 2011:

Rippon:

SS 7.39
TR 6.43
PE 7.21
CH 7.07
IN 7.46

Total PCS 71.12

Click to expand...

Those are interesting examples.

I wonder if early in the season skaters with good skating skills are nevertheless still struggling with the choreography and performance aspects of their program. Then by the time Worlds rolls around they have caught up and are able to perform their program up to the level of their skills. (?)

Mathman said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Bluebonnet said:

Too soon to draw a conclusion from just one competition, although some people are too happy to hold back such a conclusion.

Have you studied other ISU competitions yet?

For example

TEB 2011:

Oda:

SS 6.86
TR 5.71
PE 5.46
CH 6.57
IN 5.71

Total PCS 60.62

Song:

SS 7.00
TR 6.14
PE 6.96
CH 6.93
IN 6.79

Total PCS 67.64

SC 2011:

Rippon:

SS 7.39
TR 6.43
PE 7.21
CH 7.07
IN 7.46

Total PCS 71.12

Click to expand...

Wait....don't both Song's and Rippon's numbers also support Mathman's original point? That all other marks in PCS (except TR) closely track the SS score? For example, both Song's and Rippon's SS and IN scores have a difference of under 0.25, the smallest possible individual increment (Song: 0.21, Rippon: 0.07). As for Oda, I wonder if his disastrous performance at TEB forced the judges to differentiate their PCS more...Oda has pretty decent SS, but it would be difficult to justify giving out scores in PE, etc in the same range given how poorly Oda skated that competition. If you look at Oda's other competition this season, his PCS are pretty much in range with the SS score. See, for example, the Cup of China:

SS 7.86
TR 7.43
PE 7.57
CH 7.68
IN 7.54

To show how different conclusions are drawn from the same data, from earlier posts:

skatinginbc said:

Hanyu LP (PE + CH + IN = Median total: 24.75, Mean total: 25.11)
PE: Median 8.25, Mean 8.39 (7.75 9.00 8.75 9.00 8.25 8.25 7.50 8.75 8.00)
CH: Median 8.25, Mean 8.29 (7.50 8.50 8.50 9.00 8.25 8.00 7.75 8.75 8.25)
IN: Median 8.25, Mean 8.43 (7.75 9.50 8.50 9.25 8.25 8.25 7.50 8.75 8.25)

Joubert LP (PE + CH + IN = Median total: 25, Mean total: 24.97)
PE: Median 8.25, Mean 8.29 (8.00 7.75 8.75 8.25 8.25 8.50 8.50 9.00 7.75)
CH: Median 8.25, Mean 8.29 (8.00 7.75 8.50 8.50 8.00 8.25 8.50 9.25 8.25)
IN: Median 8.50, Mean 8.39 (8.25 8.00 8.50 8.50 8.50 8.50 8.50 9.50 8.00)

The majority of judges actually thought Brian's presentation was slightly better than Yuzuru's, perhaps because Brian had better (or mature-looking) postures and did not have a fall. Yet those who liked Yuzuru really liked him a lot and thus skewed the mean to his favor.

It was a tough call. I think they both had good presentation. I personally think it was the best Brian had ever skated. I probably would have gone with the majority of the judges and gave Joubert a slight, very slight edge over Hanyu in the presentation department.

Click to expand...

Mathman said:

Thus the CoP. A majority of judges think that skater A was better, but skater B gets higher scores.

Click to expand...

I arranged Hanyu's and Joubert's score in ascending orders:

SS:
7.50--7.50--7.75--8.00--8.25--8.50--8.50--8.75--9.00 - 8.39
8.00--8.00--8.00--8.00--8.25--8.25--8.50--8.75--8.75 - 8.21

TR/LF
7.25--7.50--7.75--7.75--8.00--8.25--8.25--8.50--8.50 - 8.00
7.50--7.50--7.75--7.75--7.75--7.75--8.00--8.00--8.25 - 7.79

P/E
7.50--7.75--8.00--8.25--8.25--8.75--8.75--9.00--9.00 - 8.39
7.75--7.75--8.00--8.25--8.25--8.50--8.50--8.75--9.00 - 8.29

CH/CO
7.50--7.75--8.00--8.25--8.25--8.50--8.50--8.75--9.00 - 8.29
7.75--8.00--8.00--8.25--8.25--8.50--8.50--8.50--9.25 - 8.29

IN
7.50--7.75--8.25--8.25--8.25--8.50--8.75--9.25--9.50 - 8.42
8.00--8.00--8.00--8.25--8.50--8.50--8.50--8.50--9.50 - 8.39

What I see is that Joubert received much more consistent scores than Hanyu whose wide ranges worked to his advantage when the highest and lowest scores of each component were thrown out. Every one of Joubert's discarded lowest scores is higher than Hanyu's, from 0.25 to 0.50, whereas among the highest scores rejected, two pairs were even while Joubert had one higher and Hanyu had two, each with 0.25 difference. In total, Joubert had 1.50 more points (3 when factored) thrown out than Hanyu. (e.g. Joubert had received higher SS total if all scores were counted.)

1. It's not true majority of judges thought Joubert's presentation was slightly better. Joubert received 11 higher scores than Hanyu who received 14 higher scores than Joubert.

2. Yes those who liked Hanyu liked him a lot but those who didn't like him so much gave him quite a bit lower scores than Joubert as well.

In an effort to even out scores by discarding the lowest and the highest, that was how the chips fell that day. Hanyu won over Joubert because more judges gave him higher scores than Joubert and more of Joubert's points were thrown out.

You know what they say about statistics. However, taking a closer look can prevent hasty conclusions.

eta I realized the original numbers and conclusions were drawn on 3 components of PE, CH, and IN. But the facts remained, Joubert had 6 higher scores while Hanyu had 7 higher scores bestowed by the judges and Joubert had 1.25 X 2 more points thrown out within these categories.

Responding again to Bluebonnet's post.

OK. wait a minute. I just looked at these number again. You searched and searched for three odd-ball examples that run counter to the trend. But search as you might, you only came up with one example.

Oda at TEB: SS 6.86, INT 5.71. (Oda fell three times and finished last. An outlier.)

The other two are Song at TEB: SS 7.00, INT 6.79 (off by 0.21 points), and Rippon at Skate Canada: SS 7.39, INT 7.46 (off by 0.07 points).

By the way, Rippon's PCSs at TEB were

7.57
7.11
7.54
7.54
7.68

As is almost always the case, the Transitions are a little lower and the last three track Skating Skills.

Here is the whole contest (2011 TEB), no data omitted, none added.

SS....INT..difference
8.82 8.54 0.28
7.00 6.79 0.21
7.57 7.68 -0.11
7.89 7.82 0.07
7.14 7.25 -0.17
6.39 6.36 0.03
5.79 5.54 0.25
5.93 5.71 0.22
6.86 5.71 1.15 (Oda with three falls)

I did not "mine" these ( ) data. I just took the competition that you directed me to and wrote down all the numbers. This is how it turned out.

Does anyone want to do another full competition?

Gee, I didn't know that your appetite has increased so fast! For the "once in a while" data, of course it needs to be mined.

Mathman said:

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.

Click to expand...

This was once in a while example:

JiaLiang Wu

COC 2011:

LP:

SS 5.86
TR 5.21
PE 5.54
CH 5.57
IN 5.29
SS - IN = 0.57

SP:

SS 5.89
TR 5.32
PE 5.57
CH 5.50
IN 5.43
SS - IN = 0.46

4CC 2011:

LP:

SS 5.71
TR 4.93
PE 5.29
CH 5.18
IN 5.00
SS - IN = 0.71

SP:

SS 6.32
TR 5.54
PE 5.71
CH 5.79
IN 5.57
SS - IN = 0.75

I've seen several skaters with difference around 0.50 in several competitions. I could make the lists but haven't had time to do so.