My question is whether the scaled-to-10 marks will actually be used to calculate the results, or if they're just fiction to give the fans a benchmark for how the open-ended base mark + GOE scores compare to previous top scores.This 10.0 system I'm proposing is simply for what's revealed on the TV screens and for the audiences in the ice rink. It gives a general idea of each judge's mark without having to fill the screen with too many numbers, but hardcore fans will know to go to the protocols online for a more complete picture of how every mark is determined.
What if, in your Suzuki example, the announcement in the K&C says "Technical base value 28.6" and then lists the technical scores from each judge (31.9 from judge 1, etc., across the board) and the average (7.8) or factored total (e.g., 30.22) component score from each judge. That way you get to see two scores from each judge like we did under the old system, and they would actually add up to the real score that skater achieved. But they would be open-ended scores, not scaled to a maximum that means something different for each discipline and that can theoretically be exceeded by multiple skaters.
I understand how the 10.0 reference point is meaningful for giving fans an idea of how this performance stacks up against the best technical content ever as of last year, but I don't understand how or whether it's actually used to calculate the results. How much information that is meaningful in distinguishing skaters would be lost in the conversion -- more or less than is lost by averaging and rounding in the current calculations?
Would anomalies in how the numbers get crunched this extra time ever lead to different results if they were crunched differently?
Certainly we've seen differences in 6.0 events that were accidentally scored with the wrong tiebreaker programmed into a computer or with majority calculations used for an event that should have used OBO. And we've seen rounding errors affect the results of close contests under IJS. So whatever system is used can be subject to paradoxical results. I just wonder what the effect of the extra manipulation to the IJS numbers you want to add would introduce. Would it be possible for the results on the detailed protocols to be different from the results on the scaled-to-10 matrix? If so, which would count as the official results?
The difference, though, is that in ordinal judging the judges also explicitly had to leave room for subsequent skaters, so the scores didn't always mean the same thing from one event to the next in the same season. In IJS, they should, although we know that different panels might be more or less generous.A part of my reasoning behind this is because of how the 6.0 system worked in the past. A 6.0 in 1970 was much different than a 6.0 in 2000. What the perfect 6.0 means is to say that this particular program is perfect at this place and time. And I believe that the judges would reward that same program with perfect marks at a later competition if it was performed in the same manner. However, the following year, achieving that 6.0 would more difficult as a new standard would be set in place.
The other thing I'd ask about your plan is how it would apply to competitions where pretty much everyone watching is directly involved in the sport or else a diehard fan who is more likely to be interested in the detailed protocols than an intermediate level of summary scores -- let's say a JGP event or domestic sectional qualifier, etc. -- and where there is no expectation of television coverage and almost no expectation of ticket sales to casual fans. Would there be any value of running the numbers through this process in those events?
Is it a change to the actual scoring system that should be used at all competitions to determine results, or just a way of presenting fake scores to fans who aren't interested in the details of the real scores but are interested in more detail than one open-ended number for TES and PCS from the whole panel?