Is the standard of Judging deteriorating?
I am an absolutely huge fan of Mao Asada (as my username implies), but the score she received in today's Free Skate at the NHK Trophy was ridiculous. In terms of the Free Skate scores, I would have placed her performance behind that of Akiko, Mirai, and Zijun Li. This follows on from the questionable marks received by Kaetlyn Osmond in the Free Skate at Skate Canada, and other controversial scores that have been awarded during this seasons Grand Prix. And then there was controversy of the Men's competition at the 2012 World Championships.
The Judges seem to be all over the place with PCS marks, with some skaters getting very inflated PCS despite multiple falls and popped jumps, whilst others are undermarked in PCS despite skating clean. There really does need to be some relationship between technical cleanliness and PCS. Where somebody is messing up their jumps, their spins, etc, then it obviously completely detracts from the overall appeal/quality of the program, and this should be reflected in the PCS marks. Hence, its the PCS marks which are causing the problem and which need to be addressed. Under the 6.0 system, a fall was a disaster, but no longer under COP/IJS. Falls, therefore, are not being properly punished
It pains me to say it, but Mao's program today was a complete mess and no way did it deserve a score anywhere near 117.32. She is regressing technically - going backwards, rather than forwards. If she can't turn this situation around soon, then I think she should retire. I fear, however, that her best days are behind her.
Accordingly, is the standard of Judging deteriorating?
Last edited by Mao88; 11-24-2012 at 03:03 PM.
I don't necessarily think the standard of judging is deteriorating, but more or less has to do with the way the system is set up. I think the current CoP is way too convoluted and skater's performances don't reflect the scoring because everything is such an aggregate math game now. I think for the sake of the sport, the judging should be viewed on a much more holistic level.
There's definitely something fishy about judging in NHK trophy. I really don't think Mao deserves level 4 on her step sequence...plus she got extra 1.80 goe for that. In my opinion, I think Akiko should've won, but I guess the judges favor Mao more considering she gets PCS score of 64.54 even though she doubles her loop, flip, and lutz, singles salchow.
Mao's jumps were so bad it was ridiculous that a winner of any event did them. A lot of times judges might give negative goe if something is doubled or singled. A few times Oda has done terribly on jumps and his pcs went down. The doubled and singled jumps were too much. When lepisto won world bronze that was with a 7th in the fs because of all her doubles and she hung on to bronze because others made mistakes in their sp. But it's important that she won bronze not gold and Yuna beat her even with all her mistakes in the sp. Suzuki should have won and Mao probably shouldn't have medaled at NHk. Just like she didnt medal in 2010 with an equally bad skate. Mao isn't as negative on herself now publicly as she was in 2010 and because she seems to be fine with her overall skating and jumping now judges aren't being as harsh. 2010 NHk 2012 NHk basically the same Mao but Mao isn't as negative, the press isn't as negative. She needed lower goes , lower pcs, just a totally lower score and no medal.
Others might say v/t cor but Mao i think has been bad two comps now.
Sadly, I don't think it's the standards of the judging that has deteriorated but rather the standard of the partisans watching. Judging in FS has never been perfect or close it - in fact, controversies are never too far away. What has changed is that with the spread of internet and much more efficient means of communication and social networking - some fans have become more trigger happy and tend to let their emotions overwhelm their logic. This is not limited to FS to be sure, sports fans elsewhere can be, if not far more violent in their reactions, for example KHL matches or soccer games in Europe.
This has nothing to do with Mao or anyone else. Rather, people have a tendency to focus on the obvious and ignore the rest. Yes, Mao didn't have the jumps vs. Akiko at the NHK 2012 LP, even a monkey can notice that. But, ask yourself, can you think of other possible reasons or areas where Mao was potentially or aguably better than Akiko? Has anyone tried to answer that question before jumping to the conclusion that the judging was fixed or shameful? Sadly, I don't think many have. So I have to ask, why are we ignoring the rest of elements and components and merely focus on jumps? Is it because that's the only thing they care about or the only thing they can understand when watching skating?
I do think that people are sincerely asking those questions. I do agree that some (key word here) are trigger happy make baseless assumptions and attacks, but I think many people here do try to read the rules and try to understand how it works. I hate armchair critics as much as the next guy, but as in the SC situation, I do not feel that most posters are not giving knee jerk reactions and asking reasonable questions.
Originally Posted by wallylutz
Just because fans are not trained technical specialists and judges doesn't mean they are not asking valid questions about the judging.
That said, I have not seen either program, so I will reserve my judgement on the skates themselves until I do so.
Get rid of Anonymous Judging. Now. We need transparency and accountability. We need to see who's giving out what marks. The current system allows judges to hide with pretty much impunity, outside of a narrow group of ISU officials and/or colleagues. No judge who is confident in their training and marking ability, should be afraid to judge in the light rather than the dark, and to be able to justify their scoring if necessary.
Fair enough. Out of curiosity, where did you see people asking questions re: this outcome? Instead of seeing questions, I saw a lot of admant and affirmative accusations, no questions asked. If there were really questions asked, I think it would be fair. But no, seeing the titles of these threads, I think the conclusion is already made long time ago.
Originally Posted by Mrs. P
The Zamboni Rocks!!!
While I wouldn't go as far as saying that the judging is biased I will say this....the new judging system stinks! All the programs are the same so the most point can be had. There is no artistry, no originality and none if the stuff that made programs in the 80's and 90's so memorable. It's probably why for the last few years I haven't been exciting for skating as I used to be.
At the rink. Again.
This judging system is intended to take away (some? most? all?) the subjectivity by assigning points to everything and adding them all up to get a score. The problem is, fans have long loved FS because often for the best programs, the whole is >>> than the sum of parts (Kwan, Boitano, Hamil, Lynn...). In this judging system the sum of parts >>> the whole and this is where fans (casual, die hard, and actual skaters) sometimes scratch their heads because they can't believe the overall results. There needs to somehow be a mark that takes into consideration (and is spelled out clearly) the holistic value of the program in a relative scale to the other programs skated at that particular event and assigns a ranking and therefore some kind of points to be added to the program to take into account the impact of the whole. I am having a hard time explaining this, but this seems to be where the judging is turning the fans off.
What would be a good way to define such a holistic mark?
Originally Posted by mskater93
Should it be an expanded version of what's now the Performance/Execution component, with a higher factor than the other components (except maybe Skating Skills)?
Or should P/E remain as is and the intangible holistic qualities get wrapped into some other new mark?
At the rink. Again.
I would wrap it separately. It would need to be some kind of "impact" mark that gets weighted higher.
So what should be the criteria for that mark?
Which means that it's difficult for the judges to control the outcomes. Isn't this way more objective?
Originally Posted by Mathman
My take is if each individual part seems correct, then accept the overall outcome.
Last edited by Bluebonnet; 11-29-2012 at 12:02 AM.
I guess it's a question of whether you want the judges to decide who they like best (6.0) or you want them strictly judging elements (COP). Obviously judges can overmark/undermark in COP but I've found generally that the evaluation of programs is generally accurate, maybe a little more favorably for the top competitors.
Originally Posted by Bluebonnet