Flutzing Around's Thoughts
He suggests that elements with falls receive 25% of their starting value and the fall deduction gets applied to P/E in 5% increments (1 fall, -0.5 from PE, 2 falls, -1.0 from PE, etc)
Sure, he may have skated better than most in an error filled competition. But you gotta ask, how did an error-filled S/S beat D/R in pairs when S/S failed to even get a single Triple credited in their SBS? All they did were SBS doubles + fall. Answer : S/S are so much more superior overall, individual elements notwithstanding. One thing is very consistent in judges' seat is that they look at what was put on the ice in that given competition but they also assessed the finer qualities which don't usually go out of the window just because the individual elements were missed. The latter is somewhat harder to assess especially for those who watch over scratchy / crappy internet feeds. This is why sometimes people think judges held up X skater over Y skater. While there is some truth to that, more often than not, it is the less visible qualities displayed that helped to hold these people up despite their visible errors. This is true since the 6.0 era and many former greats have been the beneficiaries of this such as Kwan and etc., including the one who tweeted "confused in Florida" - only if his memory is not so short that he was a skater without Quad in a world dominated by the 4 revolution jump. More recently, Kostner, Asada, Takahashi and Chan have all received such cushion as well.
I find some of the comments less than illuminating is that it seems less about how they would change the system and more about how to "fix" Chan's win. No one can agree on what should be the priorities under the scoring system. It is impossible to create one that rewards clean + quads + triple axel + awsome ss + fantastic spins + great presentation. There are very few skaters that could reliably meet all these criteria.
Something has to give - under this iteration of COP they minimized the clean requirement, under previous iterations they minimized the quad. If they decide to place more value on "clean" programs, skaters will just sacrifice the jump that give them issues. Ie: Chan would keep the 3A just in short etc.
I can live with a fall if everything else is good or two small mistakes if everything else is good. I frankly felt that there was a strong case for Daisuke winning the Olympics. But I can't bear to see slopply executed programs get rewarded on things like P/E.
I have a hard time thinking how making a ton of glaring errors doesn't effect your overall performance, I'm sorry it at the very least affects the overall impression of your performance. One fall I can live with but multiples-no.
Nobody's complaining that Patrick was on the podium. Based on his short that's fair.
I don't want to see people getting medals for easy programs, but surely there has to be a balance. The system right now seems to encourage people to pack in overwhelmingly difficulty throughout regardless how well the difficulty can actually be executed.
Why can't the system encourage a balance? Reward the skater who performs the program that best combines difficulty and execution. It is that person who should win.
Ten combined this the best at this competition.
The judges could have easily given Patrick PCS in lets say around 84 overall. Said PCS would still reward him for his good qualities but also showing the performance wasn't up to his great standards. That would have been fair.
Figure skating will never be just about how somebody delivers on a particular evening. It's not that kind of sport. There are many different skills and they are acquired over years and years of practice and some of them will stay relatively constant throughout different performances. That's the way it is.
I think that not only does the corridor does need to go, there needs to be a better framework for marking PCS. But corridor will never go because it would make judges look like they are completely clueless (because there would be so much variation in the marks suddenly).
And it never will possible to please everyone, whatever the changes. Chan won here partly because the quads he landed extremely well were worth so many points (which is something a lot of people have argued for).
I mean if there was a massive deduction for falls introduced, next year everybody would be complaining about the system being stupid and wrong because nobody does difficult jumps any more.
However personally why not allow the judges with P/E get to evaluate the overall performance and with that understanding have it be an evaluation of the entire thing. I.e the technical content and how well its done.
For example there could be directives that skates who are doing overwhelming less difficult program should perhaps get some docked on the P/E score. One could say Lepisto doubling all those jumps was not good technical performance and clearly was having execution issues in 2010. Why not hit her there? And also hit those who go out there and fall all over the place.
P/E could be used to reward those who shockingly enough provide the most balanced programs in terms of difficulty, execution, and artistic value. How crazy would that be??
And as for impossible to find a skater who gives everything cleanish programs, good spins, steps and jumps, quads. Well Ten provided us this. He wasn't perfect it wasn't the most beautiful performance I had ever seen. But it was a great all around skate. That's enough for me.
-The problem with Ziggy's approach, that for some reason all elements, or the failures thereof, should be qualitatively equivalent, notwithstanding quantitative differences in scoring values (I must confess that the justifying principle, or fundamental ground, for this escapes me) is that it leads exactly to the kind of reductio ad absurdum result that is Chan's victory. It doesn't pass the sniff-tests of both common sense and intuition for the vast majority of observers, it seems to me.
I repeat the principle that seems sensible, coherent, and self-consistent to me: technical elements do not have an impact on the performance aspects of a skate, except in the cases where the technical element either heightens or detracts from the arc, design, structure, or mood of the program. In my view, the clear fall is the most obvious example of a technical phenomenon that plays double duty as a performance consideration.
-The problem with your approach excusing some transgressions (eg Caro's SP fall) while not excusing others (eg Patricks errors) is that the potential for arbitrariness in judgment is high. As I'm sure you know, one fall in the SP is roughly equivalent to two falls in the LP. So, should an LP performance with two falls result in no penalty to PCS, while 3 falls trigger a repercussion? On what basis of principle? That two falls did not disrupt the arc and flow of the program enough, while a higher number would? Again, on what basis?
-I would argue that it should be recognized that any obvious fall, must logically and necessarily be seen as having created a disruption, and therefore PCS ought to be impacted. There is, in other words, no such thing as a clear fall that has no performance impact; the idea itself is clearly absurd. Scoring should therefore reflect this truth. Further, to minimize arbitrariness, I suggest that the corrective that ought to be considered is to penalize clear falls equally, across the board.
If there is more than one fall, the penalty does not have to increase in simple linear fashion. One could argue that each incremental fall or program-disrupting mistake causes relatively greater damage than the previous one, for example, and set the guidelines accordingly. The key points are the conceptual recognition of the damage that the fall(s) create in terms of performance quality, and to institute a scoring adjustment that makes at least a good-faith effort at limiting arbitrary judgment.
It's possible that there is scope for nuance, eg if the skater does not make the effort to recover as quickly as possible, and/or allows the effects of the fall to linger after the program continues, then further penalties can be prescribed.
No wonder the sport is dying. Forget about attracting new fans to the sport. Who would watch a sport that produces results such as the one in the Men's LP tonight.