Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 77

Thread: It's Time For 6.0 To Return

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    342

    It's Time For 6.0 To Return

    Someone tried to defend the IJS on another site by giving the explanation that 1.) Gold would never have been able to be as high at US Nationals as she was under 6.0, having bombed the long, and 2.) 6.0 was too easy to manipulate: I thought it might be an interesting discussion here..

    Well, lets judge 2013 US Champs under 6.0 (using the placement results)

    Wagner SP:1 LP:2 TFP:2.5
    Gold SP:9 LP:1 TFP:5.5
    Agnes SP:2 LP:7 TFP:8
    Hicks SP:4 LP:3 TFP:5
    Gao SP:5 LP:4 TFP:6.5
    Siraj SP:6 LP:5 TFP:8

    So the results from 2013 US Ladies in 6.0:
    1. Wagner
    2. Hicks
    3. Gold
    4. Gao
    5. Agnes
    6. Siraj

    So, she actually COULD have gotten on the podium from 9th because the free was a hot mess.

    Also, your point about 6.0 being easy to manipulate, there for IJS is better, is the wrong point of view. BECAUSE 6.0 was easy to understand, the manipulation of scores was much easier to see by the casual fan/everyone, and judges could more easily be called out on their shenanigans.

    The complexity of IJS lends itself to judge manipulation MUCH more, because:

    A) The judges have many more places to add and subtract points to get the results they want and
    B) when all is said and done, they can throw their points system under the bus to deflect from the "cheating" pressure, by saying that "how could they cheat, the code is too complex to actually cheat" when they know that system backward and forwards and KNOW how to manipulate it to get the desired result.

    You're trying to defend IJS is missing the point. 6.0 wasn't the problem. The problem was and still is corrupt judging. Instead of hitting the cancer (judges), the ISU just treated the symptoms (6.0) and never really solved the actual problem. It's really a case of "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me." THE JUDGES ARE THE PROBLEM. Under 6.0, Chan wouldn't have won, by virtue of losing the free to Ten who was just behind him in the SP. If Chan had won in under 6.0, everyone could have seen the blatant cheating and there would have been a MUCH bigger outcry than the already large outcry we see now.

    It is time to pronounce judgment in IJS: It is a wholly FAILED experiment. Not only has it driven people away from the sport with numbers that don't mean much of anything to anyone besides diehards and those in the figure skating community, but the complexity that was supposed to help make judging skating "fairer" has done nothing of the sort. It really has helped out only one of the disciplines: Dance. Which was the main culprit of the cheating in the first place (Pairs being a close second).

    Figure Skaters, Fans, Bloggers, and everyone else who cares about this sport needs to stand up now, and demand their federations put pressure on the ISU to put 6.0 back, and come up with REAL reforms for judges! IJS has GOT TO GO! I JUST WANT MY FAVORITE SPORT BACK!

  2. #2
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,857
    It has done more than "help out" Dance--it has completely transformed it. I stopped watching Dance for several years because it was boring and predictable. We just had a Worlds which was a true nail-biter up to the last program.

    And frankly, people have short memories. 6.0 generally received as much criticism when it was being used as IJS is now.

    The grass is always greener (and the ice is so much smoother) when you are looking at it from a distance.

  3. #3
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    342
    Yes, well, that's 1 out of 4 disciplines. In Pairs, it has actually destroyed what little artistic integrity was left, with the catch foot death spirals and lifts that look and are UGLY. In Men and Ladies, it has forced everyone to do the same broken leg sit spin (the NEW BIELMANN) and given us some truly atrocious catchfoot positions. It destroyed the Spiral, which had become the SIGNATURE ladies position (at least for American fans). It has taken a sport that actually had innovation and artistry turned it into a factory of cookie-cutter routines.

    Kim Yu-Na put forth a lackluster artistic effort, and honestly, didn't need to considering that it wasn't anything different from her other programs. I love her and think shes and AMAZING skater.... but there's no growth. She definitely deserved to win, but don't tell me that you LOVED the program (the PROGRAM not the jumps.) Also, I'm sorry, but Patrick Chan is just a product of a terribly bad Code of Points. A robot who thinks transitions and edge quality are a proper substitute for a heart and soul full of music and artistry. It's not his fault, he's just playing the game the ISU has put forth.

  4. #4
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3,580
    Quote Originally Posted by zschultz1986 View Post
    Yes, well, that's 1 out of 4 disciplines. In Pairs, it has actually destroyed what little artistic integrity was left, with the catch foot death spirals and lifts that look and are UGLY. In Men and Ladies, it has forced everyone to do the same broken leg sit spin (the NEW BIELMANN) and given us some truly atrocious catchfoot positions. It destroyed the Spiral, which had become the SIGNATURE ladies position (at least for American fans). It has taken a sport that actually had innovation and artistry turned it into a factory of cookie-cutter routines.

    Kim Yu-Na put forth a lackluster artistic effort, and honestly, didn't need to considering that it wasn't anything different from her other programs. I love her and think shes and AMAZING skater.... but there's no growth. She definitely deserved to win, but don't tell me that you LOVED the program (the PROGRAM not the jumps.) Also, I'm sorry, but Patrick Chan is just a product of a terribly bad Code of Points. A robot who thinks transitions and edge quality are a proper substitute for a heart and soul full of music and artistry. It's not his fault, he's just playing the game the ISU has put forth.
    I find Chan very musical, and I like his understated style. I really do miss the spiral sequence though. It was my favorite ladies move and particularly the COE spiral shows good edge control so it seems like a good element to keep IMO.

  5. #5
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    342
    Yes, Chan-bot is very good at simulating what actual emotional expression would look like out on the ice. It's not musical, though, its just supposed to look like it.

    I made this analogy somewhere else. Chan is like a picture of the Mona Lisa on your computer. A 2-dimensional replication of an amazing work of art.

  6. #6
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,857
    I think a huge part of the problem is that for the almost the entire history of figure skating as a competitive sport, the single worst thing that could happen to a skater was a fall. Fall once in the short during the Olympics, and kiss your medal chances goodbye. And the FSU is dreaming (or needs their meds adjusted) if they think they are going to be able to reverse that psychology in another century's time, no matter if the landing is only ONE part of a jump. Then again, as David Lease and Jennifer Kirk point out on their recap of the Men's event, the judging emphasis on jumps is arbitrary: why this emphasis on rotations and take-off edges and not leg wraps? Or tilts in the air?

    Skating is not going back to 6.0. It simply is not. Obviously the system is, to put it bluntly, screwed up. I think the REAL problem is that the Powers That Be seem to be constitutionally incapable of recognizing that there IS a problem. Address that problem first, because NOTHING is going to change until that is changed.

  7. #7
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    342
    Quote Originally Posted by WeakAnkles View Post
    I think a huge part of the problem is that for the almost the entire history of figure skating as a competitive sport, the single worst thing that could happen to a skater was a fall. Fall once in the short during the Olympics, and kiss your medal chances goodbye. And the FSU is dreaming (or needs their meds adjusted) if they think they are going to be able to reverse that psychology in another century's time, no matter if the landing is only ONE part of a jump. Then again, as David Lease and Jennifer Kirk point out on their recap of the Men's event, the judging emphasis on jumps is arbitrary: why this emphasis on rotations and take-off edges and not leg wraps? Or tilts in the air?

    Skating is not going back to 6.0. It simply is not. Obviously the system is, to put it bluntly, screwed up. I think the REAL problem is that the Powers That Be seem to be constitutionally incapable of recognizing that there IS a problem. Address that problem first, because NOTHING is going to change until that is changed.
    I agree, but that was what GOE was supposed to address. Instead GOE is just another tool to lessen the blow of falls and prop up scores to save people. Go back and look at the results. http://www.isuresults.com/results/wc..._FS_Scores.pdf In Chan's scores, judges 4 and 5 are OBVIOUSLY in collusion for Patrick... I bet ANY money Judge 5 is a Canadian or someone who is Skate Canada-adjacent. It's completely blatant, if you look under the TES and PCS numbers, but who does that!? (I do, and I know Tony Wheeler does, but I know I'm in a minority.) I understand 6.0 isn't coming back, but this system we have now is WORSE than 6.0. The cheating in 6.0 was COMPLETELY blatant because there were TWO marks. Tech and Presentation. Under IJS there are MULTIPLE (18) opportunities for a judge to cheat just SLIGHTLY but end up changing the result a whole lot by the end, and it doesn't look like they cheated a whole lot because they only pushed the level a little bit on all the marks.

    Don't even get me started on the Tech Caller. The amount of power that he/she has is CRAZY. Where as the power in 6.0 was split between all the Judges.... the Tech Caller has A CRAZY % of the power. If they want to cheat, all they have to do is.... a downgrade here, a lower level spin here, a phantom edge call here... the opportunity to cheat there is just... mind-blowing.

  8. #8
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,618
    Quote Originally Posted by WeakAnkles View Post
    It has done more than "help out" Dance--it has completely transformed it. I stopped watching Dance for several years because it was boring and predictable. We just had a Worlds which was a true nail-biter up to the last program.

    And frankly, people have short memories. 6.0 generally received as much criticism when it was being used as IJS is now.

    The grass is always greener (and the ice is so much smoother) when you are looking at it from a distance.
    In many ways, I agree with this (although I also like what MM said in another thread about the way 6.0 juding wasn't about the numbers but the relative placements, and where the judges thought people should be in an order...). I think each system encourages certain kinds of programs - in 6.0 and emphasis seemed to be placed on clean - with less attention than now to take off edges if it was landed, or full rotations; and with less emphasis on complexity of steps and transitions. I like the attention to those details now, but this system seems to encourage each in ways that throw 'clean' out of the window. And from reading numerous discussions over the years on this system, I can't figure out how to get clean and accurate edge and full rotation and complexity...

  9. #9
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,825
    I think there are several different "problems" and the solutions to each may be contradictory. There's no system that is going to address everything equally well.

    So can consensus be reached on areas that all or almost all would agree are non-negotiable (e.g., define what would constitute corrupt judging and build in safeguards to prevent it, identify it, and punish it when caught)?

    For aspects where differences of opinion are inherent in the nature of the activity, can tradeoffs be negotiated to come up with rules that will favor athleticism AND artistry AND technical mastery, both quality AND difficulty/risk?

  10. #10
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3,580
    I don't agree. Even if the judges manipulate the scoring as before, at least there is a better attempt to quantify what the skaters are doing out there. I never understood how a judge could mark a program 5.9 in technical merit when the skater had a fall. What would the mark be if the fall was instead a two-foot? Or perfectly clean?

    What I do agree with is that the ISU has developed questionable solutions to the problems. Somehow anonymous judging is suppose to improve credibility? Or if we just say all the judges represent the ISU and not their individual countries there will be no national bias? Also, I think reincorporating ordinals may help a bit, because at least the winner will have to beat his/her closest competitors in the long to win the event. One of the problems is that people see the imperfect LPs and don't realize a skater built up an insurmountable lead in the SP.

  11. #11
    On the Ice
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by zschultz1986 View Post
    Someone tried to defend the IJS on another site by giving the explanation that 1.) Gold would never have been able to be as high at US Nationals as she was under 6.0, having bombed the long, and 2.) 6.0 was too easy to manipulate: I thought it might be an interesting discussion here..

    Well, lets judge 2013 US Champs under 6.0 (using the placement results)

    Wagner SP:1 LP:2 TFP:2.5
    Gold SP:9 LP:1 TFP:5.5
    Agnes SP:2 LP:7 TFP:8
    Hicks SP:4 LP:3 TFP:5
    Gao SP:5 LP:4 TFP:6.5
    Siraj SP:6 LP:5 TFP:8

    So the results from 2013 US Ladies in 6.0:
    1. Wagner
    2. Hicks
    3. Gold
    4. Gao
    5. Agnes
    6. Siraj

    So, she actually COULD have gotten on the podium from 9th because the free was a hot mess.
    It is not actually how the results would be under 6.0. It is an example of judging under the IJS and applying the factors to the placements (the way it used to be under6.0). If it were really judged under 6.0 the placements after SP/LP could be very different

  12. #12
    Rinkside
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    8
    Reading this and other threads (also in other discussion boards) I came to the conclusion that figure skating judges pretty much rank between Nazis and Terrorists. So I am asking myself what makes people want to become a judge - do they choose the ice rink because they can not actually kill someone and especially not when there is a chance someone could find out it was them? Are they former low-level skaters who simply want to take revenge for all the bad marks they once got? Are they actually people hating the sport of figure skating and therefore spend their weekends and holidays in ice rinks to really tell and show the world how much they dislike skaters? Are they being paid tons of money by various federations/coaches/skating mums to support/destroy skaters? Is there no way to control and/or punish them? And break this criminal network acting behind the scenes?

  13. #13
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    342
    Quote Originally Posted by SugarCranberry View Post
    It is not actually how the results would be under 6.0. It is an example of judging under the IJS and applying the factors to the placements (the way it used to be under6.0). If it were really judged under 6.0 the placements after SP/LP could be very different
    I understand that, it wasn't the point to judge it as though it was a 6.0 comp. I was simply showing that using the placement ordinals system, that moving up from 9th to medal position IS possible under 6.0. Movement IS possible, that it was NOT the fault of the system that people didn't move up and down in the system as dramatically at some do under CoP, but that the fault was on the judges for not being brave enough to go with a superior performance from the penultimate flight of skaters in the LP and give them the marks that they deserve.

    Though, I think that using an Ordinal System on top of IJS may be the pest way to proceed... though I dislike what it means: More math, which may mean less clarity of marks, which means a much greater chance of cheating.

    Again, 6.0 may have been flawed, but this is where I agree with Christine Brennan and many others. 6.0 WAS the marketing stategy. Everyone knows what a 6.0 was. (Just like everyone knew what a 10 was in gymnastic) The fact that they took that away and replaced it with a system that, is really NOT user friendly or viewer friendly, UNLESS you follow skating. Remember, there are two rules that a judging system should follow, and this one fails on both marks:

    1. Clarity (Recognizability, Transparency, etc.)
    2. Consistency (People are marked using the same standard, fairness, etc.)

    IJS is fails both criteria.

  14. #14
    Custom Title heyang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    3,197
    I agree that there has to be a higher penalty for falls. As much as some people want to count only jumps, messing up too many for the sake of points and still winning doesn't help figure skating.

    What I have appreciated about COP is that it brought back transitions and edges, etc and sometimes more balanced choreography vs jumps with minimum betweens. However, it's also caused programs to become overloaded with these same factors to the detriment of the overall beauty of the program - the skaters are too busy counting revolutions and seconds of a position to truly perform the heart of the performance.

    There's gotta be a balance somewhere.

    At 1st I was thinking that the points could be used to create the ordinals. The points could provide some accountability by the judges (if they provided transparency.) Then, the ordinals would determine the overall winner as in 6.0.

    I also think that the broadcasts should post the maximum technical points a skater can earn. It's not as though their choreography isn't known ahead of time. In gymnastics, they post the max score on certain apparatus so you can see how well the gymnast performed the jump and understand how one move is worth more than others. At a minimum, the commentating team should be doing this, especially when you consider that tape delayed broadcasts would give them plenty of time to review the judges scores etc.

  15. #15
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    143
    IMO no way!! I competed under 6.0 obviously not worlds or anything...I wish but at the senior level and really COP when used properly is so much better, you get an actual score which you can improve on from comp to comp and under 6.0 it was all about placement really, and for skaters who werent top skaters it wasnt much fun, at least now they can say well I was tenth but I got a new pb and this time all my spins got the levels I was looking for instead of seeing a buch of 4.0 and 3.9 s
    And also whatever about ugly catchfoots (which I agree on) at least people actually hold their spins now, aside from glorious exceptions like Ruh and Krieg and a good few others spins under 6.0 could be pretty awful where people would hit positions for like 1 rotation then just come out of them and like it or not most programs were filled with crossovers.

    I do however agree that at the top level , as in the top skaters in the world, judges and their propping up has to stop. the use of goe is ridiculous, patrick and yuna incredible skaters as they are got some pretty ridiculous goe. Some judges gave yuna a +3 on her triple sal which is IMO a pretty average jump and also Caro K got some -2 on her combo in the short which was an outright fall
    COP has its (numerous) problems but 6.0 did too, as someone else said the grass is always greener on the other side

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •