It's Time For 6.0 To Return

[mskater93]

Spins weren't poor per se before, but there was less of a focus on them. The skaters who had the best presentation often picked their spins and positions to best fit the music and not concern themselves with whether they held it for 8 or whether the haircutter was a fist distance or less from the head, if they chose it. There are some very, very unattractive spin positions being attempted these days just for the sake of 1/2 a point or less (the bar stool/A frame spin is the first that pops in my mind, but some skaters' Bielman positions, some layover camels, the catch camel where it looks like the skater is attempting a quad stretch, pulling the knee in very tight to the the quad, and so on). Spins have become VERY cookie cutter in terms of the positions being chosen (camel with layover, change of edge, A frame, side layback, haircutter, Bielman, tuck behind sit, broken leg sit, cannonball position, twisted sit, donut, martini, Y position, I position, egg beater position, cross foot, cross behind spin) with several of these being repeated repeatedly as they are the easiest on the program energy level and many of them that shouldn't be attempted as skaters can't attain the position without it looking painful or to be a struggle, unattractive, or just not really fitting with the choreography but it "needs to be done to get the points". IMO, spins should have a BV around that of a L3 for each type of spin (CCoSp, CoSp, SSp, etc) as a base line as long as the minimum requirements are met for that type of spin (so, today's Level B), no features required, but judges should be HIGHLY encouraged (since you can't force them to do anything and they do what they want) to give +GOE based on the strength of basic positions, originality, speed, centering, revolutions beyond minimum, and choreographic fit of the spin and the +GOE should be worth double what it is now and -GOE should be encouraged to be given for spins that are unattractive, look like a struggle, don't center, just meet the minimum requirements, etc.

[gkelly]

1. Well, yes it does. Even if the judges had the courage to place a skater that was in the 2nd group after SP first in the free skate, that skater wouldn't be able to take gold if he was far behind in the short because the difference was counted in placement not in scores. Imagine a situation - lady X bombed in the SP and was 15th but skated 8 triple program in the long while all the other competitors fell at least 5 times but the order of all other skaters was the same. Lady X wouldn't even make it to podium because of ordinals.

Because of factored placements.
What you say is very true -- you just used the wrong word.

I agree with all your other points, with one other quibble:

5. Well yeah, this time I agree - I, personally, don't care about underrotations as long as they're not visible to the naked eye. However, figure skating as a sport should be trated like a sport, so these small mistakes should be taken into consideration while giving the mark and these mistakes were totally omitted then.

I wouldn't say that these mistakes were totally ignored under 6.0. But they were left up to each judge. Some judges were more sticklers for full rotation than others. Some had better eyesight than others. At any given event, some might have had a better angle to scrutinize the questionable jumps. And there was no way for judges to indicate within the scores what they did or didn't take off for.

[]quoteTo Blades of Passion - I think figure skating is far from being a top-spin competition so there's no need to worry about that. Jumps were and will always be the most important technical aspect.[/QUOTE]

Actually I think that's debatable as well. There's a case to be made that basic skating skills are the most important technical aspect. It is, after all, a skating competition, not a jumping competition. Probably some judges looked first at the skating skills and then at the jump content, and others prioritized the other way around.

But under the current system skating skills are scored under PCS, so in that sense, it is true that jumps make up the largest proportion of the technical score in long programs and in short programs at levels where triples are common, and also the largest proportion of the variability between performances.

[Cherryy]

Because of factored placements.
What you say is very true -- you just used the wrong word.

I agree with all your other points, with one other quibble:


I wouldn't say that these mistakes were totally ignored under 6.0. But they were left up to each judge. Some judges were more sticklers for full rotation than others. Some had better eyesight than others. At any given event, some might have had a better angle to scrutinize the questionable jumps. And there was no way for judges to indicate within the scores what they did or didn't take off for.


Actually I think that's debatable as well. There's a case to be made that basic skating skills are the most important technical aspect. It is, after all, a skating competition, not a jumping competition. Probably some judges looked first at the skating skills and then at the jump content, and others prioritized the other way around.

But under the current system skating skills are scored under PCS, so in that sense, it is true that jumps make up the largest proportion of the technical score in long programs and in short programs at levels where triples are common, and also the largest proportion of the variability between performances.

Thank you for the right word (I'm still learning english, forgive me any mistakes I make ). Yes, the factored placement as well as the jumps being the largest proportion of the technical score was what I meant.

As for UR's and wrong edges - they might have seen it but probably never gave less points because of it. I don't think judges were giving 5.7 instead of 5.8 for only a slightly wrong edge on the 3lutz-2toe, they probably gave 5.8 as they thought a slight change of edge is not worthy -0.1 deduction if the combo was well executed. I would have judged it the same way. Is it better that now we do care about these things? Some think it is, some think not, I generally agree with it.


mskater93 - I like this idea a lot .

[mskater93]

I am just tired of seeing ugly, struggling spins.

[Riemann]

I absolutely agree with the OP that one of the main problems is still bad and occasionally scandalous judging. While more complicated, it is not actually that difficult to play games when judging under the new system.

However, it seems to me that the OP's remedy of going back to 6.0 does nothing to solve the underlying problems. Bad judging is fixed by better training and stricter requirements. Corrupt judging requires changes that are more significant. Changing back to the old system wouldn't fix much and would probably make the problem of bad judging worse again.

It's true that there is no way Chan would have won under 6.0, but it is also true that there were lots of questionable (and some definitely fixed) outcomes under the old system as well.

[gkelly]

The main reason why Chan wouldn't have won under 6.0 was factored placements.

The one person who beat him in the long program had been right behind him in the short, and with factored placements as used under 6.0 the margin of victory from the short program did not carry over to the final results.

[Riemann]

The main reason why Chan wouldn't have won under 6.0 was factored placements.

The one person who beat him in the long program had been right behind him in the short, and with factored placements as used under 6.0 the margin of victory from the short program did not carry over to the final results.

Who are you addressing this to? I'm well aware of how it used to work.

[gkelly]

My point is that if judges judge each program on its own merits, under IJS a skater who deservedly wins the the short program by a large amount and deservedly loses the long program by a slightly smaller amount will win the competition. That's not bad judging -- that's the way the system works.

[Riemann]

My point is that if judges judge each program on its own merits, under IJS a skater who deservedly wins the the short program by a large amount and deservedly loses the long program by a slightly smaller amount will win the competition. That's not bad judging -- that's the way the system works.

Everyone who follows this sport knows that.

The controversy among skaters, former judges, and fans regarding the men's result has nothing to do with people being unaware that the scores of the two programs are combined. How insulting to dismiss complaints and concerns over bad judging in such a manner.

[gkelly]

So, given the performances in both programs, what numbers do you think better judging would have come up with for each program?

[jenaj]

Spins have NOT become better under CoP. They've become more "difficult". Difficult doesn't mean better.

Kwan, Cohen, Hughes, Slutsakaya...they all had very pleasing spins in 6.0 that went better with the music and choreography than most spins do these days.

A lot of the other skaters may not have been as good at those elements, but under CoP the less-attuned spinners attempt spins which are SO ungainly that it majorly detracts from programs. I'd rather see simple, short, "lackluster" spins over grotesque, disconnected, difficult spins.

I agree. The beautiful layback position that we used to see from Lynn, Hamill, Fleming, Cohen and others has been ruined by the need to get "levels," meaning pulling the leg up into a Biellmann. The various pretzel spins that gain points are ugly and let's not even talk about the butt spin. Spins are done just to get points and not because they go with the music or add to the program.

[zschultz1986]

My point is that if judges judge each program on its own merits, under IJS a skater who deservedly wins the the short program by a large amount and deservedly loses the long program by a slightly smaller amount will win the competition. That's not bad judging -- that's the way the system works.

Well, we're trying to argue two different things. 1. Bad Judging and 2. The Integrity of IJS.

1. Bad Judging happened under 6.0 AND is happening under IJS.

2. IJS was supposed to solve the judging by making things much less subjective, by quantification of elements and performance. However, IJS misses the mark. This sport is not 100% sport. It is also art and that art isn't really "quantifiable." Sure, you can have a "Presentation" mark in 6.0 or a "Performance/Execution" and "Choreography" mark in IJS... but really, that is a subjective mark. As is GOE, because some people value some aspects of technical elements and others value different aspects. You're not going to be able to completely quantify this sport. Sure, IJS tries to do it, but what it produces is many ways that judges can "tweak" to get their desired result and it isn't as transparent as 6.0. You may think it is, because it throws a lot of number at you... but it isn't, because 1) the judges are anonymous and 2) its still subjective! It hasn't solved anything AT ALL.

Which brings me to my conlcusion: Why was it changed at all? Because the ISU and Speedy wanted to make the bad PR (which was spearheaded by Canadian and American commentators blowing a gasket) go away, so they made this "prima facie" change, without actually solving any problems. Therefore, 6.0 should come back. (At least SOME version of factored placements. Because what Chan showed us is that if the judges hold you up high enough, you can win a competition in the Short. Which is ridiculous. He was NOT miles ahead of Ten in the Short to where two falls and two other mistakes and lackluster presentation in the long shouldn't matter and he certainly wasn't the second best in the free by any means. I'm sorry, Chan is NOT that far ahead of the field. The fact that he thinks he is because the judges keep "Chanflating" his scores, makes he sad for him. Under factored placements, this would never happen, because even if you win the short by miles, which Chan didn't do, you'd still have go out and, you know, actually perform and win instead of falling on your *** and still being able first against a skater who clearly was more consistent through both phases of the competition as well as outclassing him in the free by a LONG way.)

I absolutely agree with the OP that one of the main problems is still bad and occasionally scandalous judging. While more complicated, it is not actually that difficult to play games when judging under the new system.

However, it seems to me that the OP's remedy of going back to 6.0 does nothing to solve the underlying problems. Bad judging is fixed by better training and stricter requirements. Corrupt judging requires changes that are more significant. Changing back to the old system wouldn't fix much and would probably make the problem of bad judging worse again.

It's true that there is no way Chan would have won under 6.0, but it is also true that there were lots of questionable (and some definitely fixed) outcomes under the old system as well.

My point was not "6.0 is a remedy for what ails FS." It was "6.0 wasn't the problem, the problem was and is the judging, IJS has not really addressed the problem. 6.0 was the hallmark of FS for 100 years. IJS hasn't 'fixed' anything, because 6.0 WASN'T the problem. So why get rid of it in the first place when what replaced it is just as flawed and doesn't address the real need?"

[Mathman]

The controversy among skaters, former judges, and fans regarding the men's result has nothing to do with people being unaware that the scores of the two programs are combined. How insulting to dismiss [b\complaints and concerns over bad judging[/b] in such a manner.

I think what GKelly is pointing out is that the complaints and concerns are not over bad judging. Or at least, if they are, then those complaints are misdirected. The judges judged according to the rules and according to their best judgment for each segment of the contest separately.

It is not the judging, but the IJS itself that produces results like this.

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

The main reason why Chan wouldn't have won under 6.0 was factored placements.

The one person who beat him in the long program had been right behind him in the short, and with factored placements as used under 6.0 the margin of victory from the short program did not carry over to the final results.

Factored placements are still dependent on score and judges can still manipulate placements, if not more. Michelle Kwan did 7 triples in her '95 Worlds FS and still came 4th overall (placed 3rd in the FS under skaters who made mistakes).

IMO, Denis Ten, simply because he's not from a popular country, could have been pushed to 4th after the SP simply due to judges showing favouritism to Chan/Takahashi/Joubert. They could have given Ten 5.8 tech/5.3 artistry, Chan 5.9/5.9, ignored Takahashi's URs and gave him 5.7/5.8, given Joubert 5.7/5.4, even given Reynolds 5.8/5.4 for two quads. In the FS at this Worlds, a judge could have easily placed Ten (say, 5.5/5.5) behind Chan (5.1/5.9), in spite of Ten's clean skate.

Also, IJS has resulted in much better overall skating. We go back to 6.0 and we'll see:

- 3-3 combos in ladies and quads in men's disappear since you're not penalized for not including either in a program so why risk it
- spins go back to 2 basic positions for 6 rotations; edge changes and difficult positions will be removed; fewer Biellmanns
- back to basic footwork (forget seeing a rocker/counter/loop again)
- shorter spirals
- easier throws and SBS jumps in pairs; easier death spirals
- Hanyu would just go into a 3A with a regular entry since there's no benefit to doing a counter before it
- program transitions would be reduced considerably, as well as steps leading into jumps
- ice dance will become theatre on ice again with pre-determined standings with teams not moving unless they make glaring errors, not that it mattered for Grishuk/Platov winning gold

If you truly want your 6.0 system back, go watch old videos, because the sport needs to evolve and the CoP system is good for that. Standing and results aside, the skaters are much better than they were a decade ago. It might not be as watchable for casual viewers, but it's more accurate a system, and holds the judges more accountable. And it's there on paper exactly what each skater did and what they were deducted for or what they executed well, so it's good for the skaters' development too.

[mskater93]

Just because it's "there on paper what exactly each skater did and what they were deducted for" doesn't mean the judges got it right and that is the OP's premise - that judging is still suspect.