6.0 is really flawed. People just tend to be forgetful the problems under 6.0.
I have a problem with people saying that 6.0 was at fault. What gkelly stated is what I see as the main problem. If you want professional judging, you have to pay them a professional wage. Judges that are not financially independent of their respective Federations, and in fact, not paid much at all, will have an easier time justifying to themselves: Bribes, bloc judging, not judging critically, etc.
Originally Posted by gkelly
It may be the case (and I suspect it is): Most judges are professional and honest in their marks most of the time. However, independent, well paid judges will be MUCH harder to coerce and corrupt (on the whole). Look at the US professional sports, or soccer for your example.
Again, 6.0 was NOT the major problem. Judges were and still are the problem.
i do feel that IJS is much more fair than 6.0, but it's majorly flawed. i'm a fan of the breakdown of each element of the program being judged separately along with the different PCS categories. but with any scoring system, the judges WILL find a way to hold up their favorites and hold down others. i really don't think that we'll able to fully escape that. we tend to see judges hold up skaters with PCS, so i think that should be a big focus. with that being said though, i do agree with others that falls and errors on landings should be penalized more, such as taking two points off rather than one for a fall on top of the -3 GOE's which should always be mandatory. say if a skater puts a hand down on a landing or has a VERY sloppy one such as a turn out or step out, it should be a mandatory -2 only. i don't see the need or reason for a -3, because in my eyes that's like saying the skater didn't even do the jump. or like they fell. if the skater has a small error on a jump then -1, if it's landed but just average then 0 (as it's always been) and depending on how many good qualities are in the skater's jumps, +1, +2, +3 with +3 being better than textbook. and i mean BIG height, great technique on the takeoff and landing (no caroline free leg) and lots of speed going in and coming out, along with a beautiful air position and landing position. with PCS though, maybe -3 to +3 GOE's on each category would be smart. it would be based on the skaters level, such as 0 being average for that level, like how you would expect the average skater to perform at, let's say, juvenile. if they skate more maturely than other girls at their level etc and excel in certain PCS categories, then reward them with positive GOE's. i think it would be harder to hold up skaters that way.
It is not the system but the quality and culture of judging need to improve, held accountable with bunch of visual aids and replay to aid the judges to improve decision making, and home viewers to understand the criteria and the sport better.
The sport need to adapt more update to date technology for accuracy and measurable accountability. It could even include things like visual graphic aids to help the home viewers to understand the complexity of the program as the skaters skate. 100% human judging is really outdated, this is a sport, not an art competition. Especially considering the sport has evolved with more complex rules and edging on the brink of human possibilities. How big high high is a jump i want to know. How fast is fast, is it a visual trick, a propaganda campaign, or an actual measurement of the performance on the day, are all skater's performance being equal from early to the season to the next etc. How they compare to the rest of the field?
I have no interest in a return to 6.0 or the awful programs produced under this system in the years leading up to the SLC scandal. The basic skating is so much better under the new system. Skaters are now doing proper spins again, and footwork is no longer a lost art. It had reached a point where no one did anything well, except jump.
No returning to the 6.0 system for me neither. I LOVE being able to scrutinize the protocols after the programs are over and see how the scoring went for each elements for all the skaters, and LOVE to be able to argue about those small nitbit stuff like whether the GOEs and PCSs are fan-acceptable or not. I LOVE that we are given the details. You couldn't do that with the old system.
However, I do totally feel that the IJS is still in its developing stage, and has alot to be worked on.
One of them is the balance between TES and PCS within the total segment score. It's a flawed system when a technically marred program wins on the basis of a high PCS.
What I would do is to revise the factors currently given to the PCS so that TES will have a greater weight.
For example, in the men's free, the factoring of the PCS is currently 2.00. I'd lower that to something like 1.70. Even better, I'd factor each component differently, with SS, TR and CH which normally wouldn't be THAT different from one competition to another factored at around 1.50, and PE and IN which SHOULD differ according to the execution on that particular night factored at around 1.70.
And of course, I'm all for finding a better way to either penalize falls or rewarding a clean program.
But all in all, I'd keep the IJS and try to make it work better instead of returning to the 6.0 system.
I totally agree with you. Something needs to be done. I'm not sure if going back to 6.0 system is the solution, but one thing is sure: the ISU judging system needs adjustment. Anyway, journalists, bloggers, people involved in figure skating are already writing on the subject. (Jackie Wong, Sonia Bianchetti, Monica Friedlander...). (Unfortunately, I'm not sure I can give links to those article, without being banned , but I can copy/paste something from my blog. The Men's final in London was frustrating, as it was the same event last year in Nice *everyone in the arena started hissing...
Originally Posted by zschultz1986
Here are my thoughts on the topic.
What about the audience, Mr. Cinquanta?
Picture this: skaters performing their programs – beautiful, intricate programs – in an empty arena. No one’s cheering, no one’s clapping. No one’s there. Seems like an impossible scenario? Trust me, it isn’t. The public doesn’t understand the scoring system; and, sooner or later, full of questions and frustrations, might leave the ice rinks for good. As many examples have shown, the scores seems to be going in a different direction than the choice of the audience – and this could very well be the end of figure skating as we know it. Simply put, the audience doesn’t connect anymore with the ubiquitous line: „Ladies and gentlemen, these are your medalists”. Frankly, in many cases, they’re not. The scoring system is faulty – and something needs to be done in order to address that.
Where we stand now: along with hockey competition and opening/closing ceremonies, figure skating events are the most expensive when it comes to the Olympics. Tickets cost an arm and a leg – somewhere between 495 and 627 euro for men’s free program next year in Sochi (depends on who’s selling: Sochi Organizing Committee or a specific Authorized Ticket Reseller). But, really, will the public continue to spend huge amounts of money on the tickets, getting in return bitter and incomprehensible scoring experiences? The lesson to learn is that: ladies and gentlemen, figure skating officials, don’t take the audience for granted; you might be wrong.
The scores don’t seem to represent what we’ve just seen on the ice
Let’s begin with a sure thing: with the new scoring system (adopted by ISU in 2004, in response to the 2002 Olympic Winter Games figure skating scandal, involving the pairs’ event), figure skating became a very complicated sport. Even long-time watchers are having difficulties in understanding the scores received by a specific skater. In theory, the algorithm is known: we have the technical marks, on one hand, and the program components, on the other hand. Each technical element receives a number of points; and the components are, also, divided in categories: skating skills, transitions, performance/execution, choreography, interpretation. We know the rules; but when it comes to summing them up, the scores don’t seem to represent what we’ve just seen on the ice. In many cases, there’s a huge gap between the judges and the public when comes to the final result. And when this happens, there are many surprised and inquiring faces in the arena; and it might also be a lot of hissing. Is this the right direction in figure skating?
Patrick Chan at the Worlds 2012: a controversial win
Case study: World Figure Skating Championships in Nice, last year. In the men’s event, the audience felt that the Japanese skater Daisuke Takahashi was the winner of the evening. In the free skate, Mr. Takahashi pulled out a fantastic program, both technically and artistically; a program beautifully choreographed by Pasquale Camerlengo on „Blues for Klook”, suiting Daisuke like a glove. It poured with flowers on the Japanese; the audience was happy and enthusiastic, and so was Mr. Takahashi.
Then the Canadian Patrick Chan took the ice – Mr. Chan, considered (for some years now) the wonder-boy of figure skating, given the rich content of his programs and his team’s ability to build for him programs which take 100% advantage of the new judging system. But, surprisingly, Mr. Chan was less convincing; he pulled out a very difficult program, but seemed to be in a rush, managing to fall in the middle of his exercise, while attempting a double Axel. At the end, he didn’t seem to be the winner. The audience – an international audience, to be clear – saw Patrick Chan as a silver candidate. But, given his scores, Mr. Chan was given the gold. And the arena started to hiss; and people continued to do that even during the medals’ ceremony, when the judges’ representative came to congratulate the medalists. Chan stated later he hadn’t heard the hissing, he hadn’t felt the disappointment of the public.
It is as if figure skating became a closed affair, between the skaters and the judges
Just a few days ago, in London (Canada), Patrick won his third World title after another not-so-convincing performance. Favorite of the home crowd, Patrick only needed to do his exercise in order to win the event; he was first and far ahead the other skaters after the short program. Instead, the Canadian fell on his Triple Axel and Triple Lutz, had a hand down on his Triple Salchow in combination and doubled another Lutz. „I was tired”, said Patrick to his coach, while waiting for the scores. And when these came – and Mr. Chan took the lead over the Spanish Javier Fernandez – it was another victory of the scoring system over the figure skating’ admirers and long-time watchers.
As one of my friends has put it (a huge figure skating fan), it is as if this particular judging system is anti-audience. It really doesn’t reflect people’s taste and choices. So, here’s the question: when did the public lose his powers when it came to figure skating? After all, those marks given for presentation – in the old 6.0 system – seemed to have very well reflected the general impression of the watchers. The answer can’t be but this one: the gap between judges and the public started (and continued to grow) with this new ISU judging system.
Introduced in order to eliminate the potential subjectivity of the judges – they have been, during the years, under intense scrutiny, accused in some cases of making deals, in order to favor one or the other – this new scoring system managed to make the audience completely disappear. It is as if figure skating became a closed affair, between the skaters and the judges; nothing less, nothing more. Now it’s not about the final impression of the program, about the best performance of the night in terms of jumps, art, emotion; it’s about adding 3.21 points from there, another 5.59 from there, 4.73 from there, 7.38 from there... Minus 2 points – and here’s your champion, ladies and gentlemen. Is this the right thing to do? We got rid of the old system – because, they say, it was subjective and vulnerable to abuse – and we have a new one, devoid of emotion; devoid of the audience’ voice.
And here’s another annoying detail. Whenever someone asks: “What is it about those scores? I don’t get them”, there’s always an answer like: “You should study the scoring system before asking your question; you clearly don’t understand it (it – the system)”. This is obviously true: bud when did a sport become mathematics? What about the joy of watching figure skating and sharing the emotion? Where did all these things go?
The system creates the impression that certain skaters are unbeatable
And here’s another problem of this judging system: it creates statues, deities, aliens. It creates the impression that certain skaters, certain couples are unbeatable. Over the season, their scores get higher and higher, becoming Himalaya’s of the figure skating. This is, of course, the case of the same Patrick Chan. But this also applies to the American ice-dance couple Meryl Davis and Charlie White: the gap between them and the Canadians Tessa Virtue and Scott Moir seemed impossible to close during this entire season, in spite of the Canadians’ efforts. Take, for example, the ice dance final at the Worlds in London: the audience – a Canadian audience this time – felt that Virtue and Moir did everything in order to keep their World title; according to the scores, they didn’t.
On the other hand, according to the same system, both couples – the Americans and the Canadians – seem to be at a distance of ages from the other competitors. In the eyes of the audience and former skaters, the French Nathalie Pechalat and Fabian Bourzat had a wonderful free program last season, on an Egyptian theme. But, in spite of their strong skate over the season, they remained well behind the couples from Canada and USA. As they remained behind the other Canadians, Kaitlyn Weaver and Andrew Poje, considered by some to have presented in Nice, last year, the highlight of the free dance’ event – an emotional program on „Je suis malade”.
This Deities-Rule applies also to the Russian Tatiana Volosozhar&Maxim Trankov, skating in the pairs’ event. Second in the World Championships last year, Tatiana and Maxim became better and better this season; and, during the Grand-Prix events, the distance between them and the others, when it came to scores, was tremendous. And the scores were huge in spite of the errors which have really torn their programs apart: at the Grand-Prix Final in Sochi, Maxim fell while preparing to throw Tatiana in the air, for their triple Salchow, and she almost fell too – they needed 17 seconds to get back in the program, as Jackie Wong (Figure Skating Examiner) pointed out. That long and ugly break affected their performance – but you wouldn’t see that in their scores: they’ve won the final over their teammates Vera Bazarova and Yuri Larionov.
Why should we watch figure skating if (the impression is) the dices are already thrown?
If you ask me, this is bad for the audience. But it’s definitely bad for the skaters; especially for the younger ones. Here’s an example from the Worlds in London (Canada): after an amazing performance coming from Denis Ten, in the men’s final, the boy from Kazakhstan burst with enthusiasm in front of his coach Frank Carroll, when seeing the scores: „Wow! I almost beat Patrick!” If you ask me, he should have been happy for (almost) taking the gold, not for (almost) beating the Canadian... But Patrick, as previously stated, is regarded as a God in figure skating, given the scores he receives. And every other skater wants to defeat Patrick, makes a purpose out of defeating Patrick. (The Spanish Javier Fernandez managed to claim the gold at Skate Canada, defeating Patrick Chan, mostly because his coach had him jump three quadruples in his free program – a strategy to win over Chan). You may say competition is good, that competition brings the best in a skater, but this is not OK; this is not at all OK. With this kind of attitude as regards him, all that Patrick has to do at the Olympics next year is to show up. The gold will come easily. He could fall twice and still win. But what does this mean for the state of mind of everyone else involved in figure skating? For everyone else watching figure skating? Why should we watch it – or, even better, why should we attend the Olympics, at the expense of our pockets – if the dices are already thrown?
I miss simplicity in figure skating
When I was a child, scoring figure skating was easy. I had a parallel system, invented by me and used in order to get feedback from everyone in the family who was watching the programs. I had a point (●) for „bad” or „so, so”, a circle for „good” (o) and a circle crossed by a line for „very good” (ø). After a skater had finished his/her performance, I would ask mom and dad to state their vote; I was doing the same. My figure skating’ notebooks – and a have a lot of them; I’ve been watching figure skating since I was 7 – are full of these graphic signs. In most of the times, we would pick the right guy/girl/couple. In other words, there was a correspondence between our scores and the official ones. These were simple, good times. Could we, please, get back to that? I miss simplicity in figure skating.
Proper spins? Like a sit spin with a broken leg and a torso twisted to the sky? A layback that turns into some nasty *** catch-foot asap? A Camel spin where the carriage is lifted up, and the leg forms a proper arabesque position? Where's the purity of position? What you have under IJS is a bunch of mutant spins, IMO. Where's the scratch spins? (not an abbreviated one, but a full, proper scratch: Lambiel, Ruh, Sasha.)
Originally Posted by Dragonlady
I keep coming back to: SPIRALS. Why isn't this talked about more? The Spiral was the signature of ladies figure skating, and yet, it isn't a required element anymore in the short and we barely see one in the long! I would say a proper controlled CoE spiral without any disgusting catchfoot or fan positions shows amazing edge quality and skating skills.
Footwork was coming back pre-IJS. Yagudin was the main one we can point to that revived "footwork".
I get that IJS is better in the sense that it quantifies stuff more. However, the programs are NOT better. The amount of crap in an IJS program leaves very little freedom and individuality.
Jump, transition, Jump, transition, spin, spin, footwork, break, Jump, transition, Jump, transition, Jump, Jump, footwork, spin. It doesn't even depend on the music.
Go take a look at an IJS program, its gonna follow this pattern. Some may back load more, some may place the two spin combo at the end, but this is the basic framework for an IJS program.
I get what you're saying... but this is all I see under IJS. Under 6.0 is was about the program, the connection that all the elements made in a seamless program. The sense that it wasn't just a string of individual elements, but a complete package.
I may just be disillusioned.
Here's what my argument boils down to: Just because something is more complex, doesn't mean it's better. In the universe, simple systems are layered upon each other to create something complex and beautiful. IJS is just complex individual skills for the sake of complexity, without regards for the aesthetic or emotional impact or the finished product. Please name for me one or two programs in the recent quadrennium (singles) you watch over and over again.
That's simple. Why do you just ask for one or two? I could give you more.
Originally Posted by zschultz1986
Here are some just on top of my head:
Jeremy Abbott's 2010 Nationals LP: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPS7J9wyaFg
Jeffrey Buttle's 2008 World LP: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypNSQb9heLA
Patrick Chan's 2011 Nationals LP: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E49QK_Fto5M
Patrick Chan's 2013 World SP: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ml7xaViW9M
Those are just a few examples which have gotten big scores. There are many others which did not get high CoP scores or did not skate perfectly, but equally wonderful to watch! Such as:
Jeremy Abbott's 2011 SP and LP. Patrick Chan's 2012 LP...
Well, I asked for this quad on purpose, because if you went back to last Quad, of course, you could name Buttle (and for me, Lambiel) who wouldn't!? However, Buttle was doing all that stuff BEFORE IJS. Abbott is an artist at heart, and you can see that on the ice. I just, Chan is ruined for me by the judges. Honestly, I just can't watch anything he does not without being Chan-gered by Chan-flation.
Originally Posted by Bluebonnet
Honestly, I just think that the "great" programs of IJS couldn't hold the Jock of the great programs of 6.0, but 6.0 has had 100 years of programs.
I loved some of old 6.0 programs before. I still do for some of them, like Alexei Yagudin's Winter. But in recent years, I've been dragged into, or "ruined" by IJS. I've grown bigger appetite. Some of the old slow motions in 6.0 programs are tiresome to me now. Example, Johnny Weir's 2005 National's LP.
So maybe choose one 4-year period under 6.0 for comparison with one 4-year period under IJS.
Originally Posted by zschultz1986
I love me some Johnny Weir, but his programs do not age well, except for his 2005 and 2006 SPs. I thought those were among the best shorts for a man I've ever seen. I LOVE Johnny's Rondo.
Originally Posted by Bluebonnet