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:
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!
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.
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 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.
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.
Originally Posted by zschultz1986
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.
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.
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...
Originally Posted by WeakAnkles
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.
Originally Posted by WeakAnkles
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.
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?
Accountability is definitely a problem. Under 6.0, if a judge gave a wacky score to a skater the camera would show them and Scott H would make some snarky remark. Now you can't know who gave Chan +3 for a shaky jump and it's unfortunate.
Originally Posted by zschultz1986
What do you think they would get under the 6.0 system? I would give PC a 5.7, 5.7. I'd take off .3 for the falls, but wouldn't put him too much lower. He did do the two quads. Denis I would give 5.8 (.1 for one less quad and .1 for the double) and probably another 5.8 for the second mark. I could see some judges still putting Patrick ahead, still giving him a 5.9 for his wonderful edges or something.
I think the new scoring system is flawed, but I actually think it's a pretty easy fix. I think punishing falls much more than ur's and edge calls would be step one; skating purists may claim that it's better to fall than to flutz, but that thinking is death to a spectator sport. I also think that the skating skills category should be renamed (edging or something like that) and sent to the technical side, and the program components should reflect more the creativity and entertainment quality of the skate. Also, get rid of positive grades of execution. Either a jump is done perfectly and gets full credit or it doesn't. Period.
I am pretty sure Canada did not have a judge on the men's panel. USA either.
Originally Posted by zschultz1986
The full judges pool (SP and LP) for the event was Austria, Belarus, Bulgaria, Taipei, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Poland, Russia, Spain, and Turkey.
Also, transitions get doubly credited: In GoE and then in the transitions mark. IJS overvalues transitions to the point where they are a requirement, not just something that makes a good program better. It removes the novelty and the impact of transitions.
Originally Posted by Poodlepal
- * -
I think the programs are actually more interesting under IJS. Under 6.0 there were a lot of programs, especially in the men's competition, that featured the skater skating with their arms out awkwardly between jumps. Not all of the programs were like that, but a lot more than now. Even Kurt Browning's Casablanca didn't have as much of interest in it as a lot of the best IJS programs do.
That being said, I think IJS has to make falling in the program have a harsher penalty.