Does it need CPR?
No, It needs a heart transplant.
Does it need CPR?
No, It needs a heart transplant.
And Patrick Chan is not a skater who strong at only one side steadily, SP or FS. I thought both are not much consistency..
Thank you for explanation.I'm not saying she didn't deserve her victories. I can't recall 2007 GPF or the 2008 4CC, but I did watch 2009 SA, and she did deserve to win there, she wasn't in second by that much in the long, compared to a clean Rachael Flatt.
I think problems of Patrick Chan in 2013 world is not only a problem of the system, I thought judges had unfair judgement in many parts.
His fans sometimes claim to defence him, his victory was by only system, but I do not agree with it at all.
? I did not complain about your argument about rules, I'm not support IJS. I only said about kim.Also, I understand IJS is the system now... as I have stated repeatedly, people want to knock 6.0 for it's problems, when the problems were never the judging system itself, but the judges. Sure, IJS breaks down scores more, and if you know what you're looking at, there's more to understand the difference between skaters and why skaters got this score. However, what people don't understand is that 6.0 was never about scores, it was about placement. Someone could potentially win with a 5.2/5.5 performance, if those are the best scores given out. There's TONS more ways to be less obvious about shady judging in IJS than under 6.0. The reason results were more "discussed" under 6.0 is because the cheating was right there in your face, and you could spot it. (I.E. Bloc Judging) With the IJS, that is not the case. you have to go digging through the protocols to find correlations, and even then, the judging is anonymous, so you don't know which judge, from which country, gave what score.
The problems have NOT gotten better since 2002, I'm sorry to disappoint all of you IJS defenders. All it did was throw a veil of complexity over a corrupt sport to hoodwink people.
The IJS is great in its technical aspects, in that it encourages and rewards difficulty. It's PCS aspect is the area that really needs work. When skaters make major errors but these technical points deductions are mitigated by still-high PCS, you can't help but wonder when the judges will be made accountable. It was less apparent in the past because judges usually kept the field tight in terms of PCS and a Chan or Takahashi would only score 0.5 over lesser skaters in the PCS categories, and skaters rarely got 9.0's. But now that they've been given the green light to create a bigger spread, PCS is starting to become a means of holding up skaters (or giving them insurmountable leads), and that's not right at all.
Here is what I like about the IJS. I like the division into "individual elements" and "whole program," as opposed to the old 6.0 division into "technical" and "performance." This acknowledges, on the the one hand, that spins, spirals, and footwork sequences are also "elements" of a well-balanced program, not just jumps. And on the other hand, it acknowledges that "technique" permeates the whole program (SS and TR).
There are some things that I don't like about it, but my main beef is that the reasons for abandoning the 6.0 system were not really compelling. The CoP existed in discussion form long before Salt Lake City pushed everyone into crisis mode. The poster child for what was wrong with the old system was 1997 Europeans, where the men's competition did not really produce a clear consensus winner. The ISU rushed to "fix" the judging system by changing from majority of ordinals to OBO. This was supposed to help with the dreaded "flip-flops" that people thought were a negative feature of ordinal judging. Not so. Flip-flops just mean, "don't award any medals until all the skaters have skated." As for factored placement anomalies, that merely means that the people who did well in the SP messed up in the LP, and vice versa -- no scoring system can prevent that.
I think the ISU panicked for nothing. The main excuse the ISU offered after Salt Lake City was, this new system is better because it allows judges to double-cross their national federation heads and vote for the wrong guy even after the fix is in. Oh. OK.
Last edited by Mathman; 05-04-2013 at 03:20 PM.
Sadly despite the whining of the 6.0 system it was at least known by the world (or moreso). The new system which has undergone changes so something that was worth a 4.0 one day is now say 3.75 etc. Well no one has been able t breathe in the new system. It was easier to go by falls and really other than die hards most people don't know their flip from a lutz from a loop to a toe loop etc. Nor do they care. We have not really developed skaters of interesting character at least Sonya had her personality when she refused the silver medal but now we have the pretty, delicate, feminine, graceful and politcially correct Yuna or whoever. That is sort of boring I mean that was Kwan too. Before you had bad girl tanya harding and diva Oksana Gritschuk and the vivacious, sexy and intimidating Katarina Witt. Great rivalries ie the battle of the Brians but now you have guys and gals doing similar routines tryingn to max tes . And look at the top skaters in the pairs we really have the same teams plus V and T; in dance yep top two dominating teams may have, big may have, switched but same top two. Ladies minus Joannie it is the same top three going for Oly gold and in men well still the Japanese, Plushy and Chan add Javier and Ten but not a lot changed.. Most quadrenniel's provide a great turn over and or rising or falling of top skaters. Add to that the same choreographers, same music, same costumes. Nothing against Gold or Wagner - just pumping out those Miss America skaitng champs. NOt all quadrenniels can be special; maybe this is one of them sadly.
I agree with Skater Boy. This is rather a boring bunch--nobody new, nobody with a strong personality except for Chan.
I disagree with the woman who wrote the article. If you want figure skating to be an elite sport with so many rules that only those who have skated themselves and a few obsessed fans understand it, well, that's one thing. Perhaps the integrity of the sport will be maintained, so that those skaters/obsessed individuals can sigh in appreciation over a perfectly pointed toe or a perfectly quiet edge and realize that's what's really important, not those tacky, attention grabbing jumps.
If you want figure skating to reach a wide audience, you have to have the winner be the one who seemed to skate the best. Period. Because it looks like the judges are making up some subjective nonsense to give the medal (and the prize money) to whomever they want. So Favorite Skater fell so many times? Yes, but look at his bent knee in that turn! That more than makes up for it! I'm not saying that is what they're doing, but the system is certainly open to abuse.
So the ISU has two choices: do something so that you don't have another incident in which someone who falls multiple times wins over someone who skated clean, or leave it as it is and enjoy their small but more "educated" set of fans.
1) SP Relatively Overvalued?. In terms of time elapsed and the quantity of elements and component features judged, the point value of the SP, as a general principle, is pretty proportional to that of the Free Skate, e.g. at a rate of roughly 1 to 2. Therefore, unless one wants to argue that somehow those things in the LP should be inherently and relatively more valuable for qualitative reasons (which would then be disproportionately penalizing SP features), I don't see the logic in this premise.
I suppose one could skew the relative weightings significantly in favor of the LP, such that, for example, a 3Lz in the LP (in the first half) is worth more than a 3Lz in the SP, to make the event "more exciting" with a nail-biting finish. I don't find this persuasive; I mean, why have the SP at all, then? But it could be done. However, let's be clear: this would be a judgment to fulfill a value agenda.
In no way does it demonstrate that the system of giving proportionally equal weightings to SP and LP scores (which is the current system) is either unfair, or that it systematically results in insurmountable SP leads (other than for reasons related to what the skaters themselves managed to do, or not do, on the ice).
The difference between this situation and the figures/free skate dichotomy of yore is that, the SP and the LP are essentially like items; it would be like playing 3 innings of a game one day, and then 6 innings the next. Should a run on the second day be counted as 2 runs, just because it would add a certain frisson to the finish? In the latter case, school figures and the free skate are qualitatively different, and people essentially made the judgment that they they didn't particularly care to have these draftsman-like tracings on ice dictate the winner.
2) Insurmountable Leads in the SP? I'll leave Patrick aside and address Yuna's history only: a 3 or 4 point lead going into the LP is only insurmountable if the leader is cleaner and/or has a higher points ceiling than her competitors. It has nothing to do with the SP being relatively overvalued (see above). I would be willing to surmise that if we did a quantitative analysis, it would show that, as a percentage, Yuna's average SP lead is no larger than her average LP lead. In fact, if we look at her latest World performances, her LP point differential was actually quite a bit higher than for her SP.
In the SP, Yuna's score (69.97) was about 4.7% higher than Carolina's second place score (66.86).
In the LP, Yuna's score (148.34) was almost 10.4% higher than Mao's second place score (134.37).
I would argue that Yuna was relatively underscored in the SP, for various reasons (she was skating in an early flight, she hadn't skated in a major competition all year, actually for almost two years, etc.). Let's even bend over backwards to "normalize" the case, and say she didn't get the infamous "e" on her 3F, and her PCS was judged to final flight standards. Call it 73 to 74 points? Revealingly, the average percentage differential for this range would be right around 10% when compared to Caro's SP score, exactly in line with her LP differential.
In other words, at worst, Yuna's SP lead was proportionally far smaller than her LP lead. At best, it was merely equal to it.
That's one of the benefits of looking at the hard numbers. Unless there is some funny business going on, a close scrutiny, more often than not, reveals the internal consistencies and logic.
In figure skating, in my opinion, the scoring system should be rigged in such a way that you have to give two good performances in order to win the championship. Sometimes that won't happen, but the person who gives two good performances should (IMO) get the nod over the person who gives one good performance.
The ordinal system, with factored placements, was sort of like that. If all went according to plan, a skater who wanted to become champion had to give a good enough performance in the short program to be at least in third place, and then win the finale. This system guaranteed, in so far as possible, an exciting final flight in the LP, when the contestants "go for the gold."
Last edited by Mathman; 05-04-2013 at 10:06 PM.
I don't see anything new in this article. Just a rehash that does little good imo. I doubt educating oneself about the rules will help things in the end. I don't think most people will ever see Chan's edges etc overcoming multiple falls.
Suppose you have never seen figure skating before. And then you come across a competition on TV, or at a local rink with a friend who knows what's going on. You're curious, so you ask "What is this sport about? What are the skaters supposed to be doing, and how do they decided who's best?"
Imagine that your friend, or the TV commentators, give one of the following explanations:
1) Skaters skate around and do tricks, like jumps and spins and steps. The jumps are worth the most. Whoever does the hardest tricks best without falling down wins.
2) Skaters are supposed to perform a dance to the music, use the different technical skills they can do on the blades. They get points for some of the difficult skills, but the most important thing is the overall performance.
3) Figure skating is based on different ways of using the human body to control the blades on the ice. The most important things are the edges on the two sides of the blades and the way they make curves around the ice. The specific technical skills are mostly about turning and curving, at speed, and changing between one edge and another. The speed and the strength of the curves are the most important qualities. The most difficult ways to get from one edge to another, or back to the same edge, are to jump up in the air and turn around three or four times in the air before coming down on a backward outside edge. So those jumps are worth the most. But you have to be good at all kinds of different skills -- six different kinds of jump takeoffs, spins on both feet in different positions, and curves and turns and steps that use different parts of the blades and travel and turn in different directions.
Each of those definitions has some truth to it. And each is missing something. So if you learn about the sport from someone who favors one of those definitions, in many events you're going to have a different expectation of who outskated whom than if you had started with a different definition. (That's not even getting into questions of how results from two separate programs should be combined.)
How a judge would answer the question would likely depend on whether the judge is trying to defend herself against accusations of bad judging -- and if so, whether from fans or press or her federation or the referee or assessment commission or non-winning skaters in the event -- or whether she's trying to draw fans into the sport by sharing her thought processes or trying to recruit and train new judges, or whatever. And also how skilled the judge is at translating internal thought processes into verbal explanations. I would hope that a judge who really wants to help the asker of the question understand would not simply cite rule numbers! (But a judge who is being challenged to defend herself would do well to back up her arguments with written documentation.)Likewise, if fans see a skater fall all over the place, but then get 8.5's in performance and execution, it does not do any good to ask the judges why they gave the scores that they did. They will just say, well, this skater exhibited musicality, plus he satisfied bullets two through eight on page 328 of the ISU rule book.
So do these rules only apply to top skaters? How do you define who qualifies as a top skater for whom big mistakes are unacceptable, and who is not a top skater and need not be so severely penalized? Are there different penalties for different levels of competition? For different skaters in the same competition depending on whether or not they're in medal contention?And for big mistakes- deduct 0.5 from each component. if you take a risk and it fails you should be even more harshly punished. Big falls and big mistakes are unacceptable for a top skater.
Occasionally you could see patterns of several judges supporting the same skaters. That would be circumstantial evidence to support a theory of collusion. A heavy weight of many decisions all pointing circumstantially to the same conclusion would be enough to convince most neutral observers. But the scores alone wouldn't be proof. You'd need to have witnessed improper communications between the judges, or get a confession from at least one of them, to prove it.
If you're talking only about outright dishonest results, then yes, it's possible (but unprovable without witnesses, confessions, or mind reading) that judges could have intentionally placed skaters they didn't want to win lower in the short program than those judges thought that skater deserved in the short with the express purpose of preventing that skater from winning the title even ifBTW, there is a way to make placements and the ability of someone to jump spots from 7th to first or from 9th to first, which would be to devalue the placements received in the Short and put greater weight on the free. However, if 6.0 was always done fairly, then this wouldn't be a problem. The problem was never 6.0, it was that judges would place people so low so that, even IF they won the free, they wouldn't move up.
But that's not what we're talking about, for the most part.
Suppose skater A bombs the short program and deserves to place low but is capable of winning the long. Do the judges think, when marking skater A's SP, "I have to make sure this skater ends up fourth or lower in the SP so she can't win the title even if she wins the free? (or lower than 7th so she can't win any medal just by winning the free) Hm, now who can I put ahead of her? Better make sure I keep the skater(s) that I want to win ahead of those buffer skaters."
These statements seem to contradict each other.That people in earlier flights would end up being lower because "room" was being left, and then people who came later, who may have had better reputations, or stronger Federations, would sometimes receive unfairly high marks for something that should have been rightly placed below that earlier skater. There should be some reward for winning the short, you've won one portion of the event, you should have some room to still land on the podium.
In the short program, skate order was usually random. Skaters who didn't make top 6 in the short usually were placed so low because they had made mistakes and/or had weaker skills or lower technical content -- not because of SP skate order (aside from unintentional psychological effects of skate order), and not likely because judges thought "This skater deserves to be top 3 in the short, but I'm afraid she'll win the long and beat my favored skater, so I'm going to lowball her now on purpose to keep her out of the final group and protect my skater."
In the long program, where skate order was seeded, deservedly low SP results and consequent skating in an earlier LP group could lead to lower scores because of the psychological effects.
But they can't guarantee that a skater with multiple falls will never win. Sometimes everybody falls, or at least everyone who has the skill level to contend for medals. Or the ones who don't fall pop jumps or make other equally serious errors. Maybe the only someones who skate clean were starting from a lower skill level to begin with. If the best clean skate (if any) was at a much lower starting level than the best skates with errors, it's entirely possible that even with severe penalties the best skates with errors will still be worth more than the best without visible errors. And of the error-ridden ones, a skate with two falls and everything else strong could be worth more than the next-best skate with three or four or five non-fall errors.
Which means that the operating understanding offered to new/casual fans of what constitutes "skating better" needs to be a little more nuanced than just "Whoever skates best without falling down wins." Because it's inevitable that that formulation will sometimes be contradicted in reality, unless the rules are that fall = instant disqualification.
At the very least, a little more nuance along the lines of "Whoever does the hardest tricks best with the fewest major error usually wins" would communicate that difficulty counts positively, quality counts positively, and mistakes including falls count negatively, without guaranteeing in advance that certain mistakes automatically disqualify a skater from winning even if they still stay in the game.