Magic formula for computing PCS

Mathman · Jun 23, 2013

Total PCS for a ladies LP = 8 x SS - .6

Does this work? Let's try 2013 worlds.

Kim: Actual = 73.61, Formula = 73.08

Asada: Actual = 68.31, Formula = 68.21

Kostner: Actual = 70.69, Formula = 71.08

Li: Actual = 58.13, Formula = 57.72

Gold: Actual = 60.18, Formula = 59.96

Wagner: Actual = 63.02, Formula = 62.84

Murakami: Actual = 62.11, Formula = 62.52

Tuktamysheva: Actual = 57.24, Formula = 58.52

Sotmikova: Actual = 60.53, Formula = 61.08

Osmond: Actual = 60.60, Formula = 60.20

Meite: Actual = 52.51, Formula = 52.52

Suzuki: Formula = 59.93, Formula = 60.84

Leonova: Actual = 55.65, Formula = 57.96

Helgasson: Actual = 55.32, Formula = 55.08

Glebova: Actual = 51.20, Formula = 51.41

Marchei: Formula = 54.25, Formula = 54.28

(For skaters further down the list with weaker presentation skills the prediction of the formula is a little too high.

)

Serious Business · Jun 23, 2013

Have you tried it with components other than SS? Is SS the most predictive one? Not that I'm remotely surprised by this...

Robeye · Jun 23, 2013

Mathman said:
Total PCS for a ladies LP = 8 x SS - .6

Does this work? Let's try 2013 worlds.

A very interesting correlation, and I'm sure Cinquanta is very appreciative of your pointing it out

.

I wonder, though, if formulas can be constructed demonstrating correlation between the other PCS components and Total PCS, or whether such a relationship only holds true for SS? I say this because the possible implications of your formula include the following, and I'm trying to decide which seems more likely:

1) Skating Skills is the One Ring That Rules Them All, One Ring That Binds Them...(it is the necessary condition that makes possible all other Components, hence the correlation)

2) Corridor judging tends to encourage the homogenization of component scores

3) In reality, Judges measure skating skills; this stuff about 5 distinct components is just a nice Potemkin Village, smoke and mirrors

4) The Judges have little speed guns built into their laptops, and that's what they're really watching while pretending to be measuring quarter-turns and edge geometry and such (it is a little-known fact that almost all ISU judges are actually off-duty cops. And is it merely coincidence that the Head Honcho's nickname is "Speedy"? Hmmm...).

5) Yuna and Caro both started their careers as short-track skaters, but knowledge and memory of this has been erased. Meanwhile, there have been regular reports over the years of people in dark suits and sunglasses being shooed away from event sites on charges of vagrancy...

6) Pure coincidence

7) The chili that the OP had for lunch did not agree with him, and he is feeling disgruntled and curmudgeonly.

Krislite · Jun 23, 2013

Robeye said:
A very interesting correlation, and I'm sure Cinquanta is very appreciative of your pointing it out .

I wonder, though, if formulas can be constructed demonstrating correlation between other the PCS components and Total PCS, or whether such a relationship only holds true for SS? I say this because the possible implications of your formula include the following, and I'm trying to decide which seems more likely:

1) Skating Skills is the One Ring That Rules Them All, One Ring That Binds Them...(it is the necessary condition that makes possible all other Components, hence the correlation)

2) Corridor judging tends to encourage the homogenization of component scores

3) In reality, Judges measure skating skills; this stuff about 5 distinct components is just a nice Potemkin Village, smoke and mirrors

4) The Judges have little speed guns built into their laptops, and that's all that's what they're actually watching while pretending to be measuring quarter-turns and edge geometry and such (it is a little-known fact that almost all ISU judges are actually off-duty cops. And is it merely coincidence that the Head Honcho's nickname is "Speedy"? Hmmm...).

5) Yuna and Caro both started their careers as short-track skaters, but knowledge and memory of this has been erased. Meanwhile, there have been regular reports over the years of people in dark suits and sunglasses being shooed away from event sites on charges of vagrancy...

6) Pure coincidence

7) The chili that the OP had for lunch did not agree with him, and he is feeling disgruntled and curmudgeonly.

I vote #2. The other components are just as likely to be good predictors because of this.

gkelly · Jun 23, 2013

Robeye said:
1) Skating Skills is the One Ring That Rules Them All, One Ring That Binds Them...(it is the necessary condition that makes possible all other Components, hence the correlation)

2) Corridor judging tends to encourage the homogenization of component scores

3) In reality, Judges measure skating skills; this stuff about 5 distinct components is just a nice Potemkin Village, smoke and mirrors

These are all probably true to some degree. But keep in mind that Skating Skills is not identical to Speed, although that is part of it. Each of the SS criteria (e.g., balance, one-foot skating, multidirectional skating) would relate directly or indirectly to skills that are also rewarded in other components, so in that sense SS is indeed the necessary condition that makes possible all other Components.

Robeye · Jun 23, 2013

Yes, I know that, gkelly. I took some license in the name of an attempt at humor, and for that I apologize.

Mathman · Jun 23, 2013

Any of the five could be used, except that if you pick Transitions the formula becomes PCS = 8 x TR +2.4.

Here is how it goes.

Skating Skills is the first (temporally) component that the judges mark.

Then for Transitions, they subtract .375 points. (That is, half of the judges subtract 0.50 and half subtract 0.25.)

For the other three components the judges copy down the SS score three times.

Really?! -- Is figure skating judging, minus smoke and mirrors, actually that simple?

Here are the 2013 Worlds LP results. The actual scores, in the order SS, TR, P&E, CH, INT, are in the first column, the simplified version in the second.

Kim.

9.21 9.21
8.89 8.835
9.36 9.21
9.18 9.21
9.36 9,21

Total (with factoring) 73.61 73.08

Asada

8.61 8.61
8.21 8.235
8.61 8.61
8.64 8.61
8.68 8.61

Total 68.41 68.28

Kostner

8.96 8.96
8.46 8.585
8.79 8.96
8.93 8.96
9.04 8.96

Total 70.69 71.08

Li

7.29 7.29
7.00 6.915
7.43 7.29
7.36 7.29
7.25 7.29

Total 58.13 57.72

Gold

7.57 7,57
7.25 7.195
7.61 7.57
7.61 7.57
7.57 7.57
7.61 7,57

Total 60.18 59.96

Wagner

7.03 7.93
7.64 7.555
7.82 7.93
8.04 7.93
7.96 7.93

Total 63.02 62.84

Serious Business · Jun 23, 2013

Mathman, do you know for a fact they mark those components in that order, or did you deduce it with your math skills? Either way, it's entirely believable. I've seen far too many skaters with outstanding ability in the other areas of PCS get lowballed due to low SS.

Krislite · Jun 23, 2013

I'd say the most interesting pattern is--why transitions are scored consistently lower than other components? Odd how that pattern persists within and across competitions...

gkelly · Jun 23, 2013

Serious Business said:
Mathman, do you know for a fact they mark those components in that order, or did you deduce it with your math skills? Either way, it's entirely believable. I've seen far too many skaters with outstanding ability in the other areas of PCS get lowballed due to low SS.

That's the order in which they're listed, but the judges don't have to fill the boxes in order. They can start with whichever number they come up with first.

In practice, I expect that most do start with Skating Skills at least most of the time, both because it's listed first and because most judges' experience (in 6.0 judging, in test judging, in some countries judging lower level events with a two- or three-component version of IJS, etc.) has been more geared toward relating technical skill levels to a numerical scale than in measuring transitions or performance or choreography or interpretation against a numerical scale.

For skating skill, I think there's a sense of "What skill level is this?" that thejudge can get right from the start of the program and then adjust up or down if the quality decreases or is maintained in difficult sections, if there are or are not examples of difficult skating skills in and outside the step sequences, etc.

For something like choreography, a judge really can't get a good sense of the whole until the program is over, so they're not likely to have a number in mind until afterward. At which point, for better or for worse, it's probably influenced by the number they ended up with for Skating Skills.

But I have heard of training exercises requiring judges to start with a different component, or to score only one or a few of the components at a time, that might not include SS.

If a performance really stands out, especially good or especially bad, in one of the other areas, then the number might come to mind for that component first.

Mathman · Jun 23, 2013

Krislite said:
I'd say the most interesting pattern is--why transitions are scored consistently lower than other components? Odd how that pattern persists within and across competitions...

I always supposed that it was because Transitions are the easiest to quantify. You can make a stab at objectively counting how many steps, turns, and moves in the field a skater does. So the judges feel confident that they can justify giving the lower marks that the skaters actually deserve.

Choreography and Interpretation, on the other hand, are more of a shot in the dark. It might be that the judges want to give the skaters the benefit of the doubt -- "I thought the skater's interpretation was blah, but what do I know? Maybe it was better than I thought" -- so the marks go up a little.

Serious Business said:
I've seen far too many skaters with outstanding ability in the other areas of PCS get lowballed due to low SS.

I think the trend is actually in the other direction. As you go down the list from the best to the worst skaters, near the bottom you come to the skaters who can skate pretty well technically, so they get OK Skating Skills. After all, they are good enough technically to qualify for the world championship. But when it comes to P&E, CH, and INT, they are obviously not on the same page as the leaders, so those marks go down more drastically.

Kirsten Frank

SS 5.46
TR 4.79
PE 5.04
CH 5.11
IN 4.93

Sonia LaFluente

SS 6.11
TR 5.50
PE 5.75
CH 5.75
IN 5.64

Kexin Zhang

SS 5.64
TR 4.82
PE 5.14
CH 5.18
IN 5.00

At the very, very, top it is the opposite.

Yuna Kim

SS 9.21
TR 8.89
PE 9.36
CH 9.18
IN 9.36

I think the reason for this is that the judges are saying to themselves, "This is Yuna-freakin'-KIM, y'all. If she says she's interpreting the heck out of the music,who am I to say otherwise?"