6.0 in scoring

I know there have been more than one 6.0 score when a skater has fallen or completely missed something in the skate.

Typically, though, would you agree that it's been quite awhile, save for Cohen, since that has happened?

I think in today's world, especially since the last Olympic Pairs Skate and al the hoopla afterwards and with the new scoring system, we're all hoping for honesty? Don't the skaters deserve that?

Skating became ever more popular with the Nancy Kerrigan saga - and why not? It's like, what's going to happen next? Terrible.

Is it possible that skating is losing it's popularity because of the cheating by the judges? Where's the joy in that?

sh

I don't think skating has lost it's popularity with die hard skating fans. Yes the networks did over sautrate us after the Tanya / Nancy thing. IMO the only ones who lost instrest were those who only started to watch after that and couldn't care less about skating.

Kwan in 1999 SA. She got a 6.0 in the LP from the Hungarian judge, despite a fall on the triple flip.

TV

What is a 6.0

Is a 6.0 really supposed to mean "perfect"? My understanding was that 6.0 meant that the skater who received it was ranked higher than a skater who received 5.9... that the judges were merely placing ordinals on each skater. One judge could give a 5.4, a 5.3 and a 5.2, thus placing these skaters in 1st, 2nd and 3rd. Another judge could give a 6.0, 5.9, 5.8, achieving the same result. Is my understanding correct?

If so, why would giving a 6.0 to a less than perfect performance be considered bad judging?

Linny

Traditionally, up to Torville and Dean, 6.0s were rarely issued simply because it was understood that to earn 6.0 meant that it was technically perfect and could not be improved upon.

With Torville and Dean, and subesqueently lots of other skaters, it seems that 6.0's are given with more frequency (usually in presentation marks). In the traditional system of judging, this means that the previous poster was correct about the "ordinal system where skater A gets 5.9 and skater B (usually Michelle Kwan) skates with more fire and presentation,thus recieving 6.0s.

6.0s have, even of late, been reserved for special performances where the artistic expression value of the program trancended its technical aims and was emotionally evocative enough to merit the highest marks ( see above remarks about MK, please add Brian Boitano and Paul Wylie's names, as well

I believed Sasha recieved her 6.0 at Nats because she was marked more in accordance of the new COP system where she would have still racked up a tremendous amount of points for the elements she executed well and excelled. By the same token, MK reigned in a few more for the record book at Nats and IMHO probably scored her 6.0s on both the "special performance" and CoPs scale.

I think that 'Shelly's fans will be more disappointed in not having even more 6.0s than she is. If she contiues upping her tech and presentation skills, she may break CoP records too!

Interesting...........and I have also heard, from various posters at different forums, that 6.0's not only should NOT be given for falls, even if the program itself is brilliant, but should NEVER be given unless the skater is the last to skate...........any thoughts on this forum members? 42

show 42 said:

Interesting...........and I have also heard, from various posters at different forums, that 6.0's not only should NOT be given for falls, even if the program itself is brilliant, but should NEVER be given unless the skater is the last to skate...........any thoughts on this forum members? 42

Click to expand...

If the program has falls, the technical score cannot be 6.0 because falls carry a deduction. I am not sure if they HAVE TO effect the presentation mark. BTW, under CoP, programs that have falls or other serious mistakes must take deductions in some of the Program Elements (such as Presentation).

As to the last skater, judge cannot give 6.0/6.0 unless it is to the last skater, since ties are not allowed. BTW, under CoP, judge CAN give the same score to multiple skaters.

Citris, all I am saying is that Sasha would have racked up an equivalent amont of "presentation points' as a 6.0 under the CoP, yes, there would be markdowns if there was flutz that someone caught, but Sasha's presentation marks under the CoP have been off the charts. Thus the correlation

Under the old system 6.0 was imho kind of reserved for perfectness.

Of course the main point in the judging system was ranking the skaters one against the other. If a judge begins "too high" with his marks he/she might run into problems if the skaters to come perform better and even better. So the last skater might get a 6.0 "accidentally" even though it's still not perfect, simply because the skater was just better than the ones before. This might have occurred especially if the favorites are not last and a surprise comes up late.

On the other hand this means that judges rarely gave out 6.0s if a skater is NOT last (see the above problem). Which means even more if a skater nevertheless gets 6.0s when skating not last. This was a rare event. And I wouldn't just say "before T&D" but also "before AND after T&D". They were so far ahead in the competition that it was no danger for the judges to hand out the perfect marks if deserved. I'd also say this is "easier" in ice dance than in single or pairs cause the skaters usually perform without major mistakes and the judges know therefore in advance what they might expect. Rare event that a dance couple is able to make an uproar within an event.

On the other hand this means that judges rarely gave out 6.0s if a skater is NOT last (see the above problem). Which means even more if a skater nevertheless gets 6.0s when skating not last. This was a rare event.

Click to expand...

I gotta watch more skating, cause it seems to me like it's just the oposite as what you say, satistically.

Chen Lu at 96 worlds and Irina at 02 worlds imediately come to mind.

berthes ghost said:

I gotta watch more skating, cause it seems to me like it's just the oposite as what you say, satistically.

Chen Lu at 96 worlds and Irina at 02 worlds imediately come to mind.

Click to expand...

Perhaps I should put it the other way round. If a very good skater with a very good performance skates LAST, the chance for 6.0 is much higher.

Here is a hypothetical happening: Take a well-known skater whose Presentation is normally priceless. She does an excellent technical program but falls three times. The technical scores will be lower (somewhat - after all she is well-known) but it will not effect her Presentation scores on that NIGHT because normally her presentation is priceless, and this one was excellent except for the falls. In other words, the falls did not affect her presentation. hmmm.

The above could and has happened. Let's not get into who I am talking about. That is irrelevant. It is the happening that is important on this thread.

Are you happy as a figure skating fan to accept that falls have no affect to the Presentation on THAT NIGHT only?

Joe

My point is, if a skater (pairs or dancers) in the last flight, does not draw the last skating position, does that automatically rule them out for a 6.0 for presentation? Let's say their tech score is 5.7, couldn't their presentation be 6.0 and not block out skaters who haven't skated yet? 42

sk8m8 said:

Citris, all I am saying is that Sasha would have racked up an equivalent amont of "presentation points' as a 6.0 under the CoP, yes, there would be markdowns if there was flutz that someone caught, but Sasha's presentation marks under the CoP have been off the charts. Thus the correlation

Click to expand...

As an uninformed member of the general public, I find that even under the CoP system, the judges are not doing their jobs as "cheating" is either not recognized or is encouraged; judging on "faith" eliminates the impartiallity of the judges.

The CoP would be better if the scores for each element are also posted; of course, this may lead to more disputes which would get more people to watch figure skating. )

Welcome to GS Citrus! And in welcoming you, the first thing I'm going to do is disagree with you If the scores for every element under the COP were posted at the event, I think it would just look like a mess. I don't know of any scoreboard that could even handle that many numbers! Plus, with the two high, two low, and two random scores thrown out, at least under the current system, that means the scores of 11 judges would be shown, but only five would count. Also, in the ladies final at Trophee Lalique, the winner had 13 technical elements. That's 143 different numbers to put up on the scoreboard or on the TV screen. And having looked at the detailed results, no score has ever jumped out at me as "WHAT?" They're all within a reasonable and justifiable range. Sure, there have been mistakes, but I think this has been due to the problem of the technical caller. [EDIT: Thanks for the correctoid Hockeyfan Once again you've saved me from complete COP humiliation. I've edited the following sentences to fix my mistake.] If the TC misses a two-foot landing or a significantly pre- or underrotated jump, the judges have to go by the TC. This problem needs to be fixed in the COP system, but I don't think it's cheating by the TC and certainly not by the judges who are supposed to go by what the TC says. I think it's usually just error, that is, the TC missed it. And error is going to be in any system of judging, no matter what you do. The best you can do is try to account for it so that error does not adversely affect the outcome of the event. As for flutzing and lipping, the judges can deduct -1 to -3 from the base mark. As I said once before, I think there are degrees of flutzness. One judge may see a flutz as a -3 whereas another may have legitimate reasons for believing -1 is correct. This season I've only seen the judges deduct for the most severe flutzes and rarely for lipping. But I have seen them add points to true Lutzes for the women, which is perhaps the way most judges are handling it--no or minimal deductions for minor flutzing, but added points for true Lutzes. I don't know that that's what they're doing or if I agree with that approach, but as long as the true Lutzers get more points than flutzers, whether minor or severe, that's what counts for me. OTOH, I think it sends the wrong message. If the judges start deducting for all flutzing, then I think we'll start to see more skaters correct it. Same with lipping, though that doesn't seem to be as common.

Under the COP, I thought all the outcomes were spot on, which is really what I'm interested in, not whether somebody flutzed or not--at least as far as the event is concerned. I can express my opinion here that Skater A should fix her flutz, but as long as the whole of a skater's performance and program justifies his/her final placement and most significant errors are accounted for in the scores, then I think the COP is doing its job.

When skaters are very close in technical and presentation ability, which happened in pairs a couple of times, I hope all mistakes made by the skaters are caught, but that's hoping for the impossible. Human systems just can't do that. For example, there was one event where the final result between first and second in pairs was separated by only a few tenths of a point. People on the forum, some of whom saw the event live, argued in favor of both teams--some thought the result was right, some thought the silver medalists should have won the gold. With six of 11 judges' scores thrown out, I find it virtually impossible for a group of judges to get together to preplan any outcome under the COP unless ALL 11 judges are in on it, plus the TC, plus the referee. Sure, it's possible. But is it probable? Not to me. Also, sometimes things just happen. Referees in football and basketball make bad calls. We try to make the judging as fair as possible, but human error is always going to be present. At least under the COP I find it far less likely for judges to be able to truly cheat than under the 6.0 system. And it's not like there haven't been plenty of close results under the 6.0 system (Nancy and Oksana anyone?)

I think it's taken the judges time to get the hang of the COP and that the system itself has weaknesses that definitely need to be addressed. But having read through all the detailed results for all the GP events, I personally have not seen any evidence of cheating. If somebody has in the COP, I'd be interested to hear the specifics--really--because I don't want to have missed cheating. Some judges have scored higher than others in the compoenent scores, but at most by .5. And the good thing about the COP is that if two judges "cheat" by giving unfarily high scores to a skating, their marks are thrown out. Same thing if judges try to give blackball a skater with low scores--they're out.

Anyway, here it is your third post and I write this long disagreement. Sorry! It's nothing personal, of course. I hate cheating judges, believe me, but sometimes I think people see a judge who gives a mark they think is too high or low and think "Cheating!" when the final outcome of not only the entire event, but of that judge's placement, indicates no cheating at all.

Welcom again and don't worry, you'll rarely get responses that are long and boring like this one, even from me, I promise
Rgirl

Just a CoP factoid: The judges are responsible for catching flutzes and lips, not the callers. (They have their own instant replay.)

Good points, Rgirl, but I can't imagine a flutz having variations. A minor, average and major flutz? If so, it is indeed recognizing it as a special kind of skating jump, imo. The flutz, imo, should then have a basic score and then we can take off minus points as to how bad the flutz is executed. I don't see it as getting pluses for a well executed flutz.

For me, if we accept the flutz, then we must immediately take off 3 points for an attempted LUTZ regardless on how badly the flutz is executed. This would at least not recognize the flutz as a legitimate jump.

Hockeyfan - Thanks for the info. I have been in the habit of blaming everything on The Caller and His Gang.

Joe

Joe,
I think there are degrees of flutzness just as there are degrees of prerotation or underrotation. I don't think it has anything to do with the Lutz being a legitimate jump. Of course it's a legitimate jump. The edge take-off gets a lot of attention because it's so difficult for women. To me it's like someone doing a great 3Axel but landing on an back inside edge. Does one take off -3 because of the wrong landing edge? Knowing your feelings about flutzing, ie, that until recently you didn't think there should be any such thing as a flutz, only a Lutz or a flip, no attempted Lutz that didn't maintain the outside edge throughout the entire take-off. Having looked at many, many flutzes in slow motion on tape, I was amazed at the number of variations on how ladies do this jump. Some go so far to the inside edge the side of their ankle is almost on the ice. Some just go to the flat at the last moment. And everything in between. So I think judges should be allowed to decide whether to take off -1, -2, or -3 for a flutz.

But nowhere in my post did I say a skater should get bonus points for a flutz because obviously that's ridiculous. If a judge genuinely misses a flutz, thinks it's a true Lutz, and decides to give bonus points, that's a mistake. Mistakes happen. Of course so does cheating. But assuming most judges see a flutz, one judge giving +1 or +2 for a flutz either by mistake or cheating will not count because it will be thrown out.

But like I said, we will have to agree to disagree on this issue
Rgirl

Rgirl said:

.........lots of good stuff..........

But like I said, we will have to agree to disagree on this issue
Rgirl [/B]

Click to expand...

I see the problem of "flutzness" is with the presentation which goes with the jump?

If one does a couple of "beautiful" flutzes, would that overcome someone else with a so-so/average true lutz if "all else being equal" (never happen)?

I can somewhat see an overall presentation overcoming the overall technical if the technical wasn't too bad; it would be more difficult for me to say in comparing elements in that regard.

God! Before I started reading on the forums I only thought of presentation and whether or not the skater fell. I may have been better off being dumber and so saner.