Justifying claims of under/over scoring
There are countless claims of under/over scoring on these boards.
But how many are made with a reasoned supporting argument?
What do I mean by a "reasoned argument"? As I see it, if people want to make a case for under/over scoring, it should be made in terms of:
- the protocols for the competition (tech calls included),
- the GoE bullet points that a skater should or should not have been awarded for each element, and
- the PCS criteria they met or didn't meet for each component.
...Or they at least need to have a reputation for being able to do so in those terms, if called upon.
Without that - it seems to me a complainer doesn't actually know what they are complaining about. They may be actually be right, but since their complaint is unsubstantiated - it's more likely just wishful thinking, bias, favouritism, hot air, sour grapes, etc... and I can't take it seriously.
Unfortunately, the number of times I see a "reasoned argument" is very, very small.
And the few that are posted, may be buried under large numbers of "unsubstantiated" posts. The sort where people think that PCS stands for "Popularity Contest Score" ie. the points a skater "deserves", because "I like that performance". Or that skaters were "held back" or "boosted" by being in an earlier or later group, by having a particular nationality/fed/reputation, by competing at a certain location, etc etc... as if these things are all givens (which they aren't), and they happen at every competition (which they don't).
And I wish this would change... more "reasoned argument" posts would be educational for all... help people understand scoring better generally... understand when scores are actually reasonable, even if they seem too high or too low at first... vs when there really IS a reason to pick up the pitchforks and burning torches and form an angry mob. Because as it is, it feels like it's "pitchforks and burning torches" for every... single... competition. I see no proper justification, which makes it very tiresome.
Is there any hope?
I'd love to see "official GS" reviews of scoring, that examine the protocols in these terms, and indicate how reasonable/justifiable the scoring was... I know there are a few GS posters who (I think) have the knowledge/experience required to do such a thing, because I have occasionally seen posts like that... but I guess it would take quite some time and effort to do it on a regular basis, so perhaps not feasible?
Is there somewhere else to turn for "reasoned arguments" or assessments? I have been impressed in the past by Yukiko Okabe's commentary on skating competitions - she is an ISU judge and technical controller, and her insights into a skater's performance vs what judges are looking for... is valuable, very educational and sometimes surprising. I wish that type of broadcast were made more frequently, and more accessible. I feel it helped my understanding of scoring immensely. But the only ones I've seen were made months after the event, and only on Japanese TV in Japanese language.
Are there other FS commentators who are equally "authentic" or knowledegable, impartial, and provide that level of detail in commentary? Or bloggers, or whatever? Chris Howarth (an active FS coach) on British Eurosport seems quite good (unlike Simon and Nicky, bless :-D) but he's not there for every competition, and doesn't always go into a lot of detail, presumably in the interests of keeping things light and entertaining and unintrusive?
Last edited by YesWay; Yesterday at 11:00 AM.
I generally don't have a problem with scoring anymore, mostly because I accept that there are a few things aside from what the skater does on the ice that affect the scores. In particular, skating early always negatively impacts the score, particularly on PCS. Posters here often say "I don't understand why skater X had 2 points higher PCS than skater Y in one event, then 2 points lower in this other event." Well, it's usually because the skater who skated much earlier than the other didn't get as high PCS. Even today, people wonder how Ashley can have better SS than Mao. She doesn't. She just skated later. People need to accept that scores between different events cannot be compared for this reason.
Last edited by drivingmissdaisy; Yesterday at 11:16 AM.
OP might was well make a thread and title it "Logical Argument 101", which isn't going to happen in these forums.
Originally Posted by drivingmissdaisy
I agree! What really bothers me is when people bash skaters,their countries, and coaches simply because their favorite skater did not get the scores they think they deserved. It's rude and disrespectful to the skaters.
Originally Posted by YesWay
Last edited by padme21; Yesterday at 12:56 PM.
Leo Di Caprio Voiceovers
I love this thread because I totally agree!
And honestly while I will engage in arguments about under/overscoring every once in awhile, I try to avoid them unless it seems REALLY egregious. (I think the only scores I had a problem with this season were Tukt's PCS at SC).
Everyone else should've learned by now that PCS are not comparable across competitions, which nullifies about half of the PCS-related arguments on this forum. And I actually think there haven't been any incorrect podiums yet this season, so I have very few complaints. Over/under-generous PCS haven't been impacting actual results, IMO.
SkateFiguring took the violet pill
I also wish that broadcast networks and commentators do not use Presentation Marks or Artistic Impression for PCS, implying "Artistry" as basis of PCS. It's a holdover from the 6.0 system that is so far from today's competition criteria. Fans seem to think PCS should reflect their personal preferences of the performances or skaters, and often aspects of TES if it suits their arguments.
This is the only thing that matters. It reminds me of Ashley's LP last year at nationals that scored 148+. People were outraged that the US judges dared to score that as the 3rd best LP ever under COP. It wasn't. It was, however, 10+ points better than Chen's effort. The outcome was correct.
Originally Posted by andromache
I'm a little more disappointed when US judges ignore < from their favorite skaters, because that does affect outcomes in an unfair way. If someone's strength is producing fully-rotated jumps, they are severely disadvantaged when a skater who < a lot of jumps is given full credit and +GOE.
I fear this is a very dangerous mindset... while bickering about PCS randomly to defend one's fave is not productive, if the system is unfair (and it is unfair indeed, not because of the impossibility of comparison across competition, but because of the fixed increase in PCS), accepting it will do no good to the sport.
Originally Posted by drivingmissdaisy
Anyway, OP makes a very good point, though it's a bit difficult to ask for reasoned arguments from the average fan, in particular just after a competition. On the other hand, if reasoned arguments from competent people (possibly certified in some way, like judges, coaches, world class skaters, qualified commentators) were more frequent, maybe even the general public will get used to those reasonings and rumble a bit less... maybe...
This is a very fair criticism. However, given that skating is a judged sport, the panels are forced to assess athletes relative only to those skaters they have seen, because you can't judge someone against a skater who hasn't yet performed. If Mao skates among skaters who earns 6's, the 8's she earns are much stronger marks. When you get to the last group, where every skater has obvious strengths, their marks will be high and clustered together. What I'm saying is that I don't think it's intentional; I don't believe panels go out seeking to punish skaters merely because they skate early. Yes, fans try to use PCS discrepancies as bona fide evidence of cheating when their favorites lose, but a lot of the variation can be attributed to skate order. Because this effect is somewhat egalitarian, impacting every skater, and not intentional but rather a result of humans judging an event, I accept it.
Originally Posted by Vernella
I am not put out so much with the PCS but I find the judges are using the GOE to favor certain skaters. When one judge gives a skater a +2 and the next judge a -1 there is something wrong. And they do not apply the same GOEs across the board. One skater puts a hand down on a landing and they get a -2 then the next skater only gets a 0 for doing the same thing. To me that does not make sense. Or a skater who does a very small 2a gets 1.5 in GOE while someone who does a huge 2A with good flow in and out only gets .5.
Possibly a naive statement, but it would seem that the entire panel of judges AND the technical expert would have to be in collusion to hold up one skater over another - and at more than one competition. The complaints about scoring generally come from people who have a vested interest of great admiration for a certain skater. The immediate skater that comes to mind is Mirai Negasu. Every time she skates according to some she is underscored. Poor Mirai. That's quite a conspiracy.
But I completely agree that PCS scores are totally getting ridiculously high. You wonder where it will all end!
But having said that - I do think skater's with great reputations get the benefit of the doubt. Nobody who falls twice in a program should win a gold medal. Just saying.....
Isn't that just because programs are getting more and more complicated and everyone gets higher TES in general? Since PCS kinda has to represent half of the score, the overall PCS scores have to grow as well. Otherwise TES would represent more than half of the score for the majority of the skaters and that would kinda break the whole thing.
Originally Posted by noskates
Size 7 Knifeboots
Just ask yourself this before proceeding with discussions about scoring...."What would Gkelly say?"
I like the discussions here but far too many times I see posters who want other GS Members and even the judges to agree to/enforce their personal preferences. That's always funny to see.
Last edited by Sam-Skwantch; Yesterday at 02:46 PM.
Originally Posted by Sackie
These are examples of where we must look veeery carefully at the protocols vs video footage before crying foul, to make sure there isn't a logical explanation.
Originally Posted by noskates
eg. did one skater actually deserve higher GoE for their jump, before the "hand down"? I mean, we can't simply say both skaters put a hand down, therefore they should have identical GoE. There's more to jump GoE than that.
The punishment for falls by no means prevents someone winning a gold medal, and this is correct under the current system...
Last edited by YesWay; Yesterday at 02:42 PM.
I think the programs are more difficult too in between the jumps, as you suggest. If you compare some of the early COP programs that were the best at the time, from Slutskaya, Cohen, and Shizuka, there is a lot more difficulty in the top programs now.
Originally Posted by Noolan