# Thread: A better way to determine PCS?

1. 0

## A better way to determine PCS?

Go Ad-Free! Become a GS Supporter!
With all the discussion lately about overscored/underscored PCS, I'm wondering if there's a better way to figure out PCS?

I'm waiting for someone to come out with a mathematical algorithm to determine it so at least there's some consistency.. perhaps a video tape analysis to determine speed across the ice, ice coverage, throw in a Dick Button pointed-toes index (this one is semi-joking, but you get the point ), etc.

I'm still seeing relics of the past 6.0 system that upset me, like saving the big scores for the last group of skaters, or waiting to hold off on marks b/c of past performances or someone's age. If the figure skating "elite" can come to a consensus on what is considered high PCS and what isn't shouldn't there be an automated, calculated way of determining it?

2. 0
You could plausibly developed technology to measure the components of skating skills and some aspects of GOE - though what weights you would attached in any formula to ice coverage, edging, speed, etc. would be arbitrary. But this will never happen, not only because there is a cultural resistance to the idea, but because this would be expensive and ISU and national federations don't exactly have a lot of money to throw around. Also, since, obviously, choreography, interpretation, performance, flow, effortlessness could never be mechanically measured and these are huge components to PCS and GOE it would seem kind of pointless to go to such elaborate means to deal with the other aspects that could be formally measured.

3. 0
I have a problem with these scores.

#1--Skating skills. In what way is this not "technical" if it involves edges and control of the blades? Shouldn't this be part of the technical score?

#2-Transitions. See #1. Transitions are basically small jumps or some type of edgework. Should also be in the technical score.

#3-Choreography. The kids don't do the choreography themselves. Technically, they should also give medals to Lori Nichol

#4 and #5 Performance and Interpretation. I agree this should be separate from the technical score, but is pretty subjective and could be manipulated if a bunch of judges got together.

What I would do is add #1-2 to the technical score, get rid of #3 as a separate category and add 1-10 points to the technical score based on what they get in #4 and #5. This way the technical scores would be way more important, which they should be.

4. 0
My issue with PCS is that it tries to make something scientific that is actually very subjective. I generally feel that the judges adjust the PCS based on how they want to rank the skaters, which is fine but portraying it as something other than a subjective mark is misleading.

5. 0
PCS needs to go.

6. 0
If they are not going to value PCS correctly or will not give as much weight, they should make that stance clear and loud so that skaters do not waste their money on David Wison, Lori Nichol, Tatiana Tarasova. Just get rid of PCS altogether. That's an option and Yuna/Carolina would not have wasted time mastering the intrinsic, subdued, and sophisticated choreo and interpretation.

7. 0
For me PCS are just too impressionistic (and circular)

I think reducing the number and narrowing the range would be good,

speed, posture, timing - what more is needed? (serious question I think fewer rather than more variables is better, but what isn't covered by one of those?)

This way PCS would play a smaller role, mostly in distinguishing between programs with similar TES scores.

The problem with IJS from my point of view was that it was overcooked from the beginning and has just gotten worse.

I think similar scoring protocals for jumps, spins and footwork is also misguided and I loathe 'levels' with the heat of a thousand suns.

8. 0
I think something that woul dnot fix the problem entirely but might help some would be, as others have suggested before, having different judges for PCS and TES (i.e. GOE). I think part of why there is so little variation in PCS among skaters (which I find ridiculous... someone might have SS of 5 but IN of 8 or vice versa) is that judges are busy determining GOE when they are watching skaters, and then are left with a 'general impression' about the components which they apply to each individual component score individually.

While it would still be true that judges would use PCS to some degree to rank skaters where they want them, probably, I think this would at least ensure that some real attention is payed to each of the PCS and might lead to more real variation among them at least.

9. 0

Go Ad-Free! Become a GS Supporter!
Originally Posted by Poodlepal
I have a problem with these scores.

#1--Skating skills. In what way is this not "technical" if it involves edges and control of the blades? Shouldn't this be part of the technical score?

#2-Transitions. See #1. Transitions are basically small jumps or some type of edgework. Should also be in the technical score.
Skating skills and transitions are part of the technical score. They are not part of the TES (total element scores).

In the 6.0 system the weight was 50-50, tech versus presentation. In the IJS it is 70-30. TES + SS +Tr = 70%, CH, INT, and P&E = 30%.

#3-Choreography. The kids don't do the choreography themselves. Technically, they should also give medals to Lori Nichol
There is still the question of delivering the choreography on the ice. Plus, choreographers work with the skater to develop a program that is within the skater's capability. The better the skater, the more the choreographer has to work with.

I agree that the three separate components choreography/composition, performance/execution, and interpretation could be combined into one overall score, like the old second mark. I think the current 70-30 split, tech versus "artistry," is not too bad, though. We don't want the sport to lose its soul altogether.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•