Hersh: In figure skating, same old, same old | Page 8 | Golden Skate

Hersh: In figure skating, same old, same old

Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Let's see if we can catch judge #1 at U.S. Nationals, the judge who gave higher scores to Polina Edmonds than to Gracie Gold in all five components, while all of the other judges did the reverse.

Judge #1's component scores for Polina: 8.00, 7.75, 8.50, 8.00, 8.50. Total 40.75.
Average scores for Polina, all 9 judges: 7.36, 7.04, 7.71, 7.36, 7.54. Total 37,01

Total deviation = +3.74. (Must be > 7.50 for an IJS "anomaly.")

Judge #1's component scores for Gracie: 7.75, 7.00, 8.25, 7.50, 7.50. Total 38.00
Average scores for Gracie, all 9 judges: 7.93, 7.61, 8.29, 8.04, 7.86. Total 39.73

Total deviation = -1.73 (Must be < -7.50 for an IJS anomaly.)

This judge is in the clear. If she (the judges are named :) ) had really wanted to push Polina at the expense of Gracie she could have given Polina 8.75, 8.75, 9.00, 9,00, 9.00, while giving Gracie straight 6.50s, and still not get caught.
 

Sandpiper

Record Breaker
Joined
Apr 16, 2014
It's very tricky. I agree with what you said, and especially with the point that psychologically it is practically impossible to avoid saying in our minds, "this performance was better than that one." That is why I can only be dragged kicking and screaming from my home world "Earth 6.0.". 6.0, for all its faults (not as severe as it is generally supposed, though), is at least honest on the point that we humans are good at comparing but bad at measuring against a standard that exists only in our minds.

Every judged sport gives it a fling, though. In piano-playing contests performers get scores which supposedly rate them against a standard that, if not strictly objective, at least is supposed to take into account the judges' experience of many, many performances and also of imaginary ones that set the standard. Sometime no prize is given. Although pianist A was better than pianist B, they both stunk. (I.e., it was a splatfest. :) ) At a dog show the judges are not supposed to say, this dog is cuter than than one, but rather, this dog conforms more perfectly to the standards of the breed than that one (also a great champion) does.

Bottom line: I don't know what I think, and I am sorry if I have given the impression in these threads that I do.
I'm mainly on the 6.0 side myself, especially in terms of "Presentation mark" vs. PCS. Mainly for the reasons you stated--that we won't having a vocal minority outweighing a conservative majority.

Where I think COP has a possible advantage is the technical mark side. Under 6.0, judges need to keep all the technical stuff in their heads, and trying to compare skaters to the best of their ability. This is actually harder, imo, than just looking at elements and tossing around GOE.

In some cases, I do think 6.0 could lead to better results nonetheless (e.g. if Skater A lands three beautiful jumps and falls on two other jumps, while Skater B lands five okay jumps, under 6.0 it's self-evident that Skater B should win, all else being equal. Whereas, under the current system, Skater A could end up winning due to getting +3s on the jumps she landed, even if she got -3 with fall deduction on the others. 6.0 would better be able to recognize that no, Skater A just made too many sloppy errors to win even though she had three good jumps).

However, in other cases, judges could find it difficult to keep track of everyone under 6.0, without specific elements to score. This could lead to greater reputation judging under 6.0, assuming nobody makes huge glaring errors.

...So, bottom line, I'm not sure what I think either. :laugh:
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Mathman said:
Bottom line: I don't know what I think.

Sandpiper said:
...So, bottom line, I'm not sure what I think either. :laugh:

I do, however, know why I am so crotchety about the CoP. It was supposed to make figure skating better and it didn't. ;)

gkelly said:
I said:

gkelly said:
it would be very rare that some judges would have skater A somewhat higher on all five components, and the other judges would have skater B higher on all components.

Quote Originally Posted by Mathman:

Mathman said:
Thanks to randomization of judges' scores, we do not know whether this is rare or common. My intuition is that it is not rare at all.

Here are all the protocols for US Nationals….It will be tedious to look for them.

Indeed! :laugh: 12420 comparisons to make for the ladies' short program alone. It would be cool if the USFSA made these data available electronically so we wouldn't have to input them by hand. :)

Anyway, I have spent a little time with the protocols and have pretty much struck out. What I expected was that for each judge and for each pair of skaters, once the judge put skater A ahead on, say, SS, then this pattern would be repeated four more times for the other components. In the case of close contests, I found that sometimes it worked out this way, sometimes not. Not much to remark on one way or the other.

I will look at some international results form the junior grand prix. So far it looks like my original concern is not much of a problem after all, in the absence of bias or aggressive advocacy.
 
Last edited:

Alba

Record Breaker
Joined
Feb 26, 2014
Bottom line: I don't know what I think, and I am sorry if I have given the impression in these threads that I do.

...So, bottom line, I'm not sure what I think either. :laugh:


I think both of you have a good point. :biggrin:
So, I do think and belive that the only way to make figure skating better is to good/great skaters and programes.
I know, it sounds very banal and a cliché, maybe :p , but in the end it's all about that. IMO.
 
Top