New age of scoring? + Components of score

Well, we all know how the numbers have gone sky high this season. We can easily see 8s and 9s and even 10s in the PCS. Same for the GOEs. So, my question is: Is this the new standard of scoring? Should we accept it? If no, what should we do to make it go back to previous scoring standard? I personally accepted it, however I hope they will use the same standard on everyone. I don't want to see a skater that is particularly scored higher than the others.

Besides, the current scoring system does not value the 'artistry' as much as before. The PCS does not measure the non-technical elements of the program. SS and TR, even Performance is related to the technical stuff of the program. The only component measuring the artistic side is only Choreography and Interpretation.

I honestly think there should be a reform on the scoring system, where we can really have a score that is composed of technical and artistic equally.

One thing I am definitely not happy about current scoring is the disproportionate value that big (=x4) jumps carry. No doubt that is ONE of big elements, but it shouldn't be the main focus of the programme. In the end a jump, however huge it may be, occupy just a few seconds (10 seconds or so if you count the entire run) of the 4 and a half minute programme, elements that fill other parts of the programme should carry the equal importance. As it stands the so called "athleticism" is measured by how many quads a skater can manage, as if intricate transitions, footwork and creative spins exquisitly executed do not require just as much athletic skills. Quads are not for everyone, skaters with strong assets other than jumping should have a chance in standing just as much as the jumpers.

nolangoh said:

Well, we all know how the numbers have gone sky high this season. We can easily see 8s and 9s and even 10s in the PCS. Same for the GOEs. So, my question is: Is this the new standard of scoring? Should we accept it? If no, what should we do to make it go back to previous scoring standard?

Click to expand...

As fans, we can't do anything to "make it go back."

What can the ISU do? Maybe come up with a collection of benchmark performances by retired skaters as examples of what 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10 looks like in each of the separate components, irrespective of technical content or the other components, and develop better training to get judges to score each component independently.

But if the consensus is that certain component-related skills are at an all-time high among today's top skaters, then sky-high scores for those few skaters would be justified.

I personally accepted it, however I hope they will use the same standard on everyone. I don't want to see a skater that is particularly scored higher than the others.

Click to expand...

If they use the same standard on everyone, and there is a skater who deserves much higher scores than the others because they're just that much better in that area according to that standard, I certainly want to see that skater!

Besides, the current scoring system does not value the 'artistry' as much as before. The PCS does not measure the non-technical elements of the program. SS and TR, even Performance is related to the technical stuff of the program. The only component measuring the artistic side is only Choreography and Interpretation.

Click to expand...

Would you prefer if the scores were reported in 3 categories: technical elements, global technical skills (maybe simply called "skating skills" and including the transitions), and artistry (consisting of what's now covered under Performance/Execution, Choreography, and Interpretation -- in that breakdown of three scores or rearranged differently)?

I honestly think there should be a reform on the scoring system, where we can really have a score that is composed of technical and artistic equally.

Click to expand...

Why should they be equal?

In sporting competitions, I think technique and athletic accomplishment should take precedence.

In a professional-style competition aimed at entertaining audiences, I think artistry should take precedence.

MGstyle said:

Quads are not for everyone, skaters with strong assets other than jumping should have a chance in standing just as much as the jumpers.

Click to expand...

I would like to see more opportunities for skaters who excel at basic skating and at using the technical moves (both big jumps and other elements, and also the basic skating) for artistic purposes to be rewarded for that excellence just as much as skaters who excel primarily at jump difficulty.

Increasing the PCS factors for senior men would be one way to balance out the high scores for quads, which I believe the ISU is already considering.

Another would be to allow skaters who excel at spins to replace a jump element with another spin in the free skate, or to add other kinds of elements that can reward other kinds of difficulty besides just rotating in the air. (For example, bonuses for jumping in both directions.)

And also, as suggested above, to train judges better to give lower scores for various components if the skaters haven't earned them by what they actually accomplished according to the criteria for those components. Just because they landed some difficult jumps doesn't necessarily translate into transitions or interpretation.

But a skater who can land quads and also deserve high components is usually going to come out near the top.

nolangoh said:

Besides, the current scoring system does not value the 'artistry' as much as before.

I honestly think there should be a reform on the scoring system, where we can really have a score that is composed of technical and artistic equally.

Click to expand...

The problem is not actually the scoring system (for the most part) in this regard, but instead how the judges score. Every single technical element has provisions for being worth more (or less) depending on how well it is used with the music. Similarly, the quality of spins and footwork sequences can be judged in significant part on the artistic, aesthetic detail of those elements. So, along with a few of the components that speak to "artistry", there are actually a lot of points in play out there that take artistry into consideration.

However, the judges have very little idea what they are doing in this regard, so the scores rarely reflect these qualities accurately and, as such, competitors do not tailor their programs as much to achieving these qualities. It has gotten a little better, though. We used to see some truly horrendous spins and totally mechanical program compositions from competitors, so at least we don't have to suffer as much in that regard now. There is still a lot of room for improvement. The judges need to be educated better.

I think a major flaw in this system is that the first and second marks are no longer equally weighted. Because there is no cap on the tech score, but there is a cap on PCS, there is no way currently to make them equal.

As an example, at the GPF, Hanyu scorced over 120 on TES. While this is a great score, it also has the potential to be higher (add another quad, upgrade the current quads etc). However the highest PCS he can ever get is 100 . I would not say that Hanyu is 20+ points worse on the second mark than he is on the first. When he skates like he did at GPF the PCS and TES should be much closer.

The system needs to be revamped somehow to ensure that both are worth 50% of the score. I am no good at math so I don't know how to accomplish this mathematically other than either making both scores additive or both scores subtractive, but I'm sure there is probably some magic formula.

Technical elements just need to be re-valued. Particularly jumps.

gkelly said:

Increasing the PCS factors for senior men would be one way to balance out the high scores for quads, which I believe the ISU is already considering.

Click to expand...

This has been proposed and debated on Internet discussion forums, but do you know for sure whether the ISU is actively considering it?

Just rumors. Someone told me it was mentioned by a tech specialist in the skatebug commentary at US Nationals, but that's hearsay.

gkelly - I have been saying this in forums for quite some time that PCS factors need to be adjusted for the men. I'm glad that you have heard rumors of this elsewhere. I want to sit next to you when you go to events so I can hear the rumors too or maybe even start a couple...LOL!

Javier Fernandez had 26 of 45 possible perfect 10's in his PCS for his FS at 2016 worlds. He missed a perfect PCS by only 1.64 points. Despite this near perfect PCS, his TES was almost 20 points higher than that. At the 2016 GPF, Hanzu had 24 of 45 perfect 10's in PCS missing the ideal by only 1.44 points while his TES where nearly 22 points higher than his PCS. In other words, the scores tell us that you have to be a significantly better technician than an artist to win - even if you are a near perfect artist. This message is further conveyed when we look at Patrick Chan's and Boyang Jin FS at 2016 worlds. Chan finished 2nd artistically (slightly above Hanzu but below Fernandez) but 11th technically and he finished 8th in the FS. Of the top 12 men, Jin finished 11th artistically and 2nd technically (the exact opposite to Chan's TES and PCS) and finished 3rd in the FS. And it is not just the score of the top skaters that tell us this. Of the top 12 men's FS at 2016 worlds, only Chan and Dennis Ten had PCS higher than their TES. They finished 8th and 12th respectively.

I think the trend that we are seeing is that winning means a TES at least 20 points above your PCS in the FS and you must have a very high PCS. This sends the wrong message about the importance of technical skills over artistic expression. This removes an very interesting dynamic from the sport where we had battles between jumpers and artists (for example Debi Thomas vs. Caryn Kadavy). Today, it seems that the battle is between jumpers with maximum artistry and jumpers with less artistry. Those that aren't jumpers first are lost.

What kind of message does is send that Boyang Jin received a FS score with TES 29 points higher than his PCS and still got on the podium? If you were him, how hard would you focus on the PCS portion of your skating?

I don't think the PCS factor for the women needs to be adjusted from its current 1.6 in the FS. For the majority of women, even the women on the podium, this factor balances TES and PCS. Should more women do a 3A or even a single quad, then that need might change.

An interesting observation is what happens when only a couple of men in the FS do three quads and two 3A or even four quads? For these men, the PCS factor clearly needs to jump from 2 to say 2.15 or even 2.2 to balance out the TES and PCS. But making this the factor for all the top 24 men and include those not doing a quad or only one quad in the competition starts to place too much importance on the PCS and not enough on the TES.

The way I see it, the ISU has several questions to consider.
1) First and foremost, does it hurt the sport to have PCS 20 to 30 points below TES for the people on the podium?
2) If it does, then how many skaters in the top 24 in the world must have this 20 to 30 point difference before adjusting the PCS factor?
3) If you do adjust the PCS factor, how much should you adjust by? Right now 2.15 or 2.2 would work for the men but certainly not if every jump became a quad.
4) Would it make sense to change the PCS so that it has no theoretical maximum? In other words, take it off the scale of 1 to 10?
5) Would it make sense to provide detailed guidelines for a PCS score like the 8 bullets for awarding GOE levels for a jump?
6) Would it make sense to have a PCS factor that adjusts based on the base value of the TES? For example, if a skater does 3 quads and two 3A's in the FS the PCS factor would automatically jump from 2 to 2.2?

I don't know how we balance PCS and TES going forward but clearly it must be achieved or we will lose too much of the artistry of the sport. Also, the sport will be taken over by technicians and most likely those technicians will be young and be gone very quickly a la gymnastics. You can't damage your body for very long before it revolts.

I think that the simplest solution is just to have a factor of 1.2. In more technical terms the factor should be the top technical score achieved so far divided by 100. (Yuzu's technical score of 120 divided by 100.) At the same time, it needs to be clear that whatever is considered a 10 now would be considered about an 8.25 or 8.5 instead. And the ISU will need to reinforce this, because we don't want skaters winning with a 70 in technical and 112 in PCS. Any discussion about inflation would erupt like a volcano if this would happen. Judges would have to reserve their 9s for only the best skates in the world.

I would also make the increments between PCS scoring finer at a .2 instead of a .25 difference to counteract the inherent scaling that would occur.

An additional 1.1 or 1.2 would work fine, with no additional changes in scoring needed, if the goal is to make the TES and the PCS approximately equal for the very top men. There would still be skaters on down the line whose element score is higher than their program score, and vice versa. Such a change would have more of a symbolic effect than a practical one (artstry counts!). The winners would still be the skaters like Hanyu who get the highest TES and near the top in PCS.

With the way pcs are currently awarded, increasing the weight of PCs component will just make it worse and more unbalanced imho.
PC scoring seems totally messed up, and increasing it will just worsen the weight of this issue.

It doesn't matter if you like something or not. Things change all the time and you need to adjust to the new rules. Sport has its own rules, it has nothing to do with "public voting" or a "pop idol" show where the audience can decide.

nolangoh said:

Well, we all know how the numbers have gone sky high this season. We can easily see 8s and 9s and even 10s in the PCS. Same for the GOEs. So, my question is: Is this the new standard of scoring? Should we accept it? If no, what should we do to make it go back to previous scoring standard? I personally accepted it, however I hope they will use the same standard on everyone. I don't want to see a skater that is particularly scored higher than the others.

Besides, the current scoring system does not value the 'artistry' as much as before. The PCS does not measure the non-technical elements of the program. SS and TR, even Performance is related to the technical stuff of the program. The only component measuring the artistic side is only Choreography and Interpretation.

I honestly think there should be a reform on the scoring system, where we can really have a score that is composed of technical and artistic equally.

Click to expand...

You can improve in the artistry while a lot of skaters will never land a Quad lutz or a Quad jump in the second half, so no, the system is okay now, it should be refined of course.

To me the old scoring system was really terrible, judges had their favourites and no matter what they were always rewarded, and it was so difficult for the coaches to understand what should have been improved.

I was thinking about what I would do if I could rule figure skating for a day, and it came down to this: technical content and artistry scores need to be re-balanced to reflect what skaters are doing. I'd increase the penalty for falls, for one. More importantly, I'm tired of seeing programs use the same ten pieces of music. I'd add a third category: originality/aesthetics, with up to +5 for new and innovative programs and down to minus 10 for same old, same old or ugly positions. Completely subjective, I know, but how many Firebirds or Carmens should we be made to endure?