Thoughts on the New Judging System

Well now that Skate America has come and gone. I am wondering what folks here think of the new COP system. Still an ancronym I can't get used to. Frankly, as flawed as it was, I miss the 6.0 system. I guess, coming from the old school of figure skating. I don't know if I will ever get used to this new method.

What are your thoughts? I Just thought it would be an interesting topic.

What I like about the new judging system is that afterwards we can figure out exactly why one skater won and another lost. Skater A won because her combination spin was awarded a level three due to four changes of position and an unusual entry, and she got a +2 GOE because of good to excellent execution in each judged category. Etc.

We can still disagree, of course, but at least we have something specific to disagree with.

Under the 6.0 system all we knew is that a majority of the judges liked skater A better than skater B. If you liked skater B better, well, too bad, you're not a judge, they are.

For instance, if the CoP had been in effect at Salt Lake City, all the judges who voted for Berezhnaya and Sikharudlidze would have been able to document exactly what aspects of B&S's performance gained them more points than S&P. We wouldn't have to depend on media and audience frenzy to tell us who was or wasn't robbed.

JMO

Mathman

Good question, LAD.

Under the 6.0 system, I believe a few of the results would have been different. Here are some of the results I think would occur under the 6.0 system.

Pairs Not much difference between the two systems. With the exception of T&M it was a weak field. I would have put Don&Hunt in 2nd place after the SP.

Dance I would have put Kerr and Kerr in 4th place in the final result followed by Goodwin and Bommentre. The team of Kulikova/Navikov were all flailing arms and so heavy footed. Just not my taste.

Mens I would have put Serov in third place. He stood up more than the others and he has that flowing style that I like. Very musical skater, imo. Also, I think Jahnke would have jumped to 2nd place anyway, under the 6.0 system.

Ladies I would have put Susanna Poykio in second place. This is not a bash of Cynthia. Cynthia, Susanna and Yukina were my reasons for going to Pittsburgh.

So, I feel the results of CoP were not all together too different than the 6.0 would have been except for isolated cases as mentioned above. Although I understand the different breakdowns of the CoP, I am having difficulty in actually seeing these breakdowns instantly. I see transitions, for example, but scoring the GoE within the breakdown could very well be subjective and a +1 score may not be appropriate for a standard move.

However, I do dig the CoP and prefer it to the 6.0 system. I just have to work at not being such a Geshtaltist.

Joe

I am convinved that CoP is better than 6.0 for singles and pairs. Where I still have my doubts is dance. I think it's not quincidental that in dance CoP is far more complex than the rather-stratight forward one for other disciplines.

Joesitz said:

Good question, LAD.

Mens I would have put Serov in third place. He stood up more than the others and he has that flowing style that I like. Very musical skater, imo. Joe

Click to expand...

I liked Serov in Finlandia Trophy 2004 very much! I thought that he did not quite get there what he deserved... Yes, he has the flowing skating style, I noticed him a few years ago as he won the Finlandia Trophy 1999. BTW, Viktor Kudriatshev (Ilia Kulik´s former coach) has been Serov´s coach for many years...

About the judging, I´m looking forward to the Europeans to see how the judging works there. I have not heard that we in Finland are going to see anytthing from senior GP on our TV, but fortunately we have the junior GP final held in Helsinki, WOW. We actually are beeing spoiled this fall with three different events... The third is Fantasy On Ice show with great international skaters (according to the latest info): Abitbol & Bernadis, Anissina & Peizerat, Gary Beacom, Besedin & Poulishouck, Shae Lynn Bourne & Peter Tchernishev, Surya Bonaly, Maria Butyrskaya, Drobiazgo & Vanagas, Kovarikova & Novotny, Ilia Kulik, Alexei Urmanov, plus the Finnish performers Alisa Drei, Elina Kettunen and Marigold Ice Unity

Marjaana

I still haven't decided if I like it yet or not. I don't hate it though. I'm totally scratching my head at some of the judges placements though, but that may not have anything to do with CoP.
I did do a little experiement though and used the ordinal system with the judges placements. The top 3 came out the same for pairs and men, but with the ladies Poykio would have been in 3rd and Ando in 5th. Down in the lower ranks there was a lot more mixing up, but I guess that's to be expected.

One thing I DO like about CoP is that there will be no places flip-floping (like the ladies in '02 Olys). You can't go from 1st to 3rd after just 1 skater goes...only 1st to second. I think that's good.

I'm not sure how I feel about COP. Overall I like the system, however I question some of the skaters getting rewarded by it. For example, while Ryan Jahnke has flowing movement across the ice, I really didn't like the execution of a lot of his elements. He had complicated spins and footwork but they looked really labored. Also I thought his jumps looked kind of sloppy and unstable (the ones in the second comeback half of the program) even though he stood them up. I want to preface this by saying that I'm not a Joubert fan and even though I didn't like the techno part of his program, I thought he had more speed and flow. While I think skaters should be rewarded for packing their programs, there still needs to be a focus on the speed and execution of the elements. I actually think skating looks better when there is a balance and spacing between the elements. There needs to be flow and speed and I see that being sacrificed for having a lot of moves to get points.

To me , I feel that skating is getting cluttered like gymnastics. I used to love gymnastics but now it feels so overscored and overworked. Innovation is being cast off to the side in the favor of cookie cutter moves to work the code of points. I see skating going like that as well.

It seems as though they are double penalizing the skaters as well. Correct me if I am wrong, but if a skater underrotates a quad by a quarter turn and falls, is the jump still called as a quad or does it get called as a triple? I think that if a skater is a 1/4 turn short on a quad and falls, the skater should get credit for attempting the quad. They still give skaters who flutz credit for a lutz, so why not give the benefit of the doubt for the quad?

What I like most about COP...

Goes along the lines of what Mathman said. Since the judges are required to score each element specifically, and also break down what used to be "presentation" into specifc categories i.e. skating skills, choreography, etc. at least the placements have to be explained. It's still subjective on some level, but no longer a complete mystery.

I'm also looking forward to getting better at identifying differences in level 1 spins, footwork, etc. and level 2/3 of the same. I feel that now there is a good reason for me to be much more observant of finer details, which should lead to a deeper appreciation of each performance in total.

My 2 cents..

DG

I like the CoP. It's more scientificly understandable.

And most of all the CoP forces the skaters and their choreographer put more contents (except the big tricks) into their program. Like I/B and O/S's LP last night, even not clean they missed a few big tricks(high lights) but still there were so much in the program, still enjoyable and watchable.

CoP

soogar said:

It seems as though they are double penalizing the skaters as well. Correct me if I am wrong, but if a skater underrotates a quad by a quarter turn and falls, is the jump still called as a quad or does it get called as a triple? I think that if a skater is a 1/4 turn short on a quad and falls, the skater should get credit for attempting the quad. They still give skaters who flutz credit for a lutz, so why not give the benefit of the doubt for the quad?

Click to expand...

It's all in the documentation. In "Guideline for Short Programs," the "intended" -- i.e., higher rotation/value jump -- is called if the rotation is up to 1/4 turn short, there is a fall on the takeoff, or if the jump starts from the wrong edge. A 3.75 Toe is called a 4T, with -2 taken off the starting value (0 or +1, depending on the rest of the execution).

If a jump is more than 1/4 underrotated, then the jump is called at lesser rotation, and "GOE must be in the 'minus' grades. That is where the jump is penalized in two aspects.

Some of the things I like about the CoP's:

If you skate first you are not at an extreme disadvantage. This benefits the skater as well as the audience because we do not need to hear the announcers saying "her marks will be lower because the judges will have to save the higher marks for later."

The performance is scored AS IT HAPPENED, not what they did in practice, not what they did the last 2 years of competition, etc. I am sure there will still be some skaters whose marks get held up/down, but I think the CoP addresses THAT performance better than the 6.0 system.

If you mess up in the SP all is not lost! An excellent free skate can really help!

I really like that the CoP emphasizes all aspects of skating--I wouldn't go as far as to say the 6.0 system was all about jumps, but to me it was increasingly heading in that direction. I like that the skating skills carry a pretty heavy weight, I like that a well balanced program tends to be better rewarded under the CoP, I like that jumps after after the 2 minute mark (2.5min?) have a greater point value.

Right now at least the programs that are CoP friendly have much more going on in them--much less skate jump skate jump.

The CoP is certainly a more cumbersome system, but I do think it is better system overall for the skater. I still don't like that the judging is kept secret! I know I need to get a better handle on what all the numbers mean, what is level 1, 2, 3, etc,...When I decide I have the time and/or energy, where is the best place to go to find info about the CoP and understanding the detailed scoring?

eliza88

Ptichka said:

I am convinved that CoP is better than 6.0 for singles and pairs. Where I still have my doubts is dance. I think it's not quincidental that in dance CoP is far more complex than the rather-stratight forward one for other disciplines.

Click to expand...

I agree with that observation. Looking at the judges' scores for dance, it seems like there is a lot of just saying, "I liked couple X the best so I'll give them high scores straight across."

Mathman

Some intersting observations here, but I miss the old marking system - technical merrit and artistic impression. Adding up a bunch of points with a final total just does not seem like figure skating to me. Makes it more like a swim meet or something.

I suppose nothing stays the same forever, not even figure skating. I still miss the figures! I wonder how the COP would have worked for figures.

Anyway, in the end it is the skaters who benefit. If the new judging system keeps judges from playing favorites then it will have accomplished something. It's hard to say though with their anonymous clause. How does that prevent dishonesty?
I guess time will tell.

I don't think any system of judging can prevent cheating. But I am beginning to understand Mr. Cinquanta's strategy with the CoP. Cinquanta believes that the culprits in all the politics, secret agreements and bloc judging are the national federations and their officials. Many of these folks don't even think that cheating is cheating -- they think it is what national federations are supposed to do, namely, play every trick they can think of that will get their skaters a higher placement and more medals.

Under the old system the judges were nominated by the member federations and so had to toe the party line or they were out.

Cinquanta has said many times that he would prefer that the judges be appointed, trained and paid directly by the ISU, in order to break this dependence on the (largely corrupt) national federations. But of course he can't say it too loudly, because he serves at the pleasure of the federations, too.

Anyway, under the CoP the most powerful officials are the tech specialist and his two assistants. These officials are appointed directly by the ISU and (in principle) are not beholding to any particular national federation.

Likewise the secrecy provision is intended to shield the judges somewhat from pressure from their own federation. (This won't work, IMHO. Even if the judges did want to go against the instructions of their federation about which skaters to support, it is too easy to "break the code" about which judges gave which marks.)

On the other side, these changes are putting more power directly into the hands of the ISU as an independent organization, and into the hands of Cinquanta himself. The ISU already suffers from the reputation of being a tin-horn dictatorship that regularly flaunts its own rules to make sure that its president gets his own way and that all dissent is quashed.

Mathman

Mathman said:

What I like about the new judging system is that afterwards we can figure out exactly why one skater won and another lost. Skater A won because her combination spin was awarded a level three due to four changes of position and an unusual entry, and she got a +2 GOE because of good to excellent execution in each judged category. Etc.

We can still disagree, of course, but at least we have something specific to disagree with.

Under the 6.0 system all we knew is that a majority of the judges liked skater A better than skater B. If you liked skater B better, well, too bad, you're not a judge, they are.

For instance, if the CoP had been in effect at Salt Lake City, all the judges who voted for Berezhnaya and Sikharudlidze would have been able to document exactly what aspects of B&S's performance gained them more points than S&P. We wouldn't have to depend on media and audience frenzy to tell us who was or wasn't robbed.

JMO

Mathman

Click to expand...

Mathman:

S&P skated a perfect program and should have been awarded the gold without the media and fans getting involved. However, it was obvious to the media and the public at Salt Lake City that one or maybe more of the judges had "fixed" the outcome in favour of B&S. But really, this is nothing new to figure skating. Toller Cranston always claimed - especially when figures were part of the competition - that "backroom deals" were constantly being made and that the judges knew who the winner would be before the skaters stepped onto the ice. Favourtism and judges getting cozy with one another was a big part of figure skating.

One only hopes this new COP system has done unway with this problem. But who knows? People are people and incorrect scoring could still be done. No judging system is perfect.

What happened at the Salt Lake City Olympics, did help force the ISU to examine the judging system and make changes. Only time will tell how effective those changes are.

Doggygirl said:

Goes along the lines of what Mathman said. Since the judges are required to score each element specifically, and also break down what used to be "presentation" into specifc categories i.e. skating skills, choreography, etc. at least the placements have to be explained. It's still subjective on some level, but no longer a complete mystery.

I'm also looking forward to getting better at identifying differences in level 1 spins, footwork, etc. and level 2/3 of the same. I feel that now there is a good reason for me to be much more observant of finer details, which should lead to a deeper appreciation of each performance in total.My 2 cents..DG

Click to expand...

"At least the placements have to be explained". And will they be explained? I believe the theory of the CoP is the best system yet developed for judging figure skating. But,it is difficult for the specator to get these specific categories in one look sweep. I watched the skating. I saw transitions. I said, OK, but so what? How much is that worth? In one skater, e.g., there were adequate transitions but what is adequate? And how much do I give or deduct in a GoE for those transitions? I believe I would have to compare with others and the CoP doesn't allow comparing! And that's just Transitions! All this while still looking simultaneously at the rest of the components.

I believe this kind of scoring can be tiresome but with a small field of skaters as in Skate America, I believe the judges with their expertise can do this. However, come the Qualis in Worlds with some 40 skaters, there is no doubt in my mind that those judges will get bored except for the better known contestants.

Joe

Ladskater said:

S&P skated a perfect program and should have been awarded the gold without the media and fans getting involved. However, it was obvious to the media and the public at Salt Lake City that one or maybe more of the judges had "fixed" the outcome in favour of B&S. But really, this is nothing new to figure skating. Toller Cranston always claimed - especially when figures were part of the competition - that "backroom deals" were constantly being made and that the judges knew who the winner would be before the skaters stepped onto the ice. Favourtism and judges getting cozy with one another was a big part of figure skating.

Click to expand...

Perfect does not equal gold. They performed the easiest program choreographically of the final group. In comparison to I&B and B&S, the program was much much easier, by far. Bah, I don't want to rehash this. Anyway, as things seem to you, they do not seem that way to others. :sheesh:

Ladskater said:

One only hopes this new COP system has done unway with this problem. But who knows? People are people and incorrect scoring could still be done. No judging system is perfect.

What happened at the Salt Lake City Olympics, did help force the ISU to examine the judging system and make changes. Only time will tell how effective those changes are.

Click to expand...

Exactly, no system is going to be 100% foolproof against corruption, but it CAN be designed to spot unethical judging more easily. If the ISU actually does anything though, only time will tell. We must wait for CoP to be in use longer. Eitherway, it's difficult to actualy prove corruption from marks, and I'd rather the ISU not go on a witch hunt.

The good thing about the judging system is that you don't really have have to worry what place your in because you can easily come back. The bad thing about it is that there are now certain rules and difficulty levels of the skills that the skaters perform. A lot of skaters are uping the difficulty of their programs to get the the highest points but as we saw in Skate America, Tatiana Totmianina and Maxim Marinin had a frightening fall because of a difficult lift. The lift was difficult because of the forward take-off. I think that they call that lift the "axel lasso lift". (Correct me if I'm wrong)