CoP System | Golden Skate

CoP System

doubleaxelcm

On the Ice
Joined
Dec 2, 2004
Please post any ideas and criticisms of the new Code of Points system here. Both positives and negatives
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Well, here's what I think so far.

The purpose of the new judging system was to defuse the public perception that the legitimate competive aspects of the sport are overborne by cheating, national bias and political deal-making. To this end, whatever plusses accrue to the new point system (for technical anyway) are thrown away by the huge negative of secret and anonymous judging.

Frankly, no one is buying it. At the end of the day a voice comes from the shadows: You won, you lost, now go away and don't ask any questions.

Mathman
 

R.D.

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Mathman said:
Well, here's what I think so far.

The purpose of the new judging system was to defuse the public perception that the legitimate competive aspects of the sport are overborne by cheating, national bias and political deal-making. To this end, whatever plusses accrue to the new point system (for technical anyway) are thrown away by the huge negative of secret and anonymous judging.

Frankly, no one is buying it. At the end of the day a voice comes from the shadows: You won, you lost, now go away and don't ask any questions.

Mathman

I really don't think it makes a difference what system is used. Like you said in another thread, the judges are human and will have their opinions. You can use ANY judging system you want but the results will be the same with those judges. If they thought Skater A was the best, Skater B second and Skater C last, they'll most likely manipulate the system (if it means inflating scores, etc.) to reflect what they thought.

I heard some instances of this happening in this year's GP series (that the numbers were not consistent throughout the board). So go ahead, cause a headache or confuse people, but the results will stay the same. :sheesh:

On the bright side (or at least it appears to be) all the numbers reward points for other aspects of skating as opposed to just jumps and expressions. But since people aren't that familiar with the system the judges can manipulate those numbers without the public having a clue as to what they mean. At least with 6.0 I thought it was easier to identify "wuz robbed"s. JMO, of course.
 

wvgal57

On the Ice
Joined
Aug 23, 2003
High marks get thrown out though. I don't see a lot of room for manipulation. I'm a horse show judge and you can only judge what your own eyes see at any given time. These judges have those few minutes of skating to make major decisions, they don't have the luxury of going back and nitpicking a persons whole program. It's also possible that judges prefer different styles and they vote their conscious. I think this system is an improvement because it highlights the skaters with great skating skill and elements and it gives the skaters a chance to see what they did wrong and what they need to improve on. They always got feedback but not like a written protocol that they can keep and study and use at the rink to work from.

I think it'll give those skaters who are really diligent with competing something to "best" themselve with and I see this as a motivator. They can take their last skating protocol and work towards eliminating all of the errors or low GOE.
 

Ptichka

Forum translator
Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 28, 2003
I am happy enough with the Skating Elements portion of the score. Sure it's open to some manipulation, but I think it's a huge improvement over 6.0.

Components, though, are a different story. I basically feel that they are handled the same way the second mark was under 6.0. A prime example is ice dancing during GPF - N&K got scores way above everyone else in every single element. Considering that they are at best slightly better than Denkova & Stavijski, this seems odd. Even if D&S had two bad nights, their skating skills and transitions, for instance, are still excellent; not way below N&K's.
 
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
Given what all of the above is about, I would like to add if the judges names were revealed, there would be still less cheating. There is no reason for not showing the judges names at the conclusion of the competition.

There probably is a reason for not showing them but even that is not given. There probably is a reason for not showing them, but unfortunately, the fans can only assume why not.

Joe
 
Last edited:

sk8kristi

Rinkside
Joined
Nov 20, 2004
Ptichka said:
I am happy enough with the Skating Elements portion of the score. Sure it's open to some manipulation, but I think it's a huge improvement over 6.0.

Components, though, are a different story. I basically feel that they are handled the same way the second mark was under 6.0. A prime example is ice dancing during GPF - N&K got scores way above everyone else in every single element. Considering that they are at best slightly better than Denkova & Stavijski, this seems odd. Even if D&S had two bad nights, their skating skills and transitions, for instance, are still excellent; not way below N&K's.

I agree pretty much with you... I like the skating elements part of it but I think there is too much room for manipulation in the components part.. but thats just what I think...
 

hockeyfan228

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Ptichka said:
I am happy enough with the Skating Elements portion of the score. Sure it's open to some manipulation, but I think it's a huge improvement over 6.0.

:rock:

In the GPF LP, Rochette had a base score of 50.9, and actual technical score of 48.44. Ando had a base score of 47.4, and an actual technical score of 49.40.

Rochette double-footed her opening 3T/3T combination (-1.60 GOE), and received deductions on her 2Lz (-.06), 3F SEQ 3S (-1.0), and 3S (-.4). She also landed a 3Lz/2T (0.00), as well as a 3Lo and 2A. Her spiral and step sequences and two of four spins were L2, while the other two spins were L1.

Ando received -.4 on her opening 3Lz, then +.80 on a 3S, and followed with a 3F/3Lo combination, for which she received 10.5 base +.2 GOE. Her other jumps were 2A, 3T/2T, 3S/2T, and an illegal second solo 3Lz, for which she got no credit. All of her non-jump elements were rated L1.

Under 6.0, would there have been much of a chance that Ando wouldn't have received high technical scores based on the 3F/3Lo and receiving credit for the illegal (Zayak violation) 3Lz at the end of the program (2nd to last element)? It was scored as seven +1's and four 0's for quality. Under 6.0, what is the chance that Rochette's harder spins, spiral, and footwork as well as the 3Lz/2T combo would have nearly made up the gap, despite an obvious and well-dinged flaw on her 3/3 and a 2Lz that should have been a 3Lz to open the program?
 

Hikaru

Final Flight
Joined
Sep 23, 2004
Overall I like the new system, I think it is much better for a skater to be able to gather points for the elements they execute, rather than having points deducted for mistakes (deducted from a perfect 6.0, I mean). In the past I saw several competitions where a skater could have a small error on a jump, but have wondefull spins and footwork, but the judges would nail him for the error, whereas other skaters with an average skills in the other skating areas would get the higher marks, just because the jumps were clean. I think mentally it is better for the skaters to know that they are getting points for how good they make their elements, each one of them, rather than worring for being perfect, for keeping safe that 6.0

As for the component mark, I think that reduces to how much impact the skater had in the judges, and how the skating skills, choreography and such made an impact in the judges. That some people will disagree with the judges opinion? of course it will happen, 'cause we are humans, and what I thought was a good program, maybe it wasn't the same for the judges, but that's no reason to say "gee they must be cheating". The component marks will always be subjective. I think that what they can do about those marks is check for a certain consistency. It would look kinda fishy if most of the judges give 6.25 average and two judges are giving 8.50., but even in those cases the highest and lowest marks are eliminated, so mathematically there is some control in that. I think that after Salt Lake City, the component score will always be seen as the way to cheat, no matter what system is applied. I'd love that the judges names would be known, but I don't know how much that would change if there is some cheating or not.
 
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
If we are going to accept the status quo without complaining because that's the way it is, then we have to stop complaining after each event. We must accept the premise that all judgments are without any form of bias or collusion since there is nothing we can do about it anyway except complain to each other.

All I want to know is the name of the judges who are being credited for judging an event and what is their mother tongue, and whether other judges for the same event agree or disagree with that group. Once I know these facts, I will make up my own mind how fair the judging was.

Joe
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Joesitz said:
There probably is a reason for not showing them but even that is not given. There probably is a reason for not showing them, but unfortunately, the fans can only assume why not. -- Joe
The official reason according to Cinquanta is the same reason that we have a "secret ballot" in U.S. political elections. It makes it harder for the bad guys to influence voters by bribes and threats.

For instance, with secret judging the President of the French Federation would not have been able to force the French judge in Salt Lake City to go along with the supposed conspiracy that he had worked out with the Russians, because in the event he would not know whether Madam LeGougne had doublecrossed him or not.

So that's the theory (obvious baloney, if you ask me).

In practice, I do not see any way around that pesky second mark, whether under 6.0 or CoP. Unlike most sports (but in common with gymnastics, diving, dressage, dog breeding, cheerleading and bodybuilding) you are judged not only on what you do but also on how pretty you look doing it. It is hard to assign points in an objective way for this kind of aesthetic judgment, IMHO.

When Arnold Schwartzeneger was winning his string of Mr. Universe titles there were all sorts of grumbing and complaints from fans of his competitors along the lines of, So-and-so's triceps are way better defined than Arnold's; the judges must have made back-room deals to hold Arnold up.

Very likely so, but hard to prove.

All the judges have to say is, well, yes, but overall Arnold is such a hunk.

Similarly Sasha Cohen can fall six times in her first two events this year and still land on the podium. Why? Because overall she is a wonderful skater.

Mathman
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
Mathman said:
The official reason according to Cinquanta is the same reason that we have a "secret ballot" in U.S. political elections. It makes it harder for the bad guys to influence voters by bribes and threats.

For instance, with secret judging the President of the French Federation would not have been able to force the French judge in Salt Lake City to go along with the supposed conspiracy that he had worked out with the Russians, because in the event he would not know whether Madam LeGougne had doublecrossed him or not.

So that's the theory (obvious baloney, if you ask me).
In practice, I do not see any way around that pesky second mark, whether under 6.0 or CoP. Unlike most sports (but in common with gymnastics, diving, dressage, dog breeding, cheerleading and bodybuilding) you are judged not only on what you do but also on how pretty you look doing it. It is hard to assign points in an objective way for this kind of aesthetic judgment, IMHO.
Mathman

I'm suggesting the names of the judges with their detailed scores be presented after the competition at least on the results page. That should be harmless except for those judges who have a fear of fan rage.

In the case of SLC there was a whistle blower. That could happen still :agree: hopefully.

Subjective bias judging exists in other sports but it tends to be more in figure skating, imo. The second mark is the big culprit but those extra points on pluses and minuses in the Technical have an affect too. It would be very big in the case of flutzes (read flip) as opposed to true lutzes,. and downgrades if it is perceived that the skater did not land the jump properly. Of course, spirals are another matter. The more the body can contort the higher the add on.

You're right MM, there is no way around any of this but it still would be nice to know which judges practice these strange scorings. If all is fair, then there is no reason not to name the judge, the nationality and a copy of the detailed scoring sheets.

Joe
 
Top