Ladies Free Skate

Doggygirl: "Is there supposed to be a direct correlation between the PCS scores and the number of jumps completed? That seems to be what you are suggesting, and I don't think that's "in the rules" for COP. Not arguing what the rules SHOULD be, just questioning why the component scores should have a direct correlation to the jumps."

No, CoP doesn't necessarily have a direct correlation with the jumps, but CoP should have correlation to how well the program was performed---Irina was performing the same FS program in all the events. A perfect program would have had 7 triple jumps and 3 combinations, with one of the combos a 3/3/2, and the others, 3/2, 3/2. Irina never managed to do the 7 triples, but she came close at CoC and CoR.

The only fall in the four events was in the Euros FS, and that was also the only event where Irina singled AND doubled jumps, yet she didn't receive the lowest PCS score. And Irina's spins at Euros weren't anywhere near as good as they had been in her other events. The spins were slow, she had great difficulty changing the Bielmann positions, and the spins traveled noticeably. Observers who were there said Irina was fast, but nowhere near as fast as she normally is.

One would expect lower PCS scores for a very flawed performance (Euros) as opposed to a very good one (Cup of China), but that was not the case.

Hey Chuckm...

Your comments make TOTAL sense. I have heard very mixed reviews about Irina's overall skate at Euro's - I've read everything from "it was her usual great skate except for the jumps" to "she was slower / labored throughout." And I didn't see it so have no way of knowing.

If in fact her overall skate was slower, more labored etc. then ITA that her component scores, especially for Performance / Execution and probably Interpretation should have been much lower than her previous good performances.

I was really only questioning the comments that a fall, or doubled jumps should directly and immediately impact component scores. That question comes with the assumption that the overall program was still performed well.

Who knows? Just having fun picking apart COP and learning in the process! Like COP or not, it's here to stay for now.

DG

Ok I am going to take a stab at this but without knowing much about what I am talking about so bear with me

The technical advisor calls an element. That element has a specific level and a specific score as per it's level so theoretically a double axel off a spread eagle would have a higher score than a double axel off cross-overs and this is the type of situation that leads to base marks for an element.
The judges job is then to score that element on the basis of how it is executed and they have a range from -3 to +3 around the base mark score by which they can mark the element, so a triple loop completed well, with good height, speed, clean egdes etc would go somewhere in the +3 range whereas a triple loop where the skater maybe steps off, or falls would be marked down into the -3 end, but as I understand it, as long as the jump was indeed a triple, the scores can only deviate +/- 3 from the jumps base mark.

So following on from that if a triple jump is under rotated by 1/4 turn or more that jump is automatically downgraded to a double, which has a lower base mark and then the whole process of deciding the quality of the jump within +/-3 starts all over again, but this time there is a lower base mark from which to work with.
Similarly, it appears that the later in the program a skater puts a triple/quad jump, the higher the base mark for that jump. Which is why Lambiel was trying jumps quite late into his program.
Without knowing what the base marks are I cannot say whether there is a marked difference between a badly executed triple and an excellantly executed double, but common sense would lead me to assume that a well execute double axel would have a significantly higher base mark than a well executed single axel. By the sounds of it, the problem is not so much the difference between two well executed elements (ie double over single, or triple over double) the problems seems to arise when there is a well executed double compared with a badly executed triple and how they are marked and does the range of +/- 3 allow for a judge to say a skater who completes a good double flip is marginally better than a skater who falls on a triple flip. Also I noticed that there was very little consistancy with judges as regards whether they downgraded triple to double because of under rotation.

This situation is the same for all other elements such as spins, footwork, spirals etc. and the program is also marked as a whole on the basis of it's structure, choreography, interpretation, the skaters own skills which I assume is things like edges, knee bends, flow, speed etc and these are judged by different judges.

How am I doing so far?

equestrianguy said:

Don't get me wrong..I love Irina,but she has done the same spins for most of her entire career. I love a good Bielman spin just as much as the next person, but it can be overdone. I give cudos for skaters that do different variations of spins and try new things. That is when extra points should be given to skaters when they change year after year adding new elements. I'm sure judges notice these things.. Just like in any type of competition.....

Click to expand...

Well if we're going to knock Irina for the Biellman position, let's knock the guys for only doing camel and sit spins. I noticed in men's events that the guys really overuse the camel and sit spin positions. It's pretty repetitive and makes the program really boring. While we're at it, what about overuse of the spiral position as well? There are so many spirals in ladies programs and hardly any footwork.

Maybe the Biellman postion stands out b/c it's so unusual but she's not doing this position anymore than other skaters are repeating their postions.

As for Irina winning in Moscow... as I've said before, she's getting messier as the season progresses. Maybe with some rest she'll skate better in Moscow but I really think that she's not going to be on the podium. I see Shizzy, Miki or Sasha and MK on the podium (like last year if Sasha makes it).

Hi Diver Chick...

I'm still learning all this myself, but it sure helps to have folks around here to talk with about it!!

I think you're on the right track. One difference though - I don't believe a difficult jump entry (as an example) affects the base mark. That shows up in the GOE. Same would be true for a more difficult air position (i.e. Tano lutz).

I believe the "bonus" for jumps late in the program is 10% of the base value. In the case of Irina / Susanna, both did their axels late in the program, and both recieved the 10% bonus. However, since a double axel is worth way more than a single, this increased the significance even further of Susanna's single rather than double axel, just using this situation as an example.

The base values overall between singles, doubles, triples are significant - more than double the base value with each increase in revolution.

I've started with singles, printing out the rules off of the ISU site. I've organized them into a 3 ring binder separated by topic (i.e. components, base values, GOE explanations, etc.) I think I will need this reference book for quite awhile!!

DG

Great - I think I am getting there slowly but surely. Hopefully at Worlds I'll get more of an idea about the scores etc. For a statistician of sorts I am not doing very well

A difficult jump entry or a jump performed late in the program gets an extra base value assigned by the caller.

A 3S out of a difficult position would be scored by the caller as 4.5 + (10%*4.5) = 4.95. If well done, and most of the judges gave a GOE of +1, the jump would be scored as 5.95

A 3Z late in the program would get 6.0 + (10% *6) = 6.6 points.

A 3Z2L late in the program would get 7.5 + (10%*7.5) = 8.25 points.

Many skaters plan a 3Z towards the end of the program, but much of the time, it winds up being a 2Z. This has happened with Irina, Shizuka and Kwan. It's hard to do a jump in the last minute when you're tired and your legs feel like lead.

Thanks Chuckm...

....for the clarification about difficult entries being eligible for the 10% bonus. They are also mentioned in the rules as a part of qualification for positive GOE, so no wonder so many of the skaters (especially quadless men) are focusing on that. Looks like a well executed jump with a difficult entry can get more points both in base value and GOE, which makes sense.

Do you remember the time cutoff for the "late program" jump bonus? I want to say either 2 or 2.5 minutes into the program?

DG

diver chick said:

Great - I think I am getting there slowly but surely. Hopefully at Worlds I'll get more of an idea about the scores etc. For a statistician of sorts I am not doing very well

Click to expand...

AND THIS MAKES A HUGE STATEMENT. If skating fans who are "statistically inclined" need an entire season to figure out how this stupid system works, then the more casual viewer is going to be COMPLETELY lost. This is supposed to make skating more fan-friendly???? It would be ONE thing if it was actually doing anything to solve judging problems, but it seems to be creating more than it's solving (and I'm sure that if this keeps up for a few more seasons, it will create some entirely new ones), and it seems to be extremely inconsistent. But I guess it's easier to go with this than it is to expect the judges to actually act with ethics and integrity, because we certainly wouldn't want to do anything to inconvenience them or anything.

A statement was once made about the Dance competition at a Worlds in the mid-70s, which was, "The judges seemed to use the rules only to mark down couples that they didn't like." This system seems to be conducive to this type of thing, and it's so convoluted and complex it's almost impossible to figure out what's going on, whereas at least in the past if someone went out there and skated extremely well and still pulled a 5.1/5.2 it was a lot more obvious. This system is going to lead to a scandal that is going to make SLC look like nothing, and I am expecting more controversy and protests in Torino than we saw 4 years ago.

Hi Johnny...

What specific judging problems do you think COP is creating more than it's solving? I'm not trying to be a pain. I try to see all sides of debates, and there is no doubt COP is more complex, therefore more challenging to understand than 6.0. ITA there!!

I got so tired of all the "wuzrobbing" under 6.0 over the years. And there was nothing objective to even look at, other than my general opinion of a skate compared to the judges general opinion of a skate. At least now, there ARE specific scores to look at, whether you agree with those scores or not.

So all I'm suggesting is that since COP DOES offer us something more concrete to discuss than just general opinions, let's take advantage of that opportunity!!

Where exactly do you think COP has fallen short in terms of results, and why based on the scores?

DG

Joy

There have been a number of comments related to why Irina should get good PCS scores. I haven't seen European's yet, but I'll make a generic stab at Irina's programs in general: she skates with Joy. For that, I believe she deserves better PCS scores. I don't know exactly where Joy would fit in the Code of Points... but it's a subjective sport. On the subjectivity scale, Joy is quite important.

Linny

Linny said:

There have been a number of comments related to why Irina should get good PCS scores. I haven't seen European's yet, but I'll make a generic stab at Irina's programs in general: she skates with Joy. For that, I believe she deserves better PCS scores. I don't know exactly where Joy would fit in the Code of Points... but it's a subjective sport. On the subjectivity scale, Joy is quite important.

Click to expand...

:agree: That is so true. Irina always looks like she is saying, Look at me! I'm the luckiest girl in the world to be out here, doing what I love!

Diver Chick, I know what you mean. When the CoP first came out I thought, oh boy, some good old numbers to get hold of! Now, I have to admit I have kind of lost interest in all of the statistical analyses I attempted in the first season of the CoP. Same old, same old.

Mathman

diver chick said:

Irina won on the basis that she had such a huge margin going into the free and her closest competitor, Julia, had a meltdown equal to that of Irina, topped off by the fact that her other technical elements (spins) were all high level and as such high scoring elements. It must still be a bitter pill for Julia to know that someone else skated as badly as you and yet they are standing at the top of the podium.

Click to expand...

Most ppl on this board and other boards were arguring not for her overall win but her win of LP. The opposite justified arguments on her winning on her LP was based on her speed and power so Superiou to other ppl. But none of posters, who were there at arena, posted at ISU boards seem to recognized that. (check out Andy, Rosie and Piotr posts, they are just general fans no uber to any skaters).
http://forums.isu.org/viewtopic.php?t=675&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=80


No doubt that Irina won overall, she had so much lead after SP that except Julia no body had a reality chance to catch her up in LP. The final result shown that even with 95 to 98 LP scores she would have won the title. But since Julia skated after her, at the time it seems as if had IS scored 95 to 98 in LP there might be a good chance that Julia will beat her in LP and take the Gold. I just suspect that judges gave her enough insurance by props her PCS scores and the doubtfull GOEs that they don't handout to other skaters.

JonnyCoop said:

AND THIS MAKES A HUGE STATEMENT. If skating fans who are "statistically inclined" need an entire season to figure out how this stupid system works, then the more casual viewer is going to be COMPLETELY lost. This is supposed to make skating more fan-friendly???? It would be ONE thing if it was actually doing anything to solve judging problems, but it seems to be creating more than it's solving (and I'm sure that if this keeps up for a few more seasons, it will create some entirely new ones), and it seems to be extremely inconsistent. But I guess it's easier to go with this than it is to expect the judges to actually act with ethics and integrity, because we certainly wouldn't want to do anything to inconvenience them or anything.
.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what type a 'Casual Fan' you refers to. But do you watch Diving and Gymnastics during Summer Olympics? Both of them use the similar judge systems. I watched, as a casual fan I never try to got detail into how the marks come up. I only kept track how muche my fav athelete/teams need to earn this/next round to be placed ahead. IMO, that's all a casual fan concerned about the judge besides the athlete's performance itself.

I'm with you Mzheng...

There are many subjectively judged sports that I dearly love to watch. You mentioned two of them - diving and gymnatics. I have many other personal favorites I could add to the list!!

In NO way would I expect any of the leading organizations of these sports to design a scoring system that is "easy for me" as a casual fan. You make a great point with that one.

I always have been and always (probably) will be at least a casual fan of figure skating. I guess I am interested enough as a fan to make an attempt at understanding the new scoring system. I don't think the ISU or USFSA are obligated to come up with a scoring system that I, as a casual fan, can easily understand. If I want to understand the sport better, it is up to ME to try to understand the scoring system better.

Mzheng, I think we're in agreement on this point?? I applaud you for bringing it up!! I think it's very valid.

DG

Doggygirl said:

Mzheng, I think we're in agreement on this point?? I applaud you for bringing it up!! I think it's very valid.

DG

Click to expand...

Sure.

I love the concept of CoP from very beginning. I'm all the way for CoP in figure skating in all of the boards I chose to post from the very beginning. Even now, I'm still all for it, It's never the probolme be the system. Theoritically, good skate is good skate under any systems. It's the way Judge applying the rules. Sometimes they are not consistant from competetion to competetion, sometimes they are not consistant from skater to skater.

At least the detail protocol of CoP gave the fans see the reason why this skater win the other lost, no matter what the reason was right or wrong. But given the system was still young, there are places in system itsself need to be twickled. Also the ppl (caller, judgers, referees) who used the system need to be trainned more how to use the system correctly and apply the rule accordingly.

mzheng said:

I love the concept of CoP from very beginning. I'm all the way for CoP in figure skating in all of the boards I chose to post from the very beginning. Even now, I'm still all for it, It's never the probolme be the system. Theoritically, good skate is good skate under any systems. It's the way Judge applying the rules. Sometimes they are not consistant from competetion to competetion, sometimes they are not consistant from skater to skater.

Click to expand...

I totally agree with the concept of CoP - I do think that fundamentally it is a very good system and with a little work would probably be reasonably easy to understand. I have no doubt that the problem with the CoP is the judges themselves and as you say, how they interpret the rules! Again having a sport that is judged by humans means that you are always going to run the risk of personal bias and interpretation creeping in and as an athlete you have to accept that. Where the problem arises, is when the judges are inconsistant in their interpretations, not only from competition to competition but from skater to skater.

I only saw the ladies free on television so I accept that I cannot accurately comment on Irina's skate and I do admit, my first reaction after Julias skate was 'what a crock, two skaters skate to equally sub-par performances and one ends up in first and one ends up in fourth' but on reflection Irina managed to keep a smile on her face and keep some enjoyment in her performance where Julia allowed her head to drop and I don't know if that made a difference at all.

Doggygirl said:

What specific judging problems do you think COP is creating more than it's solving?

Where exactly do you think COP has fallen short in terms of results, and why, based on the scores?

Click to expand...

Here is a good place to start if you want to read some of the objections to the CoP from the point of view of statistical theory. This is Dr. George Rossano's site. Scroll down to any of the articles about the CoP.

Rossano is a mathematician/statistician/aerospace engineer/photographer/ figure skating enthusiast. He is an inveterate critic of the CoP (and indeed, of almost anything connected with the ISU establishment).

Here is a trio of articles offering similar objections by Dr. Dirk Schaeffer from the Golden Skate archives. (This link will take you to part 3, which contains links to parts 1 and 2 in the first sentence.)

The main generic argument against the whole idea of the CoP is that its numerical scores are based on parametric analysis (estimates of means, standard deviations, etc.), while a judged sport such as figure skating, by it's nature, ought to use the techniques of non-parametric statistics (e.g., rankings, ordinals and OBO judging).

The only thing all these numbers do is create a false impression that somehow the result is more "accurate" or more "mathematical" or something like that. But it isn't. Instead, the CoP (in the view of these critics) serves no purpose except to pull the wool over people's eyes and make them think that the ISU is doing something about judging scandals, which they aren't.

In fact, strictly as a public relations ploy (which is the only possible virtue most statisticians will grant the CoP), it could backfire. What would happen if the next Olympic gold medal is determined strictly by the random draw of whose scores count and whose don't? That is, what if the majority of all judges give the higher scores to skater A, but the random draw throws out four "skater A judges" leaving the "skater B judges" in the majority, just by luck. (This actually happened under the hybrid "interim" system. It could happen under the new system, too, but it would not be as obvious to the casual viewer whether it happened ot not.)

Ironically, that is the one argument against the CoP that does not really withstand statistical scrutiny. Still, this is a public relations disaster waiting to happen. No wonder Cinquanta wants to keep the details secret.

Mathman

Hi, diver chick ....

As I mentioned before I love the concept of CoP.

But I don't like the idea of anonymouse judging. I'm not saying these judgers are biased or blocking. Sometimes they are just incompetent. Let the public seeing who is incompetent so they should be ashamed of themself, next time around they should be really careful what the GOEs, PCS handed out.

On the downside of CoP, the 5 PCS scores and numerous GOEs dose leave more rooms than 6.0 has ever for judgers to manuaplate the score in favor of their personal bias. A little bit PCS here, a little bit GOEs there, .... you get the job (promote your skater) done without even noticeble.

So bottom line the fair judging, no matter under what system, is in the hands of judgers. The judge trainning only can correct certain things. The dishonest and personal bias can not be overcomed by trainning.

Hi Mathman..

I always love your posts because you ARE the voice of reason. And your post suggests that the links will add some reason to my crazy attempt at learning COP!! So - I promise I will read and try to digest your links (and ask you pestering questions, most likely) before I post another word in favor of COP!!

Thanks for posting this info. Geez. What's the tuition for this course??? And what's the prize if we all graduate from COP school?????

DG