PCS & TES hand-in-hand?

Do you guys think that the PCS scores and the TES scores go hand in hand? Let me explain more. Do you think that a skater will autmoatically be given higher PCS scores because of high TES scores. I got this idea from the thread about the appreciation of Sasha Cohen. Someone made a comment about Kimmie receiving high PCS scored and it made me think if it was just because she skated a clean high-pointing earning TES score. I don't think that just because a skater is clean in their jumps and spins means that they're necesarily expressive. So do high TES scores bring up PCS scores? I certainly don't think it's the other way around and maybe they don't affect eachother at all. Just looking for opinions of more knowledgeable IJS spectators.

What I think is that the judges are still in the 6.0 frame of mind when it comes time to give out the program component scores.

That is, the judges decide in their mind who they thought was best, second best, etc., then they give out scores appropriately. If you notice, the top skater always gets about 8.25, the second 8.00, the third 7.75, and so on down the line.

One reason why I think they do this is because they don't want to give over the entire show to the technical specialist. Then we wouldn't need judges at all. I think this is the way the judges make sure that the contest "comes out right in the end."

JMO.

MM

Yes, I think that those scores go hand in hand in CoP system as well as earlier. I sure hope that it would be different one day, LOL.

I agree with MM. We are still in the 6.0 system where a clean routine would be considered very important. But falls, in the 6.0 system were a serious mark down. Weiss' quad attempt would earn him some points now, but then it was a complete faux pas.

Also the very top tier skaters got the benefit of any doubt. Michael was a top podium contender but not a very top tier skater.

So failure in Technical seemed to mean lower PCS and Wow moves would mean higher PCS. - Not unlike the 6.0 system.

Maybe they should have forced age retirement of judges so that the new breed of judges coming up will be free of the 6.0 thinking.

Joe

Not quite. Jeffrey Buttle gets the same PCS whether he has a clean skate (which he often does in the SP) or a very flawed one (which has happened time and again in his FS).

Joesitz said:

Maybe they should have forced age retirement of judges so that the new breed of judges coming up will be free of the 6.0 thinking.

Joe

Click to expand...

:agree: And that might not be the only issue that is possibly hindering the scouring sys.

OADN,
I don't think handing over the PCS to a separate panel of Judges would eliminate the ones in place - minding that they don't hand it over to the Tec Js, but rather create a new panel. I see that working. Also the thought that if this would mean the end of said Js, then that might also be an indication a change might be worth considering. JTOL

Pcs/tes

I agree with Mathman on this one. It seems the judges are still thinking 6.0 and ranking the skaters by using the PCS. I was amazed at Plushy's PCS at the Olympics when really I didn't see much in the way of interpretation or transitions and he still got high scores.

I thought I read somewhere that the ISU was using two judging panels at Nebelhorn - one for TES and one for PCS - or am I dreaming

Maureen

TES and PCS

Well, as usual I'm not going to agree, sorry!

I'm seeing the judges get better and better at this, it does have a real learning curve for all of us. Now keep in mind I'm talking about local non-qual comps, but I think it will trickle up.

We're (the number punchers) not able to see much of the actual skating with IJS, so it's fun to get the results printed out and try to figure out how the skaters actually skated (then we hear the scoop from the coaches and skaters). You can actually see when a skater had great tricks but not much technique and the opposite when one had a tough jump day but showed really strong skating skills.

So it does seem to be working.

NC

When I look over the numbers, I want to see the judges more in agreement with each other. I don't always see this.

Joe

Agreement?

Joe,

You want them to agree? I doubt that will ever happen. A judge's opinions on what is good and what isn't are based on their own training and experiences. They are people and hopefully even this system won't turn them into robots.

You would find it interesting in the everyday skating community, especially testing levels. We know that one judge is a stickler for footwork and one loves the balletic skater, so when they are judging tests you can sometimes predict how a skater will do. A dance judge sometimes likes a skater who happens to be a dancer, because they exhibit those skating traits that they know and admire.

It definitely makes it tough though. But ultimately all the judges will reward a good skate.

I think that's why I like skating, it tends to surprise us.

NC

I think that TES and PCS should be scored seprately, however I don't think that you can completely separate the technical from the presentation. It is impossible to make one entirely removed from the other. Take, for example, the transistions portion of the PCS. One of the judged criteria is difficulty of linking steps and jump entrances. This has alot to do with technial ability as well and while its not judged under the TES scores it is still a technical aspect IMO.

I think things like this make it harder for the judges to separate the two. I think separate judging panels will help. While the judges will still have bias towards the skaters who they think had better technical programs, not knowing where they placed according to the technical judges will reduce the bias from being based on technical placement to being based more on how the technical influenced PCS.

What I am saying, NC, is that like the 6.0 system, the CoP has its variety of scores within the framework of it procedures. There isn't that much difference in the way these judges think and they score in CoP to make it come out the same as they would in the 6.0 system.

They are not thinking as one but as you say, the way they were trained as a possible reason.

The bottom line is the PCS scores are subjective, and not unlike the 6.0 results would be. The judges are never robotic but full of personal prejudices.

Joe

Another thing that I see happening is the CoP version of "protocol judging." That is, based on past performances and the skater's reputation, the judges have a pretty good idea of what range of PCSs the skater is capable of achieving with a typical performance.

Then if the skater gives an uninspired performance (like Sasha at 2006 worlds) or a super-duper one (like Irina at 2005 worlds), they mark it down a notch or up a notch as appropriate.

This is not necessarily a criticism. With everything that the judges have to look at, they need some sort of bench mark to start from.

Mathman said:

This is not necessarily a criticism. With everything that the judges have to look at, they need some sort of bench mark to start from.

Click to expand...

Yet, they love every minute of the power they hold as judges.

Joe

As someone who has just started the long journey of becoming a judge, I can now sympathize with them a little bit more. In the training session I attended, we had to learn about both 6.0 and CoP (since not all competitions use CoP yet, especially at a local level). These systems are definitely two completely different ways of thinking and I think the first few years of CoP have been a bit of a 'trial by fire' for many judges who have been used to 6.0 for such a long time. Like NC mentioned, it's quite the learning curve!

They are testing this year with yet another modified format - where one panel judges TES and another different panel focuses solely on PCS. I think this will help somewhat - there's so much a judge has to pay attention to, especially now that they need to assign a GOE to each and every element... so having a separate panel that can really sit back, take in the whole performance and then evaluate PCS like it should be will be an improvement. The question of whether or not this will become popular or not will likely be one of practicality. Should be interesting to see how it pans out. From the perspective of being a judge myself, I would definitely enjoy this format more - maybe it's just because I am so new at it, but I find it incredibly stressful to constantly be hyper alert and trying to pay attention to so many facets of the performance at once. You can never remove the subjectivity from skating - and I wouldn't want to as I think it's part of what makes this sport so beautiful... but if this would allow judges to do a better job, then I'll be all for it.

And I sure hope judges enjoy "every minute of [their] power". One does not become a judge overnight or without countless hours volunteering their time at small clubs and rec competitions, etc - it takes a lot of dedication to the sport to work your way up to an elite level. Someone simply in it for an ego trip would not still be there after all it takes. As someone at the bottom rung, it seems I'll likely never make it to a point where I'm responsible for sitting on a panel at a National or International level ... you don't get paid to judge and I have to work full time and can't afford to take too many days off in order to give the commitment one would need to travel and evaluate test days or trial judge/judge at countless clubs all over the section. I have all the respect in the world for those that do! I wish I had had that same respect back when I was a test skater and simply hated the judges for failing me! Anyways.. I'm getting off topic now. But to judges. And this is not to say that *some* judges, once they reach the top, don't abuse their 'power'..... it happens, I'm not naive and it's unfortunate that these few give such a bad wrap for so many others that simply love giving back to the sport.

Erica Lee said:

As someone who ............... it happens, I'm not naive and it's unfortunate that these few give such a bad wrap for so many others that simply love giving back to the sport.

Click to expand...

What a great post, and thank you so much for this contribution. to you!

You're welcome!

Joesitz said:

I agree with MM. We are still in the 6.0 system where a clean routine would be considered very important. But falls, in the 6.0 system were a serious mark down. Weiss' quad attempt would earn him some points now, but then it was a complete faux pas.

Also the very top tier skaters got the benefit of any doubt. Michael was a top podium contender but not a very top tier skater.

So failure in Technical seemed to mean lower PCS and Wow moves would mean higher PCS. - Not unlike the 6.0 system.

Maybe they should have forced age retirement of judges so that the new breed of judges coming up will be free of the 6.0 thinking.

Joe

Click to expand...

Joe:

Under the 6.0 system a fall was not a complete faux pas. If a skater made an attempt to land a difficult jump - say the quad - they were still given marks for the effort. If they planned to do a jump and then left it out completely or opened up in the jump and didn't rotate at all - now that was and still is a complete faux pas - even under the new marking system.

Ladskater said:

Joe:

Under the 6.0 system a fall was not a complete faux pas. If a skater made an attempt to land a difficult jump - say the quad - they were still given marks for the effort. If they planned to do a jump and then left it out completely or opened up in the jump and didn't rotate at all - now that was and still is a complete faux pas - even under the new marking system.

Click to expand...

I don't think we knew for sure how the 6.0 judges were considering falls, incomplete jumps, skids into spins, etc. I think we just assumed certain things in the final scores.

With CoP there is a run out of individual scores for elements in the TES. So it is not too difficult to understand the mentality of the judges for faux pas.

Joe

Judging under 6.0 was all about who was better than who. What constituted 'better', at an elite-level well skated event, often rode on who skated cleanly. A mandatory .2 deduction for a fall is huge when you're fighting for the top. What attempting a quad and falling could do is give skaters a higher 'base'... so you're right in that it wasn't necessarily a faux pax. Whether or not it 'counted' for anything in the minds of judges depends on how good the attempt was. For example, 'this is a jump I can land all the time, but in this instance I didn't make it' it's far better than 'I'm throwing this in and praying that just maybe it'll work this time'. But ultimately, and I think this is the same think Joe was getting at, in 6.0 it doesn't matter what 'math' the judges did because it was all about the ordinals.

But certainly CoP has changed the way skaters view attemping jumps/falling on jumps... the risk factor is not as high anymore since they have so many other opportunities to 'make up points'.