Jennifer Kirk's take on the scoring system

I thought this might be of interest to everyone. I really enjoy reading her articles....she keeps it real.

http://trueslant.com/jenniferkirk/2009/09/28/whats-the-score/#more-685

Carolina Kostner benefited from a strong program components score at last year’s World Championships. Kostner missed nearly every jump in her long program but ended up ahead of skaters who delivered stronger performances.

Click to expand...

Lord knows that I'm one of the people who is often left scratching their head at the marks that Kostner gets but i wanted to nit-pick a little here. Kostner may not have executed triple (or even double!) jumps in her worlds LP, however, i wouldn't necessairly call them "missed" from the choreogrpahic/interperative angle that Jenny seems to be sugesting in the lead up to this quote. She seems to be saying that it is a negative thing that the performance can be the best of the field even when the technical is not there. Isn't this what a lot of skatefans (me included have wanted?). If a skater's basic skating is that good, as well as the choreography and interpretation, that despite technical issues they still deserve the high marks, doesn't this prove that the system does this?

Personally I would comment that while Kostner's performance was deflated (and should have been reflected in the execution side of the PCS scores) is she cmopleted the choregoraphy, then i disagree with Jenny that single or doubled jumps should affect the PCS because single, double or triple the timing and placement of the jump would have been exactly the same regardless of the number of rotations, so i don't see that effecting things like choreography/interpretation etc.

Consider a talented actress. One who delivers dialog with a polished and appropriate accent in full character and maintains a relative consistency of that character throughout her performance. But, unfortunately this actress cannot remember the script and struggles all show with missed cues and botched lines. On the other hand, another actress may not have the full grasp of her character but knows the script so completely that the show flows, and her performance is void of any forgotten lines. The average audience member would probably deem the second performance more complete and enjoyable than the first.

Click to expand...

While this is a good attempt at an anology, I think the example of the actress not remembering the lines as being the same as a skater falling on every jump (a la Hubert) not a skater two footing or popping jumps. A skater two footing or popping jumps to me would be better likened to the actress who struggles with the lines but manages to ride on through the perforomance without letting the audience realise she's botched them by staying in character and not outwardly showing she's struggling.

Ant

I totally agree with Jenny's point:agree:
Even though I enjoyed Czisney's performance (much stronger than Kostner's 2009 World LP IMO), I don't think it's right or fair to award her with the highest PCS with her 17th place TES finish.
But while it's easy for me to tell what doesn't feel right, it's very hard for any judging system to grade performance since it's so subjective.
Sometimes I think that's why figure skating is so special among other winter Olympic sports, it's just more than sports. And maybe this is why it's not as popular as other sports that can tell a win easily, fair and square.

For an extreme case, what would the judges do if a skater did no technical elements at all but skated a a brilliant and beautiful program in every category measured by the Program Components? Could she get 0 TES and 8's or 9's across the board in PCSs?

Mathman said:

For an extreme case, what would the judges do if a skater did no technical elements at all but skated a a brilliant and beautiful program in every category measured by the Program Components? Could she get 0 TES and 8's or 9's across the board in PCSs?

Click to expand...

I think that was the intent. A poor jumper can still skate a beautiful program. And such a skater will still lose anyway ( usually ).

It's interesting what Jennifer says about the PCSs. As well as skaters such as Czisny and Kostenr managing to medal despite having very week technical performances, it is interesting to note that this kind of stuff (as under the old system) tends only to happen to those who people consider as medal contenders in general. An example of this is Kritoffer Berntson's PCS for his SP during the 2009 Euros. Artisticly, his program was the best ( at least in the top 3). However, his PCS were the 6th highest.

Yukina Ota

I think of opposite examples. People thought that Yukina Ota had truly wonderful talent in the presentation department. But she did not necessarily get higher PCS marks than stronger jumpers with less talent in presentation.

I would like to see PCS and TES judged by two different panels.

I do think that well-placed and well-executed jumps and spins are necessary to the overall effect of the choreography, interpretation and presentation. Sometimes the music calls for technical highlights, and I think we would quickly lose interest in the program without them.

On the other hand, I have seen professional proigrams constructed around maybe a triple toe, a double axel, some fast and well-centered level one spins, together with a bunch of unscored moves in the field like Ina Bauers and split jumps. In terms of audience appeal, a program like that can totally blow the typical competitive progam out of the water, PCSs-wise.