Three kinds of upsetting results

The most upsetting scores are those scores which are win or lose based on the judges and tech panel. The skaters and their fans should not take offence on the outcome of a competition if such skaters showed their best that day.

The Tech Panel and the Judges know all to well what the competitors have shown in the past before a new competition. How much that affects their judgements, we do not know. I am sure they have developed a taste for styles which they like as well as the Fans have. Does that affect their judgements, we do not know.

What we all know, is that the changes in regulations from the 6.0 to the CoP are bigger than many Fans could imagine. Forget the jumps that get no points, e.g. the Walley, the Split Jump and the same jump to both sides. Some can be performed but at a personal cost. Forget the classical spins of yesteryear when you get more points for contorting your body. Pairs have become totally acrobatic and the line between it and Dance is getting more and more blurry. Still that emotional feeling some get may not be the same as the emotional feelings of the Tech Panel and the Judges. We don't know and one has to live with that.

The more important issue is the question of interest in the Figure Skating.

I think different fans . . . and probably different judges . . . have different priorities, so whenever a decision isn't an absolute knockout by a skater who appeals to all tastes, someone is going to be upset, regardless of "fairness."

Some fans find clean programs to be the most important aspect of an ideal winning program. So when a pretty good clean skate loses to a better but more obviously flawed skate, those fans will be upset.

Some think hardest jumps landed should be most important. So if the skater with the best jump content doesn't win, those folks will be upset.

Some are most interested in artistry. If a clean artistic program loses to less artistic but technically superior performance, it's disheartening.

Some are skating purists and want to see the best skater win, regardless of tricks and trappings. So if the winner is able to overcome weak skating skills on the strengths of jumps and/or charisma, the purists get upset.

No result is going to please everyone.

Snoopy said:

Perhaps there should be a slight bonus given for a clean performance. Under the current rules, a skater can fall doing a cross-over and get no deduction - but that fall takes something away from the overall performance.

Click to expand...

Not true. Under the current rules, all falls are penalized.

If the skater falls, s/he gets a 1.00 deduction off the total score.

If it happens on a crossover, that's the only penalty.

If it happens on an element, the skater gets negative GOE for the element (probably -3) and also gets the 1.00 fall deduction. (It's also likely that a jump with a fall will also be called as underrotated/downgraded and that a non-jump element with a fall will also get a lower level call than it would have if skated perfectly, but that's not always the case -- sometimes the fall happens after the skater rotated the jump sufficiently or completed enough features to earn the higher level.)

Snoopy said:

Perhaps there should be a slight bonus given for a clean performance. Under the current rules, a skater can fall doing a cross-over and get no deduction - but that fall takes something away from the overall performance. This is why the fans get annoyed - when they see one of these very rare clean performances not being rewarded.

Click to expand...

What I would like to see in the results at Worlds in 2011 would be how many points were earned by each skater on the Poldium making error credits added to his total score. That would be a good tell tale of the incompletes that were awarded as partial credit at the Championships, and it would make a good discussion on the Board later, like should the Bronze Medalist who had scores with no partial credit, be the Winner?

The anonymity is a step backward in terms of public accountability. And that's not specific to IJS, it just happened to be implemented very shortly before the new judging system came in. Remember the "Interim System."

Everything else about the IJS is a step forward in accountability compared to 6.0.

Sure, there's room to make it even more transparent, but that takes more time, which would make the events move more slowly and be less exciting to watch live. So it's a tradeoff.

Perhaps there will be further steps forward in making the information about tech calls more accessible to interested fans in real time as technology advances.

Snoopy said:

Perhaps there should be a slight bonus given for a clean performance. Under the current rules, a skater can fall doing a cross-over and get no deduction - but that fall takes something away from the overall performance. This is why the fans get annoyed - when they see one of these very rare clean performances not being rewarded.

Click to expand...

Falls in the Senior Division are for me a total loss of skating ability. At the Senior level, whatever element they were doing should be negated. I do not feel that way in the lower Divisions. They are still in development to be a Master. To be a Senior Skater, to me, means having mastered all the elements. I will admit there are bad days for everyone but that is unfortunate when they happen on competition day.

Mathman said:

But that could happen under ordinal judging, too. In the 1997 U.S. Nationals LP Michelle Kwan fell three times and provided the very definition of "deer in the headlights." The judges placed her second, over creditable skates by Nicole Bobek and Angela Nikodinov.

Click to expand...

Also, judges have been fair before. When Nicole Bobek and Laetitia Gusmeroli missed all but their double axels in their Olympic short program in 1998, their medal chances disappeared, and both were placed below 15th. Both girls had been touted as favourites in the fight for bronze.

I don't see why all of this is a condemnation specifically of the CoP. Under 6.0 judging, too, the ISU did not provide instant replays to the audience while the judges were mulling over their marks, trying to decide how much to take off a skater's score for various perceived errors.

For that matter, it is actually the television networks that provide the instant replays to the audience, not the officials or the league. In American football, the referee peers into an instant replay machine, but we don't get to see what he is seeing. Instead, we see the play over and over from various angles while the commentators tell us what they think.

In figure skating, they do the same thing. They show replays on the jumbotron and slow motion views of the jumps in question, with commentary, while the tech specialists are looking at their own replays.

Mathman said:

^ I don't see why all of this is a condemnation specifically of the CoP. Under 6.0 judging, too, the ISU did not provide instant replays to the audience while the judges were mulling over their marks, trying to decide how much to take off a skater's score for various perceived errors.

For that matter, it is actually the television networks that provide the instant replays to the audience, not the officials or the league. In American football, the referee peers into an instant replay machine, but we don't get to see what he is seeing. Instead, we see the play over and over from various angles while the commentators tell us what they think.

In figure skating, they do the same thing. They show replays on the jumbotron and slow motion views of the jumps in question, with commentary, while the tech specialists are looking at their own replays.

Click to expand...

Geez, mathman, I am not sure if I can agree with you here.

6.0 as far as I know did not use secret replays of jumps to downgrade skaters. It they did it was never publicized. The tech panle did not exist as the skating was "judged" and not "measured."

And yes, NFL fans do see the exact replays the officials use for review. Every angle the ref sees we see.
It has always been shared as a way of keeping the fans interested not to mention the INTEGRITY of the game.

What a concept

Mathman said:

I don't see why all of this is a condemnation specifically of the CoP. Under 6.0 judging, too, the ISU did not provide instant replays to the audience while the judges were mulling over their marks, trying to decide how much to take off a skater's score for various perceived errors.

For that matter, it is actually the television networks that provide the instant replays to the audience, not the officials or the league. In American football, the referee peers into an instant replay machine, but we don't get to see what he is seeing. Instead, we see the play over and over from various angles while the commentators tell us what they think.

In figure skating, they do the same thing. They show replays on the jumbotron and slow motion views of the jumps in question, with commentary, while the tech specialists are looking at their own replays.

Click to expand...

Question one: Why don't I view the judging at Skate Canada a farce.

Answer: Because it's been demonstrated time and time and time again that the way the judges marked Chan, they're marking all skaters. So you can argue that COP is a farce in general (which Hernando, I know you believe, and that's a different argument all together), but to specify that Skate Canada's marking was out of line (as a number of people, including people who seem quite knowledgeable) requires more than mere assertion. It requires people to look at the scores demonstrate that SC was in fact incomparable to any other event.

Point one: People have claimed Patrick Chan has been overmarked in Japan (WTT 2009), Canada (Olympics, Skate Canadas), Russia (CoR 2010), China (GPF 10) and Italy (Worlds 2010). These are the events that I can go look at the threads here, and come up with at least three people who believe this. He's always overmarked. If this is the case, why should SC be any different?

Point two: And this is the important one. PCS (where people complain the most) are not about the elements. Period. So, for Hernando, it's a demonstration of poor skating skills to fall on a step sequence. And I think we can all agree with that in general terms: step sequences are purely about blade to the ice (ie skating) and falls on them do not demonstrate good skating skills. However, for COP, it's a fall on an ELEMENT. So it doesn't matter if it's a jump, a spiral, a spin, etc. But just in case you don't believe me, lets examine this further.

Savchenko/Szolkowy PCS for the LP
8.57 8.21 8.57 8.79 8.89
8.50 8.04 8.57 8.50 8.64
8.54 8.32 8.64 8.57 8.75
8.18 7.89 8.36 8.32 8.39

Which PCS corresponds to the event where Savchenko lost the spin, stood around waiting for the element to be over, and went on skating? Can you tell? I can't and I just copied all these numbers over and should remember. (For those wondering, it's the third one).

Or, we can compare Mirai Nagasu's PCS in her programs at US Nationals. Now, lets be honest, PCS can differ from short and long, but go check out her scores (Here). I'll give you a hint. The one where she whiffed the spin was the one where she demonstrated better .... well, everything.

But, "ImaginaryPogue, Aliona didn't fall. Mirai didn't fall. She didn't resemble a human zamboni, so those numbers aren't applicable. Can you demonstrate that with falls?" I hear you ask. Lets find out.

The challenge here is to find performances with a difference of multiple falls. And while Chan reigns supreme in the difference (3 falls, 1 fall, no falls; 1 fall, 3 falls, no falls in international competition), he's not the only top skater with multiple falls.

Nobunari Oda, LP
7.96 7.14 7.43 7.50 7.11 SC
8.29 7.71 7.89 8.04 7.89 SA
8.14 7.64 7.68 7.93 7.93 GPF

Can you identify which belongs to Skate Canada, America (one fall each) and the GPF? Highlight beside the PCS to find out which belongs to which.

Daisuke Takahashi, LP
8.32 7.93 7.64 8.36 8.25 GPF
8.39 7.93 8.36 8.50 8.61 NHK
8.46 8.29 8.46 8.61 8.68 USA
8.29 7.82 8.43 8.32 8.57 4CC

Again, the variation isn't broad despite falls and/or multiple mistakes on elements.

Carolina Kostner scored better PCS at Euros where she had a fall than at the GPF where she didn't. Kanako Murakami scored only THREE POINTS MORE in her PCS for a clean skate vs one where she had three falls (USA vs NHK). Denis Ten scored higher for a skate with FIVE falls than he did with a skate that had three falls.

But here's the kicker, and perhaps my favourite

Alexandra Paul/Mitchell Islam SD: the marking at CoR was such that it led one of our most esteemed posters to mention: "Skate Canada marking not happening here," clearly agreeing with Hernando that SC was outrageously marked. But if we check the PCS, we see...

SC (no falls, major stumble on element): 5.79 5.75 5.82 6.07 5.54
CoR (one element fall, two other ded'tn):5.93 5.68 5.64 5.86 5.68

So, in Russia, a just-up-from juniors Canadian team scored virtually the same with a skate with considerably more flaws. In Russia.

Hernando, I know - "COP Voodoo." But it's not. It's looking at the numbers. It's not magic. It's not mystery. It's not speculation. It's not Skate Canada bribing the world to mark Canadian skaters differently than others. It's not witchcraft, zombiedom, vampirism, occultism, quantum math, theoretical physics, micro-epistemological calculus or any other dismissive name you want to label it (and will label it in the future).

You don't have to agree with it. I don't. I don't like the fact that PCS attempts to mark as if the elements don't exist (because elements are part of a program, so why shouldn't they be part of program component scores). I do think that a clean skate should be rewarded, and I'm not entirely convinced that COP does so properly. I'd like to see a broader range accepted within the PCS themselves and performance to performance, should it be so needed.

Your go: can you explain why Skate Canada's marking was a farce?

Without specifically commenting on Skate Canada, I think there just has be a time when the judges say, that stunk, no gold medal for you. (I know, that's not in the spirit of the CoP.)

Of course, under any judging system, sometimes the judges have to say "That stunk, low marks for you," but at the end of the day everyone else stunk more so the least stinky performance gets the gold.

Or "That stunk, no first place in this program for you" but the other program was pretty good an everyone else stunk in the other program, so the skater with one stinky program and a big lead in the other program gets the gold.

Mathman said:

Without specifically commenting on Skate Canada, I think there just has be a time when the judges say, that stunk, no gold medal for you. (I know, that's not in the spirit of the CoP.)

Click to expand...

and yet Bolero in 2005 got how many 6.0s for performance when clearly that was the most lackluster think Michelle had done in quite a while? I don't think it's just CoP... it's favoritism. It's based on reputation judging, nothing more. That's why skaters come to practice with their game face on, why they play nice in the media, and otherwise are never out of competition... the four and a half minutes of actual competitive ice time makes up such a small percentage of what the judges actually judge.

Tonichelle said:

and yet Bolero in 2005 got how many 6.0s for performance when clearly that was the most lackluster think Michelle had done in quite a while? I don't think it's just CoP... it's favoritism. It's based on reputation judging, nothing more. That's why skaters come to practice with their game face on, why they play nice in the media, and otherwise are never out of competition... the four and a half minutes of actual competitive ice time makes up such a small percentage of what the judges actually judge.

Click to expand...

^ That's true! When you go into the ring against the heavyweight champion, you can forget about trying to outpoint him. You have to knock him out, just like he knocked out the previous champ to gain the title.

"I'm Michelle Kwan. You're not. If you want to beat me you better bring it!"

As for all those 6.0's for Bolero, those were from the judges that forgot to give her a 6.0 the year before for Tosca. Sort of like a belated birthday present. Plus, that was the last year for 6.0 -- they had to do something with the last bagful.

Mathman said:

As for all those 6.0's for Bolero, those were from the judges that forgot to give her a 6.0 the year before for Tosca. Sort of like a belated birthday present. Plus, that was the last year for 6.0 -- they had to do something with the last bagful.

Click to expand...

Jenny Kirk, Sasha Cohen come to mind... Kimmie Meissner... I mean if we're just handing them out like halloween candy... (of course I remember so little of that competition because after I was the only one in my section not to go over the top fall over myself spout love chants to MK when she took the warm up ice and I was more concerned for my welfare than watching the skating )

ImaginaryPogue said:

PCS (where people complain the most) are not about the elements. Period.

Click to expand...

I don't find this to be a correct statement. Every single movement a skater makes is "Choreography", one of the 5 PCS. If a skater performs an element poorly, it will likely make their choreography worse. The same goes for "Interpretation" - everything is supposed to go to the music and if you perform a crappy looking element then the interpretation of the music at that moment in time is probably not good. The "Transitions" component is affected by falls. A good transition out of a jump is not considered to be crashing into the ice. If the skater's performance is noticably affected by the fall (such as frowning or tensing up) then that is yet another Program Component which suffers. "Skating Skills" are affected to some degree as well because you are not displaying control of the blade at that point in time.

I actually think falls and other mistakes occasionally benefit the artistry of a program, though. Sometimes it actually does go with the music and if the skater recovers from that mistake with determination and doesn't make more mistakes, it becomes an inspirational statement about never giving up and having the presence of mind and poise to always be strong in the face of adversity. I think little bobbles in a program sometimes add character and a humanistic touch to the performance. Such as in Yagudin's "Man in the Iron Mask" at both the Olympics and Worlds in 2002, he nearly touches down to the ice on the landing of his last jump (the Triple Flip). Instead of disrupting the performance at all, though, he just continues on and in fact holds the hand up in the air that almost touched down, as if to say "look at how strong and in control I am! It doesn't matter if something goes wrong, I will persevere through it anyway!" It's a sentiment that goes very well with the music during that part of the program.

There's a saying - "Sometimes the most important part of a fight is how you get back up from being knocked down."

Also, look at what happens at the very end of this performance:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qlDr-bv-Ko

Could there have been ANY better choreography at that point in time than the butt plop she did? I really don't think so. It is hilarious and went perfectly with the beat of the music and her campy, trashy performance.

Mathman said:

I don't see why all of this is a condemnation specifically of the CoP. Under 6.0 judging, too, the ISU did not provide instant replays to the audience while the judges were mulling over their marks, trying to decide how much to take off a skater's score for various perceived errors.

For that matter, it is actually the television networks that provide the instant replays to the audience, not the officials or the league. In American football, the referee peers into an instant replay machine, but we don't get to see what he is seeing. Instead, we see the play over and over from various angles while the commentators tell us what they think.

In figure skating, they do the same thing. They show replays on the jumbotron and slow motion views of the jumps in question, with commentary, while the tech specialists are looking at their own replays.

Click to expand...

I have been to the big Tennis Matches in Arthur Asche Stadium and they show instant replays because that is a crucial error in the Sport. The paying public has a right to know about how the sport is being played for scoring. The Instant Replay comes at the same time as the Referee calls the shot. No Television Network coverage can do that. It probably comes from the Stadium people who are giving their sports fans their money's worth. It probably is paid to the Stadium in its Rental of Premises by the Tennis BigWigs.

One has to rely on the Tech Panel's honesty on what he sees with and without his closed circuit TV. Why not show this on the Jumbo Thon which can be picked up by the TV for the paying public to savour? In a Sport which allows for Partial Credits for incomplete Elements the points are crucial to the athletes' placements, and Fans deserve to know how these points are credited.

To defend the CoP is not an issue. To make the Sport more understanding to the Public is! The 6.0 system is dead, so why compare the two?

anonymous judging (not limited to fs?)

skaters getting higher marks based on past reputation

skaters getting lower marks because they haven't "paid their dues," yet skated technically/artistically better and more cleanly than those ranked higher

Win without the hardest jump/jumps - regressional result
Win with only relying on jumps - inadequate result
Win with transitions everywhere - modern trendy result
Win with high PCS low TES - unconvincing result
Win with multiple falls - outrageous result
Win without any falls - need to be re-assessed result
Win with or without ...... the judges have never ever produced universally satisfactory result.