Article:"Rewarding Failure Diminishes Sport"

[ImaginaryPogue]

And the latter is what I don't get. If you do a jump from a wrong take off, you haven't done the jump. Period. If you flutz, that means you can't do a lutz. Why should you get credit for doing a lutz?

 

[Violet Bliss]

Any visible errors should be penalized more than invisible ones.

According to your flawless eyesight no doubt. So faults you are not able to see or don't even know how to look for don't count. And you should set the standard and write judging rules?

 

[wallylutz]

Zero point for a fall on any jump. A fall is a fall, period. Reward more for difficult jumps that are well executed, penalize more for jumps that are poorly executed. Male skaters are always starting to try quads than ever due to the increased value assigned to quads. However, if you want to shoot for high values, you always need to be aware of the huge risks.

Any visible errors should be penalized more than invisible ones.

Only if it were so simple. Do you believe a lot of smart, passionate and life-long volunteers to this sport haven't thought of what you just said? There are also people like Joubert, Asada, Plushenko and their supporters who protested when Triple Axel/Quads were greatly penalized at the tune of of up to -5.2 for a fall as recent as 2010 for lower base value than today.

Also, your argument that all falls are equal are difficult to stomach. The process matters just as much as the result. Fall could happen for all sorts of reasons, some falls are worse than others. To implement your suggestion means a draconian review of the system that will likely have very adverse impact on the sport, especially the men's. One of the reason why this past GPF Men's event was considered exciting and highly anticipated is because all the men attempted Quads and each tried to outdo the other. I was there and the energy, nervousness and excitement that was in the air was a stark contrast to the snooze fest just before, the Ladies FS.

Suffice to say, if the world were as simple as you think it is, we'd all be living in an utopia by now.

 

[skateflower]

And the latter is what I don't get. If you do a jump from a wrong take off, you haven't done the jump. Period. If you flutz, that means you can't do a lutz. Why should you get credit for doing a lutz?

Well, I don't object to giving 0 to a flutz. However, determine if a jump is flutz/lip/lutz/flip is prone to manipulation by a technical controller. Even Yu Na Kim got lip calls from time to time.

 

[gsrossano]

Speaking as someone who still remembers what it was like to judge short programs and free skates under 6.0, a few comments.

For the different elements in the SP, if the element was omitted a penalty of 0.5 or 0.6 was applied. A complete failure of the attempt required a deduction of 0.4 or 0.5. In that sense a fall on a jump left the skate with 1/6 the value of the jump in some sense. That is generally not true for a fall on a fully rotated jump under IJS. Further a 0.5 deduction in the short program (first mark) generally meant the skater would drop 3-5 places depending how much the judge held the skater up in the second mark. A fall on a single jump will generally not cost a skater 3-5 places today. Under IJS it is one place, or maybe none. That is the numerical reality, and also the designed intent of IJS. The thought being if the skater does not get at least as many points for a failed quad as for a clean triple (for example) the skaters who have the triples will not attempt the quads, but will play it safe since you can't waste one jump element on an ify quad attempt that might get no points. So the goal is not to have a competition where the skaters play it safe, but to try the most difficult things and push the envelope.

In a 6.0 freeskate most judges did not count that attemp at all (and still do not). It gets zero credit for comparing the jumping ability of the competitors. Pretty much all judges take that approach even now. (In the U.S. we still judge lower level events 6.0). For jumps with major or minor errors what the judges do under 6.0 is not perfectly uniform. How much a major or minor error in a FS jump affects the placement given by the judge varies from judge to judge. One goal of IJS was to standardize this (through GoEs and point values) so that each judge "punishes" a given error to the same extent. Still there are differences among the judges under IJS. An edge call can get a -1 or a -2 GoE. Depending on severity, cheated jumps can get -1s to -3s and also lose on the base value.

And for the curious, Monica has been a skating journalist for at least 20 years I would venture, though she has not been so active for the last few years.

 

[ImaginaryPogue]

Well, I don't object to giving 0 to a flutz. However, determine if a jump is flutz/lip/lutz/flip is prone to manipulation by a technical controller. Even Yu Na Kim got lip calls from time to time.

True.

I don't envy the people who come up with the system (any system). They've got a brutal task in front of them and are dealing with so many competing interests (via the federations) that it almost seems impossible. In the end, I know that a great COP program is more interesting, athletic, and moving then a great 6.0 program (obviously in my mind only), and that's why I defend the COP system so strongly, for all it's faults.

 

[skateflower]

Only if it were so simple. Do you believe a lot of smart, passionate and life-long volunteers to this sport haven't thought of what you just said? There are also people like Joubert, Asada, Plushenko and their supporters who protested when Triple Axel/Quads were greatly penalized at the tune of of up to -5.2 for a fall as recent as 2010 for lower base value than today.

Also, your argument that all falls are equal are difficult to stomach. The process matters just as much as the result. Fall could happen for all sorts of reasons, some falls are worse than others. To implement your suggestion means a draconian review of the system that will likely have very adverse impact on the sport, especially the men's. One of the reason why this past GPF Men's event was considered exciting and highly anticipated is because all the men attempted Quads and each tried to outdo the other. I was there and the energy, nervousness and excitement that was in the air was a stark contrast to the snooze fest just before, the Ladies FS.

Suffice to say, if the world were as simple as you think it is, we'd all be living in an utopia by now.

You're manufacturing some facts to suit your pnt oiof view. Brian/Plusenko never argued a fall on 3a/quads were greatly penalized. Why should they especially Plusenko who landed tons of quads. What they argued was that the low value given to the difficult quads was not fair. The ISU has indeed increased the value of quads, which is the primary drive for quad-boom. I think they can increase the value to quads (an actually executed one, not simply 'rotated' fallen ones) even further, but give 0 to a fall. This will discourage skaters from trying something they don't truly master, at the same time, give more credit to guys who can do it properly.

 

[skateflower]

True.

I don't envy the people who come up with the system (any system). They've got a brutal task in front of them and are dealing with so many competing interests (via the federations) that it almost seems impossible. In the end, I know that a great COP program is more interesting, athletic, and moving then a great 6.0 program (obviously in my mind only), and that's why I defend the COP system so strongly, for all it's faults.

I don't necessarily want to go back to 6.0. But ISU needs to make major overhaul to the system by just using common sense. It's really not that difficult if they stop being corrupt.

 

[Mathman]

Here we go again. The posts justifying the CoP get longer and longer and more and more passionate. "Read more ISU scripture and you will be saved."

Friendlander's concern is not to pick on Patrick Chan. She, too, wants to save figure skating. The ISU thinks that figure skating is not in need of saving, we're doing just fine, thanks. I guess time will tell.

 

[ImaginaryPogue]

You're manufacturing some facts to suit your pnt oiof view. Brian/Plusenko never argued a fall on 3a/quads were greatly penalized. Why should they especially Plusenko who landed tons of quads. What they argued was that the low value given to the difficult quads was not fair. The ISU has indeed increased the value of quads, which is the primary drive for quad-boom. I think they can increase the value to quads (an actually executed one, not simply 'rotated' fallen ones) even further, but give 0 to a fall. This will discourage skaters from trying something they don't truly master, at the same time, give more credit to guys who can do it properly.

Ahh, but how do you truly master something without trying it repeatedly, in a program, in a competition environment?

I'm gonna argue there were six or seven factors at play with the quad boom, not merely the increase in value.

 

[ImaginaryPogue]

Here we go again. The posts justifying the CoP get longer and longer and more and more passionate. "Read more ISU scripture and you will be saved."

Friendlander's concern is not to pick on Patrick Chan. She, too, wants to save figure skating. The ISU thinks that figure skating is not in need of saving, we're doing just fine, thanks. I guess time will tell.

I'm doing my best to keep my posts short.

skateflower, two things

a) common sense is rarely as common as it's name implies
b) what you think of as common sense, I probably don't.

 

[Violet Bliss]

Well, I don't object to giving 0 to a flutz. However, determine if a jump is flutz/lip/lutz/flip is prone to manipulation by a technical controller.

Whether a jump is taken off the right edge is verifiable with video, with benefits given to the skater when it's not absolutely clear. Why project poor ethics on the technical pane without supporting facts?

Even Yu Na Kim got lip calls from time to time.

What is your point? That she is perfect so calls on her jumps prove your allegations against the tech panel? I hope I'm wrong in guessing your intent.

 

[ivy]

It's really an endless circle. Overall I think CoP is an improvement over the 6.0 system, especially on the TES side. For me a great advantage is a skater can be in 6th place after the SP, but only a few points behind the leaders or really far behind the leaders depending on the skate. In the ordinal system the gap between skaters wasn't quantified. The PCS side seems less clear to me, though generally I agree with placements. I'd like to see more value given to GoE's, positive and negative.

To give no credit for imperfect jumps will only further stifle risk taking and every one will complain when the tech content drops.

It does seem clear, as the writer suggests, that skating in NA isn't in great shape. I don't know the solution for it, but it does seem to be a good discussion to have. To me what I love about skating is that elite athelitic acheivement can cause a profound emotional experience (in me!) via artisic interpretation.

The problem I see in CoP is that it rewards adequately executed complex moves over amazingly executed simple moves, thus delivering to fans heavy, overly worked programs. I guess we all have our own windmills to tilt at within the CoP universe!

 

[Puchi]

Why is this piece taken from a personal blog called an "article"? Isn't an "article" supposed to come from some sort of credited source (newspaper, magazine)?

 

[skateflower]

Ahh, but how do you truly master something without trying it repeatedly, in a program, in a competition environment?

I'm gonna argue there were six or seven factors at play with the quad boom, not merely the increase in value.

You're wrong. Any athlete is risk taker by nature if sufficient incentive is given. Skaters will have to sort out themselves if it's worthwhile to put a half-baked skill in a competition. Sure you may see more falls. But you will not see a champion who falls repeatedly by just trying. A competition is not about 'trying'. It's about crowning a champion who can actually execute difficult skills.

Gymnastics, diving, etc, common sense approach applies to every other sport except for figure skating.

 

[fscric]

Here we go again. The posts justifying the CoP get longer and longer and more and more passionate. "Read more ISU scripture and you will be saved."

Friendlander's concern is not to pick on Patrick Chan. She, too, wants to save figure skating. The ISU thinks that figure skating is not in need of saving, we're doing just fine, thanks. I guess time will tell.

Do you honestly believe this?

 

[Mathman]

What frustrates me about this endless debate is that one side utterly dismisses the other, as if their opinions and observations deserve nothing but to be thrown into the garbage can.

People say, I don't like this scoring system very much. Many people say this. People both knowledgable and otherwise. The anointed say, "what fools," and go on with business as usual.

If we refuse to admit that there is a problem, then there is no possibility of arriving at a solution.

 

[Mathman]

Do you honestly believe this?

I 100% believe this. Friendlander has been campaigning against the CoP for years, long before Patrick Chan appeared on the scene.

Believe it or not, the whole world does not revolve around the Patrick Chan axis.

 

[wallylutz]

Speaking as someone who still remembers what it was like to judge short programs and free skates under 6.0, a few comments.

For the different elements in the SP, if the element was omitted a penalty of 0.5 or 0.6 was applied. A complete failure of the attempt required a deduction of 0.4 or 0.5. In that sense a fall on a jump left the skate with 1/6 the value of the jump in some sense. That is generally not true for a fall on a fully rotated jump under IJS. Further a 0.5 deduction in the short program (first mark) generally meant the skater would drop 3-5 places depending how much the judge held the skater up in the second mark. A fall on a single jump will generally not cost a skater 3-5 places topday. Under IJS it is one place, or maybe none. That is a numerical fact, and also the designed intent of IJS. The thought being if the skater does not get at least as many points for a failed quad as for a clean triple (for example) the skaters who have the triples will not attempt the quads, but will play it safe since you can't waste one jump element on an ify quad attempt. So the goal is to not have a competition where the skaters play it safe, but to try the most difficult things and push the envelope.

I think you could use some refresher to your memory:

http://www.sk8stuff.com/f_rules/isu_short_program_deductions.htm

Falls in jumps never get more than 0.4 in terms of deduction. Fall isn't omission, only omission (not doing the required element) gets 0.5.

I also think your generalization is way too broad. Because under 6.0 system, the exact value of each element is not clearly defined, and a judge's 5.8 may be equal to another's 5.4, there were plenty of rooms for judges to play with the numbers to get to whatever overall ranking they want. Plenty of cases where a fall on jump still get skaters Require Elements score of 5.4-5.6 range. But does that mean a clean skate merits 6.0 to begin with? Well no, in some cases, you have to wonder whether some judges started out maybe at 6.1 or 6.2, definitely have happened before where the math doesn't seem to compute. 6.0 system does a poor job of quantifying values of jumps or any elements or else we wouldn't have a case of Ito getting 0.2 more in Technical Merit over skaters who couldn't even land Triple Loop (e.g. Katerina Witt, 1988 Olympics).

In a 6.0 freeskate most judges did not count that attemp at all (and still do). It gets zero credit for comparing the jumping ability of the competitors. Pretty much all judges take that approach even now.

That is not correct whatsoever, I'd like you to explain this then: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mv6fj7EgXaI

Kwan had TWO falls, one step out on 3F, doubled a 3Lz, no Triple-Triple. Her Technical Merit marks?

2 X 5.7
1 X 5.6
4 X 5.5

She did not successfully landed any combination jump, the whole program was a mess and she had more falls than Patrick Chan did in his GPF win. And the best part - a program judged only by U.S. National judges so you can't even claim "Well, we do things differently in the U.S."

And for the curious, Monica has been a skating journalist for at least 20 years I would venture, though she has not been so active for the last few years.

Speaking of which, as a journalist, where is her evidence that the most GPF event is a corrupted event? In her blog quoted in post #1, she discussed with other people how judging is always corrupted even today as though it's public knowledge or known fact, yet shouldn't she be showing her evidence as part of her integrity as a journalist instead of accusations without supporting evidence? Was she even there at the event? If she weren't, how did she know. I was there and there were results I personally didn't like but I certainly didn't go around and spread baseless claims without supporting evidence or proof. Merely citing the fact that judges' scores are anonymous as evidence is akin to say people who voted with secret ballots aren't true democracy because some of those votes could be fraudulent. Suffice to say, I am really underwhelmed by her integrity and intellectual consistency as a journalist and I have never heard of her before.

 

[Violet Bliss]

Why is this piece taken from a personal blog called an "article"? Isn't an "article" supposed to come from some sort of credited source (newspaper, magazine)?

Not only is it called an article, but it was originally attributed to Sonia Bianchetti in the thread title, which was very attention grabbing, though completely puzzling. Now the blogger Ms Friedlander has been called a long time skating journalist. Well, anybody can write about skating, like we all do here, but it doesn't make their opinion any more valid, and definitely not worth as much respect and attention as Ms Bianchetti's. If I didn't give the benefit of the doubt and blame it on incompetence, misusing Ms Bianchetti's name would be sleazy. I guess I was really upset about being fooled into wondering why Ms Bianchetti would make such a charge, even though she has issues with COP too. And then to find her name being dragged here for no reason whatsoever.

Do you really believe this?

Whatever Mathman believes as this blogger's intention, there is no doubt of the intention of the thread opener.