- Joined
- Mar 23, 2010
It has been 13 years since COP has been established . Are people really happy with it?
Just for a bit of fun: how would you improve the COP to better support this complex sport that faces many trends and challenges all the time?
Changes I'd like to see in COP system.
Bigger Rewards = Bigger Risk.
Bigger Failures = Bigger Punishments.
Rewards and Failures need to proportionately respond to the difficulty of the element.
Some sort of reward/bonuses for skating clean (no -GOEs and no <, <<, e or !)
GOEs for jump elements from easiest to hardest changes be rewarded incrementally something like
3T/3t
+- 1 = 0.3
+- 2 = 1
+- 3 = 2.5
3lz/3t
+- 1 = 0.5
+- 2 = 1.5
+- 3 = 3.5
For 3A/3T
+- 1 = 0.5
+- 2 = 2.5
+-3 = 5
Quads have their own GOE scale values that follows similar concept. We can fiddle with the numbers, but the concepts are the same. It should be 'rarer' to get +3 GOEs, just look at how Vancouver Olympics used to be marked.
Greater BV points differentials between harder 3/3 combos and quads, to easier 3/3s and quads.
Introducing incremental punishment according to severity of failure, number of failures.
e.g. Falls punished incrementally (same as number of < and <<, e and !)
1 falls = -1,
2 falls = -2.5
3 falls = -4
PCS factored in relation to BV completion ratio. (Not sure how that algorithm would work, but the concept is important)
Example. Judges judge like how they do now, mark out of 10.
The final PCS = judge average tally x successful % completion of TES BV by the skater
e.g 90 PCS for Hanyu but if Hanyu were only able to complete 90% of his BV, his factored PCS score will work out something like
90 PCS x 90% success rate = 81 This may bet closer to someone like Misha Ge who got 80 PCS but were able to complete 100% BV TES. 80 x 100% = 80.
Maybe consider changing the PCS categories weight as well, and rank them in order of importance, with Skating skill the highest and the average mean mark are factored according to relative importance.
e.g SS factored 1.6. PE factored 1.4, Interpretation = 1.2., Choreography = 1.0, transitions = 0.8. To a point transition is already rewarded in the GOEs for the TES anyway, and it should be reflected in the difficulty of choreography. Now days, I am sick of transition for transition's sake without musicality or have any purpose in the choreography, so this is reduced from overly abusing the transition for transition's sake.
I'd like to see a more holistic fully realized program, but only put Choreography as factor of 1 because not all skaters can afford best choreographers, and SS should be the biggest focus for this sport really, it can sometimes overcome bad choreography and should be emphasized above all else.
I'd like the choreography criteria to include difficulty in the marks. At the moment difficulty seems only get mentioned in the transitions, but since the sport is a multidisciplinary medium that encompasses musicality, choreography, self actualized movement, dance, performance art. Greater complexity and more ambitious programs (unique, creative, difficult, intricate, challenging, outside skater's comfort zone) should be recognized and rewarded more. To this, they should be more formally rewarded holistically, aiming to achieve the right balance and create a strong impression befitting to the music ambition, but doesn't seem to been mentioned under the current guidelines other than under transitions (which would be the micro aspect of the choreography but not the whole picture).
----------
Most importantly, I'd like to change the judging panel selection process IF anonymity is some how absolutely essential for ISU to function.
1. More rigorous and proactive judging selection process to minimize biases. Even if we are not privy to the judge's pattern of judging (only available to ISU), there should be a secondary independent jury selection process and management (fund by IOC), sort of like Omudsman for banks to ensure no conflict of interest and quality assurance, they should manage the process not just from the judging selection, but the full life cycle of the judging event, including post judging, evaluation.
2. World championship panel (Also Olympics, GP series) should consist of judges from minimum 3 continents no matter what draws. There need to be some process to prevent collusion.
3. Federation should not decide which judge to send, but they can nominate 3 judges. The independent jury selection committee then pick 1 that they think can be most impartial out of the 3 or can be done via a draw.
4. There should some sort of spoke person need to represent the judging panel and answer any Q&A at the end of the competition (elite level competitions only, gp series, wc) with member of the press AND public, which they can answer any controversial decisions, judgement derived from it. If anonymity is here to stay, there should be still ways to have a level of transparency despite of it.
5. The computer need to be programmed to automatically detect biased marking. They can do this easily by enter details of
- Judge's nationality, judge's national affiliation.
- Judge's past judging history, highest score given, lowest score given, mean.
- Rival skater's nationality at this event
The system can designed to detect and track patterns of judging. If one judges deliberately sabotage the rival nation's skater while prop up own skaters, then his entire score for the 2 skaters are left out. One judge get a warning red light. The red warning is available to the public, even though the judge remain anonymous. Of course there are always ways to cheat the system, so the algorithm need to be upgraded to stay ahead of the vulnerabilities. This add 2nd layer of prevention after judging selection process.
Just for a bit of fun: how would you improve the COP to better support this complex sport that faces many trends and challenges all the time?
Changes I'd like to see in COP system.
Bigger Rewards = Bigger Risk.
Bigger Failures = Bigger Punishments.
Rewards and Failures need to proportionately respond to the difficulty of the element.
Some sort of reward/bonuses for skating clean (no -GOEs and no <, <<, e or !)
GOEs for jump elements from easiest to hardest changes be rewarded incrementally something like
3T/3t
+- 1 = 0.3
+- 2 = 1
+- 3 = 2.5
3lz/3t
+- 1 = 0.5
+- 2 = 1.5
+- 3 = 3.5
For 3A/3T
+- 1 = 0.5
+- 2 = 2.5
+-3 = 5
Quads have their own GOE scale values that follows similar concept. We can fiddle with the numbers, but the concepts are the same. It should be 'rarer' to get +3 GOEs, just look at how Vancouver Olympics used to be marked.
Greater BV points differentials between harder 3/3 combos and quads, to easier 3/3s and quads.
Introducing incremental punishment according to severity of failure, number of failures.
e.g. Falls punished incrementally (same as number of < and <<, e and !)
1 falls = -1,
2 falls = -2.5
3 falls = -4
PCS factored in relation to BV completion ratio. (Not sure how that algorithm would work, but the concept is important)
Example. Judges judge like how they do now, mark out of 10.
The final PCS = judge average tally x successful % completion of TES BV by the skater
e.g 90 PCS for Hanyu but if Hanyu were only able to complete 90% of his BV, his factored PCS score will work out something like
90 PCS x 90% success rate = 81 This may bet closer to someone like Misha Ge who got 80 PCS but were able to complete 100% BV TES. 80 x 100% = 80.
Maybe consider changing the PCS categories weight as well, and rank them in order of importance, with Skating skill the highest and the average mean mark are factored according to relative importance.
e.g SS factored 1.6. PE factored 1.4, Interpretation = 1.2., Choreography = 1.0, transitions = 0.8. To a point transition is already rewarded in the GOEs for the TES anyway, and it should be reflected in the difficulty of choreography. Now days, I am sick of transition for transition's sake without musicality or have any purpose in the choreography, so this is reduced from overly abusing the transition for transition's sake.
I'd like to see a more holistic fully realized program, but only put Choreography as factor of 1 because not all skaters can afford best choreographers, and SS should be the biggest focus for this sport really, it can sometimes overcome bad choreography and should be emphasized above all else.
I'd like the choreography criteria to include difficulty in the marks. At the moment difficulty seems only get mentioned in the transitions, but since the sport is a multidisciplinary medium that encompasses musicality, choreography, self actualized movement, dance, performance art. Greater complexity and more ambitious programs (unique, creative, difficult, intricate, challenging, outside skater's comfort zone) should be recognized and rewarded more. To this, they should be more formally rewarded holistically, aiming to achieve the right balance and create a strong impression befitting to the music ambition, but doesn't seem to been mentioned under the current guidelines other than under transitions (which would be the micro aspect of the choreography but not the whole picture).
----------
Most importantly, I'd like to change the judging panel selection process IF anonymity is some how absolutely essential for ISU to function.
1. More rigorous and proactive judging selection process to minimize biases. Even if we are not privy to the judge's pattern of judging (only available to ISU), there should be a secondary independent jury selection process and management (fund by IOC), sort of like Omudsman for banks to ensure no conflict of interest and quality assurance, they should manage the process not just from the judging selection, but the full life cycle of the judging event, including post judging, evaluation.
2. World championship panel (Also Olympics, GP series) should consist of judges from minimum 3 continents no matter what draws. There need to be some process to prevent collusion.
3. Federation should not decide which judge to send, but they can nominate 3 judges. The independent jury selection committee then pick 1 that they think can be most impartial out of the 3 or can be done via a draw.
4. There should some sort of spoke person need to represent the judging panel and answer any Q&A at the end of the competition (elite level competitions only, gp series, wc) with member of the press AND public, which they can answer any controversial decisions, judgement derived from it. If anonymity is here to stay, there should be still ways to have a level of transparency despite of it.
5. The computer need to be programmed to automatically detect biased marking. They can do this easily by enter details of
- Judge's nationality, judge's national affiliation.
- Judge's past judging history, highest score given, lowest score given, mean.
- Rival skater's nationality at this event
The system can designed to detect and track patterns of judging. If one judges deliberately sabotage the rival nation's skater while prop up own skaters, then his entire score for the 2 skaters are left out. One judge get a warning red light. The red warning is available to the public, even though the judge remain anonymous. Of course there are always ways to cheat the system, so the algorithm need to be upgraded to stay ahead of the vulnerabilities. This add 2nd layer of prevention after judging selection process.
Last edited:
) now who knows what's going on there. Plus I've never figured out how it prevents collusion or bribing anyway, I mean unless they send more judges then they use to each event then you obviously know who's going to be there once you arrive, plenty of time to do something nefarious.
