Disturbed by final results....

[rain]

Now let me admit right from the outset that I have not watched the competition yet, as CBC isn't airing it until January. But having looked at the scores, and with ALL the predictable winners, I'm really disturbed by the marking. I think the judges have finagled a way to get around the new system and make the results mirror what they want, no matter what the skating is like, and it seems they were at it with a vengence in Beijing.

It's that darn second mark - the "artistic" mark, or program components. You can't tell me that Navka/Kostamorov are that much better at EVERYTHING than the rest of the field. I just don't buy it. I have seen their free dance earlier in the season and choreographically speaking I think it leaves a lot to be desired, quite frankly. Likewise, while Plushenko is undoubtedly head and shoulders above the field in jumping - at this competition at least, from what I've read - that does NOT automatically translate into "better at everything." His marks, however, would lead one to believe otherwise. Again, Slutskaya, same deal. While it sounds like the ladies was about picking out who had the least mistakes, you would think Slutskaya skated brilliantly while everyone else faltered if you looked at the scores. There is NO WAY I buy her being that much superior to everyone else in the field, with Arakawa closest (I question her PCS scores as well, actually). Slutskaya does not have extension/beautiful positions etc. She never has. That is not her strength. Her marks do not reflect this difference in skill levels on different aspects of her skating. And in my very minority opinion Shen and Zhao are entirely overhyped and have been for several years. The rest of the field is just not THAT far behind them.

Feel free to disagree, but it seems to me that reputation has again reared its ugly head supplying tenths where they are not warranted.

I'm not saying any of the winners shouldn't, in fact, have placed where they did. I simply question the marks they put up, finishing 10-20 points above their competitors.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Now let me admit right from the outset that I have not watched the competition yet, as CBC isn't airing it until January. But having looked at the scores, and with ALL the predictable winners, I'm really disturbed by the marking. I think the judges have finagled a way to get around the new system and make the results mirror what they want, no matter what the skating is like, and it seems they were at it with a vengence in Beijing.

Tarassova has said that the CoP system will be easier for judges to cheat.

What I think may be happening is that the judges give correct base scores. If they don't they should be in trouble, but maybe they can get away with that too.

When all the base scores are added up the competitors all seem to have a proper placing but it may not give the podium look that they want. It is the plus 2s and 3s that are probably deciding who should be the winner, and the minus 2s and 3s to lower that certain someone who could be a winner. For example if you take Sasha's spiral a judge may give her a +1 but he may give Irina a +3 for a number of reasons besides the fact that he is a fan of acrobatic moves. The question arises is the judge pushing Irina for the win over Sasha? We, unfortunately, will never know who that or those judge(s) are. Other judges will know but can they blow the whistle?

Of course that one example above will not determine the final results but it is building on that principle that will determine the final result.

Hopefully, there is no more real conspiracies going on but again that can not be checked by the fans because nationalities will never be known.

Will we ever know if there is a May meeting of discrepancies and who is involved and what is the outcome? Your guess is as good as mine unless you know something that these meetings will take place.

Joe

 

[clairecloutier]

Rain, without having seen the actual event yet, I share your concerns. It *is* beginning to look like the judges are using the second mark to hold up or boost certain skaters.

I think what concerns me is there's not much variation within the whole range of second marks for any given skater. What I mean is that you don't see a skater get a 6 for Skating Skills and an 8 for Transitions, or anything like that. Rather, it seems like all five PCS scores for most skaters are quite consistent and in a certain range. And that to me raises a red flag, because some skaters are definitely better in one PCS area than in others.

For an example of what I mean, consider Pang & Tong. They are lovely artistic skaters and have a beautiful LP this year, which suits them perfectly and which they interpret very well. However, I think any unbiased observer would have to admit that Pang & Tong's basic skating skills--in particular, their edging and use of their blades--are not really their strong suit. In this area, they are weaker than, say, most of the Russian pairs. Yet, they receive about the same marks for Skating Skills as they do for Choreography and Interpretation. (In fact, in their LP today, they received higher for SS than for C or I.) Now, I may be misunderstanding what Skating Skills are, but this to me seems off base.

Then you have a case like Miki Ando. She is kind of the opposite of Pang & Tong. Her basic skating skills (edging, use of her blades, speed) are quite good. But she is not all that strong yet in choreography or interpretation. Yet, her official marks for Skating Skills, Choreography, and Interpretation are all similar. This, again, doesn't seem right.

Of course, some skaters are at much the same level in all 5 PCS areas, and so then it makes sense that their PCS scores would be consistent with each other. But in general, I think there should be more variation than what we're seeing.

And it does seem like the judges are giving across-the-board high marks to the world champions, just as a general rule. This seems especially the case with Navka & Kostomarov. To me, they have just not looked that good this season; I feel like their programs are labored and too often out of sync. But they are getting extremely high PCS scores. I really can't see why, except for the fact that they are world champions.

 

[Jaana]

>Rain
Likewise, while Plushenko is undoubtedly head and shoulders above the field in jumping - at this competition at least, from what I've read - that does NOT automatically translate into "better at everything." >

I have seen the video clips on FSU, and he definetely deserved everything he got, compared to the rest of the skaters. He was "better at everything", in my opinion too. Besides it is wishful thinking to believe that Plushenko is head and shoulders above the field only in jumping, the judges have had a very different opinion of the quality of his skating and presentation for years.

Marjaana

 

[Vash01]

This is not something new. I had posted a few times in the past about the new system- how the judges were marking consistently high in ALL categories (for example,S&Z). No skater can be BEST in every category. Also, the biases will be there, no matter what system you use in a subjective sport. The component scores accommodate those. Whoever thought this system solves the problems (compared to the previous one) was not paying attention. I do like seeing numbers/score. As an engineer I find it easier to compare the numbers, calculate stats, etc. However, that does not necessarily indicate accuracy. The ordinal system is somewhat convoluted for ordinary viewers of FS (those who watch only the Olympics) and this system seems easier to follow. It gives the appearance of being fair. It is a subjective sport and judges will adjust the component scores to bring up their favorites. In most cases the 'cheating' is not necessarily 'cheating'. It is a preference, and it is seen in the components marks. Sooner or later we will still be hearing the same debates as before. If you love FS, you have to accept that it is not a perfect sport with black & white answers.

Vash

 

[hockeyfan228]

I think one of the strengths of the scoring system is that it is transparent: not only can the ISU -- as well as anyone who looks at the detailed protocols, see whether the rules are being enforced -- they can also gauge how whether the expected results are the ones they'd envisioned. Under ordinals, single numbers for pre couldn't even be compared -- giving one skater a 5.8 and another a 5.9 didn't mean that skater A was a fixed amount less accomplished because of specific criteria -- because it was the overall impression for both tech and pre that counted.

Whether they do something with the data -- decertify the judges, change the rules, increase/change training, etc. -- is still up in the air. The org certainly can identify that the limited range of PE scores was not what they envisioned, and try to do something about it.

 

[Mathman]

In every sport the officials will find a way to manipulate the results to suit their purposes. In basketball Michael Jordan travelled every time he touched the ball. Everyone else was allowed two steps without dribbling, Michael was allowed four. And don't get in his way or it's a foul on you. That's just how it is.

Even in golf, you might think, well, the ball goes in the cup or it doesn't. But when Tiger Woods was riding high, before every tournament the organizers redid the course (varying the length of holes, pin placements, etc.), expressly either to make it "Tiger-proof" -- that is, to take away Tiger's advantages -- or the opposite, depending on the way the organizers wanted to play it.

MM

 

[cianni]

Results

Mathman, You see the Elephant in the living room which most wont see nor do they want to. The judging will be no different and the points will be given as needed to the one they want to win. No recourse as the judges are covered for cheating. My guess is pay back at Worlds for Irina she will win no matter how she skates. I agree, love her but she sure doesnt deserve the high points she gets and is not anywhere near those scores. Sasha also is gifted time and time again in both systems. God help Michelle as I believe she will be skinned alive . I hope Hersh is on top of it at Nats and Worlds and if another scandel saves the sport so be it. The fun and interest wanes when we know who will win and its so blatant its laughable.

 

[Jhar55]

Ok, this might be in the wrong place but! I am confused how did Plushenko win GPF? Didn't he only compete in COR? And unless I heard wrong after watching COR today he was like 7th or 8th in points, I am I missings something?

 

[hockeyfan228]

Ok, this might be in the wrong place but! I am confused how did Plushenko win GPF? Didn't he only compete in COR? And unless I heard wrong after watching COR today he was like 7th or 8th in points, I am I missings something?

He was first alternate, in 7th place. Johnny Weir withdrew because of a foot injury, and Plushenko took Weir's place.

 

[libra 1]

Now let me admit right from the outset that I have not watched the competition yet, as CBC isn't airing it until January. But having looked at the scores, and with ALL the predictable winners, I'm really disturbed by the marking. I think the judges have finagled a way to get around the new system and make the results mirror what they want, no matter what the skating is like, and it seems they were at it with a vengence in Beijing.

It's that darn second mark - the "artistic" mark, or program components. You can't tell me that Navka/Kostamorov are that much better at EVERYTHING than the rest of the field. I just don't buy it. I have seen their free dance earlier in the season and choreographically speaking I think it leaves a lot to be desired, quite frankly. Likewise, while Plushenko is undoubtedly head and shoulders above the field in jumping - at this competition at least, from what I've read - that does NOT automatically translate into "better at everything." His marks, however, would lead one to believe otherwise. Again, Slutskaya, same deal. While it sounds like the ladies was about picking out who had the least mistakes, you would think Slutskaya skated brilliantly while everyone else faltered if you looked at the scores. There is NO WAY I buy her being that much superior to everyone else in the field, with Arakawa closest (I question her PCS scores as well, actually). Slutskaya does not have extension/beautiful positions etc. She never has. That is not her strength. Her marks do not reflect this difference in skill levels on different aspects of her skating. And in my very minority opinion Shen and Zhao are entirely overhyped and have been for several years. The rest of the field is just not THAT far behind them.

Feel free to disagree, but it seems to me that reputation has again reared its ugly head supplying tenths where they are not warranted.

I'm not saying any of the winners shouldn't, in fact, have placed where they did. I simply question the marks they put up, finishing 10-20 points above their competitors.

Well,I may sound totally out of place after your analytical claims but my constant worry is one thing which sets our beloved sports apart from all others - artistry, or as you put it, "darn second mark". One can easily prove the mastery of a skater by points as an ultimate argument - Plushy is above Sandhue almost 56 points, and that's that.
But how to measure in points the drive of Plushy's programme that is such it leaves the audience breathless? The arena screams with his every movement - not jumps, just some little gesture like waving above his head ? That his incredible acceleration right from the dead stop drives the audience crazy? And the speed is such that even judges need an encore - the human eye fails to catch everything in his mad footwork. And how to measure his smothering energy that sweeps over the rink like tornado? And no programme components - just some drama happening on ice coming from within the skater? To me all the above is " the second mark" - or Skategods blessing.... which no judging system can measure leave alone justify ...Because if it could Plushy's marks would have been even higher..
.
Libra - from Russia, with love

 

[Piel]

But how to measure in points the drive of Plushy's programme that is such it leaves the audience breathless? The arena screams with his every movement - not jumps, just some little gesture like waving above his head ? And how to measure his smothering energy that sweeps over the rink like tornado? And no programme components - just some drama happening on ice coming from within the skater? To me all the above is " the second mark" - or Skategods blessing.... which no judging system can measure leave alone justify ...Because if it could Plushy's marks would have been even higher..
.
Libra - from Russia, with love

Well, I for one feel much better after reading this because if it's true Kwan should have no trouble getting high scores with the COP.

 

[Mathman]

Libra 1, I love your post. I wish everyone would sit down and write a post like that about their favorite skater. How indeed can we measure "his smothering energy that sweeps over the rink like tornado?"

Piel, that is so true. All this worrying about whether someone can squeeze an extra two-tenths of a point out of a new combination spin -- all that will be swept away by the Michelle tsunami.

Mathman

 

[mpal2]

But back to the point of rain's question, shouldn't the PCS scores have a range instead of looking similar across the board for a skater and show rankings among skaters?

I do agree that those placing in the medals will tend to have higher PCS than those not medaling. But it should be possible for someone to not medal, get at least one high PCS score and have all the rest be low.

As much as some might hate to admit it, it should be possible for one of our favorites or even the medalists to get outranked by a nonmedalist in one of the scores if the judges are using the system correctly. The whole point to the multiple sections of PCS was to reward different areas for skaters. It was not intended to continue the 6.0 ranking among skaters.

 

[Doggygirl]

ITA with you, and also Mathman...

I think one of the strengths of the scoring system is that it is transparent: not only can the ISU -- as well as anyone who looks at the detailed protocols, see whether the rules are being enforced -- they can also gauge how whether the expected results are the ones they'd envisioned. Under ordinals, single numbers for pre couldn't even be compared -- giving one skater a 5.8 and another a 5.9 didn't mean that skater A was a fixed amount less accomplished because of specific criteria -- because it was the overall impression for both tech and pre that counted.

Whether they do something with the data -- decertify the judges, change the rules, increase/change training, etc. -- is still up in the air. The org certainly can identify that the limited range of PE scores was not what they envisioned, and try to do something about it.

In competition, there will always be those who work to manipulate the system. What I like about COP is there is so much more detail to the scoring, so at least cheating should be 1) more effort and 2) more obvious.

Now it's up to the ISU to decide to use the scoring data to identify and call out either incompetent or shady judging and take action, or not.

Just out of curiousity, what events that everyone has actually seen (live or TV) where you think anyone "wuz robbed?"

Some of that question of course will pertain to personal preferences, but trying to set those aside and just consider the new scoring system, what placements are in question for you?

Interesting..

DG

 

[chuckm]

I've done a statistical analysis of all the judges' PCS scores and have found patterns where certain skaters were given higher PCS scores over other skaters, regardless of the performance. At the same time, other skaters received lowball scores that did not reflect their actual performance.

But this is really no different from the 6.0 system, where judges used presentation scores to place one skater higher than another. It's easy enough to line up the PCS scores and see the same patterns.

What can't be seen so clearly is the possibility of collusion across judges. For example, it doesn't do much good for a judge to elevate the scores of the skater from his/her federation so high that the score will be automatically tossed. But if that judge works with one or more other judges to manipulate PCS scores, one or more of the high scores WILL be counted, as well as some of the lower scores awarded to competitors.

Sometimes it's only .4 or .5 on the PCS scores that catapults a skater or team from 4th place to the podium---look at Obertas/Slavnov vs. Pang/Tong in the FS. O/S beat P/T in the SP by 0.30 points, with tech marks 34.44 to P/T's 31.74. In the FS, O/S again had the higher tech mark (57.68 to 57.24) but P/T's higher PCS scores boosted them up to the bronze medal; O/S lost by 0.38 points. That is not to suggest in any way that there was cheating or collusion in this case, but it shows how much impact those PCS scores have.

 

[doug_log]

they wuz robbed

O/S were robbed. P/T looked sloppy.

I'd say that Slutskaya didn't deserve it, but all the women sucked. I was disappointed that Rochette didn't pull it together, cause she could have won. Arakawa DEFINITELY did not deserve to be on the podium. She was absolutely awful in every way. It's hard to believe that she's the world champion after her performance. I don't know why the judges gave her such high PCS. Miki was robbed of the bronze.

I think the men's placements were right on. There would have been in a riot if Li didn't get on the podium. He deserved that bronze, unquestionably.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

I've done a statistical analysis of all the judges' PCS scores and have found patterns where certain skaters were given higher PCS scores over other skaters, regardless of the performance. At the same time, other skaters received lowball scores that did not reflect their actual performance.

You're making me think that some judges come in prepared with notes of scores for each contestant before the skaters have skated. Why not? They can vary that slightly so as not to make it so obvious. hmm. Collusion could come with this plan of action. There's room for cheating judges and we will never know their names.

Joe

 

[jan]

Can someone please explain to me how Slutskaya received such high PCS scores. I have been involved in Figure Skating for 30+ years and had thought that she would have suffered terribly under this new system...I quess I thought wrong...there is no way that she has better skating skills then Michelle Kwan, Arakawa or Joannie Rochette.
As for Plushenko...I like his skating but you cannot convince me if you have seen a Jeff Buttle or Emmannuel SAndu or Johnny weir that they are not on a level playing feild in terms of PCS.
This is just my opinion

 

[gracefulswan]

heck no weir, sandhu, and buttle are not equal to plushy's PCS.. the latter is head and shoulders ABOVE them. read libra's account of him again and you'll see why he's just got 'it'. as an overall skater, none of the men come close yet. i reckon he'll be crowned at least 4x world champ (knock on wood) and olympic champ hopefully. hey, he even has a darn good chance of tying dick button's 5x world champ record.. or maybe surpass it! (gasp!) :agree: