How to make components relevant for men?

[Old Cat Lady]

bored today so decided to time the amount the men spent doing basic skating, poses, and jump set ups and comparing components. If there were steps or transitions into the jump, I stopped the timer into the steps but if not, the timer stopped at takeoff of the jumps. Posing, even for choreographic effect, was on the timer and same with basic skating that had only a couple minor turns. Except for Chan who didn't have a good skate receently, I only compared fairly well skated programs so falls don't have as much of an effect in the scores.

Hanyu - Semei - around 40 seconds, 96.62 at Olympics, 98.56 at GPF
Hanyu - Hope & Legacy - 45 seconds, 97.08
N. Chen - Mao's last dancer - 2:09 - 87.44 at Olympics, 91.84 at worlds
Uno - Turandot - 1:35 - 92.72 at Olympics
P. Chan - Hallelujah - 1:12 - 91.86 at Olympics
Fernandez - Man a la Mancha - 1:02 - 96.14 at Olympics
Boyang Jin - Star Wars - 1:52 - 85.76 at Olympics

The time alone isn't a great reflection of the quality of the programs since there were also vast differences in the difficulty, musicality, and expressiveness of the transitions and in the "basic" skating Chen and Jin skated on far fewer curves than the rest. Chen and Jin had the least difficult jump entries and transitions. I would say Jin was more expressive though Chen was slightly more polished.

The main thing of note is that Hanyu had 1:29 more skating content that was also higher quality yet his best only got 6.72 more points than Chen's best. Falling on a quad toe is worth 7.33 points.

With this scoring, can you really blame people for having minimal choreography content? Even with the proposed reduced quad values, the extra risk and difficulty of a full program gets you almost nothing. With the way judges are scoring, the difference the components makes to the top level is only relevant if everything else is almost equal.

1. Do you consider it a problem to have the technical outstrip the components so drastically?
2. What is the solution if you say yes to 1?

I would say increase the value of the components, except the judges seem to just use the components scores like ordinals. It really doesn't make any difference whether components are worth 10 or 15 if the judges score everything within a point of each other anyway.


Edited to add:
So I went to school today and found out that I was going to a class I wasn't enrolled in Came home and watched more of the Olympics - what a magical competition!
For those that are interested:
Mishe Ge - Meditation - 1:12 - 86.08 at Olympics, 83.56 at worlds
Kolyada - Elvis medley - 1:26 - 87.94 at Olympics, 86.12 at worlds
Zhou - Moulin Rouge - 1:29 - 79.92 at Olympics (shows that even I was blinded by the quad fest - didn't realize that he had more content than Chen)
Messing - Chaplin - :58 - 85.44 at Olympics, 83.14 at worlds

Zagitova -:42 - 75.03 at Olympics
Osmond - 1:18 - 75.65 at Olympics, 75.15 at worlds
Medvedeva - :41 - 77.47
Miyahara - 1:03 - 75.2 at Olympics, 72.52 at worlds
Kostner - 1:32 - 75.65
Sakamoto - 1:15 - 68.11

 

[Shanshani]

I would say increase the value of the components, except the judges seem to just use the components scores like ordinals. It really doesn't make any difference whether components are worth 10 or 15 if the judges score everything within a point of each other anyway.

This point is key. It doesn't matter if PCS is worth a million points if there's only a few points of differentiation between the scores that are actually given, since it's the differences between the scores that determine placements. If no one is ever scored below a 70, then there's really only 30 points of actual differentiation between skates--and if "top skaters" by reputation are never scored below the mid eighties, then that means that an intricately choreographed and musical skate is worth less than a quad combo over a program that consists of little more than two-footed skating between elements insofar as top placements are concerned. Plus, there's the related issue of artistic skaters not getting credit in PCS if they don't have the jumps.

I don't think increasing the factoring of PCS really solves the core problem, though it may ameliorate it somewhat since increasing the factoring magnifies the point difference a little. That problem is that judges 1. seem unable or unwilling to evaluate components and technical content independently and 2. score skaters too closely for high PCS to provide more than a minor edge in competition. This makes the incentives for skater development far too lopsided--why work on artistic content when your time is clearly much better spent adding quads if you actually want to win?

 

[Sam-Skwantch]

I’m probably in the minority but I’d really like to see PCS reduced substantially. I’d rather see performance based scores in which the skaters mostly earn PCS scores by how well they perform instead of how generous the judges are.

For example: How to determine P/E score
Create Scaled points for hitting levels or all of their intended jumps, scaled points for GOE related success, etc. The point is to tie it directly to blade to ice performance. :think:

I’d still be alright with introducing something like “artistic impression” and treat it like GOE with bullets and all but I’d only like to see it scoring ~10pts.

I know that’s harsh and many will disagree. That’s fine...I’m kind of thinking out loud but I’ve been feeling this way for years. I think PCS scoring is just s continuation of 6.0 and it’s far way too easy and tempting to legally manipulate.

 

[Shanshani]

As for solutions, there are a few things that I think that would help tremendously.

First, there should be a clear, detailed rubric on what 10, 9, 8, etc. mean in the context of each PCS category, with examples of skates (ideally of different styles) that would merit each of these scores. This would help standardize judging and give a basis for comparison when determining whether x or y skater was scored correctly at z event. This rubric should clearly differentiate each PCS category from each other and from aspects of the performance that are evaluated in the technical score--while there may be some areas of overlap (eg. transitions in and out of jumps counting for both TR and GOE), it should make clear the separate roles that each of these scores serve.

Second, there should be two separate panels of GOE judges and PCS judges, maybe of 5 judges each, which wouldn't even increase the number of judges needed substantially. I think part of the problem is that judges have too much to evaluate at once, so they take shortcuts, resulting in more scoring off reputation/prior scores as well as scoring where the judge determines that the program is an 8 performance, for instance, and then scores all the components around that number even if the program may have clear flaws in one of the PCS categories.

Finally, the factoring of PCS should be changed, not so that the PCS and TES scores are relatively equal (like I said, the actual value of the score is irrelevant--it's the differences that matter), but so that the difference between, say, an 8 and a 10 average PCS across the 5 categories equals the amount of points we think a skater has to make up in TES in order to make up for the difference. Of course, there will be disagreement on this, since some people favor the athletic side of the sport more and some the artistic side. In my opinion, the factoring right now would be fine if PCS was evaluated better.

 

[cruzceleste]

Hanyu - Semei - around 40 seconds, 96.62 at Olympics, 98.56 at GPF

I think you are talking about Hope & Legacy, Heaven & Earth is an Ex program

 

[Old Cat Lady]

I think you are talking about Hope & Legacy, Heaven & Earth is an Ex program

oops. : Corrected.

 

[Xen]

I’m probably in the minority but I’d really like to see PCS reduced substantially. I’d rather see performance based scores in which the skaters mostly earn PCS scores by how well they perform instead of how generous the judges are.

For example: How to determine P/E score
Create Scaled points for hitting levels or all of their intended jumps, scaled points for GOE related success, etc. The point is to tie it directly to blade to ice performance. :think:

I’d still be alright with introducing something like “artistic impression” and treat it like GOE with bullets and all but I’d only like to see it scoring ~10pts.

I know that’s harsh and many will disagree. That’s fine...I’m kind of thinking out loud but I’ve been feeling this way for years. I think PCS scoring is just s continuation of 6.0 and it’s far way too easy and tempting to legally manipulate.

It shouldn't be 6.0 and in fact, if you read the definition and explanations, it's not 6.0. There are videos given out by the ISU on Youtube that goes into IJS definitions for what is considered difficult transitions. But the issue is judges do not execute following said rubrik. Changing it to artistic impression may end up with the same results.

The real issue is simple: big fed bias. And the question is, how do we hold the big feds, that actually make up and vote on the decisions of the ISU (pull the strings so to speak) so it is more or less fair and neutral-how do we hold them accountable? How do we make them care for some degree of neutrality?

At the same time, something that's always bugged me is that in general, the men's skating PCS seem higher on average than the women's? But if we judge PCS objectively, I'm not sure where women's skaters are failing to not net as many 9.0's as the men. *Wait I know...it is something that starts with a Q and ends with an S*

 

[yume]

I’m probably in the minority but I’d really like to see PCS reduced substantially.

Me too. I don't see why it's a problem that skaters can score a lot more in TES than PCS while it's not a problem when a skater has a lot more PCS than TES.
PCS are not used to reward good artistic programs but to support judges favorites and cheat.

 

[mau]

Today I was seeing men’s FS protocols at Olympics and the PCS points of a certain skater caught my attention. If a judge gave you 9.50 points in one component and another gave you 7.50 points in the same component, then the scoring system has a problem.

 

[charlotte14]

I’m probably in the minority but I’d really like to see PCS reduced substantially. I’d rather see performance based scores in which the skaters mostly earn PCS scores by how well they perform instead of how generous the judges are.

For example: How to determine P/E score
Create Scaled points for hitting levels or all of their intended jumps, scaled points for GOE related success, etc. The point is to tie it directly to blade to ice performance. :think:

I’d still be alright with introducing something like “artistic impression” and treat it like GOE with bullets and all but I’d only like to see it scoring ~10pts.

I know that’s harsh and many will disagree. That’s fine...I’m kind of thinking out loud but I’ve been feeling this way for years. I think PCS scoring is just s continuation of 6.0 and it’s far way too easy and tempting to legally manipulate.

I know it's the reality and many people will jump on me just to say this out. PCS scoring is not just 6.0 but also nationality biased. If it's Boyang Jin who landed all the clean quads, his best PCS at WC would never crack 90. So yes you're right. PCS is a joke. Why would people make a fuss about it.

Now that skaters who already get above 90 PCS will never need to add skating content anymore. Just make use of the reputation and their federation's influence.

I have to say, the skaters who try to add true skating content and complex their programs... are idiots.

 

[Shayuki]

The easiest solution is to just score them accurately and not give someone like Nathan Chen 90+ PCS simply because he can jump 6 quads.

Increasing max PCS might help, but if the skaters still continue being scored by how well they jump rather than the actual PCS categories, I don't think that matters.

 

[xeyra]

I’m probably in the minority but I’d really like to see PCS reduced substantially. I’d rather see performance based scores in which the skaters mostly earn PCS scores by how well they perform instead of how generous the judges are.

For example: How to determine P/E score
Create Scaled points for hitting levels or all of their intended jumps, scaled points for GOE related success, etc. The point is to tie it directly to blade to ice performance. :think:

I’d still be alright with introducing something like “artistic impression” and treat it like GOE with bullets and all but I’d only like to see it scoring ~10pts.

I know that’s harsh and many will disagree. That’s fine...I’m kind of thinking out loud but I’ve been feeling this way for years. I think PCS scoring is just s continuation of 6.0 and it’s far way too easy and tempting to legally manipulate.

Then the manipulation would just pass on to GOEs, I guess? Not that it doesn't already happen anyway.

 

[charlotte14]

Last I checked, figure skating is a sport - so why should artistry be more important than or even equal to tech? Unless the intention is to keep down the skaters who are pushing the tech, who are actually advancing the sport. If one is more interested in the pure artistry, transitions, connections - forget the jumps - ice dance already exists.

The last time I checked, PCS is NOT artistry. Did you bother checking the guidlines and ISU handbook? Since when real skating content is called Artistry?
Skating skills and transitions belong to technique as well. If you show poor skating skills and almost no skating transitions, how would it be fair for you to get huge scores on these components?

It’s obviously not as easy to do so many transitions/connections with a quad heavy program. But if you think that a certain quadster isn’t capable of it - he’s been doing crazy transitions and steps into double and triple jumps since he was a small child.

He does not do it now so judges are supposed to watch his skating since he was a kid and give him huge PCS for non-existent transition in his programs? Because we are supposed to give out scored based on what the skaters "can do when they were young", not what the skaters "show the audience at the moment"?

 

[charlotte14]

It seems that people are freaking about the PCS Nathan Chen got at worlds. Even if he got 50 PCS, he still would have won lol

People are not freaking out Nathan's winning WC. In short, people were HAPPPPPPYYY. Like seriously happy because he skated well.

BUT people are NOT OKAY with the judges keep abusing the system and giving out too much scores for skaters whose skills in PCS do not match those numbers.

Where are the people screaming and attacking Eteri's girls for their crazy PCS yet keep their mouth shut when their North American skaters get the same treatment? Oh wait they're all here.

 

[Shanshani]

I don't think anyone disputes Nathan's win--you'd have to be pretty delusional to believe that anyone else deserved to win that competition. But Nathan's PCS at Worlds is only 0.02 points less than Patrick Chan's at Olys, and they were scored the exact same (9.32) in skating skills. Did Nathan exhibit basic skating skills as good as Patrick Chan's in their respective long programs? I don't think most people paying attention would think so. And that indicates that something has gone wrong with PCS judging.

 

[Danny T]

The last time I checked, PCS is NOT artistry. Did you bother checking the guidlines and ISU handbook? Since when real skating content is called Artistry?
Skating skills and transitions belong to technique as well. If you show poor skating skills and almost no skating transitions, how would it be fair for you to get huge scores on these components?

This one thousand times.

It's called Programme Component Scores, not Artistic Impression. In fact, artistry only accounts for less then half of PCS: Interpetation and Performance. Anyone who still think PCS is artistry haven't even read the Wikipedia page for IJS, much less the actual rulebook.

 

[xeyra]

The last time I checked, PCS is NOT artistry. Did you bother checking the guidlines and ISU handbook? Since when real skating content is called Artistry?
Skating skills and transitions belong to technique as well. If you show poor skating skills and almost no skating transitions, how would it be fair for you to get huge scores on these components?

My feeling is that since a lot of people equate artistry with PCS, including TV commentators, despite the fact that most of the PCS categories are quite technical, anyone complaining about someone's PCS is automatically equated to complaining about their artistry. And it's not just for the negative (i.e. "Nathan is overscored") but also the other way around (A or B deserves more PCS because they're an incredibly artistic skater), disregarding the fact PCS categories are different and have different requirements in the guidelines, and an incredibly artistic skater that feels the music, has great posture, has lovely choreographic touches (IN, PE) can also have shallow edges or lack of flow or be slow on the ice (SS) and/or lack difficulty or variety in transitions (TR) and/or have poor ice coverage (CO).

But with corridor judging, such differences are not noted by the judges, so people must complain about PCS as a whole because of its averages.

 

[Arpakasso]

I guess the problem basically lies with how the system is being used. you have a wide variety on how to judge the component, but as has been said: as long as the judges will "baseline" any clean skate at 7 of 10 possible points, the margin to differentiate will always be small.

I have once (in a totally different context) used a similar judging system, and I sort of get how the judges end up in this position. All the people in international premium competitions are GOOD. they know how to skate. if you actually consider this scoring system as "objective", you'd actually have to consider that a 1 would be adequate for a beginner who took their first free skate test. not falling on your face and getting on the edge you want, turning a clean 3-turn etc are already diffcult feats, if you go at it from a wholly objective perspective that considers every skating skill. a shaky 3 turn may be a 1 from a judge, getting the whole arsenal of steps gets you up to a 3, doing them clean to a 5. so, these guys all do that stuff with deep edges and control. in comparison to what I can do on the ice, that certainly is worth an 8 from a judge. In the project where I judged stuff, we ended up with a lot of scores that were only 5 (of 100 points total) points apart because everyone was like: yeah, this is basically good enough, I can't judge that down. It's not astonishing, so I won't give the best mark, but it deserves a 7 or 8 in that regard!"

in comparison to each other, baselining this skill at a 7.5-8 is not entirely useful. But there is no easy solution, because judging panels are also difficult to supervise. either you trust their judgement, or you have to trust someone else's judgement on that the original judgement was wrong. but who's the guy to actually decide that someone else judged wrongly? I think this is also part of the huge problem ISU is facing with this.

people who don't have the judge's training can't just reviews ALL judging decisions. There are cases in which mistakes become glaring, but those are a minority. people who have the judge's training have had the SAME training and learn how to judge according to those who did it before them, thus often reproducing the same problematic decisions, because they have no other example to follow. I have studied law, believe me, we have whole bookshelves full of research and philosophy on that problem.

I don't think there is an easy fix. if all the judges would re-evaluate their own judging practices and come to an accord to follow a new set of guidelines, this would probably work. problem is, I don't think this will ever happen in reality, because there are too many judges, who will neither have the possibility nor opportunity to actually agree on such a guideline by themselves. Additionally, there are so many judges that social control is just lacking, and as soon as someone starts using his authority in the wrong way without repercussions, others will blatantly follow, if only to not be the only idiot who doesn't use everything he can. So yes, basically corruption breeds more corruption, because if you don't join in, you're the loser all around.

 

[Xen]

I think it bears repeating that the issue isn't just Chen, despite poor Chen being somewhat the poster boy of this quad-inflation-PCS/rep-judging problem after WC2018 for now. Yeah, given what happened, he would have won. And yes, he deserved it, he did the best that night, no doubts about it.

But the hypothetical still stands- if the same skater, skated the same thing with just triples and was deemed only worthy of 82, why is the same skater deemed to now be 95 if he switches from all triples to all quads, or switches his flag? Same skater, same showing, same program, but somehow because the jumps are now all quads, and we're talking about a big fed now, we should imagine into existence skating skills and transitions, and other program components that somehow did not exist in the triples jumps/smaller fed version. Frankly, that skater is still a 82 PCS skater.

I'm not sure I agree with the idea that different competitions means you cannot compare the scores side by side. They won't be the same true, but the variance should not be so great if a) guidelines a clear; b) guidelines are actually followed. Again, SS and TR are basic skating skills, basic elements of a program that does not actually vary and do not change that much. So the way PCS are judged now are: a) partially actual score; b) partially whether or not you have a quad; c) partially skating order; d) partially fed power. As for how to fix it, I'd say it's more important to figure out how to eliminate or decrease the influence of d, which I think is the biggest issue with PCS no matter how you wish to fix the numbers.

 

[eaglehelang]

Ok2, no need argue.
Can someone post the vid if Hanyu's 2017 Worlds LP with each element marked? Someone did one to show difficult transitions and SS, etc as proof why they think Hanyu was underscored during 2017 Worlds LP.
They also did one for Hanyu's 2018 Olympics LP(Seimei). Forgot the titles though.

Then do one for Nathan's 2018 Olympics and Worlds. Heck, do one for Shoma too, since there are complaints 88 is too high PCS for 3 falls.