Hybrid System - NJS Discussion

[gsrossano]

If you want an expressionless contest of athleticism, there's many other sports to choose from.

Sad to say, often I think that is exactly what the most powerful people in the ISU want. Most notably Peter Krick who pushed IJS in the direction of making skating primarily, if not solely, an athletic competition, and who fights off every attempt to back off on the athletic requirements. He seems to equate falling down a lot and injuries as being part and parcel of being athletic, and fights every change to IJS to the death.

Although IJS was sold after Salt Lake as a cure for corruption, it was actually developed to make skating primarily a sport, and a quantitative sport at that. So, if in other sports the results are determined not only by points scored, but also errors made, so now in skating the results are determined by skaters scoring points, and also skaters making errors (negative GoEs and deductions). The presentation part was reduced from one of two 6.0 marks to 3 of 5 PC marks, a dilution from 50% of the score to 30%.

So what we have now is basically exactly what the designers intended. And I think they are too stubborn to even consider whether in retrospect this was a bad idea. Even if it does hit them in the pocketbook.

 

[jp1andonly]

Also many reasons for the drop in interest of figure skating, and yes, CoP is one of them. Much too confusing to see a clean routine go down the drain because of the possible subjectivity of the Tech Panel all facing the skaters from the same vantage point. It's one of many that just kills the general public.

Well you assume then that the general public is too stupid to learn. I explained the very quick..this is COP to him, he understood it, and had lots of fun predicting the scores for everyone. FYI..he was darn close and he didn't know any of the point values for jumps. He also was able to understand underrotations and when replayed on the screen could sometimes catch them.

Not too bad for a dummy huh

 

[bekalc]

Why do sports have playoffs then? Why unfairly eliminate worthy teams from competing on even footing in the finals? Maybe eliminate playoffs and finals entirely, and just whoever scores the most runs during the season wins? Wouldn't that be a better reflection of true ability, instead of 1 or 2 lucky playoff wins?

I'm not sure what you mean. First of all we are talking about ONE competition. We aren't talking about going into the playoffs. Right now skaters are competiting to go into the GPFinals, and once they are there all scorse are erased and they start from fresh.

Basketball has a half time doesn't it? And it's completely possible that after half time a team could have a 30 point lead going into the third quarter. Should we call that unfair and get rid of the first two quarters because of it???

Well it's the same in figure skating. And the fact is IJS dosen't eliminate people from winning, believe it or not 6.0 did. Yes, there are times when people can get a huge lead, but there are a lot of times when you have 5/6 people who skate well in the short and all are within range of winning the competition... I'm thinking of last year's worlds were Joubert went from 6th to 2nd. That would have been much more difficult to do under 6.0

I think that 12 point leads are actually rather rare under COP, but in most cases it happens because the others skated like crap

I do think something needs to be done to make the short program worth more. I've proposed having a 2 point deduction for every missed element. (Of course that would have given Joubert an EVEN BIGGER lead, but that would have been fair.

I'd love to know if you complain when your favorite basketball team is down by 30 points in the third quarter because they played like crap earlier in the game.

And seriously it's not like a 10 point lead is unsurmountable. Yu-na had a 10 point lead over Mao at 2007 worlds after th short, and Mao overcame that when Yu-na skated poorly. It's just that you have make up for a lot because you screwed up, just like a lot of other sports. And it would have been a lot more difficult for Mao to even win that silver medal under 6.0

COP is once again the fairer system, because if you skate well in the short program you'll have a good shot at winning. I'm not sure why you think picking out three people (even if 6 people skated well) is more fair.

 

[Mathman]

I think GSRossano's post #21 is the crux of the matter. The CoP aspires to make figure skating "more like other sports."

Who needs another sport "like other sports?"

Figure skating needs to stop trying to copy other sports and return to promoting what makes it different from "just another sport."

 

[bekalc]

I think GSRossano's post #21 is the crux of the matter. The CoP aspires to make figure skating "more like other sports."

Who needs another sport "like other sports?"

Figure skating needs to stop trying to copy other sports and return to promoting what makes it different from "just another sport."

Yes, but I think most would say that getting rid of the ordinals is fair. I highly doubt there's a skater who doesn't like the fact that they can win if they are behind third place.

 

[Mathman]

Yes, but I think most would say that getting rid of the ordinals is fair. I highly doubt there's a skater who doesn't like the fact that they can win if they are behind third place.

Well, that cuts both ways. A skater can be so far ahead after the SP that no one has a chance to catch him (Joubert at Cup of Russia, for instance).

 

[bekalc]

Well, that cuts both ways. A skater can be so far ahead after the SP that no one has a chance to catch him (Joubert at Cup of Russia, for instance).

Joubert's lead wasn't insurmountable, a good free program skate could have overcome that, based on how Joubert himself skated in the free.

And once again the fact is the rest of the men, did it to themselves in this situation. I think it's quite fair that if a skater skates well and everyone else bombs in the short, than that means the skater has a better shot at winning. Why should have Tomas gotten an equal shot at the title, when you take into account his mess of a program? I mean seriously, it was a horrid short program.

Frankly, the judges normally don't just hand out 13 point leads when several people have skated clean programs. From what I've seen a lot of times what happens is people get huge leads because everyone else has skated poorly.

Under 6.0 you could have five people who skated really well in the short program, extremely well, and 2 of those people were going to be automatically screwed, even though they skated well. At least this way if 6 people skate realitively the same, all six people will have a shot at the title. That makes it more exciting, and I've found that it's a lot more common for people to be bunched together after the short program, than for one person to have a huge lead.

 

[Mathman]

Well you assume then that the general public is too stupid to learn. I explained the very quick..this is COP to him, he understood it, and had lots of fun predicting the scores for everyone. FYI..he was darn close and he didn't know any of the point values for jumps. He also was able to understand underrotations and when replayed on the screen could sometimes catch them.

Not too bad for a dummy huh

Exactly. An interested fan can very easily tell who skated well and who skated poorly, even if that fan does not even know the scale of values for the jumps.

So why do we need a scale of values?

That fan can, in his mind, observe that some jumps were underrotaed and reduce his evaluation of the skater's performance accordingly. So why do we need a technical specialist?

 

[bekalc]

Exactly. An interested fan can very easily tell who skated well and who skated poorly, even if that fan does not even know the scale of values for the jumps.

So why do we need a scale of values?

That fan can, in his mind, observe that some jumps were underrotaed and reduce his evaluation of the skater's performance accordingly. So why do we need a technical specialist?

I don't think all fans can completely. I mean I can get some clue if I see a strange landing or someone doesn't land backwards. But lots of cases should be left to the technical controllers.

I think though that fans use to complain to pieces in 6.0 that underrotated jumps and flutzs weren't penalized, now that they are being penalized complaints are happening again.

 

[Mathman]

I think though that fans use to complain to pieces in 6.0 that underrotated jumps and flutzs weren't penalized, now that they are being penalized complaints are happening again.

I think the complaint is that that the penalties are being applied capriciously. Some skaters are getting dinged, others are getting away with it.

 

[R.D.]

i think the complaint is that that the penalties are being applied capriciously. Some skaters are getting dinged, others are getting away with it.

exactly

 

[gsrossano]

I think the complaint is that that the penalties are being applied capriciously. Some skaters are getting dinged, others are getting away with it.

I am going to take issue with the word capriciously. In the U.S., at least, I do not think the decisions of the TP are "subject to whim or impulse" (the definition of capricious). Decisions may be made inconsistently, and they for sure are subject to error some fraction of the time, but I think a serious effort is made to make the correct decisions. The reality is, what the TP is being asked to do is extremely difficult by nature of the rules, limitations in technology, and limitations in human judgement. Certainly it could be done better, and is a serious problem that needs attention.

 

[Buttercup]

I explained it above. It gives the SP meaning and identity. Under CoP, SP+FS is just one long skate with a rest break in between. Under CoP, if someone gains a large point advantage after the SP, the FS becomes boring.

You answered the question I used to set up my argument rather than addressing the substance of it. The SP already has meaning: if one, or two, or five skaters were much better than the rest of the field, the marks will reflect that. Ordinals arbitrarily make it the top three; As bekalc pointed out, IJS rewards all those who did well by giving them a margin to work with - sometimes large, but rarely insurmountable - for the LP. The only person with insurmountable leads was Plush, and not because they were so large - 10 or even 13 points can be made up in the LP - but because the odds of anyone finishing that far ahead of him in an LP were virtually non-existent.

I'm all for better differentiation between SP and LP - for instance, by removing some of the restrictions from the LP and making it a free skate once again. But I can't support a system that makes the SP the end of the competition for 90% of the field (or more).

 

[Particle Man]

Why have a Grand Prix final? Why base it on points earned in the Grand Prix? It seems unfair to the better skaters who might have messed up one competition, who now don't have enough GP points to advance to the final. Aren't GP points the same thing as ordinals? Maybe the GP final selections should also be determined by one big dung pile of CoP points earned during the GP?

Sorry, I just don't get why you allow every event to be a true competition which actually determines placements and pares down the field, EXCEPT the SP. It seems almost schizophrenic...

 

[Buttercup]

Particle Man:

The SP is not an event. It is part of an event. As such, it should set the stage for the LP by separating the skaters based on the level at which they performed, not determine the placements in advance. If that means one skater way ahead of the field as Joubert was at CoR, that's fine; he earned it. If it's 5 or 6 skaters separated by only a few points like the men were at 2008 Worlds, that's good too; they all deserved it. This actually recognizes what happened in the SP and gives it meaning in a way ordinals never could, while leaving the possiblity for changes in the LP.

Otherwise, why hold the LP? Why not have a skateoff for the top three, and maybe invite the 4th place skater in case of a miracle?

This has nothing to do with the GP season, which is mostly about making money. Some have suggested that skaters should qualify based on total scores rather than points. As long as the judging is not consistent, I don't think that would be fair as some judging panels are much more generous than others.

Schizophrenia has even less to do with it - and BTW, that term is generally misunderstood by people, who think it means split personality. I was a psychology major; it doesn't.

Look, you like ordinals. I don't. We're not going to convince one another. So I'll bow out of this discussion as I have nothing to add beyond what I've already posted.

 

[Particle Man]

The SP is not an event. It is part of an event.

Please tell that to the people selling me the tickets...

As such, it should set the stage for the LP by separating the skaters based on the level at which they performed, not determine the placements in advance.

Determine the placements in advance?? The only thing ordinals determines is which 3 have equal footing for gold.

You seem to be looking only at cases where more than 3 people are close in points. I agree that ordinals CAN be seen as unfair in some of those situations. But I already explained how under CoP, pre-determined placements are usually MORE common, if skaters are separated by too many points. This happens very often. Even at its worst, the only thing that is "determined" by SP ordinals is what 3 competitors have a realistic chance at gold. The final PLACEMENTS in the FS are more often determined in the SP under CoP.

You want to ignore all the benefits of ordinals, and you support CoP letting the SP suck the excitement out of many FS's "when it is deserved." Fine, that's your opinion. But saying SP ordinals "determine the placements" and CoP SP scores don't is more or less the OPPOSITE of reality. That's my point here...

 

[Jaana]

If you want an expressionless contest of athleticism, there's many other sports to choose from.

I cannot agree. During the CoP system we have seen lots of beautiful and artistic programmes, but also just athletic programmes. I would say that in that sense there has been no change compared to the 6,0 system.

 

[Mathman]

I am going to take issue with the word capriciously. In the U.S., at least, I do not think the decisions of the TP are "subject to whim or impulse" (the definition of capricious). Decisions may be made inconsistently, and they for sure are subject to error some fraction of the time, but I think a serious effort is made to make the correct decisions. The reality is, what the TP is being asked to do is extremely difficult by nature of the rules, limitations in technology, and limitations in human judgement. Certainly it could be done better, and is a serious problem that needs attention.

I agree that "capricious" wasn't the right word, and I certainly have no intention of berating the technical specialists' dedication or expertise.

But I do think that their job is impossibly difficult and sometimes the bottom line no more reflects what happens on the ice than flipping a coin would. The problem is that the nature of the scoring system is such that this series of "coin tosses" utterly dominates the final score.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

(Re: the job of the TP)But I do think that their job is impossibly difficult and sometimes the bottom line no more reflects what happens on the ice than flipping a coin would. The problem is that the nature of the scoring system is such that this series of "coin tosses" utterly dominates the final score.

That is the correct word: Impossible. I'm not against the concept of the TP but I am not going to abide by what they see. This has nothing to do with their seminar training. This is eyesight! and with so many skaters in competition it becomes eye strain and I can understand a member of the TP calling by reputation rather than what the skater did right then and there.

If this UnderRotation is so much worse than a Fall (which I can't believe) then the ISU must come up with a better scheme in naming them in competition. And the new scheme should be much better than eyesight.

BTW, I believe all Falls have a measure of under rotation because with a properly executed jump the skater will not Fall. Therefore, all Falls should be regarded as URs. The -1 in the total score is not enough.

 

[Kinga]

Under 6.0 you could have five people who skated really well in the short program, extremely well, and 2 of those people were going to be automatically screwed, even though they skated well. At least this way if 6 people skate realitively the same, all six people will have a shot at the title. That makes it more exciting, and I've found that it's a lot more common for people to be bunched together after the short program, than for one person to have a huge lead.

I agree that current judging system has offered a lot of fair-exciting details. But we all know that it also have some flaws. I think that coming up with different options of changing it to something better is a good thing (even if the suggestions can be sometimes very radical). You never know when just a usual fan suggestion can turn into something that could at least improve the current system. Or develop a discussion that would finally lead to something good.