- Joined
- Sep 17, 2011
I'm pretty sure that's the GOE for a -1. A 4S fall would get less than 4 points.
I also think it doesn't reward quality elements as much as it should. You'll get a lot of skaters avoiding levels because the GOE really isn't worth it going from a level 3 to a level 4 spin.
2 questions:
(a) Who would evaluate the judges and what would be the qualifications for "judging the judges?"
(b) In a scenario where judges are chosen based on merit, what would be the response to a federation that might complain that its judges are never chosen or not chosen frequently enough?
Just playing devil's advocate here -- I like the ideas but can imagine allegations of bias from countries who might feel their judges aren't given "equal time."
For a non-skater, especially the most casual fans who don't pay much attention to CoP (if any), the apparent lack of penalties for falls is the most frustrating thing. To them, a fall = fail, pure and simple.
I do understand and appreciate the idea of trying to reward a skater for attempting and at least partially completing a difficult jump, but still get annoyed that falls aren't penalized more heavily. At some point, IMO it gets to be kind of like some kids' events where everyone who competes gets a ribbon or something just for showing up. As in, what's the value of a prize for coming in 10th out of 15? Just trying to represent the viewpoint of the "average" fan.
On another matter, this somewhat-above-average fan would like to nominate BoP for ISU President.
As much as you think skaters will turn their attention to quality of spin, I still think it would be the same old with skaters contorting into Biellmanns to get the level, though as I mentioned, some will avoid attempting more complex spins and simply get the base level. A level can be assured (assuming the tech spec calls it appropriately), higher GOE certainly cannot be assured. Some judges might even give lower-than-ideal GOE if the spin is simpler. It's the reason skaters do the extra positions in the first place, even if SEVERAL of their positions aren't particularly aesthetic.
(a) Peer review -- others who have passed through all the training -- and anyone who is voted upon as a skating expert. For example, Kurt Browning or Nobu Sato. These people have dedicated their whole lives to the sport and are very much aware of how it works in the present. Anyone who is qualified should be able to call for a judge to provide reasoning for the scores they gave. This reasoning would be written down and stored on a website that everyone qualified could access. People would then vote upon whether or not they think the judge did a good job. The highest scored judges would be selected for the most important events. Lower scored judges would be selected for less important events. Some judges might receive too many votes of no confidence altogether and not be allowed to participate in judging international competitions, for a period of at least a couple years at which time they could re-submit themselves.
And how do we know that Kurt Browning, or a Moskvina - could be anyone - would not vote against or in favor of a judge because they are biased or influenced by others?
Well, hopefully the entire process would help everyone to understand each other better and learn more. But there is no way to completely remove all "bias". In the end it just comes down to majority opinion. Whatever that will be, is what it will be. At least it's better than blatantly cheating judges being allowed to be appointed to competitions and not even trying to improve the overall standard.
There is something that I have thought for a while but couldn't find the right words to explain. It seems to me that CoP these days and 6.0 system are some how just the same.
Ever since 2012, PCS has gone wild, it's not different from the old days, just like the old ordinal system when you put the skaters you like on first. Judges like someone better, so despite the flaws, they give that one extremely high PCS.
Scoring system will never be transparent at this rate. It have that feeling. That's the reason a world record means nothing to me at all. Scores are meaningless at this point. It's the placement that matters the most.
I think one distinguishing feature is that at least artistry is now split up into various categories so we can see how judges assess a skater's transitions/skating skills/etc., instead of artistry being lumped into a subjective score that could be high or low on a judge's whim.
But it was never quite 50-50. Under the old 6.0, the presentation score is the breaker when it comes to a tie. Which resulted in a win by Oksana Baiul who while a sexy little deer and swan on ice, was really a nonsense skater technically. Ultimately, figure skating is a sport, not Bolshoi theatre. Sure great artistry makes for good fan fest and TV - no issues with that in exhibitions. But for a competitive sport, I think the technical aspects should still predominate, otherwise, where will you see the push towards increasing difficulty especially among the ladies? A flashing lovely Cohen spiral done on weak edges should never be allowed to score well compared to a simpler one done on a deep secure edge (e.g. Kostner). It is probably the emphasis on technical scores that pushes skaters to consistently go for quads and 3-3s. Pity there don't seem to be any 3A ladies in the horizon with Asada's retirement.Although…the program components SS and TR are part of the technical score, not part of the "artistic" score comprising CH, INT, and P&E. The IJS uses a 70-30 weight between technical and performance, in contrast to the 50-50 of 6.0.
Sure great artistry makes for good fan fest and TV - no issues with that in exhibitions.
But for a competitive sport, I think the technical aspects should still predominate, otherwise, where will you see the push towards increasing difficulty especially among the ladies?
A flashing lovely Cohen spiral done on weak edges should never be allowed to score well compared to a simpler one done on a deep secure edge (e.g. Kostner).
But it was never quite 50-50. Under the old 6.0, the presentation score is the breaker when it comes to a tie.
You will see it in people who need it to win. That's always how it works. There are the people who are the most artistic, and able to deliver high technical content, and then there are the people who aren't as good at "the second mark" and thus they add a more difficult jump to their program in order to beat the other person. That's exactly why we saw Tara Lipinski and Sarah Hughes coming out with multiple Triple-Triple combinations and why Slutskaya kept trying the 3Lutz+3Loop. They knew they needed it to win because they weren't as good as Kwan at other things.
That's exactly why we saw Tara Lipinski and Sarah Hughes coming out with multiple Triple-Triple combinations and why Slutskaya kept trying the 3Lutz+3Loop. They knew they needed it to win because they weren't as good as Kwan at other things.