Which Scoring system is your preference? Pro and Cons

[Daniel5555]

miki88

Yuna skated much better? Yea to many of her diehard fans.

I just said that in my opinion it is not correct to say that some of them skated "much better". They both have comparable skills and can commit some errors and still win.

I think you agree that it is a judged sport so everything can be subjective if the judges want it to be that way.

It's not that they want it or not. Judges are people and people are subjective, always. The difference is that now they can be less subjective, because they have a very well specified criteria to use while judging. They have table of scores for each element, which is not subjective at all. They have criteria for GOEs, which is subjective, but it can be debated even on the level of simple fans if they understand the criteria. They have specified criteria of each area of PCS as well.

All of that makes the judgement much more based. Of course, it is always debatable if some skater had more "involvement into its character" than another, especially if they were alike. But that's why judges are supposed to be experts and so on. On artistic criteria Yuna won the LP. Some time ago she was called mostly artistic skater while Mao was mostly technical. Both statements are incorrect, but maybe there lies some part of the reason.

Blades of Passion

*Better rules ---> less mechanical and useless crap in programs than the current CoP promotes, while still giving specific scores for technical elements to allow for a more fair playing field when assessing the skaters' merits

What elements are useless crap? What elements are useful crap?

 

[ImaginaryPogue]

COP, now and forever.

1. I like the idea of judging recognizing both parts (TES) and the whole (PCS).

2. I like the way COP allows for multiple ways to win/earn medals. For example, Virtue and Moir. This team did not win the TES on a single portion of their World Junior Championship. They won every portion in PCS. BUT, before you say they were PCS'ed the win, it's worth remarking that overall, they won TES (aka, if you sum up the TES scores for the CD, OD and FD, they come first anyway). How? Despite often falling a little behind in base value, they made up for it in terms of GOE and their programs were made for senior competition as well (they skated at seniors at Nationals and 4CC) so their PCS got a little boost.

3. I like the way COP recognizes that difference between 1 and 2 and 2 and 3 may not always be the same and compensates for that. The ordinal system didn't recognize that at all and that drives me up the wall.

4. I like that the system is actually meaningful. I like that it says "this is harder than that, and if you do this, this happens" etc.

5. I recognize that it's not flawless. Nothing is. But I see COP evolving more readily and steadily than the 6.0 system (though I may be wrong here).

6. And finally, I like the programs COP encourages. That makes me an odd one here, I recognize that, but it seems to me the range of emotions COP programs can elicit is broader and engages me more actively. But I like level four footwork, so what do I know?

 

[Blades of Passion]

What elements are useless crap? What elements are useful crap?

*Forcing skaters do to a bit less in terms of jump combinations would be good; we really don't need to see the 3-jump combination in every program, so tiring.

*Changing the requirements for spins. We don't need to see all of the positions (and holding them for 8 rotations) skaters are forced to do right now. It's nice to see an extra amount of difficulty in spins compared to what we saw under 6.0 (although the scoring system has nothing to do with that, 6.0 could have required them too), but the requirements need to be toned down so they don't look mechanical and can be better incorporated into programs. Making +GOE more valuable than just gaining levels (and telling judges to be more active with -GOE when they see ugly positions) would be part of that.

*Allowing more freedom of which elements to perform in the Long Program, which is supposed to be the "Freeskate" and is actually still officially called by that name I think.

 

[Skatetomusic]

A. For many, I'm not just talking about last season. I have watched skating heavily since Nagano Olympics.
B. The times have changed too much in everyway since then. (various aspects)
C. I'm choosing not to pin-point the skaters. Skater A, B, C etc.

 

[Mathman]

Now for having 3A one will have an advantage in GOEs

What changes give an extra advantage in GOEs for a triple Axel?

My version of CoP is the best judging system possible...

Your three points seem to describe 6.0 ordinal judging to a tee.

 

[Blades of Passion]

Your three points seem to describe 6.0 ordinal judging to a tee.

6.0 ordinal judging wasn't based on an absolute score between both the SP and LP, that's a big difference. There also wasn't a specific analysis of individual technical elements in the scoring under 6.0.

 

[janetfan]

There also wasn't a specific analysis of individual technical elements in the scoring under 6.0.

Remember when Button would say "there will be a deduction for that fall" ........

What was the deduction from? Did that mean if a judge was going to give a skater a 5.7 for their tech score,,,,,he would then deduct a few more tenths off the score for the fall?

 

[Blades of Passion]

It was hilariously stupid when 6.0 commentators made this statement when watching a performance (and they all did at one point or another):

"Ohhh, they doubled that Triple jump. Well, there won't be a deduction for that, it just means the base value will be lowered."

The base value being lowered is mathematically the exact same thing as a deduction.

 

[disneygal 2001]

Under 6.0, the deductions would be taken from the base score. The base score would be determined based on the elements the skaters had in their programs (the judges watch practices). So, if the program had a base score of 5.9, a fall dropped the score down to 5.7, etc. The deduction for falls could also be taken in the artistic mark if the fall interrupted the flow of the program. So, an intended triple axle that was doubled would not have a .2 deduction for the fall, but it would drop the base value because the technical content was lower. Not exactly mathematically the same as a deduction for a fall (the base value could be lowered .1, or maybe .3 depending on the triple that was doubled and the rest of the technnical content of the program,) but still a lowered score.
I have been watching skating since Janet Lynn, and I much prefer the 6.0. Great programs (choreography, musicality, emotion) really move me. I don't feel that the programs under COP have the same impact. Not the skaters' fault. Who can "waste" all that time doing a great layback (and really holding that one position for a long time to really show off the move)--doesn't get you enough points.

 

[Blades of Passion]

I don't think you're seeing what I'm saying.

If someone left out technical content and it caused their base value to be lowered by .1, it's the same thing as making a mistake that would incur a "deduction" of .1; the resulting score is exactly the same.

Which is why it's so knuckleheaded when commentators would say "oh, that's not a deduction, it just means their base value is less." No, it is a deduction. The skater's score is lower than what it would have been; that's a deduction. Basically, this line of dialogue was just commentators trying to make the situation look better in order to create sympathy for the skater.

 

[gmyers]

I first started paying attention to skating when it was scored under COP but now that I have read history of figure skating books I just have to go with 6.0. COP is such a dictatorship of scores. 6.0 was just freer to me even with the lots of rules. It was more of a system where the overall performance could be scored both technically and artistically. The idea of getting swept up in a performance and a person winning with 5.9's and 6.0's just seemed better to me!

 

[seniorita]

Had it been 6.0 Plushenko would win simply because he is Plushenko. Mao would win simply because she has 3A.

True about Plushenko, but actually I would think Yuna would have won in any system in Vancouver (considering how good she skated and with huge 3-3) because as you put it, she is Yuna. But in 6.0 it is not like the newbies didnt beat the oldies. In SLC Stoijko didn't score high because he is Stoijko. All the same in CoP, Lysacek scores would not have been there if he wasn't Lysacek after Worlds 09. As Plushenko would not have scored that high if he was not Plushenko.

So it looks like Cop isnt much different in this aspect. Pcs can go up and down depending on the skater. But we understand at least what is going on, in TES things are more clear. About Worlds 2010, I m obviously speaking from my personal view which was live and with no much more preference to one or the other. But going by your argument, a fall and a pop plus an UNinspired skating would not have earned the points Yuna got if she wasnt Yuna. Not to say that a skate like hers in Sp would not have hold her in the place she got.

 

[iluvtodd]

I am old-fashioned so I say 6.0. It was a crazy system but CoP is driving me even more crazy. I also think it was a treat to see which judges actually gave what scores.

I'm with you on this one. I also miss the thrill of seeing 6.0 for a skater's presentation.

 

[Big Deal]

Concerning the final results of the big events since that I find COP much more appropriate than 6,0.
I've been watching some events on youtube, like Klimova-Ponomarenko got 5,7s in the Oly FD 1992, which was one of the finest program ever etc.

The more far we are going from the 6,0 system in time the more nonsense that system look to me.

Also, it was everything about the Short Program. One mistake in jump in the Short Program could cost a title or a medal many times.
The same mistake in the FD meant almost nothing, if judges decided so, because of the placement mattered everything. Not fair.

 

[Olympia]

CoP has many strengths (though its weaknesses need to be ironed out), but if any of us thought it would stop fans from disputing close results, we were dreaming. There are only two factors that would cause such an outcome, and I think they would both have to be enacted. We would have to have to replace human judges with robots...and we would have to replace human fans with robots.

 

[miki88]

CoP has many strengths (though its weaknesses need to be ironed out), but if any of us thought it would stop fans from disputing close results, we were dreaming. There are only two factors that would cause such an outcome, and I think they would both have to be enacted. We would have to have to replace human judges with robots...and we would have to replace human fans with robots.

I think figure skating will always be a judged sport but the judging system was much more fun when this fact was quite obvious under the 6.0 that people will even joke about it. The CoP tries to be all serious by using more "scientific measures" to cloak the judges' inherent subjectivity.

 

[Mathman]

I don't think you're seeing what I'm saying.

If someone left out technical content and it caused their base value to be lowered by .1, it's the same thing as making a mistake that would incur a "deduction" of .1; the resulting score is exactly the same.

Which is why it's so knuckleheaded when commentators would say "oh, that's not a deduction, it just means their base value is less." No, it is a deduction. The skater's score is lower than what it would have been; that's a deduction. Basically, this line of dialogue was just commentators trying to make the situation look better in order to create sympathy for the skater.

Still, I don't fault the commentators for this use of language. There is certainly a big psychological difference between losing something (that you have) and failing to gain something (that you don't have).

Under 6.0 the mythology was that skaters were competing against an abstract standard, the perfect 6.0 performance. Every time you messed up, a couple of tenths was "deducted" from the perfect technical score. If your performance fell short of the grace, musicality, and panache expected of a perfect performance, you "lost points" on the second mark.

In CoP you start with nothing. You do a double loop, now you've got something -- 1.5 points. At the end you add up all these little somethings for the total.

 

[Ellen]

I think Figure Skating must not abandoned the 6.0 system.

“6.0” is the attribute of Figure Skating.
6.0 given by a judge is his/her recognition of the highest level, the perfection of skater’s performance from technical or artistic point of view. We have not that many programs for which 6.0 marks were given. These programs are remembered as 6.0-programs, that is the real masterpieces.

Unfortunately the 6.0-system was abolished after the scandal (I’m not sure of the details) at 2002 SLC Olympics. The Canadian pair got their gold medal, but the Figure Skating as the sport lost its main traditional feature – “6.0”, and the figure skating itself changed after that. I do not think that men skating and ice-dancing benefitted from that, not sure about ladies. Only pairs were not that much affected.
New systems introduced after 6.0 seem impartial but not perfect. In fact, men skating lost a lot because of the new rules. The most attractive in the men skating is its masculinity, in particular, the strong jumps. But with the score system of last years skaters did not risk and did well without the hard jumps by replacing them with spins, steps, etc. So men skating now resembles ladies skating and ice-dancing to some extent. With 6.0 system the hardest technical elements really had value. With 6.0 system we would never get the ironic situation, when a skater who is unable to do hardest but doable quad jump was placed ahead of another skater with two clean quads and really good basic elements like spins, steps, etc. (Here I am talking about Chan and Joubert at Worlds'10 , not Lys. vs Plysh ). So with the post-6.0 systems men skating downgraded to skating level of 1980s.

In ice-dancing everybody has to repeat the same mandatory elements, combinations of steps, etc. Dances now bear resemblance to each other, boring to watch. Not sure if it is the new score system or just new technical rules, but less room for creativity is left. Dancers tend to do more acrobatics which is not natural for dancing. I prefer the ice-dancing of the 6.0 time.

Ladies skating was also affected by new score rules but a different way. Ladies programs (as opposed to men) became more technically difficult, forced with hard jumps. So ladies skating moved towards men skating and vice versa.

Also in time of 6.0 in Kiss & Cry area we saw what mark was given by each country’s judge. That was also intriguing, and evoke emotions. Remember a strange mark from a US judge for Natalia Mishkutenok - Artur Dmitriev LP at 1994 Lillehammer Olympics. They were really good and deserved Gold as much as G/G, but the US judge placed them 3rd by giving 5.6, 5.7 no.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHPaeQ-wyTk
At least we could see that judging.

So I’d prefer 6.0.

 

[janetfan]

Still, I don't fault the commentators for this use of language. There is certainly a big psychological difference between losing something (that you have) and failing to gain something (that you don't have).

Under 6.0 the mythology was that skaters were competing against an abstract standard, the perfect 6.0 performance. Every time you messed up, a couple of tenths was "deducted" from the perfect technical score. If your performance fell short of the grace, musicality, and panache expected of a perfect performance, you "lost points" on the second mark.

In CoP you start with nothing. You do a double loop, now you've got something -- 1.5 points. At the end you add up all these little somethings for the total.

I agree with your views on this. Dick Button correctly sensed that American viewers liked skating for the beauty of the sport and the high drama the Olympic competitions provided at times.

It must have been a shock of sorts to Button when after spending a lifetime trying to present skating one way it was changed into something so different. I think Scott feels the same way and maybe many who are old enough to have watched 6.0 for several decades have similar feelings about this.

We were raised by Button to believe Janet's free skating artistry was always better than Trixie's mastery of the figures. We were secure in our knowledge that Kristi's artistry was superior to Midori's "mind boggling" jumps. (What Button really felt - and what he said might have been different )

And we knew beyond any doubt that Michelle's beautiful skating was superior to Irina's more mechanical Russian style. It didn't matter with Michelle or Janet if they won because they showed us artistry that was incomaparble and in a class of it's own.

As an older fan I am getting used to CoP. I see no reason to go back to 6.0.
I do miss something though - and maybe it is that technical skating like we saw from Evan is now considered better than the artisitic skating we saw from Dai.

The results might have been different in Vancouver under 6.0 and many think Plushy would have won. I am not so sure. Those crooked jumps would not be nearly as acceptable under 6.0 as they are under CoP.

Dai's presentation marks would have been considerably higher than Evan or Plushy in Vancouver under 6.0. Possibly high enough to have given him the Gold. Maybe I am wrong - but we should remember that under 6.0 the presentation mark was 50% of the score and also used as the tiebreaker. It was more highly valued than it is under CoP.

That is why we read that under 6.0 Mirai would have easily beaten Rachael at Natls. The beauty of her skating would always trump the more mechanical "check off the elements" CoP style we see from Rachael.

 

[Daniel5555]

Mathman

What changes give an extra advantage in GOEs for a triple Axel?

Table of GOEs.
A perfectly executed 3A will get +3 in GOE while perfectly executed 3Lz will get only +2,1.

I'm referring to the newest version of rules.

http://isu.sportcentric.net/db//files/serve.php?id=1862

seniorita

True about Plushenko, but actually I would think Yuna would have won in any system in Vancouver (considering how good she skated and with huge 3-3) because as you put it, she is Yuna. But in 6.0 it is not like the newbies didnt beat the oldies. In SLC Stoijko didn't score high because he is Stoijko. All the same in CoP, Lysacek scores would not have been there if he wasn't Lysacek after Worlds 09. As Plushenko would not have scored that high if he was not Plushenko.

Yuna would have won in Vancouver in any normal system, that's for sure.
But the outcome of Plushenko/Evan is more interesting, as it was not about PCS at all. I think the system was well balanced in giving the fair value to all the jumps and to their quality. I don't see where is the reason to change, especially concerning GOEs.

So it looks like Cop isnt much different in this aspect. Pcs can go up and down depending on the skater. But we understand at least what is going on, in TES things are more clear. About Worlds 2010, I m obviously speaking from my personal view which was live and with no much more preference to one or the other. But going by your argument, a fall and a pop plus an UNinspired skating would not have earned the points Yuna got if she wasnt Yuna. Not to say that a skate like hers in Sp would not have hold her in the place she got.

PCS also have a defined criteria, so at least in theory it does not depend on skater.
In my opinion a popped Axel did not disturb the flow. Fall on 3Lz - yes, but only because it was a fall and she had to wait until next element (it was impossible to resume the program right after getting up).
As about SP, I think she got the right (7th) place after it. She was behind skaters like Laura Lepisto, who obviously are inferior technically. But still she got behind, as she skated worse that them.

The whole philosophy of CoP is the ability to distinguish each element in the program and give it a separate score. The sum of score makes the total score. So if a skater had a fall, but everything else was great, he won't lose just because of it. It will depend on how others did. If there was someone without a fall, but the elements still were not as good, it will depend on mathematical sum.

I think it is the best system possible, as all the elements are equally balanced and you won't get away from podium just for one mistake.