How PCS reflects a good/bad performance?

[MIM]

With an under-performance at the COC, Patrick has received 1.01 less in PCS in his SP than he received at the SC with his good/solid performance.

@Blade of Passion disagree with the judges and assert that it is not enough.

Ah, but this is the whole problem. 1 point less in total PCS means almost nothing. 1 point amounts to only a small difference in the quality of a single jump element (+1 GOE vs +2 GOE). When a small difference in quality of a single technical element is equally as important as the ENTIRE artistic worth of a program, then we have a big problem with the sport. This has been killing figure skating for years now. The artistry, "the magic", is not being properly rewarded and indeed skaters are not even trying as much to create it anymore, instead focusing on a more robotic kind of approach.

When a skater bombs a performance, there needs to be a big difference in the PCS. Like, at least a 5 point drop from their normal in the SP, and a 10 point drop in the LP. If these assessments are not made accurately, then artistry won't mean anything. Not even bombing a performance, but just giving an "okay" performance or having an "okay" program should still be a significant deduction. "Okay" is not enough. Amazing, extremely special, exhilarating should mean high 9's/10 for a component. Doing anything less should mean a continuously bigger drop.

I think he/she has a very good point and I was wondering how PCS was marked generally.

GS fans already know about ISU video on PCS; they actually touch this topic and give us a nice example.
https://youtu.be/oLk0a-BDY5g?t=280

[B"]It is important to understand that interpretation of the same music with the same choreography can greatly differ from event to event. [/B] If a skater is not feeling well, or the technical elements are not successful, this can change the phrase in the movement with the music. It can change the intensity and overall interpretation of the program. Let's look at the same skater (Carolina Kostner) who has good skills and the good program. On the right side of the screen, you will see her best performance of the year (December 2007 ;Carolina FS at the GPF 2007), and on the left side the same program and music but not skated as well(March 2008 WC). How this affect the expression and nuanc in movements?.........It should be noted that this skater is a wonderful and capable skater of the highest level "

I am going to break the golden rule (don't compare the scores competition to competition) and compare the scores at her good and bad event.
Carolina popped her Flip at the GPF (where she did a good performance), so her TES is about the same.

PCS, Good, Bad, difference
SS 7.55 7.54 -0.01
TR 6.85 7.04 +0.29
PE 7.50 7.25 -0.25
CH 7.45 7.39 -0.06
IN 7.35 7.36 +0.01

PCS /0.8 : 73.40 73.15 -0.25

PCS 58.72 58.52 -0.20


However, her IN has increased by 0.01 point, which is very different from the reason and the motive why ISU used her as their case.

But, we can consider a few facts:
1. She was doing good until she put her hand down on a 2A3T and missed the timing for Stsq.
2. She landed her last element (2A) at the latter competition.
3. Choreography suffered slight drop 0.06 instead of IN.

Did ISU and the judges fail to tell us what PCS supposed to be?
I suggest we can bring as many cases as we want to see how PCS has dropped/risen per the performance quality and find how the judges captured the Magic Moment in PCS.

I have started with Patrick, Samohin, Brezina at the SC vs. the COC. Next will be Wagner at the SA vs. the COC.
Do you have any other skaters/events in your mind who fit in this exercise?


Any suggestion and contribution from the GS members are welcome!!!
Bring all the inconsistent, but magical skaters into the list!!!!(you can list the name and the event, I can look for the protocols)
and HAPPY THANKSGIVING!!

 

[MIM]

Patrick Chan
Good : SP@ SC; Fall on 3A, otherwise clean and solid performance
Bad : SP@COC, hand down on 4T3T, hand down/step out on 3A, 2Lz, lacking emotional connection

Score, Good, Bad, Difference

TES 42.20 38.92 -3.28

SS 9.14 9.07 -0.07
TR 8.93 8.89 -0.04
PE 9.00 8.57 -0.43
CH 9.18 8.89 -0.29
IN 9.25 9.07 -0.18

PCS*2 91.00 87.98 -2.02

PCS 45.50 44.49 -1.01

 

[MIM]

Brezina
Good : FP@ SC : Fall at the opening 4S, otherwise solid clean performance
Bad : FP@COC : popped 3 jumps (2S, (2)1A) and skated slow and labored

Score, Good, Bad, Difference

TES 77.44 60.49 -16.95

SS 8.14 7.86 -0.28
TR 7.91 7.46 -0.25
PE 8.21 7.39 -0.82
CH 8.11 7.68 -0.43
IN 8.14 7.82 -0.32

PCS 80.62 76.42 -4.20

 

[MIM]

Samohin
Good : FP@ SC : Fall at the opening 4T, otherwise solid clean performance
Bad : FP@COC : fell on two jumps (4T, 4S) and popped 3 jumps ((2)1A, 2T) and could not look at the judges in the Chsq. He somehow picked up the music and tried to sell at the final STSQ, but struggled with lack of stamina.

Score, Good, Bad, Difference

TES 75.93 58.98 -16.95

SS 7.68 7.50 -0.18
TR 7.32 7.21 -0.11
PE 7.89 7.04 -0.85
CH 7.64 7.39 -0.25
IN 7.96 7.39 -0.57

PCS 76.98 73.06 -3.92

 

[MIM]

Wagner
Good : FP @SA : Pop 1T in a 3Lo1T combination (wasn't she planning on 3Lo1Lo3S?), (2)<, (1)e call, otherwise very strong and emotional performance
Bad : FP @COC : Step out of a 3Lo<, two foot and turn out on 3Lz(!,<), (4) <, could not hold her foot long enough in a Y Spin position to finish with the music, Her performance quality was there throughout, It was the visible technical mistakes especially at the end of the program that marred the performance.

Score, Good, Bad, Difference

TES 56.88 48.46 -8.42

SS 8.71 8.50 -0.21
TR 8.43 8.25 -0.18
PE 8.79 8.57 -0.22
CH 8.82 8.71 -0.11
IN 9.04 8.82 -0.22

PCS/0.8 : 87.575 85.70 -1.875

PCS 70.06 68.56 -1.50

Edit:
I have corrected the link, thank you gkelly

 

[MIM]

Denis Ten

Good : FP @WC : YAY!! only pop to 2F, every element with superb quality and adorable STSQ, at the CHSQ he was living in the moment. MAGIC here!!
Bad : FP@COR : Popped 3 jumps (1T,3T,2T), step out on 3Lz, Fall and Zayak on 3F, good STSQ and CHSQ,

Score Good Bad Difference
TES 87.76 49.33 -38.43

SS 8.54 7.29 -1.25
TR 8.43 6.79 -1.64
PE 8.89 6.57 -2.32
CH 8.86 7.32 -1.54
IN 8.86 7.04 -1.82

PCS 87.16 70.02 -17.14


Good : SP @WC : Masterful!!
Bad : SP @COR : FAll on 4T, 3A, Pop, turn-out, and hand-down on 2F2T Disaster jumps and good STSQ.

TES 50.81 26.56 -24.25

SS 8.07 7.29 -0.78
TR 7.89 6.89 -1.00
PE 8.39 6.39 -2.00
CH 8.11 7.25 -0.86
IN 8.29 7.04 -1.25

PCS*2 : 81.50 69.72 -11.78

PCS 40.75 34.86 -5.89

I am not sure if I can find bigger difference than this. GO DENIS!!!
So, in order to get the dramatically different scores from the judges, you just have to be Denis (have no reputation, bomb almost every jump, then nail everything perfectly.)

 

[MIM]

Anna Pogorilaya

Good : SP@WC 2016 : Clean,intense, powerful performance.
Bad : SP @ NHK 2015 : 3 falls, two on jumps, one during STSQ. she was visibly hurt and upset in the program.

Score Good Bad Difference
TES 73.98 47.35 -26.63

SS 8.54 7.36 -1.18
TR 8.32 6.86 -1.46
PE 8.61 6.54 -2.07
CO 8.61 7.18 -1.43
IN 8.68 6.89 -1.79

PCS/0.8*2: 85.525 69.65 -15.875

PCS 34.21 27.86 -6.35

Okay, actually Anna got the biggest rise on her PCS in the Short Program so far.
But her SP at NHK was exceptionally... interrupted.

 

[MIM]

Semi conclusion}}

The judges acknowledge that PCS can swing from event to event.

In the long program;
A skater gets 4+ points less in the PCS, when he bombs half of the program.
A skater gets 17+ points less in the PCS, when he bombs almost everything at one event, and skates exceptionally well at the other event .

In the short program,
A skater gets 5+ points less in the PCS, when he bombs almost everything.
A skater gets 6+ points less in the PCs, when he has to bomb almost everything AND stops the program in the middle due to a possible body injury, or panic attack.

Technical mistakes or lack of emotion is regarded as trivial, and a skater gets 1+ point less in the SP, and 2+ point less in the LP. (I still need more data of course)


I will keep adding other skaters who can give us an insight on the PCS. Any participation is welcome!!

 

[lyndichee]

Thanks for this analysis. I guess people like Patrick and Ashley really can rely on their performance marks to hold them up. I can see why for Patrick as his basic skills are almost unmatched in the world but Ashley is debatable. She doesn't have the SS or transitions, so I could see it being a little bit unfair that she still gets the same PCS marks.

Although the examples you used for Denis Ten were a little dated, wow this guy did not get the benefit of the doubt. That 17 point swing in PCS is huge.

I really like that you acknowledge Anna's scores are exceptional. The performance quality were night and day for those two examples. Here's a Yuzuru example following your layout.


Yuzuru Hanyu

Good : SP@ NHK 2015 : Broke the world record, set a precedent that if you want to win, you need 2 quads in the short.
Bad : SP @SC 2016 : Botched his 4Lo attempt<<, popped his planned 4S+3T into just 3S and demeanor of the performance seemed subdued.

Score Good Bad Difference
106.33 79.65 -26.68 (This is almost the same difference as Anna's good and bad SP scores coincidentally)

SS 9.39 8.93 -0.46
TR 9.18 8.71 -0.47
PE 9.50 8.71 -0.79
CO 9.39 8.93 -0.46
IN 9.43 8.89 -0.54

PCS 46.89 44.17 -2.72

If we use his WC 2016 performance, his PCS would differ from SC 2016 by 4.87 (49.04).

 

[Interspectator]

Thanks MIM for these super examples. I can sort of understand a lesser shift in PCS for Patrick over all, but for Ashley not so much.

 

[gkelly]

Wagner
Good : FP @SA : Pop 1T in a 3Lo1T combination (wasn't she planning on 3Lo1Lo3S?), (2)<, (1)e call, otherwise very strong and emotional performance
Bad : FP @COC : Step out of a 3Lo<, two foot and turn out on 3Lz(!,<), (4) <, could not hold her foot long enough in a Y Spin position to finish with the music, Her performance quality was there throughout, It was the visible technical mistakes especially at the end of the program that marred the performance.

Your link to the "bad" program there just goes back to the same good Skate America performance. Here's a link to the Cup of China program: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erO82v1f-lM

Personally I didn't think that the mistakes in the CoC program were very disruptive, any more than the error on the loop-toe combo in the SA program.

Also, I think this program does especially well on the "Continuity of movements from one element to another" criterion that is new to the Transitions component this year. In a performance with falls or stumbles that take several seconds to recover from, that advantage would be lessened, but it isn't the case at Cup of China.

Not a lot of variety to her transitions -- mostly edge work of various sorts, and body movements -- but I do appreciate the difficulty and quality. I especially like the exit from the first 2A (held edge into controlled back three turn with a choreographed position and head movement on the forward inside edge after the three) and the bracket approach to the second 2A.

 

[TGee]

I've been thinking that some skaters can really keep their focus despite a couple of bad falls, and not only get the rest of their elements, transitions and steps, but really continue to interpret and sell the program.

So, as with the Ashley examples, I do see now that there needs to be different impacts on PCS depending on whether the rest of the program becomes laboured or sloppy etc. vs a program with a number of failed elements but is otherwise delivered at a really high level....

 

[Violet Bliss]

Thank you MIM for the data. :thumbsup:

In comparing these numbers, factoring needs to be taken into consideration like BOP did in his proposal. So we need to divide the LP numbers by 2 or multiple the SP numbers by 2. However, we can also simply calculate the percentages without factoring.

Reduction of PCS as a percentage of reduction of TES:

Chan 31%
Brezina 25%
Samohin 23%
Wagner 18%
Ten 45% (LP) 24% (SP)
Pogorilaya 24%
Hanyu 11%*

I fail to understand why it's Chan's results that caused such outrage and so many posts from BOP to demand heavier PCS penalties due to technical under performances. The out-of-corridor severe penalties were doled to Ten with the greatest drop in TES (-38.43) and Chan with the least drop in TES (-3.28). On the other end, for generous forgiving, the biggest beneficiary is Hanyu, (-26.68 TES), followed by Wagner (- 8.42 TES)

By BOP's demand, Chan's PCS should drop at least 5 points to reflect the 3.28 drop in TES. So if your child attends BOP Academy and his/her Math test score falls by 3 points, his/her English mark must be reduced by 5 points or more. That is the fairness doctrine proposed. Or does it only apply to his favorite disparaging target?

* Corrected from 10% when it was pointed out that the data I had used was the TSS difference so I calculated the TES difference for the new PCS/TES ratio.

 

[lyndichee]

Thank you MIM for the data. :thumbsup:

In comparing these numbers, factoring needs to be taken into consideration like BOP did in his proposal. So we need to divide the LP numbers by 2 or multiple the SP numbers by 2. However, we can also simply calculate the percentages without factoring.

Reduction of PCS as a percentage of reduction of TES:

Chan 31%
Brezina 25%
Samohin 23%
Wagner 18%
Ten 45% (LP) 24% (SP)
Pogorilaya 24%
Hanyu 10%

I fail to understand why it's Chan's results that caused such outrage and so many posts from BOP to demand heavier PCS penalties due to technical under performances. The out-of-corridor severe penalties were doled to Ten with the greatest drop in TES (-38.43) and Chan with the least drop in TES (-3.28). On the other end, for generous forgiving, the biggest beneficiary is Hanyu, (-26.68 TES), followed by Wagner (- 8.42 TES)

By BOP's demand, Chan's PCS should drop at least 5 points to reflect the 3.28 drop in TES. So if your child attends BOP Academy and his/her Math test score falls by 3 points, his/her English mark must be reduced by 5 points or more. That is the fairness doctrine proposed. Or does it only apply to his favorite disparaging target?

I've made an error in my original post, those are only the total scores. Not TES. I have corrected that in my original post your math may be off.

I can see why people are upset about Patrick constantly getting held up by enormous PCS. I don't see the school analogy very fitting because I think TES and PCS both affect the big picture and influence each other in skating. I don't think they are as separable as English and Math marks. Those are two separate evaluators.

Also Patrick had a hand down on a combo that should have received negative GOE so I really don't think that TES is accurate. While I think BOP's demands are unreasonable, I think they bring up a good point that PCS should be tied somewhat with execution. But then again, in the spirit of scoring for what is put on ice, it should be analyzed on a case by case basis.

Just because someone messed up TES doesn't mean they deserve a drop in PCS. Yuzuru at 2016 SC botched so many jumps in his FS but he was still fluid and didn't let those mistakes interrupt his program and I enjoyed his performance the most that evening. I would have given him high PCS rather than chop off 10 points.

 

[karne]

I have long been in favour of heavier PCS penalties for mistake-ridden programs.

After all, at the moment we have a situation where the "winner" of US Nationals actually fell on his backside at the start of his FS and still have a judge give him 10 in PCS. :sarcasm:

 

[Violet Bliss]

I've made an error in my original post, those are only the total scores. Not TES. I have corrected that in my original post your math may be off.

I calculated the TES from you numbers so the difference in TES is 59.44 - 35.48 = 23.96. The PCS reduction as a percentage of the TES reduction is therefore 11% rather than 10%, which does not change my observation and analysis.

I can see why people are upset about Patrick constantly getting held up by enormous PCS.

Also Patrick had a hand down on a combo that should have received negative GOE so I really don't think that TES is accurate.

These are personal opinions. Everybody thinks their they are the real judge.

I don't see the school analogy very fitting because I think TES and PCS both affect the big picture and influence each other in skating. I don't think they are as separable as English and Math marks. Those are two separate evaluators.

TES and PCS are separate evaluators as well though, like Math and English, they can be affected by the same circumstances. Someone having a bad day is likely to do less well in different tests. Lower PCS generally go with lower TES but they should be evaluated separately. A skater may be badly affected by a failed jump, even losing chunk of choreography, while another skater will be up and continuing the performance like it didn't happen. There are common factors affecting both but also some affecting one but not the other. I just can't agree with automatic PCS deduction on account of technical under-performance.

 

[MIM]

Thanks for this analysis. I guess people like Patrick and Ashley really can rely on their performance marks to hold them up. I can see why for Patrick as his basic skills are almost unmatched in the world but Ashley is debatable. She doesn't have the SS or transitions, so I could see it being a little bit unfair that she still gets the same PCS marks.

Although the examples you used for Denis Ten were a little dated, wow this guy did not get the benefit of the doubt. That 17 point swing in PCS is huge.

I really like that you acknowledge Anna's scores are exceptional. The performance quality were night and day for those two examples. Here's a Yuzuru example following your layout.


Yuzuru Hanyu

Good : SP@ NHK 2015 : Broke the world record, set a precedent that if you want to win, you need 2 quads in the short.
Bad : SP @SC 2016 : Botched his 4Lo attempt<<, popped his planned 4S+3T into just 3S and demeanor of the performance seemed subdued.

Score Good Bad Difference
106.33 79.65 -26.68 (This is almost the same difference as Anna's good and bad SP scores coincidentally)

SS 9.39 8.93 -0.46
TR 9.18 8.71 -0.47
PE 9.50 8.71 -0.79
CO 9.39 8.93 -0.46
IN 9.43 8.89 -0.54

PCS 46.89 44.17 -2.72

If we use his WC 2016 performance, his PCS would differ from SC 2016 by 4.87 (49.04).

Thank you for providing more cases here.
I hope Yuzu stakes awesome this weekend and bury his PCS @ the SC in the past!!

 

[MIM]

Your link to the "bad" program there just goes back to the same good Skate America performance. Here's a link to the Cup of China program: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erO82v1f-lM

Personally I didn't think that the mistakes in the CoC program were very disruptive, any more than the error on the loop-toe combo in the SA program.

Also, I think this program does especially well on the "Continuity of movements from one element to another" criterion that is new to the Transitions component this year. In a performance with falls or stumbles that take several seconds to recover from, that advantage would be lessened, but it isn't the case at Cup of China.

Not a lot of variety to her transitions -- mostly edge work of various sorts, and body movements -- but I do appreciate the difficulty and quality. I especially like the exit from the first 2A (held edge into controlled back three turn with a choreographed position and head movement on the forward inside edge after the three) and the bracket approach to the second 2A.

I appreciate your insight on her beautiful 2As, and happy to hear she capitalizes the new criterion ; "Continuity of movements from one element to another" -which I did not know about- in her FP. I feel like Voronov in his FP at this competition also satisfied this criterion successfully.

There are so much to enjoy in her performance ; the speed, fluidity, continuity. I am glad those qualities are credited in the PCS accordingly and deservedly. I especially enjoy her STSQ; where she relates to the music, acts, connects to the crowd, AND incorporates with the required steps/turns at the same time. It did not look like a STSQ, but it was

 

[Globetrotter]

I appreciate your insight on her beautiful 2As, and happy to hear she capitalizes the new criterion ; "Continuity of movements from one element to another" -which I did not know about- in her FP. I feel like Voronov in his FP at this competition also satisfied this criterion successfully.

There are so much to enjoy in her performance ; the speed, fluidity, continuity. I am glad those qualities are credited in the PCS accordingly and deservedly. I especially enjoy her STSQ; where she relates to the music, acts, connects to the crowd, AND incorporates with the required steps/turns at the same time. It did not look like a STSQ, but it was

Which is why I think that messed up technical elements should only affect PCS on a case by case basis. It really depends on whether the skater gets blown off by the mistake and lost the mantra. In Ashley's case, she never lost her performance which is why I think it is fair that judges gave her the PCS.

That said, I think that the good or bad performance really should only impact the more artistic components, namely PE, IN and CH. With disruptive mistakes, PE ought to take the biggest hit. If the skater loses the plot due to the mistakes, then CH suffers. Likewise when they take a knock in confidence and go out of focus, both PE and IN will likely suffer. Ashley didn't do any, so she deserves good marks. However, I have subtly different takes on her SS and TR. That is where she is overscored. She has some of the weakest SS among the ladies and can neither hold the edges nor maintain speed and change speed effortlessly. She interprets the music well on the steps but I don't see the fluidity and ease of bladework and her transitions are well......mediocre due to her inherent weak SS. I also notice that when she messes up, it's her edge and transitions that fall a lot although she keeps her mojo. So IMO, her SS and TR ought to go about like 7.25 and 6.75 respectively but the other 3 deserves mid 8s at least.

Unfortunately, judges have so many things to watch for it is almost a luxury to be able to focus on a single skater and evaluate every component and GOE thoroughly. No wonder the components all look like an overall average with minimal variance instead of a range as watched retrospectively.

 

[MIM]

Thank you MIM for the data. :thumbsup:

In comparing these numbers, factoring needs to be taken into consideration like BOP did in his proposal. So we need to divide the LP numbers by 2 or multiple the SP numbers by 2. However, we can also simply calculate the percentages without factoring.

Reduction of PCS as a percentage of reduction of TES:

Chan 31%
Brezina 25%
Samohin 23%
Wagner 18%
Ten 45% (LP) 24% (SP)
Pogorilaya 24%
Hanyu 11%*

I fail to understand why it's Chan's results that caused such outrage and so many posts from BOP to demand heavier PCS penalties due to technical under performances. The out-of-corridor severe penalties were doled to Ten with the greatest drop in TES (-38.43) and Chan with the least drop in TES (-3.28). On the other end, for generous forgiving, the biggest beneficiary is Hanyu, (-26.68 TES), followed by Wagner (- 8.42 TES)

By BOP's demand, Chan's PCS should drop at least 5 points to reflect the 3.28 drop in TES. So if your child attends BOP Academy and his/her Math test score falls by 3 points, his/her English mark must be reduced by 5 points or more. That is the fairness doctrine proposed. Or does it only apply to his favorite disparaging target?

* Corrected from 10% when it was pointed out that the data I had used was the TSS difference so I calculated the TES difference for the new PCS/TES ratio.

I sincerely appreciate your interest in the thread as well as suggestion on numbers. I will update the numbers without factor soon.

I think BOP was not talking about the technical problems in his performance when it comes to PCS drop. Patrick (possibly was distracted due to the mistakes though) was not committed into the performance while he was at the SC and it was clear even to my eyes. BOP wonders where the difference between the Magical performance and an okay performance can be found if the PCS difference is only a fraction of a GOE of one technical element, and concerns about where the sport is heading.

So, If I may follow your analogy, Patrick messed up his Math test by 3-4 points. He was upset (possibly) and he did not do well in his English(or is it acting, public speech??) test. How much the deduction has to be depends on the criteria of English test [PCS]. BOP thinks the criteria is too lenient to reflect not-stellar/lackluster impression he got from Patrick's English test. In order to answer his question and genuine concern for the credibility/rating for the Academy, I am piecing together what the English teacher has been telling in public and how the teacher has been marking his students in such cases to read the teacher's mind, intents and criteria better.

That is my understanding of the situation and BOP's claim, which gave me power(?) to open this thread.