CoP scoring versus 6.0 at 2007 Worlds

[Mathman]

Sometimes I wonder whether all the debates about the New Judging System really amount to anything. The bottom line is, the skaters who deliver the best performances should win the prize. Here are the top ten ladies at Worlds, under the IJS and how they would have turned out under ordinal judging, assuming that the ordinals for the Short and Long Programs would have been the same.

New system: Ando, Asada, Kim, Meissner, Nakano, Kostner, Meier, Poykio, Hughes, Rochette.

Old system: Ando, Asada, Kim, Meissner, Nakano, Kostner, Poykio, Meier, Rochette, Hughes.

For the men, though, there would have been a couple of changes -- most obviously, Takahashi would be the clear champion instead of Joubert. Also, under 6.0 judging Lysacek and Buttle both would have moved ahead of Verner.

New system: Joubert, Takahashi, Lambiel, Verner, Lysacek, Buttle, Oda, Weir, Berntsson, Davydov.

Old system: Takahashi, Joubert, Lambiel, Lysacek, Buttle, Verner, Weir, Oda, Berntsson, Preaubert

The biggest difference seems to be that placement in the short program was more important in the old system than in the new.

There does not seem to be much difference any more between the short program and the long -- except that one is shorter and the other longer.

Under the new system it's like the two halves of a football game, with the extra feature that the points are doubled in the second half. That can cut both ways. Jouibert built up such a big lead in the first half that Takahashi couldn't quite catch him in the second. But Verner, after a lackluster first half, was able to turn up the offense and overtake Lysacek and Buttle. Neither of these would have happened under 6.0 judging.

 

[Natalia]

But Verner, after a lackluster first half, was able to turn up the offense and overtake Lysacek and Buttle. Neither of these would have happened under 6.0 judging.

Which means that the new system makes competitions more exciting and less predictable as well as motivates competitors to fight the whole way and not to give up.

 

[Kwanford Wife]

Which means that the new system makes competitions more exciting and less predictable as well as motivates competitors to fight the whole way and not to give up.

Not necessarily... under the old system, skaters who couldn't skate cleanly were heavily penalized, espcially in the short... Leaving cleaner programs and incentive to be perfect. The new system gives so much leeway that its possible for a skater to totally tank and still win... or even worse, encourage a skater to throw a trick they have no intention of landing... and not be penalized for it... How is that more exciting? That's just sloppy skating...

 

[eliza88]

I agree with you about the SP not being as important in the new system, although a stellar SP can absolutely help in the points game! Part of me likes that an awful SP isn't quite as devastating as it used to be and part of me hates it!

For me, the problem with the Old and New systems is still with the judging. The judges have a very difficult time giving a skater who nailed all their jumps low scores in PCS's. I have seen too many programs where there is no musicality, artistry, presentation , etc. but the jumps are there so they score very high.

The biggest difference between the systems for me is that they skate for points and not for beauty. How I miss a "simple" camel spin or a layback...all the changes of position and edges might be difficult, but few skaters can make it a thing of beauty.

eliza88

 

[all that]

The biggest difference between the systems for me is that they skate for points and not for beauty. How I miss a "simple" camel spin or a layback...all the changes of position and edges might be difficult, but few skaters can make it a thing of beauty.

eliza88

ITA!! I miss seeing beautiful death spirals (a la G&G) -- the man in a low pivot, the woman with a beautifully arched back -- I would think it is as difficult to maintain those positions as it is to make all those crazy changes, but I'm not a pair skater...
COP ruined pairs skating for me, because there's no incentive to beautifully perform a textbook move (or, perhaps rather, beautifully performed textbook moves are not rewarded as much as a so-so performed complicated move).

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

. The biggest difference between the systems for me is that they skate for points and not for beauty. How I miss a "simple" camel spin or a layback...all the changes of position and edges might be difficult, but few skaters can make it a thing of beauty.eliza88

How true those words are!! The beauty is gone but we have convoluted spins, indistinct combo jumps, many jumps not counting; and most of all how much can you spin in the air without touching the ice? We've come a long way, baby!
:scratch:

Joe

 

[rutinia]

Under the 6.0 system, even with some serious error(s), "the favorites" were usually placed within fourth after SP. Therefore I guess Mao Asada was "the fourth" in this stage, and she has won the event after all.

 

[blue dog]

Under the 6.0 system, even with some serious error(s), "the favorites" were usually placed within fourth after SP. Therefore I guess Mao Asada was "the fourth" in this stage, and she has won the event after all.

But did you ever look at the skating quality of those in the second group?

I can justify placing Michelle Kwan in 1997 in fourth behind the top three (the top three were phenomenal), and I can justify placing her ahead of Krisztina Czako and Irina Slutskaya, both of whom weren't as polished as her, and made mistakes.

Really, satorare, you should start backing your claims up with substantive support. Otherwise, your arguments weigh as much in this forum as a popped jump in figure skating.

 

[Tinymavy15]

ITA!! I miss seeing beautiful death spirals (a la G&G) -- the man in a low pivot, the woman with a beautifully arched back -- I would think it is as difficult to maintain those positions as it is to make all those crazy changes, but I'm not a pair skater...
COP ruined pairs skating for me, because there's no incentive to beautifully perform a textbook move (or, perhaps rather, beautifully performed textbook moves are not rewarded as much as a so-so performed complicated move).

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[attyfan]

...
For me, the problem with the Old and New systems is still with the judging. The judges have a very difficult time giving a skater who nailed all their jumps low scores in PCS's. I have seen too many programs where there is no musicality, artistry, presentation , etc. but the jumps are there so they score very high.

The biggest difference between the systems for me is that they skate for points and not for beauty. How I miss a "simple" camel spin or a layback...all the changes of position and edges might be difficult, but few skaters can make it a thing of beauty.

eliza88

For me, the worse thing is that we have lost the beauty of the old system without fixing the judging problem. The only creativity stimulated by the new system is creative cheating.. Under the old system, there were two ways to fix an event: get to a skater (the "Tonya Harding method") or get to the judges. Under the new system, you can still use these two methods, plus you can get to the tech specialists and assistants, or you can hack the computer.

 

[Fozzie Bear]

Which means that the new system makes competitions more exciting and less predictable as well as motivates competitors to fight the whole way and not to give up.

Or you can have a competition like Turino in which the favorites build up such an insurmountable lead that the others end up hoping for second. Which makes for demoralized skaters and pretty boring skating.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

In either system, it is/was 99 per cent sure that if you were not in the last group to skate you were not going to be on the podium. I do believe the judges adjust their scores or marks for each individual group of skaters to what they believe to be the best in each group.

The above theory of mine is how the LIVE competitions are arranged for TV.

However, whoever gets into the last group to skate usually deserves it. (Poor Sarah at 2003 Worlds).

Problem with both systems is that skater who placed 14th in the SP suffers the scorn of not getting an 11th place in the final count, when he clearly skated better than those in the penultimate group. You may not care about this, but I can assure the skater in question does.

Joe

 

[gkelly]

Problem with both systems is that skater who placed 14th in the SP suffers the scorn of not getting an 11th place in the final count, when he clearly skated better than those in the penultimate group. You may not care about this, but I can assure the skater in question does.

Fortunately, it does in fact happen.

Here are examples of skaters who placed at least 6 places higher in the long program than the short at Worlds in the last 7 years. I may have missed a few, and I have intentionally left out examples of only moving up 3-5 places even when it was across warmup groups. (Because of qual rounds figuring in most of those years, there are a few cases of skaters who placed 25th in the short moving on to skate in the final.)

First number is final placement, followed by placement in the short and long. I haven't included the qual round placements although they did affect the final overall results.

9. 16 5 Emanuel Sandhu, 2001 Worlds

17. 24 14 Yamata Tamura, 2001 Worlds

9. 15 8 Min Zhang, 2002 Worlds

9. 14 8 Jennifer Robinson, 2002 Worlds

17. 24 14 Galina Maniachenko, 2002 Worlds

10. 16 10 Stephane Lambiel, 2003 Worlds

11. 18 9 Min Zhang, 2003 Worlds

17. 21 12 Andrejs Vlascenko, 2003 Worlds

19. 22 15 Kevin van der Perren

12. 18 10 Alisa Drei, 2003 Worlds

14. 19 12 Kevin van der Perren, 2004 Worlds




7. 11 3 Emanuel Sandhu, 2005 Worlds

8. 14 8 Kevin van der Perren, 2005 Worlds

12. 23 10 Stefan Lindemann, 2005 Worlds

13. 18 11 Ivan Dinev, 2005 Worlds

14. 20 10 Sarah Meier, 2005 Worlds

21. 25 19 Yan Liu, 2005 Worlds

8. 17 6 Alban Preaubert, 2006 Worlds

15. 19 13 Min Zhang, 2006 Worlds

21. 25 17 Shawn Sawyer, 2006 Worlds

18. 22 16 Tugba Karademir, 2006 Worlds

7. 14 6 Nobunari Oda, 2007 Worlds

9. 15 7 Kristoffer Berntsson, 2007 Worlds

12. 16 9 Stefan Lindemann, 2007 Worlds

15. 19 13 Ryan Bradley, 2007 Worlds

20. 24 18 Andrei Lutai, 2007 Worlds

10. 16 5 Joannie Rochette, 2007 Worlds

14. 17 11 Kiira Korpi, 2007 Worlds

15. 18 12 Alissa Czisny, 2007 Worlds


As we can see, moving up in this way seems to be more common in the new system and seems to be more common among men than women. The opposite, doing well in the short and then bombing the long, is probably more common.

It certainly happened in the 20th century too. But I don't have easy access to the detailed results, so I have to rely on memory. The following examples from 1996 Worlds especially come to mind:

9. 16 7 Philippe Candeloro

15. 23 13 Tara Lipinski

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

I agree with you about the SP not being as important in the new system, although a stellar SP can absolutely help in the points game! Part of me likes that an awful SP isn't quite as devastating as it used to be and part of me hates it! eliza88

IMO, the SP is not only less important in the new system, it does not even serve a purpose in the new system. The purpose of the SP in the 6.0 system was to emphasize the Technical. Whether it did or not, is questionable, but that's another thread.

What I am waiting to read from some source is What is the official reason for the SP in the CoP today? Technical is well covered in the LP today. There are enough CoP points for the tech in CoP. No need to feature it in a short program.

If anyone has a good reason to justify the SP in todays CoP world, please respond.

Joe

 

[JonnyCoop]

If anyone has a good reason to justify the SP in todays CoP world, please respond.

Joe

Well, I don't know if this falls under "good" reason or not, but -- butts in the seats. The more individual events you have at a Worlds, the more admission money comes in. This is supposedly one of the reasons that the (as far as I am concerned) totally irrelevant Compulsory Dances are still part of the Dance competition -- as long as people will pay money to see them (tho God knows why), they'll remain in the programme. If large amounts of people had any desire to see the compulsory FIGURES, they'd probably still have those as part of the competition, too.

But overall, Joe, now that you mention it, the SP in the big scheme of things does seem a little irrelevant, especially given the "required elements" aspect of the Free Skate now.

And gkelly:

Elaine Zayak won the Worlds in 82 from 7th place, but I don't have the exact placements for each phase of the competition; I just moved and I think half my "archives" are somewhere in my cousin's garage... Nonetheless, it was quite an accomplishment to do that under the system in place at the time, especially given that the figures were still contested.

 

[blue dog]

Elaine Zayak won the Worlds in 82 from 7th place, but I don't have the exact placements for each phase of the competition; I just moved and I think half my "archives" are somewhere in my cousin's garage... Nonetheless, it was quite an accomplishment to do that under the system in place at the time, especially given that the figures were still contested.

Wasn't that the same worlds where Kati Witt won the silver from 10th place?

 

[sorcerer]

...The biggest difference between the systems for me is that they skate for points and not for beauty.

I got lost which thread to post the followings, but thought the discussion here might fit.
...
The posts (extracts) of rutinia below, from the Mirai/Michelle thread, hide inside some radical questions which are:
1. Should figure skating as a competition aim to be more difficult year after year?
2. Is difficulty always a progress? ..and
3. Is "progress" needed in matured/established sports? (tennis, golf, soccer, ...)

...I believe challenges for difficulty should be more valued.
...What I like about Mao is that she's always challenge (<-challenging) new and difficult things. If she chooses to "play safe", she always wins. I DON'T LIKE that. ...

...Anyone(skater/fan) values "artistry" should go pro and ice shows. At least in competitive skating, techniques take the absolute priority. Isn't it very reasonable for technically superior skaters to have higher PCS. ... It's quite meaningless to value "beautiful skating" in a program of empty transitions and mediocre elements.
-- countering supeior techniques by artistry(read "favoritism") -- wont work anymore.
...A great progress for ladies figure skating!

Forget about the provocative expressions or the lack of IMO's in rutinia's original posts.
IMO what should be questioned is the confusion between the progress of a skater and the "progress" of figure skating as a sport.

I think that figure skating is more like a pianist (or violinist, whatever) contest.
A performer(competitor) must have both the skillfull fingers and the music within his/her soul; the winner would be the one who shows the most integrity of his/her techniques, aesthetics, and his/her own personality.

In this sense, the comparison between the old 6.0 and the new CoP should have been a matter of accuracy, shouldn't have or have had essential influence to the core value of figure skating.

If the outcome is becoming like eliza says, there should be a system devised within the CoP to keep the importance of integrity in sight.

 

[Mafke]

Sometimes I wonder whether all the debates about the New Judging System really amount to anything. The bottom line is, the skaters who deliver the best performances should win the prize. Here are the top ten ladies at Worlds, under the IJS and how they would have turned out under ordinal judging, assuming that the ordinals for the Short and Long Programs would have been the same.

That's a very big assumption. It's not that hard to think of performances that would have probably placed differently in COP and 6.0. Right away I can think of Sokolova in Euro 06. In an alternative universe that still uses 6.0 I could imagine Ando placing above Asada in the LP at this year's worlds...

The biggest weakness of COP vs 6.0 is that under 6.0 the ideal was an integrated program and in COP the ideal is a series of high-scoring tricks (that too often add up to less than the sum of their parts IMHO).
PC scores (as practiced so far) don't reward program coherence.

Lord knows 6.0 had its faults, but COP bores me to tears (which 6.0 didn't).

 

[bekalc]

I think that the best thing about the new system is in someways the point thing as well though. For example, in the men's short program last year. All of the men but Joubert were dismal, and so Joubert really deserved a big lead because of it. It would be unfair to give Takeshi an almost even chance of winning as Joubert considering how poorly Takeshi skated.

On the other hand, there are a lot of cases where more than 3 people skate excellent short programs. A great example would be in 2002 where 5 women had excellent short programs. I like the fact that the point system allows the judges to put people within striking distance of the top, and doesn't just choose three.

 

[pohatta]

Elaine Zayak won the Worlds in 82 from 7th place, but I don't have the exact placements for each phase of the competition; I just moved and I think half my "archives" are somewhere in my cousin's garage... Nonetheless, it was quite an accomplishment to do that under the system in place at the time, especially given that the figures were still contested.

The 1982 Worlds was exceptional, because the field was so even and there were different skaters in the top 5 in each discipline. After the short, Kristiina Wegelius was in the lead after finishing 2nd in figures and 5th in the SP. She dropped to 9th (!) after finishing 12th in the FS.