CoP opinions: The short program

[Joesitz (RIP)]

I think adding up the points means that a skater has complied with what is expected of him/her and is issued a base value for his elements. There are, however, many variations to the base values to make it a comparison of skaters, e.g. Plushenko's sitless spin gets higher GoEs than Lambiel's. yeah.

Joe

 

[NatachaHatawa]

As critical as I am of the CoP, I think this is a positive thing, especially when during the SP there's not much difference between the skaters. I remember last year's Europeans. During the men's event, there wasn't much difference between the 3rd and 6th skater. With the old system the sixth skater wouldn't have stood a chance of getting a medal, even if it was very close to call. I think it's particuarly good because if there isn't much difference, the skater's place will depend on the judge's preference which will determine wether he stands a chance or not.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

As critical as I am of the CoP, I think this is a positive thing, especially when during the SP there's not much difference between the skaters. I remember last year's Europeans. During the men's event, there wasn't much difference between the 3rd and 6th skater. With the old system the sixth skater wouldn't have stood a chance of getting a medal, even if it was very close to call. I think it's particuarly good because if there isn't much difference, the skater's place will depend on the judge's preference which will determine wether he stands a chance or not.

The SPs have nothing more to prove about a competitive skater than what the LP can do in a more competitive challenge. What exactly justifys the SP to adding more about a skater's skills? We might just as well have SP I and SP II and SP III, and eliminate the LP.

Eliminating the insignificant SP would be better and we would not have skaters in such distant placements between 2 programs but will have a Final, all inclusive program ready to deem the best one of that competition..

Joe

 

[Tonichelle]

if they go backwards in time and get rid of the SP then they should also revert back to the old time limits. (IIRC Men had a 5 minute LP) Since they'd only be training one competitive program a year.

 

[hockeyfan228]

The SP demands a skater's best shot on a limited number of defined elements, where a mistake on each is costly, regardless of the system, although more costly under 6.0. Each element is required, unlike the FS. I prefer juniors, where the jump is dictated. It was also a pleasure to see a series of simple camel change camel spins at Canadian Nationals. It's like an expanded compulsory round.

Because the well-balanced program rules are so confining (beginning in the 6.0 era), I think the FS is what needs to be changed to allow more freedom, not the SP.

 

[Mafke]

Because the well-balanced program rules are so confining (beginning in the 6.0 era), I think the FS is what needs to be changed to allow more freedom, not the SP.

Excellent point. I don't care which changes but I'd like there to be as clear a difference between the sp and lp now as there was in the 80's or 90's. Ideally I'd like to see both program formats changed with the SP more structured and about GOE (real GOE and not the sad excuse for GOE scores judges are currently pulling out of the a***es

Off the top of my head ways of loosening up the LP:

Jumps: apply jumping pass restrictions only to passes that contain a jump with over two revolutions, and no more than three jumping passes in a row (you begin with a 3ax-3t, 4-t, 3lz then you have to do a spin or footwork sequence before your next jump or it. don't. count.

Spins: minimum of one spin with no upper level limit (except for time and endurance)

Footwork: like spins

 

[Mathman]

Each element is required...

That's another strange thing about the Short Progam rules. Certain things are "required," but they are not really required, because there is no penalty if you leave them out. So what does "required" mean?

You are "required" to do a spiral sequence. But if you don't do one, you just don't do one and you go on to your sit spin, right?

 

[Tonichelle]

in the CoP, though, you don't get credit for something you don't do and you lose those points... right?

 

[Mathman]

^ That's how I understand it. There is no actual penalty, you just lose the opportunity to score points on that element. To me, that is a strange use of the word "required."

 

[gkelly]

That's another strange thing about the Short Progam rules. Certain things are "required," but they are not really required, because there is no penalty if you leave them out.

How do you define "penalty"?

I think it's more that the long program has become similar in structure in that you're allowed or if you prefer prescribed to do up to a maximum number of each kind of element allowed. So in both cases the penalty for not doing all the elements allowed (or "required") is getting no points for that element slot.

But there are other penalties in the short for not meeting requirements. Certain kinds of elements are allowed in the long programs and do not meet the requirements for the short programs. So doing the wrong kind of element instead of the required one in the short will mean either no points or required negative GOE, often mandatory -3, even if the element was performed well and would have been worth positive GOE in a long program.

I don't think we can say that the penalty should ever be an automatic lower placement, because the placements are in relation to what the other skaters did, not to absolute requirements. It's like saying no one is allowed to win with a fall -- what happens if everybody falls, does that mean no winner is allowed? What if all the best skaters fall and only the weaker skaters who are attempting easier programs to begin with stand up? What if a skater whose difficulty and overall quality of seven required elements and of the performance as a whole are superior falls on one element -- should that skater automatically place behind someone who has weaker overall quality, including flaws worthy of negative GOE (or mandatory deductions in the old system) but does not fall?

Substitute "fall" with "omission" and the same questions apply.

This was true in the old system as well. There were deductions for failures on attempted elements in the short program, and there was a larger deduction for omitting a required element. There was also an additional penalty for added elements. But even taking both the 0.5 omission deduction and the 0.2 added element deduction would not necessarily produce a significant change in placement. E.g., 5.1/5.8 would still beat a clean program with 5.4/5.4.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

In the SP, one is not confined to a specific element. One can decide to do a 2A or a 3A, one can decide to do a quad lutz or a quad toes as well as the variation on a theme of spirals, and music. No difference between the two And they still get points if they 'attempt'. Only an element left out is the one illegal element.

The FP has so many more elements all being judged the same way as the SP. Which program is the best judge of a skater?

Joe

 

[NatachaHatawa]

Excellent point. I don't care which changes but I'd like there to be as clear a difference between the sp and lp now as there was in the 80's or 90's. Ideally I'd like to see both program formats changed with the SP more structured and about GOE (real GOE and not the sad excuse for GOE scores judges are currently pulling out of the a***es

Off the top of my head ways of loosening up the LP:

Jumps: apply jumping pass restrictions only to passes that contain a jump with over two revolutions, and no more than three jumping passes in a row (you begin with a 3ax-3t, 4-t, 3lz then you have to do a spin or footwork sequence before your next jump or it. don't. count.

Spins: minimum of one spin with no upper level limit (except for time and endurance)

Footwork: like spins

I couldn't agree more. It makes me cry when I still hear people call the LP the "Free Skate": IT ISN'T FREE ANYMORE

 

[gio]

I couldn't agree more. It makes me cry when I still hear people call the LP the "Free Skate": IT ISN'T FREE ANYMORE

ITA, the LP isn't a free skate anymore! There are way to many restrictions. I am against the rule that you cannot do more than 7 or 8 jump elements. There should be limitations to triples and quads, but I think the best would be to allow the skaters to do extra double jumps.
Sometimes it is a treat to see a good double jump if it fits choreography.

 

[Tinymavy15]

Sometimes it is a treat to see a good double jump if it fits choreography.

Remeber sasha's "to love you more" program? It was used in some cheesefests, but she had at least quite a few jumps... at least 3 triples (including a 3 lutz) combo, and at least one double axel. She also performed a wonderful 2 toe loop out of footwork. It was so elegant and smoothly done, it just looked like part of the dance.

 

[gio]

Remeber sasha's "to love you more" program? It was used in some cheesefests, but she had at least quite a few jumps... at least 3 triples (including a 3 lutz) combo, and at least one double axel. She also performed a wonderful 2 toe loop out of footwork. It was so elegant and smoothly done, it just looked like part of the dance.

Do you remember when Sasha did this program? Maybe I can find it on youtube.

 

[Michelle'sFan]

I like the fact that with CoP you are not dead if you mess up in the short. I like the fact that skaters can come back from behind.

Good point.

I liked the old system like Brian Boitano said in an interview, as a fan I know what the perfect mark is, now it is all up to how the elements are executed.

I like the idea of trying to blend both systems--I have no idea HOW to do that, but think it could work. Maybe something like:

The numbers determine the winnder of the night then they are given some sort of "ranking" or something and then in the next phase of competition, the numbers are used again to determine the winner of that night then the rankings are used to determine the overall winner.

I think I read something like this on the forum but can't find it now.

As Mafke said, " the men's LP in Torino was a big snoozefest because Plushenko could have done nothing but bunnyhops after the 1.00 mark and he still would have won. " That seems unfair to the rest of the field and VERY boring to watch.

 

[GoldMedalist]

Ideas For CoP:

-Perhaps there should be a rule that you need to place in the top 3 in the Long Program to win the Gold.

-Remove the random selection of scores. This is terrible idea no matter what.

-Cut the number of judges down to 9. When a skater's scores come up, show and announce each judge's total technical score for that skater. Then, turn the program components into 6.0 marks that averaged out to one number and show + announce those grades for every single judge as well.

That covers the broad changes that should happen. There are, of course, numerous things with regard to actual scoring and program rules that need to happen as well. I'll leave those ideas for another thread. In time I'll probably make another post that details every single change that I think CoP should received.

I do strongly believe that CoP is a better judging system than 6.0, if all of the proper modifications are made.

 

[Mathman]

Cut the number of judges down to 9. When a skater's scores come up, show and announce each judge's total technical score for that skater. Then, turn the program components into 6.0 marks that averaged out to one number and show + announce those grades for every single judge as well.

Except for that averaging bit, we had all that once. The ISU decided it was too easy to spot crooked judging.

On the other hand, cutting down the number of judges flies in the face of the CoP as a quantitative rather than qualitative scorng system. Any time you add up scores and average them, the larger the sample size, the more reliable the results are. (Ordinal judging does not suffer from this problem in quite the same way, because it is conceded up front that the winner will be the person who the judges like best.)

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Excellent GoldMedalist. I see no point in the SP other than to entertain the fans who need figure skating every minute of life.

The results of the Men's at 2007 Worlds. Should be Daisuke, Lambiel, Verner. But Joubert won it on the strength of his SP lead. I didn't buy it (and with all due respect for Brian).

Joe

 

[GoldMedalist]

Except for that averaging bit, we had all that once. The ISU decided it was too easy to spot crooked judging.

On the other hand, cutting down the number of judges flies in the face of the CoP as a quantitative rather than qualitative scorng system. Any time you add up scores and average them, the larger the sample size, the more reliable the results are.

Adding more judges doesn't make anything more reliable if those judges suck. The judging panel for the highest international competitions should be voted on and it should always be well balanced...we don't need 4/9 judges to be from East Europe.

The ISU is doing nothing but living in shame with the hidden judges. Not to mention that it removes part of the drama from the sport that people loved.

The point-scale for the PCS marks is arbitrary. They could easily change it into a 6.0 scale and then average all 5 marks out to one number that is displayed for each judge. The numbers will be more complex than 6.0, since we'll be seeing triple digit scores for the "second mark" (ie - something like 5.74, 5.82, 5.66...etc), and the technical scores are 4 digits (although, they could easily just move the decimal place over for the purpose of displaying tech scores in a way that people can understand better...in other words, if someone gets 62.43 for the tech score from a judge, it would be displayed as 6.24 for the Arena to see), but I think it would do the necessary job of letting people understand what's going on better.