70% Tech, 30% Presentation?

[Mathman]

When the CoP first came out, it seemed like its intention was to reward technical merit and “presentation skills” (whatever that meant) about equally, just like in the 6.0 system.

It has taken me a long time to realize that the intended breakdown is actually 70-30. (This was brought home to me by Joesitz’ post on another thread, where he gave his opinion that 80-20 would be a good weighting for tech versus presentation.)

Anyway, the point is that all of the following reward technical skills of one sort or another: Base values, Levels, GOEs, Skating Skills, Transitions, and deductions and penalties.

On the “Presentation” side we have the last three program components: presentation/execution, choreography/composition, and interpretation.

So, how do the percentages work out?

Here is the breakdown for the top ten men in the 2008 Worlds free skate. Numbers are: Tech (including the “technical” side of the program component scores), Presentation (the last three PCSs), Tech per cent, Presentation per cent.

Buttle 115.57, 47.50, 71%, 29%

Joubert 129.47, 48.00, 69%, 31%

Van der Perren 105.06, 40.72, 72%, 28%

Voronov 103.73, 40.94, 72%, 28%

Weir 96.41, 44.64, 68%, 32%

Takahashi 93.57, 46.14, 67%, 33%

Lambiel 93.04, 45.72, 67%, 33%

Kozuka 95.60, 38.64, 71%, 29%

Carrierre 92.71, 40.78, 69%, 31%

Abbott 91.37, 40.28, 69%, 31%

Top Ten Totals: 1016.53, 433.36, 70%, 30%

Mr. Cinquanta’s system is working perfectly!

 

[BigJohn]

When the CoP first came out, it seemed like its intention was to reward technical merit and “presentation skills” (whatever that meant) about equally, just like in the 6.0 system.

It has taken me a long time to realize that the intended breakdown is actually 70-30. (This was brought home to me by Joesitz’ post on another thread, where he gave his opinion that 80-20 would be a good weighting for tech versus presentation.)

Anyway, the point is that all of the following reward technical skills of one sort or another: Base values, Levels, GOEs, Skating Skills, Transitions, and deductions and penalties.

On the “Presentation” side we have the last three program components: presentation/execution, choreography/composition, and interpretation.

So, how do the percentages work out?

Here is the breakdown for the top ten men in the 2008 Worlds free skate. Numbers are: Tech (including the “technical” side of the program component scores), Presentation (the last three PCSs), Tech per cent, Presentation per cent.

Buttle 115.57, 47.50, 71%, 29%

Joubert 129.47, 48.00, 69%, 31%

Van der Perren 105.06, 40.72, 72%, 28%

Voronov 103.73, 40.94, 72%, 28%

Weir 96.41, 44.64, 68%, 32%

Takahashi 93.57, 46.14, 67%, 33%

Lambiel 93.04, 45.72, 67%, 33%

Kozuka 95.60, 38.64, 71%, 29%

Carrierre 92.71, 40.78, 69%, 31%

Abbott 91.37, 40.28, 69%, 31%

Top Ten Totals: 1016.53, 433.36, 70%, 30%

Mr. Cinquanta’s system is working perfectly!

Hi there.

I really suck at math, but really, I got confused by your numbers...

Here is why:

Buttle scores (115.57 + 47.50= 163.07)
KVDP (105.06 + 40.72= 145.78)
Voronov (103.73 + 40.94=144.67)

I kind of get that, but...

Joubert?

129.47+ 48.00 = 177.47

Did he win the LP by that much? Or at all? 153.47 was his score, he was 2nd, right?

Not trying to be difficult or anything, just trying to figure it out.

 

[Mathman]

Oh. Yeah. Joubert's total "tech" should have been 105.47. The percentages are right, though.

I guess I was so flummoxed to see that Joubert had better choreography and musical interpretation than Buttle, and much better than Lambiel, Takahashi and Weir, it made me want to put Brian's tech up a bit to compensate.

 

[Bennett]

Skating skills and transitions are not purely technical at least in their ISU definitions.

But if you put in that way, performance/execution could also be in the middle.

BTW, do you think that the low values for steps are compensated by the transitions score?

 

[JonnyCoop]

Well. This explains a LOT. And none of it surprises me; when they first announced CoP and how it was going to work, I had a feeling that the artistic portion of skating was going to get shafted. Certainly this "formula" would explain why we see so many dull, empty performances ending up on medal podiums these days.

 

[Mathman]

Skating skills and transitions are not purely technical at least in their ISU definitions.

I am coming to the belief that they are pretty close to purely technical. Here are the ISU definitions.

Skating skills: Edge control and flow over the ice surface demonstrated by a command of the skating vocabulary (edges, steps, turns, etc.), the clarity of technique and the use of effortless power to accelerate and vary speed.

Transitions: The varied and/or intricate footwork, positions, movements and holds that link all elements; also includes the entrances and exits of technical elements.

http://www.isu.org/vsite/vfile/page/fileurl/0,11040,4844-152086-169302-64121-0-file,00.pdf

But if you put in that way, performance/execution could also be in the middle.

It could, but again I think the intent of the CoP rules puts this component squarely on the "performance art" side.

The criteria for Performance/execution are:

a. Physical, emotional and intellectual involvement (in "translating the intent of the music and choreography").

b. Carriage

c. Style and individuality/personality

d. Clarity of movement.

e. Projection to the audience.

BTW, do you think that the low values for steps are compensated by the transitions score?

No, I think they are completely separate and unrelated. There are 14 scored elements (men). Two of them are "step sequences." These two step sequences have base values determined by the rules and levels determined by the technical specialist. They also have a GOE specifically for the element.

I think transitions means (a) non-scored elemnts like Ina Bauers, spread eagles, and split jumps, and also (b) steps and turns between highlight elements -- in other words, specifically not in the scored step sequences (but including fancy entrances and exits to jumps and spins).

I think this is why skaters always come to a complete stop before they start their step sequences, instead of working them into the program. They want to tell the judges: "OK, now I am starting my step sequence; OK, now it is over and I am going on with my program."

 

[jyshin]

This is one of the my favorite threads.
There were some skaters who had disastrous skating in the Worlds that I was strangely drawn into. One of them was Lambiel.
I couldn't explain why I stayed in front of the TV and watched all of his falls and still liked it (Now I can see that he got 33% on his presentation)... almost started a thread to figure out how his scores would have been if he had performed a mistake free program. (I would still appreciate if someone would help me out with this...please)
Thanks for the interesting post mathman

p.s.
What a big difference 1-2% can do to an overall impression?

 

[jennylovskt]

.

 

[ChrisH]

When the CoP first came out, it seemed like its intention was to reward technical merit and “presentation skills” (whatever that meant) about equally, just like in the 6.0 system.

It was my impression that under the 6.0 system, it was around 60-40. The technical affected the presentation much more than the other way around. That's simply my impression, though.

It has taken me a long time to realize that the intended breakdown is actually 70-30.

... Here is the breakdown for the top ten men in the 2008 Worlds free skate. Numbers are: Tech (including the “technical” side of the program component scores), Presentation (the last three PCSs), Tech per cent, Presentation per cent.

I'm curious what it is for the ladies. They have lower tech scores, but they also have lower PCS factors than the men. The ladies short program is especially weighted towards the technical.

I agree that 70-30 is about how it breaks down under CoP. It's my impression that under the CoP system (for the ladies), artistry has become 10% less important. Jumps have become 5% more important and speed&endurance have become 5% more important.

In my opinion, the pluses and minuses of CoP vs. 6.0 are:
+ CoP is more transparent
= about as accurate
- CoP is weighted too much towards the technical (for the ladies)
- CoP is more complicated
- 6.0 had more variety

 

[Eevun]

You always make such interesting angles of approach, Mathman. Thanks!

 

[Bennett]

Yeah, I like this thread, too! Mathman has such an interesting approach to quantitatively present a topic that deserves discussions!

Say, Mathman, I still don't think that skating skills are purely technical.

For example, this one:

Varied use of power/energy, speed, and acceleration
Variety is the gradation – some of which may be subtle

Unless they care artistry, variety/gradation wouldn't matter. Just like a pianist uses different touches in different phrases, skaters also use the variation in their stroke. Yes, without the technique, a pianist cannot use different touches. But without an artistic concern, he/she doesn't need to care about it. You just can't use the same touch for Chopin and for Bach or play a sonata using the same touch from the beginning to the end.

Likewise, transitions also are not only technical as it says:

Transitions can be short or long, including the use of blade, body, head, arms, legs as dictated by the music.

I agree with your saying that performance/excusion is mainly artistic in its definition.

Definition: is the involvement of the skater/couple/teams physically, emotionally, and intellectually as they translate the intent of the music and choreography.

However, they also say:

Execution: is the quality of movement and precision in delivery. This includes harmony of movement in Pair Skating and Ice Dancing.

In Carriage and Clarity, some technical elements are inserted:

Carriage is a trained inner strength of the body that makes possible ease of movement from the center of the body. Alignment is the fluid change from one movement to the next.

Clarity of movement
Clarity is characterized by the refined lines of the body and limbs, as well as the precise execution of any movement.

These items seem to be concerned about the coordination, balance, preciceness, smoothness, and lines. These remind me of Mao's Russian ballet teacher who said that artistic effects cannot be achieved without solid techniques. Indeed, it's hard to tell whether ballet training is technical or artistic. They are inseparable. They spend a tremendous amount of time doing bar lessons because they are indispensable for a ballet dancer to look artistic.

 

[Mathman]

... almost started a thread to figure out how his scores would have been if he had performed a mistake free program. (I would still appreciate if someone would help me out with this...please )

Staphane had problems on almost all of his jumps. In the LP he lost 5 points for the downgrade of his solo quad toe attempt. In addition he had substantial negative GOEs on his triple Axel (-2.00 GOE)), 4T+2T (-1.14), 3Lo (-1.71), 4T (-2.43 GOE in addition to the downgrade) and 3F (-2.14).

Plus, he didn’t do either of his triple-triple combos. At Europeans he did 3F+3T and 3Lz+2T, so that’s 8 more points for the two triple toes.

This adds up to 22 points left on the table right there, enough to put him way ahead of Joubert in second place and only 2 points behind Buttle.

Then…Lambiel, the best spinner in the game, only got a Level 1 for his flying sit spin (1.70 points) compared to Buttle’s Level 4 (3.00). This puts Lambiel in a virtual tie with Buttle (I only did the LP).

The rest of it is just guessing. But if Lambiel had skated his full technical content without error, he probably would have picked up a few odd GOEs here and there. This would give him the lead over Jeff just based on increased TES alone, without even mentioning the increase in PCSs that Lambiel would expect for a clean program.

You always make such interesting angles of approach, Mathman. Thanks!

Thank you. And congratulations to the Swedish synchro team, which just won the silver at the world synchro championships! (Finland won gold, and Canada was third -- we just can't keep Canada off the podium these days! )

 

[Eevun]

Thank you. And congratulations to the Swedish synchro team, which just won the silver at the world synchro championships! (Finland won gold, and Canada was third -- we just can't keep Canada off the podium these days! )

What?! That passed me by! (ok, I didn't watch, was so sure they would win. Again.) Poor Andrea Dohany this season... Kristoffer Berntsson not performing his best at Worlds and end up behind Adrian Schultheiss in both Euros and Worlds this year and now her synchro team finish 2nd... Not a coach's dream...

 

[jyshin]

Thank you for the analysis mathman!
Lambiel's program sounds almost transcendetal to me.
I wish he would re-arrange the program during the summer and bring it back next season. It had Mephisto-like spell... dark and intelligent.

 

[jyshin]

Wow, Bennett!
Your post was very informative and superbly organized. Great job!

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

I remember when CoP was being studied, a prominent American judge said this system will not do well for Michelle Kwan. Many of her fans jumped in and said that the Tech and PCS scores were equal.

That prominent American judge knew then that they weren't, yet we went along thinking they were equal. But when you think of it, reading the results (not even the protocols) of the competitions would tell you that the Tech scores were always higher than the PCS scores.

Thanks MM for bringing this to our attention as fact.

Joe

 

[Bennett]

Wow, Bennett!
Your post was very informative and superbly organized. Great job!

Thank you for your kind words