ISU releases official agenda with proposals for 2024: age limits, jump limits and more

[Mathman]

E.g., if there are five or more skaters in the field that judges agree deserve scores "in the mid-7s" right now different judges might give different mixes of 7.25, 7.5, and 7.75 for the three components -- if they feel strongly that one of those skaters is stronger than the others in that group, in general or on one specific component, they can tilt toward the 7.75 scores. But it's more likely that more than one of them will end up with exactly 7.5 as their single component, as opposed to seeing ranges from 7.3 to 7.8 across those skaters.

In which case, the PCS will not make any difference in close calls among those skaters.

There is a certain tension in the scoring system on this point.

One the one hand, suppose a judge thinks that two skaters are really, really close, but if she just had to declare a winner she slightly prefers slater A tp skater B. That judge would be best served by having many components and as fine a scaling as possible. If there were 5 components to judge she could give skater B 7.5,7.5, 7.5. 7.5 and 7.5, and give skater A 7.5.7.5, 7.5 7.5 and 7.75. That perfectly reflects the judge's valuation of the performances. Skater B gets an average of 7,50 and skater A gets an average of 7.55.

But the spirit of the IJS says no, no. no. Skater A is scored against a list of objective criteria, It has notheing to do with what skater B did or didn't do. That would be 6.0, whch we got rid of in 2003 and good riddance.

 

[Mathman]

I don't think so. If you try to compare apples and oranges, it won't matter if you have one million more apples and one million more oranges. Still apples and oranges.

Absolutely untrue. If we are interested in the question of which fruit is heavier, then if we weigh just 10 of each we might be hesitant toi draw a conclusion. If we weight a million of each, we can have a great deal of confidence that we know what we are talking about. In fact, you can measure the degree of statistical confidence and conclude, "I am 99.999999999 % confident that, on the average, oranges carry more weight than apples. (Or that on the average PCSs carry more weight in the total segment scores than do TES scores.)

In fact, the ISU has the means to "sample" the entire population of all skaters in all competitions. Now it's just arithmetic. Are more points earned on the PCS side or on the TES side. No guessing at all.

 

[icewhite]

I don't know if I'd start with "PCS and TES need to be roughly equal". Because many people will say, and others will at least subconsciously think, that it's deserved that the TES is much higher and more important because it's what's really difficult - the rest, "anyone" (meaning who's rather talented) can do it with enough training.
I don't think that's accurate.
Even people who work every day on their skating skills and are among the top athletes in that field, will often fail to get to perfection.
I don't know, but it seems to me that in skating skills those last percent are just more and more difficult. Like, as if it gets almost exponentially more difficult. It might seem so close, like there is almost no real difference anymore, but we see those ice dancers train and train and they are very talented people, yet even among the top skaters many of them will just never be Cizeron.

Maybe the thought should not start from "PCS and TES should be equal, because we want tech and artistry in figure skating to matter equally".
Maybe the thought should really start at "how difficult is this" - but then appreciate the real difficulty of an incredibly tough step sequence that's done with flow, speed and clean edges.

 

[icewhite]

Oh, and maybe I changed my mind. Maybe there really should be jumping on ice and what is "singles" now would be "combined".

 

[4everchan]

Absolutely untrue.

we will have to agree to disagree. I persist to believe that your analysis is flawed... no matter how you turn it around and how much orange juice you manage to squeeze from a million apples

 

[Mathman]

I don't know if I'd start with "PCS and TES need to be roughly equal". Because many people will say, and others will at least subconsciously think, ...

People say and think many things. What was the ISU thinking when thy designed the IJS?

I don't know about what they thought, but what they said was that the goal was to have the TES and the PCS roughly of equal value. The estimate was that women could do about 80% of what men do on the tech side. That is the reeason for the 80% factoring fror women's PCS. Potential tech in the SP is about 50% of the LP potential -- hence the factoring for SP component scores. Sometimes it works out that way (i.e., women score 80% of men in TES and SPs score 50% of LPs) and sometimes not such a perfect fit, but overall, through high and low, thick and thin, this reflects the expectations of the ISU and so these factors were built into the IJS to try to achieve the desired balance.

Should the ISU look into the question of whether these factors need to be tweaked in order to preserve the original intent? Well, I assume that they are constantly doing so, as are fans and critics .

The question of whether the original intent of 50-50 is still desirable, that is a different question altogether, and one that cannot be resolved by gathering data, by rather by... ?

 

[Mathman]

we will have to agree to disagree.

I think that wahat we disagree on is this: What question are we trying to answer.? Me, I am curious about whether the current IJS gives out more points, on the average, to tech or to components. This is not a controversial question. If I get 10 points in tech and 9 points in components, then I got more points in tech than in components. Questions like, maybe I had an uncharacteristically bad day, or maybe the judges gave me better marks than I deservecd for political reasons... well, OK, I guess those are interesting questions, too.

@gkelly, in post #262 above went to the trouble of actually lopking at some contests and noting, for instance, that for Junior Worlds women more points were given out in Tech than in components, and indeed that this was true of each individual participant, not just on the average. That is very interesting to me, but not, I suppose, to everyone.

 

[4everchan]

I think that wahat we disagree on is this: What question are we trying to answer.? Me, I am curious about whether the current IJS gives out more points, on the average, to tech or to components. This is not a controversial question. If I get 10 points in tech and 9 points in components, then I got more points in tech than in components. Questions like, maybe I had an uncharacteristically bad day, or maybe the judges gave me better marks than I deservecd for political reasons... well, OK, I guess those are interesting questions, too.

@gkelly, in post #262 above went to the trouble of actually lopking at some contests and noting, for instance, that for Junior Worlds women more points were given out in Tech than in components, and indeed that this was true of each individual participant, not just on the average. That is very interesting to me, but not, I suppose, to everyone.

Simply because junior women are focusing on jumping abilities way more than skating skills and/or because a skater can manage the jumps quite well as a junior skater but then, to develop good skating and presentation comes later.

 

[lariko]

The trouble with saying we lwant better judging is -- well of course we want better judging! Let's take a vote: how many here want better judging? How many want worse judging? OK, that's unanimous. Now... how do we go about achieving better judging?

Plus, is the definition of "better judging" really "giving skaters the scores WE think they deserve?"

Better judging automaticaly results from rules that minimize subjectivity and start implementing AI for GoE, SS and CO scores asap, leaving only performance to subjective call. It's literally possible with modern tech. There is no longer need to subjectively evaluate speed, ice coverage, form, percentage of time spent on two feet and rotations. All the human judges will have to collegial decide is how pleasing the result was--and give it like 20% weight

 

[Mathman]

I seem to have been wrong in oversimplifying the issue of scoring imbalance and trying to reduce it to a single statistical measure. Let’s look at the “balanced program” from a different perspective, focusing on Ilia Malinin’s LP.

Malinin won by a gap of 21 points over Fa and the rest of the field, based on his 6 quads. This is not alarming because the other aspects of his skating were quite satisfactory: no one can complain that all he presented was one quad after another with no skating in between. He got an average of 9.07 in components,, which is pretty good. His spins were fine, his footwork sequences were fine. He did a raspberry.

But just going by IJS points, he would have won anyway if his components had been 7.07 instead of 9.07. He would have won on IJS points if he had not done any spins at all (he got a total of 12 points for his 3 spins). He would have won on IJS points if he had omitted his step sequences altogether.

Is figure skating losing its edge? Is it in danger of becoming just another one-dimensional sport?

Consider gymnastics. Simon Biles dominated her sport by being outstanding on the balance beam AND outstanding on the floor AND outstanding on the vault AND pretty good on the uneven bars. That’s why she won all-around medals. The ISU’s “balanced program” mantra has a similar goal, but is it slipping away?

 

[Magill]

I seem to have been wrong in oversimplifying the issue of scoring imbalance and trying to reduce it to a single statistical measure. Let’s look at the “balanced program” from a different perspective, focusing on Ilia Malinin’s LP.

Malinin won by a gap of 21 points over Fa and the rest of the field, based on his 6 quads. This is not alarming because the other aspects of his skating were quite satisfactory: no one can complain that all he presented was one quad after another with no skating in between. He got an average of 9.07 in components,, which is pretty good. His spins were fine, his footwork sequences were fine. He did a raspberry.

But just going by IJS points, he would have won anyway if his components had been 7.07 instead of 9.07. He would have won on IJS points if he had not done any spins at all (he got a total of 12 points for his 3 spins). He would have won on IJS points if he had omitted his step sequences altogether.

Is figure skating losing its edge? Is it in danger of becoming just another one-dimensional sport?

Consider gymnastics. Simon Biles dominated her sport by being outstanding on the balance beam AND outstanding on the floor AND outstanding on the vault AND pretty good on the uneven bars. That’s why she won all-around medals. The ISU’s “balanced program” mantra has a similar goal, but is it slipping away?

No matter how you assess the overall performance of Malinin and his non-jumping elements (which me and you might differ about) the conclusion that anyone could win Worlds just by maximizing the jumps' value and omitting (i.e. not doing them at all) basically all the other elements, or getting SS and PO in the low 7s, is pretty alarming indeed. Seems like there is something wrong either with the scoring system, or with the program requirements, if such an imbalance is possible.

 

[icewhite]

I'm not sure. Maybe, if someone is so much better than everyone else in one specific aspect that they don't need the rest, maybe then it's simply right they win.
I think that in the end that is also how the IJS system is designed. Yes, with the factoring they try to get "balanced" programs, but they are leaving this door open.
--
I am much more concerned about the wrong judging. Because Malinin does simply not deserve those components, and others don't either. And "it doesn't matter in the end" is not a good answer in my opinion when the wrong judging is systematical. Imagine this to be soccer. Wrong decisions of the referees happen all the time, it's not a problem that destroys the sport. Yes, it upsets people, it definitely annoys them, it should not happen - but it happens and people don't turn away from the sport because it happens. People who start watching the sport do not get frustrated and stop watching because of the bad refereeing. But if there was systematical wrong judging that in some games did not matter, but in others changed the outcome, I'm sure that would decrease the number of soccer, as popular as it is (at least in this part of the world) drastically.
It destroys people's interest. It frustrates them, it makes the judging seem random, it questions the sport as a sport, it let's us question the winners. It's an experience of unfairness and randomness that humans never like, and even less in a sport, and also of being "helpless" against people who decide so though the rules say differently.
--

Regarding the question if we need to keep the balance I think other factors than just "is the winner's a pleasing viewing experience" also have to be taken into account. Is it a problem if there is one outlier who is so far ahead in one aspect that the rest does not matter for him? I don't think it is if it's just that outlier. It's a problem when this goes for everyone and it only makes sense for everyone to put as much training and time and energy into the jumps (or another element) because that's the only thing that really gives you points.

It's also a problem when this specific aspect is by far the most body damaging one and especially when you have to train this aspect intensely as a child to make it work.

 

[sisinka]

I seem to have been wrong in oversimplifying the issue of scoring imbalance and trying to reduce it to a single statistical measure. Let’s look at the “balanced program” from a different perspective, focusing on Ilia Malinin’s LP.

Malinin won by a gap of 21 points over Fa and the rest of the field, based on his 6 quads. This is not alarming because the other aspects of his skating were quite satisfactory: no one can complain that all he presented was one quad after another with no skating in between. He got an average of 9.07 in components,, which is pretty good. His spins were fine, his footwork sequences were fine. He did a raspberry.

But just going by IJS points, he would have won anyway if his components had been 7.07 instead of 9.07. He would have won on IJS points if he had not done any spins at all (he got a total of 12 points for his 3 spins). He would have won on IJS points if he had omitted his step sequences altogether.

Is figure skating losing its edge? Is it in danger of becoming just another one-dimensional sport?
....

No matter how you assess the overall performance of Malinin and his non-jumping elements (which me and you might differ about) the conclusion that anyone could win Worlds just by maximizing the jumps' value and omitting (i.e. not doing them at all) basically all the other elements, or getting SS and PO in the low 7s, is pretty alarming indeed. Seems like there is something wrong either with the scoring system, or with the program requirements, if such an imbalance is possible.

Ilia Malinin is the first men to land quad axel at competition. Ilia Malinin is the first men to land quad axel in both Short and Free Program. In Short Program ISU Judging System was not created to allow quad axel like a solo jump, so somebody from Technical Committee had to change and adjust the computer system just after Ilia finished his Short Program at Grand Prix Final 2023.

And we can continue in things he is the first one to do…

Yes, Mathman is right, he would win even if some of his “other than jumps“ elements were missing or low quality. But Ilia visibly doesn't want to put everything on one card only.

His “other than jumps“ elements are on pretty good level, if he keeps working he will get better and one day he can be where some fans want to see him to take him like an artistic skater as well.

It is not like every second skater is crossing the borderline in jumps. It is just him. In my opinion having one extra exceptional jumper is not enough to think that Judging System is wrong. If we would have 4 – 5 – 8 skaters in both Junior and Senior cathegory to create this situation, OK. But it is him only at the moment.

Did you know that highly elegant and graceful Michelle Kwan was called Jumping Bean in her youth? I didn't want to believe it as I remember her 1995-96 and 1996-97 competive programs or her Rachmaninov Short Program.
https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/?date=20060728&slug=michelle28
"A few years ago, they said it's all about the jumping, and I was called the little jumping bean!“

I had to smile when I was reminded this article some week ago.

And after all I am trying some Maths to see how ISU judging system is...just for @Mathman . Because he brings things up (and @TontoK, @4everchan , @gkelly , @Jumping_Bean ..) and it leads me to certain counting ideas...

 

[Mathman]

Did you know that highly elegant and graceful Michelle Kwan was called Jumping Bean in her youth? I didn't want to believe it as I remember her 1995-96 and 1996-97 competive programs or her Rachmaninov Short Program.
https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/?date=20060728&slug=michelle28

"I have so many interests outside skating! I look at what's next as a challenge. I would love to get into politics. I want to finish college at UCLA, majoring in political science or international studies"

Well, she did go into politics and is now the U.S. ambassador to Belize. She didn't finish college at UCLA but switched to the University of Denver, then went on to a master's degree at the Fletcher School of International Affairs at Tufts University.

Thanks for the link. This (2006) was the last year of Tom Collin's ownership of the Champions on Ice tour, which in its heyday had stops at 80 cities or more each season.

By the way this same newspaper, the Seattle Times, got in trouble with figure skating fans in 1998 because it inadvertantly ran a sub-headline about the 1998 Olympics that said "American beats Kwan" (under the main headline "Lipinski wins gold"). People got up in arms about whether they were trying to say that Michelle was not a true American because she was Chinese, but the real explanation was that the paper felt that readers might not be so familiar with Tara Lipinski and might think that she was skating for Poland.

 

[Mathman]

I'm not sure. Maybe, if someone is so much better than everyone else in one specific aspect that they don't need the rest, maybe then it's simply right they win.

It might be "simply right" in the great cosmic sense of right and wrong, but in 1982 Elaine Zatyak won the world championships by doing 4 toe loops (or toe wallys) anlong with two Salchows (a somewhat less secure jump for her) in her LP. This unheard-of fireworks steamrolled the competition, but the next year the ISU responded with the Zayak rules because they felt that it was in the best interests of figure skating for skaters to demonstarate many different skills, not just the same skill over and over.

The IJS does prompt competors to scour each successive version of the Scale of Values to plot out the best strategy for maximising points. It seems to be the consistent policy of the ISU to fight back every two years and do what they can to say, no, no, don't do that -- we will change the point values to encourage you to do this next year instead.

 

[sisinka]

I am somewhat hestitant about that solution because the reasoning applies only to the very top of the top skaters. For a more representative sample, we could look at look at the bottom ten at Worlds instead of the top ten -- elite skaters all -- and ask whether the TES and PCS are too high or two low for "perfect balance."

Men: TES > PCS: Lee, Daniliants, Kim, Chiu. Egaadze
PCS>TES: Nordeback, Sadovsky, Pulkinen. Economides, Fangripani

Women: TES>PCS: ,Joos, Schild
PCS>TES: Pelkonen, Gomez, Ting, Landerbaur., Taljegard, Petrokina,Schizas, Pinzcaone.

This gives a different picture tfrom considering Malinin, Fa and Kagiyama. Granted, I have never heard of most of the skaters on these lists (my bad), but that's the point. If anything the ladies' PCS factoring should be reduced.

I like that you try to find an order in ISU Judging System. But I am not sure that comparing TES and PCS is reflecting the difference between rather technical skater (jumper) or rather artistic skater.

Because TES contains not only jumps, but also Step Sequences and Spins.

And PCS contains Skating Skills which are helpful in expressing the music but are not direct determinant of how good dancer / interpreteur our skater must be. In the same moment Skating Skills are determinant for quality of Step Sequence (which is part of TES).

From this point of view Judging system is not making things really simple and visible, right?

Many people believe that strong jumpers have advantage thanks to ISU Judging system.

So try to compare Jumps VERSUS Spins + Step Sequences + PCS.

Put aside GOE as it brings points based on that day's execution which can be different at every competition.

Jump Base Value = (JBV)
Base Value of other elements + PCS = (BV+PCS)


Men’s Short program at World Championships 2024:

- Ilia Malinin - 2 quad jumps (lutz and toeloop):
Jump Base value (JBV) = 34 points
Base Value of other elements + PCS = (BV+PCS) = 13 + 44.67 = 57.67 points
(Just for fun with GOE - 44.26 X 61.71 points.)

- Yuma Kagiyama - 2 quad jumps (salchow and toeloop):
(JBV) = 32.20 points
(BV+PCS) = 13.60 + 46.46 = 60.06 points
(With GOE - 41.59 X 64.76)

- Lukas Britschgi - 1 quad toeloop:
(JBV) = 28.19 points
(BV+PCS) = 13.10 + 42.89 = 55.99 points

- Jason Brown - no quad:
(JBV) = 24.41 points
(BV+PCS) = 13.60 + 45.92 = 59.52 points

Looking at this I don’t think that skaters with quad jumps would have an advantage in Judging System. As you can clearly see “other than jumps“ elements and components are getting higher points overall.

If I take Jumps Base Value and COMPARE it with Base Value of the rest of elements + PCS (taking Lukas's and Yuma's like the lowest and highest)...

Having two quad jumps one of them being lutz you get Jumps Base Value around 57% to 60% of points for the rest of elements + PCS.

With two quad jumps being toeloop and salchow you get Jumps Base Value around 53% to 57.6% of points for the rest of elements + PCS.

With one quad jump being toeloop you get Jumps Base Value around 46.9% to 50.4% of points for the rest of elements + PCS.

Men’s Free program at World Championships 2024:

- Adam Siao Him Fa - four quad jumps:
(JBV) = 77.22 points
(BV+PCS) = 16.50 + 92.07 = 108.72 points
(with GOE – 94.64 X 113.43)

- Lukas Britschgi - two quad toeloops:
(JBV) = 62.50 points
(BV+PCS) = 16.90 + 86.08 = 102.98
(with GOE – 71.78 X 108.90)

- Jason Brown - no quad jump:
(JBV) = 54.87 points (counted with double axel at the end)
(BV+PCS) = 17.10 + 93.98 = 111.08 points.

Once again taking Jumps Base Value and compare it with Base Value of the rest of elements + PCS (taking Lukas's and Jason's like the lowest and highest)...

Having four quad jumps one of them being lutz you get Jumps Base Value around 69.52% to 74.99% of points for the rest of elements + PCS.

Having two quad toeloops you get Jumps Base Value around 56.27% to 60.69% of points for the rest of elements + PCS.

Having no quad jump you get Jumps Base Value around 49.40% to 52.28% of points for the rest of elements + PCS.

Once again “other than jumps“ elements + PCS are getting higher points overall than jump elements. With one less jump element in Free Skate the percentage of Jumps Base Value versus the rest of elements + PCS will go lower.

 

[sisinka]

...Suppose a triple Lutz got 4 points and a quad toe 5,5. So one possibility would be for a skater to work hard on his quad and beat his rivals by 1.5 points. Or he could work on presentation or skating skills and try to get his 8.5s up to 8.75. and win by 2.5 points. Or he could concentrate on spins and footwork to make up the gap.

As is, with one extra quad worth 10 points, there is really no viable alternative for someone aspiring to the world championship than to do 3 quads instead of only 2, or 5 instead of 4.

My beef with this is the discounting of difficulty and risk. How many men at the recent WC successfully completed a 4Z, 4F, or 4Lp? Only a handful, which is evidence that these are difficult and risky elements. Of those that attempted them, not everyone succeeded. For those who did take the risk and succeeded, the payoff was in a higher score.

In contrast, how many skaters attempted combination spins? All of them. Every last one. And they were all successful to varying degrees. This suggests that in relation to higher BV elements, they're just not that difficult. Now, that is not to say they're not important, but rewarded them to the same degree as a quad jump does not make sense.

JGP AUSTRIA 2023 - Ladies Short Program = 33 ladies competing

SPINS:
- 26 ladies executed at least one Level 4 Spin
- 4 ladies had all Spins Level 4
- 11 ladies had two Spins Level 4
- 16 ladies had negative GOE in at least one Spin
- 1 lady fell in one Spin

- BUT total number of Spins was 99...27 Spins got negative GOE
- 45 Spins with Level 4
- 24 Spins with Level 3
- 1 fall

STEP SEQUENCE:
- 12 ladies had Level 3 Step Sequence
- 2 ladies had Level 4 Step Sequence
- 8 ladies with Level 1
- 4 ladies with Base Step Sequence
- from 33 ladies - 6 ladies had negative GOE
- 1 lady fell in Step Sequence

LUTZ JUMP:
- 21 ladies attempted triple lutz
- only 6 ladies were able to fully rotate triple lutz from the right edge and got positive GOE
- 23 ladies with negative GOE (15 of them in triple lutz)
- 7 ladies fell on lutz jump (one fell on double lutz, 6 on triple)
- 5 ladies with edge call
- 13 ladies with underrotation (q...<...<<)

JUMP COMBINATION (any jumps):
- only 9 ladies attempted triple + triple combination
- 3 ladies were able to fully rotate jumps and get positive GOE for triple + triple combination
- 23 ladies had negative GOE in combination
- 4 ladies fell in this element
- 1 lady with edge call
- 19 ladies with underrotation (q...<...<<)

I do realise that JGP Austria had lower level of competitors as only few of them competed at Junior World Championships. But I picked exactly this competition to prove that even weaker skaters are executing Level 4 Spins.

WORLD FIGURE SKATING CHAMPIONSHIPS 2024 - Men's Short Program = 40 men competing

SPINS:
- all 40 men executed at least one Level 4 Spin
- 24 men executed ALL SPINS ON LEVEL 4
- NO Level 2 / 1 / base, one Spin without even base
- 14 men had negative GOE in at least one Spin

- total number of Spins was 120...18 Spins had negative GOE
- 101 Spins were Level 4
- 18 Spin were Level 3
- nobody fell in Spin

STEP SEQUENCE:
- 17 men executed Level 4 Step Sequence
- 18 men executed Level 3 Step Sequence
= 35 men were able to executed Level 3 or 4
- 1 man had negative GOE
- nobody fell in Step Sequence

TRIPLE AXEL:
- 35 attempts
- 9 attempts with negative GOE
- 2 falls
- 1 small underrotation (q)

QUAD JUMP:
- 21 men attempted at least one quad jump
- 12 men landed at least one quad jump with positive GOE
- 9 men attempted two quad jumps
- 4 men landed two quad jumps with positive GOE

- 30 quad jumps attempts (from 80 possible jump attempts being combination and solo jump)
- 16 + 2 quad attempts with positive GOE
- 12 quad attempts had negative GOE (there were 4 combinations without direct knowledge of which jump got negative GOE. Junhwan and Mikhail Shaidorov had mistake in the second part of combination in triple toeloop, so I included them into group of positive GOE for quad jump. On the contrary group with negative GOE - I included Wesley Chiu with hand down in landing of quad toeloop, I included Georgiy Reshtenko who in my subjective opinion executed quad toeloop on GOE from 0 to -1)
- 5 quad attempts with fall (once again without Junhwan)

- 17 quad toeloops (8 with positive GOE)
- 8 quad salchows (5 with positive GOE, Junhwan landed clean quad salchow)
- 4 quad lutzes (2 positive GOE)
- 1 quad flip (positive GOE)


How to evaluate these results?
What we can say about more or less difficult elements?

1) I would suggest that more difficult elements will be attempted less often (@TontoK already mentioned this)... Let's take a look.

I am not going to ask all choreographers and coaches but today Spins and Step Sequences are build to fulfill Level 4 requirements (execution is another story).

So I feel free to say that ALL competitors attempts Level 4 Spins and Steps = 100%.

As to jumps we are in trouble as we cannot know if the skaters planned double / triple / quad jump, but it somehow didn't happen. I would need to see the planned content, I don't have any. So I took what I saw in Protocols as planned content (double or triple).

Ladies at JGP Austria had 33 possibilities to execute triple lutz, but only 21 ladies really went for triple lutz = this is 63.64%.

Men at World Championships had 40 possibilities to execute triple axel. There were 35 attempts = 87.50%.

Men at World Championships had two possibilities per skater (combination and solo jump) to execute quad jumps = 80 possibilities. There were only 30 attempts for quad jump = 37.50%.

So as to ladies we have Spins and Step Sequences Level 4 attempts on 100% > triple lutz attempts on 63.64%.

As to men we have Spins and Step Sequences Level 4 attempts on 100% > triple axel attempts on 87.50% > quad jump attempts on 37.50%.

2) I would suggest that more difficult elements will mean more attempts WITH NEGATIVE GOE. Let's go.

Spins - ladies had 27 out of 99 Spins with negative GOE = 27.27%.
Spins - men had 18 out of 120 Spins with negative GOE = 15%.

Step Sequence - 6 out of 33 ladies got negative GOE = 18.18%.
Step Sequence - 1 out of 40 men got negative GOE = 2.50%.

Ladies triple lutz - 15 out of 33 ladies with negative GOE = 45.45%.
Ladies jump combination - 23 out of 33 ladies had negative GOE = 69.70%.

Triple axel - 9 out of 35 attempts with negative GOE = 25.71%.
Quad jump - 12 out of 30 attempts with negative GOE = 40.00%.

Ladies with negative GOE - jump combination on 69.70% > triple lutz on 45.45% > Spins on 27.27% > Step Sequence on 18.18%.

Men with negative GOE - quad jump on 40.00% > triple axel on 25.71% > Spins on 15% > Step Sequence on 2.50%.


3) I would also suggest that more difficult elements mean MORE FALLS.

Spins - in Ladies' event 1 out of 99 Spins with fall = 1.01%.
Spins - in Men's event there were no falls = 0%.

Step Sequence - in Ladies' event 1 out of 33 Step Sequences had fall = 3.03%.
Step Sequence - in Men's event there were no falls = 0%.

Triple lutz - 6 out of 21 ladies fell = 28.57%.

Triple axel - 2 out of 35 men fell = 5.71%.

Quad jump - 5 out of 30 attempts with fall = 16.67%.

Ladies' falls - triple lutz on 28.57% > Step Sequence on 3.03% > Spins on 1.01%.

Men's falls - quad jump on 16.67% > triple axel on 5.71% > Spins and Step Sequence on 0%.

--------------

I believe that this is enough evidence that at least triple lutz, but definitely all quad jumps are more difficult than Level 4 Spins and Step Sequences Level 3 or 4.

So giving similar points to jumps and spins doesn't seem right as they are not equal as to difficulty.

 

[Mathman]

Better judging automaticaly results from rules that minimize subjectivity and start implementing AI for GoE, SS and CO scores asap, leaving only performance to subjective call. It's literally possible with modern tech. There is no longer need to subjectively evaluate speed, ice coverage, form, percentage of time spent on two feet and rotations. All the human judges will have to collegial decide is how pleasing the result was--and give it like 20% weight

Myself, I am not leading the cheers for AI. Technology (better stopwatches and yardsticks) -- there is no controversy about that (though cost is a factor). We can ceratinly measure speed across the ice -- that's child's play. It is somewhat more challenging to measure variation in speed and power, and whether such ebbs and flows match gthe requirements of th musical struture and choreographic purpose (altho an enterprising computer person could certainly try, and the result might well be interesting.)

The holy grail of Artificial Intelligence, however, is altogether different -- it is to mimic as closely as possible human intellectual behavior. The success of an AI program that composes music, for instance, is judged not on the basis of whther the music it produces has any merit, but rather -- if you listen to the music it produces, can you tell whether it was written by a computer or were you fooled into thinking the composer was human? The AI program, might, for instance, consult its billion-song library and observe that humans lean in the direction of rising tones rather than falling. When the melody hits a D and the next note is one unit away, 64% of the time the next note is E and 36% of the time it is C. If these percentages are not met -- aha! you can't fool me, you're not human! (Bach was not human because he used -- aaagh, can you believe iit? -- parallel fifths. Betehoven was not human because the last 5 notes of his symphony number 1 -- what was he thingking of?!)

So actually it is the 20% (how pleasing is the result) where AI would come in, not the measuring of underrotations, or even in determining whethe the skater matched the GOE bullets.

That's what I think anyway. We'll see. But I am not holding my breath waiting for the ISU to make it's big move into the world of AI.

 

[4everchan]

So giving similar points to jumps and spins doesn't seem right as they are not equal as to difficulty.

The IJS simply doesn't work like this.
There is a reason why jumps base value is related to number of revolutions and for spins and steps on certain features for levels.

All skaters aim to get level 4 on all their elements. When they don't achieve this, they lose some points. Not as many as falling on a quad jump, fair enough... but the BV is not as high either. It's still a failure not to reach a level 4 step sequence when you are aiming for it... yet, it will not impact the score as much as a failed jump.

This also why the BV for these elements is lower. If a level 4 step sequence was equal to a quad toe in base value... and a level 3 a triple toe... you would be able to evaluate them much closer but it wouldn't make sense because the elements do not represent quite the same risk factor.
I guess you could evaluate them on a curve where spins, steps and jumps of the best kinds = 100 and falls or botch spins = 0.

Also, let's not forget that there are invalidated spins... probably more often than falls on spins

So in the end, apples and oranges again.

I am also not sure why you bunched non jump elements with PCS because clearly, there are good spinners who don't have the best skating skills and presentation either. Having extreme flexibility doesn't mean having nice edges.

 

[gkelly]

Although there is a correlation between risk factor and difficulty, the two are not identical.

For some kinds of skills, if you make a mistake, at least certain kinds of mistakes, you will probably fall.

For other kinds of skills, if you make a mistake it is unlikely that you will fall or even that a casual viewer would notice anything wrong, but the percentage of success as defined by executing the move correctly may be similar or lower than with the riskier move.

Suppose, for example, that "camel spin with a change of foot that also changes direction, at least 6 revolutions on each foot and a change of edge on each foot" was a required element in the short program.

We don't see that very often because it's not currently required and there are easier ways to earn spin levels so most skaters don't bother learning it.

If it were suddenly to become required, everyone would do their best to learn it and would include the attempts in their short programs. Many skaters who can't do it now would manage to master it at least adequately enough to get full credit. But quite likely more skaters would struggle to earn full credit for that element because it is difficult in ways that do not play to their strengths. I would expect, at a minimum, that it would be common for the bad-direction spin to have less than 6 revolutions. It would also probably be common to fail to achieve 2 revolutions on each edge on both feet. We might also see inadequate camel positions (<90 degrees), severe traveling, free leg clunking to the ice, etc. Some of those failures would be obvious to casual observers, others more subtle.

There would probably be a lot of negative GOEs and a fair amount of asterisks for attempts where the skater doesn't manage to meet the minimum requirements for CCSp with change of direction (3 revs in position on each foot).

Of course with more years to practice, more skaters will master that element. But some will always struggle with it because they naturally lack the ambidexterity to allow them to execute strong spins in their bad direction. Add a catch-foot position requirement, and some skaters will struggle more with that because they naturally lack the flexibility.

One could certainly argue that that spin would be more difficult than a 2F or 2Lz, possibly more difficult than a 2A. But there would probably be fewer outright falls on that spin than there would be on those double jumps.

So is risk determined/difficulty defined by the kinds of failures that are likely to occur?