Should quads per program be limited to balance artistry?

[gkelly]

Do poor performances win? When is the last time this happened?

Performances with visible errors (usually falls on jumps) often win. Often because all the top skaters had errors, so whichever one comes out on top is going to do so with a flawed program.

Or, sometimes, because the program is more difficult (in jump content or otherwise) or higher in overall quality (PCS and GOEs on elements except the one(s) with the errors).

Or, as you note, because there were subtle errors that a new viewer would not notice but that are/were heavily penalized by the rules in effect at the time.

My mention about costume was rather in regard to the subjectivity that still is prevalent in figure skating judging, even when it shouldn't be.
I'm sure some judges, even in passing, would think that one costume highlights someone's lines , while another comes off as garish to them. Maybe a skater can change that opinion with a solid skate and interpretation, but when the skate is messy too... I wonder if someone falling to an unconventional program would get scored lower than someone skating to Swan Lake, for example.

I doubt that makes much difference these days, with so many other things for judges to score. But to the effect it might have an unconscious effect on their perception of the choreography and performance . . . maybe, but probably not consciously.

My usage of the phrase of how things *should* be scored in comparison to how they are was not on the grounds of anything regarding my knowledge of figure skating- in fact I broke my teeth when I first put skates on (funny TMI), but rather to the guidelines that are presented as standard by the ISU?
I understand how one judge could see a difference in an execution of a technical element, mostly- that is pretty much well explained.
But why is it, that at almost all competitions, you will have at least some judges whose view of the skate differs so much from their other colleagues by like 5-7 points?

There are many reasons why judges will come up with different component scores than each other.

I think you're only looking at one judge who is out of line on one skater, scoring their compatriot higher across the board than the rest of the panel. If that happens, then yes, national bias is a likely factor (conscious or unconscious -- or a combination of both would have the largest effect).

But there are many other reasons why one judge might consistently give almost all the skaters lower PCS than the rest of the panel, or vice versa. So you can't just look at scores from one judge for one skater and decide that it's wrong, outside the context of how they scored everyone else in the event.

Sometimes a judge might just happen to be much more impressed, or less impressed, with the performance, at least on one component, than the rest of the panel.

Should we brainstorm what those reasons might be? Is this the right thread for that discussion?

My question is exactly that: What if the Judges don't agree? Who is right and who is wrong then?

As long as they're all applying the rules/guidelines as honestly and as knowledgeably as they know how, they're all right.

And if you become very knowledgeable and watch the performance live and up close and arrive at a different score based on your understanding of the rules, you're not wrong either.

But you can't determine that any or all of the official judges were "wrong" just because they disagreed with you on PCS. You'd have to understand everything they were taking into consideration and anything else they should have been taking into consideration and know that they intentionally ignored some criteria or just didn't understand other criteria, and their relative scores for many of the skaters were out of line in different directions, to determine that they were judging especially badly.

No one expects all judges to agree 100% on component scores, any more than they expected all judges to agree 100% on the rankings back in 6.0 judges.

That's why there are 9 judges on the panel and not just 1.

The "correct" score for a given panel officially marking the same performance is the average of their scores. Probably none of the judges matched the average exactly, but they all contributed to how it was arrived at.

 

[Mathman]

And now... the next time a skater skates to Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata (first movement) you can bore your friends with this. (@4everchan taught me this )

This movement comprises 60 bars, not counting a 5-bar coda at the end. The exposition is 23 bars long, leaving 37 bars for the development-plus-recapitulation.

The ratio 37/23 is (approximately) equal to the "golden mean" -- the ratio of the diagonal of the regular pentagon to its side, and thus the most beautiful and profoundly significant pf all numbers.

But wait! The ratio of the entire movement to the longer segment, 60/37, is also equal to the golden mean. Pythagoras would have been proud. How could a choreographer go wrong with such built-in structural beauty to work with?

 

[gkelly]

Except the skater is going to use an edited version of whichever movement(s) they skate to, which will throw off the ratio.

 

[4everchan]

Except the skater is going to use an edited version of whichever movement(s) they skate to, which will throw off the ratio.

The ratio can be restored depending on the cuts.

 

[yfan1]

My question is exactly that: What if the Judges don't agree? Who is right and who is wrong then?

There's no such thing as an "objective" assignment and evaluation when we're talking about things like "artistry". I mean, just a few pages ago, we have had people arguing over who did better in the Chopin competition. Or at least it's not binary of "objective" and "unobjective" when we're having serious discussions between experts and/or ardent fans.

That's the reason for multiple judges. This is not diving or AG, it has far more to it, but that also makes it that much more subjective.

Like sure. Grassl is obviously not 9s in skating skills, and shouldn't be getting them. I think people shouldn't be denying bs like that happens either. Just, when it comes to say a 6-7 range, then I wouldn't say someone pressing 6.25 is wrong and the one who pressed 7 is right. And then SS is the more objective of the three components to begin...

A good bit of objectivity could be brought in, no doubt, but some things are definitely subjective and will always be.

 

[gkelly]

A good bit of objectivity could be brought in, no doubt, but some things are definitely subjective and will always be.

Maybe someday the actual speed across the ice will be measured and that number will become part of the score, separate from TES and PCS.

Maybe there could be actual counts of the amount of time spent traveling or turning in each direction. Maybe measurements of the actual ice coverage in terms of both quantity and use of all different parts of the ice surface. Which can be related to depth of edge, as would be most evident in pattern dances.

Maybe there could be counts of the use of different kinds of one-foot turns, choctaws, and other specific transitional moves the ISU wants to reward, outside of step sequences.

Maybe those numbers could be incorporated into the scoring outside the elements score and the judges' evaluations of PCS.

But things like "effortlessness" or "strong positions" or "enhances the music" are not things that can be measured. And yet, when we see them, we appreciate them and think that the skater who exhibited them is "better" than the skater who did not (all else being equal). So as long as we want to reward skaters who are better in those ways, human judgment will be necessary. Which is inherently subjective in that not every human perceives these qualities on exactly the same scale the same way that different measurement tools could be calibrated to measure the measurable aspects exactly the same.

 

[Mathman]

But things like "effortlessness" or "strong positions" or "enhances the music" are not things that can be measured.

Not only that, but I have yet to be convinced about even "measurable" things like the number of turns in each direction -- is it of any value to measure something just for the sake of measuring? If a skater turns 4 times clockwise and 4 times counterclockwise, is that skater's performance more worthy of a high score than that of the skater who goes 5 and 3?

Do we really want to give 2.05 points to a skater whose speed across the ice is 20.3 miles per hour and to give 2.03 points to the skater with average speed of only 20.2 mpg? Would this increase the "accuracy" of scoring, produce fairer competitions, attract more ardent fans?

 

[lariko]

I like it when all the numbers add up and have automatic explanation of the resulting score and placement, as well as when every skater is assessed with the same degree of scrutiny. As long as everyone knows in advance what gets most points, it's a fair game to go and get more points.

 

[gkelly]

I like it when all the numbers add up and have automatic explanation of the resulting score and placement, as well as when every skater is assessed with the same degree of scrutiny. As long as everyone knows in advance what gets most points, it's a fair game to go and get more points.

So you'd prefer to get rid of the Performance and Composition scores entirely, evaluate only measurable aspects of skating skills, and remove all rewards and penalties for qualitative aspects of element execution?

Anything where one human might disagree with another human about how good it is should have zero impact on the scoring?

Beautiful positions and ugly positions are worth the same? No GOEs at all, positive or negative, for step sequences, and for choreo sequences assuming you don't eliminate those entirely? For spins only speed, centering, yes/no achieving an adequate position, and maybe total number of revolutions would count, in addition to the level calls? For jumps, only correct takeoff and landing edges, amount of rotation, height, distance, and speed in and out?

No point playing music or doing anything creative, because there would be no reward for it.

It could be done. But I don't think many people would be happy with the direction the sport would take in that case.

Fans of other sports might prefer that because they expect yes/no answers. But that's not how skating works, even if you take out the so-called "artistic" aspects that have traditionally been rewarded.

 

[lariko]

So you'd prefer to get rid of the Performance and Composition scores entirely, evaluate only measurable aspects of skating skills, and remove all rewards and penalties for qualitative aspects of element execution?

Anything where one human might disagree with another human about how good it is should have zero impact on the scoring?

Beautiful positions and ugly positions are worth the same? No GOEs at all, positive or negative, for step sequences, and for choreo sequences assuming you don't eliminate those entirely? For spins only speed, centering, yes/no achieving an adequate position, and maybe total number of revolutions would count, in addition to the level calls? For jumps, only correct takeoff and landing edges, amount of rotation, height, distance, and speed in and out?

No point playing music or doing anything creative, because there would be no reward for it.

It could be done. But I don't think many people would be happy with the direction the sport would take in that case.

Fans of other sports might prefer that because they expect yes/no answers. But that's not how skating works, even if you take out the so-called "artistic" aspects that have traditionally been rewarded.

for the most part, I like it how it is at the moment, providing more and more technology will be integrated to impact composition and skating skill scores for measurable metrics so the caps to scores (or bonuses) were applied for every skater. Humans are just too fallible to do it accurately and fairly, particularly in competitions that last many hours in a row with a lot of participants. The more they approach each athlete the same way, the better.

Where I want performance score to change is a clarity on the cap for Performance score cap when there are errors. There is too much open to interpretation. They need to define mistakes that brings the score down more clearly vs cases where it is not.

 

[Mathman]

As long as everyone knows in advance what gets most points, it's a fair game to go and get more points.

It's a fair game, but that does not address the question of what kind of game young athletes would be most eager to take up and what kind of game fans would be most interested in following and supporting.

After all, what would be most fair of all would be to cancel all skating contests altogether -- there! no favoritism, no evil judges, no bias and politics, no angry posting of of slo-motion videos about qs and <s. Everybody's happy.

 

[lariko]

To me it looks like the athletes are good when things are clear and fair. I wouldn't want to enter a contest where I could max out all the points, but lose because three people out of nine just had a 'vibe' preference for someone else.

As for fans, I think they will never be happy unless someone they like win or their country wins and they are all different. But on the whole, the more fair the system, the easier people accept it. Overall, humans don't like cheating and when things seem fishy or experts wave their hands in the air at them with attempt at superiority.

 

[Mathman]

For the most part, I like it how it is at the moment...

Me, too.

I do not see any real urgency to the original topic, quads versus artistry. Neither do I see any pie-in-the-sky benefit to come from advances in measurement technology, AI, etc. Chip away at it, work diligently to promote competent and unbiased judging, don't let's get our tails in a kink.

 

[lariko]

Like, I remember this example for large symphony orchestras when they mostly hired men. Which created a fake narrative that men simply play musical instruments better. Once the employers were forced to listen to auditions blind, hiring became 50:50. Surprise, surprise. You can't take the subjectivity from FS that way, but weighing decisions toward the objective metric, leaving some room for subjectivity imo is the way to go. But in the last few years, ever since +5/-5 change, it started to roll back toward subjective playing more and more role. I hope that tech can bring back more objectivity.

 

[DizzyFrenchie]

Maybe someday the actual speed across the ice will be measured and that number will become part of the score, separate from TES and PCS.

Maybe there could be actual counts of the amount of time spent traveling or turning in each direction. Maybe measurements of the actual ice coverage in terms of both quantity and use of all different parts of the ice surface. Which can be related to depth of edge, as would be most evident in pattern dances.

Maybe there could be counts of the use of different kinds of one-foot turns, choctaws, and other specific transitional moves the ISU wants to reward, outside of step sequences.

Maybe those numbers could be incorporated into the scoring outside the elements score and the judges' evaluations of PCS.

But things like "effortlessness" or "strong positions" or "enhances the music" are not things that can be measured. And yet, when we see them, we appreciate them and think that the skater who exhibited them is "better" than the skater who did not (all else being equal). So as long as we want to reward skaters who are better in those ways, human judgment will be necessary. Which is inherently subjective in that not every human perceives these qualities on exactly the same scale the same way that different measurement tools could be calibrated to measure the measurable aspects exactly the same.

As soon as measurement starts, there will be not only the instant and average speed, but also the accelerations, decelerations, even their derivative (smooth moves and/or sharp moves or always the same?), a whole "mapping" of the use of speed by the skaters, which is so different today between skaters, a far from negligible criteria which doesn't seem to be taken into account at all; also edges and precision in steps (in and out of elements) and also their smoothness/sharpness depending on the needs of the program, also completely forgotten today, same in Spins... many criterial will already have partial or complete measurement but these measurements mustn't be shown to the judges or they would give the rest of the Component scores, based only on the criteria that have been measured...
Once these "basic" measurement would be tried and approved, more elaborate measurements would be able to be done and they would go farther than one may think. The same smoothness/sharpness of moves for the rest of the body (as opposed to "as it comes"), taking into account where the skater's centre of gravity is and how it moves and the forces at play... Yes "effortlessness" will be measureable. The judge would only have to give the weight they want to give it among criteria, "strong positions" too. I believe "enhances the music" will remain a judge's task for way longer if not forever.

 

[Mathman]

As soon as measurement starts, there will be not only the instant and average speed, but also the accelerations, decelerations, even their derivative (smooth moves and/or sharp moves or always the same?),

I can't argue with anyone who invokes the third derivative. Fugure skating is. in fact, the only sport I can think of where this plays a role.

Irina Slutskaya was an example of a skater with wonderful second dreivative (acceleration) skating.

Yes "effortlessness" will be measureable.

I think the what the rules want to reward is the appearance of effortlessness -- an esthetic consideration -- rather than a meticulous calculation of physical stresses and strains. The goal -- be a swan: all serenity above the water, paddle like the devil beneath.

 

[DizzyFrenchie]

I can't argue with anyone who invokes the third derivative. Fugure skating is. in fact, the only sport I can think of where this plays a role.

Irina Slutskaya was an example of skater with wonderful second dreivative (acceleration) skating.

I think the what the rules want to reward is the appearance of effortlessness -- an esthetic consideration -- rather than a meticulous calculation of physical stresses and strains. The goal -- be a swan: all serenity above the water, paddle like the devil beneath.

Thank you! Now I too wonder if there are other sports where it matters? And it may be one of the superiorities of Figure Skating, by the way. Given the results (have you seen the packs?), it doesn't seem to matter in Synchronised Swimming, while accelerations do matter. I don't embed a video or you'd be frightened.

Do you think that the appearance of effortlessness won't be measurable? Of course, for facial or even body expression it's likely to remain rather long, up to the judges, to determine if an expression of pain results from the interpretation of from an extremely laboured element; but for the skates moves, I think that it will be measurable?

 

[gkelly]

To me it looks like the athletes are good when things are clear and fair. I wouldn't want to enter a contest where I could max out all the points, but lose because three people out of nine just had a 'vibe' preference for someone else.

The preferences are built into the program component criteria, although the wording of these criteria is pretty general.
Still, it is more specific than the 6.0 Presentation criteria.

How would you propose scoring that the things that most people agree makes great or good skaters better than average or bad be scored so that skaters (and highly knowledgeable fans) would know exactly what to expect?

If there is room for honest difference of opinion, then either you have to accept that there will be differences of opinion or else you have to decide that those things shouldn't be scored at all and shouldn't affect results at all, even though pretty much everyone agrees that they contribute to what makes good skating good.

As soon as measurement starts, there will be not only the instant and average speed, but also the accelerations, decelerations, even their derivative (smooth moves and/or sharp moves or always the same?), a whole "mapping" of the use of speed by the skaters, which is so different today between skaters, a far from negligible criteria which doesn't seem to be taken into account at all; also edges and precision in steps (in and out of elements) and also their smoothness/sharpness depending on the needs of the program, also completely forgotten today, same in Spins... many criterial will already have partial or complete measurement but these measurements mustn't be shown to the judges or they would give the rest of the Component scores, based only on the criteria that have been measured...
Once these "basic" measurement would be tried and approved, more elaborate measurements would be able to be done and they would go farther than one may think. The same smoothness/sharpness of moves for the rest of the body (as opposed to "as it comes"), taking into account where the skater's centre of gravity is and how it moves and the forces at play... Yes "effortlessness" will be measureable.

Someday, maybe.
The programming for what to measure and what to reward on a moment-by-moment basis throughout a 4-minute program would be extremely complex. I don't think we'll get there in my lifetime. If you're young, maybe in yours.

The judge would only have to give the weight they want to give it among criteria, "strong positions" too.

So are you saying that instead of relying on what they see with their own (highly trained but personal and not infallible) eyes and deciding how to weight that, they should read some data output from the measurement tools and decide how to weigh those numbers against each other and against the qualities that can't be measured?

If we're going to measure those things and come up with numbers, then just incorporate those numbers into the scoring somehow. Any "weighting" of how they fit in with all the other scores would be determined in advance by the ISU and would be the same for all skaters (until the ISU tweaks the rules 2 years later) but not subject to any human judges' opinions.

I believe "enhances the music" will remain a judge's task for way longer if not forever.

Yes, as long as we want to reward this, we need humans to evaluate it.

I can't argue with anyone who invokes the third derivative. Fugure skating is. in fact, the only sport I can think of where this plays a role.

Ha

Irina Slutskaya was an example of skater with wonderful second dreivative (acceleration) skating.

Yes.

I think the what the rules want to reward is the appearance of effortlessness -- an esthetic consideration -- rather than a meticulous calculation of physical stresses and strains. The goal -- be a swan: all serenity above the water, paddle like the devil beneath.

Well, yes. The gestalt of what it looks like is what skating wants to reward. Breaking it down into differences in speed and acceleration from one moment to the next would miss the forest for the trees, so to speak.

 

[crazydreamer]

I don't think quads should be limited, but I do think an artistic program that has only one quad and is executed cleanly should win over a non-artistic program that has 4 quads and mistakes (as just an example). I think the best way to ensure that result is to make the consequences of mistakes much more serious. Quads need to be as high a risk as they are a reward. Skaters should be left worse off for a messy quad than for a clean triple, and should get virtually zero points for a fall on a quad.

 

[Skatingcat]

I don't think quads should be limited, but I do think an artistic program that has only one quad and is executed cleanly should win over a non-artistic program that has 4 quads and mistakes (as just an example). I think the best way to ensure that result is to make the consequences of mistakes much more serious. Quads need to be as high a risk as they are a reward. Skaters should be left worse off for a messy quad than for a clean triple, and should get virtually zero points for a fall on a quad.

I think this should also be applied to women when they do quads as well.