First of all, if each judge sets their own weightings, there would be a very wide range of weightings with no guarantee that you would consider each "reasonable." So I don't think this would make results any fairer.
Or any more transparent. Do you really expect skaters to look up the weightings of the judges on the panel at each event they enter to see whether this panel puts higher weight on variety of directions vs. speed, or vice versa? Assuming the individual judges' weightings would be published at all.
Why should judges set weightings for evaluations that they don't even make themselves? They don't determine what features should earn higher levels for non-jump elements, or determine whether those features were met or not. In 6.0 judging, judges took into consideration both the difficulty and the quality in spins and steps, but in IJS the difficulty determinations have been outsourced to a separate panel of humans who watch just for those features and make those determinations . . . without telling the judges what levels they awarded.
The judges (and even the tech panels) have no input into the base values of the different elements and levels or the values of the positive and negative GOEs. Or, for that matter, the factoring of the program components. All that is determined by the ISU and published in the Scale of Values and other documents.
If determinations of speed and other measurable factors are going to be outsourced to machines, why should the judges have input into how to weight them. Those determinations should be made by the same committees who come up with the Scale of Values.
Judges' job is to evaluate the skating that they see, not to design their own personal scoring system to be applied by computer measurements they have no control over.
What you're asking them to do is not judging.
Some of them might be interested in figuring out how to weight different measurable parts of skating that will be taken away from judges' assessment. Then let them join the relevant ISU committees or get the ear of people who are on those committees.
Or post in conversations like this one and hope someone at the ISU is reading.
For those who want to judge the judgeable parts of skating, let them do that.
This is a totally different question.
What we want is better guidelines on how to determine which performances deserve 6 or less for each component -- designed by experts who have seen many more programs deserving of 6 or less and who are awed by the outliers that deserve much higher.
How do we define "deserve"?
Maybe there could be clearer guidelines on how to separate the "gods" from the "kings" among the outliers, as
@Mathman dubbed them. But they're not likely to "deserve" less than 6.
But you want judges to do it themselves, without years of study on the details of how this would work???
It's a different kind of expertise. If we do want weighting for each aspect of scoring that can be done by machines, let it be determined by experts in that kind of math and programming, who also have expertise in figure skating.
Not independently by many different figure skating experts most of whom have no background or interest in math or programming.
At what expense?
The ISU may be working on this and will try it out in test competitions within the next couple of years (i.e., alongside the current official human-centered panels) to see how it works, and then maybe adopt it for international competitions, at least the big ones.
What kind of equipment would be needed at the competition venue to implement automated system? What new officials would need to be trained to install and run it? How would judges and tech panels need to be retrained to stop worrying about the measured parts of scoring being given away to the machines and focus more on the remaining human-scored aspects?
How much would the equipment cost, and how much space would it need? On different sides of the ice? Can it be implemented in small local rinks, by federations or clubs with low budgets? Or would there be a two-tier level of competitions that use the shiny new machine stcoring system and those that can only accommodate the low-tech old-fashioned system. (I.e., the current IJS, which is already more expensive and more tech dependent than 6.0.)
The fun part can be figuring out how to distinguish meaningfully between skaters who are close in overall skill level but might be better at some things and weaker at others, within that low range. And when just to decide "They're all the same! Same score for everyone -- let the computers determine the winner."
But how many low-level competitions could actually afford to use a system that relies on computers and multiple cameras?
"Basic Novice" internationally is more or less equivalent to the US Juvenile level.
The US has three standard competition levels below juvenile: Pre-Juvenile (allowed double jumps up to lutz), Preliminary (allowed two doubles out of salchow, toe loop, and loop), and Pre-Preliminary (allowed axels but no doubles).
Then there are "Excel" versions of each of these levels (and higher levels) that have stricter limits on what jumps are allowed.
And there are learn-to-skate levels (Basic 1-6, and competition levels now called Aspire 1-4 that include free skating moves such as half-jumps and two-foot or basic one-foot spins in Aspire 1 up to single lutz and beginning combination spins in Aspire 4).
There are no official guidelines on what skill levels deserve which program component scores. On average, though, the Pre-Preliminary through Pre-Juvenile skaters will usually earn scores in the 1s and 2s, with a fewer higher outliers especially by Pre-Juvenile, and maybe lower for a skater having a bad day.
Skaters at the higher Aspire levels would probably also deserves 1s, though those levels have not yet been scored by IJS.
Scores in the 0s would be for the real beginners.
Different rules for different federations at these levels.
Probably, if "leisure group skating" includes actual lessons on technique, plus practice time. Not if it's just go to the ice once a week, do whatever you can however you want, have fun.
Again, there are no official guidelines. But I kind of expect 1.00 to indicate that the skater can do forward stroking with some power, forward and backward crossovers, all the different edges at least somewhat recognizably (back inside is more difficult), forward three turns and inside mohawks at least in the good direction. And basic spirals.
Yes, it takes hard work to develop top-notch skating skill. And also natural talent, and training on good technique.
Well, if they've got skating skills worthy of 5.00 or 6.00 or more, they've probably learned all the difficult one-foot turns, and choctaws, and can aim for higher levels in their step sequences. What they need to develop is more mastery and comfort with those skills, so they can execute them with clean edges and turns, and stronger power and flow, effortlessly, with more difficult combinations and direction changes, control over body positions and variations that challenge balance more, and ability to time it all to musical nuances. Yes, still lots to work on.
:
)
