Should quads per program be limited to balance artistry?

[gkelly]

I think that this is the big question. If the prospective "artistic judge" comes from a ballet background would hat judge mark a skater down for, "Can you believe it? She had to use a hand assist to get her leg up into that standard position. Any child in my ballet class knows better than that."

Would a musician or music critic roll his eyes and say, "Those 7 quads didn't capture the spirit of Schubert. -7 deduction points."

Yes, they would have to be trained in why skaters do the things they do the way they do them.
Some is just skating tradition and there's no reason not to do it a different way.
Some things are easy on ice that are difficult on the floor, and other things are easy on the floor that are very difficult on blades.

Some things are required by the technical side of the sport. Both what kinds of elements skaters need to include to earn TES points, and also what kinds of skating skills they need to demonstrate to earn higher Skating Skills scores.

We want to make sure that any artistic skating judges learn that basic knowledge before they try to judge the artistic aspects of skating. They won't be asked to judge the technical side, but they'll need to understand how the techniques influence what's possible, what's worth rewarding, and what's negligible.

Also learn something about the history of skating and skating choreography, so they'll get a sense of what everyone has always done, what people are doing now because it's trendy or because it gains technical points, what's truly innovative, what's retro.

The other thing is, what would we offer to entice an expert from another field to become a figure skating judge?

I think it has to be love of skating, same as with any other judge. Even if only as a casual fan before learning that there was an opportunity to volunteer as an artistic judge.

From an audience/marketing point of view, bringing in celebrity performing artists would attract audiences and would bring some different kinds of expertise.
However 1) celebrities will probably expect to be paid, possibly big bucks, to judge a skating competition; 2) if they're still actively performing otherwise have demanding full-time jobs, they may not be available to judge multiple competitions per year or to go through training to understand the sport they're signing on to judge; and 3) they will be biased toward skills rewarded in their own discipline/genre, as you point out above.

RETIRED professional performers (or choreographers, directors, composers, etc.) who love skating and want to commit themselves to judging it would be great additions. So would people who have flexible jobs (in the arts or elsewhere) (or are independently wealthy and don't need to work) and also have deep knowledge of one or more art forms either as fans, scholars, or amateur participants.

And who may not know much about skating yet except that it has interested them when they happened to come across it on TV etc., but they're willing to learn as much as they need to know to do a good job evaluating all the different programs they're asked to judge.

And be willing to go where training is (at their own expense, unless a national skating federation wants to fund them) and then to go where they're needed to judge, with all expenses paid but no salary. Subject to their availability.

The other thing to keep in mind is that if we split the panels, that probably means more judges total. For major events that already have 9 judges, there could be two panels of 5 judges each, so that's not much difference.

But for less important events that typically use 5-7 judges, or even 3-5 at lowest levels, we wouldn't want to double the number of officials needed, or close to it. Lesser events can't afford that. So you might see some countries still using combined panels even for qualifying events, let alone more recreational competitions.

My idea was really to have 3 separate judges/panels to focus on different things:
- 1 for individual program elements (TP to call and judge to assign GOE)
- 1 for technical skating aspects of overall program (skating skills, transitions)
- 1 for performance aspects of overall program (expressiveness, quality of overall movement, projection, musical and/or story interpretation)

In that case, you might need even more total judges, which means more expense. Or would you want elite events to use 3 judges for each of these 3 panels?

I think being assigned to only judge GOE would be better for the judges because they don't really have to think about the overall performance, and hopefully it makes the GOE assigned for each element more objective.

I don't think that judges' scoring of the GOEs is much influenced by or

Jumps only take a few seconds, even including the approach and the exit. Judges can decide what the score is within 1-2 seconds after the jump is over. Maybe they'll make a note to wait to see if there are any edge or rotation calls, or even to check a rule if it's an uncommon situation. But in general, once the jump is done,

Spins and step sequences last longer. So judges have more time to think about the element while it's in progress and to consider the various positive bullet points and potential reductions, and then arrive at a score by the time the element is over.

Once it's over and the skater is moving on to the next thing, there's no more need to think about the element that has completed.

If the next thing is a jump at the far end of the ice, or some choreography that is not part of the choreo sequence, do you expect them just to turn their brains off until the next element starts?

It's easier to stay more engaged if they have something specific to think about. Like the quality of the skating between the elements. (And also within the sequences.)

If they also have to judge skating skills, it can impact their perspective on the elements themselves.

I doubt it.

Some skaters can have a higher level of skating skills overall but have a bad day and fumbled their step sequence. That has nothing to do with their actual skating skills level, and more about element execution.

True.

The Skating Skills component covers the whole program. One stumble, or repeated struggles throughout step sequence will have a negative effect on the GOE and will generally have a slight effect on the Skating Skills component. Maybe enough to make a difference of 0.25 or 0.5 in the SS component, maybe not, depending how severe it is and how different the quality of skating in the sequence as a whole is compared to the skating in the rest of the program as a whole.

If there are Skating Skills-only judges, they will certainly pay close attention during the step sequences and take into account the quality of the skating, along with the quality of the sequence before and after the error(s) and the quality of the skating throughout the rest of the program. If they're judging SS only, they wouldn't have to worry about how well the skating matches the music or how creative it is, but they will notice. If they're not judging those things, it shouldn't affect how they judge the Skating Skills.

Similarly, if they are judging the step sequence for GOE, they can note the quality of the skating throughout the sequence, both the positive aspects (deep clean edges, effortlessness, acceleration and deceleration, size and complexity of the pattern) and also any errors. Then they'll weigh those pluses and minuses to come up with a GOE. If they have a positive impression of the quality of skating in the step sequence before an error in the sequence, they will weigh that against the error to come up with a GOE. They won't be thinking "Oh, they were skating so strongly 2 minutes ago, I should start with a higher GOE for the step sequence before I deduct for the stumble." If they're going to start the step sequence GOE in the positives before deducting for the stumble, it's because the step sequence had positive aspects, not earlier parts of the program.
(Of course their evaluation of the step sequence GOE will not be affected by the quality of skating that happens later in the program after the step sequence -- it hasn't happened yet.)

So I don't think it's necessary to have the GOE judge also judge skating skills.

It's not necessary, but it's more cost effective for the organizers than splitting the panel further, and will actually probably keep the judges more focused than encouraging them to zone out between elements.

 

[Mathman]

We want to make sure that any artistic skating judges learn that basic knowledge before they try to judge the artistic aspects of skating. They won't be asked to judge the technical side, but they'll need to understand how the techniques influence what's possible, what's worth rewarding, and what's negligible.

Also learn something about the history of skating and skating choreography, so they'll get a sense of what everyone has always done, what people are doing now because it's trendy or because it gains technical points, what's truly innovative, what's retro.

(B)ringing in celebrity performing artists would...

... be the worst thing the ISU could possibly do. Do we want Taylor Swift to decide who wins the Olympic Gold Medal? Anyway, the whole idea is wrong -- judges are not the "celebrities" of a figure skating contest -- the skaters are the stars,

I once saw an adagio pairs competition that had three couples participating and three judges -- two former pairs skaters and a "celebrity." The first couple (by far the worst) gave their performance. The two skating judges gave them a score of 7 out of 10 (very generous).The celebrity judge gave them 9. When he looked over at the cards that the othetr judges were holding up, he looked real sheepish.

Then the second couple took their turn. They were pretty good. The two skaters on the panel gave them 9. The celebrity, having learned his lesson from the first go-round ("I am scoring too high"), gave them 7.

Then the third couple performed. They were obviously the best. They got two 10s. The celebrity judge waited until the other judges had revealed their scores then hastily scribbled "10" on his score card.

 

[Mathman]

My idea was really to have 3 separate judges/panels to focus on different things:
- 1 for individual program elements (TP to call and judge to assign GOE)
- 1 for technical skating aspects of overall program (skating skills, transitions)
- 1 for performance aspects of overall program (expressiveness, quality of overall movement, projection, musical and/or story interpretation)

If I remember correctly, when the IJS was first announced the idea was floated of having separate judges just for GOE. The judges rebelled, saying that this diminished their role and gave them nothing to do most of the time.

In my humble opinion, such a division would be going backward. What is needed is more integration of technical skill and performance quality, not more separation. (This in fact is the thrust of the multiplication idea raised by @yfan1 and elaborated on bu yours truly, which crashed like a lead balloon on this thread. )

 

[rabidline]

I once saw an adagio pairs competition that had three couples participating and three judges -- two former pairs skaters and a "celebrity." The first couple (by far the worst) gave their performance. The two skating judges gave them a score of 7 out of 10 (very generous).The celebrity judge gave them 9. When he looked over at the cards that the othetr judges were holding up, he looked real sheepish.

Then the second couple took their turn. They were pretty good. The two skaters on the panel gave them 9. The celebrity, having learned his lesson from the first go-round ("I am scoring too high"), gave them 7.

Then the third couple performed. They were obviously the best. They got two 10s. The celebrity judge waited until the other judges had revealed their scores then hastily scribbled "10" on his score card.

This is actually why I thought the judges who judge the skating part of the artistry and the expressive part of the artistry should be separated.

It's very possible that what connects with the audience or what registers as "expressive" is completely disconnected with the quality of the skating skills itself. Having 2 separate panels allows for the judges who have deep knowledge about skating score the skating part, with other judges who may not be that familiar with skating score the overall performance part. Yes, it's based on vibes. But I think the most memorable and emotional performances in skating is based on vibes, and by separating that hopefully it can still assign value to the non-vibey part of skating while also acknowledging that some performances in figure skating can and do transcend element execution and skating foundation.

Of course that wouldn't be a problem when you have top skaters who have quality skating skills and able to deliver expressive performances, because that would just mean the scores will all line up as high overall.

It would also help fans connect with various types of skaters- there may be a skater who is not the best in terms of skating but delivers high quality elements, there may also be skater who can't execute all elements cleanly but delivers an overall performance that's impactful in terms of expression. Actually my idea is inspired by these fans, the ones who clips jumps or step sequences separately from the whole performance, and didn't care for the full context of the whole program (where 1-2 jumps can be done super clean and the program fell apart after that) but still cry for fair scoring purely based on those clips.

The current problem with the scoring system now is that high PCS follows high TES, and PCS is scored on a corridor: when one goes up so do the others. Separating the "vibes" part and "non-vibes" part of skating can acknowledge both.

And yes I know having 3 panels is not cost-efficient, but just throwing around some ideas around here.

 

[rabidline]

In that case, you might need even more total judges, which means more expense. Or would you want elite events to use 3 judges for each of these 3 panels?

I know it's not the most cost efficient thing, but yeah, maybe 3 is enough.

I don't think that judges' scoring of the GOEs is much influenced by or

I disagree. Reputational scoring does not only apply to PCS.

Jumps only take a few seconds, even including the approach and the exit. Judges can decide what the score is within 1-2 seconds after the jump is over. Maybe they'll make a note to wait to see if there are any edge or rotation calls, or even to check a rule if it's an uncommon situation. But in general, once the jump is done,

Spins and step sequences last longer. So judges have more time to think about the element while it's in progress and to consider the various positive bullet points and potential reductions, and then arrive at a score by the time the element is over.

Once it's over and the skater is moving on to the next thing, there's no more need to think about the element that has completed.

If the next thing is a jump at the far end of the ice, or some choreography that is not part of the choreo sequence, do you expect them just to turn their brains off until the next element starts?

Yes. Maybe they can focus on element replay during that time. Introduce the same high quality cameras fans use to analyze every single element in slow-mo, so we can have a more aligned perspective between the judges and the audience who watch the performance through video.

It's easier to stay more engaged if they have something specific to think about. Like the quality of the skating between the elements. (And also within the sequences.)

But their part in the judging is not to be engaged, but to try to score each element as objectively as possible.

If there are Skating Skills-only judges, they will certainly pay close attention during the step sequences and take into account the quality of the skating, along with the quality of the sequence before and after the error(s) and the quality of the skating throughout the rest of the program. If they're judging SS only, they wouldn't have to worry about how well the skating matches the music or how creative it is, but they will notice. If they're not judging those things, it shouldn't affect how they judge the Skating Skills.

Quality of skating skills are not just during the step sequences. It's why my idea is to have a separate panel to judge the Skating Skills, out of the context of executing an element like Step Sequence. This panel can assess flow and glide, control, skating transition quality, ice coverage. Basically quality of each stroke on the ice.

Similarly, if they are judging the step sequence for GOE, they can note the quality of the skating throughout the sequence, both the positive aspects (deep clean edges, effortlessness, acceleration and deceleration, size and complexity of the pattern) and also any errors. Then they'll weigh those pluses and minuses to come up with a GOE. If they have a positive impression of the quality of skating in the step sequence before an error in the sequence, they will weigh that against the error to come up with a GOE. They won't be thinking "Oh, they were skating so strongly 2 minutes ago, I should start with a higher GOE for the step sequence before I deduct for the stumble." If they're going to start the step sequence GOE in the positives before deducting for the stumble, it's because the step sequence had positive aspects, not earlier parts of the program.
(Of course their evaluation of the step sequence GOE will not be affected by the quality of skating that happens later in the program after the step sequence -- it hasn't happened yet.)

Again it's why I want a separate panel to judge only the elements. Whatever positive or negative impression they may have, it starts and ends with that element. They can replay as much as they want to assess when they're waiting for the next element.

It's not necessary, but it's more cost effective for the organizers than splitting the panel further, and will actually probably keep the judges more focused than encouraging them to zone out between elements.

Well, of course. I'm not exactly thinking of the organizers when I throw out this idea. But again disagree on the judges judging the GOE having to be focused in between elements.

 

[rabidline]

The celebrity judge waited until the other judges had revealed their scores then hastily scribbled "10" on his score card.

Also this gives me ideas on how to acknowledge the subjectivity in perceiving skating programs in a good way.

At the end of the day, there are skaters that we all can easily see are a level or two above others in terms of skating. But the fun thing about figure skating, especially once you go down the ranks aside from the obvious winning performances, is that you can't really know what will go hard in the venue with that audience until that very day. It would be fun to have a system that can recognize that quality without dismissing the objective assessment of better skating and better execution of elements. I think the problem with this is only when IDK, a celebrity-type skater is skating or a hometown favorite is skating (because the fans reactions would be massive no matter what), but I think that's why the judges for only the skating tech and elements should be separated, to balance that out.

 

[Mathman]

This is actually why I thought the judges who judge the skating part of the artistry and the expressive part of the artistry should be separated.

Oh gosh. That just shows hiow different observers can come to the exact opposite conclusion. My feeling is exactly the opposite. To me, "that" is why the two should be joined at the hip.

I for one have no interest in watching a skater who can't skate a lick, but sends out emotional "vibes" by the gallon. Just as I have little invested in a skater who leaps up and down like a puppet on a string and is just as wooden.

To me. skating skills is everything. Mastery of the blade is the sine qua non of both TES and PCS.

 

[rabidline]

Oh gosh. That just shows hiow different observers can come to the exact opposite conclusion. My feeling is exactly the opposite. To me, "that" is why the two should be joined at the hip.

Yeah, I know. I'm just saying what you wrote made me think about the opposite ahahaha.

I for one have no interest in watching a skater who can't skate a lick, but sends out emotional "vibes" by the gallon. Just as I have little invested in a skater who leaps up and down like a puppet on a string and is just as wooden.

To me. skating skills is everything. Mastery of the blade is the sine qua non of both TES and PCS.

I mean, I don't think you're wrong, and I think skating skills do play a big part to deliver a program to the audience. But I'm the type of person who finds it fascinating when people who are new to skating gets compelled to various types of skaters or programs without knowing who is actually better on skating skills (or without knowing who exactly is that skater). And I just think that it shouldn't impact placements, of course, but there should be a way to acknowledge those vibes.

Right now, the only way to acknowledge those vibes is impacting the way Skating Skills is scored, and that's really the thing that bugs me.

But I also want the vibes to be acknowledged in a way that the audience can go "oh yeah, ok they're not the best skater but damn the vibes are immaculate, love that, and would want to see more of that" .

While the fans who are in this for the Skating Skills can go, "skating skills reign supreme as it should be in this sport" .

And the element-obsessive fans can go "yes! they get the biggest GOE in this element as they should get by being the only skater who has textbook technique to execute it!" .

 

[gkelly]

Yes. Maybe they can focus on element replay during that time. Introduce the same high quality cameras fans use to analyze every single element in slow-mo, so we can have a more aligned perspective between the judges and the audience who watch the performance through video.

No, they can't.

There is no video replay DURING the performance. The judges are not watching a video that they can rewind. They are watching the live skater right in front of them in real time.

Quality of skating skills are not just during the step sequences. It's why my idea is to have a separate panel to judge the Skating Skills, out of the context of executing an element like Step Sequence.

And also during the step sequence, because it is part of the whole program and most likely the part that demonstrates the most challenging skills.

This panel can assess flow and glide, control, skating transition quality, ice coverage. Basically quality of each stroke on the ice.


Again it's why I want a separate panel to judge only the elements. Whatever positive or negative impression they may have, it starts and ends with that element. They can replay as much as they want to assess when they're waiting for the next element.

No they cannot. They cannot rewind the live skater on the ice in front of them.

And in the best programs, the judges will not know how long until the next element will begin. A jump just happened and the judge wondered if it was a little underrotated. Should they look away from the ice to rewind the live feed from the official (assuming that is available to them while being videoed in real time)? But oops! The skater went straight from the landing of the jump into the entrance of a spin. So while the judge was rewinding one element on video, they missed a whole real live element right in front of them and never got to see the real live thing, only the moving image. That's even worse than zoning out mentally while still keeping their eyes on the ice.

I'm the type of person who finds it fascinating when people who are new to skating gets compelled to various types of skaters or programs without knowing who is actually better on skating skills (or without knowing who exactly is that skater). And I just think that it shouldn't impact placements, of course, but there should be a way to acknowledge those vibes.

So how about other ways to acknowledge the audience vibes without making "vibes" part of the scoring of a technical sport that would affect the placements.

Like letting the experts do their job analyzing the sport as sport.

Then let the audiences who appreciate vibes but may not care about the technical side of the sport at all, or only in very general terms, judge the vibes. Set up a system for all ticket holders, if they choose, to put in their own scores for the vibes/entertainment value/artistry, whatever they want to call it.

Then give out separate awards to the skaters who win the fan-favorite vote.

Yes, as you mentioned, hometown favorites would win local fan support no matter how well they skate. Beloved stars would win fan support based on reputation no matter how well they skate.

Fan votes would be far more biased than official judging. But who cares? That's all part of the vibes.

I suppose if you wanted to try to judge entertainment value separate from the bias of the crowd at that particular event, you could create a panel of entertainment value judges to score the performances based on outside expertise in evaluating show-biz performances. At least at the big international events when bringing in a few extra skating-ignorant, show biz-expert judges would not break the bank.

And since it doesn't affect the sport-medal results, it wouldn't require a change to the way lower-budget competitions are judged. The sport scoring for ISU Championships and Grand Prix and Senior Bs and JGP and national championships would all remain the same. And then at the big-ticket events, there would be something extra, and separate.

ISU events. A way to get fans more engaged in buying tickets and supporting the athletes for what they bring to the audience beyond all the technical stuff.

More medals, more fun.

But either way, I can't imagine the IOC going for it.

 

[4everchan]

Would a musician or music critic roll his eyes and say, "Those 7 quads didn't capture the spirit of Schubert. -7 deduction points."

Raises hand

The other thing is, what would we offer to entice an expert from another field to become a figure skating judge?

are you kidding me ? I want in

obviously, I am just kidding around

 

[4everchan]

... be the worst thing the ISU could possibly do. Do we want Taylor Swift to decide who wins the Olympic Gold Medal? Anyway, the whole idea is wrong -- judges are not the "celebrities" of a figure skating contest -- the skaters are the stars,

I once saw an adagio pairs competition that had three couples participating and three judges -- two former pairs skaters and a "celebrity." The first couple (by far the worst) gave their performance. The two skating judges gave them a score of 7 out of 10 (very generous).The celebrity judge gave them 9. When he looked over at the cards that the othetr judges were holding up, he looked real sheepish.

Then the second couple took their turn. They were pretty good. The two skaters on the panel gave them 9. The celebrity, having learned his lesson from the first go-round ("I am scoring too high"), gave them 7.

Then the third couple performed. They were obviously the best. They got two 10s. The celebrity judge waited until the other judges had revealed their scores then hastily scribbled "10" on his score card.

lol.. I never intended my post to turn into : let's have Taylor swift or any celebrity become a figure skating judge. No... I never meant it like that as I am way too serious and involved with the sport

My question, which was half rhetorical is simply that I do not trust all figure skating judges to be on the same level when it comes to evaluating musical interpretation...we see it with skaters themselves... some are more musical than others... some are pretty much tone (and rhythm) deaf..

So in that sense, do we really trust judges to do a good job other than in skating skills? My answer is NO.

So then, should we nix PCS (other than skating skills) ?

Or should we get competent people in ? It absolutely shouldn't be a "star judge". this is no America got talent or whatever reality show. NO NO NO. I have way too much respect for the sport and the athletes to turn this into a clown fest.

So let's no go there and focus on the real question :

if figure skating judges come from all sorts of "artistic and athletic" backgrounds, how can we expect them to judge musical interpretation and performance properly ?

 

[gkelly]

lol.. I never intended my post to turn into : let's have Taylor swift or any celebrity become a figure skating judge. No... I never meant it like that as I am way too serious and involved with the sport

My question, which was half rhetorical is simply that I do not trust all figure skating judges to be on the same level when it comes to evaluating musical interpretation...we see it with skaters themselves... some are more musical than others... some are pretty much tone (and rhythm) deaf..

So in that sense, do we really trust judges to do a good job other than in skating skills? My answer is NO.

So then, should we nix PCS (other than skating skills) ?

Or should we get competent people in ? It absolutely shouldn't be a "star judge". this is no America got talent or whatever reality show. NO NO NO. I have way too much respect for the sport and the athletes to turn this into a clown fest.

So let's no go there and focus on the real question :

if figure skating judges come from all sorts of "artistic and athletic" backgrounds, how can we expect them to judge musical interpretation and performance properly ?

You're a music expert?

Would you feel competent to teach prospective artistic skating judges to judge musical interpretation "properly"?

Let's say that everyone in the seminar is either
1) an experienced skating judge who has shown some interest in and aptitude for judging Composition and Presentation (both of which involve music interpretation but also other things)
2) a former skater who excelled at performance in their own skating, now getting into judging
3) a professional in a performing arts-related field (not only music), including both performers, other artists, and academics/critics etc.
4) a highly experienced amateur in one of those artistic fields (e.g., long-time participant and soloist with a prestigious community choir)

Maybe you know more about music than all of them and have been brought in to lead today's seminar on musical interpretation. Or maybe you are one of the prospective judges from category 3 or 4, and you have been chosen to give a presentation sharing your expertise with the rest of the group.

Where would you start? Where would you hope to follow up?

 

[Arigato]

Finlandia FS TES/PCS

Skating Scores: Latest Figure Skating Results, Scores, Rankings & Statistics

The best resource for Figure Skating scores and stats on the web.

skatingscores.com

Skate America FS TES/PCS

Skating Scores: Latest Figure Skating Results, Scores, Rankings & Statistics

The best resource for Figure Skating scores and stats on the web.

skatingscores.com

GPF FS TES/PCS

Skating Scores: Latest Figure Skating Results, Scores, Rankings & Statistics

The best resource for Figure Skating scores and stats on the web.

skatingscores.com

PCS does not necessarily chase TES. One man who may receive freebie PCS doesn't mean it applies to other skaters. There are plenty of skaters with higher TES, but their PCS is way down the line in results. And then you have the opposite with a skater like Brown who gets high PCS but not TES.

 

[yfan1]

True, true. However, I think that terms like "logarithmic scale" and "exponential growth" are usually used just to mean, on the one hand, a scale that rises quickly at first, then increasingly flattens out versus one that starts out slowly, but soon gets going faster and faster. and faster. That is a straightforward and intuitive notion, and a useful one.

So if, as an example, in a competition someone scores "9.25"- what does it mean with the proposed logarithmic/exponential scale?

If we were to say "9.25 means the skater's skating skills are better than 92.5% of the skaters in the world", that makes some sense. But if we are to score in a competition, we are to score what happened on the given day. So a skater who did very well might score 9.00. A skater who made mistakes (even if they're usually great and rank in the top 95% of the world) might only get a 7.00. What feedback in terms of improvement has been provided here?

How does a skater gauge who the judges have in mind for 10.00 and 9.75? Do those skaters constantly gets 10s/9.75s (very unlikely)? How do the judges know those skaters are worth that? What and who do the skaters watch to be able to increase this score?

Mind you that I think the current scale is flawed too, we don't know what a 10 there is either, and we don't know how much a judge is deducting for any mistake. But there's a bit of a rational take there when it comes to "ok, well, I made five obvious mistakes. The judges deducted 0.25 for each. That's why I got 8.75."

And also during the step sequence, because it is part of the whole program and most likely the part that demonstrates the most challenging skills.

And also happens to be the longest section of the program where skating skills are displayed.

 

[Mathman]

GPF FS TES/PCS

Skating Scores: Latest Figure Skating Results, Scores, Rankings & Statistics

The best resource for Figure Skating scores and stats on the web.

skatingscores.com

PCS does not necessarily chase TES. One man who may receive freebie PCS doesn't mean it applies to other skaters. There are plenty of skaters with higher TES, but their PCS is way down the line in results. And then you have the opposite with a skater like Brown who gets high PCS but not TES.

What stands out to me is that for the very top skaters, the TES is a much more reliable predictor of overall standing than is the PCS.

At the Grand Prix Final men's free skate the ranking by TES alone was

Malinin
Grassl
Sato
Kagiyama
Siao Him Fa
Shaidorov

And the overall ranking by total TSS score was

Malinin
Grassl
Sato
Kagiyama
Sia Him Fa
Shaidorov

But for the PCS alone we see

Kagiyama
Malinin
Sato
Siao Him Fa
Grassl
Shaidorov

In this example, it's not that the PCS track the TES, but rather that the final result tracks the TES with perfect 100% rank correlation. The PCS do not seem to have much influence on the final segment rankings -- in fact, none in this example.

However, this phenomenon seems to apply only to the very best pf the very best. In general it can go either way.. The more skaters in the line-up, the less we can say about it, especially when there is a wider gap in talent between the very best competitors and the not quite so very best.

 

[4everchan]

You're a music expert?

Yes, that's my profession and it went through extensive, life-long training for it.

Would you feel competent to teach prospective artistic skating judges to judge musical interpretation "properly"?

Let's say that everyone in the seminar is either
1) an experienced skating judge who has shown some interest in and aptitude for judging Composition and Presentation (both of which involve music interpretation but also other things)
2) a former skater who excelled at performance in their own skating, now getting into judging
3) a professional in a performing arts-related field (not only music), including both performers, other artists, and academics/critics etc.
4) a highly experienced amateur in one of those artistic fields (e.g., long-time participant and soloist with a prestigious community choir)

Maybe you know more about music than all of them and have been brought in to lead today's seminar on musical interpretation. Or maybe you are one of the prospective judges from category 3 or 4, and you have been chosen to give a presentation sharing your expertise with the rest of the group.

Where would you start? Where would you hope to follow up?

I don't think it's very complex to teach. Actually, most universities teach classes for the non-musicians called "music appreciation" where a survey of musical styles and genres are introduced to the students.
I would start with this : bringing music to these future judges, listening to it with them, and making them "hear it properly", meaning : is this music charged with a particular emotion or theme ? We would look at different sound parameters like pitch, rhythm, timbre, dynamics etc. Most music is either song or dance (and even a combo of both) so that's something I would show them. Once we have covered good ground in how one can listen to music and associate its colour to emotional content, we would have a foundation to start going deeper. We could look at lyrics : what do they mean, are the skaters really listening to the words and including their understanding of the lyrics into the performance..
Rhythm is a must in skating. Musical highlights. Etc. There are many things I would teach and it may sound obscure to non-musicians but it's actually something a professional musician who is also a pedagogue does all the time in various setting. So I have been teaching how to listen to music in a variety of context and of course, more specifically, I have been teaching musical interpretation to my students who are already young, elite pianists, looking themselves to become professional musicians. To some extent, what I would teach the judges would look a bit like what I teach my young pianists. I mean, sometimes, the parents (when the kids are younger) are involved in the learning of their children and I explained to them what we have done in lessons and they get it, even if they are not musicians themselves. Moreover, they are fascinated that sound can become emotion and that their kids are producing that. So that's the very first step. Getting a much better foundation in understanding music.

Then, the next step would be exactly what the ISU seminar people do LOL. (I have watched one on GOE at some point with I believe was Halina with a complicated name that escapes me right now, Polish ice dance specialist). So I'd pick some videos of skating. But first, would make them listen to the music on its own. Talk a bit about it... then show different examples of skating done to that music. It could be by different skaters but also different level of competence with the music from the same skater. We would look at how well the musical concepts are integrated or not into the performance of the skaters. Of course, what we are looking for has to make sense on the ice. So, for instance, long, extended musical phrases require flow and ice coverage. Is that achieved ? A piece of music, not only a dance, but with a specific rhythmic colour does require the skaters to follow that pulse : is the skater really aware of the rhythm and portraying it ? Are musical highlights utilized by skaters in an effective way ? Or inversely is the skater putting significant elements of choreography on the musical highlights. Those are very specific things to evaluate on top of the general mood of the music. I don't think it's that difficult to teach nor to learn to be honest because, as mentioned, in my years of training musicians, musical perception and appreciation are well understood concepts. Execution on the other hand is harder and that's where it would be interesting to have some judges specialized in music and perhaps also a judge specialized in dance, who would evaluate the qualify of these movements. The follow up would be to look with them, how they would judge different performances and why they came up to some conclusions with their scoring. Discussion would be interesting as perhaps some judges would have seen and perceived things slightly differently . For the system to work, individuality is important but consensus coming from education is much more important because that's how skaters and their teams of coaches and choreographers, receive the feedback telling them they are on the right track.

Maybe the ISU is providing such training, at least a basic level of training similar to what I am writing about. However, considering what I see on the ice and how I look at PCS scoring, I doubt that it's really something that's been focused on. It's all over the place, at times random... and PCS right now looks more like a reflection of TES + skating skills + did you stay on your feet =PCS score. Quality of execution should not automatically mean great performance score. There are two different things and I was not too impressed when these two components were merged. It allows judges now to give a high score to a good jumper who stayed on their feet because they "performed" their content well.. but did these skaters perform to the music well ? Sometimes, yes... not always .

I could go on and on but I need to wake up (caffeine required and I am starving ) so I hope that answers your question.

 

[DizzyFrenchie]

I think that there is another way to interpret the question of the OP. My opinion is that, yes, we can get better measurements, we can have more judges' seminars about musical interpretation, we can pass a resolution that from now on judges cannot be crooks and political finaglers. We can raise or lower the number of quads allowed, we can raise or lower the PCS factors, we can lengthen or shorten the tine allotted to an LP. None of this, however, though it might result in better judging (but I doubt it) or better programs (but I doubt it) speaks to the question of the relation between technical difficulty of elements (quads in particular) and "artistry" extended throughout the whole program.

Maybe a new way of codifying this relationship could be a tack that promises a better wind. (?)

Let's be honest though. There's little in ISU rules to prevent/punish bribery (if discreet) and nothing against political scoring. Yet, while it's not impossible as it happens in every sector, I've never read anywhere serious suggestion that there were any bribed Figure Skating judges.
In my opinion, (sometimes hugely) inaccurate judging comes mostly from human suggestibility (and I heard that judges picked to become International or ISU judges were chosen in average among the most suggestible of local volunteer judges) which can bring some professional experts (in most topics) to mentally deny their own factual observation because they've been told or convinced otherwise by trusted sources (or because they wish of course); while I'm sure that there are also some judges who knowingly push their federation's political game (proof has been made precisely when some fans started showing the famous statistical "national bias" and judges/federations reacted by having other judges overscoring their skaters), and others who have their own game inside their federation, but this, I really don't see how to prevent it.
Allowing claims (by anybody) when there's overscoring or underscoring at a scandalous level, particularly with multi-competition pattern, would certainly help, but this is OT.

By the way, choosing multiplicative scoring wouldn't just lack meaning, it would also amplify overscoring and underscoring. And it would disadvantage more quadless great skaters than poor skaters with many quads, who today are awarded big PCS along with their TES - if they're pets, that is.

 

[Arigato]

What stands out to me is that for the very top skaters, the TES is a much more reliable predictor of overall standing than is the PCS.

My post was in response to comments such as:
"The current problem with the scoring system now is that high PCS follows high TES."

I could post a picture of a cow sliding across the ice while mooing and you'd still say, "What stands out to me is that for the very top skaters, the TES is a much more reliable predictor of overall standing than is the PCS." You've been saying it for years. I wouldn't expect you to suddenly stop. Then I'd post Patrick beating Boyang Jin despite Jin's high TES and you'd respond with "Ahhh the low PCS poster boy" or something along those lines as you usually do.

But in this case, the question is: does PCS really follow high TES and I say no. Shaidorov can get fairly scored on his PCS. No freebie. He can get higher TES than another skater but lower PCS than the skater who had lower TES than he did. That's the point.

 

[gkelly]

Yes, that's my profession and it went through extensive, life-long training for it.

Thanks for sharing your expertise.

I would start with this : bringing music to these future judges, listening to it with them, and making them "hear it properly", meaning : is this music charged with a particular emotion or theme ? We would look at different sound parameters like pitch, rhythm, timbre, dynamics etc. Most music is either song or dance (and even a combo of both) so that's something I would show them. Once we have covered good ground in how one can listen to music and associate its colour to emotional content, we would have a foundation to start going deeper.

If there's going to be a separate judging track/appointment specifically for artistic judges, and if there's some level of qualification to be accepted into the training, then most of the prospective judges in this track would already have a lot of this basic knowledge. Not all would be trained musicians, though, and reminders are always useful.

We could look at lyrics : what do they mean, are the skaters really listening to the words and including their understanding of the lyrics into the performance..

Skaters are now allowed to use music with lyrics, but they are not expected to interpret the words.

Before lyrics were permitted, it was pretty common for skaters to use instrumental versions of vocal music such as songs and opera excerpts. Some of the skaters and some of the judges might have been familiar with the lyrics associated with the melodies, others would not have.

Even with lyrics, some skaters and some judges will not understand the language they're being sung in. Even sometimes when it's a language that the skater/judge does speak, but the lyrics aren't very distinguishable in the music.

So all they're really meant to do is interpret the music.

KNOWING what the composer had in mind for this music might help the skater interpret the mood, emotion, theme, etc. But I don't think we can ask them to interpret the specific words on a word-by-word or sentence-by-sentence basis.

If a skater does interpret the words as well as the musical phrasing, maybe that could bring some extra credit (from the judges who also understand what the singer is saying). But I don't think we should expect penalties for interpreting the musical phrasing without reference to the verbal content.

The follow up would be to look with them, how they would judge different performances and why they came up to some conclusions with their scoring. Discussion would be interesting as perhaps some judges would have seen and perceived things slightly differently . For the system to work, individuality is important but consensus coming from education is much more important because that's how skaters and their teams of coaches and choreographers, receive the feedback telling them they are on the right track.

Yes, I think watching performances together and discussing them together would be very important. It's one thing to listen to a brilliant lecture/power point with well-chosen examples, but that's likely to remain fairly superficial, and boring for those participants who already have the basic knowledge. Discussion and even debate can lead to deeper thinking, from both those who are new to this material and those who are already familiar with it, at least outside the skating context.

But you can't get all the judges in the world into the same discussion. They can all watch the same video lecture with video examples. They can all be required to attend some live training before getting the appointment and every few years afterward, but even that will be in smaller groups. They'll talk to each at competitions, in the hospitality rooms or elsewhere. But they won't all be part of the exact same conversation.

Maybe the ISU is providing such training, at least a basic level of training similar to what I am writing about.

They do, but not in nearly as much depth as you would get from a full-semester class on music appreciation.

More like a couple-hour overview, ideally with some live examples and guided discussion. But, see above.

Quality of execution should not automatically mean great performance score.

Agreed.
Which is part of why I was sorry to see the Interpretation score combined with Presentation/Performance rather than remaining a separate score.
If we're going to separate out a judging panel who judges only the "artistic" components, we can separate those again, along with Composition.

Transitions can probably be considered under Composition, at least from the artistic perspective. The difficulty of transitions can be considered under Skating Skills.

There are two different things and I was not too impressed when these two components were merged. It allows judges now to give a high score to a good jumper who stayed on their feet because they "performed" their content well.. but did these skaters perform to the music well ? Sometimes, yes... not always .

Yup.


Another question:

If we're going to have an artistic judging panel who may come from the world of performing arts, and who love skating enough to want to become judges of the artistic side of competitive skating...
By "I love skating" they may mean that it's their favorite part of the winter Olympics and they always make a point to watch as much of the Olympic skating as their national networks broadcast. They might have professional levels of music or off-ice dance knowledge, but no more than every-4-years fan knowledge of skating.

So, as part of their training to become artistic skating judges, what would they need to learn?

 

[gkelly]

But their part in the judging is not to be engaged, but to try to score each element as objectively as possible.

By "engaged" I mean paying attention to the parts of the skating that they're supposed to score as objectively as possible.

I.e., not letting their minds wander to something else other than what is happening on the ice right now.