Bold Considerations for an Aberrant System

[NatachaHatawa]

Here's an article by French figure-skating coach Philippe Pélissier about the CoP:

http://www.iceskatingintnl.com/current/content/pelessier.htm

Seeing as it's translated directly from French, the language may seem quite barbaric for some people.

 

[Medusa]

Here's an article by French figure-skating coach Philippe Pélissier about the CoP:

http://www.iceskatingintnl.com/current/content/pelessier.htm

Seeing as it's translated directly from French, the language may seem quite barbaric for some people.

Is there a link to the French original?

 

[Mathman]

I agree with the author's central thesis:

What should be comparable which is performances weighed against other performances no longer exists but is judged by a super celestial metric system.

However, the author seems only to be blowing off steam rather than suggesting anything useful.

 

[NatachaHatawa]

Is there a link to the French original?

I haven't found one. I think he wrote the article in French for the website, and then the website translators translated it.

I agree with the author's central thesis:
However, the author seems only to be blowing off steam rather than suggesting anything useful.

I agree, it's completely in his character.
As he comments on French Eurosport, I often get the opportunity of hearing his opinion. What he says on figure skating since the introduction of the CoP tends to fairly true though.

 

[fairly4]

too me , what i think he is implying (i don't know for sure) is that the Artistic (Program Componets side) is being whittled down to 1 artistic aspect , which all skaters must skate to in order to achieve a high score, the skaters that don't skate to that particular (one)artistic aspect gets penalized . Because they don't reward anyother artistic side , but that one.
He is stating they should reward more than 1 artistic side, not the one .
the judges have to follow that one artistic aspect instead of allowing for others.

 

[gsrossano]

too me , what i think he is implying (i don't know for sure) is that the Artistic (Program Components side) is being whittled down to 1 artistic aspect , which all skaters must skate to in order to achieve a high score, the skaters that don't skate to that particular (one)artistic aspect gets penalized . Because they don't reward any other artistic side , but that one.
He is stating they should reward more than 1 artistic side, not the one .
the judges have to follow that one artistic aspect instead of allowing for others.

Yes, that is one point. Another re. the artistic side is something I said from day one about IJS -- the ISU view is that the whole is the sum of it's parts (and the PCs are the parts). I have claimed from the beginning, and what he is saying is that the whole is more than the sum of it's parts.

The analogy I use is that if you had a baking contest under IJS, you would judge the flour, the sugar, butter, the other ingredients, the recipe, the cook's kitchen utensils, the cook's technique, and you decide which is the best cake -- but you never TASTE the cake. The cake is more than the sum of it's parts, and if you want to know which is really the best cake you have to taste the cakes.

I agree with the author's central thesis:
However, the author seems only to be blowing off steam rather than suggesting anything useful.

This type comment is commonly seen, and from an engineering background, my mindset is also that one identifies problems and looks for solutions.

But I don't think every person who comments on IJS has to offer a solution. It is important in itself that the ISU hear that people are unhappy about certain aspects of the system and what they are unhappy about, so that maybe someone within the ISU will get motivated to take action. Currently most of the ISU doesn't even accept there are serious problems, so they don't care about potential solutions at this point.

Also, it is premature to form solutions until there has been a full discussion of what the problems are, and how widespread the perception of problems extends.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

It's very difficult to read that. It woud be nice if someone can find the original french and give it a better translation.

It's very difficult for me to appreciate four fifths of the PC scoring as being 'artistic'. I don like the word 'artistic' anyway because it elevates the skater's performance into the ranks of real and varied great artists.

However, the PC scores do not pretend to be just opining on the 'best' performance. They are quantifying many of the judgements that are not related to 'artistry'. There is an art of Skating Skills, but that is not what they are judging. There is the Art of many crafts including Plumbing. It should mean the skater or plumber knows what to do in their respective arts. These 'arts of' are just know hows and not in the class of presentation.

With a better translation of the author's comments would be welcomed reading, however, the CoP is not about to change, so the Program Components will be the major source of the score and Artistry is minor, imo.

 

[Mathman]

...I don't think every person who comments on IJS has to offer a solution. It is important in itself that the ISU hear that people are unhappy about certain aspects of the system and what they are unhappy about, so that maybe someone within the ISU will get motivated to take action. Currently most of the ISU doesn't even accept there are serious problems, so they don't care about potential solutions at this point.

Also, it is premature to form solutions until there has been a full discussion of what the problems are, and how widespread the perception of problems extends.

More and more I find discussion of the IJS an exercise in self-doubt and frustration.:banging:

Everything I once thought I knew says that the problem with the CoP is the CoP. Measuring versus judging, point totals versus ordinals, quantity versus quality, parametric statistical methods versus non-parametric.

From this point of view, the CoP is wrong just because it's wrong, not because of any particular deficiency that needs to redressed or problem that needs to be attended to.

But every time I reach the point where I think I know what I am talking about, people active in the sport (like GKelly ) post in very convincing detail why the point system is a godsend to youngsters and developing skaters and their coaches. It provides scaffolding for the whole range of competitive skating, in contrast with ordinal judging that tells the skaters little more than, "the judges didn't like your performance."

In particular, from this point of view the arguments based on audience appeal seem not so important.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

I think the ISU should have a major conference on the CoP with speakers on different aspects of the scoring system. Afterwards, a group breakup of each of the different aspects should be formed, and then a report from each of them, with suggestions for change if deemed necessaary. A plenary meeting on the consensus of the changes for voting would be what everyone is waiting for.

When this could take place would have to be decided.

 

[tarotx]

I really believe that in a few years the skaters who have grown up in the COP will emerge and their skating skills will be much improved from most of today's skaters. When those skaters are the stars is when we can see if COP has failed or not. It's like we didn't really see a decline in skating skills for a few years after compulsories were ended. I think we will eventually even come to a point when wrong edges have maxed punishment of counting as the actual take off edge jump. I hope downgrades are limited to at least real time replay and even perhaps to well trained naked eye.

I think US tv commentators and analyst should take cop lessens and perhaps we need skaters closer to COP to do the analyzing. Perhaps we need some demonstrations on the jumps that were wrong edge and/or downgraded. At least some on air documentation. They need to educate the audience they do have.

 

[rosee]

I agree, it's completely in his character.
As he comments on French Eurosport, I often get the opportunity of hearing his opinion. What he says on figure skating since the introduction of the CoP tends to fairly true though.

He's my favourite comentator because he knows what he's talking about. But the thing is that you either love him or hate him.
He has a way of putting things that can sound mean to some people but he's often just saying aloud what everybody thinks.
He's also very nitpicking about some (stupid) details in programs: like if he doesn't like the costume/music, he won't be able to see the good in it. He'll keep on focusing on theses details in the slo-mo and the K&C. Which is sometimes unfair to the skaters.

 

[gkelly]

But every time I reach the point where I think I know what I am talking about, people active in the sport (like GKelly ) post in very convincing detail why the point system is a godsend to youngsters and developing skaters and their coaches. It provides scaffolding for the whole range of competitive skating, in contrast with ordinal judging that tells the skaters little more than, "the judges didn't like your performance."

In particular, from this point of view the arguments based on audience appeal seem not so important.

I think the point is, there are advantages and disadvantages to both the holistic approach and the analytical approach.

Right now the existing scoring system takes an analytical approach.

Can we discuss it analytically?

Figure out what it does well and enhance those strengths to make the most of them.

Figure out what the other system did better, but don't just moan and complain that the good old days were better . . . figure out ways to work some of those strengths into the existing system even if they are currently lacking.

 

[i love to skate]

I really believe that in a few years the skaters who have grown up in the COP will emerge and their skating skills will be much improved from most of today's skaters. When those skaters are the stars is when we can see if COP has failed or not. It's like we didn't really see a decline in skating skills for a few years after compulsories were ended. I think we will eventually even come to a point when wrong edges have maxed punishment of counting as the actual take off edge jump. I hope downgrades are limited to at least real time replay and even perhaps to well trained naked eye.

I think US tv commentators and analyst should take cop lessens and perhaps we need skaters closer to COP to do the analyzing. Perhaps we need some demonstrations on the jumps that were wrong edge and/or downgraded. At least some on air documentation. They need to educate the audience they do have.

Well said! For many of the skaters coming up, COP is primarily the judging system they have grown up with and learned from. From watching some lower level competitions, I think it has done wonders for correct jumping technique and spins and footwork. I have also seen a lot of creativity emerge.

I agree about the US commentators. I live in Canada so I mostly watch CBC but when I have watched a US telecast in the past I have been so frustrated with how they presented the new system. The message that was communicated by some commentators (ahem, Dick Button) was that it was simply too difficult to understand and nobody liked it. I recently watched a US competition (I think it was Nationals) and I was happy to see Tracy Wilson describing on a monitor how two triple axels by different skaters were scored and the grades of execution that were received. It is a step in the right direction :agree:

 

[gkelly]

but when I have watched a US telecast in the past I have been so frustrated with how they presented the new system. The message that was communicated by some commentators (ahem, Dick Button) was that it was simply too difficult to understand and nobody liked it.

I think that Button's tendency under the old system as well has always been to underestimate the audience's ability to understand how skating is scored, to verbally pat the viewers on the head and tell us not to worry our pretty little heads over the technical details and just enjoy the show. He would complain about the rules being overly detailed and portray the judges as nitpickers under the old system as well and often would not share with viewers what the actual rules were.

I think he was always more interested in the big picture and the artistic side of the sport than in analyzing technical details. And since he defined US skating commentary on TV for so many decades, that's the way the tradition of US commentary grew up, on other networks as well.

The network officials without skating backgrounds probably pushed for dumbing down the technical details to try to make it seem easy for new viewers to understand.

The problem is, if it seems easy to understand and then the results don't match the superficially easy understanding of what they should be, viewers and sometimes commentators would tend to jump straight to the conclusion that the judges were wrong, probably for political reasons, before analyzing aspects of the actual skating that could explain the results.

And of course the ISU never made it easy for commentators or fans to do that analysis because there was no mechanism under the old system for explaining the results publicly.

At least in the new system the protocols give us facts that under 6.0 we could only guess might have been taken into consideration.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Well said! For many of the skaters coming up, COP is primarily the judging system they have grown up with and learned from. From watching some lower level competitions, I think it has done wonders for correct jumping technique and spins and footwork. I have also seen a lot of creativity emerge.

Has it really? Skaters are no longer doing wrong edge take-offs? Underrotations? Mao wuz robbed. Footwork looks the same to me, but yes, it's now done with more gusto.

I agree about the US commentators. I live in Canada so I mostly watch CBC but when I have watched a US telecast in the past I have been so frustrated with how they presented the new system. The message that was communicated by some commentators (ahem, Dick Button) was that it was simply too difficult to understand and nobody liked it. I recently watched a US competition (I think it was Nationals) and I was happy to see Tracy Wilson describing on a monitor how two triple axels by different skaters were scored and the grades of execution that were received. It is a step in the right direction :agree:

You may be correct about this. I haven't listened to any commentators if I can help it. I pretty much know what the skater is doing. As for Dick, he is quite aware of newbees at the Arena, and the social casual fans. I doubt he was saying that to the avid fans.

If you are an avid fan, do you completely understand what is being judged in the PC scores? Do you think the 5 part breakdown with all its bullets explains how the judges reached a score of PC? and in less than 3 minutes at the close of the performance - drat, I mean program?

I think it is a good outline for Coaches and Choreographers. I also think it is not necessary in competition since one can tell who skated the best performance that night. And who was second best, all the way down the line.

The Tech, however, works with the CoP and it is easily understood if one takes the time to learn it. Again, the newbees, and the social casual fans may not take the time.

 

[Mathman]

Do you think the 5 part breakdown with all its bullets explains how the judges reached a score of PC?

I think that nails the problem. I do not see any evidence that the judges are attempting to analyze a check list of bullets. On the Program Component side, I think they are basically doing 6.0 judging. (Not that they is anything wrong with that! )

 

[Ladskater]

Still no matter what judging system is used in figure skating at the end of the day sometimes it comes down to comparing apples to oranges....

 

[gio]

I think it has done wonders for correct jumping technique

That is certainly a good aspect of COP!
If COP punishes wrong edges as last year did, a lot of skaters will relearn the jump as Joannie did.
Unfortunately this year the punishments about wrong edges are not that severe. I hope that at Worlds proper jump technique will be rewarded and bad jump technique punished, depending on the degree.

Ashley Wagher should receive compulsory -3 for her really bad flutz and Rachael Flatt at least -2. What I find arrogant about their coaches is that they include their fake lutz in the SP and twice in the LP. This is cheating and cheating has to be punished. They should drop that blah so called flutz. Ashley has a wonderful 3loop (that could earn her even +2), she could do this in her SP and twice in her LP, good grief.

Caroline Zhang seems to be working on it, so COP should reward skaters that are improving the technique by giving a -1 or -2 instead of a -3. Caroline coach is also more honest by dropping the flutz in the SP and by doing just one in the LP.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

[QUOTE: What I find arrogant about their coaches is that they include their fake lutz in the SP and twice in the LP. This is cheating and cheating has to be punished. They should drop that blah so called flutz. [/QUOTE]
Hear, hear!

If the Flutz was truly accidental, I would consider it a wrong edge takeoff with a sever penalty as a UR. However, we know that certain skaters can not do a proper lutz. I see no problem of leaving it out of their routine, and search for ways to make up points for the loss of a jump. There are so many ways in the CoP.

Protecting the Flutz negates the Sport, imo.

 

[Nigel]

That is certainly a good aspect of COP!
If COP punishes wrong edges as last year did, a lot of skaters will relearn the jump as Joannie did.
Unfortunately this year the punishments about wrong edges are not that severe. I hope that at Worlds proper jump technique will be rewarded and bad jump technique punished, depending on the degree.

Ashley Wagher should receive compulsory -3 for her really bad flutz and Rachael Flatt at least -2. What I find arrogant about their coaches is that they include their fake lutz in the SP and twice in the LP. This is cheating and cheating has to be punished. They should drop that blah so called flutz. Ashley has a wonderful 3loop (that could earn her even +2), she could do this in her SP and twice in her LP, good grief.

Caroline Zhang seems to be working on it, so COP should reward skaters that are improving the technique by giving a -1 or -2 instead of a -3. Caroline coach is also more honest by dropping the flutz in the SP and by doing just one in the LP.

EIther the technique is correct, or it is not. Is a -3 harsh for improper technique...probably. But, that is why there needs to be less fear from the judges to utlize the entire spectrum of the GOE scale and it is stipulated within the GOE guidelines what the penalty is for poor technique IMHO....ie wrong edge, pre-rotation, a leg wrap, mule kick, etc.