Should the ISU have separate scoring systems for men and women?

[Mathman]

Also, as I keep on saying, eventually nobody will bother to learn both new Jump inside or New Jump outside edge. Why should your skater show case both New Jump Outside Edge and New Jump Inside edge, when doing New Jump inside edge costs them points? No they will just do new Jump Outside edge.

Well, I do not have an answer to the objection that the Newjump rule would result in fewer Lutz attempts by ladies. Very likely it would.

And the question isn't really should the ISU have separate scoring systems for men and women, but rather, should the same scoring system use different point values for some elements for men and women…

Brian Boitano in his day had some huge clean triple lutzes with spread eagle entry and arm overhead in the air, the best of which should deserve +3 GOE in the current scoring system. Under today's rules, if all judges agreed, they'd be worth 9.0 points -- this change would cap their score at 8.5?

That was really the kind of question that I would like to bring to the fore. True, the lady skater who can do a Lutz like Brian Boitano would get only 8.5 points for her effort – now show me that lady so I can make amends.

In a sport like gymnastics, men and women are expected to demonstrate quite different skills.

In golf, the only difference is slightly shorter tee placements

What about figure skating? My favorite lady did two Lutzes and a flip in every program in her amazing amateur career. Her Lutzes were iffy, sometimes OK, sometimes wandering off a little to the wrong edge. A few ladies did (and do) a more creditable job of managing to keep a reasonable facsimile of an outside edge all the way to take-off. But I have never seen a lady do a triple Lutz like a man: that short but distinct-to-the-naked-eye deep curving edge heading out the wrong way, then that sudden explosive pop into the air like he is being shot from a cannon.

Maybe a triple Lutz is a better element for a man, and the rules should encourage a lady to substitute, say, a Charlotte. We don’t really want to see a man trying this.

On another thread, started by Joesitz, we discussed the fact that a camel spin is a man’s spin and a layback is a lady’s. Another example of a man’s element is a Russian slpit jump. There is just something high-spirited Cossack ruffian about it.

(Here is the high-spirited Cossack bargirl joining in the fun. )

But in general ladies should do their split jumps in scissors position. (Just my opinion.)

 

[bekalc]

Plenty of women have true lutzes. There's nothing wrong with Yu-na, Ando, Rochette etc's lutzs. Just to name some girls now.

 

[janetfan]

Plenty of women have true lutzes. There's nothing wrong with Yu-na, Ando, Rochette etc's lutzs. Just to name some girls now.

Will you give a more extensive list later :think:

Iffy edges like Mira don't count and terrible "Plushy type air position" with the scratchy landings like Flatt don't count either. Plus her flip is giving her problems lately.

Laura is hit and miss, Akiko gets edge calls, Caro has had her share of troubles, the current Russian champion doesn't even attemp a lutz,,,,,,,,,,, Alissa fell twice on Lutzs and could not defend her US title.

The current World champion does not attempt a lutz and the current Olympc champion has had problems with the flip for a while now. The Men's Silver medalist in Vancouver did not attemp a flip either and barely landed his lutz.

Maybe mathman is onto to something here. :think:

 

[gkelly]

That was really the kind of question that I would like to bring to the fore. True, the lady skater who can do a Lutz like Brian Boitano would get only 8.5 points for her effort – now show me that lady so I can make amends.

I don't have examples of women doing jumps that big and also doing difficult entries and air positions.
But even without the embellishments, at least Yuna Kim and Julia Sebestyen have gotten +2s for unadorned, even somewhat telegraphed lutzes.

Here are some others from the old judging system who had the potential to do the same:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdC5G7CDvbI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLbk5FKWesQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwVdheQlYq0

So then it's just a matter of getting someone who can jump that big and correctly and also add something extra to squeeze out that +3. Kim is the most likely.

But I have never seen a lady do a triple Lutz like a man: that short but distinct-to-the-naked-eye deep curving edge heading out the wrong way, then that sudden explosive pop into the air like he is being shot from a cannon.

See the links above.

So are you suggesting that the distinction between the two jumps should be eliminated for women and maintained for men?

Maybe a triple Lutz is a better element for a man, and the rules should encourage a lady to substitute, say, a Charlotte. We don’t really want to see a man trying this.

Why not?

 

[bekalc]

Will you give a more extensive list later :think:

Iffy edges like Mira don't count and terrible "Plushy type air position" with the scratchy landings like Flatt don't count either. Plus her flip is giving her problems lately.

Laura is hit and miss, Akiko gets edge calls, Caro has had her share of troubles, the current Russian champion doesn't even attemp a lutz,,,,,,,,,,, Alissa fell twice on Lutzs and could not defend her US title.

The current World champion does not attempt a lutz and the current Olympc champion has had problems with the flip for a while now. The Men's Silver medalist in Vancouver did not attemp a flip either and barely landed his lutz.

Maybe mathman is onto to something here. :think:

So because people are having trouble with a jump that means we should get rid of the jump altogether, I dont' think so, It only goes to show it really is two seperate jumps. Besides Yu-na has been landing her 3flip more and more recently and if she continues I suspect it will be much more stable next year. As for Laura, she doesn't even have a 3flip.

Kostner can do both the 3lutz and 3 flip correctly, although she sometimes doesn't attempt the lutz. Rochette also can do it correctly. And if we are going to talk about Alissa falling as a criteria for getting rid of a jump, every jump should have to go.

The idea that a 3lutz is only for a man (and plenty of men get edge calls) is ridiculous when we have examples of not only the people I mentioned but also Julia Sebestian, Midori, Tonya, Kerrigan, Agnes Z all who have gorgeous lutzs. Arakawa had a good 3lutz too, as did Irina Slutskaya.

Just because some coaches never bothered to teach the female skaters the 3lutz correctly, doesn't mean its a man's jump. That's just ridiculous.

And as for the current Russian champion, Ksensia reportedly has the 3lutz, and is even doing 3lutz/3toes in practice, which they hope to add in next year. As I said earlier I suspect part of the time issue was actually trying to get the jump correct.

 

[dorispulaski]

That was really the kind of question that I would like to bring to the fore. True, the lady skater who can do a Lutz like Brian Boitano would get only 8.5 points for her effort – now show me that lady so I can make amends.
....

What about figure skating? My favorite lady did two Lutzes and a flip in every program in her amazing amateur career. Her Lutzes were iffy, sometimes OK, sometimes wandering off a little to the wrong edge. A few ladies did (and do) a more creditable job of managing to keep a reasonable facsimile of an outside edge all the way to take-off. But I have never seen a lady do a triple Lutz like a man: that short but distinct-to-the-naked-eye deep curving edge heading out the wrong way, then that sudden explosive pop into the air like he is being shot from a cannon.

Ye Bin Mok
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5h7ZaHKpFMk&feature=related
Tonya Harding had a heck of a classic lutz. Skip to 2:10 and following on this to see it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcDpqVTNZvY&feature=related

 

[bekalc]

Way more women have had classic lutzs than 3axels. But somehow Mathman, you want to get rid of the 3lutz, and encourage more 3axels, that a lot of women might never be able to do?

Frankly a better idea would be to mandate that a skater attempts every jump entry in the long program. (single, double, or triple so pops count. :lol But say that loop and 2toe entrances don't count at the back end of combinations, unless they are a triple. (It would be unfair to say that 3flip2loop counts as the requirement because someone can't do a 3flip 2sal. However since a 3flip sequence 2 sal is possible (I believe, correct) That could be allowable. So someone could do a 3flip sequence 2loop and be okay with the requirements.

This would ensure that people who have all the triples get a base value advantage over those who don't. And those with all the edge jumps can make up points over those who don't have them.

 

[prettykeys]

Way more women have had classic lutzs than 3axels. But somehow Mathman, you want to get rid of the 3lutz, and encourage more 3axels, that a lot of women might never be able to do?

I have a problem with several lines of logic presented in this thread, which I'll have to go back to address...but it's all an interesting brainstorm. One way to consolidate these two seemingly contradictory positions is that maybe Mathman is trying to create more incentive for women to specifically try/do the 3A...I am still unsure about the sort of the reasoning that states, "many men do quads and even more do 3A's, so it's easier for them to do those than for women, so women should get higher rewards for doing those types of difficult jumps relative to the men"...because it confounds motivation with capability. I feel that part of the reason we don't see more women doing 3A's is because there hasn't been as much incentive for women to do them (which I suppose Mathman's suggestions are trying to fix.) Some ladies here and there tried it in their younger years, succeeded, and used it to their advantage in competitions.

The leading 3A lady of today is Mao Asada. Take her as an example--what could have motivated her to try, succeed, and continue to train the 3A? In her younger years, she seemed to have experimented a lot with pushing her athletic boundaries, and it turned out that she had quite a talent in rotation in jumps. Then she kept it up partly because of needing to keep up with another technically strong rival in YuNa...and another part of it was the fact that Mao has been hit severely by the stricter edge rules on her Lutz. So, amusingly, those two points are tied to a similar goal: They could push for more women trying/learning the 3A (or even quads like Miki LOL).

I just don't know why this direction in Figure Skating is desirable, though, and if I didn't know Mathman, I would be suspect of the intentions of wanting to go this route.

 

[Mathman]

...One way to consolidate these two seemingly contradictory positions is that maybe Mathman is trying to create more incentive for women to specifically try/do the 3A...I am still unsure about the sort of the reasoning that states, "many men do quads and even more do 3A's, so it's easier for them to do those than for women, so women should get higher rewards for doing those types of difficult jumps relative to the men"...because it confounds motivation with capability. d there tried it in their younger years, succeeded, and used it to their advantage in competitions.

No, the opposite. I do not think the judging system should be used to encourage or discourage anything. I think it should be used to determine who skated the best.

Raising the value of the 3A is a reflection of the fact that this jump deserves a big reward because it is a hard jump for women to master.

Raising the value of the "Newjump with clear outside edge take-off" from 6.0 to 6.5 likewise rewards those few (as I still maintain -- but thanks for all the videos ) ladies who can do it.

Not allowing 3 or 4 flatzy/flutzy/lippies in a program removes from the current judging system a wrong-header reward loop-hole that allows a skater to gain a lot of points just by flopping sloppily around without demonstrating any real skating skill.

In order to get credit for the "new Lutz" the skater would have to be on a clear, unmistakable, apparent-to-the-naked-eye-in-real-time back outside edge. Under the present system the tech specialist must take out his protractor and look at each frame in slo-motion to see how many degrees plus or minus the edge is from the vertical. This is no good. If you can really do a Lutz, do a Lutz.

Under the proposed Newjump idea, the burden of proof would be on the skater. An uncertain or borderline edge gets the 5.5 Newjump base value only.

If this turns out to motivate future skaters to do something or not to do it, that is kind of irrelevant, IMHO. It is not the job of the scoring system to provide motivation to anyone.

...and if I didn't know Mathman, I would be suspect of the intentions of wanting to go this route.

I am glad you know me. Rules, good or bad, apply to everyone, so I I have to plead innocent to suspicious intentions.

These rules would help Mao Asada by giving her an extra 0.8 ppints for each triple Axel. They would raise the value of Kim's 3Lz+3T to 10.5 points (but m as gkelly notes, she could earn only +2 more GOE on the element). Kim, along with all other skaters, would have to substitute a different jump (maybe a loop) either for her second Lutz or her flip.

 

[prettykeys]

So, to back-track (I had an exam this morning so I really couldn't thoroughly address some points in this discussion I wanted to re-visit sooner)...

I look at it this way. According to the ISU scale of values, the 2A is grouped with the triple jumps as a baby triple, rather than a super single. Likewise, the 3A is grouped with the quads, not the triples.

The gap between the highest double rotation jump (2Lz = 1.9) and the "baby triple" (2A = 3.5) is a whopping 84%.

In contrast, there is only a 37% increase between the triple Lutz and the triple Axel. If the 84% rule were applied consistently, the proper value for the 3A would be 11.0 points. :yes: (Just saying...)

I don't think the reason for the value of the 2A being so high is because it's considered a "baby triple", I think it's in there because it's still a required jump for the ladies (e.g. the SP) and if they miss it, it should be a pretty big deal. Again, however, as a thought experiment, if you want to consider an 84% value increase (I don't know why it has to be done in percentages, but let's run with it) for an additional half-rotation, then allow a 4T to have a base value of 20.2. :yes: A little too ridiculous in my book.

37% increase in base value (for optional jumps) between the 3Lz and 3A remains the highest separation for a half-rotation's difference. The difference between a 3A and a 4T is 20%. All this points to be the quads being undervalued, not the 3A.

Well, the topic of the thread was, should the value of triple Axels for women be increased (leaving men's the same). So we can cross the quad bridge later.

I realize that...I thought I already addressed that sentiment by saying I do not want separate standards for elements both men and women are able to include in their programs. It has an oblique relation to this topic, because someone like Miki Ando (and maybe Sasha Cohen in another life ) is able to do quad Salchows...and we want to be pushing female athletic boundaries in this sport, right? My position is the same for the quads as it is for the triple Axel...keep the same base values between the men and the women. The 3A remains adequately rewarded, from the perspective of balanced competition in figure skating. I wonder why the Japanese Federation isn't pushing for the quads' value to be raised like they were proposing for the 3A...

About percentages, we could look at it this way. How much is an extra revolution worth?

2T to 3T: 208% increase in base value
2S to 3S: 246% increase in base value
2Lo to 3Lo: 233% increase in base value
2F to 3F: 224% increase in base value
2Lz to 3Lz: 216% increase in base value.

2A to 3A: 134% increase in base value

(I don't know what that proves, just looking at some numbers.)

Mathman, I ran with your original percentages comparison for the jump values, but my actual judgment is that it is a very flawed and misleading way of looking at it. (Hence why the 4T having a base value of 20 by those principles is ridiculous.) I also already stated that I think the 2A is overvalued, but I gave a possible reason as to maybe why that is. I feel you are somewhat cherry-picking your responses to me rather than addressing all the relevant points in my posts, such as that proposed explanation (2A still being a required element in ladies FS competition), how the theoretical 3A value boosting and follow-up boosting of PCS, steps, spirals, etc. amounts to merely downgrading the relative value of all the other jumps (and whether that is what you want to see, and why if so--I think Dick Button would actually want to see the latter aspect, but I don't know about whether he'd want single jumps to become more rewarded)...

Your percentages, in my book, don't "prove" anything, but presenting them in that way is a bit disingenuous. As an analogy, it is illegal for drug manufacturers in Canada to advertise that their Drug X lowers blood pressure 70% more than competitor Drug Y when the absolute clinical difference in studies is only say, 1.8 mmHg (i.e. the number looks far more impressive than the actual clinical impact.) It's worse when you don't give us your opinion of what the numbers mean or suggest to you The numbers, to me, just reinforce my viewpoint that the 2A is overvalued, but again, there might be a good reason for it being so. Did we not have a debate a short while ago as to whether or not the 3A should be an allowable 2A substitute for ladies in the SP? There were varied opinions about that (and my answer was that it depended on what the Figure Skating rulemakers wanted out of the SP vs. the LP--although I would lean towards allowing the 3A substitution.)

To anyone else, I'd repeat the question about whether standards for GoE should be different for men and women. That is really the most burning question to me, since as I said, in principle I do not like the idea of men and women being given different base values (or PCS factors) when it comes to adding the points...but I am still extremely on the fence about this one. And it is true, with the possible exception of Midori Ito I cannot think of any woman who could be cited as being as impressive as the top men when it comes to height/speed/power of jumps, etc...

 

[prettykeys]

No, the opposite. I do not think the judging system should be used to encourage or discourage anything. I think it should be used to determine who skated the best.

Raising the value of the 3A is a reflection of the fact that this jump deserves a big reward because it is a hard jump for women to master.

Then how do you explain the fact that Mao Asada can do a 3A but has trouble with the 3Lz? You seem to be determining general "difficulty" by observing that the fewest women have done the 3A (compared to other triples, and 3-3 combinations.) What I am saying is that maybe more women could have been able to do it (hence it may not be or seem so difficult after all) if only they had more incentive to do it. Men do it to compete with other men--coincidentally, many of the men who push the technical in jumps are criticized for lacking artistry. Unfortunately, in the course of history, deficiency in perceived artistry seems to have hurt women a LOT more even if they were technically stronger, which is a trend you found less with the Men's competition (in my viewpoint.) Maybe this discouraged women from pushing the sport in that direction, even if the 3A is not as difficult as you claim it looks to be.

I like your point about what you think the purpose of the judging system ought to be. I do like that, I was looking at it from an incentives perspective but that is better. Maybe what is "good ladies skating" is supposed to be different from what is "good men's skating"... :disapp: I hate that thought.

 

[gkelly]

I have a problem with several lines of logic presented in this thread, which I'll have to go back to address...but it's all an interesting brainstorm. One way to consolidate these two seemingly contradictory positions is that maybe Mathman is trying to create more incentive for women to specifically try/do the 3A...I am still unsure about the sort of the reasoning that states, "many men do quads and even more do 3A's, so it's easier for them to do those than for women, so women should get higher rewards for doing those types of difficult jumps relative to the men"...because it confounds motivation with capability. I feel that part of the reason we don't see more women doing 3A's is because there hasn't been as much incentive for women to do them (which I suppose Mathman's suggestions are trying to fix.) Some ladies here and there tried it in their younger years, succeeded, and used it to their advantage in competitions.

Yes, and more tried it in their younger (or not so younger) years, did not get it consistent or rotated enough to try in competition, and chose to focus on jumps that they could actually land when it counted.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29SMYaEwGyM

I can name other skaters who had tried them in competition, tried them in practice at competitions or otherwise in the presence of the media, or told the media they could land them.

But how many women were able to include them in their programs successfully over the course of several years? Really only Ito, Nakano, and Asada, and in the IJS era the latter two have often had them downgraded.

Harding was the next-most consistent, and she only ever landed four in competition, all during the calendar year 1991.

No matter how strong the incentive, most women who try to master 3A will not succeed, because motivation is not enough to make something happen if the physical capability is not there.

 

[prettykeys]

No matter how strong the incentive, most women who try to master 3A will not succeed, because motivation is not enough to make something happen if the physical capability is not there.

I'm not convinced about that... part of why I'll be keeping my eye on Elizaveta Tuktamysheva. Mishin is apparently teaching it to her and she is practicing it...if she's able to get it consistently under his tutelage and keep it, I think it'd be a more difficult argument to say that it's a brilliant coincidence his single female protege was able to get it because she has the rare physical capability...rather than it being a combination of her talent and his coaching.

 

[cosmos]

No, the opposite. I do not think the judging system should be used to encourage or discourage anything. I think it should be used to determine who skated the best.

How do we know who skated best without judging system already? If we change judging system, we may have different best skater. Who is the REAL best skater?

My point is that you seem to imply there is an objective best skater and judging system should be made to select that one. But, practically, each judging system has its own best skater. Choosing a judging system is determinging what kind of skater we will call the best.

If the 3A base value is 15, Mao would be the best skater. If 4t base valu is 20, Plushenko would be the best skater.

 

[bekalc]

I'm not convinced about that... part of why I'll be keeping my eye on Elizaveta Tuktamysheva. Mishin is apparently teaching it to her and she is practicing it...if she's able to get it consistently under his tutelage and keep it, I think it'd be a more difficult argument to say that it's a brilliant coincidence his single female protege was able to get it because she has the rare physical capability...rather than it being a combination of her talent and his coaching.

Elizaveta though IS an amazing talent. Mishin wouldn't be devoting so much of his time with her if she wasn't. I'm not saying Mishin's coaching isn't helping, because he is probably the best jumping coach in the world. But Mishin has had other female skaters train with him and his wife, who cannot jump like that. And I believe he has another 11/12 year old female prodigy coming up too.

Raising the value of the 3A is a reflection of the fact that this jump deserves a big reward because it is a hard jump for women to master.

Raising the value of the "Newjump with clear outside edge take-off" from 6.0 to 6.5 likewise rewards those few (as I still maintain -- but thanks for all the videos ) ladies who can do it.

But its not rewarding those who have mastered both the 3lutz and the 3flip, I very rare feet. And your forgetting there's more to the lutz than an outside edge. There's also the counterrotation.

Not to mention once again, I really don't know any skater who is doing 2 3flips and 2 3flutzs and no other triples. Most coaches teach the other triples before the harder toe jumps. For example look at Christine Gao. Yes she flutzs, and she doesn't do a 3loop regularly. But she changed her short program to a 3toe/3toe and a single 3flip. And does a 3toe/3toe, 2 3flips, and just the one flutz. And she gets hit pretty hard by it. I'm not seeing her getting huge amounts of points for flutzing. Besides there is more to the 3flutz than the edge.

I could see the argument for new rules mandating even more severe penaltiies if someone's 3lutz or 3flip, is indistinguishable from each other. But it seems to me most flutzers now feel that its better to do a double axel than two 3flutzs.

And I just feel its unfair for you to be arguing to reward a hard edge jump. But not rewarding those who can do both hard toe jumps correctly. And there are girls like Yu-na who has worked hard to do this, Kostner, Rochette who can.

 

[Mathman]

I feel you are somewhat cherry-picking your responses to me rather than addressing all the relevant points in my posts…

The points that I don’t kvetch about -- that means that I agree with you and have nothing to add.

… such as that proposed explanation (2A still being a required element in ladies FS competition)

I do not believe that this explanation is correct, but I do not really know why I don’t think so. (You mean the SP, right?) When the first version of the CoP came out the double Axel was pegged at 3.3 points. Later it was raised to 3.5. This was at least a year before the triple Axel was raised from 7.5 to 8.2.

There was some discussion at the time about why the ISU did this (the raise from 3.3 to 3.5), but I don’t remember what the reason was. It seems possible that the rationale was to encourage triple-triples by giving the skater the option of doing a double Axel with the extra pass and coming out ahead (although an extra 0.2 points hardly seems worth the effort.)

The later raise in value of the triple Axel was, I am pretty sure, in response to widespread feeling that triple Axels and quads were undervalued in relation to their difficulty.

Anyway, I didn’t comment about your proposed explanation because I do not know whether it is correct or not.

…how the theoretical 3A value boosting and follow-up boosting of PCS, steps, spirals, etc. amounts to merely downgrading the relative value of all the other jumps…

I made no proposal about boosting PCS, spirals, etc., for woman’s skating, and I would be opposed to doing so.

That was the argument that I made against raising the values of triple Axels and quads for mens skating – that other things would have to be raised to keep pace, so why bother?

Your percentages, in my book, don't "prove" anything…

Agreed. As I believe I mentioned in post 66 above.

As far as I can see there is no formula for assigning base values to elements in figure skating that has greater intrinsic mathematical merit than another – or than none, for that matter.

Then how do you explain the fact that Mao Asada can do a 3A but has trouble with the 3Lz?

I cannot explain this. I think it is unusual. Somehow, as a pre-teen, Mao was able to train a triple Axel, while at the same time learning a faulty Lutz technique which later came back to haunt her when the ISU tightened up on edge calls.

 

[Mathman]

(continued...sorry about the back-to-back posts, but how else can I get around the rule about only five smilies per post?)

You seem to be determining general "difficulty" by observing that the fewest women have done the 3A (compared to other triples, and 3-3 combinations.) What I am saying is that maybe more women could have been able to do it (hence it may not be or seem so difficult after all) if only they had more incentive to do it.

Maybe. But I don’t think so. The triple Axel scores more points than any other triple, plus it’s intrinsically a cool thing to do. Why wouldn’t little girls try to do it if they could? (OT. I saw Yukari Nakano AND Ludmilla Neledina land back to back triple Axels in the same competition, 2002 Skate America, right in front of me. They finished 7th anfd 5th. Michelle skated like and won. Well, actually, it was the short program where she slkated like two 's. In the LP she only skated like ) Joubert won for the men, after Yagudin withdrew injured – it was the first time anyone had ever heard of Joubert in America.)

How do we know who skated best without judging system already? If we change judging system, we may have different best skater. Who is the REAL best skater?

My point is that you seem to imply there is an objective best skater and we know who the best skatets are and what makes them the best. Now let's refine the scoring system to make it come out that way.judging system should be made to select that one. But, practically, each judging system has its own best skater. Choosing a judging system is determining what kind of skater we will call the best.

When they first started working on the CoP, my understanding is that they looked at a bunch of old competitions where the question of "who is the best skater" had been decided by time-tested ordinal judging. Then they broke it down as to just what it was that the best skaters were doing that made them the best. Then they tested the provisional new system against the old and tinkered with it until they arrived at a system where the already acknowledged best skaters actually got the most number of points.

For instance, in one initial version quads were so highly scored that Tim Goebel, with three quads in the LP, would have won the 2002 Olympics over Yagudin and Plushenko. So they fiddled with the scoring system until Yags got back on top.

So I think it is not impossible to approach the problem from the direction of, first decide what the "correct" values ought to be, where "correct" means, "the best skaters win."

But it's not rewarding those who have mastered both the 3lutz and the 3flip, I very rare feat.

I agree with that. The proposal for the Newjump replacing the Lutz and flip does threaten to throw the baby out with the bath water.

The point is to stop rewarding skaters who ['i]don't[/i] have both a Lutz and a flip by pretending that they do. Maybe there could be a second bonus of some sort for skaters who exhibit both edges in their two allowed attempts (?)

 

[gmyers]

Does that mean that any scoring changes in June will have to keep Lysacek the winner of this years Gold? Like if they increased quads which Plushenko did two of the new score of it could not make him the winner of gold? So what did Lysacek do that they would also increase the value of? Level 4 spins? Instead of 10 percent bonus after halfway point 12% 15%?

 

[cosmos]

When they first started working on the CoP, my understanding is that they looked at a bunch of old competitions where the question of "who is the best skater" had been decided by time-tested ordinal judging. Then they broke it down as to just what it was that the best skaters were doing that made them the best. Then they tested the provisional new system against the old and tinkered with it until they arrived at a system where the already acknowledged best skaters actually got the most number of points.

For instance, in one initial version quads were so highly scored that Tim Goebel, with three quads in the LP, would have won the 2002 Olympics over Yagudin and Plushenko. So they fiddled with the scoring system until Yags got back on top.

So I think it is not impossible to approach the problem from the direction of, first decide what the "correct" values ought to be, where "correct" means, "the best skaters win."

Thanks for correcting my English, mathman.

Well, then, we don't have to change the system, I believe, because the best skater (YuNa Kim) wins under current system.

But, some people think that Mao is the best skater and she has to win. (IMO, this is the background motivation for all these disputes over the scoring system here)

Same argument again. Who is the best skater?

 

[gkelly]

I would hope, and I do believe, that in making these decisions the aim is to determine what is the best skating and how to reward that, with individual skaters and their performances at prominent competitions to serve as examples.

E.g., Do we want the difficulty of the jump content completed to be valued so much that it will always determine the outcome of the events? Do we want the difficulty plus quality of the jumps to be the deciding factor, with non-jump skills serving only as tiebreakers? Or do we want jumps to count only for part of the results, with skating skill, spins and other elements, and presentation/artistry to play a significant role as well?

Also, under any judging system sometimes two or more skaters can equally lay claim to being "the best skater" of the era or at a given competition. Which of them actually wins each time will depend both on exactly what they execute that day and also on how that particular panel of judges evaluates it.

An international panel isn't going to design a judging system specifically to always give wins to a specific skater; they'll try to reach a consensus on how much to reward various kinds of skating skills. There might be some politics involved with representatives of federations with medal contenders wanting to value their compatriots' strengths more highly and to undervalue the rivals' strengths, but they also have to know that a few years down the line their federation may be promoting a skater with different strengths.