Which Scoring system is your preference? Pro and Cons

[gkelly]

The killer argument in favor of the CoP (thanks to GKelly for keeping this front and center) is, I have come to believe, that figure skating is not just the top two skaters in the world battling it out for the gold medal. The scoring system must be useful and appropriate for all competitors at all levels, from 6-year-old Snow-plow Sam to adult recreational skaters and club competitors.

And at those levels (up to prejuvenile or open juvenile and adult silver), US competitions still use 6.0 scoring.

But the scores will mostly be in the 1s and 2s and no judge is thinking about the scores in terms of how far away they are from a perfect 6.0.

There isn't even really a firm meaning of, say, 2.0 that would apply the same in a Basic Skills freestyle event and adult bronze and prepreliminary. Judges would just pick two numbers approximately in that range to score the first skater and then mark the other skaters up or down from there.

The actual scores are just a means for judges to keep track of how they're ranking the skaters. Competitions at those levels use closed marking, so the skaters never get to see anything except the ordinals.

 

[janetfan]

I think that is true, especially when ABC first started broadcasting skating to a public who had mostly never tried it themselves or seen it in person. The way to get casual audiences interested initially was to focus on the beauty of the movement (and, often, the prettiness of the girls) and on the human interest and international conflict drama especially in the Cold War.

But it became a self-fulfilling prophecy. To the extent that TV coverage of skating focused on artistry, appearance, off-ice dramas, and evil Eastern bloc judging more than on the technical details of the sport, the casual fans never got the opportunity to learn from TV the majority of what was really being judged.

There was not much effort to educate viewers about how to appreciate skating as sport. And so diehard sports fans (typically male) tended to dismiss skating as "not a real sport" while fans of the arts and of human interest drama (typically female) tended to be more interested in following skating, but not necessarily in learning about its rules and techniques.

Before the internet, before the extended and often more sports-oriented coverage on ESPN or other cable networks, the only way to really learn about skating was to travel to elite competitions or to participate oneself at a local level. It's only in the past 15 years or so that it's been possible to be a serious fan of skating as sport from one's armchair.

Fans who grew up following skating as art and drama were better served by a more holistic, less detailed scoring system because that's how Button taught them to watch skating.

Potential technically minded fans who were turned off by the artistry talk might be busy watching baseball or golf or snowboarding on another channel.

But what's the fairest way of rewarding the skaters?

Thanks gkelly. Nice reading your thoughts on this and your other posts as well.

One thing I have heard but never seen - is that since the start of CoP that US Skating and the broadcast networks are making an effort to educate the skating public.

I really see little difference in the way Button or Scott do analysis from the 6.0 era up til the present (unless it is to knock the IJS). I have also listened to Kurt and he does not seem much different either.

I always think placement is 99% of what is important and that the system is 1%.

There were many disagreements this season about podiums and the Olympics had more than a fair share. Not saying if 6.0 would have done better but despite my agreeing with most of what you wrote I don't see things as being much different.

Podiums are still disputed and just because we no longer blame the evil E. Euro bloc I don't see the new system making disputed decisions any more clear - and to die hard fans much more acceptable.

It is true that the internet has been a big help for fans that want to learn more. But is the internet a big help because of the IJS?

Would you agree that interested fans would be using the internet just as much if 6.0 was still in effect?

A difference is that it might take less time to check out the ordinals, but going from event to event and comparing a 5.8 here to only 5.4 from last event, etc. would still be stuff statistically oriented fans would spend time on.

This thread has revealed how little certain CoP boosters know about 6.0 - and it is good having a discussion about the systems.

I have no idea which system is best for the skaters as far as having the fairest results.
I do like CoP more and more but am mostly interested if the placements match my own ideas about the placements at competitions I watch.

The pcs seem less reliable to me than the 6.0 presentation marks and since I enjoy lyrical skating more than powerhouse tech skating I won't be happy with CoP until marks for TR, IN and CH have a more consistent relationship to what I see happing on the ice.

So despite the progress I hope reputation marking will diminish and when Jeremy shows more TR than Joubert it will also be noticed by the judges.

Interesting how much we can learn at GS. Thanks again - your posts are so informative!

 

[gkelly]

It is true that the internet has been a big help for fans that want to learn more. But is the internet a big help because of the IJS?

Would you agree that interested fans would be using the internet just as much if 6.0 was still in effect?

Yes, and we saw that already in the mid-late 1990s and early 2000s.

But because the rules were not spelled out as clearly anywhere, the best that interested fans could do was try to think like judges, using whatever level of knowledge they had developed, and guess what the judges might have been thinking. Sometimes it was pretty obvious what the issues were. Other times not so much. And of course a lot of fans were more interested in making guesses based on geopolitics or artistic taste than in looking at the nitty-gritty technical details.

Yes, to a large extent the PCS are still that vague.

Edited to say, I would have loved it if the ISU would have released explanations of the medal decisions after the big events. The judges discussed their reasons in post-event debriefings. Maybe the referee could have summarized the issues that were raised without identifying which judges made which points and presented them in a press conference. I think that would have done a lot to educate the press and the public.

But for something like "She really felt the music," vs. "She was fighting the music," there's not much more that can be said. Either a judge or a fan feels the music the same way the skater does or not.

 

[Mathman]

If you've ever been to an event with open or semi-open marking, you'd know that judges use a median mark and a comparative system. If you give the first skater 5.0/5.0, was the next skater better or worse than the first skater in what that judge deems important?

I never did understand the median mark thing. Could you eleborate a little about it?

At competitions, after the first skater in each group skated there would always be a brief intermission while the "median mark" was calculated for that group. I always supposed that this was the actual median of the scores (4.3, etc.) that the sitting judges gave for that first performance. Then after that, the competition would start up again.

My question is, what were the judges supposed to do with that median mark. If the median mark for all judges was 4.3 and I gave a 3.9, did that mean I was supposed to up my scores a little to be more in line with the others? Or was I supposed to say, OK, I am scoring 4 tenths lower than the other judges, so I have to remember to keep all my subsequent scores in the same range -- 4 tenths lower than what I think everyone else will give?

 

[gkelly]

My question is, what were the judges supposed to do with that median mark. If the median mark for all judges was 4.3 and I gave a 3.9, did that mean I was supposed to up my scores a little to be more in line with the others? Or was I supposed to say, OK, I am scoring 4 tenths lower than the other judges, so I have to remember to keep all my subsequent scores in the same range -- 4 tenths lower than what I think everyone else will give?

Either one.

If you were flexible in your use of numbers, you could adjust your mark for the first skater to match the median, or come closer to the median, and then go up and down from there. That could save you from getting booed when your marks were several points lower than the rest of the panel for almost every skater.

Or if you had a strong sense of what 4.3 or 3.9 or 4.0 meant to you and were quite clear in your own mind that this skater did not deserve scores in the 4s on your personal mental scale, then you could stick with your original mark and continue marking the rest of the skaters on your same mental scale, without worrying about what the rest of the judges were doing.

Trying to guess how the other judges would score each skater and then subtracting 0.4 from those scores would not be a good approach. You weren't supposed to be scoring in relation to the other judges' scores, but in relation to the scores you had given previous skaters, according to your own criteria.

Also, if half the panel thought the second skater was better than the first skater and the other half thought the first skater was better, the range of scores for each subsequent skater would very quickly widen and there would be no point in continuing to try to fit in with the rest of the panel.

In the end, all that mattered was the ordinals, so whatever scoring range made it easiest for you to keep track of your rankings and be consistent from one skater to the next would be the best choice.

 

[Daniel5555]

Mathman

The only drawback is that CoP scoring does not bring in new casual fans of top-level skating competition as a spectator sport.

I agree. But probably fans come in because of skaters more than points.
Probably most of people are attracted to 6.0 because of its apparent simplicity. But the simple solution is not always the best. Like bubblesort algorithm vs quicksort.

I also like the argument, that looking at scores you can actually see where the skater had flaws and what elements can be improved. If we are able to do so, the system must be good.

 

[Blades of Passion]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ah3Fmy7hAn0

Actually, yes, I think it might be. I can't think of a better one. Technically he did the hardest stuff anyone could do in those days, plus more. A triple Lutz with 'Tano air position, a triple Axle-double loop, and a double Axel with arms folded into his final pose.

I did not see any flaws, his lines were clean, the choreography was smooth as butter.



It is really quite sobering to compare that with anything Lysacek or Weir or Abbott has ever shown us in the CoP era.

It was a tano Double Flip, actually. A double jump out of footwork was the requirement at the time.

I think Weir's SP at 2006 Nationals eclipses Boitano's. His arm movements were more expressive and it was a rare example where the CoP spins and footwork were incorporated into the program nearly seamlessly (the footwork rules were less restrictive back then, though).

Almost nothing beats Boitano's LP at 1988 Olympics, though. It might be the most finely nuanced program of all time. The tone changes every 30 seconds or so and yet interesting movements are in place at every turn and it all works and continually builds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_Rpt0dF9zw

 

[janetfan]

It was a tano Double Flip, actually. A double jump out of footwork was the requirement at the time.

I think Weir's SP at 2006 Nationals eclipses Boitano's. His arm movements were more expressive and it was a rare example where the CoP spins and footwork were incorporated into the program nearly seamlessly (the footwork rules were less restrictive back then, though).

Almost nothing beats Boitano's LP at 1988 Olympics, though. It might be the most finely nuanced program of all time. The tone changes every 30 seconds or so and yet interesting movements are in place at every turn and it all works and continually builds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_Rpt0dF9zw

Again, Brian owes a big thanks to Sandra for her choreo.

The choice of Boitano vs Weir in the SP is very subjective. It is about what we like.
I love Brian's homage to 19th century skating and think it exudes class, class and more class.

Johnny's program was exceptional too but I prefer Brian. Again, I would be the first to admit it is subjective.

Maybe Johnny was better - but not for me. But both programs were notable and Johnny's SP did very well in Torino.

ETA: thanks for the clip of Kozuka yesterday. Unfortunately all I got was sound with no pic :disapp:

 

[Mathman]

And at those levels (up to prejuvenile or open juvenile and adult silver), US competitions still use 6.0 scoring.

It seems like there ought to be a CoP Lite that would work for children. Under ordinal judging all I know is that the judges liked Mary Beth’s skating better than mine (reason number 459 why I can’t stand Mary Beth!)

If you got points for your Axel, then next year you added a double Salchow, you could measure numerically the progress that you had made, try to beat your personal best, etc.

If you were flexible in your use of numbers, you could adjust your mark for the first skater to match the median, or come closer to the median, and then go up and down from there.

Did you get to adjust your marks for the first skater?

So did it go like this? All the judges mark the first skater privately, then the median is compiled by the referee and communicated to each judge, then each judge has the option of revising his or her marks on that skater?

 

[gkelly]

Did you get to adjust your marks for the first skater?

So did it go like this? All the judges mark the first skater privately, then the median is compiled by the referee and communicated to each judge, then each judge has the option of revising his or her marks on that skater?

That's my understanding. They could revise for the first skater after being informed of the median, but they didn't have a similar option for subsequent skaters.

 

[janetfan]

Yes, and we saw that already in the mid-late 1990s and early 2000s.

But because the rules were not spelled out as clearly anywhere, the best that interested fans could do was try to think like judges, using whatever level of knowledge they had developed, and guess what the judges might have been thinking. Sometimes it was pretty obvious what the issues were. Other times not so much. And of course a lot of fans were more interested in making guesses based on geopolitics or artistic taste than in looking at the nitty-gritty technical details.

Yes, to a large extent the PCS are still that vague.

Edited to say, I would have loved it if the ISU would have released explanations of the medal decisions after the big events. The judges discussed their reasons in post-event debriefings. Maybe the referee could have summarized the issues that were raised without identifying which judges made which points and presented them in a press conference. I think that would have done a lot to educate the press and the public.

But for something like "She really felt the music," vs. "She was fighting the music," there's not much more that can be said. Either a judge or a fan feels the music the same way the skater does or not.

Do you really believe that 6.0 fans did not wonder about the tech quality of Oksana vs Nancy in the LP at the '94 Olympics ? I am sure you don't.........

Let's not even bring up 1980 - where Frank Carrol's beef was the way Linda was scored in the figures and had nothing to do with the way the SP and LP were scored.

As to more current times what about these type of comments from a CoP competition:

"You want it for her so badly" as a line of reasoning awaiting the score results?

Or the same broadcaster sounding totally embarrassed while saying in a very low voice, "there were three jumps downgraded which is why she did not win."

Actually even if Mirai's jumps were not dg'ed the astronomical score Flatt received, with basically equal pcs was enough to assure Rachael would win the 2010 US Ladies championship.

Do you think any fans - after seeing how differently the Intl judges scored these two skaters can take any solace in the fact that CoP told us these two girls are basically equals at Natls in the artistic portion of the scoring?

My response was to think Cop is every bit if not more politicl than 6.0 ever was.

Sorry if that is a tired argument at this point but let's keep in mind Alissa's '09 title is still disputed at GS.

I don't see how disputed decisons become easier to accept - whether under 6.0 or the IJS.

Knowing for sure that the US judges consider Rachael to be Mirai's equal in the pcs hardly gives an old fan like me much confidence in the CoP. :disagree:

Rachael fans feel the same way about Alissa's title at '09 Natls.
Plushy fans feel the same way about Evan's OGM in Vancouver.
Johnny fans think he was robbed in Vancouver.
Joubert fans think he deserved more at 2010 Worlds.

I could go on but I think you get the point. I might venture to offer that the IJS with it points and scoring breakdowns actually can make disputed decisions and feelings that accompany them much worse.

As mathman noted this can have the effect to drive fans away. My sister, a former skater is a casualty as she was stunned at the outcome of the Ladies event at 2010 Natls.
She told me "I can't be bothered to watch anymore if this is how they are going to score skating." No big deal - except I have watched every Natls with my sister since 1968.

Maybe it was easier blaming the evil E. Euro bloc judges, and the school figures for Janet not winning every time - but the way Button explained it most of the time made more sense to me.

Either way, either system, I am still watching.....

 

[Blades of Passion]

ETA: thanks for the clip of Kozuka yesterday. Unfortunately all I got was sound with no pic :disapp:

What program do you use to play videos? I use VLC for most everything, but for some of these video I have to use Windows Media Player (I had to download the DivX update for it it work in Windows Media Player too).

 

[janetfan]

What program do you use to play videos? I use VLC for most everything, but for some of these video I have to use Windows Media Player (I had to download the DivX update for it it work in Windows Media Player too).

Your link was downloaded to my windows media player.
Tell you what - I am interested to see both of Kozuka's Olympic programs. I think I saw the short but am interested to see it again so I will look and see if I can find some links.

 

[Blades of Passion]

Your link was downloaded to my windows media player.
Tell you what - I am interested to see both of Kozuka's Olympic programs. I think I saw the short but am interested to see it again so I will look and see if I can find some links.

The link I provided is the best quality video out there, if you download this update for Windows Media Player it should work:

http://www.free-codecs.com/download/DivX_Media_Format_Filters.htm

 

[seniorita]

http://www.free-codecs.com/download/DivX_Media_Format_Filters.htm

http://www.free-codecs.com/download/...at_Filters.htm

That, or the evil euro block suggests you to use Gom player (its free, i hope it doesnt count as an ad) it usually has all the codecs built in, there are no videos in youtube for Olys unless you want to watch official vancouver YT channel and watch all competition.

 

[Layfan]

It was a tano Double Flip, actually. A double jump out of footwork was the requirement at the time.

I think Weir's SP at 2006 Nationals eclipses Boitano's. His arm movements were more expressive and it was a rare example where the CoP spins and footwork were incorporated into the program nearly seamlessly (the footwork rules were less restrictive back then, though).

Almost nothing beats Boitano's LP at 1988 Olympics, though. It might be the most finely nuanced program of all time. The tone changes every 30 seconds or so and yet interesting movements are in place at every turn and it all works and continually builds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_Rpt0dF9zw

You're right, and there's no obvious, clunky, transition between the different tones, no moment that feels like "pause, deep breath, time for my footwork sequence" or "okay, audience, this I'm about to begin my spin combination" Everything just flows into the next and the viewer gets swept up. Programs these days are much more predictable.

I really appreciate some choreography that manages to be truly distinctive these days and tell a story or have character. Yuna's programs and Sasha's Romeo and Juliet come to mind... David Wilson is the bomb at COP.

But even with those programs, there is a bit of, okay here's the beginning, here comes to the spiral sequences, here comes the footwork...

 

[janetfan]

You're right, and there's no obvious, clunky, transition between the different tones, no moment that feels like "pause, deep breath, time for my footwork sequence" or "okay, audience, this I'm about to begin my spin combination" Everything just flows into the next and the viewer gets swept up. Programs these days are much more predictable.

I really appreciate some choreography that manages to be truly distinctive these days and tell a story or have character. Yuna's programs and Sasha's Romeo and Juliet come to mind... David Wilson is the bomb at COP.

But even with those programs, there is a bit of, okay here's the beginning, here comes to the spiral sequences, here comes the footwork...

Blades is right, you are right, and that is why I snicker when new fans are so quick to criticize comments Sandra makes as a broadcaster.

Hardly anybody in skating has better taste than Sandra or knows what the deal is as well as she does.

I listen to every word she says because she has proven to me, as one of the greatest choreographers of all time how much she knows about competitive skating.

This remains to this day one of my favorite LP's - even with a few mistakes the artistry and connection to the music stands out. For me this is an unforgetable Olympic memory.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxKN_U-B5iI&feature=related

 

[Layfan]

Blades is right, you are right, and that is why I snicker when new fans are so quick to criticize comments Sandra makes as a broadcaster.

Hardly anybody in skating has better taste than Sandra or knows what the deal is as well as she does.

I listen to every word she says because she has proven to me, as one of the greatest choreographers of all time how much she knows about competitive skating.

This remains to this day one of my favorite LP's - even with a few mistakes the artistry and connection to the music stands out. For me this is an unforgetable Olympic memory.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQl6b...eature=related

I bet I can guess before I even click - Lu Chen's Butterfly lover's LP, no? Didn't Sandra do that one?

 

[janetfan]

I bet I can guess before I even click - Lu Chen's Butterfly lover's LP, no? Didn't Sandra do that one?

Bingo - after all these years I still have special memories of the collaboration between LuLu and Sandra.

BTW, who else has ended an LP with a 3x3 the way LuLu did in "Butterfly Lovers"?
Maybe Midori ?

Did LuLu's late 3x3 help her edge out Irina for the Bronze? :think:

Did Tara's late jumps help her edge out Michelle? :think:

 

[miki88]

I always considered Lu Chen (and Mao ) a great impressionist skater. She didn't always tell a story but she was so superb at painting us lovely images with each performance.