I used to love the COP

[hurrah]

Actually, the rules do not say that fallen 4T is worth 6.3 points. The new rules on GOE only require that the final GOE be reduced by 3 points from where it otherwise would be without the fall, and must be negative. So the highest value a fallen 4T gets is BV+GOE+Deduction = 10.3+(-1)+(-1) = 8.3. On the other hand, the best possible triple lutz is BV + 0.7*GOE = 6.0 + 2.1 = 8.1.

So yes, a fallen quad can still be worth more than the very best triple lutz.

I think it ought to be that a cheated quad is slightly worth more than the very best triple lutz.

A fall on any jump should be worth zero, because if someone fell on a jump, there was already something fundamentally wrong with the take off, which would mean there was something wrong with the air position.

 

[ever]

Why are we still talking about the Olympics? * Yawn *

You better ask to NMURA. Do you think he/she is really Maofan? just curious.

 

[Krislite]

I think it ought to be that a cheated quad is slightly worth more than the very best triple lutz.

I agree with you here, 3.5 to 3.75 revolutions is still greater than 3 revolutions, assuming the cheated quad was landed.

A fall on any jump should be worth zero, because if someone fell on a jump, there was already something fundamentally wrong with the take off, which would mean there was something wrong with the air position.

A fall on a 4T gets you between 6.3 and 8.3 points, more than any decent triple besides a triple axel. That's a travesty, I think. While I don't think the value should be zero, it should be pretty low.

Personally I think the judging system should be more punitive towards falls and less on under-rotations. Falls are far more disruptive and it's obvious even to the layman that there is a flaw in the execution when a skater falls.

 

[Poodlepal]

"The other way the excitement is sapped is when a skater landing all their jumps thrills the audience, and is dinged with underrotations and edge calls and receives a score quite lower than expected. I'm not saying that edge calls and UR shouldn't be punished. They should be. But that is where I see the divide, between the impact of obvious errors on the audience (a fall) and the errors that only a judge and technical panel with a HD camera can catch."

I completely agree, Jaylee, and I'm glad they changed the rule. It seemed unfair that you got less points doing a clean "double and two-thirds than you did if you fell but went around twice. Many people will become educated about the sport. There are people who can watch a baseball game and know what pitch was thrown, and know when the infield should play in, and when to call the bunt sign, and which way does so-and-so drive the ball, and when you should pitch inside, etc. However, if you don't reach that level of knowledge, you can still follow the game. You see the ball go out, it's a home run. Only in rare circumstances (like a ball getting caught in a dome, or fan interference) is it overruled.

What we have in some cases in figure skating is someone who looks great (as Jaylee mentioned), only to lose to someone who didn't look so great based on technicalities that the casual fan can't see. There is no way that any education will convince me that butt on the ice is not as bad as landing a little bit early.

Figure skating has to keep the integrity of the sport, but it also can't become such a niche sport that only the obsessed can understand the judge's decisions. It is a sport, and it is entertainment, and if people aren't entertained, as Joe (I think) pointed out elsewhere, the skaters will suffer in terms of endorsements and shows. Already it's been downgraded from the showy, basic-cable ESPN to the digital back-cable Universal Sports.

As for Sarah, Jenny Kirk wrote in her blog that she landed all (or most) of her jumps that night. I don't know, and don't want to reopen an 8 year old fight, but she was magical that night, skating much better than she ever has before or since, and if Irina had beaten her on a "technicality," I would have thrown a pillow at the tv. (If Michelle had beaten her, I wouldn't have minded--well, I'm biased towards Michelle. )

 

[NMURA]

Kim could have done more than just fix her triple loop and include it in her program. During the practice runs in Vancouver she was landing both 3Lz+3T and 3F+3T, so she was easily capable of two triple triples.*

I'm sorry, but blaming Asada's loss on the rules is just making excuses. Asada had ample opportunity and ability to be competitive against Kim under the old rules. She could have fixed her flutz and her salchow. She could have done two triple triples and repeated both the triple lutz and the triple axel. Had she done that, she could have won against Kim, but she didn't do it. Asada and her team made costly miscalculations and mistakes.

There's no sense of doing two 3-3s point-wise. Kim stopped the 3F-3T because she can't avoid edge calls with that. The 2A-3T is easier and produces better GOE .

I agree Asada has made many wrong decisions. Why didn't she attempt the 3F-3T, which gained +1.4 GOE at 2008 worlds. I suspect Kim's switch to the 3Lz-3T comes from the fear for Asada's 3F-3T. Abandoning the Lutz was totally unwise. A 3flutz is better than no lutz anyway. This decision must have given very bad impressions to the judges, and the rivals are benefited as a result. Many people complained her choices of music. Since this is not "Asada's faults" thread, I'd better stop here.

*(Her "anxiety" about her triple flip didn't affect the judges' marks her PCS, and let me remind you she skated before Asada. And no, Avoiding the 3L does not mean no 2A+3T either. And you are wrong to say she never landed the 3L while competing against Asada.)

Unlike the incredibly difficult 3loop, Kim is doing the not-so-easy flip jump at every competition. Her level of "anxiety" must be different. Sorry, I didn't waste time to check protocols of Jr competitions which I've never seen.

 

[Mathman]

Figure skating has to keep the integrity of the sport, but it also can't become such a niche sport that only the obsessed can understand the judge's decisions. It is a sport, and it is entertainment, ...

I think that is the catch-22 right there. GKelly asks (I hope rhetorically),

The question is, do audiences want to become educated about the technical details of the sport, or do they want to sit back on their couches, enjoy the pretty skating, maybe count the jumps and the falls, and believe they know more than the judges about who deserves to win?

I say rhetorically because no one wants to become educated about figure skating or anything else, and everyone wants to sit back, enjoy pretty skating and believe they know more than the judges.

And again,

Probably depends on each audience member. Do they go out of their way to learn about the sport by reading or going to the rink...

No. Audiences are not in the business of going out of their way. That's why they are the audience and not the athletes/performers.

I do not see any way out of this dilemma. Tweaking the CoP -- fascinating as this topic is to us skating enthusiasts -- does not speak to the question of audience appeal.

 

[ImaginaryPogue]

Here's the reason I hate going by audience involvement. Audiences have a range of knowledge and intelligence. Audience have different motives for cheering. I mean, right now, figure skating judging is like the Oscars or the Emmys. They don't always get it right. Sometimes, they never do. Trying to dumb it down for audience consumption? Well, now it's the MTV movie awards. The Wire is a difficult, complicated show that isn't "entertaining" in an uplifting way, but try to tell me it's a lesser show than Two and a Half Men and I will likely stop talking to you.

You see it in this thread. If it's a failed element, it should be 0. But not flutzes, under-rotated jumps, etc. Those, despite being failed elements, aren't obviously failed. It's like on a test. If I get every question 1/2 (+1) wrong, I failed. If I skip the essay question that's worth 50% of the overall mark and make bobbles here and there, I still failed. One's more obvious, but they're both still failing. And frankly, I'm not all that interested in seeing Kevin Reynolds always-popped-to-single triple axel be marked as a better technical element that Chan's fall on the quad/triple axel. Frankly, both look like errors, and in Reynolds' case, equally destabilizing to the program.

What I think would be a worthwhile avenue to explore is saying falls should be a mandatory PCS deduction. A fall in a program is poor choreography, poor interpration (for that moment), poor demonstration of skating skills (blade to ice shouldn't mean bum to ice, otherwise I'd rock) and maybe poor transitions/performance (I think Florent Amodio's fall in the SA 2009 LP would be an exception. His reaction to falling was well performed). People want it dinged heavily because it disturbs the program profoundly. So shouldn't the deduction be in the Program[/i] Component scores, because it's not simply a failed element (which would be solely TES), it's a potentially program altering moment.

 

[janetfan]

I think that is the catch-22 right there. GKelly asks (I hope rhetorically),

I say rhetorically because no one wants to become educated about figure skating or anything else, and everyone wants to sit back, enjoy pretty skating and believe they know more than the judges.

And again,

No. Audiences are not in the business of going out of their way. That's why they are the audience and not the athletes/performers.

I do not see any way oit of this dilemma. Tweaking the CoP -- fascinating as this topic is to us skating enthusiasts -- does not speak to the question of audience appeal.

I agree with you on these points.
I wonder what gkelly would think about fans who have made a good effort to learn more about the Cop - and the more they learn they LESS they like it.

Aside from the dilema about how to score jumps - which feels over managed to me - the PCS seem to be a complete mess.

They seem at times to be little more than ways to manipulate the outcomes and to basically prop up the favorites on off nights or push them over the top in a close competition.

In a situation when a certain skater is known to been very strong in the components then there is also the tech panel which can also make or break a skater.

I happen to be a fan of Patrick's skating but that doesn't mean I think he should win by a convoluted system that fails to have marks that realistically represent the way he skated at SC. Mistakes used to matter under 6.0 but some skaters appear to be getting a free pass.

The 6.0 presentation mark was certainly more clear to fans and yet some act like that was a BAD THING.

To the contrary it would have been fun at last season's Natls to see the judges scoring Rachael and Mirai both at 5.8 for the presention mark. Fans could immediatly see that something was wrong and yet the CoP got away with it because most fans don't know enough and unfortunately CARE enough to see how one skater was held up and given scores equal to a clearly superior artisitic skater.

Anonymous judges, a lack of accountabilty and a system so easily manipulated does not represent a change from the past. It is the same old thing ,,,,,,

 

[Mathman]

You see it in this thread. If it's a failed element, it should be 0. But not flutzes, under-rotated jumps, etc. Those, despite being failed elements, aren't obviously failed. It's like on a test....

Toi be consistent, all errors on jumps should result in 0 points. If this is the position you are arguing for, it would have the merit of consistency.

Personally, I think consistency is over-rated, but that's me.

We do not come out ahead by calling the audience stupid and lazy. If the audience doesn't like what they see they will simply vote with their remotes. That is why I say this is an insoluble dilemma. All we can do is write off the audience, come up with the best of all possible CoPs, and accept the consequences.

This last sentence is not sarcasm. It is, I'm afraid, just the way it is.

 

[Blades of Passion]

ImaginaryPogue is stealing my "use-tangents-about-film-to-make-comparisons-to-figure-skating" trademark.

Actually I don't mind.

I do mind how long it takes ISU to implement the excellent ideas that have been served to them on a silver platter, though, and how they often don't even implement them correctly. :disapp:

An ideal CoP is out there, waiting.

 

[Mathman]

I do mind how long it takes ISU to implement the excellent ideas that have been served to them on a silver platter, though...

It is amazing how the ISU does not implement all the suggestions that they read on figure skating message boards, chat rooms, and twitter pages. Can't Cinquanta read?

 

[ImaginaryPogue]

Personally, I think consistency is over-rated, but that's me.

It's about standards.

We do not come out ahead by calling the audience stupid and lazy. If the audience doesn't like what they see they will simply vote with their remotes. That is why I say this is an insoluble dilemma. All we can do is write off the audience, come up with the best of all possible CoPs, and accept the consequences.

This last sentence is not sarcasm. It is, I'm afraid, just the way it is.

Agreed, though I have no qualms about calling the audience stupid and lazy.

 

[Mathman]

It's about standards.

There are no standards in the CoP. What the CoP is about is compromise (the opposite of standards), If you make this kind of error that counts 70% as much as if you make that kind of error.

(The CoP. in fact, follows one of my favorite maxims: "A foolish consistency is the hobgobblin of small minds." )

In this very thread we are arguing about whether a failed quad should get more points than a satisfactory Lutz. Think about it. A failed quad. Where is the standard?

Agreed, though I have no qualms about calling the audience stupid and lazy.

God must love stupid, lazy people. He made so many of them.

I don't want to get all serious here, but...

Yes, we are permitted to hold the audience in contempt. But then we cannot also complain that skating is losing its popularity.

Figure skating has always been an elitist sport. It seems to be the ISU's mission to make sure it stays that way.

 

[rossdale]

Asada's rival is not Kim

I'm pointing out "directions of changes" rather than current situations. "Asada vs Kim" is just an example of "positive" changes of the new CoP. The whole system needs more time to develop. Under the old rules, Kostner would've won FS at NHK Trophy by a small margin. Obviously, the next move should be making arbitrary uses of the PCS more difficult.

Mao Asada does not deserve to be a rival to Yuna. Yuna is another level. I dont find anyone in the female skaters who is qualifed as a bitter rival to Yuna. Espcially, Mao is struggling so badly this season (and previous a few seasons as well), it does not make sense to me.

Mao benefits most from the new rule... It is quite frustating for her not to take advantage of any of rule changes and her standing at NHK was the worst ever.... it is ironic, isnt it?

 

[Johnnnn]

There's no sense of doing two 3-3s point-wise. Kim stopped the 3F-3T because she can't avoid edge calls with that. The 2A-3T is easier and produces better GOE .

I agree Asada has made many wrong decisions. Why didn't she attempt the 3F-3T, which gained +1.4 GOE at 2008 worlds. I suspect Kim's switch to the 3Lz-3T comes from the fear for Asada's 3F-3T. Abandoning the Lutz was totally unwise. A 3flutz is better than no lutz anyway. This decision must have given very bad impressions to the judges, and the rivals are benefited as a result. Many people complained her choices of music. Since this is not "Asada's faults" thread, I'd better stop here.



Unlike the incredibly difficult 3loop, Kim is doing the not-so-easy flip jump at every competition. Her level of "anxiety" must be different. Sorry, I didn't waste time to check protocols of Jr competitions which I've never seen.

Lol stop embarrassing yourself. It looks like you think the skating world revolves around Asada (or maybe it is all just a plan to make her fans look bad?). Time for a reality check?
Every skater has their own nemesis. Asada's level of "anxiety" will probably higher when she's doing lutz even though it is an incredibly "easier" jump than triple axel.
BTW even Rachel Flatt is not afraid of Asada's 3F-3T.

 

[rossdale]

Lol stop embarrassing yourself. It looks like you think the skating world revolves around Asada (or maybe it is all just a plan to make her fans look bad?). Every skater has their own nemesis. Asada's level of "anxiety" will probably higher when she's doing lutz even though it is an incredibly "easier" jump than triple axel.

I totally agree...

NMURA, your lovely Mao Asada will benefit most from your silence. You not helping her...

 

[Johnnnn]

I'm talking about the different scenario. Kim had a 5 point lead and she didn't need the incredibly difficult 3Lo. She has no reason to be "anxious". I understand the judges appreciate "confidence".

You must have a huge fantasy on Triple Loop to a point where you think the entire LP and the skater's confidence revolves around that one jump. Just because it's Asada's favourite (and the only one she could land in a recent competition) it doesn't mean it's the most important jump in figure skating.

 

[Johnnnn]

Now to add to the topic of this thread, I must say I like 6.0 better than COP. I used to think COP is more fair, but apprantly not so much according to Skate Canada. COP gives too much power to the tech caller (less people to lobby than 6.0 perhaps) and it can be just as manipulative as 6.0.
Also, when it was 6.0, at least everyone knew what 6.0 meant. Now we get this scores that people don't understand and often there are more questions and doubts in the audience than excitement.

 

[Blades of Passion]

It is amazing how the ISU does not implement all the suggestions that they read on figure skating message boards, chat rooms, and twitter pages. Can't Cinquanta read?

Written manuscripts for my entire manifesto of CoP changes have been delivered each of the past 3 seasons! Allegedly they've been "looked at" each time. I do know a few things have been copied pretty much word-for-word into the seasonal ISU updates. Unfortunately at the rate they're going it will be 20 years before everything is fixed.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

With Chan bouncing around on the Ice and others skating tall, the audience is confused except for Chan fans. The Chan fans look to that one item in the scoring system called Skating Ability which is a remnant of the 6.0 system. With Senior skaters, who's to say that one Rocker is better than another. The scoring item, Skating Ability is to hold up favorites for possible podium finish. A judge can say one skater has better basics than another and it is usually a favorite who is experiencing a melt down. We've seen it all before many times. This does not happen to the group outside the top five.

Much of what is covered by those bullets in Skating Ability should be, if they are not already, covered in the scoring system called Interpretation. One's skating ability is quite clear when considering interpretation.