I also think that ordinal scoring is more sound from a mathematical perspective (the difference between ordinal placements and decimal approximations, the difference between judging and measuring, the difference in mathematical tools appropriate for analyzing quality versus quantity). I have never had much luck in explaining this, however.
How would it work to use a somewhat simplified code of points for judges to keep track of and communicate the reasons for their rankings but then to convert each judge's scores to ordinals and calculate by either Majority system or OBO, whichever is deemed more robust, as was done under 6.0 judging?
1. No anonymity (separate issue, but we need to get that out of the way to get back some of the audience appeal of the old ordinal system). Also there would be no random selection (and no trimming of high and low scores, because the absolute scores won't carry over).
2. A scale of values that assigns base values to each kind of named element, and a set of rules for the long program that establishes maximum numbers or point values for of each kind of element. No levels and no downgrades. The tech panel job could probably be done by a single individual because it would be more straightforward with less room for controversy.
3. Judges can assign grades of execution for each element, ranging from +5 to -5. The negative grades could be considered deductions for errors and for weaknesses of technique and/or form; the positive ones bonus points that each judge can assign independently for added difficulty (instead of levels) and also for good quality. Serious errors like falls and significant underrotation and/or two-foot landings on jumps would earn large deductions, so any one of those errors could result in -3 and a combination of these errors would result in -5. Especially on non-jump elements, -5 would pretty much indicate that there were several smaller problems with the element, or one other severe problem, and also a fall.
The fall deduction could remain as an additional penalty for falls.
The pluses and minuses would be calculated as a percentage of the element's base value.
Judges would also assign scores for the program as a whole. Maybe the five current program components, maybe just two global scores: Skating Skills and Presentation. Factors to be determined.
4. After each skater's performance, the computer would calculate the point total for each judge for that skater and show each judge his or her Element score (with a breakdown by elements) and factored scores for each component as well as the total and where that ranks that skater on that judge's card compared to previous skaters. Judges would not see rankings for the panel as a whole or any other judge, just their own rankings. At that time they would have the opportunity to adjust the SS and P marks up or down if their gut feeling about the program as a holistic experience contradicts the way their initial scores added up. For elite events they would also have access to video replay of individual elements. However there would be a time limit on the amount of time judges could spend reviewing elements or recalculating their totals.
5. The computer would take each judge's rankings and use the resulting ordinals to calculate interim results after each skater and final results at the end of the event.
6. In the Kiss and Cry, the scores for each skater would be displayed first as the Element total from each judge, then the Program Components from each judge, and then the total and the ordinal. So the display would look very similar to display of Required Elements/Technical Merit and Presentation Scores, totals, and ordinals under 6.0, except that the Elements scores would be open ended and the component scores would be factored and possibly based on a 10-point rather than 6-point scale.
Thus it would be possible to see right away that the Swiss judge gave Susie only 43 for Elements when all the other judges gave at least 50. Or that all the judges had Gertie ahead of Gladys on Components, but eight of them had Gladys ahead on Elements, six of them by a large enough margin to give Gladys the win on their cards.
On the detailed protocols published after each performance, skaters (and the public if interested enough to seek them out) would be able to see exactly what elements were called and how each judge marked each one, and the breakdown of the components.
The intention would be to preserve the mathematical advantages of the ordinal system while also preserving the relative transparency of how each judge arrived at his/her scores provided by the detailed protocols. In that sense it could be the best of both worlds.
This approach would also include the most complicated calculations of both systems and would require even more computer power that is currently the case, which could be considered the worst of both worlds and make it impractical for use at many club competitions.
There would again be flipflops in the standings as was the case under 6.0.
Who is a bigger Olympic hero than Michael Phelps? But no-one pays money to go and see a swimming meet, nor is the sport of swimming promoted on TV, except once every four years.
And does the sport of swimming consider this a problem to be solved?
An advantage that swimming has over skating is that, largely because of the nature of the respective sports, swimming has a much larger participant base, who support the sport directly through their participation. Also viewers can understand what they're watching more easily because they are more likely to have learned to perform basic swimming strokes themselves and because results of races are relatively clearcut and objective.
An advantage that skating has over swimming is that, especially at the elite levels, the performances are often entertaining to watch on an aesthetic level completely divorced from the drama of winning and losing (which it also provides). Thus skating can appeal to a segment of potential viewers who are not sports fans at all. Also television coverage allows direct perception of facial expression and body language while the skater is competing, which makes the
Those advantages in skating's favor mean that it can attract larger audiences under the right circumstances. But to what degree should it attempt to cultivate audiences through rules and competition structures that serve audiences better than they serve the athletes?
Would interest in and expectations of figure skating as a spectator sport be different in the US if the percentage of Americans who had firsthand experience participating in figure skating at a recreational level were comparable to that in Canada, let alone comparable to participation in swimming?
Are you suggesting that this US lady has to be attractive (pretty much all are to some degree or another or are at least striking and atheletically sound), talented (ie land on the podium on an off day), have a good back story (grew up in a trailer like Harding, mom is legally blind like Kerrigan, had a toe cut off by a lawnmower like Zayak, be the first African American National Champion like Thomas...) and be charismatic. Sounds like you are harkening back to the good old days. ::sigh::
