Article:"Rewarding Failure Diminishes Sport"

[Violet Bliss]

So are we ready for a figure skating judging system based on the principle of progressive taxation? Will there be loopholes galore?

How do we, OK TPTB, decide on the levels to tax, er, penalize? In Canada, a single person hits the top tax rate at $128,800 of taxable income whereas in the US s/he wouldn't get hit with the maximum rate until $379,151. Loopholes apply.

Progressive taxation creates beaucracy and a whole industry that a flat tax would wipe out. Could similar judging system afford the complication and the necessary experts to sort things out?

In real life, prices are constant for all levels of incomes. My landloard wants the same rents in the months I have no income.

 

[Poodlepal]

What they should do is fill out a figure skating return. Let's say that Patrick Chan fell twice. He could fill out a figure skate return and claim that his skates were too tight. If he kept the receipt for the tight skates, he'd get credit for one jump. Or poor Nubinari Oda. He should be able to write off a fall and a hands-down because he has two dependents. Rachael could have shown her medical bills and written off a few falls from her broken leg, and maybe gone up a few spots.

Of course, nobody would get their results for about 6 weeks (longer if you want your new figure skating score sent to you via the post office.) And everyone would try to cheat the system with a skate accountant.

But I think it's the best idea so far.

 

[skatinginbc]

A casual fan, or self appointed respresentative of casual fans - I'm not sure which at this point, sorry - insists a fall is a fall with same disruption to a program under all circumstances.

"A seeming skating expert or in fact a full-time spokesperson for Patrick Chan--I'm not sure which at this point, sorry"--What if I start calling people like that? Get my point?

Insist? Where did that come from? How could such an emphatic word be connected to my post, which started with a humble reservation: "my imagination can be wide of the truth."

In a previous post of mine, I pointed out the unfairness of assigning an unvarying -1 deduction to falls that can result in various degrees of impact on presentation. I never said "a fall is a fall with same disruption to a program under all circumstances". Please don't put words in my mouth. What I meant was: If all conditions remain the same, it seems from the view of logic that a fall of an identical severity or awkwardness would have an equal chance of disrupting the artistic impression, no matter if it is done by a novice or a senior.

 

[Violet Bliss]

^^^^Didn't mean anything more than my confusion. I thought you had been referring to yourself as a casual fan and speaking from that perspective often with emphasis. But someone, (Doris? or Toni?) questioned it, raising the possibility that you, and Mathman, were speaking for, not as, casual fans. I haven't spent time to sort this out yet, thus the qualification and admission that I'm not sure.

My point was to show the different perspectives from different roles in figure skating.

 

[skatinginbc]

^^^^Didn't mean anything more than my confusion. I thought you had been referring to yourself as a casual fan and speaking from that perspective often with emphasis. But someone, (Doris? or Toni?) questioned it, raising the possibility that you, and Mathman, were speaking for, not as, casual fans. I haven't spent time to sort this out yet, thus the qualification and admission that I'm not sure.

Hm, it came from someone's mouth not from mine, eh? So the word "self" in so-called "self-appointed representative" means you or somebody else.
Anyway, I can't even speak for Mathman, who gave me a :disagree: the other day, let alone millions of casual fans out there that I don't know. I'm no more or less qualified/admissible as a representative of the casual fans than you are as a representative of the skating experts. Huh? You never claimed to be a representative? Neither did I.

 

[mskater93]

So are we ready for a figure skating judging system based on the principle of progressive taxation? Will there be loopholes galore?

It's currently a regressive tax where those with the least level of skills are getting penalized the most for something that has a consistent amount of disruption per the general consensus here.
I am looking at it as more like sales tax - if you buy more, you pay more in absolute dollars but the percent remains constant. There would be no loopholes in my system, if you fall it gets applied. If you fall on an element, the GOE is also factored. If you click of death setting up a jump, you just get the percentage applied at the end of the skate. This would improve the risk/reward scenario, especially at lower levels. In my system, there is no Greek tax cheating (they mentioned in an article I read that only ~600 Athenians paid their taxes on their swimming pools but an aerial photo of Athens showed more than 3000 swimmng pools, I am not taking a swing at Seniorita here).

gkelly - exactly what I meant with regard to the adult gold skater. There's been a lot of angst at Adult Nationals in the last 3 years, there have been quite a few gold level skaters not even attempting Axels in their programs (much less many doubles) even though it's a test requirement due to the -1 penalty applied and that they can do a 1S and ensure they get at least 0.4 points and not effectively a -0.2 when everything is factored from an Axel fall. I am sure it's the same at Juvenile, Intermediate and Novice because I see those scores being all bunched up with the -1 penalty sometimes dropping a skater out of the top 3 or 4 where they were clearly one of the best skaters in the group (fall notwithstanding as it was on something really hard!) and a 1% or 2% deduction would have kept them in the hunt.

 

[Mathman]

So are we ready for a figure skating judging system based on the principle of progressive taxation?

Mskater93's proposal is for a flat tax rate. A fall counts a certain fixed percentage of your income. If you are rich, you pay at the same rate as if you are poor.

(I wish politicians would use the term "flat tax rate" in their campaigns, instead of the misleading "flat tax." No one ever suggests a "flat tax," in the sense that everyone gives $10,000 to the government, period.)

It's currently a regressive tax where those with the least level of skills are getting penalized the most for something that has a consistent amount of disruption per the general consensus here.

"Most" meaning "at the highest rate." Just so.

...Mathman, who gave me a :disagree: the other day,...

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

 

[ivy]

So mskater93 I'm willing to sign on to most of your proposals (not that that really means anything). Love the greater range of positive and negative GoEs!! I'm not involved in skating enough to know the angst at adult comps, but they shouldn't be hit by the same penalties as Srs for a fall. The percentage thing seems a little weird to me - so in theory Patrick's fall would be -2.87 and Dai's -2.24 and Brezina's -1.75? That doesn't seem right. A fall being .5 for adult gold, 1 for novice, 2 for jrs and 3 for srs (or what ever the actual numbers would be) seems ok, maybe different numbers for different disciplines too - more for men, less for pairs.

I could also come up with a logic where falls on hard element aren't penalized as much as dopey falls. Patrick's fall on a 4T is more forgivable to me then his fall during footwork.

Thanks too gkelly for your thoughtful discussion

 

[gkelly]

I could also come up with a logic where falls on hard element aren't penalized as much as dopey falls. Patrick's fall on a 4T is more forgivable to me then his fall during footwork.

Step sequences are elements where the skater is trying to do something difficult on deep edges, to earn higher levels and GOEs, so I would consider them risk moves more than a source of "dopey" falls.

Falls between elements, e.g., on crossovers or simple edges, are sometimes dopey but sometimes a result of problems with the ice or the skater's equipment or costume that have nothing to do with their technique. If a skater falls because of a foreign object on the ice, for example, or a skate coming unlaced, it's already unfortunate enough that that might cost them points and placements through no fault of their own. Do you really want to magnify the effect of those strokes of bad luck?

 

[ivy]

yeah 'dopey' is too tough a word. But even though footwork is hard it's not as hard as a quad or a triple axel. As for tripping on a foreign object - I don't think they should be penalized for that - it's the organizers responsibility to provide a clean surface. Ruts - that's part of the sport, hmmm. Skate problems, that's tough for skaters, but I'd say it's the skaters responsibility to make sure their equipment is in working order. For me a fall by an elite skater doing back cross overs is more egregious then a fall on a triple salchow and that's more egregious than a fall on a quad flip.

 

[PolymerBob]

All this arithmetic you guys are doing is theoretical, and has no bearing on the real world.
Jeffrey Buttle scored 245.17 points at the 2008 Worlds. If he had fallen 3 times, would he have scored 242.17 and still won the event?
Yu-Na Kim fell twice in the long program at the 2009 Skate America. She scored 111.70 and lost the free to Rachael's 116.11. If Yu-Na had not fallen, would she have scored 113.70 and still lost the free to Rachael?
The 1 point deduction is nonsense and does not reflect reality.

 

[gkelly]

yeah 'dopey' is too tough a word. But even though footwork is hard it's not as hard as a quad or a triple axel. As for tripping on a foreign object - I don't think they should be penalized for that - it's the organizers responsibility to provide a clean surface.

Unfortunately, though, it does happen on occasion, and not really the organizers' fault either. Could be debris from the previous skater's costume or something fans threw on the ice for the previous skater or something that fell from the ceiling.

If we want to not penalize skaters at all if they fall for such a reason, then as soon as they fall and think there was a foreign object at fault they would have to immediately stop the program, go to the referee, and start an investigation of the ice surface. Which means the program/competition would be interrupted for several minutes, which would hurt the artistic impression more than if the skater just got up and kept going.

And then depending whether they found the obstacle or not, the skater would either get no penalty (except the hit to Performance/Execution) or a large penalty (fall and interruption deduction(s) of more than the current 1.0 per fall)?

So some skaters who weren't sure why they fell or who knew it was their own fault but wanted a chance to catch their breath would also stop their programs on purpose. That's not a trend I want to see encouraged.

And other skaters might know there was an obstacle but choose to keep going and take the fall deduction because it would cost them less than breaking the mood by stopping the program.

Although if the skater thinks whatever is on the ice will continue to present a hazard to himself and subsequent skaters, then he should stop for safety reasons.

Otherwise, we could leave it up to each judge to decide whether the fall looked like the skater's fault or a fluke case of interference and to penalize accordingly in the appropriate component(s), and GOE if applicable. Which is pretty much the way things are now, aside from the mandatory 1.0 fall deduction.

Ruts - that's part of the sport, hmmm. Skate problems, that's tough for skaters, but I'd say it's the skaters responsibility to make sure their equipment is in working order.

Yes, we were sad for Takahashi when an equipment problem probably cost him a medal at Worlds last year. But should he really have been penalized even more if it had caused a fall not on an element?

For me a fall by an elite skater doing back cross overs is more egregious then a fall on a triple salchow and that's more egregious than a fall on a quad flip.

Since dopey falls that are the skater's fault really bother you, when you're on the panel you can slam the skaters in your marks. And you can choose to penalize falls on elements less in your component marks, especially falls on harder elements. And to reward in-character falls with quick recoveries that you believe were not the skater's fault with a higher component score, just enough to make up for the mandatory deduction you don't think they deserve.

Another judge might take a different approach, e.g., penalizing more for second and third falls in a program than for a first fall, or penalizing more for falls that take 5 or more seconds to recover from than for those that take only 1 or 2 seconds.

Whenever the severity of the penalty is based on subjective impressions of how much the error disrupted the program or to what degree it was the skater's fault, I think it's better to let each judge decide for herself rather than taking one possible opinion and imposing it on all of them.

 

[skatinginbc]

All this arithmetic you guys are doing is theoretical, and has no bearing on the real world.
Jeffrey Buttle scored 245.17 points at the 2008 Worlds. If he had fallen 3 times, would he have scored 242.17 and still won the event?
Yu-Na Kim fell twice in the long program at the 2009 Skate America. She scored 111.70 and lost the free to Rachael's 116.11. If Yu-Na had not fallen, would she have scored 113.70 and still lost the free to Rachael?
The 1 point deduction is nonsense and does not reflect reality.

Don't forget taking GOEs into consideration, which would have changed the competition results.

 

[ivy]

thanks for the reply gkelly,

I'm not really so much advocating a position as looking at possibilities. The suggestion was made that the value of a fall be contingent on the value of program - a suggestion that I think has merit. I was just wondering if the value of the element should be taken into account as well or instead. Probably that does add too much complexity to an already burdened system. I'm not actually that bothered by falls, espcially falls caused by skaters pushing towards excellence. But I think it's interesting to look at why others are, how they're handled in the CoP and how it could be changed.

I'll never be on a panel to reward or 'slam' skaters, I'm just a dopey poster on a mostly thoughtful internet board talking about stuff.

 

[jettasian]

Exactly. There is a reason the sport is almost dead in North America. All this person wrote is entirely true.

And how dare that Chan making this almost dead sport even more dead!!!

 

[gkelly]

I guess another way to sum up the point I was trying to get it in my last post, and to make i apply to more than just falls...

If the question is one that can be answered yes or no (or, in some cases, a number in answer to a question of "how many?") -- i.e., a digital answer to a digital question -- then I think it makes sense to give the responsibility for assigning the score to a single individual (referee) or to a small group of people working together in complementary roles (technical panel)

If the question is more along the lines of "how much" or "to what degree" on an analog scale, dependent on human estimation and human opinion, which then has to be translated into digital numbers to allow the calculations, then I think it's better to have as many expert individuals (judges) as possible to answer it for themselves and then combine their answers into a group consensus.

So the answer to "Did he fall or not?" is a yes/no question. Yes, I know there are gray areas like a stumble with hand down. But if the definition is drawn clearly enough it's almost always possible to come to an agreement on a correct answer. Most of the time it's obvious and not even up for debate. He fell. Or he so obviously did not fall that the question never even got asked.

But a question like "How badly did that fall affect the overall impression of the program" doesn't have a single clear answer. It's a matter of opinion. So I think that's the kind of question that it's better to let each judge (and each fan) answer for herself.

The judges have to turn their answers into numbers, which will then get averaged, but they don't have to convince the other judges on the panel to agree with them.

Fans can agree to disagree or can explain why they feel the way they do.
Whichever is more fun and makes for more interesting discussion.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

There are plenty of things one can comment on a skater in general. Consistency; excellent jumper; spinner, stroking; body language, etc. But that is not the point of competition, which is based on sport by the judges for what they see in that one competition.

Jeffrey Buttle was/is and excelent blade to ice skater and he had some good tricks. But he is not in that one competition presently.Patrick and Taka were, and a post on how judges were wrong is appopo.

I think enjoying a competition is better than waiting for a winner. Just look at Javier Fernandez.

 

[hurrah]

Making the penalty a percentage of the total earned score is a good one! It's similar in concept to the one I gave earlier, though of course I completely recognize that the proposal that has been made is far more intricate and nuanced. But for it to work in practice, the GOE details would have to be refined and retuned so that you end up with a scale that penalizes falls 'correctly'. Good luck with that!!!

And I think a fall during a step sequence should be penalized more than a fall after a jump, but as gkelly wrote, some of those falls might be due to bad ice, etc., making the job of judging even more difficult. :think: Good luck with that, too!!!

If these changes were thoughtfully implemented in CoP, I, as an amateur fan, would be very impressed.

 

[bekalc]

Sounds like all you could see in Chan's skating was errors. In the meantime, all you could remember was Takahashi's "fantastic" - by the way it was never being perfect technically, it was less difficult, and it was not his best artistically, skating. What a double standard! What you did mostly was counting errors. Ignoring BV because you were tired of using your brain, and thinking skating with most errors should lose. This is exactly what MM said chasing Axels or chasing skirts. The different views between experts and casual fans.

By the way, I am not in any sense implying that I am an expert of any sort. But at least I am trying my best to study and understand what the experts say.



There is not much to dispute under the rules. If you go through the detailed guidelines in each and everyone of the segments in PCS, it will be more so.

I was not just counting errors. In general I felt that Daisuke had a much better skate. While Chan's Skate Canada program was messier than this program, I actually preferred his Skate Canada program as a performance... In the way he related to the music. I felt that Daisuke not only had better execution than Chan, but he had a better performance. He related to the music and the the audience better. Daisuke made a much better use of his whole body in interpertating the music than Chan did. I felt at this particular skate, Patrick was obviously flying across the ice, but I wasn't that impressed in how he was relating to/becoming one with the music. (I felt a better job was done in Skate Canada)

All in all Chan's program may have been more technically difficult. But as a program, it was not nearly as well executed as Daisuke's. And in terms of relating to the music, performing (and as a casual fan I can judge whose performance I like better) it was not nearly as good.

Daisuke had a fantastic skate and it wasn't just because he had less errors.

While I don't want to see skaters not attempting quads, or not attempting difficult jumps. I also don't want to see skaters attempting to much difficulty that they can't skate well. I'd rather see a little less difficulty. But great execution. And Daisuke had difficulty, he did attempt a quad, he attempted one more triple axel (Including a triple axel/triple toe which is the most difficult triple/triple a man can do. Not that its rewarded under this stupid system) His program had transitions/inbetweens.

I'm sorry but execution matters too, and should matter in this sport. There has to be a balance between difficulty and execution, if this sport is going to be taken seriously.

 

[Poodlepal]

I agree. If Patrick has better blade skills than Daisuke at Skate America, he will also have better blade skills at Skate Canada. If Daisuke's choreography for his current long program is better than Jeremy's at Cup o Russia, it will be better at Cup of China. It seems like there are a lot of points that are based on things that are fixed or don't vary that much from competition to competition, and that actually skating well or poorly on a particular day doesn't affect an outcome that's almost predetermined by other things.

Congratulations to Patrick for being able to rack up these "fixed" points with his edge skills and footwork. I assume that the judges are judging him fairly, but there is a problem with how the points are assigned or added up.