There was a lot of joy in the 6.0, at least before judges started handing it out too often. I am thinking, for instance, of Janet Lynn's long program at the '72 Olympics. There is a video that shows her watching the scores come up and the happiness on her and her coach's faces when that 6.0 comes up. And who can forget Nadia Comaneci's perfect 10's in gymnastics?
What Do You All Think About CoP Now?
- Thread starter Bluebonnet
- Start date
There was a lot of joy in the 6.0, at least before judges started handing it out too often. I am thinking, for instance, of Janet Lynn's long program at the '72 Olympics. There is a video that shows her watching the scores come up and the happiness on her and her coach's faces when that 6.0 comes up. And who can forget Nadia Comaneci's perfect 10's in gymnastics?
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
Not so. Haven't you ever felt a thrill in watching a great performance even though others are yet to skate.?
As a baseball fan I can tell you that there is emotional satisfaction in every confrontation between batter and pitcher. The excitement lies in the ebb and flow of all the details that shape the contest.
If all we cared about was who won or lost, we could get our "emotional satisfaction" from reading the newspaper the next day.
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2009
I never watched Janet Lynn live and I don't know who Nadia is.
Besides, the more common reaction under the 6.0 system is puzzlement. 5.6, 5.4, 5.5, 5.3, 5.5, 5.9, 5.2, etc. depending on what nationality of judge. How did one judge justify his 5.6? His 5.2? The other the 5.9? What elements are worth what? What were the penalties and deductions? Might as well not ask since there are no protocols.
The only thing left is say very helpful and useful things like "the Communist bloc is voting against our favorite skater" or "European skaters always prop up their own."
Re baseball:
Baseball is completely different, everything is quantifiable. The analogy only works if home runs were given partial value, seemingly willy nilly by a judging panel, with no way to validate their judgements. At least baseball fans can contest bad calls. Figure skaters had no record of even that. Numbers only give satisfaction if they make sense, and in the 6.0 era, they made no sense whatsoever.
Besides, the more common reaction under the 6.0 system is puzzlement. 5.6, 5.4, 5.5, 5.3, 5.5, 5.9, 5.2, etc. depending on what nationality of judge. How did one judge justify his 5.6? His 5.2? The other the 5.9? What elements are worth what? What were the penalties and deductions? Might as well not ask since there are no protocols.
The only thing left is say very helpful and useful things like "the Communist bloc is voting against our favorite skater" or "European skaters always prop up their own."
Re baseball:
Baseball is completely different, everything is quantifiable. The analogy only works if home runs were given partial value, seemingly willy nilly by a judging panel, with no way to validate their judgements. At least baseball fans can contest bad calls. Figure skaters had no record of even that. Numbers only give satisfaction if they make sense, and in the 6.0 era, they made no sense whatsoever.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2003
I don't know of ANYONE who has every yelled "6.0" at the screen after a great skate, nor anyone who yells "goal" watching a hockey game.
To me the judging system under 6.0 just made no sense at all. I remember my daughter skated at an event and was placed 3rd by every judge on the panel. She finished in 4th place. To me that was and is, incomprehensible. Imagine trying to explain to a 9 year-old - Yes dear, you're 3rd across the board. No, you don't get a medal. You were 4th.
I agree with Mathman!! The skater have to skate two good programs and then the prize is in his hands!
COP was adjusted in these years and improved in various aspects. The problem is that COP determines the evolution of FS, with the elements one should do according to COP. If they decide that a Biellmann is worth more points then everybody will do a Biellmann, if you say somebody should jump with a hand up to earn more points, then everybody will jump with a hand up.
Once were the skaters who pushed the envelope, who decided the way the sport should develop by including elements, by doing certain choreographies etc. Now is all determined a priori.
COP was adjusted in these years and improved in various aspects. The problem is that COP determines the evolution of FS, with the elements one should do according to COP. If they decide that a Biellmann is worth more points then everybody will do a Biellmann, if you say somebody should jump with a hand up to earn more points, then everybody will jump with a hand up.
Once were the skaters who pushed the envelope, who decided the way the sport should develop by including elements, by doing certain choreographies etc. Now is all determined a priori.
This is true. The trick is to finetune the system so that big leads in the short program are only possible if one skater was far better than everyone else in the short program and deserves a big lead.
But ultimately, fairness to the skaters, based on all parts of the competition that count toward the results, is more important than artificial excitement.
Not necessarily. E.g., under 6.0 and factored placements, you could place second in either the SP or the freeskate just because only one skater (with good skills and difficult content) had a good performance and you were lucky to be the least bad of everyone else.
Also, you could have a great SP on a day when three other skaters also had a great SP and after mixed ordinals the tiebreakers left you in fourth. You did your part, but then you still need help to win the event even if you win the free.
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2003
And then there were the flip flops under 6.0. Sally could skate and be in first place and then Mary skates right after her and goes into first and Sally falls to 3rd????? How can that be? How can one skater cause a previous skater to drop 2 places? Well that's because the marks were meaningless. Only the ordinals mattered. So those who said they understood 5.7 as a mark were clueless because the 5.7 meant nothing and was only the holding place for the real mark, the ordinal.
Flip flops were said to drive Speedy crazy. He absolutlely wanted a less confusing system where flip flops did not happen.
Also, skaters would often receive 6.0's for less than perfect performances (Yagudin at the Olympics for one). That's because the judges boxed themselves in giving Plushenko 5.9's. In order to place Yagudin 1st, they had to give him higher marks than Plushenko, hence the 6.0's.
I loathed the old system. It was open to manipulations as we saw over countless competitions, it was confusing. The scores meant nothing. And you didn't get much in the way of feedback from the judges. This system forces the skaters to do more than jump, it has scores you can read and understand, and it's far easier to learn and understand than 6.0 and its scoring grids. I don't need to be an accountant to figure out why someone one.
Flip flops were said to drive Speedy crazy. He absolutlely wanted a less confusing system where flip flops did not happen.
Also, skaters would often receive 6.0's for less than perfect performances (Yagudin at the Olympics for one). That's because the judges boxed themselves in giving Plushenko 5.9's. In order to place Yagudin 1st, they had to give him higher marks than Plushenko, hence the 6.0's.
I loathed the old system. It was open to manipulations as we saw over countless competitions, it was confusing. The scores meant nothing. And you didn't get much in the way of feedback from the judges. This system forces the skaters to do more than jump, it has scores you can read and understand, and it's far easier to learn and understand than 6.0 and its scoring grids. I don't need to be an accountant to figure out why someone one.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
^ That's easy to explain. Factored placements. 7+1, 5+2, and 1+4 all beat 3+3.
The same thing can happen under CoP scoring. You could get third in each segment but finish fourth overall.
Factored placements presents a different idea of what figure skating is all about than does adding up the points cumulatively over both performances. What is the "basic unit" that we are trying to average or add? Under CoP the basic unit is the individual element. In 6.0 the basic unit is the performance.
The same thing can happen under CoP scoring. You could get third in each segment but finish fourth overall.
Factored placements presents a different idea of what figure skating is all about than does adding up the points cumulatively over both performances. What is the "basic unit" that we are trying to average or add? Under CoP the basic unit is the individual element. In 6.0 the basic unit is the performance.
Even if they all skated badly, you still couldn't win if the one who was leading after the SP was the least bad of the rest.
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2009
Actually, that doesn't make any sense at all, especially since the free skate is longer and should be weighted more. Otherwise, why not do two of the same programs?
Under CoP, there is none of this nonsense, only total points scored. No one really looks at who wins the free skate unless it's for later analysis. Scores are cumulative. You get 60 points in the short, you get 120 in the free, that gives you 180 total and that decides your placement.
I think you misread what I wrote. You said if someone had a big lead....for the moment, only Chan did that, so it's a rare case. But overall, it doesn't happen, not in other disciplines. So what's your problem?
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2008
Yu-Na Kim has won SPs by some pretty big margins - over 15 points at the 2009 TEB and 2009 Skate America (she did not win the LP at SA).
Brian Joubert built up some pretty big leads back in the day. 2007 Skate Canada and 2008 CoR come to mind (he didn't win the LP at either of these events).
Davis and White had a 10 point lead out of the SD at this season's Skate America.
Shen and Zhao's lead in their comeback event, 2009 CoC, was almost 10 points. Their lead at that year's Skate America was even bigger.
So now that we have non-Chan examples for all disciplines, can we move on?
I don't mind skaters winning it in the SP. It is much harder to build up a huge SP lead with fewer elements and smaller PCS factors, so more power to those who are dominant enough to win it in that segment.
Brian Joubert built up some pretty big leads back in the day. 2007 Skate Canada and 2008 CoR come to mind (he didn't win the LP at either of these events).
Davis and White had a 10 point lead out of the SD at this season's Skate America.
Shen and Zhao's lead in their comeback event, 2009 CoC, was almost 10 points. Their lead at that year's Skate America was even bigger.
So now that we have non-Chan examples for all disciplines, can we move on?
I don't mind skaters winning it in the SP. It is much harder to build up a huge SP lead with fewer elements and smaller PCS factors, so more power to those who are dominant enough to win it in that segment.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2005
Under factored placements, the long WAS worth more than the SP. SP was factored at 0.5 and the LP at 1.0 with the LP as the tie breaker. It makes plenty of sense in Math's example:
SP 7th, LP 1st, Factored Placements: 4.5
SP 5th, LP 2nd, Factored Placements: 4.5
SP 3rd, LP 3rd, Factored Placements: 4.5
SP 1st, LP 4th, Factored PlacementsL 4.5
Final result in the order above (sorry, Math, 1+4 does NOT beat 3+3 in the FP example)
You're responding to Dragonlady saying "I remember my daughter skated at an event and was placed 3rd by every judge on the panel. She finished in 4th place. "?
That has nothing to do with factored placements -- it's all about the ordinals.
E.g., just for a quick example with majority calculations (I never got the hang of OBO):
A: 1 1 1 4 4 4 1 2 2 6/2 TOM = 8
B: 2 2 2 1 1 1 4 4 4 6/2 TOM = 9
C: 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 1 1 6/2 TOM = 10
D: 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 9/3
Yes, essentially. Also, is the scoring for each performance based on comparing that performance (as a whole, or as individual elements and components) against an external (but inevitably somewhat flexible) standard, or against other performances in the same competition.
It would be perfectly possible to judge each phase of the competition by IJS and then to throw out the total scores and use only factored placements for each phase of the competition.
Then you'd sometimes get a situation where a clean Jim wins the short program by 30 points over a splatfest by everyone else in which Dan comes out 2nd as best of the rest, and then Dan edges Jim out in the long program by 3 points and takes the title. For casual fans who watch only the long programs and know nothing about the SP results except the standings, Dan's win could seem fair. For anyone who thinks the difference in SP quality between Jim and everyone else ought to mean something, that would be a travesty.
Well this can happen also with COP!
It's impossible to achieve a 4axel IMO and to be fair I'm not interested to see. No, I'd like to see one foot axel into triple salchow for example. Or an inside axel, a toeless lutz. Who is doing these jumps in combo with triples? Nobody! And it is possible but not worth.
And I'm talking about those spin variations and predefined step sequences that everybody is doing. Why not doing easier but well done spins and steps. Give me a Slutskaya 2002 short program step sequence. Give me a Butyrskaya spin with both hands behind her back!
Look, you've mentioned a 4axel, but you are thinking with COP in mind. It's already present in the list of possible elements. I'm talking about new ones, about innovative moves that nobody is doing under COP, also because they have not been invented yet (and no incentive to invent them).
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2005
The biggest problem with IJS is that who the judges and tech panel believe is the winner does not mostly agree with who the audience thinks is the winner. This turns people off because it doesn't make sense to them and they think the results are from "cooking the books" so to speak.
Examples: Men's LP result at GP final this year, 2010 US Ladies' results at Nationals, 2008 or 09 (?) Worlds results for Ladies (Nakano should have been on the podium in most people's estimation), 2010 Worlds Ladies LP result (most think Asada should have won the LP too), 2008 US Nationals Men's results (Lysacek beat Weir on a tie breaker in the LP for the title)
Any judging system needs to take into account (somewhat) what the fans want (the ones who pay the money, buy the sponsors' products, etc) when it comes to a winner. If the fans don't "get" the result, they tune out and go watch football, basketball, baseball, a beauty pageant, soap opera or something else. Without fans, the sport dies or is relagated to some niche that shows at 1am on tape delay....
Examples: Men's LP result at GP final this year, 2010 US Ladies' results at Nationals, 2008 or 09 (?) Worlds results for Ladies (Nakano should have been on the podium in most people's estimation), 2010 Worlds Ladies LP result (most think Asada should have won the LP too), 2008 US Nationals Men's results (Lysacek beat Weir on a tie breaker in the LP for the title)
Any judging system needs to take into account (somewhat) what the fans want (the ones who pay the money, buy the sponsors' products, etc) when it comes to a winner. If the fans don't "get" the result, they tune out and go watch football, basketball, baseball, a beauty pageant, soap opera or something else. Without fans, the sport dies or is relagated to some niche that shows at 1am on tape delay....
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2010
Such a lead created an euphoria and exuberant exaltation at the most recent Japan Nationals. Talk about interest and excitement!
Similar threads
