The term "Code of Points" is confusing because the 10-scale old system in gymnastics, based on my quick internet search, is also called "Code of Points".
The figure skating judging system is not officially called "Code of Points." Fans of both gymnastics and figure skating started calling it that, and many other fans and some skating insiders adopted the usage. So unofficially, that may be what the most people call it, if you count fans as well as participants.
Originally it was usually referred to as the new judging system, but by nature that name was inherently destined to become obsolute pretty quickly.
I don't know that it really has an official name. In the US and elsewhere, officially it is called the International Judging System = IJS. The ISU calls it the ISU Judging System, so IJS would also work.
I have no problem with "adding the points system". I have problems with "objectively" counting features for an integrated skill. For instance, to evaluate speaking skill, one can "objectively" count the number of grammatical or semantic errors in one's speech. But this is the problem: Is it valid to arbitrarily place one who makes 7 errors in a different level from one who makes 8 errors? It ignores the possibility that Speaker B, despite having more errors, might have compensated that with a better communication skill. Counting the rotation of a jump is acceptable because it is pretty much one dimension and involves minimum creativity. Counting twists and turns in a footwork section, in my opinion, is a different story.
That's a really good point and it identifies what bugs me about CoP. I'm not sure what the best way to judge these elements that really can be both beautiful and athletic. Flatten out levels a bit and make GoE more about aspects that we associate with PCS or the old Artistry mark?
So what is the best way to evaluate the difficulty of a step sequence.
Keep in mind that, like all other elements, step sequences will be evaluated on both difficulty and quality.
Under 6.0, judges could use their own judgment and knowledge of skating technique to evaluate both the difficulty and quality, as well as how well the choreography and execution went with the music and enhanced to program theme, and come up with a holistic assessment of the step sequence as a whole.
Which left a lot of room for differences of opinion since judges might differ in whether they gave more weight to technical content edge quality or quickness or musical interpretation, etc. (and still do, in assigning GOEs). Also judges who had been high-level skaters themselves had a better feel for the difficulty of the steps and turns and the way they were combined compared to judges who had only reached lower levels of accomplishment on the ice themselves, and much more than judges who had never figure skated themselves at all.
Surely there were some guidelines given in judge training about how to evaluate the difficulty of a step sequence, but nothing that I saw officially published. The only rule of thumb I can think of offhand was that turning in both directions was worth more than turning only in the skater's preferred direction.
When school figures were part of the competition structure, it was impossible to place well or even to qualify to skate at the higher levels without demonstrating the ability to do all the different turns on all the different edges with good edge control. So those aspects of basic skating technique were a big part of competition results.
Later in the 1990s-early 2000s, skaters started to reach senior level without ever having done any school figures; some of them didn't even know what all the different turns were much less have the ability to execute them all. So the technical content of step sequences in that period tended to be lower than in the 1980s.
Those skills are much more fundamental to what makes figure skating figure skating (as opposed to speed skating or acrobatics on ice or ballet on ice, although good control of edges is what allows figure skaters to skate with speed and to execute acrobatic and balletic or other dance-like moves with security). In free skating, they are demonstrated in step sequences and also in the in-between skating.
Under the IJS, difficulty and quality of edge-based skills are rewarded under the Skating Skills and Transitions components. The step sequences (and to a lesser extent spiral sequences) are really the only places that pure skating skills contribute to the Total Element Score as well.
Personally, I don't love the specific ways the features for step sequences are defined. And I'm not 100% wedded to the idea that step sequences must have features that the skater either gets credit for or not to step up the level. Maybe the "choreo" sequence approach is a good compromise between there being no technical points for step sequences and very detailed requirements for levels in which skaters attempt to do the same kinds of steps in similar combinations to get the highest base mark, regardless of execution.
But I do think it's important for there to be a way to acknowledge that a step sequence with deep edges and several difficult types of turns in different directions is more difficult, and more difficult to execute well, than a sequence with no turns harder than mohawks and three turns in the good direction, or turns with unidentifiable shallow or flat edges not held on the exit edges. So if there are to be no levels for a step sequence, and individual judges are each going to reach their own assessments of the merit of each step sequence, then the judges need to be allowed and encouraged to reflect the difficulty in their GOEs. And there need to be some guidelines on what kinds of difficulty to reward.
Otherwise we'd have skaters doing easy sequences that they can execute well getting higher marks than skaters who challenge themselves with more difficulty at the expense of a little bit of speed or quickness. If skaters who never do anything harder than threes and inside mohawks score better than skaters who include difficult turns, then the difficult turns will disappear from the skating repertoire again.
So what's the best way to encourage skaters to include the best balance of difficulty and quality and artistry for their own skills and to reward them appropriately?
]
And part of the conclusion Skatinginbc made from Wikipedia is totally wrong.
