A lazy method is simply dividing the current base mark by 10, so we have 1.8 (18.10/10) to 8.2 (81.54/10). Ideally, we need to redesign the base marks so that they range from 1.0 (for the lowest level) to 9.0 (like Chan) and anything below or above is for the once-in-a-blue-moon occasion.
With how many decimal places? How are they arrived at?
I really don't see the point of trying to design base marks for whole programs. If the scores range from 1.0 to 9.0 with one decimal place, that's 80 possible base scores to cover every possible combination of elements from whatever the lowest level of competition at which the system is used up to the top senior men. The widest variation will be in jump content. Looking at the individual actual jumps (counting each part of a combination separately), that could be a minimum of six single jumps up to a maximum of twelve jumps of which three are quads, seven are triples, and two are doubles . . . and someday maybe even more than that.
Also, how will the base marks be set for short programs, which all have four jumps (three jump elements)? Will the maximum allowed content be designated as 9.0 or 10.0 and everything scaled to that? Will the minimum content that meets the requirements be given a benchmark score? Or will there be specific points assigned to specific elements, as is currently the case, so that short programs typically have a maximum of about half the long program maximum?
Will 9.0 mean something different for women than for men? Or will women never exceed 8.0 and rarely 7.0?
My concern is that there will often be situations in which many skaters in the same event earn base marks that are identical or very close, so the base marks are not the deciding factor. That's not necessarily a bad thing -- if the content is comparable, let the execution decide. That was the original principle behind the short program in the first place.
But if many skaters in the same event do very different content and get the same base scores, it would be much more useful to show where they each got their points.
For instance,
Wayne Wing Yin CHUNG's 2012 Junior Preliminary Free Skate: Total Base Marks = 26.21, GOE = -2.47, Skating skills = (3.32 + 2.79)/2 = 3.06, Presentation = (3.00 + 3.21 + 3.00)/3 = 3.07, Total score = 54.38
Bernhard PAULI 2012 Junior Preliminary Free Skate: Total Base Marks = 28.99, GOE = -2.2, Skating Skills = (2.82 + 2.36)/2 = 2.59, Presentation = (2.82 + 2.89 + 2.79)/3 = 2.83, Total score = 54.15
Chung's estimated E score = 5 - 2.47/2 = 3.8, and total score under my system = (2.6 x 3.8 + 3.1 x 3.1) = 9.88 + 9.61 = 19.49
Pauli's estimated E score = 5 - 2.2/2 = 3.9, and total score under my system = (2.9 x 3.9 + 2.6 x 2.8) = 11.31 + 7.28 = 18.59
Their rankings are consistent under both systems.
I didn't recognize the names, so I had to google to find out where you got these scores from. They seemed awfully high for preliminary level skaters.
Anyway, the calculations may make sense, but I'm not sure it makes
more sense the current system. What is the problem with the current system, from the top skaters in the world down to even lower levels than bottom-ranked international junior competitors, that the change in calculations and presentation is supposed to solve?
The feedback is good but not mandatory. 6.0 did not give feedback about every element, and lacking feedback was not the main reason that a new judging system was pushed into existence. Nevertheless, detailed protocols are still available if we have to have them.
My impression is that the detailed protocols are the most valuable aspect of the scoring system for the skaters, so yes, we do have to have them.
Just imagine the judging method remains roughly the same except that there is a total GOE score reported and used to calculate the total segment score.
But why? For whom is it better to mush all the GOEs for each element from each judge into one number? It doesn't tell you anything about how that one number was arrived at, and you haven't convinced me that it gives a better result than scoring each element separately. Just as good, maybe, with somewhat different results in some close contests, as could be the case with any change in system or individuals under any system when the skaters are close in ability. But unless the results are demonstrably
better than under the system, what's the value in making the change?
Sounds like he still skates to a "program" regardless how painful it is to watch. In that case, he won't receive a zero. Zero is reserved for blatant violations of the requirement--No program at all, in which jumps and spins and tracing of elaborate designs on the ice are all performed impromptu and separated by blatant breaks in between. If we want to reward those kind of skating skills, we might as well have a Special figures competition or a footwork competition or a jumping competition, WITHOUT music. If we like our current competition format, we are saying that it is essential for the skaters to integrate those individual elements or skills into a "program" (something prearranged in a meaningful way).
OK.
Still, why multiply the two different kinds of whole program scores?
I'd like to run a bunch of test cases with different kinds of strengths and weaknesses at the same general skill level as well as across competition levels to see whether whether multiplying makes more sense than adding, or less.
Simply add them up. No element is performed ==> receiving zero. All elements (e.g, all 8 jumping passes) are performed ==> automatic 5 points. And then add the Total GOEs (a plus-and-minus system) to the 5 points. Skipping one element ==> deduct 0.5 point from the base value ==> 4.5 points...
Huh? You're talking about the "E" score here? Why would you subtract points for skipping an element in a long program? It's not required to do the maximum allowed number of jumps. And would you be subtracting from the E score or the D score, which already loses the value of whatever element(s) could have filled the vacant slot(s)?
This is my post #161
∑(DxE) is what they use in diving.
In my skating judging proposal, ∑(Difficulty x Performance) = Element Difficulty x Element Performance + Skating Difficulty x Program Performance
If your question is about the Total Element Score, then my answer is: ∑D x ∑E.
I'm not really following the math. But I wouldn't use diving as a model on the assumption that calculaitons designed for scoring dives (which by their nature are inevitably performed as individual isolated elements) are better for scoring skating programs than calculations designed for scoring skating programs.
The fact is, if there's a clear difference in quality and/or difficulty between skaters, then almost all experts will agree on the results regardless of the scoring system.
If there are several skaters who are similar in technical and presentation ability, with small differences in the details, then the experts will have different opinions and the specific experts on the panels will make just as much difference as which scoring system is used. With the IJS, changes from year to year in the scale of values and in what counts as a level or how certain errors are penalized can mean that last year's programs scored under this year's rules could have different results. Ultimately there's no real right and wrong in those cases and the decisions will revolve around fine differences.
If you have skaters who have very different strengths and weaknesses, then larger principles about what to reward most highly or what to penalize most severely can change the trends both in results and in how skaters train and design their programs. That's why the people in charge of designing the scoring system and the rules need to research a good consensus on what the skating community wants to reward before inventing or improving the system. And then different factions within the community will continue to debate the balance over the years, and sometimes rules will change as a result.
Are you interested in looking at a bunch of programs with different strengths and figuring out what the skating community wants to reward and how to design the scoring to achieve that?
That's what I think. JMO.
