Program Components Score | Golden Skate

Program Components Score

russell30

Final Flight
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
After adminstering the recent European Figure Skating Championships, the ISU still need to address the program component score section which seems to be marked according (most of the time) to either how many jumps they perform or where they are currently positioned within the world rankings or indeed after the short program.

There should be a fundamental difference between the TES and the PCS if the skater had beautiful transitions, use of choreography, skating skills etc. PLEASE ISU THIS NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED. It is still based on the jumps!!

I must note Susanna Poykio was wonderful in all areas of the PCS and should have been marked 60+ in this area. I agree her technical side was a bit under par and deserved those marks but the PCS were very good and the best.

The same for Jamal Othman in the mens discipline, again PCS were very good and should have been marked in the 70's.

Good to hear people thought's on the PCS.
 
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
Definitely. They are two separate parts to the scores and should be marked by specialists in the two different fields.

There is no reason to give out super PCS scores for executing a quad. A good quad should be rewarded in the GoEs not in the PCS.

Joe
 

amber68

On the Ice
Joined
Aug 25, 2006
There should be a fundamental difference between the TES and the PCS if the skater had beautiful transitions, use of choreography, skating skills etc. PLEASE ISU THIS NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED. It is still based on the jumps!!

I must note Susanna Poykio was wonderful in all areas of the PCS and should have been marked 60+ in this area. I agree her technical side was a bit under par and deserved those marks but the PCS were very good and the best.

The same for Jamal Othman in the mens discipline, again PCS were very good and should have been marked in the 70's.

Good to hear people thought's on the PCS.

But it is much easier to focus on choreography and the artistic part when you don't have to worry about the big jumps which do take longer to set up (which means emptier program) and also take a lot of energy . I loved Jamal Othman's program and I would have given him a 10 for interpretation but c'mon his most difficult jump was triple lutz. I wonder how his program would have looked if he had had to do a 4-3 and two 3 axles .
 

gio

Medalist
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
We need a separate judging panel, please!!!
How it's possible that last year at Olympics Matthew Savoie and Shawn Sawyer received low marks in transitions, when ALL of their jumps were preceded by steps and other skating movements. Instead Plushenko's marks for transitions were so high. But, where were all these transitions???
The fact is that the judges still don't follow the rules!!! I don't understand, why the ISU doesn't take an action?
 

antmanb

Record Breaker
Joined
Feb 5, 2004
But it is much easier to focus on choreography and the artistic part when you don't have to worry about the big jumps which do take longer to set up (which means emptier program) and also take a lot of energy . I loved Jamal Othman's program and I would have given him a 10 for interpretation but c'mon his most difficult jump was triple lutz. I wonder how his program would have looked if he had had to do a 4-3 and two 3 axles .

But surely the important thing is to get the balance of the marks right no? Give Jamal his 10 for interpretation and leave the technical panel to count the triple lutzes and combinations and award the GOE. If the PCS was actually properly scored then a skater can make the informed decision to lay down a program with only (i laugh that i'm using the word only here!) triples but with choreography, interpretation, skating skills, execution and (the other one i'm forgetting) that is aiming for those perfect 10s, or throw the choreo etc out of the window and attempt their quad and triple axel laden program.

I agree that quads should not be rewarded in the PCS like they currently are.

Ant
 

satorare

Match Penalty
Joined
Jan 16, 2007
I guess this thread is a defense for Buttle. There is no doubt judges in Tokyo will never give quadless "performers" higher PCS than Joubert or Takahshi.
 

rain

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 29, 2003
There's also the other problem of the judges not differentiating between the various components. I'll use Plushenko as an example: his Olympic LP was a travesty of non-choreography, with all of his jumps crammed into the first half and should have been marked down on that component, however, as always his skating skills were excellent. There should have been a significant difference between the two scores, but the judges simply seem to give skaters marks all within a certain range and are done with it.
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
I guess this thread is a defense for Buttle. There is no doubt judges in Tokyo will never give quadless "performers" higher PCS than Joubert or Takahshi.
Takahashi doesn't need quad points to get high PCS. His presentation is always stunningly beautiful. Now Joubert OTOH....
 

indicatoto101

On the Ice
Joined
Sep 30, 2006
But it is much easier to focus on choreography and the artistic part when you don't have to worry about the big jumps which do take longer to set up (which means emptier program) and also take a lot of energy . I loved Jamal Othman's program and I would have given him a 10 for interpretation but c'mon his most difficult jump was triple lutz. I wonder how his program would have looked if he had had to do a 4-3 and two 3 axles .

On the other hand, it's easier to jump when your choreography, transitions or the in-betweens are non-existant. Sure, a quad is extremely difficult but when you have 10 seconds to set it up, mentally and physically, your chances of executing the move correctly is much higher than someone with difficult choreography (they are already tired) or from transitions.

The judges should just score what they're supposed to. If the rule book dictates that they're supposed to separate the TCs and PCs, then do it for gods sake! That is your job.
 

Vodka Shot

On the Ice
Joined
Oct 2, 2006
You've touched on one of the main reasons why I'm on the verge of never watching this sport again. The fact that PCS are NEVER scored properly is one of the reasons why we're seeing programs based on nothing but, jumps. Judges should not be afraid to give high TES and low PCS or vice versa. If PCS are supposed to be the old 'artistic' scores the fact that they aren't judged right means that artistry has become unimportant and it indeed has. For example, Joubert's PCS should never in a million years be higher then say Takahashi's. Even if Joubert jumps quads till he's blue in the face imo Takahashi (if he skates clean and lands his jumps, even if they're 'just' triples) should win b/c his PCS should be so much higher. If this isn't addressed we will eventually end up w/ programs that are solely jump based; the sport will eventually lose the artistic side. I hate that now it's almost impossible to win w/out a quad, imo that's ridiculous-a skater w/ better artistry and clean triples should beat a skater that lacks artistry and has quads imo.
 

Tinymavy15

Sinnerman for the win
Record Breaker
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
yes. it's funny how when the jumps are landed the program compoments go way up. Take Plushenko or Joubert. theyy aren't very artistic, but they beat out other, more artistic skaters scores because they fell on the jumps.
 

bear

Spectator
Joined
Jan 22, 2007
For judges much easier to evaluate the quality of jumps, spins and so on. The scores for TES are very unified between the judging panel. In PCS the differentiation of marks will be much greater. You basically wouldn’t have nothing to do against their personal tastes in music, choreography, speed and so on.
In order to judge correctly choreography, ISU must set a “perfect” routine based on choreographically components. Then, I believe, there should be 2 panels of judges: one for technical and the second for artistic components.
 

russell30

Final Flight
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
I think it should be this:

TES (technical element score)
mark for jumps
mark for spins
mark for step sequences

All from one judging panel (say 5 judges, technical specialist calling) say 50% of TS (total score)

SSS (Skating skills score)
includes skating skills
transitions
use of edges

then AIS (Artistic Interpretaion Score)
interpretation of music
choreogpahy

SSS and AIS from another judging panel (say 5 judges) again 50% of TS (total score)

Shall we bring back the 6 system!!
 

sk8addict

On the Ice
Joined
Oct 22, 2004
I guess this thread is a defense for Buttle. There is no doubt judges in Tokyo will never give quadless "performers" higher PCS than Joubert or Takahshi.

Nor would US judges give Allisa much ligher PCS scores than Kimmie. Which IMO Allisa deserves. Kimmie is held way up in Pcs scores.
 
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
Nor would US judges give Allisa much ligher PCS scores than Kimmie. Which IMO Allisa deserves. Kimmie is held way up in Pcs scores.
Giving examples of Kimmie/Alissa and Plush/Buttle doesn't really say much about the scoring system. Holding skaters up, is indeed a good topic but this is about scoring the differences between Tech and Presentation.
 

Ausrick

Rinkside
Joined
Nov 1, 2006
It just makes sense to me to have separate panels of judges. As it is there are too many judges doing virtually nothing as far as the TES goes and then quite arbitrarily, several of those are dropped out of the scoring anyway, introducing a statistically unfair randomity to the whole process !

Without further expense they could use half the existing number on each panel and let them each concentrate on their sections.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
When they tried the experiment of having two separate panels (at Nebelhorn last year) one of the complaints of the judges was that the panel judging technical elements had nothing to do. It was too boring just doing GOEs.

I would favor doing away with the technical specialist and give that job over to the first judging panel, so you would have, say six judges doing tech (including "calling" the elements) and six doing the second set of marks.

The purpose of the technical specialist was not because these officials were any better than judges at deciding whether a jump was underrotated, etc. The purpose was to pace more power in the hands of appointees of the ISU and less in the hands of judges nominated by their federations. So if they did away with the tech specialists, in order not to lose hard-won ground they would have to make all judges ISU appointees and eliminate the input of the member federations altogether.
 
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
True. But, comparing skaters and the scores they get is the best way to describe the issues w/ PCS.
Not always and it may well take on the topic of Kimmie v. Alissa and forget about the scoring system. Note: the topic is PCS scores and this may well lead into spirals, 3x3s, etc. about two featured skaters and the discussion will change to putting one of them down rather that resolvin problems with PCS scores in general.
 
Last edited:
Top