Problems with CoP and how to fix them

Mathman said:

Also, in a combo like 3F+1T or 3F+3T< I counted that as a failed flip.

Click to expand...

Oh, I definitely didn't. They completed the Flip, the second jump doesn't have anything to do with it.

Gold Medalist said:

Then again, 10 ladies did not even schedule a 3Loop in their program (as compared to only 3 ladies not even trying the Flip). You've got to wonder how many of those 10 ladies would have failed if they attempted the Loop. If you assume that all 10 would have failed and all 3 of the ladies who didn't do the Flip would have failed on that jump, the success rate for the Flip is higher.

Click to expand...

Hard to say. I assume that the main reason that there are twice as many flips as loops is simply that the CoP rewards this. If we switched the values around, I would expect suddenly to see a lot more loops -- just like we suddenly started seeing more Biellmann positions than ever before when the CoP started giving out big points for it.

In fact, IMHO that really is a flaw in the whole concept of the CoP. Whatever the point values are set at, the Code of Points determines what every skater will try to put in his/her program.

Edited to add: Actually, I think I like Mafke's idea of having just two jump levels: Lutz, flip and loop all count the same, and toe and Salchow the same. This would give each skater a chance to come up with an original jump layout tailored to his own particular strengths.

GoldMedalist said:

Oh, I definitely didn't. They completed the Flip, the second jump doesn't have anything to do with it.

Click to expand...

Without going back and looking at the tapes, I assumed that the main reason they couldn't complete the second jump was because the landing on the first wasn't good enough.

Edited to add: Actually, I did solos and combos separately. So I only counted the "flip combo" as a success if it was successful as a combo.

I got:

Solo flips: 8 for 17, 47%
Flip combos: 7 for 14, 50%

Solo loops, 7 for 12, 58%
Loop combos, 5 for 6, 83% (supporting Joe's claim about loop combos )

Solo Lutz, 12 for 22, 55%
Lutz combo, 13 for 17, 77%

Mathman said:

Solo flips: 8 for 17, 47%
Flip combos: 7 for 14, 50%

Solo loops, 7 for 12, 58%
Loop combos, 5 for 6, 83% (supporting Joe's claim about loop combos )

Solo Lutz, 12 for 22, 55%
Lutz combo, 13 for 17, 77%

Click to expand...

I don't it supports Joe's claim in anything, or do you think that a Lutz combo is easier than a simple Lutz and a Flip combo esaier than a Flip?

Justlooking said:

I don't it supports Joe's claim in anything, or do you think that a Lutz combo is easier than a simple Lutz and a Flip combo esaier than a Flip?

Click to expand...

Hmm. Good point. Maybe some of the missed solo jumps were actually supposed to be the first jump of a combo, so I misclassified them.

Or maybe the point is not that a combo is easier, but that if you do the first jump perfectly then you have a really good chance of pulling off the combo.

But I did think that 5 out of 6 loop combos was pretty good, for whatever reason.

Mathman said:

Hard to say. I assume that the main reason that there are twice as many flips and loops is simply that the CoP rewards this. If we switched the values around, I would expect suddenly to see a lot more loops -- just like we suddenly started seeing more Biellmann positions than ever before when the CoP started giving out big points for it.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, but the fact remains that all 10 of those skaters who didn't do the Loop would have received more points if they HAD done it (because they chose to do a Salchow, Toeloop, or Double Axel instead...all worth less).

Mathman said:

In fact, IMHO that really is a flaw in the whole concept of the CoP. Whatever the point values are set at, the Code of Points determines what every skater will try to put in his/her program.

Click to expand...

That's only partly true (and also ignores that jump layouts were no more varied before CoP and really can't vary THAT much...no matter what the system, everyone who wants to be on top is going to try the hardest jumps they can), but your concern is something my revised rules addresses.

People wouldn't be trying to throw in lots of bad-looking positions into Spins if they knew judges were eager to give out a negative GOE which made said position worthless. There simply isn't enough of a penalty at the moment. At the same time, I certainly I don't think it's a bad thing that the system is forcing skaters to improve their spins. When I go back and look at pre-CoP programs, I absolutely yawn at 75% of the spins skaters did.

Boring Spirals has been another concern but luckily the ISU fixed that issue by themselves (hopefully) with the rule changes for the 07-08 season.

The BIGGEST problem with CoP is not with the system itself (the potential of what the system could be, anyway) but in how it confuses the Audience. People just don't like numbers. 6.0 was relatable, CoP isn't. I'm sorry to word it this way but CoP is a "manly" judging system. Followers of Football and Baseball LOVE talking about numbers - the stats of teams and players. But with figure skating, the fanbase is much more casual. All those housewives who drove the viewership of Figure Skating through the roof never really cared about the sport of it all and never had to THINK about what skaters were doing. They just watched and liked seeing the pretty moves. Now they don't get what is going on when the scores come up.

The only way I can see to remedy the problem is to convert the judges' marks into 6.0 values for both the technical and artistic. They don't count for anything, but they let the audience know approximately what is going on. I'm not sure how to make that work, though. The problem with 6.0 is that the marks weren't an accurate reflection of what skaters did in the first place. The best skater of a competition always got 5.8's and 5.9's, even if they didn't do GREAT, simply because that's how the system worked. If you try to convert CoP grades into 6.0, the 6.0 marks are always going to be either too low or too similar.

Mathman said:

Loop combos, 5 for 6, 83% (supporting Joe's claim about loop combos )

Click to expand...

Joe said 3Loops are easier to do as a the second jump of a combination, not that a 3Loop + 2Toe is easier to do then a solo 3Loop.

Number of 3Loops landed as the second part of a combination: 2.

Number of 3Loops landed by itself or the first jump of a combination: 10.

Maybe if commentators gave the audience an idea of what kind of scores to look for before the start, we would know a bit more how exactly that ranked. Showing the personnal bests is already pretty good, so we can see what 'level' the skater is at. I remember someone tolod be to expect ladies to reach for 70 in the SP, and 140 in the LP (70 Tech & 70 PCS), and men was about 90 and 180 if I remember correctly, which I don't think I do. I think Tracy Wilson said something about this for the analysis of the Pairs programs in Olympic Ice, like so many points would be very good, so many would be less good, and those reaching for the podium would need at least XYZ.
I think that if the audience just knew what kind of results to expect from skaters, it would be easier. 6.0 meant it was perfect; 5.0 meant wou were missing a couple of things. Same thing if we know some benchmarks (well, approximate, anyway) for the various programs.

Kypma

GoldMedalist said:

The BIGGEST problem with CoP is not with the system itself (the potential of what the system could be, anyway) but in how it confuses the Audience. People just don't like numbers. 6.0 was relatable, CoP isn't.

Click to expand...

I don't think it's true. People on these boards think 6.0 is relatable because they watched many competitions with it, because they born with it. But for all those who came after CoP ... I'm one of them... COP is far more understandable and logical than 6.0 will ever be.

I think at Nationals this past year (or the year before, or both...at least one of them anyway) they put up a little chart showing the range of scores which are Great, Good, Average, Bad.

That's not enough, though. IMO they need to tell you EVERY skater's average score for the Short and Long Program before their marks come up along with that skater's personal Best AND personal worst. This is in addition to reminding people several times throughout the competition approximately what a "World Record", "Great", "Good", "Average", "Poor", and "Horrible" score would be.

Perhaps then people would become more accepting. Even still, it's numbers, numbers, numbers. Those casual fans (ie. most everyone) would still prefer a couple simple 6.0 values.

Justlooking said:

I don't think it's true. People on these boards think 6.0 is relatable because they watched many competitions with it, because they born with it. But for all those who came after CoP ... I'm one of them... COP is far more understandable and logical than 6.0 will ever be.

Click to expand...

Hopefully, then, it's just a matter of TIME for figure skating to become as popular as it once was.

GoldMedalist said:

I'm sorry to word it this way but CoP is a "manly" judging system. Followers of Football and Baseball LOVE talking about numbers - the stats of teams and players. But with figure skating, the fanbase is much more casual. All those housewives who drove the viewership of Figure Skating through the roof never really cared about the sport of it all and never had to THINK about what skaters were doing. They just watched and liked seeing the pretty moves. Now they don't get what is going on when the scores come up.

Click to expand...

:disagree: You should indeed be sorry. Women can't work with numbers? What about all the casual male viewers? This is just sexist nonsense.

goldenpleasures said:

Women can't work with numbers?

Click to expand...

It's not that they can't, but how many women do you see discussing the stats of football players at parties? For whatever reason, men simply seem to be more drawn to such sports-related hobbies.

Figure skating has a (MUCH) larger female fanbase than male. It's not something that most men want to watch, largely because of how society has pegged it as "female" activity. And you should see the reactions I've gotten from perspective roommates I've interviewed when I tell them I'm an athlete. "Oh, really, what do you do?"...<I ice skate>..."You mean like...like....skate boarding?"...<No, I'm an ICE. SKATER.>..."Oh...". (and of course they don't call back about the house)

Backing away from the male/female discussion, it should suffice to say that Competitive Ice Skating is now using a system which does not appeal to the "target" audience.

It's not just women, men will mention Barry Bonds breaking a record but they immediately get back to the results of the days games.

Joe

You've heard of Fantasy Football, yes? Extremely popular (among men) and it's all about analyzing numbers (and predicting). Some ESPN sports shows are dedicated to talking almost entirely about sports-related numbers.

A few of us skating fans love looking at the numbers too. But, mostly, Competitive Figure Skating makes money because the target audience likes watching the pretty people. Casual fans don't care about difficulty (unless it's a WOW move) or other various intricacies.

So, for me, CoP is absolutely the kind of system that should be in place. It's bad in terms of money, though, because some viewers are feeling distanced.

Somehow, people need to re-discover the sport and accept the new ways. TV commentators need to explain the numbers and the elements of programs better (without dwelling on it too much, especially DURING the programs...a fine line). And, of course, CoP itself needs to be tweaked more carefully to allow the performances themselves to be a bit more free.

It's pretty crucial that at least 95% of the problems with CoP be fixed by the end of next season too (sadly unlikely to happen, given their current rate of progress, but this is a hopeful post). Then, after that happens, Michelle Kwan can announce that she is going to come back and compete for a year-and-a-half more. It would be nice if Cohen joins in on the fun too. The ISU should then try to create as big of a media storm as possible, drawing in viewers and letting them get used to the new system under the comfortable presence of THE KWAN. Then when Kwan and Cohen step down in 2010, Nagasu and Zhang and all the other girls will be mature enough to transition fans, finally, into the next era of Figure Skating (just as Kwan was the one to take advantage of "the next era" after the Kerrigan/Harding excitement which drew in so many people).

GoldMedalist said:

I think at Nationals this past year (or the year before, or both...at least one of them anyway) they put up a little chart showing the range of scores which are Great, Good, Average, Bad.

Click to expand...

I believe ESPN did this...

The more I think about it the more I like Mafke's way of simplifying the system. Just have fewer distinctions. Two levels of jumps, two levels of spins, more emphasis on GOEs to distinguish good from bad (also a feature of the proposals under consideration on this thread).

In American football, you carry the ball over the goal line. That's 6 points, independent of how you accomplished this. Kick a field goal, three points. Every fan can score along if he/she wants to.

On another point,

Gold Medalist said:

ASSIGNING GRADES OF EXECUTION:

*Judges can give “half” of a GOE value to any element. In other words: -2.5, -1.5, -.5, .5, 1.5, 2.5 are now GOE values which can be assigned to an element.

Click to expand...

This relates to a thread we had a while back in which the point was made that people can only distinguish about 7 different gradations with any consistency and accuracy. Now we are looking at 13.

I don't think it is possible to write rules that specify objectively the difference between, say, a -1.5 performance and a -2.0 performance.

GoldMedalist said:

Then, after that happens, Michelle Kwan can announce that she is going to come back and compete for a year-and-a-half more. It would be nice if Cohen joins in on the fun too. The ISU should then try to create as big of a media storm as possible, drawing in viewers and letting them get used to the new system under the comfortable presence of THE KWAN.

Click to expand...

Poor Michelle. Does she have to do everything? Can't someone else save figure skating? What's Slutskaya doing these days? (Oh, that's right -- she's having a baby.)

poor? I hardly think not