Is it easier to cheat in 6.0 or CoP?

janetfan said:

Thanks Evangeline, I have read that several times.
I also think Carroll has said "they just buried Linda in the compulsories."

Something that is not talked about often is that there was a lot of hanky-panky over the years when it came to marking the figures. It wasn't just restricted to the SP or LP.

When Fassi was coaching Peggy and Dorothy they always got very high marks coming out of the compulsaries. Maybe a "coincidence" that Linda, who had done OK in '79 while winning the WC suddenly forgot her figures?

Maybe Bielman should have been gifted the Gold as her spin is still seen and Annette and Linda are remembered today more for the controversy than their skating.

There are also a few stories involving Fassi's meddling with Janet Lynn.

It was a long time ago and there are enough stories about it that the doubts may never go away completely.

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone "buried" Linda in the figures. In 1979 Worlds, Linda placed 3rd in figures. At the 1980 Olympics, Linda also placed 3rd in figures. The difference was that in 1980, Denise Biellman was the spoiler.

By the way, the Biellman spin was actually invented by Tamara Moskvina...I've seen some ye olde photos of Moskvina doing a Bielmman in the 50s or 60s.

How did Carlo Fassi mess with Janet Lynn?

Ladskater said:

I don't know if this still goes on with the new marking system. That kind of was the idea - to eliminate any deal making or underhandedness.

Click to expand...

I've always felt the idea of judges "cheating" and "making deals" is way overblown.

Of course it's happened, we all know that. But the opinion that it happened (or happens) all the time is wrong. Most judges are fair, or certainly try to be.

Contrary to popular opinion, judges aren't just one big secret Mafia-like club. And usually, the outcome is the right one.

evangeline said:

I don't think anyone "buried" Linda in the figures. In 1979 Worlds, Linda placed 3rd in figures. At the 1980 Olympics, Linda also placed 3rd in figures. The difference was that in 1980, Denise Biellman was the spoiler.

By the way, the Biellman spin was actually invented by Tamara Moskvina...I've seen some ye olde photos of Moskvina doing a Bielmman in the 50s or 60s.

How did Carlo Fassi mess with Janet Lynn?

Click to expand...

You don't "think" anyone buried Linda? Were you there to watch or judge the figures competition? Did you watch Linda's training the year leading into the Olympics to know how hard she worked on improving her figures?

About Carlo and Janet - just a few things I have read and remember from watching Janet compete against Carlo's skater Julie Holmes.

Seeing how Janet always placed ahead of Julie throughout their careers at Nationals - and then seeing their positions changed at International events a few times after Carlo became Julie's coach.

There is a little tidbit I read about Carlo having changed Julie's hand positions to match Janets' positions. Janet's coach was furious about it and lest I get flagged by Toni for gossip mongering it feels safe to say Carlo was a character and was very tight with the international judges.

The story about the Ladies '80 competition was never about just the Ladies event. I am sure you have read how the trading of placements involved more than the podium for the Ladies.

I don't know how much is true - if any of it is true or if all of it is true.

It is funny, having watched the 1980 Winter Olympics on TV certain memories have remained with me and others have faded.

There was Eric Heiden and his sister Beth. There was the sad moment when Randy and Tai had to withdraw and of course the hockey match that stunned everybody.

I always thought when Linda skated off the ice the Gold medal was hers. Maybe this was seen through a rosy lens.The atmosphere at 1980 was rarely matched before or after for bad feelings between the East and West.

It is one thing to read about it - and I think quite another to have grown up with it and lived through it.

prettykeys said:

CoP, as it is right now, has a lot more places to "hide" favouritist boosting in. Would it be better if the number of Program Components were decreased to 3 as I suggested earlier?

Click to expand...

I think there should be 4.

The transitions score is pretty useless. Transitions are just a sub-sect of Choreography. I don't think it deserves its own category. It's nice that people are thinking about transitions more now but, yeah...

Skating Skills
Performance
Choreography
Interpretation

Blades of Passion said:

I think there should be 4.

The transitions score is pretty useless. Transitions are just a sub-sect of Choreography. I don't think it deserves its own category. It's nice that people are thinking about transitions more now but, yeah...

Skating Skills
Performance
Choreography
Interpretation

Click to expand...

What do you think about combinig choeregraphy and interpretatation? The choerography mark is always a little bit peculiar, because if they are judging the actual choreography, that is the work of the choreographer rather than the skater. So it must be, how well does the skater carry out the spirit and the details of the choreogrphy. This seems pretty close to, how well does the skater express the theme and character of the music.

janetfan said:

I wondered which system would be considered simpler, the one with the least amount of marking options and therefore the least chances for cheating.

I don't think I know the answer but it appears that CoP offers more ways to distort a score than 6.0

Click to expand...

Yeah, with the CoP they can nickle and dime you to death.

But then again, in ordinal marking, all the judge has to say is, "I liked this performance better than that one." So either way we are at the mercy of the good faith efforts of the judges.

Mathman said:

What do you think about combinig choeregraphy and interpretatation? The choerography mark is always a little bit peculiar, because if they are judging the actual choreography, that is the work of the choreographer rather than the skater. So it must be, how well does the skater carry out the spirit and the details of the choreogrphy. This seems pretty close to, how well does the skater express the theme and character of the music.

Click to expand...

Am curious - where does "personality" figure into this?

Thinking of SC and how delighful Laura was even in a program that had noticable technical mistakes.

Then there was Mirai - who made fewer technical mistakes and from one pov it could be said her choreo was OK. But her presentation was very flat and she seemed to be skating like it was a practice run through rather than a competition.

Does this fall under interpretation? Or under execution of the choreo?

^ I agree 100% about Laura Lepisto's Lp performance at Skate Canada. For the audience, that sparkle is worth a bucketful of triple-triples.

I think it is supposed to be rewarded in Preformance/Execution. One of the bullets is "forms an invisible conection to the audience."

Mathman said:

^ I agree 100% about Laura Lepisto's Lp performance at Skate Canada. For the audience, that sparkle is worth a bucketful of triple-triples.

I think it is supposed to be rewarded in Preformance/Execution. One of the bullets is "forms an invisible conection to the audience."

Click to expand...

Thanks and that makes a certain sense. But was Mirai's lack of audience connection enough to place her so low in the standings?

I just saw she placed first in the spinning standings. Some of her jumps - like the 2A look better than many of the other Ladies.

I watched her footwork and other things like extensions and posture. I thought aside from not communicating she should have been scored much higher.

Is CoP sending a message that skaters lacking animation/audience connection will be heavily penalized? As in worse than falling and doubling half your jumps?

ETA: I always thought Irina would be a great CoP skater. I also remember quite a few technically good programs from Irina where she was not exactly bubbly or lighting up the arena.

Mathman said:

What do you think about combinig choeregraphy and interpretatation?

Click to expand...

Have you been eating too much gravy already today? Your spelling is all over the place.

I don't think they should be combined. A program can be very good choreographically but not necessarily be a great reflection of the music. A program can also reflect the music very well but not be difficult choreographically.

Blades of Passion said:

I think there should be 4.

The transitions score is pretty useless.

Click to expand...

I actually imagined Transitions (/Linking Footwork/Movements) being combined with Skating Skills because yeah, it sort of has to do with choreography, but they also add another dimension of difficulty.

Mathman said:

What do you think about combinig choeregraphy and interpretatation?

Click to expand...

I agree, I'm not sure why it's necessary to separate the two.

Skating Skills + Transitions
Performance/Execution
Choreography + Interpretation

That's my ideal.

Mathman said:

Yeah, with the CoP they can nickle and dime you to death.

But then again, in ordinal marking, all the judge has to say is, "I liked this performance better than that one." So either way we are at the mercy of the good faith efforts of the judges.

Click to expand...

Yes, exactly.

6.0 is more "robust" in the simplest of scenarios. But when things get more complicated, as they tend to be in the real world, it's hard to say which system is more resistant to cheating. (The Sonia Bianchetti article, as poorly-organized as it was, I found very enlightening in terms of not only the scores themselves but the possible manipulations within the skating order and the sort of influence coaches and judges can have. I mean, is it not possible that within 6.0, a judge can "influence" another judge to feel perhaps Kiira was better than Miki, afterall? In our hypothetical scenario, we're taking it as a given that Miki was better, period, end of question. But 6.0 was also a lot less specific on what sort of things made a better or worse performance - a lot more touchy-feely swaying could occur.

I feel like CoP has the potential to be so much of a better system, but it needs to be ironed out here and there.

Blades of Passion said:

I don't think they should be combined. A program can be very good choreographically but not necessarily be a great reflection of the music. A program can also reflect the music very well but not be difficult choreographically.

Click to expand...

I don't think choreography should be judged separately from interpretation. Otherwise, what's the point of having the music? I'd prefer to toss Choreography.

prettykeys said:

I don't think choreography should be judged separately from interpretation. Otherwise, what's the point of having the music? I'd prefer to toss Choreography.

Click to expand...

I have to agree with that.
If you want to skate without music and just judge the choreo that could work.

But as long as there is music the choreo must atleast acknowledge the music or it feels useless.

ETA: But the level of choreo needs to be addressed too

I don't think that's a completely valid line of thinking. You could say the same about Skating Skills - "so what if the skater has great edges if they aren't skating well to the music".

Choreography and Interpretation do clearly have a linkage...nobody is going to go out there and skate a program that is absolutely brilliant choreographically but doesn't relate to the music at all. I mean...someone could (such as performing a breakdance Daisuke Takahashi style to the music of SCHINDLER'S LIST, )...but nobody ever would.

They are worth judging separately. Choreography can be looked at as the difficulty of the movements the skater is doing and how good the movements look by themselves, whereas Interpretation is how effective they are emotionally.

There's no exact definition we can really give, though. The two things do play into each other somewhat.

At the very least we can just look at it as two marks for "How much we like watching the program", which is the end result when you boil it down to the purpose of what Choreography and Musical Interpretation is all about.

janetfan said:

ETA: But the level of choreo needs to be addressed too

Click to expand...

Yes, that's why I said in my ideal, Choreography + Interpretation can be combined.

Blades of Passion said:

I don't think that's a completely valid line of thinking. You could say the same about Skating Skills - "so what if the skater has great edges if they aren't skating well to the music".

Choreography and Interpretation do clearly have a linkage...nobody is going to go out there and skate a program that is absolutely brilliant choreographically but doesn't relate to the music at all. I mean...someone could (such as performing a breakdance Daisuke Takahashi style to the music of SCHINDLER'S LIST, )...but nobody ever would.

They are worth judging separately, however. Choreography can be looked at as the difficulty of the movements the skater is doing, whereas Interpretation is how effective it is emotionally.

Click to expand...

hah. I'd rather put the emotions into the Performance. But yeah, I could accept this way of re-categorizing the PCS. Right now there is a lot of redundancy (I feel) that is actually harming the sporting aspect with respect to over- and under-scoring.

ETA: Not to mention the original topic of this thread, either.

Performance is another area that can fluctuate. It's kind of a catch-all for "do you like how the skater is moving and expressing themselves?"

And regarding Lepisto from earlier...I don't think she deserved those scores at Skate Canada. She has great Skating Skills and she stays animated and energetic (performance/execution) but I don't find her program particularly interesting or engaging. She stands around posing like the first 20 seconds of the program.

Mirai has pretty much been screwed over this season. I would have put her 2nd at Cup of China and 3rd at Skate Canada.

The Finnish girls really got held up at those competitions, especially Korpii...2nd at Cup of China when she should have been 4th? Blah.

I don't think they should be combined. A program can be very good choreographically but not necessarily be a great reflection of the music. A program can also reflect the music very well but not be difficult choreographically.

Click to expand...

Maybe this is actually a good argument for leaving transitions in and combining choreography with interpretation.

A judge could think "ugh, the choreography really wasn't very good - it didn't fit with the music, for one thing. But you know, her transitions were really hard."

just a thought.

I don't think that merging interpretation and choreography is a good idea. First of all, those are different things.

Choreography is a plan of interpretation, it can be less or more appropriate for the music and can be good or bad. It's more a score to the choreographer than to the skater.

The interpretation is a score for the skater only. Good skater can have a good interpretation even with terrible choreography and vice versa.

And at the same time we should consider choreography in every competition because:
1) Choreography may change from event to event.
2) Only a high-quality skater can perform a difficult choreography and that should be reflected too.
3) A part of choreography is a skater's responsibility as well, as they usually are taking some part in it's creation.

I don't see any problem with the current PCS really.

Mathman
One question about the random draw. It happens one time before the competition or every time after each performance? Judging by your probabilities it happens one time before the competition, but that is a bit illogical. It would be much better to have random draw after each performance.

Daniel5555 said:

One question about the random draw. It happens one time before the competition or every time after each performance? Judging by your probabilities it happens one time before the competition, but that is a bit illogical. It would be much better to have random draw after each performance.

Click to expand...

One time before the competition. (By the way, the judges do not know the results of the random draw. This is another thing I don't like about it. Two judges are just sitting there throughout the competion dilligently judging away, while all the time the computer is laughing at them, saying, look at those fools, thinking they are judging a skating contest, ha ha.)

It has to be this way, because if there were a separate draw for each performance then the skaters would not be judged by the same panel of judges.

Daniel5555 said:

It would be very interesting to simulate the situation and look what happens. I really think that with less than 3 judges it wouldn't have much effect.

Click to expand...

A simulation from scratch would be pretty hard because you would first have to do a lot of research about how the different scores are distributed in actual competitions. With just a bunch of random numbers, you would not get any realistic results.

However, you could just take the numbers from actual contests.

For instance, here are the results of the ladies’ short program from Skate Canada. The Anerican judge and the Chinese judge both survive the random draw and are intent on advancing the fortunes of Caroline Zhang.

The way the marks came out, Caroline is languishing in seventh place.

Rochette 70.00
Czisny 63.52
Nagasu 56.34
Lepisto 55.74
Phaneuf 55.58
Lacoste 55.10
Zhang 54.58

One of the conspiring judges raises Caroline’s Skating Skills component scores by one point, the other judge by only three-quarters of a point to avert suspician. Both of these are well within the allowable “corridor.” They lower Lacoste’s Skating Skills by the same amount. What’s three-quarters of a point, right?

Now Zhang has (75 + 1.00) x .8 SP factoring / 5 total judges = .28 extra points, putting her at 54.86.

Lacoste is lowered to 54.82. Zhang zooms into 6th place!

Now they do the same thing with Zhang’s Transitions score, lowering Phaneuf a smidge in both SS and Tr.

Zhang has 55.14, Phaneuf 55.02. Zhang takes fifth.

Next Performance/Execution and Lepisto. Zhang 55.42, Phaneuf 54.90. Zhang is in fourth place.

Now Choreography. Zhang picks up another .28, Nagausu is diminished by 4x.28 for the four program components scored so far. Zhang 55.70, Nagasu 55.22. Zhang advances to bronze.

Is second place within reach?

Interpretation puts Zhang at 55.98, Czisny drops to 62.12.

Now the two judges give Zhange a –1 instead of –2 on her opening combo and 0 instead of –1. Zhang picks up 2 x 2 judges / 5 total = .80 points. They give Czisny 0 instead of +1 on her 3Lz+2T… Nope, silver is out of reach…. They wink at the tech specialist…Was Alissa's 3F really fully rotated?...

seniorita it took you an hour for hypergeometric distributed system :banging: ?dont embarrass me, didnt you know you can calculate online in nanoseconds ?
http://easycalculation.com/statistics/hypergeometric-distribution.php