# Thread: Detailed scores and results

1. 0

## Detailed scores and results

The ISU has all of the scoring details on their website-so you can compare skater jump by jump GOE by GOE-have fun!

http://www.isufs.org/results/sa2003/index.htm

2. 0
Thanks for posting. It's so interesting to read the detailed breakdown of scores! I hope the ISU continue doing this.

3. 0
Thanks for starting this thread Lulu. I've already been having "Fun with Numbers" looking at the Detailed Results.

I have a question on one particular score from the ladies FP. On Sasha Cohen's 6th technical element, SpSt2 (Spiral Step Sequence, Level 2) has a Base Value of 3.1 and a Grade of Execution (GOE) of 1.20 for a score of 4.30. The GOE is the trimmed mean (TM) of all the judges' scores for this element. Six judges gave Sasha +3 and five judges gave her +2. Even if the TM only included only the five +2 scores, wouldn't the GOE be 2.0? I don't understand how they get 1.20?

Similarly, on Sasha's 2nd technical element, 3F/2T, has a Base Value of 6.9, a GOE of 1.20 and a score of 8.10. But here, six of the 11 judges give Sasha +1 and three give her +2 for this element, yet the GOE of 1.20 is the same as for the 6th element, SpSt2, where she received six +3s and five +2s. Sometimes the GOE seems in keeping with the +/- scores the judges gave and sometimes it doesn't, and not just with Sasha, but every skater (just using Sasha's scores as an example). I'm sure there must be some kind of factor or mathematical concept I'm missing. Can anyone explain?
Rgirl

4. 0
Aren't high and low scores thrown out before the mean is calculated?

5. 0
Actually, RGirl, there IS a very simple explanation. For the SpSt2, the GOE is as follows:

1.5 1 0.5 x -0.7 -1.4 -2.1
(For some reason, this info is NOT in the latest ISU stuff, I found it in one of the Older Communiques)

Therefore, judges' scores are not really 6 3's and 5 2's, but 6 1.5's, and 5 1's. So, once we trim it, we get trimmed median of (3*1.5+2*1)/5=1.3.

Ok, so I did not get it exactly. May be they leave 7 scores, not just 5. In that case it's (4*1.5 + 3*1)/7=1.285. May be they just then only look at first decimal digit instead of rounding it up mathematically. This would give us 1.2.

6. 0
They must have thrown out three 1.5's and one 1.0 in the random draw. That leaves three 1.5's and four 1.0's in the pool. In trimming, you throw out one high mark (1.5) and one low (1.0). this leaves two 1.5's and three 1.0's that actually count, which average to 1.2.

What's cool, though, are the negative marks for this element, which go down in increments of .7 instead of .5!

Mathman

7. 0
Thanks, MM. I missed the part where there is also random throwing out being done. I think getting rid of high and low is quite enough.

8. 0
Thanks Pitchka and Mathman! That equation was the missing link. And great detective work, Pitchka, on finding the info in that Older Communique. I knew they threw out the high and low marks plus some in the random draw, but without that GOE equation, I never would have been able to figure out the way they got a trimmed mean of 1.20 out of all those +2s and +3s.

I haven't had a chance to go through the Communique--24 pages, ACK!--but I'm sure it will answer the holes I have in the COP.

BTW, the more I read and understand the COP, the more I like it, especially after having seen it in action at SA. I agree with Dick Button that it will need tweaking and I'll never like the secrecy, but I agree with Mathman 100% from his post on "The Edge." The 6.0 system was like a juried art show. The COP finally allows figure skating to be evaluated as a sport while at the same time, ironically, distributing what I think is a more appropriate emphasis on the technical and presentation aspects of a program.
Rgirl

9. 0
Now, after the competetion, by looking at the protocol and do some math -- basically solve the group of linear eqautions -- you can figure out which 5 judges's scores are counted. In another words, who the 5 judges been choosen by the computer as the final judge panel.

Oh, well. I'm too lazy to do that.

10. 0
Help me out. Is it four scores thrown in the random draw and two thrown out in trimming the mean, or is it the other way around?

I am assuming that the judges who are thrown out in the random draw are thrown out across the board. But the marks thrown out in trimming the mean are done element by element. In other words, the same judges' scores are thrown out in the random draw for every element, but in the trimming process the the scores of different judges might be chosen for different elements, depending on who happened to be high or low on that element.

The linear system is not quite so straightforward for these reasons, but with the hugh amount of data available the system must be overdetermined. As MZheng says, it should be possible quite easily to figure out whose scores counted. Since the ISU's whole purpose in these experiments was to prevent us from doing this, I wonder if Speedy has kept a couple of aces up his sleeve.

Mathman

11. 0
Mathman, I knew you would be interested. hehehe..

Actually I almost put your name in my last sentance to ask you do the math.

Sorry I didn't thought of the trimming mean process, that would make it difficult to come up with the group of linear equations.

Och, they did not even give judge names. Assume the column 1 is the same judge 1 marks for all skaters. Then I guess the most you can do is figure out if judge number # is in the final counted panel. Am I right, mathman?

12. 0
Mzheng and Mathman,
I would like to invite you to bring your questions and whatever insights you have to the COP to the thread on "The Edge," "ABCs of the COP." The thread is intended to be a place for posters to ask questions, provide answers, and give "tutorials" on any given aspect of the COP.

Re your question about how many scores are thrown out, Mathman, GKelly gives a good explanation for it, urged on by my complete mathematical mistake in trying to explain how the Total Component Scores are calculated.

Anyway, I'm encouraging people to post their COP questions and answers on the "ABC/COP" thread not because I started it, but because it's on "The Edge" and I think more people will see it there. I've already blundered in my first effort at a tutorial, so nobody need feel reticent about posting their own tutorial. I've already set the standard for the "Total Screw-Up Component."
Rgirl

Post questions or information on the "ABCs of the COP" and win a million dollars!

Trick or treat!

Seriously, you'll win the undying gratitude of all GSers who wish to understand the COP better or perhaps at all.

13. 0
OK, I move our disscussion to "The Edge," "ABCs of the COP." as you suggested.

Mathman, hope you don't mind that I copied you post as well.

14. 0
Thanks, Mzheng and I'm sure Mathman not only won't mind but will be glad to join the "ABDs OF the COP" on "The Edge."
Rgirl

15. 0
IMO, Jenny deserved a +3 for the 3x3t. The jump could not have been better. Yet most gave her a +1. Oh, well, subjectivity will never be gone from any system. I think the judges are overworked with this system and subjectively they resort to thinking like the 6.0 system in many cases.

Joe

Page 1 of 2 1 2 Last

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•