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
http://www.isufs.org/results/sa2003/index.htm
Last edited:
Detailed scores and results
- Thread starter lulu
- Start date
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
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
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2003
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.
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.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
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
What's cool, though, are the negative marks for this element, which go down in increments of .7 instead of .5!
Mathman
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
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
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.
Oh, well. I'm too lazy to do that.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
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
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
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?
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?
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.
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.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
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
Joe
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
Joe, I think that Doris Pulaski is right on the other thread when she says that to get a +3 you have to do more than just a perfect jump. I think that you have to do something like a perfect jump with intricate footwork going in, plus a change of direction, or else an innovation such as a jump derectly out of a hydroplane or a spread eagle (is that even possible?) -- something like that. I think that the quality of the jump itself, including the outward edge, is already assumed in the base mark for the element.
BTW, if you don't do it well, the CoP really nails you. If you get a -1 for a slight double-foot, for instance, that translates into a 1.4 point deduction from the base mark.
Mathman
BTW, if you don't do it well, the CoP really nails you. If you get a -1 for a slight double-foot, for instance, that translates into a 1.4 point deduction from the base mark.
Mathman
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
Thanks Mathman for reminding me. When I watched Jenny do the 3x3 which has a perfect bo edge takeoff (easy) 3 air turns and bo edge landing (not so easy) and then repeated and then flowed out, I couldn't help but marvel at the technique. As I said in my first post, 'whodathunkit?' I may just have gotten carried away with the excellently executed combo.
I don't keep tapes. My apartment is full of nonsense anyway. So if you say, she had no footwork going into the 3x3, I'll take that as limiting the plus.
Let's hope she continues, we both like her. One more second place and she probably will be in the Finals.
Joe
I don't keep tapes. My apartment is full of nonsense anyway. So if you say, she had no footwork going into the 3x3, I'll take that as limiting the plus.
Let's hope she continues, we both like her. One more second place and she probably will be in the Finals.
Joe
Mathman and DorisPulaski are correct re Jenny's 3/3. Actually, the fact that she got an overall +1 means the judges felt she did do the jump exceptionally well since it had no footwork or move such as a spread eagle or other going into it. A 10 on a 3t/3t is not the maximum, but it's pretty darn good.
BTW, Mathman, it's entirely possible to do a hydroblading movement into a combination jump. Timothy Goebel does a hydroblade into a 4sal and I bet with a little work he could turn that into a hydroblade into a 4t/3t. And although this is not exactly a hydroblading move, Nancy Kerrigan used to do a shoot-the-duck into a 3t. Ilia Kulik did a spread eagle into 3Axel in his "Romeo and Juliet" LP during the '97-'98 season and Kurt Browning was doing spread eagle into 3sal up until recently. So there are a lot of cool things skaters can do to get extra points on a jump--provided they do the jump well, of course.
Rgirl
BTW, Mathman, it's entirely possible to do a hydroblading movement into a combination jump. Timothy Goebel does a hydroblade into a 4sal and I bet with a little work he could turn that into a hydroblade into a 4t/3t. And although this is not exactly a hydroblading move, Nancy Kerrigan used to do a shoot-the-duck into a 3t. Ilia Kulik did a spread eagle into 3Axel in his "Romeo and Juliet" LP during the '97-'98 season and Kurt Browning was doing spread eagle into 3sal up until recently. So there are a lot of cool things skaters can do to get extra points on a jump--provided they do the jump well, of course.
Rgirl
