Please explain the scoring system

I hope this is the right place to make this thread.

I am a complete idiot when it comes to the scoring system. I can't figure it out at all. I've researched it many times but i don't understand what anything actually means because it's using technical terms that i don't know the meaning of.

I need the simplest explanation of the scoring system you can possible give me. Kind of explain it like you would to a little child, not too many fancy words and numbers i don't understand. All i really know is that people start getting points if they do jumps or spins and stuff. But how many points do they get for something, and why is there two scores? do they add up to a total score? i have no idea how people know if someone is underscored or overscored or anything.

please make it as simple as possible.

Here are some pages that explain, not in directed toward little children but not directed toward people who are already familiar with the system either:

http://usfigureskating.org/story?id=84064

http://sk8stuff.com/m_scoring.php

I'll try to write up a simple explanation when I have time, if someone else doesn't get to it before I do.

i'm still not sure i get it...

Here's a quick summary, as a starting point.

The total score for a skater in competition, at the intermediate (US) or pre-novice (Canada) levels and above, is the sum of the short program/dance score and the free program/dance score.

The total score for each segment (either the short or the long program/dance) is made up of two parts - the total element score (TES) and the program components score (PCS).

The TES is the sum of the scores for each element (jump, spin, step sequence, lift, death spiral, twizzle, pattern dance sequence, partial step sequence, choreographic element), added to each element's grade of execution (GOE), which is a scale from -3 to +3. So if two skaters do a double axel (shorthand: 2A), and one falls and the others lands the jump spectacularly out of footwork and with gorgeous air and landing positions, the first one gets a GOE of -3, and the second gets a GOE of +3. So if a double axel is worth 3.5 points, then the first skater obtained 3.5-3=0.5 points, and the second got 3.5+3=6.5 points. The actual score per element isn't exactly additive as I just did (a GOE of +3 doesn't always result in +3 to the element's base value), but this is the general idea. The GOE values are multiplied by a factor that depends on the initial element's value, but you don't need to concern yourself with that at this point in time.

The PCS score is the total of scores in five categories - skating skills, transitions, performance and executive, choreography, and interpretation. The scores for each catergory, graded by the judges on a scale of 0.25 to 10.00, is then multiplied by a factor (that depends on the program - ladies short program is a factor of 0.8, men's free program is a factor of 2), and the five scores are added up to give the PCS.

The overall score for a program is therefore the sum of the TES and of the PCS. Sometimes, you'll see a deduction from the entire score - a fall is -1.0, as is an extended lift in dance, which means a lift that is longer (time-wise) than what is permitted.

When it comes to over- and under-scoring, it's generally based on the GOE and PCS components of a skater's score. Those values, while meant to be objective, have a certain subjective factor to them, which leads to discussions among fans of certain skaters, and more generally fans of the sport as a whole.

The IJS score has two main parts, the total element score (TES) and the program component score.

The TES is the sum of certain elements -- jumps, spins, etc. -- that a skater does within the program. The score for each element has two parts, a base value (BV) which is points given for "what" the skater did (such as a double axel), and a Grade of Execution (GOE) for "how well" the skater did it (i.e. the quality of the executed element). So a skater who does easier elements well and another skater who does harder elements badly may end up with a similar TES.

The PCS reflects how the skater does in the overall program. Does the skater have good deep edges and have an effortless feel while skating? If so, then this is rewarded with a higher skating skills (SS) score. So forth and so on with the other parts of PCS.

There are also deductions for things like falls and time violations (going over or under the time permitted for the program). Also, the GOE and the PCS scores can be factored, meaning the raw values the judges give out are multiplied by a certain amount. Then the sum of all of these make up the skater's overall score.

Okay i'm starting to understand - but what does L and C stand for?

joonieskates said:

Okay i'm starting to understand - but what does L and C stand for?

Click to expand...

Are you referring to the small graphics shown in the upper left-hand corner of NBC's broadcasts? L stands for Leader and C for Current skater. The number next to the L is the TES earned by the skater who is currently leading the competition. As you'll see, that number stays constant through the entire program. The number next to the C is the TES of the skater currently performing. That number increases as the skater completes more elements and earns more points toward the TES. There's a slight delay between the performance of the element and the points' appearance in the TES. Also, that score can drop between the end of the program and the announcement of the final score. This is because the technical panel reviews some elements after a performance. If, for example, the technical panel reviews several jump landings and determines that one or more jumps were underrotated, the official TES that's actually announced as part of the skater's final score will drop to reflect the appropriate penalties for underrotation or downgrades.

Kypma said:

The TES is the sum of the scores for each element (jump, spin, step sequence, lift, death spiral, twizzle, pattern dance sequence, partial step sequence, choreographic element), added to each element's grade of execution (GOE), which is a scale from -3 to +3. So if two skaters do a double axel (shorthand: 2A), and one falls and the others lands the jump spectacularly out of footwork and with gorgeous air and landing positions, the first one gets a GOE of -3, and the second gets a GOE of +3. So if a double axel is worth 3.5 points, then the first skater obtained 3.5-3=0.5 points, and the second got 3.5+3=6.5 points. The actual score per element isn't exactly additive as I just did (a GOE of +3 doesn't always result in +3 to the element's base value), but this is the general idea. The GOE values are multiplied by a factor that depends on the initial element's value, but you don't need to concern yourself with that at this point in time.

.

Click to expand...

Yeah, you hit the nail on the head. For instance, Ashley Wagner's 2A at Boston worlds was given a bunch of +2s, a 1 and a 3. The high and low are thrown out, so she is left with a bunch of +2. But that amount is factored so her real world bump was a Plus one for that element, giving her a 4.5.
BTW, if you start reading about the IJS's Vs, V1s, and what changes Levels, you will pull out all your hair and bang the wall with your head.

Kypma said:

The PCS score is the total of scores in five categories - skating skills, transitions, performance and executive, choreography, and interpretation. The scores for each catergory, graded by the judges on a scale of 0.25 to 10.00, is then multiplied by a factor (that depends on the program - ladies short program is a factor of 0.8, men's free program is a factor of 2), and the five scores are added up to give the PCS.

Click to expand...

Great discussion, this is very helpful, thank you guys so much!

Could you explain what does each element of PCS mean?

Skating skills - does it account mostly for technical difficulty of the program, or for general impression of "beautiful skating" overall? (How fluid, graceful, etc.) What's the main driver of this score?

What's the difference between performance vs. interpretation (both seem to refer to the artistry?)?

What are transitions - are they mostly entrances or exits to jumps and other elements, or are they all of the footwork between elements?

In rating choreography, what's more important - difficulty or beauty?

It looks like PCS is usually higher for the technically higher rated skaters, even when they are not the most beautiful to watch. I'm trying to learn and understand why is that.

I find this chart to be very helpful with understanding PCS.

http://www.isu.org/inside-single-pa...ram-component-chart-sandp-and-id-08-16-1/file

Junior Grand Prix events are great to follow because you’ll see a full range of skaters scoring 3’s and 4’s and some scoring 8’s and 9’s. It’s a full spectrum.

Watch this ———> JGP Ladies SP Salzburg <———you don’t need to watch all of the competitors but scroll through and watch a few of the different competitors. Pay attention during the slow motion replays because another great feature is this particular announcer is great about explaining the jumps and quite often the scores. His name is Ted Barton and he has much knowledge

Thank you, that's a very helpful PCS chart.

You know what seems to be missing (from the scoring system)? The emotional impact (on the audience).

Some skaters mesmerize, some don't. Some are sublime ARTISTS, pulling us inside and giving an emotional high; others are just meh, whatever, i.e., maybe very functional, but not too memorable for aesthetic.

Like musicians, some are outstanding artists, others aren't, even if they hit all the notes. I'm not sure how to capture this "emotional impact" in a grade, though. But it should. "Performance" score talks about what a skater does - but seems to miss what a skater achieves (audience's emotion, if any).

Sam-Skwantch said:

Junior Grand Prix events are great to follow because you’ll see a full range of skaters scoring 3’s and 4’s and some scoring 8’s and 9’s. It’s a full spectrum.

Watch this ———> JGP Ladies SP Salzburg <———

Click to expand...

Thank you for the link, will do.

The more I watch, the more I want to understand it fully. Your help is very much appreciated.

Casual said:

Could you explain what does each element of PCS mean?

Click to expand...

See the chart that Sam-Skwantch linked between your post and mine. That lists the criteria for each of the components.

There used to be another document that expanded on each of the criteria in a bit more detail, but that was deleted after a few of the criteria changed last year.

Here's an up-to-date document that gives a little more detail than the chart:
http://www.skatinginbc.com/sites/de...gram_components_definitions_and_criteria_.pdf

Skating skills - does it account mostly for technical difficulty of the program, or for general impression of "beautiful skating" overall? (How fluid, graceful, etc.) What's the main driver of this score?

Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with the difficulty of the technical elements and everything to do with the quality of the use of blade edges on the ice throughout the whole program -- between elements, during step sequences/choreo sequences, entry and exit edges to spins and jumps.

What's the difference between performance vs. interpretation (both seem to refer to the artistry?)?

Click to expand...

I understand Performance as being about how physically committed and sharp in body line and execution of every move the skater is, and their relationship with the spectators -- all qualities that can be seen if the skater were performing with no music.

Interpretation is about the way the skater moves to the music.

What are transitions - are they mostly entrances or exits to jumps and other elements, or are they all of the footwork between elements?

Click to expand...

All of the above. And also highlight moves like spirals, spread eagles, split jumps, walley jumps, butterflies that skaters do in between elements and that don't really qualify as footwork. Some skaters will have more value to the way they get in and out of elements but not many highlight moves between elements. Others will have lots of extra moves but not do such a good job of connecting the moves together. So which aspect the component is "more" about will depend on what each skater does more of.

In rating choreography, what's more important - difficulty or beauty?

Click to expand...

Beauty would probably come more under Performance than under Choreography. Although I suppose it depends what you mean by beauty, what's most important to you.

The Composition component (as it is now called) is more about how the program is laid out in space (and time?), how the movements use the whole space three-dimensionally, to what degree there is purpose behind the movements and how they're arranged, and originality if any.

It looks like PCS is usually higher for the technically higher rated skaters, even when they are not the most beautiful to watch. I'm trying to learn and understand why is that.

Click to expand...

Whether intentionally or not, it seems that the skaters with the strongest basic skating skills tend to score highest on all components. It's probably more evident live and up close than on video how their technical command of the blades on the ice creates a stronger aesthetic experience as well as demonstrating greater technical mastery. And the skaters with stronger technique are usually able to execute more difficult elements.

But that's just a general trend. Sometimes you will see skaters who are much better at jumping (or spinning) than they are at skating, so in that case they may have very high technical scores but only medium-high PCS.

Or you might see a skater who has developed their skating skills and performance skills to a very high level scale back on the technical content as they get older or when returning from injury, etc. Or they just might double a few jumps but otherwise perform the program at a high level. In that case their PCS may be very high even with lower technical scores.

Casual said:

You know what seems to be missing (from the scoring system)? The emotional impact (on the audience).

Click to expand...

That is acknowledged in the "Physical, emotional, intellectual involvement and projection" criterion of the Performance component.

But even though it's very important to audience members' experience of the performances, it's only a small part of what the sport is about as a sport. It is primarily about technical skills, including both the blade-to-ice skating skills and the technical elements like jumps and spins (or pair and dance moves such as lifts, etc.).

Being able to do all that in time to music is rewarded because it shows additional technical control.

Making it beautiful is rewarded because it shows additional technical control.

Being able to connect emotionally to the music and to the audience makes it special. But that specialness is something extra, beyond the technical aspects of the sport. It does get rewarded, but it's not the point of competition.

(It is the point of show skating, but there are no scores there.)

Of course, if a skater is really great at relating to audiences and making them feel something emotionally, they will probably have that effect on the judges too to some extent, even though the judges are also busy analyzing the technical aspects of the skating. So a very charismatic skater will probably score higher on most components than a very un-charismatic skater even if they execute the exact same skills.

But if a more charismatic skater has weaker technical skills and a more boring skater has greater skills, the stronger skater will earn more points than the stronger performance. Because it's a sporting contest first, not primarily a performing contest.

Casual said:

... You know what seems to be missing (from the scoring system)? The emotional impact (on the audience).

Some skaters mesmerize, some don't. ...

Click to expand...

Excerpt from the "Marking guide for Program Components" in ISU Handbook for Referees and Judges (Ice Dance), As of 24.07.2017 (emphasis added):


(Can't find an online version of comparable ISU handbook for judges of single and pair skating.)

gkelly, thanks for explaining it in such detail.

It all makes sense - and also might explain why the sport is losing popularity. Skating is the most visually intensive and emotional winter sport (besides hockey, but that one is totally different, and famous for crowd-pleasing emotions due to brawls, not artistry).

But if figure skating gets treated mostly like a sports to be scored on mastery of technique - rather than as an artistic performance scored on pure aesthetics - (while at the same time remaining a very subjective sport), then it might be difficult to attain and maintain fans.

Those like myself, attracted by aesthetics and artistry, will be turned off by "boring" skaters winning all the medals. Those who prefer "pure sport" and technical scores, will be turned off by wasting scores on ephemeral "performance". All will be turned off by "unfairness" in subjective judging. Quite a conundrum, LOL.

Casual said:

Those like myself, attracted by aesthetics and artistry, will be turned off by "boring" skaters winning all the medals. Those who prefer "pure sport" and technical scores, will be turned off by wasting scores on ephemeral "performance". All will be turned off by "unfairness" in subjective judging. Quite a conundrum, LOL.

Click to expand...

However, none of that is anything new. Those issues existed when there were school figures, under 6.0 judging without school figures, and now with IJS. The contradictions are just inherent in the premises of the sport.

And often "boring" is in the eye of the beholder.

gkelly said:

However, none of that is anything new. Those issues existed when there were school figures, under 6.0 judging without school figures, and now with IJS. The contradictions are just inherent in the premises of the sport.

Click to expand...

True, but overall there seems less artistry at the top of the podium, and more "boring jumper" types. Technocrats vs. artists was eternal, but the scoring promotes the former.

If there's no grade (or minimal) on emotional connection with the audience (from the p.o.v. of audience, not a performer), that this is not art at all. I thought it used to be.

For me, figure skating was more like ballet, i.e., it's art which I watch primarily for aesthetics, not athleticism or technical difficulty, although both are vital for creating an artistic masterpiece.

I'm in awe of the level of technical difficulty the sport has achieved (especially men; and perhaps this is as high as a human body is capable). But it looks like the artistic part of it is suffering.

Casual said:

Thank you, that's a very helpful PCS chart.

You know what seems to be missing (from the scoring system)? The emotional impact (on the audience).

Some skaters mesmerize, some don't. Some are sublime ARTISTS, pulling us inside and giving an emotional high; others are just meh, whatever, i.e., maybe very functional, but not too memorable for aesthetic.

Like musicians, some are outstanding artists, others aren't, even if they hit all the notes. I'm not sure how to capture this "emotional impact" in a grade, though. But it should. "Performance" score talks about what a skater does - but seems to miss what a skater achieves (audience's emotion, if any).

Click to expand...

Both the "Performance and Execution" score and the "Interpretation" score would reflect the emotional impact pf the skater's performance. And since it's very hard to have an emotionally impactful figure skating performance to music without good choreography, I'd expect some to see some credit in the "Choreography" score as well.