Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 42

Thread: Modernization of PCS score

  1. #21
    Tripping on the Podium
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    959

    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    In fact, statistically the five components can be reduced to just one. Just copy the SS score 4 times and for TR, put down .5 less.



    I always guessed that the reason is that judges feel more confident in counting the transitions and saying to themselves, "Hey, that program didn't have any transitions at all, to speak of."

    Whereas they are less secure in saying, "That program didn't interpret the music worth a darn!"
    But that doesn’t explain why Eteri skaters do not get higher TR than SS. They are extreme cases, Med, Zagi. But it is pretty obvious they have a ton of TR quantitatively but the basic SS are really just average. Surely the judges can deem fit to score 9 in TR and 7 in SS. It’s strange that we rarely have a spread in the components when the differences can be stark. SS in particular is something that even the top skaters do not excel. CaroK and Mao harked back to the remnants of the last 6.0 era while someone like PChan, Marin Honda and Alyona K are exceptions and credit must go to their talent (Honda) and the formative training from their early coaches - Coach Colson for PChan and Ice Dancer Elena Zhgun for Alyona.

  2. #22
    GS Supporter
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    6,423

    1 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Globetrotter View Post
    But that doesn’t explain why Eteri skaters do not get higher TR than SS. They are extreme cases, Med, Zagi. But it is pretty obvious they have a ton of TR quantitatively but the basic SS are really just average. Surely the judges can deem fit to score 9 in TR and 7 in SS. It’s strange that we rarely have a spread in the components when the differences can be stark. SS in particular is something that even the top skaters do not excel. CaroK and Mao harked back to the remnants of the last 6.0 era while someone like PChan, Marin Honda and Alyona K are exceptions and credit must go to their talent (Honda) and the formative training from their early coaches - Coach Colson for PChan and Ice Dancer Elena Zhgun for Alyona.
    It totally does. Based on the current scores, judges seem to come up with some base number, and then just give all the PC scores in a corridor, following a pattern.
    They totally don't seem to score adequately each individual category.

    For instance, I am always curious why there are not skaters with lets say great SS but average performance / interpretation. But if you look at the scores given, it its neraly impossible to find a difference above 0.5 between PCs categories.

  3. #23
    On the Ice Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    34,760
    Country: United States of America

    1 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Globetrotter View Post
    But that doesn’t explain why Eteri skaters do not get higher TR than SS.
    They don't get higher TR scores than SS, but the difference gets closer. In general, it seems like the better the overall performance, the closer the TR gets to the SS.

    I just checked this out for the 2018 Olympics free skate. Here are the differences SS - TR for the top 12.

    Zagitova +0.11
    Medvedeva +0.14
    Osmund +0.29
    Miyahara +0.29
    Kostner +0.21
    Sakamoto +0.21
    Sotskova +0.25
    Choi +0.29
    Tennell +0.25
    Kim +0.50
    Chen +0.84
    Nagasu +0.64

    Going on down the list to 24th place, the trend does is not jump out quite so clearly (the numbers are all smaller so the differences automatically stop getting bigger). But all 24 competitors have higher SS than TR no matter how they skated.

    Maybe there isn't any reason for this. Maybe the judges just got in the habit of giving lower TR scores years ago, so now they keep on with business as usual.

  4. #24
    Shepherdess of the Teal Deer Metis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    2,696
    Country: United States of America

    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    Maybe there isn't any reason for this. Maybe the judges just got in the habit of giving lower TR scores years ago, so now they keep on with business as usual.
    I think that’s part of it. It would be interesting to see how newer judges handle the SS-TR gap versus older ones. Institutional memory is a powerful thing, though.

    My guess is that part of the “TR must always be <<= SS” norm is just habit. Part anchoring bias. Part heuristic thinking. If you have a sense that a skater should score about X value in PCS, then you can divide that number by 5, adjust the quarter-marks for emphasis, and be done. It may not even be conscious. We all have a sense of what a 40/50 PCS mark in the short ought to look like, what’s a 38 versus a 36, etc. That heuristic fluctuates during a competition based on the depth of the field and how everyone skates on a given day — if everyone is messy versus a string of clean skates, for example. But saying “X should score at least Y in PCS” doesn’t imply anything about how you’d award each individual component mark... but we frequently see the final value divided by five with incremental, almost meaningless, differences among the components. It’s something fans have been complaining about since the change to CoP.

  5. #25
    Medalist
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,084
    Country: Italy

    2 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    They don't get higher TR scores than SS, but the difference gets closer. In general, it seems like the better the overall performance, the closer the TR gets to the SS.

    I just checked this out for the 2018 Olympics free skate. Here are the differences SS - TR for the top 12.

    Zagitova +0.11
    Medvedeva +0.14
    Osmund +0.29
    Miyahara +0.29
    Kostner +0.21
    Sakamoto +0.21
    Sotskova +0.25
    Choi +0.29
    Tennell +0.25
    Kim +0.50
    Chen +0.84
    Nagasu +0.64

    Going on down the list to 24th place, the trend does is not jump out quite so clearly (the numbers are all smaller so the differences automatically stop getting bigger). But all 24 competitors have higher SS than TR no matter how they skated.

    Maybe there isn't any reason for this. Maybe the judges just got in the habit of giving lower TR scores years ago, so now they keep on with business as usual.
    In that FS, in 12 occasions an individual judge went for an higher mark in Transitions compared to Skating Skills. 7 of them were from Judge 1 (Nicole LeBlanc) and the other 5 were from Judge 7 (Francoise de Rappard) and 8 (Deveny Deck).

    Zagitova (Judge 1)
    Miyahara (Judge 8)
    Choi (Judge 7)
    Tursynbaeva (Judge 1)
    Hendrickx (Judge 1)
    Craine (Judge 1)
    Schott (Judge 1)
    Daleman (Judge 8)
    Peltonen (Judge 8)
    Toth (Judge 1 and 7)
    Williams (Judge 1)

    Paganini got from Judge 6 a 1 point difference between SS (6.25) and TR (5.25).

    In the SP, TR>SS in 4 occasions

    Zagitova (Judge 6, Hailan Jiang)
    Chen (Judge 4, Ayumi Kozuka)
    Tennell (Judge 6)
    Austman (Judge 2, Katalin Balczo)

    Nagasu had a 1.25 difference in favour of SS by judge 6

    In the Olympic Men event, in the FS only one judge (Yamamoto) gave a higher TR mark. It was for Misha Ge
    In the SP it happened more times: 1 judge for Fernandez (Judge 9, Chen), 1 for Messing (Judge 6, Kozhemyakina), 1 for Hendrickx (Judge 6), 2 for Ge (Judge 1 and 7), Cha (Judge 1, Delfa), Yee (Judge 6), Montoya (7, Ryan)

  6. #26
    On the Ice Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    34,760
    Country: United States of America

    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Metis View Post
    I think that’s part of it. It would be interesting to see how newer judges handle the SS-TR gap versus older ones. Institutional memory is a powerful thing, though.

    My guess is that part of the “TR must always be <<= SS” norm is just habit. Part anchoring bias. Part heuristic thinking. If you have a sense that a skater should score about X value in PCS, then you can divide that number by 5, adjust the quarter-marks for emphasis, and be done. It may not even be conscious. We all have a sense of what a 40/50 PCS mark in the short ought to look like, what’s a 38 versus a 36, etc. That heuristic fluctuates during a competition based on the depth of the field and how everyone skates on a given day — if everyone is messy versus a string of clean skates, for example. But saying “X should score at least Y in PCS” doesn’t imply anything about how you’d award each individual component mark... but we frequently see the final value divided by five with incremental, almost meaningless, differences among the components. It’s something fans have been complaining about since the change to CoP.
    There is also the point that the judges enter their SS score first, then the other four. So we should not be surprised that SS is the best predictor of the rest. In fact, I vaguely remember that at one time the ISU conducted some experiments where judges were asked to score the program components in a different order -- say, Interpretation first -- with different results.

  7. #27
    Tripping on the Podium
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    959

    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by moriel View Post
    It totally does. Based on the current scores, judges seem to come up with some base number, and then just give all the PC scores in a corridor, following a pattern.
    They totally don't seem to score adequately each individual category.

    For instance, I am always curious why there are not skaters with lets say great SS but average performance / interpretation. But if you look at the scores given, it its neraly impossible to find a difference above 0.5 between PCs categories.
    I get the gist of what you were implying. The PCS scoring is really mind boggling in its current form and if judging cannot differentiate the strengths and weaknesses of individual skaters in the components, that is really a disservice to the and also confusing to audience and fans. I get it with the corridor scoring method and convention of having TR slightly below SS. It’s just that I don’t agree that the method is the most transparent and it certainly is not easily comprehended.

  8. #28
    Bona Fide Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    6,524

    1 Not allowed!
    Well, they're not required to enter the SS score first; they can access the component inputs in any order. But the SS is the first one listed in the rules and on the screen, so it undoubtedly it does become a habit to enter that one first.

  9. #29
    On the Ice Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    34,760
    Country: United States of America

    0 Not allowed!
    I have also wondered if the 2010 Olympic men's competition had something to do with it.

    As I recall, there was a big dust-up in ISU circles about whether the judges were really following the rules with regard to the TR scores, or whether they were just throwing high marks out there like candy. Evgenni Plushenko made a joking remark to the effect, "Why does Brian Joubert get such high transition marks? He has the same transtitions that I do -- none".

    Long-time judge Joe Inman jumped on that and sent an irate email to all of his fellow judges saying, "See, you-all don't know what you're doing when in comes to transitions." At the Olympics, the judges were discombobulated when it came to scoring Plushenkos TR. Two judges gave 6.00; two judges gave 8.75. All 4 were thrown out in the trimming convention in effect for those Games, but when the dust had cleared Plushenko had 7.25 and Lysacek 7.95, and that was the ball game.

    (Lambiel got the highest TR of the night (LP), 8.05. but still loweer than his SS, 8.30.)

  10. #30
    Tripping on the Podium
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    959

    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrea82 View Post
    In that FS, in 12 occasions an individual judge went for an higher mark in Transitions compared to Skating Skills. 7 of them were from Judge 1 (Nicole LeBlanc) and the other 5 were from Judge 7 (Francoise de Rappard) and 8 (Deveny Deck).

    Zagitova (Judge 1)
    Miyahara (Judge 8)
    Choi (Judge 7)
    Tursynbaeva (Judge 1)
    Hendrickx (Judge 1)
    Craine (Judge 1)
    Schott (Judge 1)
    Daleman (Judge 8)
    Peltonen (Judge 8)
    Toth (Judge 1 and 7)
    Williams (Judge 1)

    Paganini got from Judge 6 a 1 point difference between SS (6.25) and TR (5.25).

    In the SP, TR>SS in 4 occasions

    Zagitova (Judge 6, Hailan Jiang)
    Chen (Judge 4, Ayumi Kozuka)
    Tennell (Judge 6)
    Austman (Judge 2, Katalin Balczo)

    Nagasu had a 1.25 difference in favour of SS by judge 6

    In the Olympic Men event, in the FS only one judge (Yamamoto) gave a higher TR mark. It was for Misha Ge
    In the SP it happened more times: 1 judge for Fernandez (Judge 9, Chen), 1 for Messing (Judge 6, Kozhemyakina), 1 for Hendrickx (Judge 6), 2 for Ge (Judge 1 and 7), Cha (Judge 1, Delfa), Yee (Judge 6), Montoya (7, Ryan)
    Awesome. Thanks for the detailed sleuthing. At least some judges did make an effort to differentiate the delivery on the ice. However, the overall scores still ended up largely in the SS>TR trend meaning that more judges were in the corridor judging mode, than those who attempted to differentiate. I am hopeful that this will improve over time. There are significant numbers of skaters who display clear differences in strengths and weaknesses in the components to make the scoring disparity more meaningful.

    E.g high TR, low SS: Fernandez, Zagitova, Medvedeva, Misha
    E.g great PE, low SS: Fernández, most Russian ladies (especially Liza Tuks, Lenok), Ashley Wagner, Kovtun, Ge, Cohen
    E.g. higher SS, lower PE: Nagasu, Max, Gracie, Chen, Wakaba, Mai Mihara, Abbott
    E.g all round good: Hanyu, PChan, CaroK, Miyahara, Asada, Shoma, Messing, Kostornaia, MKwan

  11. #31
    Shepherdess of the Teal Deer Metis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    2,696
    Country: United States of America

    1 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    There is also the point that the judges enter their SS score first, then the other four. So we should not be surprised that SS is the best predictor of the rest. In fact, I vaguely remember that at one time the ISU conducted some experiments where judges were asked to score the program components in a different order -- say, Interpretation first -- with different results.
    And that’s how anchoring bias works — the first value entered controls the rest. Similarly, when taking survey, the order in which the answer options appear changes responses (YES/NO is different from NO/YES).

    I think there are ways to make PCS more transparent, but there’s also the fact that humans are “predictably irrational” and prone to numerous cognitive traps. There’s no way to build a better mousetrap around that issue.

  12. #32
    Bona Fide Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    6,524

    1 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Globetrotter View Post
    However, the overall scores still ended up largely in the SS>TR trend meaning that more judges were in the corridor judging mode, than those who attempted to differentiate.
    Also -- not so much with SS vs. TR, but probably more likely with IN vs. CO or PE, there might be occasions where the judges define/interpret the written guidelines a bit differently from each other, or perceive the strong and weak points of a program differently than each other, and therefore disagree on which component should be higher than another. In that case, even if they each used larger gaps between these components, the averaging would make the final totals end up closer than any judge had them.

  13. #33
    On the Ice Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    34,760
    Country: United States of America

    1 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Globetrotter View Post

    E.g high TR, low SS: Fernandez, Zagitova, Medvedeva, Misha
    E.g great PE, low SS: Fernández, most Russian ladies (especially Liza Tuks, Lenok), Ashley Wagner, Kovtun, Ge, Cohen
    E.g. higher SS, lower PE: Nagasu, Max, Gracie, Chen, Wakaba, Mai Mihara, Abbott
    E.g all round good: Hanyu, PChan, CaroK, Miyahara, Asada, Shoma, Messing, Kostornaia, MKwan
    I doubt that all ISU judges would agree with everything on this list. I don't think that think most judges feel that Zagitova has weak SS, or that Kovtun has outstanding PE. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

    There are significant numbers of skaters who display clear differences in strengths and weaknesses in the components to make the scoring disparity more meaningful.
    To me, that is the crux of all these discussions about how to improve figure skating scoring.

    I do not believe that trying to compartmentalize the components makes anything more meaningful. At best it only creates an illusion of doing so. The program components (as opposed to the element scores) are the judges' opportunity to give a mark to the program as a whole. I personally think it is silly to say, you get an 8.25 for "creating an invisible bond with the audience" but only a 7.75 for being "sincere in emotion."

    I think it would be more satisfying to junk all that and give two program component marks: The technical features of the program as a whole (covered now by SS and TR) and the presentation features (PE, CH, and Int). The ISU could still publish a list of list of bullet points and criteria that goes into it, if they wished.

    (JMO of course.)

  14. #34
    On the Ice Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    34,760
    Country: United States of America

    1 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    In that case, even if they each used larger gaps between these components, the averaging would make the final totals end up closer than any judge had them.
    Good point.

    For instance, Carolina Kostner (2018 Olympic LP) got an average of 9.57 in CH nd 9.57 in INT.

    But if you look at the individual judges, 3 judges thought that her CH was better than her INT and 4 judges thought that her INT was better than her CH, with 2 ties. Which judges were right? Which were wrong?

    Or did all the judges just say, well that was pretty good. I'll give her a 9.5 and a 9.75 -- it doesn't matter for which, but I don't want to give the same. That would make it seem like I am not really paying that much attention to all those bullet points that add up to good choreography and separately to good Interpretation.

  15. #35
    Tripping on the Podium
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    959

    1 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    I doubt that all ISU judges would agree with everything on this list. I don't think that think most judges feel that Zagitova has weak SS, or that Kovtun has outstanding PE. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

    To me, that is the crux of all these discussions about how to improve figure skating scoring.

    I do not believe that trying to compartmentalize the components makes anything more meaningful. At best it only creates an illusion of doing so. The program components (as opposed to the element scores) are the judges' opportunity to give a mark to the program as a whole. I personally think it is silly to say, you get an 8.25 for "creating an invisible bond with the audience" but only a 7.75 for being "sincere in emotion."

    I think it would be more satisfying to junk all that and give two program component marks: The technical features of the program as a whole (covered now by SS and TR) and the presentation features (PE, CH, and Int). The ISU could still publish a list of list of bullet points and criteria that goes into it, if they wished.

    (JMO of course.)
    Examples just to illustrate what I see as skaters who IMO show a relatively stronger component over another, not that they are lousy in that weaker component. Just that the scoring does not quite show that. But you are right that it is better to keep the components simpler. I am completely all ok for SS and TR as one and presentation to sum up PE+IN+CO. The weight age though.....50:50 may not be what everyone will agree to especially if the artistry factor (whatever it means) is what is valued more.

  16. #36
    Bona Fide Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    3,621
    Country: Saint Pierre and Miquelon

    1 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Globetrotter View Post
    Examples just to illustrate what I see as skaters who IMO show a relatively stronger component over another, not that they are lousy in that weaker component. Just that the scoring does not quite show that. But you are right that it is better to keep the components simpler. I am completely all ok for SS and TR as one and presentation to sum up PE+IN+CO. The weight age though.....50:50 may not be what everyone will agree to especially if the artistry factor (whatever it means) is what is valued more.
    The judges can give only one or two PCS, but the problem with that is that skaters won't see on which criterias judges based their decision. When skaters get lets say SS 8 TR 7.5 PE 7.75 CO 8.25 IN 8 they are getting better information on which aspects of their skating they can work more to get better scores - in this example in some of TR and PE criterias. The numbers are there to give some feedback to the skaters/audience too, and i'm afraid that one number is not telling too much, except judges opinion who they think is better or worse in general. But the point of judging PCS is not to compare skaters with one another, but to compare some aspects of their skating with the 0-10 scale... Reasons why there is no better differentiation between scoring of PCS categories can be 1) they are all dependable one of another, and they are all based on skating, and that on skating in the ice rink, to the music, and for the audience, and skaters are trained to fullfill all the criterias equally 2) the scale judges are working with doesn't have that big range of scores, both novice skaters and top skaters are part of that same 0-10 range. If judges are scoring with lets say possible range from 0 to 20, the biger differentiation between components would be more possible.

  17. #37
    Bona Fide Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    6,524

    1 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    I do not believe that trying to compartmentalize the components makes anything more meaningful. At best it only creates an illusion of doing so.

    I’d say that at worst compartmentalizing the components creates an illusion of meaning where there is none.
    At best, I'd say, it provides the judges, or any individual judge, a real opportunity to send messages to skaters about performances that they thought were significantly better or worse in one area than in others. Seriously unbalanced performances may be rare and whole panels of judges meaningfully reflecting the discrepancies even rarer, occasionally the discrepancies are so large that at least some judges choose to send an obvious message.

    For most performances or most skaters, the differences might not be very significant. But there is still an opportunity to convey subtle messages. E.g., if a skater's IN score is consistently 0.25 to 0.5 lower than CO, that can tell her something about where there is immediate room for improvement.

    If the judges disagree on which components were higher or lower so the averages come out practically the same, that doesn't tell much except that on average the judges think those components were pretty much on par and which component ended up slightly higher than another was primarily an effect of statistical noise. Taking those unmeaningful fluctuations too seriously would probably be the worst case scenario.

    The program components (as opposed to the element scores) are the judges' opportunity to give a mark to the program as a whole. I personally think it is silly to say, you get an 8.25 for "creating an invisible bond with the audience" but only a 7.75 for being "sincere in emotion."
    Those are both part of the Performance component. (And not even official bullet points, but from the more detailed explanations of the "Projection" and "Physical, emotional and intellectual involvement" bullet points, respectively, in a document that is no longer published alongside the components overview.)

    A further reductio ad absurdam might be to require not only separate scores for each bullet point under each component, but also for each piece of each bullet point that contains the word "and" -- or for each piece of an expanded explanation.

    Separate scores not only for "Physical, emotional and intellectual involvement" vs. "Projection" but also one score for "physically committed," another for "sincere in emotion, and a third for "comprehension of the music and execution of all movement"?

    Or, under Skating Skills, not only a separate score for "Flow and effortless glide" or one for "Flow" and another for "Effortless glide," but break down the detailed explanation into separate scores for "Rhythm" "strength" "clean stokes" "efficient use of lean to create a steady fun to the blade" and "ease of transfer or weight resulting in seemingly effortless power and acceleration"?

    I think it would be more satisfying to junk all that and give two program component marks: The technical features of the program as a whole (covered now by SS and TR) and the presentation features (PE, CH, and Int).

    In that case, the factors for each of the two conglomerated components would be higher. I would recommend using increments of 0.1 rather than 0.25.

    More satisfying for whom?
    Before asking fans (or casual viewers), or judges for that matter, I'd want to know what the skaters and coaches would find most useful or most satisfying.

    Should technical aspects of Composition (pattern and ice coverage as they reflect multidirectional skating, speed, and edge depth; and also temporal balance such as frontloading/backloading) be considered in the global technical mark and only the artistic aspects of Proportion and Pattern and Ice Coverage be considered in the "Presentation" or "Performance" mark?

  18. #38
    Bona Fide Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    6,524

    1 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Baron Vladimir View Post
    But the point of judging PCS is not to compare skaters with one another, but to rang them on the 0-10 scale...
    Yes, that is true.

    Assuming that judges were supposed to use the PCS to compare and rank skaters (or that some judges currently do try to do so), what would be the ideal number of marks for that purpose?

    If judges have two global marks to work with, one for SS/TR and one for PE/CO/IN, they can take two skaters who are generally both “very good” in all areas and give one 8.0/8.0 for both scores and another 7.75/8.0 or 8.5/7.75 both to reflect which in which area they thought one skater was better or worse than the other and also to have control which ends up with the higher total.


    If judges are only aiming to reflect their best assessment of each component area separately, then there’s no need to keep track of who ends up with a higher total. They can end up with similar or identical total PCS for two or more skaters, but difference in the distributions provides some information about where they thought each skater was relatively stronger or weaker.


    Even if they do use large gaps, they could still end up with the same totals for multiple skaters. E.g.,

    8.0/8.0 for the most balanced skater vs. 7.0/9.0 vs. 8.75/7.25.


    If they are primarily trying to rank skaters, then fewer components makes it easier to keep track of the rankings, especially if they have tiebreakers as under 6.0.
    (Only one global score would make it impossible to separate all the skaters in large events.)


    More scores would allow for more subtle rankings. 8.0 7.75 8.25 8.25 7.75 would beat 8.0 7.25 8.5 7.75 7.75.

    The total differences are small (doubled in freeskates) but would allow a judge to reflect that these two skaters are pretty similar overall but the former's more complex program outweighs the latter's slightly better performance quality today, in this judge's opinion. Assuming two scores with 0.1 increments, something like 7.9/8.1 vs. 7.6/8.0 would be less informative.


    Reasons why there is no better diferentiation between scoring of PCS categories can be 1) they are all dependable one of another, and they are all based on skating, and that on skating in the ice rink, to the music, and for the audience, and skaters are trained to fullfill all the criterias equally

    True. It’s hard for a skater who is deficient technically to earn really high scores even in the artistic areas because they don’t have mastery of the full range of skills to work with.


    Or even to score very high in Transitions even if they include high quantity and difficulty, if the quality is limited by technical limitations.


    Especially if some of the PE/CO/IN criteria are written in ways that presume technical mastery, or if judges interpret them that way.


    It is easier for a technically proficient skater to have a badly constructed program, to ignore the music, or to be lacking in engagement with the music, choreography, and spectators.


    So it may be that a skater who is much better at connecting to the audience or interpreting music or at including a variety of unlisted moves between the elements will score higher in PE or IN or TR than in Skating Skills, but not as high as a skater who performed just as well in those areas and also did it with more speed and security across the ice.


    2) the scale judges are working with doesn't have that big range of scores, both novice skaters and top skaters are part of that same 0-10 range. If judges are scoring with lets say possible range from 0 to 20, the biger differentiation between components would be more possible.

    Also true.


    Would it be useful (for skaters as well as audiences) to broaden the scale? Or just to educate audiences that the lower range of scores for internationally competing seniors is somewhere 5 and that scores below 5 are more often seen at lower levels and by seniors who are not good enough for elite competition?

  19. #39
    On the Ice Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    34,760
    Country: United States of America

    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Baron Vladimir View Post
    But the point of judging PCS is not to compare skaters with one another, but to compare some aspects of their skating with the 0-10 scale...
    This is the view that the ISU puts forward. IMHO we do not have to buy it, especially on a thread devoted to ideas for "modernizing" the scoring system. (I think I would like to change the thread title to, "How can we make the PCS more old-fashioned." )

    As for the argument that the purpose of a scoring system in sports is to give feedback to the athletes -- no, I don't accept that. The purpose of a scoring system is to determine who won.

    Furthermore, I have a sneaking suspicion that the judges, in substantial part, are giving out scores on the basis of, "who do I think skated the best, who second best, etc., and are pretty much thumbing their noses at the official party line. This is why there are so many complaints , "you gave her a 9.50 in Interpretation for that?!"

  20. #40
    Bona Fide Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    3,621
    Country: Saint Pierre and Miquelon

    1 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    This is the view that the ISU puts forward. IMHO we do not have to buy it, especially on a thread devoted to ideas for "modernizing" the scoring system. (I think I would like to change the thread title to, "How can we make the PCS more old-fashioned." )

    As for the argument that the purpose of a scoring system in sports is to give feedback to the athletes -- no, I don't accept that. The purpose of a scoring system is to determine who won.

    Furthermore, I have a sneaking suspicion that the judges, in substantial part, are giving out scores on the basis of, "who do I think skated the best, who second best, etc., and are pretty much thumbing their noses at the official party line. This is why there are so many complaints , "you gave her a 9.50 in Interpretation for that?!"
    The purpose of the scoring system is to determine the winner, yes, but with scoring PCS judges just saying how much and how good skaters fullfilled some written criterias. Then, the ISU scoring system is using that information to rank the skaters. I, as a judge, can think that skater A is generally better than skater B. Also, if i need to decide who generally skated better in one exact competition i can (objectively) think and say it is skater A. But if in a that same competion i need to to decide how much of the written criterias in one component skaters fullfilled i can come with the same mark on the 0-10 scale for both skaters. So, in a sport competition we are getting the information who scored more points according to some written rules, not necesseraly who is the best athlete/team. Kendra Harrison is the 100 hurdles world record holder, so we can say she is the best/fastest women in the world in that discipline. But how many World/Olympic races she won - zero.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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