Rescoring of 2010 Olympics | Page 3 | Golden Skate

Rescoring of 2010 Olympics

Blades of Passion

Skating is Art, if you let it be
Record Breaker
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Country
France
Another thing I forgot to point out is Weir's combination spin in the SP was only called Level 3 when it is clearly Level 4 - he does difficult sit position (feature 1), held for at least 8 rotations (feature 2), a very clean edge change held for at least 2 rotations (feature 3), and difficult upright position (feature 4). I'm really not sure how they messed that call up, there's nothing even questionable about it. It's the same combo spin he did in the LP and the same combo spin Lysacek did in both programs, which were all Level 4 calls.
 

CanadianSkaterGuy

Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Another thing I forgot to point out is Weir's combination spin in the SP was only called Level 3 when it is clearly Level 4 - he does difficult sit position (feature 1), held for at least 8 rotations (feature 2), a very clean edge change held for at least 2 rotations (feature 3), and difficult upright position (feature 4). I'm really not sure how they messed that call up, there's nothing even questionable about it. It's the same combo spin he did in the LP and the same combo spin Lysacek did in both programs, which were all Level 4 calls.

Anything else? Just want to make sure we are thorough. :popcorn:
 

ladyjane

Medalist
Joined
Jun 26, 2012
Country
Netherlands
Hihihi...I think I made a totally unexpected skater the winner....Whatever the discussions by others. To be fair: I really am not as good as some of us in determining whether there's a call or not. But my winner didn't even get a medal in the end. Sorry guys! Exactly the reason why I don't dispute the outcome usually.
 

Blades of Passion

Skating is Art, if you let it be
Record Breaker
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Country
France
Hihihi...I think I made a totally unexpected skater the winner....Whatever the discussions by others. To be fair: I really am not as good as some of us in determining whether there's a call or not. But my winner didn't even get a medal in the end. Sorry guys! Exactly the reason why I don't dispute the outcome usually.

OMG, I hope it's Takahiko Kozuka. He's the Long Program winner for me!
 

ladyjane

Medalist
Joined
Jun 26, 2012
Country
Netherlands
I am so looking forward to the outcome of this exercise. I think all the 'judges' will be trying to do this in a serious manner. Not to defame the real judges at the time, not to be unfair to any skater (I may have my favourites but I really tried to look at the footwork, the spins, the rotation, etc. independent of all favouritism) and thankfully we will all be trying to keep National bias completely out! Yay, yay, yay!
 

CanadianSkaterGuy

Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Just confirming - the highest and lowest still get thrown out in the final GOE/PCS calculations, correct?

Just in case certain judge(s) go a bit too extreme in their generosity/criticism?

It would be interesting to see the deviation from the rest of the panel and where the outliers are.
 

ladyjane

Medalist
Joined
Jun 26, 2012
Country
Netherlands
Just confirming - the highest and lowest still get thrown out in the final GOE/PCS calculations, correct?


It would be interesting to see the deviation from the rest of the panel and where the outliers are.

Giggle....if that's the case and I'm the outlier all the time, you may even bash me as being a terrible judge. I probably am!
 

Baron Vladimir

Record Breaker
Joined
Dec 18, 2014
Just confirming - the highest and lowest still get thrown out in the final GOE/PCS calculations, correct?

Just in case certain judge(s) go a bit too extreme in their generosity/criticism?

It would be interesting to see the deviation from the rest of the panel and where the outliers are.

I was thinking about it too. I'm not sure 'extremes' were thrown away back then. That's why judges could score however they wanted to?! I was looking at the judges scores from Vancouver and that kind of discrepancy between them is really odd to me. It's like we were judging the competition, and not the actual judges :biggrin: I'm ok with the difference between judges scores but 2 points difference in a component is an abnormality to me. Or maybe i'm just customized to todays way of judging, and all judging in the past look just weird to me :confused2:
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
I was thinking about it too. I'm not sure 'extremes' were thrown away back then.

Yes, they always were.

That's why judges could score however they wanted to?! I was looking at the judges scores from Vancouver and that kind of discrepancy between them is really odd to me. It's like we were judging the competition, and not the actual judges :biggrin: I'm ok with the difference between judges scores but 2 points difference in a component is an abnormality to me. Or maybe i'm just customized to todays way of judging, and all judging in the past look just weird to me :confused2:

Also remember that for most of the IJS years (plus under 6.0 during the "interim system" of 2003 and 2004), the judges were anonymized by reporting their scores in random order rather than Judge 1 in column 1, etc. At first the same judge's scores remained in the same column for the whole competition segment, but that made it relatively easy to figure out which judge was in which column, so for a while the columns were shuffled randomly for each skater, not just once for the whole event.

I don't remember whether that started before or after 2010.

When that was in effect, you couldn't look down a single column and compare how the same judge scored more than one skater. Column 1 for Skater A would have been marks from a different judge than in Column 1 for Skater B.
 

Baron Vladimir

Record Breaker
Joined
Dec 18, 2014
Also remember that for most of the IJS years (plus under 6.0 the "interim system" of 2003 and 2004), the judges were anonymized by reporting their scores in random order rather than Judge 1 in column 1, etc. At first the same judge's scores remained in the same column for the whole competition segment, but that made it relatively easy to figure out which judge was in which column, so for a while the columns were shuffled randomly for each skater, not just once for the whole event.

I don't remember whether that started before or after 2010.

When that was in effect, you couldn't look down a single column and compare how the same judge scored more than one skater. Column 1 for Skater A would have been marks from a different judge than in Column 1 for Skater B.

Thanks. I understand that. I just don't understand how one judge could judge one skater in some component with 6, and the other judge in that same component of that same skater in that same competition with 8.5. It's like they were watching totally different things in that same moment :confused2:
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Thanks. I understand that. I just don't understand how one judge could judge one skater in some component with 6, and the other judge in that same component of that same skater in that same competition with 8.5. It's like they were watching totally different things in that same moment :confused2:

Possible explanations, without positing any ill intent on anyone's part:

They really did see some important parts of the program somewhat differently, sitting at opposite ends of the panel and glancing away for a few seconds here and there to enter scores or take notes at different moments.

The judge with the 6 was using a low scoring range for all skaters, and the judge with the 8.5 was using a higher range for all skaters.

One judge tended to keep all their component scores pretty close together for each skater, and another made a concerted effort to show clear distinctions between the best and worst aspects of the performance whenever there was a big difference in that judge's perception.

They each put the most weight on different criteria of that component. E.g., one judge paid most attention to overall speed/power/flow in the Skating Skills component, and another judge put more emphasis on the difficulty of the skating particularly multidirectional and one-foot skating . . . and a third judge was all about the balance and edge quality. Or one judge is a stickler for Carriage & Clarity of Movement when judging Performance/Execution (and penalizes heavily for any obvious errors like falls or stumbles), whereas another is most strongly impressed by Individuality/Personality (and would reward a skater for laughing off a mistake within the character of the program).

One judge just really enjoys the music or the choreographic style of a particular program and is therefore unconsciously influenced to score that skater higher than a strictly objective analysis would demand, and another judge just doesn't "get" what the skater is trying to do or really hates that kind of music/costume/choreography and is therefore unconsciously predisposed to underscore the program.

Etc.

Assuming all those kinds of differences might be in play to different degrees depending how each skater skates, for some programs the differences between judges' approaches might cancel each other out and they would end up with similar scores, for but for other programs each little influence might all trend in the same direction, each of the above reasons bumping up judge A's scores another 0.25 or 0.5, and vice versa for judge B, so for that skater they'd end up further apart than usual.
 

CanadianSkaterGuy

Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Possible explanations, without positing any ill intent on anyone's part:

They really did see some important parts of the program somewhat differently, sitting at opposite ends of the panel and glancing away for a few seconds here and there to enter scores or take notes at different moments.

The judge with the 6 was using a low scoring range for all skaters, and the judge with the 8.5 was using a higher range for all skaters.

One judge tended to keep all their component scores pretty close together for each skater, and another made a concerted effort to show clear distinctions between the best and worst aspects of the performance whenever there was a big difference in that judge's perception.

They each put the most weight on different criteria of that component. E.g., one judge paid most attention to overall speed/power/flow in the Skating Skills component, and another judge put more emphasis on the difficulty of the skating particularly multidirectional and one-foot skating . . . and a third judge was all about the balance and edge quality. Or one judge is a stickler for Carriage & Clarity of Movement when judging Performance/Execution (and penalizes heavily for any obvious errors like falls or stumbles), whereas another is most strongly impressed by Individuality/Personality (and would reward a skater for laughing off a mistake within the character of the program).

One judge just really enjoys the music or the choreographic style of a particular program and is therefore unconsciously influenced to score that skater higher than a strictly objective analysis would demand, and another judge just doesn't "get" what the skater is trying to do or really hates that kind of music/costume/choreography and is therefore unconsciously predisposed to underscore the program.

Etc.

Assuming all those kinds of differences might be in play to different degrees depending how each skater skates, for some programs the differences between judges' approaches might cancel each other out and they would end up with similar scores, for but for other programs each little influence might all trend in the same direction, each of the above reasons bumping up judge A's scores another 0.25 or 0.5, and vice versa for judge B, so for that skater they'd end up further apart than usual.


Agreed. So many people cry overscored/underscored without taking these things into account.

Interesting to note that, given top and bottom scores get thrown out, a panel's makeup can really change a skater's PCS score from one competition to another. Like if in competition A there is only 1 "harsh" judge, it is negligible. A skater's PCS might look different (for the same performance, hypothetically) in competition B with a panel with 2 or more harsh judges because then one set of scores will have to be kept, and the PCS across the field could be lower than usual.

Point being, as a fan watching even if you have a perceived notion as to the minimum PCS your fave skater should get or maximum PCS their rivals should get, there are a lot of variables that could factor into the scores - notwithstanding how the skaters actually perform!

Giggle....if that's the case and I'm the outlier all the time, you may even bash me as being a terrible judge. I probably am!

I ain't gonna get mad at your scores ladyjane - you're entitled to your opinion, and your scaling of skaters could simply differ from someone else. :) This is all for fun, so I really hope it wouldn't delve into bashing once it's revealed what everyone's scores were, although I'm betting certain people won't be able to help themselves. :sarcasm:
 

Cherryy

On the Ice
Joined
Aug 27, 2012
Is it still possible to participate? :) I'd love to if there's a free space and could fill in the scores by the beginning of next week at the latest, if that would still be fine.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Are the GS judges going to do pairs, too? Shen and Zhou won the short and overall, but with only so-so skating compared with the great masterpieces of their career, such as 2003 Worlds). They were the emotional favorites and everyone was satisfied with their win. But Pang and Tong won the LP and skated great. Was there any "controversy" about the outcome?
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
If you're going to make a project of Golden Skate rescoring these events, wouldn't it be more honest to do so without reminding oneself in advance of opinions about the official judging at the time? Just score what you see (according to the rules at the time if you want to compare Golden Skate to official results afterward) . . . and see where you agreed or disagreed with the official panel after all the GS scores are in and can no longer be influenced.

Rehashing the real scoring in advance seems all too likely to lead to conscious or unconscious attempts to prove the original judging wrong or to prove it right, depending on each fan's predilections, rather than just focusing on what the skaters did and applying the rules in effect at the time with as few preconceptions as possible.
 
Top