Judging the "Old-Fashioned" Way

Joesitz said:

1. Should the CoP be redefined to make the scoring more simple for the general public to understand?

2. Should the sport continue to be a 'little' sport for only those who approve of the CoP as it now is?

Click to expand...

SkateFiguring said:

Your questions are like:

Joe, do you

1) beat your wife on Sundays? or

2) beat your wife every afternoon?

Click to expand...

I don't think so at all. I think Joe's original questions are right on the money.

1. The CoP is hard for the general public to understand (even supposing that they want to). Should the scoring system be modified with an eye toward making it easier fot the public to understand, or is that not an important issue?

Very straightforward and legitimate question. Some people are on one side (yes, make the scoring system easier to understand), and some are on the other (no, the scoring system has little effect on the popularity of the sport anyway, so the public's understanding of the CoP is not of primary concern.)

2. Is skating an insiders' sport or an outsiders'? Is it our primary goal to find the scoring system that best suits the needs of the participants in the sport, or should we compromise on that goal and try instead to attract more spectators?

Again, people have different opinions (one of them being that it doesn't matter what scoring system we use). But the question is a real one nevertheless.

Joesitz said:

msskater - There are no base values for one foot axels, inside axels or walleys. If skaters are doing them, that's not getting them any points and I dare say they are not doing them above the one rotation level anyway but confining them to footwork. The risk of a 3Wally is probably more severe than a 3Lutz and with no points, it just aint worth it.

Click to expand...

One foot Axels have the same base value as Axels which land on a back outside edge. At the lowest levels of IJS in the US (Juvenile), I had seen a number of skaters at local competitions who don't have the 2A yet using the 1A+2S combination effectively to gain points (before the current season restrictions of only 2 jump combinations/sequences of 2 listed jumps went into effect). They are hard to control with good speed and it was nice to see young skaters who clearly had upper body strength, control, and check to pull this combo off and make it look good (I think one skater got +1 and +2 GOEs across the board on it because it flowed effortlessly from beginning to end and covered a whole lot of ice).

Walleys and inside Axels are being used as interesting connecting steps and footwork highlights, as I said. There has never beena triple Walley (and I think I've only seen one or two videos of a double walley ever), so that likely wouldn't happen anyway (probably would change edge and end up being a loop due to the laws of physics and how a skater would create rotation without a toe assist and then there'd be the whole "L"alley/Walley/Loop argument very similar to the Lutz/Flutz/Flip/Lip argument). I CURRENTLY see a lot of single Walleys, one foot Walleys and reverse rotation direction Walleys being used in Intermediate and Novice SP as part of the "steps before solo jump" because it HAS been defined as an unlisted element (which makes it easier to decide whether it is allowable as a "step" or not - clearly allowable). Also, cool footwork starting with an inside Axel or containing an inside Axel to change direction which was incredibly rare before.

Mathman, my point is whether the multiple choice question is the right question to ask to begin with in addressing the issue i.e. public interest. It's focusing on something deemed responsible without any actual study to establish the real causes of a problem and then investing energy in fixing this presumed cause for a solution to the problem. It is jumping to conclusion at the early stage of seeking a solution.

1) Yes the CoP is hard for the general public and even many fans to understand fully, but is this the reason for disinterest? I watch and enjoy diving and gymnastics without understanding the scoring anywhere near thorough but, I realize as I type, it has never even occured to me to learn them, yet my interest is not affected as a casual fan who watches when they are presented on TV. The public watches skating as an entertainment, with some drama at competitions. There may be outcries when a national or personal favorite does not score well in the most important event, namely the Olympics, and to a much lesser extent, World Championships. But a little controversy is good publicity for the sport. Or, as LuCN explained/confessed in another thread how Johnny vs Chan story got played in China, sometimes the controversy has nothing to do with CoP or understanding the scoring.

2) Sports are for the athletes first and foremost, to let them train and compete fairly and safely. Public interest is necessary to finance the sport so it's important to appeal to the public, especially to TV viewers. In other words, a sport needs to make good shows, which is not necessary so dependent on scoring alone. The packaging and promotion of the programs and the personalities, with (compeling) human interest stories for example, play a big part in generating interet. As I've said, US needs a female STAR. I think she should be nice looking, charismatic and win big events consistently. A star arouses interest and emotions. Let people cheer, cry, or get outraged for her. They need to care.

SF, are you suggesting that the US ladies need to step up and start winning or at least making a good show (podium) at the big events? Are you suggesting that this US lady has to be attractive (pretty much all are to some degree or another or are at least striking and atheletically sound), talented (ie land on the podium on an off day), have a good back story (grew up in a trailer like Harding, mom is legally blind like Kerrigan, had a toe cut off by a lawnmower like Zayak, be the first African American National Champion like Thomas...) and be charismatic. Sounds like you are harkening back to the good old days. ::sigh::

There are no one foot axels, inside axels or wallys listed as having basic values. They do use some for connecting steps, but only at the one rotation level. More than one rotation has absolutely no base values so why include them in you planned program? where points mean EVERYTHING about winning a championship, and there are requisite jump passes one is limited to in a program.

Regarding the general public's inability to grasp the CoP scoring, it was originally believed that fans would want to learn how the new method worked. Only the die hard fans bothered.

However, there are still closeted 6.0 fans who are extremely moved by some sort of artistry in a program. There are others eagerly awaiting for the first Toe Quint. Other fans get all worked up by flailing arm movements in a footwork sequence while still others want to see full ice coverage. Then, of course, there are blokes like me to check on how a skater is using the music.

Instead of a pep talk to get the public back into watching figure skating, why not just revise the system to make it simpler to understand?

SkateFiguring said:

Mathman, my point is whether the multiple choice question is the right question to ask to begin with in addressing the issue i.e. public interest.

Click to expand...

I took Joe's two questions as being two independent yes-or-no questions.

Yes or no, should we try to make figure skating scoring easier to understand. Your opinion is "no." OK.

Joe's second question is worded in a more biased way (one assumes that "little" is bad and "big" is good), but I think it could be recast satisfactorily: Should figure skating scorining be (a) primarily for the athletes or (B) primarily for the spectators. You vote (a). OK.

Yet another question might be, yes or no, is the CoP responsible for the decline of interest in figure skating?

On this issue I agree with you (no), but I do not agree that your remedy (come up with a charismatic lady star) will work, either.

Mathman, my most important point re a skating star is that people have to care. A Lady star seems to work for the US traditionally but there are many ways to make people care. E.g. Exposure and familiarity, a la "reality" personalities and talentless celebrities; a sensational news story a la Harding/Kerrigan; or a genuiine or manufactured controversy or compeling story; or simply dazzling talents and lots of winning, plus grass root promotion and facilitation. Pageantry is old and tired to interest Americans though it may be new and exciting else where such as China. USFSA needs to work out nurturing of talents and the promotion of the sport with the media to bring it into people's lives and awareness.

CoP debates are fine to improve it but it is tiring to keep claiming that it causes the decline of figure skating. Firstly the phenomenum is far from universal and secondly there are many factors to consider in the US. Do you think Americans will flock back to figure skating if 6.0 is brought back? I imagine there would be at least 10 times more controversies to fight over by intense internet fans while the public yawns.

SkateFiguring said:

Do you think Americans will flock back to figure skating if 6.0 is brought back?

Click to expand...

No.

But I do think that the 6.0 scoring system was more audience-friendly than the points-total method is. I believe that the CoP, though not the cause of declining interest in figure skating, is an obstacle to bringing it back.

I also think that ordinal scoring is more sound from a mathematical perspective (the difference between ordinal placements and decimal approximations, the difference between judging and measuring, the difference in mathematical tools appropriate for analyzing quality versus quantity). I have never had much luck in explaining this, however.

I believe one reason for the decline of televised figure skating competitions in the US is the fact that American skaters - particularly the men and women - are no longer dominating the competitions, or at least not placing at least one skater on the podium.

Many of us remember the days when US men won plenty of medals - Dick Button (before my time, but he definitely won the medals!), Haynes Allen Jenkins, David Jenkins, Tim Wood, Scott Hamilton, Charlie Tickner, Brian Boitano, Christopher Bowman, Paul Wylie, Todd Eldredge, etc.

And the US women! :thumbsup: Carol Heiss Jenkins, Peggy Fleming, Janet Lynn, Dorothy Hamill, Linda Fratianne, Elaine Zayak, Rosalyn Sumners, Debi Thomas, Jill Trenary, Caryn Kadavy, Kristi Yamaguchi, Nancy Kerrigan, Tonya Harding, Michelle Kwan, Nicole Bobek, Tara Lapinski, Sarah Hughes.....just count the medals. US women were a missing quantity at Vancouver, and quite possibly may not medal in 2014.

Like it or not, Americans (of which I am one) dearly love - and earnestly expect - our skaters to do well. Perhaps not winning medals all the time, but at least being competitive and right up there in the mix. You go, girls!

If another charismatic skater like Michelle Kwan emerges, I suspect that figure skating might very well enjoy a big increase in interest and television audiences.

I remember the 1984 Los Angeles Summer Olympics. Mary Lou Retton was the cover girl on "Time" magazine, after winning the gymnastics all-around gold medal. The following night, she narrowly missed a second gold medal in the vault, and had to settle for the silver medal. The instant her 2nd-place scores were announced, ABC switched to a commercial. Had Retton won, you can bet the television cameras would have broadcast the pandemonium in the arena, as the audience cheered another victory.

I wish I could agree that all skating in the U.S. needs is a new champion. But I think it is more a case of changing times, changing tastes in entertainment.

We do have a reigning Olympic champion -- Evan Lysacek (who?). We do have reigning world champions, Davis and White (what sport is that again?).

Lysacek should be as well-known to the American public as Scott Hamilton and Brian Boitano. People should know Meryl and Charlie like they knew Tai and Randy. But...different times.

Who is a bigger Olympic hero than Michael Phelps? But no-one pays money to go and see a swimming meet, nor is the sport of swimming promoted on TV, except once every four years.

^^^^ Well, that's exactly what I've brought up at vaious times. There are many other factors and changing the scoring system is not the solution. And that's also why I say you need a Lady star. Lysacek has no star quality whatsoever, and Ice Dance has never been an American discipline. The most famous American skater is Johnny Weir, because of all the promotions like those I mentioned, i.e. controversy, reality show, and media exposure. He knows how to sell himself and get attention. Too bad he doesn't care to do anything for American figure skating.

Re Phelps, he can cash in on his fame and personal popularity but his, like most sports, is not a performing or artistic sport. With all the laments about the decline of the popularity of figure skating in the US, the fans are still lucky that it is a very special, watchable, and entertaining sport that still gets shown on TV. As I said before, the big money sports that dominate TV time are mostly commercial team sports that people identify with according to geographical locations. The war substitutes I wrote about.

Mathman said:

I also think that ordinal scoring is more sound from a mathematical perspective (the difference between ordinal placements and decimal approximations, the difference between judging and measuring, the difference in mathematical tools appropriate for analyzing quality versus quantity). I have never had much luck in explaining this, however.

Click to expand...

How would it work to use a somewhat simplified code of points for judges to keep track of and communicate the reasons for their rankings but then to convert each judge's scores to ordinals and calculate by either Majority system or OBO, whichever is deemed more robust, as was done under 6.0 judging?

1. No anonymity (separate issue, but we need to get that out of the way to get back some of the audience appeal of the old ordinal system). Also there would be no random selection (and no trimming of high and low scores, because the absolute scores won't carry over).

2. A scale of values that assigns base values to each kind of named element, and a set of rules for the long program that establishes maximum numbers or point values for of each kind of element. No levels and no downgrades. The tech panel job could probably be done by a single individual because it would be more straightforward with less room for controversy.

3. Judges can assign grades of execution for each element, ranging from +5 to -5. The negative grades could be considered deductions for errors and for weaknesses of technique and/or form; the positive ones bonus points that each judge can assign independently for added difficulty (instead of levels) and also for good quality. Serious errors like falls and significant underrotation and/or two-foot landings on jumps would earn large deductions, so any one of those errors could result in -3 and a combination of these errors would result in -5. Especially on non-jump elements, -5 would pretty much indicate that there were several smaller problems with the element, or one other severe problem, and also a fall.

The fall deduction could remain as an additional penalty for falls.

The pluses and minuses would be calculated as a percentage of the element's base value.

Judges would also assign scores for the program as a whole. Maybe the five current program components, maybe just two global scores: Skating Skills and Presentation. Factors to be determined.

4. After each skater's performance, the computer would calculate the point total for each judge for that skater and show each judge his or her Element score (with a breakdown by elements) and factored scores for each component as well as the total and where that ranks that skater on that judge's card compared to previous skaters. Judges would not see rankings for the panel as a whole or any other judge, just their own rankings. At that time they would have the opportunity to adjust the SS and P marks up or down if their gut feeling about the program as a holistic experience contradicts the way their initial scores added up. For elite events they would also have access to video replay of individual elements. However there would be a time limit on the amount of time judges could spend reviewing elements or recalculating their totals.

5. The computer would take each judge's rankings and use the resulting ordinals to calculate interim results after each skater and final results at the end of the event.

6. In the Kiss and Cry, the scores for each skater would be displayed first as the Element total from each judge, then the Program Components from each judge, and then the total and the ordinal. So the display would look very similar to display of Required Elements/Technical Merit and Presentation Scores, totals, and ordinals under 6.0, except that the Elements scores would be open ended and the component scores would be factored and possibly based on a 10-point rather than 6-point scale.

Thus it would be possible to see right away that the Swiss judge gave Susie only 43 for Elements when all the other judges gave at least 50. Or that all the judges had Gertie ahead of Gladys on Components, but eight of them had Gladys ahead on Elements, six of them by a large enough margin to give Gladys the win on their cards.

On the detailed protocols published after each performance, skaters (and the public if interested enough to seek them out) would be able to see exactly what elements were called and how each judge marked each one, and the breakdown of the components.

The intention would be to preserve the mathematical advantages of the ordinal system while also preserving the relative transparency of how each judge arrived at his/her scores provided by the detailed protocols. In that sense it could be the best of both worlds.

This approach would also include the most complicated calculations of both systems and would require even more computer power that is currently the case, which could be considered the worst of both worlds and make it impractical for use at many club competitions.

There would again be flipflops in the standings as was the case under 6.0.

Mathman said:

Who is a bigger Olympic hero than Michael Phelps? But no-one pays money to go and see a swimming meet, nor is the sport of swimming promoted on TV, except once every four years.

Click to expand...

And does the sport of swimming consider this a problem to be solved?

An advantage that swimming has over skating is that, largely because of the nature of the respective sports, swimming has a much larger participant base, who support the sport directly through their participation. Also viewers can understand what they're watching more easily because they are more likely to have learned to perform basic swimming strokes themselves and because results of races are relatively clearcut and objective.

An advantage that skating has over swimming is that, especially at the elite levels, the performances are often entertaining to watch on an aesthetic level completely divorced from the drama of winning and losing (which it also provides). Thus skating can appeal to a segment of potential viewers who are not sports fans at all. Also television coverage allows direct perception of facial expression and body language while the skater is competing, which makes the

Those advantages in skating's favor mean that it can attract larger audiences under the right circumstances. But to what degree should it attempt to cultivate audiences through rules and competition structures that serve audiences better than they serve the athletes?

Would interest in and expectations of figure skating as a spectator sport be different in the US if the percentage of Americans who had firsthand experience participating in figure skating at a recreational level were comparable to that in Canada, let alone comparable to participation in swimming?

It's only a perceived problem because of the "bounce" skating had in the 80s and 90s in the US where skating was on every fall and winter weekend. A couple things that helped kill it in the US were over exposure (same programs competed each weekend by the ineligibles when it was a pro competition and same programs competed each weekend by the eligibles when it was a GP, National, or World competition), no judging integrity (foot tapping incident, pairs scandal, etc), and lack of star power in the last two quadreniums (Kwan was truly the last US star, sorry Sasha fans). There are no great stories being told right now to generate interest and sympathy for the skaters (how many times did we hear about Nancy Kerrigan's mother or Tonya Harding's childhood? Who didn't know about Elaine Zayak's lawnmower accident or Kristi Yamaguchi taking up skating to correct club feet or Scott Hamilton's strange childhood illness?) How much can we hear about Rachel Flatt being smart and deferring Stanford for a year? It's NOT sympathetic or that out of the norm for a high level skater to be able to gain admitance to a top notch school. Heck, Dick Button was a student at Harvard during his run as was Paul Wylie. The Collegiate Championships had 2 skaters from Dartmouth and one from Northwestern in the Senior Ladies event (3/18 admitted to top 15 schools is more than the admission rate for these universities overall). From all the media training, the skaters have gotten too vanilla ("I just want to skate my best") to avoid controversy, but wasn't it more interesting when Sasha burst on the scene with her own media frenzy and basically threatened Kwan's supremacy in the press? Didn't that make you admire the "bad girl" a little for her brashness or root for the "good girl" a little harder? Could you imagine Ashley Wagner saying "this is my year and I'll do whatever it takes to beat everyone who finished higher than me last year"?

I don't think the lost fans will be back no matter how much the CoP is corrected. For them skating has become boredom with the same old holiday shows; the same old competitions; the same old tricks. Skating is a finite sport that doesn't grow (except for an extra rotation in a jump and a new body contorted position in spinning). The use of music is more for backdrop than it is for the performance (of tricks). Very few skaters demonstrate how music affects them while performing, and those that do are not necessarily winners. The lost fans do not understand that it was underrotations and wrong edge takeoffs, among the many CoP penalties. They are amazed that a Fall is not treated so badly, yet in the 6.0 is was a costly error. They do not understand the concept of partial credits for attempts which no other sport has. In essence, the Sport has become too busy and so they do not take the trouble to understand it.

The more avid fans continue to follow skating regardless of the vast changes the CoP has offered. If it has become a less-than-major-sport, so be it.

What drove the sponsors and media away is cause for discussion. The one network that will feature some skating did it in agreement with the USFS and ISU. it didn't have to bid for it.

For me, it would be nice to revise the CoP in such a way to make it simpler to understand and leave it as a 'little' sport. New fans may pick up on it, and not just the new skaters themselves.

I agree with the posters who were less than thrilled with the large number of figure skating “competitions” that used to be aired throughout the fall and winter seasons. Some of these so-called competitive events were little more than gloried exhibitions, with scaled-down technical content and not much in the way of choreography. What made the situation worse was that the same skaters appeared week after week, skating the same programs and wearing the same costumes. How dull can you get?

The commentators for those events hardly helped the situation, either, with their inane overly-personal banter about each skater as he/she/they skated. For Pete’s sake, put a lid on it, and let us enjoy the programs in relative peace and quiet. I typically clicked on mute so I could enjoy the programs, or at least try to enjoy them. Most of us can distinguish a lutz from an axel, although this type of information would be educational for the general public who may now know anything about skating. A little commentary is fine, but the constant yakking is just plain awful, IMHO.

The “up close and personal” segments sometimes were a bit over the top, with the same stuff repeated over and over. One segment focused on Nicole Bobek, who lamented the fact that her father walked out on her and her mother when she was a little kid and how, if he ever returned, she would never forgive him. Admittedly, this was a terrible tragedy for Nicole and her mother; however, this is a personal and private matter, and we do not need to know about it.

Personally, I would much rather see some of the lesser-ranked skaters than witness yet another inane skater bio segment. I would make an exception to the bio on Kristi Yamaguchi just prior to the 1992 Olympics, which focused on her decision to move to Canada to train with her coach, Christy Ness, who had married a Canadian doctor and moved to Edmonton. This segment clearly focused on Kristi’s training regimen, her love of the sport, and her total dedication to becoming the best skater she could be. Kristi was shown working with her coach, trying to learn a triple axel, and finally realizing this jump would not be added to her repertoire. She took this as an incentive to be totally consistent with her 3/3 combinations, and increase her athleticism and strength. Finally, it showed Kristi working with choreographer Sandra Bezic for one week during the summer of 1991, and it was a fascinating view of the creation of both of her Olympic programs.

I believe a return to the 6.0 standard "might" help to increase public interest in figure skating. The emergence of another mega-star such as Michelle Kwan would be a definite plus, of course.

Just of my two cents.

gkelly said:

How would it work to use a somewhat simplified code of points for judges to keep track of and communicate the reasons for their rankings but then to convert each judge's scores to ordinals and calculate by either Majority system or OBO, whichever is deemed more robust, as was done under 6.0 judging?...

Click to expand...

I don't know how that would work out. I will think about some of the details in a bit.

But the question that I cannot answer in my own mind is this.

I see a humdinger of a performance by my favorite skater. The scores some up

5.8 5.7 5.9 .5.8
..1...2...1.....1

The announcer says, "and Michelle goes into the lead with two skaters to go!"

That is very thrilling to me.

Now I see a humdinger of a performance by my favorite skater. The scores come up

65.41+58.33 = 123,74, 189.62

The announcers say, "and Miki goes into the lead with two skaters to go!"

Meh.

This doesn't make sense. Why does one scoring system gives me my "thrill of victory, agony of defeat" sports fix and the other doesn't?

Now I look at the performance itself. What we like about sports is when it comes down to that last second field goal, win or lose, right here, right now.

Man-o-war has a three-length lead coming out of the far turn, but HERE COMES SEABISCUIT ON THE RAIL!!!!!

To me, 6.0 programs had the potential for that kind of excitement. "Michelle has been perfect so far, now here comes her second triple Lutz. This will determine the championship. Yes!!! First rate! Final split jump, celebratory Y-spin, it's raining teddy bears!" (Any sport where you can't say "it's raining teddy bears" is not a real sport, if you ask me. )

Michelle always made the final ten seconds of her programs seem like she was scoring from first on a ball hit in the right-field corner. "Here comes the throw! She slides!! (Or lunges. Or makes a shadow crocodile .)

Under CoP, its more like, "He's off to a good start. He got 12.2 points for that triple Axel combination, but we'll have to wait and see if it is downgraded. Now here is his footwork sequence. You know, in this judging system, unlike the 6.0 system, you get points for every step and turn. I think this might get a level four."

so is it the commentators, then, who are pushing your excitement? I just don't seem to have this "hurdle". I sit there and watch the skating, and still get excited knowing what the next skater has to do to make it to the lead... and the numbers adding up is a whole lot easier than trying to figure out how many skaters ahve to beat skater A so that skater C can take the prize... and why a skater who has to skate first in the short program is screwed out of a medal because "luck of the draw". It's not a perfect system. No system would be, but I don't see how it's "so hard" either.

^^^^^^Mathman. Yeah, but........

Back in Februry, you worte:

The other thing you could look for is improvement over the course of the season. Here are Patrick Chan's results.

Liberty 228.76
Skate Canada 239.52
Cup of Russia 227.21
GP Final 259.75
Nationals 285.55

By a least sqares regression model (r = .86), his score at Worlds should be 288.30.

Click to expand...

Your prediction was within 2.6% of Chan's actual Worlds score.

Now could you have pulled such a feat with 6.0?!

Tonichelle said:

so is it the commentators, then, who are pushing your excitement? I just don't seem to have this "hurdle". I sit there and watch the skating, and still get excited knowing what the next skater has to do to make it to the lead... and the numbers adding up is a whole lot easier than trying to figure out how many skaters ahve to beat skater A so that skater C can take the prize... and why a skater who has to skate first in the short program is screwed out of a medal because "luck of the draw". It's not a perfect system. No system would be, but I don't see how it's "so hard" either.

Click to expand...

It's not the commentators joining in, that's what I am saying to myself.

I agree that my first point -- it seems more exciting to see 5.8 than to see 123.62 -- does not have any rational basis. It is just how it styrikes me.

The second point, though -- that CoP programs do not seem to be organized with a make-or-break, do-or-die moment or climax, has some objective merit. (A wee drap. as my Scottish grandfather used to say.)

Skatefiguring said:

Back in Februry, you worte:

The other thing you could look for is improvement over the course of the season. Here are Patrick Chan's results.

Liberty 228.76
Skate Canada 239.52
Cup of Russia 227.21
GP Final 259.75
Nationals 285.55

By a least sqares regression model (r = .86), his score at Worlds should be 288.30.

Click to expand...

Your prediction was within 2.6% of Chan's actual Worlds score.

Now could you have pulled such a feat with 6.0?!

Click to expand...

So true, so true!

Now we should analyze what per cent of Chan's gain is correlated with overall score inflation during the course of the season, and what per cent with Chan progressively separating himself from his rivals.

But here is my real beef with the CoP. We are assigning numbers to things that do not require or merit the assignment of numbers. It is just wrong to assign a number to an Ilia Kulik triple Axel, or to a Shizuka Arakawa Ina Bauer.

And it makes awesome sporting news that Patrick Chan of Canada smashes 3 world records in winning his Figure Skating World Championship! He even got voted athlete of the month.

Now try to do that with 6.0 and create some excitement and respect. He would be just another wimp so far from a 10. What a sissy "sport". Yawn.