2018-19: New Season, New Rules, & Judging: Singles and Pairs

[TontoK]

The average (mean) PCs score in the 2019 Worlds FS was 80.86. The mean TES at Worlds was around 81.52 (only 2 skaters out of 24 scored more than 100 TES, which is the current PCS max). So if you take the average of all skaters, the average TES of the overall field pretty much matches the average PCS going by the FS at the most recent Worlds. If you modify the PCS scale, you need to think about how such changes will affect the *whole field*.

This is a very interesting stat, and you make a good point.

One thing that is lost in this discussion is that in any scoring system, we'd want the cream to rise to the top. That's what happened here.

I don't think the results would have been much different in a 6.0 system, at least at this competition.

We're acting as though this scenario hasn't played out before. Young guns use technical firepower to state their case against established skaters. They chase the top guy, and eventually catch him. Yuzu chased Patrick. Nathan chases Yuzu. Soon, another young gun will come after Nathan. It's the nature of all sport. The chaser is impatient, and the veteran does what he can to hold him off.

Those of us who have followed the sport for a while recall when Kristi Yamaguchi and Michelle Kwan were the "jumping beans" who were using better jumps to claw their way to the top.

 

[Mathman]

It wouldn't make much difference if the PCSs were raised to a maximum of 130 or not. Everybody gets a 30% raise.

If you got 7.00 before, now you get 91 (an extra 21 free points).

If you got 8.00 before, now you get 94 (an extra 24).

If you got 9.00 before, now you get 117 (an extra 27).

I suppose that once in a while it would make a difference (like in a contest that is decided by only 3 points), but the judges could easily compensate if they felt that one skater or another deserved to win.

 

[icybear]

It wouldn't make much difference if the PCSs were raised to a maximum of 130 or not. Everybody gets a 30% raise.

If you got 7.00 before, now you get 91 (an extra 21 free points).

If you got 8.00 before, now you get 94 (an extra 24).

If you got 9.00 before, now you get 117 (an extra 27).

I suppose that once in a while it would make a difference (like in a contest that is decided by only 3 points), but the judges could easily compensate if they felt that one skater or another deserved to win.

Not true. As per can be seen by the new GOE system. Highly politicked skaters get almost max GOE while skaters from small fed receive the small amount as they would from the old +3 system

 

[Blades of Passion]

Raising PCS to a max potential 130 as Ambesi alludes to (which you had included in your list of his thoughts which you deemed to be "very good") would be a foolhardy implementation since 7.00's would get 91 PCS which would absolutely make the TES/PCS ratios super lopsided.

The idea pertained to the maximum potential being more equalized. Like I said, 130 itself is not needed, as part of the problem is the overscoring of GOE's and how many points the jumps get from GOE. If those numbers are brought down, then 110 or 115 max PCS at this point in time would be good.

7.0 for PCS, or lower than 7, is a number we should be seeing much more often too. Particularly when looking at the almost non-existent interpretation of many programs out there now. Judges still aren't scoring the PCS correctly, there's not enough differentiation on each component and between each skater, and the marks in general are too high. When we see Alexander Samarin getting an average of 8.13 PCS for that hideous Long Program, things are completely off the rails and the scores are losing their meaning.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UC1x09TkuXQ

This performance/program should be low 6's on average. Bad posture, no movements finished off, not enough engagement of the body, little facial expression, multiple distracting mistakes, simple transitions if any, no particularly great usage of edges, little unifying choreographic sense of purpose, little movement to the music, no depth of interpretation, and lack of creativity. I'd like to point out two especially horrific moments - the first is after he falls on the 4Toe, and he does a little running movement, with robotic like shuffling arms. What on earth was that, at that point in the music? Then at the first music change in the program, after the first spin, it's a wailing kind of sound happening, and he just seems to be blankly walking forward.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

The idea pertained to the maximum potential being more equalized. Like I said, 130 itself is not needed, as part of the problem is the overscoring of GOE's and how many points the jumps get from GOE. If those numbers are brought down, then 110 or 115 max PCS at this point in time would be good.

7.0 for PCS, or lower than 7, is a number we should be seeing much more often too. Particularly when looking at the almost non-existent interpretation of many programs out there now. Judges still aren't scoring the PCS correctly, there's not enough differentiation on each component and between each skater, and the marks in general are too high. When we see Alexander Samarin getting an average of 8.13 PCS for that hideous Long Program, things are completely off the rails and the scores are losing their meaning.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UC1x09TkuXQ

This performance/program should be low 6's on average. Bad posture, no movements finished off, not enough engagement of the body, little facial expression, multiple distracting mistakes, simple transitions if any, no particularly great usage of edges, little unifying choreographic sense of purpose, little movement to the music, no depth of interpretation, and lack of creativity. I'd like to point out two especially horrific moments - the first is after he falls on the 4Toe, and he does a little running movement, with robotic like shuffling arms. What on earth was that, at that point in the music? Then at the first music change in the program, after the first spin, it's a wailing kind of sound happening, and he just seems to be blankly walking forward.

"Proper" PCS scoring (a primarily subjective thing anyways) is never going to happen. We aren't going to see 6's across the board for any senior level skater at Worlds. The lowest PCS in the Worlds FS was Yee with 68... so an average of 6.75 across the board. Judges are still giving 9.50 out of 10.00 for programs with multiple errors or even a major error like a fall. With the PCS scale increasing, they'll be even more emboldened to judge shadier, and pad the scores of their favourite skaters - "he fell 7 times but the program had great composition and his skating skills are excellent the rest of the time, so I'mma give him a 9.50 on each of those!"

The problem is, there's now no going back on PCS scores out of 10, since all PCS has been bumped exorbitantly high for almost every skater in the past few seasons. So, increasing the PCS scale will only magnify this problem. I mean, look at the math.

On a scale of 115, the average PCS at Worlds 2019 FS would have been 92.99 -- which is 11.47 points (14%) higher than what the average TES was (81.52) in the World's FS. This is antithetical to the parity between the TES mark and PCS mark which you seek (to correlate with historical standards, as you say) --- you definitely wouldn't have achieved that had you increased the PCS scale to the degree you're suggesting. If GOEs were brought down as you said (and I agree, GOEs were too high) - and PCS had been raised to 115, then the disparity between TES and PCS would have been even more immense.

However, as I had pointed out, the average TES mark (81.52) and average PCS mark (80.86) were already essentially the same in the Worlds FS. While PCS is still scored too generously, at least the "goal" of equivalent TES and PCS checks out in the end (entire field considered).

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

It wouldn't make much difference if the PCSs were raised to a maximum of 130 or not. Everybody gets a 30% raise.

If you got 7.00 before, now you get 91 (an extra 21 free points).

If you got 8.00 before, now you get 94 (an extra 24).

If you got 9.00 before, now you get 117 (an extra 27).

I suppose that once in a while it would make a difference (like in a contest that is decided by only 3 points), but the judges could easily compensate if they felt that one skater or another deserved to win.

I mean, if all you care about is bumping up your own absolute score, then a 30% raise is great. But since skaters fundamentally care about your score relative to the others they're competing against (and almost invariably top-tier/popular skaters get the highest PCS - certainly higher PCS than second tier - no matter how well or poorly they skate), then the 30% raise the gap between second-tier and the top-tier skaters that much more.

If you got 70, then you get 91. If your opponent got 90, then they'd get 117. In scenario A, the difference between you is 20 points... in scenario B, the difference between the two of you is 26 points.

 

[cohen-esque]

I mean, if all you care about is bumping up your own absolute score, then a 30% raise is great. But since skaters fundamentally care about your score relative to the others they're competing against (and almost invariably top-tier/popular skaters get the highest PCS - certainly higher PCS than second tier - no matter how well or poorly they skate), then the 30% raise the gap between second-tier and the top-tier skaters that much more.

If you got 70, then you get 91. If your opponent got 90, then they'd get 117. In scenario A, the difference between you is 20 points... in scenario B, the difference between the two of you is 26 points.

So I suppose the solution is really just to lower all the PCS factors to Ice Dance level, then.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

So I suppose the solution is really just to lower all the PCS factors to Ice Dance level, then.

Well, we can't have that! We need to still let the judges feel like they have at least SOME power to manipulate the results!

Interestingly, the ratio of Papadakis/Cizeron's TES to PCS is 1.262.

Chen's was 1.279, which even with a huge skew to TES, was still lower than some of the ice dance teams: e.g. Wang/Liu's is 1.286; Fear/Gibson had (I think?) the highest TESCS ratio at 1.298.

I haven't bothered to do a comprehensive analysis of the TESCS ratios, but it's interesting how those protesting TESCS ratios in men's haven't really said a lot (AFAIK) about the TESCS ratios in ice dance, which, IMO are much more extreme if you look at the field as a whole. It's tricky to try to "match" the TESCS in singles especially because there can be so much variability in a skater's TES scores depending on how they skate that day, but generally PCS scores have a "set" threshold for each skater (particularly top-tier ones), even if they bomb.

 

[Mathman]

... that much more.

I guess I am just not so invested in the issue of, "how much is too much." If one skater is much better than the other guy, should he win by 20 points or by 26 points?

Here is an interesting comparison between the artist (Jason Brown) who would benefit by higher PCSs and the athlete (Nathan Chen) who dominates by TES.

In the Worlds short program Nathan beat Jason by 10.59 points. If PCSs were increased by 30%, with TES staying the same, then Nathan increases his margin of victory to 10.67.

That said, I don't see anything wrong with the current scale. To me, it's not a big federal case one way or the other.

 

[tral]

That said, I don't see anything wrong with the current scale. To me, it's not a big federal case one way or the other.

I am currently of the same mind. But I, too, would like to see the GOE rewards being toned down for jumps, and the judging to be accurate (old complaint). If TES were indeed capped at 110 by function (which is to say, I don't believe anyone would be able to do 110< TES programs if judged accurately with the current BVs and elements being attempted), I don't see the 1.1:1.0 ratio as awfully askew.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

I guess I am just not so invested in the issue of, "how much is too much." If one skater is much better than the other guy, should he win by 20 points or by 26 points?

Here is an interesting comparison between the artist (Jason Brown) who would benefit by higher PCSs and the athlete (Nathan Chen) who dominates by TES.

In the Worlds short program Nathan beat Jason by 10.59 points. If PCSs were increased by 30%, with TES staying the same, then Nathan increases his margin of victory to 10.67.

That said, I don't see anything wrong with the current scale. To me, it's not a big federal case one way or the other.

I don't see anything wrong with the current scale either. To me, a person learning a new quad(s) shows initiative rather than waiting for the judges to give them higher PCS. If that pushes their TES over their PCS, then that's good on them. Some skaters will never get the PCS they need, even if they make improvements to their overall skating (Nam Nguyen comes to mind) so they are forced to develop technical prowess in order to hang with the "big guys".

As mentioned only 3 skaters scored over 100 TES this year (and only 2 instances were over 110 TES), and there were over 200 skaters who competed in junior/seniors who did hundreds of freeskates. Increasing the PCS scale wouldn't "equalize" 99% of the freeskates we saw this season.

I also call bs on the notion that increasing the PCS scale will magically incite all these skaters to develop their PCS. They ARE already making the efforts to develop their PCS and are doing the best job they can to improve both marks. If anything it just gives the judges and federations more power. A skater like Nguyen or Jin who have tried to improve their PCS (with not much gain) aren't going to be suddenly incentivized to be more artistic because of the PCS scale increasing - they'll just be like "Well, damn, guess any technical improvements I've tried to make to catch up to the top guys have been neutralized. Guess I should start focussing on artistry now - oh wait, I've already been trying to do that."

 

[oatmella]

I recall some saying that skaters like Jason would benefit from the new rules this season.

CanadianSkaterGuy is right - there are so few outliers who can score TES of 110+, it does not make sense to increase PCS factoring to 1.1, and certainly not 1.3 as Max Ambesi suggested.

The rules had already been changed in part due to Nathan - seems a bit ridiculous to suggest that the rules be changed each season based on his results.

Also worth noting that he is capable of higher BV than at his worlds FS!

 

[Mathman]

The rules had already been changed in part due to Nathan - seems a bit ridiculous to suggest that the rules be changed each season based on his results.

Interestingly, Nathan was the primary beneficiary of the new GOE rules. At Worlds he raked in higher GOEs than anyone else by far (26.85 points in the LP).

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

Interestingly, Nathan was the primary beneficiary of the new GOE rules. At Worlds he raked in higher GOEs than anyone else by far (26.85 points in the LP).

High risk, high reward! The other guys are welcome to try and upgrade to match his technical ability.

 

[temadd]

What has really bothered me about this +/-5 GOE system is that a skater with a slightly URd quad will get killed to the point that the jump is worth the same as a triple. I understand wanting to encourage quality but I would much rather see a slighly UR quad (Vincent) than an ok triple (Rizzo) as shown at SA. IMO this is a sport that needs to not be afraid to allow skaters to push the boundaries.

 

[TontoK]

What has really bothered me about this +/-5 GOE system is that a skater with a slightly URd quad will get killed to the point that the jump is worth the same as a triple. I understand wanting to encourage quality but I would much rather see a slighly UR quad (Vincent) than an ok triple (Rizzo) as shown at SA. IMO this is a sport that needs to not be afraid to allow skaters to push the boundaries.

I'm not sure I agree. The risk/reward factor should be a driver in program design. If you're going for a high scoring jumping pass, you need to complete it properly, or pay the price.

It's the main reason I have such a problem with lenient tech panels that fail to ding UR jumps. A poorly executed element SHOULD be penalized, particularly if it's a big ticket item in the program.

 

[temadd]

I'm not sure I agree. The risk/reward factor should be a driver in program design. If you're going for a high scoring jumping pass, you need to complete it properly, or pay the price.

It's the main reason I have such a problem with lenient tech panels that fail to ding UR jumps. A poorly executed element SHOULD be penalized, particularly if it's a big ticket item in the program.

I agree that it should be penalized, and done so consistently across competitions but the -/+5 makes it such that a barely noticeable UR on quad (which I much prefer to see a skater try over a well done triple) brings the value of the jump too close to the value of a triple.

 

[el henry]

I agree that it should be penalized, and done so consistently across competitions but the -/+5 makes it such that a barely noticeable UR on quad (which I much prefer to see a skater try over a well done triple) brings the value of the jump too close to the value of a triple.

But isn't this why the judges can't win, no matter what?

I would sooooo much rather see a lovely, well executed, ethereal triple than a 3.74 turn "quad" (except it's not a quad) every day of the week and twice on Sundays. As far as I'm concerned, it should be worth more than a UR quad.

But that's me It would be great if the judges cared what I think, but they probably don't

 

[temadd]

But isn't this why the judges can't win, no matter what?

I would sooooo much rather see a lovely, well executed, ethereal triple than a 3.74 turn "quad" (except it's not a quad) every day of the week and twice on Sundays. As far as I'm concerned, it should be worth more than a UR quad.

But that's me It would be great if the judges cared what I think, but they probably don't

For me, it's the anticipation and thrill of the risk taking that makes skating exciting to watch. For the top men there is very little risk in a triple so for me, it lacks excitement.

 

[Elucidus]

At WTT SP Grassl was clearly robbed. 4Lo was obviously clean
https://youtu.be/up5BqFoqd5A?t=65 or another angle https://youtu.be/up5BqFoqd5A?t=287
but marked as UR http://www.isuresults.com/results/season1819/wtt2019/data0103.pdf
What a disgusting trend we have now with this so called "strict" UR rule when jumps URs in practice are judged just by snow from blades instead of actual landing curve. That, or we have biased panel there.

Also, technically ideal Liza's 3A https://youtu.be/YqbxzoQU1KQ?t=56 getting less GOEs than halfturn prerotated Rika's 3A https://youtu.be/Osem0fAOXs8?t=55 is just
http://www.isuresults.com/results/season1819/wtt2019/data0203.pdf
And it's not the first time when Liza's perfect lutz or 3A are getting ridiculously low GOEs. What is it, conspiracy against her?