2021 NHK Trophy: Men's Free Skate

[lariko]

Can you elaborate on this since I don't really follow the ladies' scoring? I've always understood the scoring scale to be different but why would the placement actually change for these men skaters just because the women's scale is used? In other words, how did you come up with those numbers?

Because raw PCS score is multiplied by 2 for men, but TES isn’t. If you drop this multiplier lower in PCS, the guy with higher TES scores higher total, having more weight on the final mark.

But it’s a moot point.

And, lol, if we went to 6.0 system, Makar would be champion, by the simple virtue that he alone didn’t fall down.

 

[el henry]

Actually, it would change the final rankings (if the factoring is the same as in ladies):
1. Uno 262.82
2. Zhou 234.92
3. Ignatov 234.62
4. Cha 233.64
5. Samarin 232.03
6. Rizzo 230.66
In this competition both Russian skaters would be one place higher, if the factoring is different. And Makar would medal with almost the same score as Vincent!

Thank you for explaining. So argument is that *only* factoring is changed, to make revolutions in the air count even more. Why not just say that, (not talking about you, but the OP) instead of confusing the issue with Junior women and Jason Brown, neither of whom were entered in this comp?

The correct skaters, using the current system, achieved the podium. Of course, all the skaters (or their coaches) are charged with knowing the current system and designing their programs and their skates accordingly, and not for some wishful thinking that rotations in the air should be weighed even more heavily than they already are (and of course I think they are weighed too heavily, but no one at the ISU asked me ) If they have yet to achieve the desired PCS score, then the answer is for them to work on their PCS. Or whatever else will give them more points.

 

[lariko]

and not for some wishful thinking that rotations in the air should be weighed even more heavily than they already are (and of course I think they are weighed too heavily,

How many competitions, I wonder, will it take you to face the obvious, that quadruple jumps had become undervalued, just like you always wanted? Like, I am just curious when you will stop bewailing and bemoaning, hands ringing etc when it is obvious rules had been changed in favour of higher GoE on triple jumps/other tech elements and higher PCSs winning the day? Just look at placements in this free skate and pretty much every competition of the last two seasons. How could you possibly miss that here, right here, in this competition, a man who performed 6 quad jumps across two programs with only one q and no falls, didn’t medal in favour of a man who only did two and fell. Name me one, one (!) case where tech without PCS beat PCSs with low tech. Like, learn to win gracefully maybe? Just take it and be happy for a while. I mean unless you feel triple is too much rotations as well, and doubles is the way to go.

 

[Baron Vladimir]

Thank you for explaining. So argument is that *only* factoring is changed, to make revolutions in the air count even more. Why not just say that, (not talking about you, but the OP) instead of confusing the issue with Junior women and Jason Brown, neither of whom were entered in this comp?

The correct skaters, using the current system, achieved the podium. Of course, all the skaters (or their coaches) are charged with knowing the current system and designing their programs and their skates accordingly, and not for some wishful thinking that rotations in the air should be weighed even more heavily than they already are (and of course I think they are weighed too heavily, but no one at the ISU asked me ) If they have yet to achieve the desired PCS score, then the answer is for them to work on their PCS. Or whatever else will give them more points.

That means that all the ladies should base their programmes on quads and triple axels, and all the men to base their programmes on the components. While in fact, the reality is different - ladies are more oriented on the programme as a whole, while men are more oriented on jumping quads. The different factoring was logical in the past when men had one jumping pass more than the ladies in theirs free, but today there is no reason to factor components differently. Maybe the current average of men and ladies factoring (which is 0.9 for SP and 1.8 for FS) would be the most accurate for both disciplines.

 

[el henry]

How many competitions, I wonder, will it take you to face the obvious, that quadruple jumps had become undervalued, just like you always wanted? Like, I am just curious when you will stop bewailing and bemoaning, hands ringing etc when it is obvious rules had been changed in favour of higher GoE on triple jumps/other tech elements and higher PCSs winning the day? Just look at placements in this free skate and pretty much every competition of the last two seasons. How could you possibly miss that here, right here, in this competition, a man who performed 6 quad jumps across two programs with only one q and no falls, didn’t medal in favour of a man who only did two and fell. Name me one, one (!) case where tech without PCS beat PCSs with low tech. Like, learn to win gracefully maybe? Just take it and be happy for a while. I mean unless you feel triple is too much rotations as well, and doubles is the way to go.

I didn’t have a favorite in this competition, so I’m not sure about “learning to win” If anything, though, I think that Cha should have placed higher because he had a more complete program, and was less sloppy, in my view, than Vincent, but it was very close. So that is my frame of reference in this program with tech vs. PCS. But it was definitely Sholero for the win

I’m just not seeing Makar on the podium. The poor guy could barely finish his skate. I don’t know if that’s because he exhausted himself doing the quads (in which case he should do less) or something else. And his spins were, well, he needs to work on his spins. So yes, in that instance, the system “worked” because even if he had landed five quads in each program, given all the other elements on which skaters are evaluated, he simply did not compare to the top three skaters IMO.

And I started this conversation with posts that were confusing to me (I try to take posts at face value. I could have made inferences from what was said, but I really do prefer not to do that) about their intent. I know that some folks love jumps and I think that's great. Truly. We can't all love the same thing.

My quibble is when people say (and I’m not saying you said this here) is when people try to tell me that jumps are the only measure of a sport, that’s the only way the sport can grow, or the only definition of exciting. Luckily there are enough skaters for all of us, to match what we think is sporting and what we think is exciting, that we can watch and enjoy.

That means that all the ladies should base their programmes on quads and triple axels, and all the men to base their programmes on the components. While in fact, the reality is different - ladies are more oriented on the programme as a whole, while men are more oriented on jumping quads. The different factoring was logical in the past when men had one jumping pass more than the ladies in theirs free, but today there is no reason to factor components differently. Maybe the current average of men and ladies factoring (which is 0.9 for SP and 1.8 for FS) would be the most accurate for both disciplines.

I still don't get why this is an issue, but it doesn't really matter. If the ISU thinks that different factoring is an issue, then they can adjust the factoring. The other method of adjustment, of course, would be to use the current men's factoring for the women. Sounds fair to me.

 

[SnowWhite]

The thing with Makar, is that it's an oversimplification to only talk about quads and PCS. For one thing, spins and steps are technical elements too, and his aren't great, especially in the FS where is stamina is a problem. Even with the PCS gap, he would have got bronze if he was able to get a few more spin levels.

Comparing him to Jun
- SP: Jun got 1.37 more points on his spins (all level 4 vs 1 level 3 for Makar), and 1.35 more points on the steps (level 3 vs 2 for Makar)
- FS: Jun got 3.54 more points on spins (1 level 3 for Jun, 2 level 1 for Makar), and 1.79 more points on the steps (level 4 vs 3 for Makar)

So overall Jun got 8.05 more TES points on spins and steps than Makar did. That helped make up for the lower jump difficulty, along with better PCS (which were 100% deserved imo).

 

[lariko]

o I’m not sure about “learning to win”

Let me explain in a crystal-clear way: I mean that it would be gracious if you refrained from the same denigrating, derogatory, condescending, frustrating comment about revolutions in the air you insert in every post you make, particularly when men who do these jumps lose. Please and thank you.

As if you don’t understand that they had been selected and trained for a decade under a different rule-set and expectations and can’t overnight switch to the new priorities now that the pendulum swung the other way.

 

[lariko]

So overall Jun got 8.05 more TES points on spins and steps than Makar did. That helped make up for the lower jump difficulty, along with better PCS (which were 100% deserved imo).

As you said, TES was compensated, one does jumps better, the other does spins better. GoE was also higher for Cha’s jumps. But just the magnitude of the difference in the base value (6 quads versus 2) and the fact that Ignatov skated clean, without falls, highlights how devalued clean quads had become in the current judging direction.

It is obviously driven towards cleaner triples with one or two quads as a highlight, unless, of course, the skater is a maverick who can do PCS and 3+ quads, which is 5 men atm.

Which would be fine, if PCSs where fairly awarded for all skaters who can only do one or two 4T/4S, but it is not. Some still get clobbered on PCS when their jumps are not there, some get pulled up by PCS to give them better rank.

When bland or saccharine low tech skaters get high PCSs time after time (and high tech get them by default even when they fail), while other guys get 6s and 7s, including for the marks that has nothing to do with edges and/or gliding… like Hiwatashi here received 7s for both performance and music interpretation… seriously, dudes? Hiwatashi is only a so-so performer? Aliev got 6.25 for music interpretation for his waltz… like, what? When Kagiyama, whose fine qualities do not lie in artistic field, gets 8s and even 9s in his completely uninspired, dated, terribly dull short program in Italy that he had also bombed… for those very same music interpretation and performance…

How I am supposed to take PCS scores seriously as a fair assessment tool after that? At best, they are subjective, at worst, they are as corrupt as 6.0 system was, and maybe even more so because there is so many variables to tweak and zero accountability because it has far more variables to tweak this way and that, the variables that have actually no substantiate meaning. Particulary if you add GoEs in.

And, yes, Ignatov suffers from the ‘we just… sorry, we just don’t see this guy on the podium, sorry’ syndrome, and his scores reflect that confusion of the judging panel when they are faced by his ahem, uniquely divergent setup.

My problem is not whom I like more from 2 to 6 in this competition. They actually all happen to be my favs, all the way to Samarin. Strategically, I would have preferred Rizzo to grab bronze even, because he in this case would have had a long, long shot at the final vs Cha and Ignatov.

The problem is that with current judging, the only one who was indisputably the leader of this competition was Uno (and, gosh, does it make me happy) and those other five could have been arranged in any way by the judges depending on factors that had nothing to do with what was actually presented. And that is what I don’t like.

 

[AlexBreeze]

The thing with Makar, is that it's an oversimplification to only talk about quads and PCS. For one thing, spins and steps are technical elements too, and his aren't great, especially in the FS where is stamina is a problem. Even with the PCS gap, he would have got bronze if he was able to get a few more spin levels.

Comparing him to Jun
- SP: Jun got 1.37 more points on his spins (all level 4 vs 1 level 3 for Makar), and 1.35 more points on the steps (level 3 vs 2 for Makar)
- FS: Jun got 3.54 more points on spins (1 level 3 for Jun, 2 level 1 for Makar), and 1.79 more points on the steps (level 4 vs 3 for Makar)

So overall Jun got 8.05 more TES points on spins and steps than Makar did. That helped make up for the lower jump difficulty, along with better PCS (which were 100% deserved imo).

Don't forget about the 2-point difference on the ChSq

 

[Baron Vladimir]

My problem is not whom I like more from 2 to 6 in this competition. They actually all happen to be my favs, all the way to Samarin. The problem is that with current judging, the only one who was indisputably the leader of this competition was Uno (and, gosh, does it make me happy) and those other five could have been arranged in any way by the judges depending on factors that had nothing to do with what was actually presented.

This was my point too In majority of the competitions the differences between the skaters is more clear, but this exact situation is talking more about 'judges preferences' than 'actual performances', because it could have gone different way depending just on the system these same judges are using. The similar situation happened in SC, where with ladies factoring of PCS Semenenko would outscore Jason Brown.

 

[readernick]

There are many fair arguments to be had about the use of PCS in figure skating. It is often just used as a reputation mark rather than a true representation of a skater's true artistry. It is also usually (especially in women's figure skating, but also in men's skating, and to a lesser degree in pairs) tied to TES scoring. Aliev and Hiwatashi are both skaters whose inconsistency certainly leads to them getting lower PCS scores than their musicality and skating call for... ( I don't agree that Yuma's scores are undeserved though.. he is amazing in his ability to be on the beat even with fast-paced music that most skaters wouldn't successfully skate to, not to mention his incredible skating skills, and very well done transitions--- so even though his SP is not to my taste, I do think his high PCS is, in general, deserved). Other skaters get higher PCS than they deserve due to their TES and reputation. I'm not sure that eliminating PCS scoring is the solution to these problems though... I am far more in favor of a separate panel to evaluate PCS separate from the panel evaluating GOE.

However, do those arguing against PCS really think it was used unfairly to separate Makar from Jun? I am not a particular fan of either skater. I enjoy them both as a casual fan. However, I think that a fair evaluation of their relative strengths would definitely have Jun quite far ahead of Makar in every PCS category. In skating skills, Jun is clearly superior. Ice coverage, flow, knee action, and edges are all better. He has so many more transitions, too. (while Makar's are very limited) He performed throughout his program with real energy and musicality. I think Makar is capable of good PCS but I don't think he demonstrated it in either program here. To me, this was an example of PCS being used correctly to separate two skaters with similar TES. (yes, Makar's jumps over both programs were better but Jun's non-jump elements were better) Do others actually disagree that Jun deserved higher PCS according to the PCS scoring rubric?

 

[Baron Vladimir]

Again, the problem is not in the results we got. We are not blind to see Jun demonstrated some better qualities than Makar in his performance. The problem is in fact, that by using different system, with less weight on the components - the one ISU is actually using too, would lead to different final results (some were saying that results would be the same and my answer was on that post), which furthermore makes these placements in this exact competition more as subjective evaluation by the judges (and those posters too) than objective fact (aka we can't claim that Jun was definitely better than Makar, Mateo than Alexandar, Jason than Evgeni etc.) The fair thing to say is that some type of skaters are benefiting more of this exact judging system, and as we can see those are not 'quadsters', even some posters are trying to convince you otherwise.

 

[icetug]

Just as a reminder, last Oly FS scores:
Javier Fernandez, 2 quads, TES 101.52, PCS 96.14.
Vincent Zhou, 5 quads, TES 112.24, PCS 79.22
Looking back to 2018, can anybody complain about Vincent scores? And after four years his PCS is ca 9 points higer, as he has visibly improved his overall presentation.
I know that Russia is proud of his 4x4 skater, but that means only that Makar is an outstanding quad jumper and doesn't mean he's an outstanding figure skater.

 

[Baron Vladimir]

Just as a reminder, last Oly FS scores:
Javier Fernandez, 2 quads, TES 101.52, PCS 96.14.
Vincent Zhou, 5 quads, TES 112.24, PCS 79.22
Looking back to 2018, can anybody complain about Vincent scores? And after four years his PCS is ca 9 points higer, as he has visibly improved his overall presentation.
I know that Russia is proud of his 4x4 skater, but that means only that Makar is an outstanding quad jumper and doesn't mean he's an outstanding figure skater.

If you read my posts, you would see that i stated how back then men had one jumping pass more in their free skating than the ladies, with possibility of repeating more quads and gain more points with backloading bonuses (to make higher TES in general), so it was logical to weight their components more in the free. In the current settings when both ladies and men programmes are the same in terms of the composition, and where ladies in general demonstrate more choreography work in their free, that same judging system of the components is not logical anymore.

 

[icetug]

All in all, it's pretty funny that when fans want to highlight Russian women's achievements, they want to get their PCS up to men's level, but when it comes to Russian male quadsters, they want to drop men's PCS down to women's level...

Looking at the TES of the last four years, we have 16 still active women whose SP TES is higher than 40 (including 5 of 45+) and 6 senior women whose FS TES is higher than 80 (including 2 with TES 100+). As for men, we have 18 with SP TES higher than 50 (including 4 with TES 60+) and 5 senior men with FS TES 100+ (including 2 with TES 110+ and 1 with TES 120+).

In light of these statistics, is there ANY reason to change ONLY men's PCS or ONLY women's PCS? Both men and women exceeded the maximum PCS with their TES and both groups are equal (16+6 vs 18+5).

Is there a reason to change the PCS? Perhaps, although so far skaters who have such a high TES are relatively few, in both groups (some 7 percent of all skaters on ISU lists). To paraphrase an old joke - do you need to make a revolution because of these 7 percent?

 

[Baron Vladimir]

All in all, it's pretty funny that when fans want to highlight Russian women's achievements, they want to get their PCS up to men's level, but when it comes to Russian male quadsters, they want to drop men's PCS down to women's level...

It is not anybody wish in order to proclaim some higher agenda. There is an objective/mathematical/statistical explanation for that. I find short programmes protocols fine, and in ladies free protocols weight of TES and PCS is more/less equal. However, in men free protocols weight of PCS in the final scores is a little bit higher than what TES is giving. Here you can compare: http://www.figureskatingresults.fi/results/2122/CSFIN2021/SEG004.htm http://www.figureskatingresults.fi/results/2122/CSFIN2021/SEG002.htm.
And if you read my posts, i was saying that both men and ladies factoring of PCS should be equal and between current factoring, which is 1.9 (ladies is 1.8, men is 2.0). That is mathematically the fairest, if you want for TES and PCS to have the same weight in the final scores, which was the initial idea when COP is made.

 

[icetug]

It is not anybody wish in order to proclaim some higher agenda. There is an objective/mathematical/statistical explanation for that. I find short programmes protocols fine, and in ladies free protocols weight of TES and PCS is more/less equal. However, in men free protocols weight of PCS in the final scores is a little bit higher than what TES is giving. Here you can compare: http://www.figureskatingresults.fi/results/2122/CSFIN2021/SEG004.htm http://www.figureskatingresults.fi/results/2122/CSFIN2021/SEG002.htm.
And if you read my posts, i was saying that both men and ladies factoring of PCS should be equal and between current factoring, which is 1.9 (ladies is 1.8, men is 2.0). That is mathematically the fairest, if you want for TES and PCS to have the same weight in the final scores, which was the initial idea when COP is made.

I have scrupulously compared the scores and what I can see. Out of 26 skaters, 6 men have lower PCS than TES, as well as 17 women. That's a big difference.
However, if you change the method of calculating PCS according to your suggestion (factor 0.9 for all), it will turn out that the situation will be reversed: 14 men will have lower PCS than TES and only 6 women.
In the data given, the biggest negative difference between TES and PCS is shown in Valieva's scores (minus 30) and Semenenko (minus 22). After refactoring, it would be: Valieva minus 22 and Semenenko minus 30. Majorov (plus 24) and Saarinen (plus 17) have the largest surplus, after refactoring their PCS will be the opposite (plus 17 and plus 24).

So my question is the same again: does it make sense to change the factor in such a situation?
(Unless it is about being able to directly compare the results of men and women, but for the mental health of men, I would not be doing it for the next 20 years. Today Russian men look as if none of them wants to be in the national team, especially for the Oly team event...)

 

[Baron Vladimir]

I have scrupulously compared the scores and what I can see. Out of 26 skaters, 6 men have lower PCS than TES, as well as 17 women. That's a big difference.
However, if you change the method of calculating PCS according to your suggestion (factor 0.9 for all), it will turn out that the situation will be reversed: 14 men will have lower PCS than TES and only 6 women.
In the data given, the biggest negative difference between TES and PCS is shown in Valieva's scores (minus 30) and Semenenko (minus 22). After refactoring, it would be: Valieva minus 22 and Semenenko minus 30. Majorov (plus 24) and Saarinen (plus 17) have the largest surplus, after refactoring their PCS will be the opposite (plus 17 and plus 24).

So my question is the same again: does it make sense to change the factor in such a situation?
(Unless it is about being able to directly compare the results of men and women, but for the mental health of men, I would not be doing it for the next 20 years. Today Russian men look as if none of them wants to be in the national team, especially for the Oly team event...)

Some skaters are better in TES and some are better PCS skaters. The problem is not in that. The best way to see what i'm talking about is to calculate total TES and PCS scores. In ladies competition total TES is 1 471.16 and total PCS 1 417.53, so the ratio is more/less fine. If their PCS is factored with 1.9 total PCS would be 1 496.28, even closer to their total TES. In men competition total TES is 1 668.84 and total PCS is 1 813.90, so the ratio between those scores is much bigger. If their PCS is factored with 1.9 their total TES would be 1 723,05. If their PCS is factored like with the ladies their total TES would be 1 632.51. In both situations, weight of TES and PCS in total free programme scores would be more equal.

 

[el henry]

Some skaters are better in TES and some are better PCS skaters. The problem is not in that. The best way to see what i'm talking about is to calculate total TES and PCS scores. In ladies competition total TES is 1 471.16 and total PCS 1 417.53, so the ratio is more/less fine. If their PCS is factored with 1.9 total PCS would be 1 496.28, even closer to their total TES. In men competition total TES is 1 668.84 and total PCS is 1 813.90, so the ratio between those scores is much bigger. If their PCS is factored with 1.9 their total TES would be 1 723,05. If their PCS is factored like with the ladies their total TES would be 1 632.51. In both situations, weight of TES and PCS in total free programme scores would be more equal.

But the ratio is only "more or less fine" because you subjectively would like to see the TES and PCS weighted in such a manner. I argue that the "men's weighting" is fine because subjectively I would like to see the TES and PCS weighted in such a matter. There is no reason, other than subjective ones, that they should be weighed equally. There is no reason, other than subjective ones, that they should be weighted differently.

Use the "men's weighting" for both disciplines would be fair for me. And equal

 

[Baron Vladimir]

But the ratio is only "more or less fine" because you subjectively would like to see the TES and PCS weighted in such a manner. I argue that the "men's weighting" is fine because subjectively I would like to see the TES and PCS weighted in such a matter. There is no reason, other than subjective ones, that they should be weighed equally. There is no reason, other than subjective ones, that they should be weighted differently.

Use the "men's weighting" for both disciplines would be fair for me. And equal

Unlike your replies, there is nothing subjective in my posts. The whole point of having two scores is for them to have more/less equal weight in a competition as a whole, as it always was, from the beginning of the figure skating. And when the new system was made they started with the same idea, that's why there was different factoring for PCS. But after the last Olympics when they made men free programmes shorter by taking out one jumping pass (the problem was in duration of the men free programmes and the whole competition), by limiting repetition of the quads in the Zayak rule and by forbidding backloading bonuses, that is not the case anymore, as i've demonstrated above.