59th ISU Congress: Watch and Discuss

[Mathman]

First, what exactly is balanced with this? Not technical vs artistic, for sure. Not objective vs subjective, not the way it should be judged.
So what?

I think it is the balance between the aggregate of individual elements (TES) and the evaluation of the merit of the program as a whole (PCS). In Skating Skills, for instance, it's not a count of how many counters and rockers you do, but how they meld into a coherent program. Important factors are "effortless glide" throughout, efficient stroking to generate speed and especially acceleration. That sort of thing.

That's what I think, anyway.

 

[Magill]

I think it is the balance between the aggregate of individual elements (TES) and the evaluation of the merit of the program as a whole (PCS). In Skating Skills, for instance, it's not a count of how many counters and rockers you do, but how they meld into a coherent program. Important factors are "effortless glide" throughout, efficient stroking to generate speed and especially acceleration. That sort of thing.

That's what I think, anyway.

Yes, I know what TES and PCS are but what does it say about a skater or a program if they get the same number of points in both categories and why it should be of any relevance? I think it is just a leftover from 6.0 era when there were two categories and two scores but very differently defined.
I also think currently the problem is not dominance of TES over PCS but dominance of jump-related points in TES category which makes it impossible to balance jumps with any other element. For top jumpers you cannot balance them with PCS either. They are just guaranteed dominance. which shakes the whole system out of balance.
Now as for PCS and TES, I think you are aware that if you have a SoV which is built of two subscales one of which is fixed-ended and the other one is open-ended, the same amount of points on both does not say they are "balanced" even for those individual results which come under the fixed scale's max value x 2
The same holds true for the TES scale alone as the jumps subscale is open ended and subscales related to all the other elements are fixed-ended sharing the same structural imbalance that exists between TES and PCS scales.

 

[Mathman]

Is the point value of jumps really open-ended, or is there a built in maximum number of points that a skater can haul in under the rules? True the theoetical maximum is higher for jumps than it is for non-jump tech elements, and the theoretical max for all elements is much higher than 100 (the max for PCS).

So the ISU could compute the theoretical maximum for jump elements, then scale jump values so that this works out to 50. Now do the same for non-jump elements. This would kill two birds with one stone. The reletive TES weight for jumps would be balanced vis-a-ivis the everything else weight, and the two together would balance the PCSs (on the average, over many performances and many competitions).

This, however would skew things the other way. It would be pretty hard for a skater to actually achieve the theoretic limit for jumps (although I wonder how close Malinin's LP at World's came), but it might be easier for a few skaters to get close to the max in spins and steps. And skaters do occasionally get 10s, or at least 9.75s. in components.

But that would provide "balance" in terms of scoring, in the same way that in 6.0 the first mark ordinals and the second mark ordinals carried pretty much equal weight (and then went to a tie-breaker if needed), even though they are apples and oranges in terms of what is being evaluated.

However, I don't think that this is in line with the ISU's thinking about what should be valued most highly. I think that the reason so much weight is placed on jumps is that, for better or for worse, the ISU really likes them because of the Higher, Faster, Stronger mantra. I guess the question of whether this is good or bad is what the discussion is all about and what drives fans to count how many You Tube views are geberated by performances of different types.

 

[4everchan]

Is the point value of jumps really open-ended, or is there a built in maximum number of points that a skater can haul in under the rules? True the theoetical maximum is higher for jumps than it is for non-jump tech elements, and the theoretical max for all elements is much higher than 100 (the max for PCS).

So the ISU could compute the theoretical maximum for jump elements, then scale jump values so that this works out to 50. Now do the same for non-jump elements. This would kill two birds with one stone. The reletive TES weight for jumps would be balanced vis-a-ivis the everything else weight, and the two together would balance the PCSs (on the average, over many performances and many competitions).

This, however would skew things the other way. It would be pretty hard for a skater to actually achieve the theoretic limit for jumps (although I wonder how close Malinin's LP at World's came), but it might be easier for a few skaters to get close to the max in spins and steps. And skaters do occasionally get 10s, or at least 9.75s. in components.

That would provide "balance" in terms of scoring, in the same way that in 6.0 the first mark ordinals and the second mark ordinals carried pretty much equal weight (and then went to a tie breaker if needed), even though they are apples and oranges in terms of what is being evaluated.

However, I don't think that this is in line with the ISU's thinking about what should be valued most highly. I think that the reason so much weight is placed on jumps is that, for better or for worse, the ISU really likes them from the point of view of Higher, Faster, Stronger.

in some ways, it so much simpler.

The IJS is supposed to have a balance between TES and PCS. For instance, women's factoring in the LP is 80% for PCS.
They could just put the factoring for men at 120% and they could judge PCS better so it does make a difference.

 

[Magill]

However, I don't think that this is in line with the ISU's thinking about what is valued most highly. I think that the reason so much weight is placed on jumps is that, for better or for worse, the ISU really likes them from the point of view of Higher, Faster, Stronger.

The point is you cannot call any of it balanced. I think you should at least try to give a great spinner, step sequencer and choreo sequencer a chance to balance some of the quads with their exceptional skills.

 

[Mathman]

in some ways, it so much simpler.

The IJS is supposed to have a balance between TES and PCS. For instance, women's factoring in the LP is 80% for PCS.
They could just put the factoring for men at 120% and they could judge PCS better so it does make a difference.

I don't thnk that putting the PCS factor up to 120% would achieve better balance overall among all sketers. It would provide better balance at the very top where a big jumper can dominate. But for all the hundreds of compettitions involving thousands of skaters, I think that the average guy would always end up with higher PCSs than TES (by about 20%, LOL).

 

[4everchan]

I don't thnk that putting the PCS factor up to 120% would achieve better balance overall among all sketers. It would provide better balance at the very top where a big jumper can dominate. But for all the hundreds of compettitions involving thousands of skaters, I think that the average guy would always end up with higher PCSs than TES (by about 20%, LOL).

it depends... when the IJS first started, judges didn't give PCS like candy.. I remember Buttle and Chan, two of the best PCS skaters getting scores in the low 80s.. or even high 70s.... At one point, judges started to go up to 10s and we were screwed forever.

 

[Mathman]

OK, you MADE me do it

What would be the result of raising the PCS factor to 120, everything alse staying the same? I did the 2024 worlds men's LP. Note: this is just arithmetic; I did mot do any speculation about what might have happened if what did happen hadn't happened, or make any guesses about the how skaters might have designed their programs differently if the rules had been different.

So, raising everybody's PSC by 20% and keeping the TES the same, two skaters out of 20 (Malinin and Siao Him Fa) end up with TES>PCS and all the other 18 have PCS>TES.

As for placements, they all stay the same except Jason Brown finishes ahead of Lucas Britschgi for fourth and Junhwan Cha edges Mark Gorodnitsky by 0.23 points to take tenth.

 

[4everchan]

OK, you MADE me do it

What would be the result of raising the PCS factor to 120, everything alse staying the same? I did the 2024 worlds men's LP. Note: this is just arithmetic; I did mot do any speculation about what might have happened if what did happen hadn't happened, or make any guesses about the how skaters might have designed their programs differently if the rules had been different.

So, raising everybody's PSC by 20% and keeping the TES the same, two skaters out of 20 (Malinin and Siao Him Fa) end up with TES>PCS and all the other 18 have PCS>TES.

As for placements, they all stay the same except Jason Brown finishes ahead of Lucas Britschgi for fourth and Junhwan Cha edges Mark Gorodnitsky by 0.23 points to take tenth.

of course I did tempting a mathman with easy arithmetic is always fun...

it is not enough to raise PCS if judges do not differentiate skaters... but see, already, there are two very valid changes here... Brown and Cha are superior PCS wise and now they got one placement ahead.. WHICH means that it could happen ON THE PODIUM too... it could happen that if Adam or Uno had skated both their programs as well as Ilia, there might have been some changes to the medals.

Worlds 2024 is not the best way to use this factoring because only Ilia from the top 3-4 contenders skated two clean programs.

 

[Jeanie19]

of course I did tempting a mathman with easy arithmetic is always fun...

it is not enough to raise PCS if judges do not differentiate skaters... but see, already, there are two very valid changes here... Brown and Cha are superior PCS wise and now they got one placement ahead.. WHICH means that it could happen ON THE PODIUM too... it could happen that if Adam or Uno had skated both their programs as well as Ilia, there might have been some changes to the medals.

Worlds 2024 is not the best way to use this factoring because only Ilia from the top 3-4 contenders skated two clean programs.

Do Worlds 2023.

 

[Magill]

OK, you MADE me do it

What would be the result of raising the PCS factor to 120, everything alse staying the same? I did the 2024 worlds men's LP. Note: this is just arithmetic; I did mot do any speculation about what might have happened if what did happen hadn't happened, or make any guesses about the how skaters might have designed their programs differently if the rules had been different.

So, raising everybody's PSC by 20% and keeping the TES the same, two skaters out of 20 (Malinin and Siao Him Fa) end up with TES>PCS and all the other 18 have PCS>TES.

As for placements, they all stay the same except Jason Brown finishes ahead of Lucas Britschgi for fourth and Junhwan Cha edges Mark Gorodnitsky by 0.23 points to take tenth.

That's interesting. This would suggest PCS in general following TES and the two not being truly independently evaluated as they should be. Otherwise such a change should cause some more substantial shifts in the order.
Which is consistent with the general feeling among fans, so no surprise here, although no glory, either.

 

[Mathman]

That's interesting. This would suggest PCS in general following TES and the two not being truly independently evaluated as they should be. Otherwise such a change should cause some more substantial shifts in the order.
Which is consistent with the general feeling among fans, so no surprise here, although no glory, either.

Very true. The conclusion that I would draw is that just raising the factor on PCS by itself will not have much effect.

 

[Mathman]

Do Worlds 2023.

OK, I did the men's LP at 2023 worlds. First off, if PCS were factored at 120 instead of 100, only two skaters would have TES>PCS (Ilia Malinin and Mikhail Shaidorov). Eighteen would have PCS>TES. So if the goal of the exercise is to bring the PCS and the TES scores more or less into balance with each other, then the 100 factoring is better and the 120 skews things to the PCS side, overall.

In terms of placements, the podium would be affected, with Malinin dropping from thrid to fifth behind Aymoz and Brown. (Brown somewhat gains on Aymos, but not enough to overtake him.) Top 5: Uno, Cha, Aymos, Brown, Malinin.

Farther down the line Vasiljev moves up one place ahead of Shaidorev for 12th, Yamamoto nips Grassl by 0,05 points for 14th, and Selevko gains a spot advancing to 16th ahead of Gorodnutsky.

 

[Magill]

OK, I did the men's LP at 2023 worlds. First off, if PCS were factored at 120 instead of 100, only two skaters would have TES>PCS (Ilia Malinin and Mikhail Shaidorov). Eighteen would have PCS>TES. So if the goal of the exercise is to bring the PCS and the TES scores more or less into balance with each other, then the 100 factoring is better and the 120 skews things to the PCS side, overall.

In terms of placements, the podium would be affected, with Malinin dropping from thrid to fifth behind Aymoz and Brown. (Brown somewhat gains on Aymos, but not enough to overtake him.)

Farther down the lineVasiljev moves up one place ahead of Shaidorev for 12th, Yamamoto nips Grassl by 0,05 points for 14th, and Selevko gains a spot advancing to 16th ahead of Gorodnutsky.

More changes, Seems like judging was slightly better in 2023 than in 2024 in terms of PCS not given away as a candy sized to TES Again, consistent with the general fan feeling, as far as I remember.

 

[4everchan]

OK, I did the men's LP at 2023 worlds. First off, if PCS were factored at 120 instead of 100, only two skaters would have TES>PCS (Ilia Malinin and Mikhail Shaidorov).

which reflects the reality, quadsters with PCS work to do (Ilia is better than Misha but they are quite similar in many points)

Eighteen would have PCS>TES. So if the goal of the exercise is to bring the PCS and the TES scores more or less into balance with each other, then the 100 factoring is better and the 120 skews things to the PCS side, overall.

sure... but the guys with higher PCS still are not reaching the full 120... you know what i mean ?

This could be tried with 110... 115 or whatever.

In terms of placements, the podium would be affected, with Malinin dropping from thrid to fifth behind Aymoz and Brown. (Brown somewhat gains on Aymos, but not enough to overtake him.)

loving this

Farther down the lineVasiljev moves up one place ahead of Shaidorev for 12th, Yamamoto nips Grassl by 0,05 points for 14th, and Selevko gains a spot advancing to 16th ahead of Gorodnutsky.

loving this even more

 

[AxelLover]

As much as we would appreciate some rule changes, I guess we all kinda agree there is still an issue with how the rules are applied in practice. The automatic PCS (and GOE) boost for well-established skaters drives me crazy.

 

[Mathman]

This could be tried with 110... 115 or whatever.

I haven't tried this over and over with different factors, but I think that the current 100 does quite well overall at producing about even PCS and TES over large samples.

The complaint is, too well. Except for exteme cases like Malilinin, the match between component scores and element scores is, if anything, suspiciously close. It makes me wonder if the judges, perhaps subconsciously, are judging with the thought in their minds that the system is supposed to produce TES and PCS that are at least in the same ball park for most skaters.

Personally, I am not as alarmed at this phenomenon as most posters and fans seem to be. Figure skating is an organic sport. You have to have strong skating skills to be a good jumper. Your coach will make you work on choreography however jump-happy you might be. Most athlete/performers in the sport do aspire to be "complete" skaters. They are willing to work on all aspects of their skating and they take pride in achieving excellence across the board. Malinin loves his raspberry.

 

[4everchan]

I haven't tried this over and over with different factors, but I think that the current 100 does quite well overall at producing about even PCS and TES over large samples.

The complaint is, too well. Except for exteme cases like Malilinin, the match between component scores and element scores is, if anything, suspiciously close. It makes me wonder if the judges, perhaps subconsciously, are judging with the thought in their minds that the system is supposed to produce TES and PCS that are at least in the same ball park for most skaters.

Personally, I am not as alarmed at this phenomenon as most posters and fans seem to be. Figure skating is an organic sport. You have to have strong skating skills to be a good jumper. Your coach will make you work on choreography however jump-happy you might be. Most athlete/performers in the sport do aspire to be "complete" skaters. They are willing to work on all aspects of their skating and they take pride in achieving excellence across the board. Malinin loves his raspberry.

We have diverging opinion on this but it's okay. The raspberry twist is just another jump btw I prefer watching diving or gymnastics when I want to see spectacular jumping and twisting... when I watch figure skating, I value the blade on the ice more than the stuff that happens in the air. I do believe there is a lack of balance right now... and I do worry, even if it's only a couple men that seem to have broken the system... that's enough to make it unfair to all the others... Let's say you are playing monopoly with @el henry 's little cousin... and she found a way to have limitless cash to buy properties and build houses and hotels on them... are you still interested to play when you know exactly what will happen ? (I am not implying that the skaters who have a major TES advantage have hacked the system. They are winning fairly) The last few years brought amazing rivalries in the sport. There was a sense of excitement and unpredictability. If worlds 25-26 etc are a repeat of 2024... it will not be good for the sport. I am 100% sure about this.

 

[gkelly]

The complaint is, too well. Except for exteme cases like Malilinin, the match between component scores and element scores is, if anything, suspiciously close. It makes me wonder if the judges, perhaps subconsciously, are judging with the thought in their minds that the system is supposed to produce TES and PCS that are at least in the same ball park for most skaters.

I doubt most judges can or want to do the mental arithmetic to figure out what the elements and GOEs will add up to (especially because they don't know the levels called and therefore the base values of the non-jump elements, and there are so many variations of jump base values as a result of <<, <, and e calls) and also the factored PCS.

At best they may have a ballpark sense of what a program with x-many triples or quads and what looks like high-level or easier/less successful spins and steps is likely to add up to. But there's enough detail to worry about in assigning GOEs and PCS without also having to think too much about the base values, which is not part of their job.

To the extent that TES and PCS do often end up in the same general range, that means that the PCS factors have been well chosen to balance the likely TES for a given skill level.

How far apart (by percentage of the higher score?) would TES and PCS have to be from each other to qualify as the system not balancing them well against each other.

 

[Mathman]

Let's say you are playing monopoly with @el henry 's little cousin... and she found a way to have limitless cash to buy properties and build houses and hotels on them... are you still interested to play when you know exactly what will happen ?

When we played monopoly as kids we didn't really knpw the rules and the conventions that we made up provided a continuoal flow of cah into the game. If you owned Boardwalk you could put up 10 hotels on the site and charge $20,000 if anyone landed on it. But that was OK, because everybody had the $20,000 no problem.

It did, however, give an overwhelming advatage to the "banker" who doled out the d]cash.