I just wish there were a way to have it not be such a huge lead that can't seem to be caught up to... not sure if that's possible.
If you're going to have two or more phases of the event and both of them count toward the final result, then the options are pretty much either
1) discard all information about margin of victory in each phase and use placements only from each phase
This can be done with either ordinals or absolute scores to determine those placements -- the actual scores that go into calculating the results of that phase are going to be thrown out anyway.
Then you can define the relationship between the phases so that each phase is worth the same amount or the last phase is worth the most according to some multiplier (factor). And that will mean a limited number of competitors will "control their own destiny" -- in a two-phase event it will always be the same number, depending on what factors you assign each phase. With long program worth twice as much as short program, then each competitor was in reach of the two skaters placed immediately ahead without help from other skaters' placements, and exactly three skaters could win the title just by winning the freeskate without outside help.
In an event with three or more phases, depending how are consistent or inconsistent in the earlier phases you might have one competitor who is completely out of reach going into the final phase, or you might have as many as 5, 6, or 7 competitors in reach of the title without help. And of course, "help" (in the form of other skaters finishing in just the right order) is always a possibility but never within the skater's own control.
Or
2) Maintain data about margin of victory in the earlier phase(s) and also in the final phase.
A: This means that if many skaters perform approximately equally in the first phase, their scores will be close enough going into the final phase that for all practical purposes they all control their own destinies (unless the margin of victory is even smaller in the final phase).
B: But if one skater significantly outskates everyone else in the short program, then the lead going into the long may be so large that it's highly improbable any other skater could catch them.
A is the most exciting scenario. But
B is the least exciting. And can't have one without the other if you carry over the scores.
It seems like a system could be devised that does not set out deliberately to annoy people and ruin their excitement.
If the present scoring system annoys people and ruins their excitement, IMHO the ISU should have a better response than just to shrug and say, tough cookies.
Well, I don't think the intention was to deliberately ruin people's excitement (scenario A). I think the intentions were to provide the possibility of maximum excitement (scenario B) and also to prevent flipflops and to provide all the useful information that breaking down scores to individual elements provides. However, B does often occur as an unwelcome byproduct.
OK, so suppose that the ISU decided that excitement and suspense for spectators in the final phase is more important than rewarding deservedly large margins of victory in the first phase. What could they do to avoid frequent occurrences of scenario B?
A few possibilities:
1) Change the number of elements in the short vs. long programs so that there are more than twice as many point-earning opportunities in the LP (this is almost already the case -- the number of elements in the long is slightly less than twice that in the short, but the number of jump elements is more than twice, and at the senior level those tend to be by far the biggest point-getters), and also change the factors for the program components so that they are worth more than twice as much in the long as in the short.
or
2) Round the short program scores to the nearest full point, or the nearest 2- or 5-point mark, so that many skaters will be literally tied going into the LP. But do keep those decimal values on file somewhere in case two skaters tie absolutely in the freeskate and the short program difference is needed as a tiebreaker.
or
3) Use IJS scores to determine placements in each program, but forget about maintaining margin of victory. Use factored placements to combine results from the two phases. Make the factor for the long program large enough compared to the short so that more than 3 skaters -- maybe 5 or more -- will control their own destiny to win without help.
or
4) Get rid of the short program entirely in events with X or fewer skaters. For larger events, use the short program only as a qualifier to determine the top X finishers who will advance to the LP. Throw out the scores and let everyone who advances start with a clean slate for the long.
Those are the options I can think of for increasing the excitement of the long program.
But then someday you'll have a situation where a beloved skater blows away the rest of the field in the SP and just barely loses the LP by the tiniest of margins, and the fans will be outraged again.
The skaters in the lower ranks could still skate the LP for placements, even though their chances of getting first place might be slim (as in the 6.0 system) to none (as in a true playoff model).
wouldn't that make Sarah Hughes Olympic Moments and Rudy Galindo Nationals moments (or Paul Wylie's Olympics for that matter) impossible then? not sure I like that idea. Especially if we're trying to give the Mathman audience element something to feed off of.
I guess it depends how many skaters you allow into the final skateoff -- my X in option 4 above. If only top 2 after the short make it to the gold medal round and third and fourth battle for bronze and everyone else is out of the tournament after the short, then that would be true. But that model really only makes sense for sports where competitors battle each other one on one (or one team against one other) in a series of matches.
Since skaters perform one after another, they can compete against many other skaters at the same time. Or few others, but more than one. So if the "playoff" or "gold medal round" is the final long program with a warmup group's worth of 6 competitors, and short program scores and placements served only to determine who qualifies for the final round, then all 6 competitors who make it would have an equal shot at gold
Or X could be more than 6 -- e.g., 12 or 24. And the reward for placing higher in the short program could be a more advantageous spot in the skating order for the long. But otherwise, if you bomb the freeskate, your placement in the free is your final placement -- a good short would not hold you up in overall standings.
Hughes was 4th after the SP at 2002 Olympics (and thus needed "help" to win gold); Galindo at 1996 Nationals and Wylie at 1992 Olympics were 3rd in the short so they were always within reach of gold on their own merits. In a gold medal round with X of 6, not 2, then they would still have had their moments.
In skating history, I don't think there have been complaints about any dominating competitor. Rather the winningest skaters have been the most celebrated ones, selected into the top 10 lists and called legendary, etc. I always thought sports celebrate the best, the trailbrazers, the greatest, the ones who break one record after another, that leave others in the dust. Here some are complaining and calling for devising the scoring system to prevent someone from excelling and winning too big, at least at the initial stage. I can't think of any sport that has, or would have, competition rules for such purposes.
.
