Article:"Rewarding Failure Diminishes Sport"

[Mathman]

About the original topic -- does the CoP "reward failure" and does this diminish the sporting aspect of figure skating --I think the ISU is trying to walk a tightrope.

GKelly and others have emphasized that evaluating a performance has two components, reflected in the roles of the technical panel and the judges. The technical panel says yes or no, you either did it or you didn't. Then the judges chimed in with their opinions about how well you did it.

Yes or no, you either did it or you didn't.

1. If you attempt a jump but fall on the landing, yes or no, did you do the jump or not?

2. If you attempt a Lutz jump but go off the wrong edge, yes or no?

3. If you are short of rotation, yes or no, did you do a triple jump or not?

4. If you attempt a combo but are unable to get the second jump off, yes or no?

In these instances the tech panel does not say yes or no, they say halfway and maybe.

The only time they say no, no, no, a thousand times no is when someone does an Oda and tacks an extra jump on to something. One could argue that the skater ought to get some credit for the legal first jump, which credit cannot then be rescinded by subsequent action. But I guess that would be unsports-like by ISU reasoning.

With respect to #4, I don't see why the argument doesn't go as follows. Each jumping pass is required by the Zayak rule to display a different skill from all the others. Just like you get 0 credit if you do a spin with the same letters attached as a previous spin.

So you do a triple flip. What you are demonstrating is, "I can do a triple flip." Later in the program you attempt a triple flip/double toe combination. The skill you are demonstrating, and wish to receive points for, is "I can do two jumps in combination." If you don't, you don't. 0 points for failing on that skill.

I do not buy the argument that we should reward risk-taking. We should reward successful risk-taking. (Sport imitates life. )

 

[drivingmissdaisy]

I do not buy the argument that we should reward risk-taking. We should reward successful risk-taking. (Sport imitates life. )

How to reward risk has proven difficult, because I believe the ISU wants to reward well executed programs while at the same time encouraging calculated risk-taking. For me, addressing the UR of jumps has been a step forward. I like that a lutz with 2.74 rotations scores better than a double lutz. This seems to encourage risk taking because if a skater can (almost) rotate a jump and land it cleanly, they will be rewarded. Perhaps this "partial credit" will encourage the skater to attempt the jump in competition and perfect it. What I don't like is that the scoring difference between the clean UR jump and an UR jump with a fall may amount to just a few points.

 

[Mathman]

Here is what I have a hard time getting around. Is it the job of a scoring system to "encourage" or "discourage" anything on the part of the athletes?

In hockey, you get a point for scoring a goal. It sounds weird to say, "the purpose of awarding a point for a goal is to encourage hockey players to try to score goals."

I think the idea of a code of points should be to reward successful completion of figure skating elements, and to give higher rewards for successful completion of the more difficult ones. Wouldn't that automatically "encourage" skaters to include hard elements in their programs and to do them well?

 

[NorthernDancers]

Here is what I have a hard time getting around. Is it the job of a scoring system to "encourage" or "discourage" anything on the part of the athletes?

In hockey, you get a point for scoring a goal. It sounds weird to say, "the purpose of awarding a point for a goal is to encourage hockey players to try to score goals."

I think the idea of a code of points should be to reward successful completion of figure skating elements, and to give higher rewards for successful completion of the more difficult ones. Wouldn't that automatically "encourage" skaters to include hard elements in their programs and to do them well?

Exactly right on. And that is the idea.

The dilemma comes if skaters try difficult elements but complete them only partially in the attempt, or perhaps (gasp!) fall. Should there be points awarded? If a skater earns less points by attempting and only partially completing a difficult element as compared to completing an easier element well, where there is risk (and there is always risk), the skater will more than likely choose to complete the easier element. We won't see skaters pushing the limits and boundaries of the sport. Skaters will "play it safe" to maximize their potential point value. Isn't that what used to happen before there was more recognition for quad jumps? How much complaining and angst was there on these boards? The rules have changed, and now look at the number of men who are attempting quads of various kinds, and getting better and better at them - not perfect, but on a path to continuous improvement.

 

[Mathman]

I think it would be better to raise the value of the most challenging elements and reduce the partial credit for an unsuccessful attempt.

A successful quad could be worth, say, 16 points, and a failed quad zero. No guts, no glory. Practice on your own time. :yes:

 

[ImaginaryPogue]

The problem with your assertion, Mathman, is in a complex sport like figure skating, there is more than one way to earn points. So what is the goal of the ISU when awarding points?

Secondly, how do you define successful?

 

[mmcdermott]

In hockey, you get a point for scoring a goal. It sounds weird to say, "the purpose of awarding a point for a goal is to encourage hockey players to try to score goals."

Oh, but the National Hockey League is always tinkering with the rules to try to make it easier to score more. They even talked about making the nets bigger at one point . There are rules about the size of goaltender equipment, etc. All this because the League thinks that it will be more exciting to watch, and therefore more popular (in the US) if the are more goals .... isn't this starting to sound familiar!

The comparison isn't direct, but the NHL wants to see more goals just like the ISU wants the skaters to try more quads. They just have different tools at their disposal.

 

[Mathman]

The problem with your assertion, Mathman, is in a complex sport like figure skating, there is more than one way to earn points. So what is the goal of the ISU when awarding points?

Secondly, how do you define successful?

I am not sure what your first question means. In any sport the purpose of awarding points is to see who can amass the most, thus winning the contest.

Successful for jumps means you don't fall down, you jump off the correct edge, you do the required amount of rotation, land on one foot on an edge -- stuff like that. I am OK with taking deductions in GOE for errors like slight two-foot, no flow out of landing, tilted air position, etc.

I am not trying to be a big revolutionary here. Just run a tighter ship.

 

[Mathman]

Oh, but the National Hockey League is always tinkering with the rules to try to make it easier to score more. They even talked about making the nets bigger at one point . There are rules about the size of goaltender equipment, etc. All this because the League thinks that it will be more exciting to watch, and therefore more popular (in the US) if the are more goals .... isn't this starting to sound familiar!

The comparison isn't direct, but the NHL wants to see more goals just like the ISU wants the skaters to try more quads. They just have different tools at their disposal.

I don't think this is comparable at all. You can make the net bigger, and this will result in more goals. But the puck still has to go in the net.

The ISU cannot make it easier to do a quad. If they want more quads, why not raise the base value, while cutting down on partial credit for unsuccessful attempts? That may result in fewer quad attempts, but increase the number of quads.

People will work hard for whatever you reward them for.

 

[gkelly]

The ISU cannot make it easier to do a quad. If they want more quads, why not raise the base value, while cutting down on partial credit for unsuccessful attempts? That may result in fewer quad attempts, but increase the number of quads.

They have raised the base value several times. A couple years ago the GOE reductions for errors were larger, then they made them smaller again.

I basically agree that right now a failed but rotated quad is worth too much compared to successful triples that could have been done instead.

However, I'm not sure I agree with your logic. It assumes that skaters will not put quad attempts into their programs until there is very little chance of failure, and that once they're confident of success they will start including the jump and landing it (almost) every time. But for many skaters, it's necessary to try and probably fail new jumps in competition before landing them successfully when it counts. And often even when they do land it successfully at first, they end up making mistakes elsewhere in the program because of all the mental and physical energy expended on the new jump.

Just increasing the value of the jump if successful isn't going to make it any easier to land. If a skater loses more points by trying and failing (or trying, succeeding, and then failing on other elements instead) than by not trying at all, there won't be much incentive to try.

If you get more attempts, you're going to get more failed attempts. That's inevitable.

The question is, do you want to encourage skaters to work their way up to succeeding or to play it safe by not trying?

 

[bekalc]

They have raised the base value several times. A couple years ago the GOE reductions for errors were larger, then they made them smaller again.

I basically agree that right now a failed but rotated quad is worth too much compared to successful triples that could have been done instead.

However, I'm not sure I agree with your logic. It assumes that skaters will not put quad attempts into their programs until there is very little chance of failure, and that once they're confident of success they will start including the jump and landing it (almost) every time. But for many skaters, it's necessary to try and probably fail new jumps in competition before landing them successfully when it counts. And often even when they do land it successfully at first, they end up making mistakes elsewhere in the program because of all the mental and physical energy expended on the new jump.

Just increasing the value of the jump if successful isn't going to make it any easier to land. If a skater loses more points by trying and failing (or trying, succeeding, and then failing on other elements instead) than by not trying at all, there won't be much incentive to try.

If you get more attempts, you're going to get more failed attempts. That's inevitable.

The question is, do you want to encourage skaters to work their way up to succeeding or to play it safe by not trying?

I remember in 1997, Tarasova gave Illia Kulik a really difficult program. The program was chalked full of transitions, and it was frankly too difficult for Illia. She did it though as strategy. She wanted to let Illia get an idea of where he was at. Now did the judges say oh well yes Illia you skated your free program like crap at 1997 Worlds but we know you are doing all kinds of difficulty so we will just hand you a gold medal (like they do with Chan). Nope. They scored his skate at Worlds, like it deserved to be scored.

But guess what happened, Tarasova implimented the next part of her master plan. Illia learned he needed to work on his stamina, and she reduced a lot of his transiitions. After his program last year Illia's Olympic program was easy for him. And he went on to win every competition he entered into the Olympics.

What I'm saying. Smart skaters know that at times they might have to make mistakes, lose a couple of competitions in order to put risky moves out there. But why does it mean that including the risks, they should handed wins too?

And I will say this I'm fine with the judges ignoring lets say one mistake if everything is perfect. But when a skater packs their program with MULTIPLE elements they can't do well. I'm sorry I think there's a huge problem. I guess what I'm saying is I actually gained more respect for Patrick when he took out that second triple axel last year. His triple axel is inconsistent, his quad is great but inconsistent. Patrick landing 2 quads and two triple axels with his transitions/hard choregraphy. Lets be frank RARELY going to happen.

Risk is a very good thing, and skaters should be encouraged to do risky things. But maybe skaters should also be encouraged to manage the risks they take too. Execution has to matter too. That's why I think its really the programs with multiple errors that need to be cracked down on. Its one thing for me for a skater to fall on a quad (and maybe even an easier triple) and still win if everything else is superior.

But three falls. The execution marks in that kind of scenario should be low.

 

[gkelly]

So what would be the best rules to encourage the right amount of risk?

Keeping in mind that some skaters are more inclined to gamble on risky elements than others, either by nature or by where they are in their careers and what their goals are for the season.

And that difficult transitions or difficult step sequences can also be risky in ways that may show up in errors on the steps or errors on jumps that wouldn't be as risky in an easier program, because of fatigue or lack of concentration

I don't know what the answer is. I don't think it's a simple answer.

 

[bekalc]

So what would be the best rules to encourage the right amount of risk?

Keeping in mind that some skaters are more inclined to gamble on risky elements than others, either by nature or by where they are in their careers and what their goals are for the season.

And that difficult transitions or difficult step sequences can also be risky in ways that may show up in errors on the steps or errors on jumps that wouldn't be as risky in an easier program, because of fatigue or lack of concentration

I don't know what the answer is. I don't think it's a simple answer.

But the point I'm making is that while Illia didn't win in 1997, his decision to focus on doing more difficulty and stretching himself, lead to him winning in 1998. THAT was Illia's reward. The skaters themselves have to be willing to at times sacrifice a competition here and there in order to move up technically and improve.

Risk needs to be rewarded but to argue that how people execute shouldn't matter isn't right. This is a sport and the actual performance matters. So what if your trying to learn a quad, yes that's nice and all. But to give you huge points for a failed quad, actually punishes the person who actually already mastered the quad.. That person put in the work, put in the competition falls and now has it done.
Once again I'm fine with arguing that one mistake not being the be end and end all. But once again when we are seeing 3 falls in a program, all kinds of messy landings. That just shouldn't be rewarded. The skater clearly needs to make some changes.

I'd like to point out too that doing to much difficulty can also lead to injuries. Its one thing for a skater to have lets say one new element that is risky for them. But 3 or 4? What about throwing in a poorly down quad that they aren't ready for. This type of thing can lead to injuries.

The sport of gymnastics is dealing with this right now. Gymnastics especially on the female side are packing in the difficulty to ridiculous matters. Execution matters little. And gymnasts are getting injured left in right. 2/3 of the worlds podium of the 2010 world All Around podium went down for the season on vault. Why because both were chucking vaults that they were clearly not executing well but felt they needed for D scores. I'm wondering if its going to take a gymnast getting paralyzed for the sport to wake up.

You can't seperate difficulty from execution. Absolutely the quad needs to be worth more. But execution needs to be worth more too. And to be quite frank, I didn't think execution mattered all of that much in 2010 either as Lambiel's scores kindly showed. (And Evan ever getting plus GOE on his triple axel. The worst of the top men by far)

Its not asking to much for the sport to draw the line at multiple errors.

 

[gkelly]

But the point I'm making is that while Illia didn't win in 1997, his decision to focus on doing more difficulty and stretching himself, lead to him winning in 1998. THAT was Illia's reward. The skaters themselves have to be willing to at times sacrifice a competition here and there in order to move up technically and improve.

That is true. Which is why my response to Mathman above is that you can't see more successful quads without also seeing more unsuccessful quads.

Substitute any other "risk" element for the level of competition instead of "quads" as appropriate.

The question is how much to reward success (and how much to reward different degrees of partial success) and how much to penalize complete failure. Even defining what constitutes complete failure is controversial, let alone how much a completely failed attempt is worth, positive or negative.

The answer can't be formulated in terms of placement because that all depends on how the other skaters in the event perform.


As far as Kulik goes, it's worth noting that 1997 was also the season that he started adding quad attempts to his competitive programs. And he did succeed once that year (Champions Series Final) but still came in 4th -- because he made other mistakes and because other guys also landed quads that day.

 

[ImaginaryPogue]

Mathman, my post was woefully inarticulate. Let me try again

1. In hockey, the way to score is to get the puck in the net. If you have a final score of 2-0, you know that the puck went into the net twice. This is true of most sports.

2. In figure skating, that's not true. If you earn twenty TES points in the beginning of your program, you might have landed two slightly lesser quads, or a gorgeous 4-3-3, or a 3A-3A sequence and had a nice spin, or etc.

3. So, how the ISU values elements is directly related to how they encourage them. If they were to add a combo bonus, for example, they'd encourage harder combos. If they were to add a level four bonus, they'd encourage programs with al level four elements, etc.

4. But it also encourages elements by how they penalize them.

5. So, lets take an example of your suggestion - increase the value of a successful quds to 16 points (same GOE). 0 points for any jump with a fall. Here's two program openings

Program 1
4T w/ +3 GOE
3F (fall)
3S (fall)
2a (fall)

Total score = 16 points (19 points, -3 w/ current fall rules + negation of the elements)

Program 2
3T (meant to be quad, but poor take off meant it was popped, -1 GOE)
3F (slight two foot, -1 GOE)
3S (clean, but nothing special, 0 GOE)
2A (clean, +1 GOE)

Total Score: 16 points

Does that reflect what you think the sport should be?

 

[Mathman]

However, I'm not sure I agree with your logic. It assumes that skaters will not put quad attempts into their programs until there is very little chance of failure, and that once they're confident of success they will start including the jump and landing it (almost) every time.

I would say that this is a desirable goal, rather than an "assumption." I think that a step towards that goal would be to give higher rewards for a successful quad and no reward for an unsuccessful quad.

But for many skaters, it's necessary to try and probably fail new jumps in competition before landing them successfully when it counts.

The question as I understand it is, how can we make the CoP "more like other sports and less like 6.0." In baseball a batter might have to strike out 100 times before he learns to hit major league curve ball. That's just the way it is. But he does not score any points until he actually hits the ball.

 

[Bluebonnet]

I think it would be better to raise the value of the most challenging elements and reduce the partial credit for an unsuccessful attempt.

A successful quad could be worth, say, 16 points, and a failed quad zero. No guts, no glory. Practice on your own time. :yes:

We've been to this route more than once before. I think the result would be discouraging quad attempt. Less skaters would try the hardest jumps. It would create even more ridiculous results than what we've had in 2008 - 2010. We would see either quadless champions which in this case would be better outcomes of the two, or we would see jumping-jack champions. Of course, in any case, we might see a true worthy champion as well. The top skaters who are truly capable and balanced in both athletics and artistry might end up even being off podiums and being mixed with B group skaters. I don't think raise quad value and in the meantime eliminate partial credit will be the solution. It'll tip the bucket too much and the bucket might end up being tipped over.

 

[gkelly]

The question as I understand it is, how can we make the CoP "more like other sports and less like 6.0."

Who wants to make it more like other sports? And in what sense?

I think Cinquanta has wanted to make figure skating scoring more like speed skating and other simpler-outcome, largely objective sports. Because he was confused by the place-switching inherent in ordinal scoring.
Because there has been input (I hate to say pressure but some of it may have been in the form of pressure) both from IOC officials and other representatives of simple-outcome sports to make figure skating more objective.
Because proponents of athleticism

However, the nature of figure skating is such that it can't be boiled down to purely objective numbers. Parts of the way programs are evaluated can be purely objective; other parts rely on human perception of objective qualities (e.g., speed) that may someday be objectively measurable. Still other parts rely not only on perception but also on human opinion, which is almost purely subjective. And subjective opinion also informs decisions about how to weight different parts against each other.

The IJS codifies some of those opinions into an objective rule. But then there are results that don't match the opinions of fans or the press or participants or officials, and so the rules themselves come into controversy and may get changed the following year.

In baseball a batter might have to strike out 100 times before he learns to hit major league curve ball. That's just the way it is. But he does not score any points until he actually hits the ball.

Or he may get hits 100 times before he learns to hit the ball out of the park, and if those hits lead to runs he'll get points. But not as many points as if he hits the ball out of the park with the bases loaded. Which might be a better analogy for a clean program with quads included.

But since baseball and figure skating are so different in the way they're conducted that analogies between the two would at best be limited in relevance.
E.g.,
*team sport vs. individual
*offense (batting) against defense (fielding) to prevent the team from scoring vs. one-at-a-time performance to be compared (under IJS, to be compared independently to a standard; under 6.0 to be compared to each other)
*yes-or-no scores for elements (runs) only vs. scores for elements based on both what (yes or no) and how well, and also scores for global qualities of the performance

To make skating more like baseball or other oppositional team sports, maybe skaters would have to attempt to complete elements while other skaters attempt to prevent them from completing them, and the only possible scores for each attempt would be either full credit or no credit -- draw a line somewhere and all bad attempts that are on the right side of the line get the same score as excellent attempts, all bad attempts on the wrong side get the same non-score as complete failure. No scores for anything except elements.

But that wouldn't be figure skating as we know it. Not even Cinquanta wants to turn it into pure objective ice jumping.

 

[Mathman]

First, I am fine with Buttle and Lysacek winning championships by omitting the quad and scoring points in other areas. No matter how you adjust the base values there will always be more than one way to skin a cat.

Second, I do not think it is the job of the scoring system to coax skaters into doing one thing rather than another. The job of the scoring system is to evaluate the performances and declare a winner.

Third, something can "diminish the sports aspect of figure skating" but still be a good thing. Skating to music and receiving points for choreography, for instance.

Where I think the problem comes in is something like this:

Skater A does a quad and otherwise skates well and gets 150 points.

Skater B does not do a quad, but he does a couple of triple Axels and exhibits good skating skills and interpretation. He scpores 151.

Skater C does fine, gaining points here and there, until he has accumulated 142 points. Then he falls on two quad attempts. This gives him 10 more points and he wins.

 

[gkelly]

Well, chances are the two quad attempts are not at the end of the program. If they are, no wonder Skater C fell on them.

But, order of elements aside, another way to look at that example is that Skaters A and B managed to accumulate 150-151 points across 13 elements. Take away their two highest-scoring elements, and they had less than 133 for 11 elements. Skater C accumulated 142 points in 11 elements.

So C had a deserved lead not counting the two hardest jump passes (whether because of PCS, higher levels on non-jump elements, better GOEs on jumps and non-jumps, or whatever). Now let's count them. A and B got 17+ points for their hardest two passes, assuming non-negative GOE (and assuming one of B's triple axels was in combination with at least a single toe loop). All well and good.

Suppose Skater D attempts only 11 elements total (only attempts 6 jump passes), and in the course of those 11 elements plus the PCS he manages to earn 142 points. And he also trips over his feet and falls two times on stroking or transition moves (and leaves out two planned jumps), or he falls on the approaches/takeoffs of what should have been the other 2 jump elements. He never takes off and never rotates those jumps. So he gets -2.00 in deductions for the falls and ends up with 140 points overall, well behind Skaters A and B.

Now, what's an appropriate way to value C's two failed quad attempts? We agree that 10 points is too much. Do we also agree that -2 points is too little, that C should get more points for rotating and falling than D got for falling without attempting the elements at all? Would, maybe 4-6 points total for the two failed attempts be appropriate?