Article:"Rewarding Failure Diminishes Sport"

[mskater93]

So you'd be perfectly happy with an Olympic Men's Champion who only lands jumps through 3Lz? I understand rewarding attempts to a point (you have to encourage people to take risks) but where do you draw the line? Do you agree with Plushenko winning the Silver medal in SLC over Goebel even though he had a fall in his SP and Goebel was clean? I don't agree with rewarding a multiple fall program and there has to be a way to reduce the PCS (especially PE mark) based on a multi-fall program...

 

[Poodlepal]

There should be more than just the 2 marks. Here is my suggestion (which the ISU will never adopt, LOL!)

1. One mark for jumps.
2. One mark for other components (spirals, transitions, footwork, etc.)
3. One mark for choreography, musicality, etc.
4. One mark for cleanliness and overall impression.

There should be major deductions in #4 for visible, messy-looking errors, like falls and step outs where the skater almost loses balance.

However, if a skater flutzes or underrotates--but it still looks OK and they remain upright--they will lose points on #1 (though not all credit) but not #4. If they fall, they lose both. And the penalties would be more than the -1 point they get now.


As a non-skating tv watcher, I'm perplexed as to how someone could suggest that a jump that ends in a butt-wiping fall could seriously get more points than one where the mistake is a microscopic ur or edge call, that can only be seen on instant replay. I understand that it's important to reward good technique, but unless there's a risk of injury by doing the jumps wrong, it's good technique just for the sake of being good technique. Remember skaters are entertainers, and little entertainment value is lost to the audience when a foot is in the slightly wrong position. You can still convince everyone you are a graceful swan or a funny villain or what have you. That's not the case when you've crashed into the wall or mopped the floor with your butt.

 

[gkelly]

There should be more than just the 2 marks.

There are a lot more than two marks under IJS. Have you missed the last 8 years?

Remember skaters are entertainers, and little entertainment value is lost to the audience when a foot is in the slightly wrong position. You can still convince everyone you are a graceful swan or a funny villain or what have you.

Professional skaters are entertainers first. There are currently no competitions or rules for professional skating, but if you want to make up rules for skating-as-entertainment, feel free. Just recognize that they wouldn't apply to competitive skating.

Remember: Eligible skaters are athletes first in a highly technical sport. The rules are designed to reward technique and athleticism first and entertainment value second. Most of the "presentation" or performance criteria in competitive skating scoring are designed to reward the use of skating technique to achieve artistic or entertainment goals, not artistry or entertainment for their own sake.

Nonskaters or weak skaters could put on skates, step on the ice, and do something entertaining without ever gliding on one foot on an edge. Audiences would enjoy it. That's kind of what all those Skating with the Stars types of programs are about. But it wouldn't belong in an elite figure skating competition.

 

[Mathman]

So you'd be perfectly happy with an Olympic Men's Champion who only lands jumps through 3Lz?

Was this question addressed to me?

No, I would be much happier if the Olympic champion landed a quad, a quad combo and a couple of triple Axels. (Not sure I understand the question.)

Do you agree with Plushenko winning the Silver medal in SLC over Goebel even though he had a fall in his SP and Goebel was clean?

In the short program

Yagudin did 4T+3T, 3A, 3Lz (1st)
Honda did 4T+3T, 3A, 3Lz (2nd)
Goebel did 4S+3T, 3A, 3F (3rd)
Plushenko did 4T (fall), 3A, 3Lz (4th)

What's the question?

(The only possible objection is that maybe Plushenko robbed Alexander Abt who did 4T+3T, 3A, 3Lz (UR). But they had to hold Plushenko up at least to fourth just in case Yagudin faltered in the long.)

Then Plushenko skated cleanly and properly took second in the long, beating Goebel for the silver on factored placements. Just as it should be. :yes:

I believe that the CoP is unfriendly to quads in general, no matter how they tinker with the base values. The CoP discourages and penalizes long set-ups for jumps, it discourages and penalizes resting between vigorous elements, and on the program component side it rewards exhausting frenzy of footwork and transitions and correspondingly devalues the gentle side of choreography and interpretation.

 

[Poodlepal]

gkelly--the scores are divided into meta scores, although there are categories within them. And professional athletes are a form of entertainer. Landing a high, strong jump--entertaining. Skating on the right edge--not so much. Falling--messes up the overall impression of a program, can destroy a magical connection with the audience, etc. Flutzing--not so much. You can't even tell most of the time.

Somewhere there has to be a happy medium between where acrobats with poor skating skills are over-rewarded, and over-rewarding people based on their "edges" and "knee bends" when they make multiple mistakes in their programs.

 

[Mathman]

Remember: Eligible skaters are athletes first in a highly technical sport. The rules are designed to reward technique and athleticism first and entertainment value second. Most of the "presentation" or performance criteria in competitive skating scoring are designed to reward the use of skating technique to achieve artistic or entertainment goals...

Falling on a quad attempt does not demonstrate mastery of technique or properly channeled athleticism. It does not display the use of skating technique to achieve artistic or entertainment goals. (Just my opinion, of course. )

 

[ImaginaryPogue]

But does jumping, rotating four times in the air and falling demonstrate more mastery of technique/properly channeled athleticism than standing still on skates (on ice).

 

[Mathman]

^ Bah, humbug! Land the darn thing.

 

[ImaginaryPogue]

I agree, you should get more points for landing a jump than for falling on a jump.

 

[gkelly]

And professional athletes are a form of entertainer.

You mean professional athletes like NBA or NFL ballplayers who earn a living wage (or in some cases much much more) and have all their competition expenses paid by the professional teams that employ them? Or individual professional sports like golf and tennis?

That lets out the vast majority of competitive figure skaters.

It's probably more useful to think of eligible competitive skating as an amateur sport like other Olympic sports. A serious hobby, not a profession.

Fortunately figure skating is more entertaining for audiences than luge or biathlon. So there is more money coming into the sport from TV networks, sponsorships, ticket sales. But most of that money goes toward running the events -- paying for venues, hotels, travel expenses, etc. Comparatively little of it goes into skaters' pockets. For everyday training and for travel to domestic events like Nationals, the money is coming out of the skaters' pockets and going to coaches,

Yes, skaters are no longer forbidden from earning money for skating-related or even any sports-related employment or sponsorship. And yes, the ISU does offer prize money to the most successful international competitors. Those who are good enough medal consistently over a number of years can end up making a living by competing.

Successful competitors also receive funding from their federations. They're not being paid to entertain audiences -- they're being given money to allow them to train so they can bring home medals and glory.

Oh, and then if they succeed they're asked to entertain audiences with exhibitions and to lend their fame to help market the sport to audiences. But the point of competition is to place as well as possible.

Now, of course, the figure skating establishment could decide to devalue basic skills and to raise the value of audience-pleasing skills (including big tricks like quad jumps). But to the extent that would mean ignoring the very skills that define figure skating as figure skating, that would be selling out. There has to be a way to keep actual edge skills at the heart of what the sport values while also valuing the entertaining (dance or flashy trick) aspects of performance that derive from those basic skills.

 

[amber68]

I don't believe the comparison is valid. You're arguing that doing transitions of high variety and quality consitutes what skaters should be doing ("doing your job properly"). But you don't get that if you don't reward that.
GENERAL QUESTION: How much should execution of elements factor into the final score as compared to difficulty of elements and program components?

The fact that there is a transition score indicates that yes, this is what skaters should be doing. If they do it well (high quality , variety etc.), they get “paid” with a very good transition mark .
And actually you missed my point.
I did say that the spread eagle before the first combo should get a bonus in the transition mark but should not be considered as an enhancing feature to that combo since the jumps were really bad and deserved – GOE . IMO, the bonus for difficult entries should be given only to the well executed elements.
As to you general question, I think that indeed this is COP biggest problem: it still hasn’t found the right formula for rewarding both quality and difficulty and execution. If there’s no quality how much the difficulty should matter? If there’s no difficulty, how much execution and quality should matter since obviously it easier to execute very well less difficult elements?
The 6.0 system was quite logical from this point of view: firstly, the judges classified the skaters according to the quality of their basic skating, then the skaters from the same ”quality” class were again classified according to the difficulty of their programs and then, for skaters from the same class of quality and difficulty, the execution was the deciding factor.
It is a myth that under 6.0 all that mattered were the jumps. Do you remember the Chinese skater, Min Zhang , the first skater to land a 4T in the SP (in 1999!) and who had both a 4 T and a 4 S ? Well, despite difficulty he never ever was considered to be a threat to the top skaters who had less difficult attempted jump content.
So, IMO, difficulty is important only if a certain standard of quality is reached.
And for skaters of same quality and who attempt the same difficulty, like Dai or Pattrick or Kozuka, the execution should be the deciding factor but this does not happen because the attempts are also rewarded.
Giving zero credit for falls will not be only fair but will also make the competition much more exciting which is what figure skating needs.

 

[ImaginaryPogue]

I see where we disagree now. We don't disagree on much. We both think that transitions are overvalued. You feel that the omnipresence of transitions helping GOE is wrong. I feel that the presence of a component score for transitions is too much. We both think that carriage is undervalued relative to transitions. I'd like to see more explicit valuing of carriage in interpretation and execution.

However, you think that only well executed elements deserve the transition bonus should they be applied. I disagree. Why? Doing a transition into an element makes it harder. That should be considered regardless of the quality. If the quality is so bad that it doesn't deserve positive GOE, then it shouldn't make up for it entirely, but it should be considered. Another analogy: I wouldn't lower the base value for an element because it wasn't done well because base value is for difficulty. Look at a transition like that. It ups the difficulty.

 

[gkelly]

I see where we disagree now. We don't disagree on much. We both think that transitions are overvalued. You feel that the omnipresence of transitions helping GOE is wrong. I feel that the presence of a component score for transitions is too much.

And as a third point of view I think that transitions should be valued in both places if and only if they contribute positively in both places.

If the difficult entry or exit from an element, or direct connection between two elements, adds to the difficulty or quality of the element, then I want to see it rewarded in the GOE. If the element has problems that need to be penalized with negative GOE, then the presence of an extra transitional move before or after shouldn't outweigh the necessary GOE reduction -- at best it could be a deciding factor if a judge feels the element was borderline between, say, -1 and -2.

But in general, I want to see programs full of interesting skating in between the elements, not just crossovers-jump-crossovers-jump-crossovers-spin, etc. The Transitions component is a place to reward/encourage appropriate content between the elements and to reward difficult and/or well-executed "elements" that aren't part of the scale of values (e.g., non-listed jumps, spread eagles, etc.).

Just considering transitions under Skating Skills won't do it because there are some skaters (Plushenko and Phaneuf come to mind) who show high quality in their crossovers and should be rewarded for that but who really don't do very much else besides crossovers between the elements.

However, just throwing in a bunch of extra stuff without purpose and without quality should be penalized under Choreography if indeed it leads to ineffective choreography.

We both think that carriage is undervalued relative to transitions. I'd like to see more explicit valuing of carriage in interpretation and execution.

I'm not sure how carriage fits in to interpretation. Can you explain what you mean there?

I do think carriage is also rewarded in several places. Poor carriage (breaking at the waist, "pumping," etc.) while stroking would reduce the Skating Skills score. Good carriage and extension on jump landings can increase the GOE (or the opposite for bent-over landings). Strong positions in spins and spirals can increase the GOE (or the opposite). And of course it's a major criterion in the Performance/Execution criterion.

The exact formula for how much it matters probably varies from judge to judge and from skater to skater depending how salient their carriage is (good or bad) among all the other qualities of the skating.

We could write a formula to instruct judges how to weight all the disparate criteria currently listed under Performance/Execution. Or we could separate that component into two, with one consisting solely of Carriage, Clarity of movement, and Extension. That could clarify the role of these criteria even more, in the same way that separate components clarify distinctions more than the old single Presentation score.

But you'd still get some skaters where the carriage really stands out, positively or negatively, and drives the judges' perception of the whole program, and other skaters where it's just pretty good so judges' attention is more focused on other criteria.

 

[mskater93]

Was this question addressed to me?

No, I would be much happier if the Olympic champion landed a quad, a quad combo and a couple of triple Axels. (Not sure I understand the question.)



In the short program

Yagudin did 4T+3T, 3A, 3Lz (1st)
Honda did 4T+3T, 3A, 3Lz (2nd)
Goebel did 4S+3T, 3A, 3F (3rd)
Plushenko did 4T (fall), 3A, 3Lz (4th)

What's the question?

(The only possible objection is that maybe Plushenko robbed Alexander Abt who did 4T+3T, 3A, 3Lz (UR). But they had to hold Plushenko up at least to fourth just in case Yagudin faltered in the long.)

Then Plushenko skated cleanly and properly took second in the long, beating Goebel for the silver on factored placements. Just as it should be. :yes:

I believe that the CoP is unfriendly to quads in general, no matter how they tinker with the base values. The CoP discourages and penalizes long set-ups for jumps, it discourages and penalizes resting between vigorous elements, and on the program component side it rewards exhausting frenzy of footwork and transitions and correspondingly devalues the gentle side of choreography and interpretation.

Yes, it was directed to you. Of course, you want a skater who can do it all cleanly as champion, but what if there isn't one that has everything and is clean or the one with the hardest difficulty has crappy skating skills? As we saw in the last quadrenium, a lot of men ditched attempting quads because the risk-reward value proposition wasn't worth it. As it was, there was HUGE outcry that the Olympic Champion didn't attempt a quad and that at least 2 of the World Champion programs didn't contain quads. Now that the scores are up further for quads and the risks (- GOEs) are lightened, men are again trying them. Some are willing to forgoe the transition score in the first 20 or so seconds to set up a quad of some flavor when they can make that score up later. If the risk is too high (visible mistake = 0 points), people will back down their technical content to the least risky that will score the most points. So, let's use "Skater A" as an example with this. Before last year, let's say "Skater A" had not attempted a quad in competition and 3A was incredibly inconsistent when it counted. He had a lot of other things that ARE rewarded going for him, however, such as step sequences, transitions, and spins. So, let's say with the visible mistakes = no points scenario, Skater A removes the 3A from his programs (because he is only 50% in practice on them) and replaces them with a very reliable 2A that gains positive GOEs and Skater A gets huge PCS marks because he's a lovely skater, has great transitions and choreography. Skater A ends up on the podium at Worlds never even attempting a 3A (a "staple" of men's skating) or quad of any flavor due in either program to his risk proposition. This satisfies your demand for clean programs being on the podium but is the result of a World medalist without a 3A or quad what you are really looking for?

For the second question, Plushenko DID fall in the SP and was held up ahead of Abt who had the same planned content and was (visibly) clean. Do you think Goebel should have been ahead of Plushenko overall based on the fact that he was clean across both programs while Plushenko had a fall, even though a lot of Goebel's other content (beyond his ability to rotate in the air) was lacking? My point is, you can't have it both ways. Either the cleanest program finishes highest or the best skater with a mistake or two finishes highest. By allowing that Plushenko SHOULD have been 2nd overall ahead of Goebel even though Goebel had no fall and Plushenko did, you are contradicting your requirements.

 

[Bluebonnet]

That's the part I can't go along with. I can dare to try a quad and fall. In fact just this morning I did a truly specular fall off my front porch, daring to try to shovel some snow. I'm not sure I got in all the rotations, but the point is -- the snow is still there.

What if a skater dares to try a quad but pops it into a double? Is he eligible to win the championship?

The idea of awarding points for "trying unsuccessfully" is what this whole discussion is about. It diminishes the sporting aspect of the discipline (so says the author of the article under view).

Math, I hope you are alright after that fall! I assume you are because you wrote it hilariously. You dared to try and yes, you deserved affectionate praises and a cup of hot coffee or tea handed to you from your loved ones. If you didn't go out to shovel the snow, you'd probably need to pour yourself a cup of coffee and no praise from anyone. I'm quite sure that you have never planned to make certain rotations. Otherwise, you would have made it. It is much more heroic, even with a fall, and even before you finish shoveling all the snow you've supposed to shovel off, than staying in the house and sitting by the fire with a blanket on the lap.

I think a planned quad attempt popped into double would be actually a double, not a quad.

 

[Mathman]

This satisfies your demand for clean programs being on the podium but is the result of a World medalist without a 3A or quad what you are really looking for?

I think there is a misunderstanding here. It is not a requirement that the skater goes clean. Just that he gets no credit for those attempted elements on which he was not successful.

This is not too much different from what we have now. Hit your quad, you get a pile of points. Under-rotate and fall on your quad, you get one or two points. You can still win, its just that you don't get much credit for that element.

For the second question, Plushenko DID fall in the SP and was held up ahead of Abt who had the same planned content and was (visibly) clean. Do you think Goebel should have been ahead of Plushenko overall based on the fact that he was clean across both programs while Plushenko had a fall, even though a lot of Goebel's other content (beyond his ability to rotate in the air) was lacking?

I think the event was properly scored. Plushenko fell in the short program and was properly placed behind both Goebel and Honda as a result.

As for Abt, I am a little bit undecided, but the judges thought that the quality of Plushenko's skating was enough better than Abt's that they gave Plushenko the nod despite the fall. (Abt also wash't squeaky clean; he under-rotaed his Lutz and had a weak landing.)

Either the cleanest program finishes highest or the best skater with a mistake or two finishes highest. By allowing that Plushenko SHOULD have been 2nd overall ahead of Goebel even though Goebel had no fall and Plushenko did, you are contradicting your requirements.

My proposal is that if a skater falls on an element then he should receive no credit for that element. He can still win if he scores higher in total points than the other guy.

Think of a quad as being like a quadruple somersault in the sport of trapeze. The flyer has a perfect release, just at the top of the arc. His rotations in the air are of exceptional quality. Too bad he missed the trapeze at the end of the element.

But here is my main beef about the CoP. I think that its designers and promoters, like Dr. Frankenstein, have fallen in love with their own creation. If you turn 79.2 degrees to the left, you get 49 hundredths of a point. If you do it with you finger in your ear you get 59 hundredths. I think every sport needs that "do or die, no guts no glory, thrill of victory/agony of defeat" aspect to it.

Partial credit takes it in the opposite direction. Instead of do or die you have relative degrees of being sick.

 

[Violet Bliss]

Is there a difference between falling before or at the beginning of snow shoveling and after the snow has been cleared? Mathman could have realized how slippery the porch was and aborted the heroic attempt early thus avoiding any fall. Or he might not even bother to begin with.

How many hero points and how much hot beverage would Mathman deserve from various scenarios? Mrs M might be upset at any fall, which caused a commotion from the neighbors, and decide he deserved nothing if he fell. Would she be more upset that he never even wanted to shovel the snow? OTOH, she might reward him according to how much snow had been cleared before the fall, with extra cookies for a good shoveling job done without any fall causing troubles for her to deal with.

 

[mskater93]

My proposal is that if a skater falls on an element then he should receive no credit for that element. He can still win if he scores higher in total points than the other guy.

Think of a quad as being like a quadruple somersault in the sport of trapeze. The flyer has a perfect release, just at the top of the arc. His rotations in the air are of exceptional quality. Too bad he missed the trapeze at the end of the element.

But here is my main beef about the CoP. I think that its designers and promoters, like Dr. Frankenstein, have fallen in love with their own creation. If you turn 79.2 degrees to the left, you get 49 hundredths of a point. If you do it with you finger in your ear you get 59 hundredths. I think every sport needs that "do or die, no guts no glory, thrill of victory/agony of defeat" aspect to it.

Partial credit takes it in the opposite direction. Instead of do or die you have relative degrees of being sick.

But if you get no points for something, the risk-reward benefit skews towards the "not trying it at all" side if it's not near 100%. Currently, the quad-fall risk-reward is worth enough points for the men to be trying it. Between 2007 and 2010, the risk was too great (and a lot of these same skaters are still skating now, so it's not that there's a WHOLE new crop of skaters) and many dropped the attempt from the program. The reward-risk went up so these same skaters are back to trying it and have varying degrees of success. If it was worth zero for a fall, and you didn't land it 99/100 in practice (which watching these guys, no one seems to be able to except Plushenko), you would likely drop it from your program for something more reliable that you WOULD gain points for. After all, you of all people should know, that IJS is a MATH game.

 

[Bluebonnet]

I think every sport needs that "do or die, no guts no glory, thrill of victory/agony of defeat" aspect to it.

It seems that we want the same thing!

At 2010 Olympics, Takahashi did 4F but fell. Many thought it was a class act and heroic compared with Lysacek's play-safe strategy and were willing to give Takahashi the gold instead of a clean Lysacek.

To give zero credit on a jump attempt, especially the hardest jump, is to discourage the attempt. If the jumps were the only elements which would be counted, it might be OK. But since there are a lot of ways besides jumps which skaters could use to build up scores, it's not OK to do that.

Your way, I think, would reward the front runners if they do it right, or would punish the best, the most gutsy skaters the most.

 

[Mathman]

Here is a test case. Spins, steps, program components, etc., are equal.

Skater A

4T (fall)
4T+SEQ (fall)
3A
3A+SEQ (fall)
3Lz+3T
3F
3L
3S

Skater B

3A
3Lz+3T
3Lz
2A+half loop+3F
3F
3L
2A+2L+2T
3S

Who wins?

To emphasize the difference, let's leave out the five jumps that both skaters did. The remaining three passes are

A: 4T (fall), 4T+SEQ (fall), and 3A+SEQ (fall).

B: 3Lz, 2A+half-loop+4F, and 2A+2Lo+2T