Components from 5 to 3: has the change achieved its objectives?

[Anna K.]

Do you have any summer thoughts about it?

So, the reasons for the change were (quote from the online judge training video the link to which was kindly provided by @gkelly ):

Rationale for the Changes from 5 to 3 Components
Data confirms:
The judging of the 5 components did not clearly reflect quality execution of criteria.
The judging reflected an “average” of the different skills of the skater, including a positive bias towards the technical ability of skaters performing elements of greater difficulty.
Components marks were strongly influenced by previous results and by the starting order of the skaters.

Apparently to solve these issues, there were introduced the current

Three distinct components
Each component mark allows a judge to evaluate a particular aspect of skating.
Composition: How the program is designed in relation to the musical structure.
Presentation: How the program is performed in relation to music.
Skating skills: How the technique of skating and of movement has been executed.
Combined, program components reflect the artistic and choreographic aspects of the program and the technique of the skater.

More detailed table of current components here in the ISU Handbook for skating rules or at about 1.47 of the above video.

So, the change has been invented. But has it solved any of the issues?

 

[ladyjane]

I don't think so. There is still a positive bias towards the technical ability of skaters (high TES leads automatically to higher PCS) except for Jason Brown who now gets the PCS he deserves. I think this last would also be achieved with 5 scores though!

 

[kolyadafan2002]

I don't see how this has changed at all from 5 to 3:

Each component mark allows a judge to evaluate a particular aspect of skating

 

[Anna K.]

I don't see how this has changed at all from 5 to 3:

Each component mark allows a judge to evaluate a particular aspect of skating

From the above video, I got an impression that nothing was changed intrinsically about judging (I believe the lecturer even said so directly) and the whole point was to rearrange and optimize the previous 5 components. So I'm guessing the rationale was to optimize and simplify the work that judges were already doing - with hope that it would lead to better quality of PCS judging.

 

[icewhite]

I think there has indeed been better judging of PCS. It is still often very wrong, but there has been an improvement this season in comparison to other recent seasons, especially the last one. More people with significantly good PCS skills have been rewarded a bit more for that. But is that improvement due to the change to 3 components? I don't know. Actually I don't think so, but I can't prove it. I would think that there has been a prompt to judge differently, give a bit more weight to PCS, a bit more independently from the jump content. My intuition says that the "retirement" of Chen and even more the absence of the Russians also play a role, and also that it is a post olympic season. They had been building these major stars with their extreme jump content - the only one who can provide that right now on an international level is basically Malinin, but he is very inconsistent and tends to underrotate easier jumps, "same" with Grassl, who has an extreme repertoire, but doesn't tend to jump it consistenly clean. Left is Shoma, who, with all his faults, is at this point a very artistic skater, too, so his components don't really look too much just because of his jumps.
So they need new stars and push other fan favourites and at the moment those are mostly people who tend to be a bit more on the beautiful side. Also, the Russians, who have been advocating a focus on jumps for two decades now, may have lost some power behind the scenes in general.
That's all just speculation and personal opinion, though.
The change seems real, but there is still a heavy bias especially based on earlier results and warm up groups. Is is unqualified judges or deliberate? I don't know.
What makes me think that it is not about the change of component numbers is that for instance Malinin at the WC got a composition score of 7.89, presentation 8.18 and skating skills 8.25 for the free skate. I would think that his skating skills, in comparison, should not be the best of his components, his composition score not the weakest. Aymoz got C: 8.96, P: 9.29, SS: 9. I think his skating skills are divine, while his presentation, especially in this competition, is great, but not on the same level. I could go on. People who know better may disagree and teach me, but the way I see it the individual components don't look accurate even in those cases where I agree with the overall PCS result. So the improvement doesn't seem to come from actual better understanding or judging of the components, imo.

 

[Minz]

I don't see how this has changed at all from 5 to 3:

Each component mark allows a judge to evaluate a particular aspect of skating

In fact, I feel like it has done the opposite. Now components are more 'grouped', rather than specific.

 

[yesterday]

Maybe with "specific" they meant that they want to get away from 5x same number. At the start it seemed to often be "3x same number" now maybe it's a bit more spread out now? A calc sheet on old PCS vs new could be interesting here.

 

[4everchan]

No.. the judges have also been caught giving over 9.5 for programs with falls... so MEH.

 

[Mathman]

I think I will miss the "Transitions" component. This was the only one of the five that could actually be evaluated in a somewhat quantitative and objective manner. How many distinct recognizable transitional moves did a skater do, and of what difficulty and quality. I think that this is the reason why Transitions always received the lowest marks of the five, usually about 0.5 points lower than the other four -- the judges could back up their opinions with demponstrable facts, rather than rely solely on artistic judgment (although they still had to evaluate the extent to which the transitions imformed the program as a whole.)

As for "composition" -- this is primarily the work of the choreographer, not the skater. Trying to jjudge how well the skater is able tp carry out the artistic intent of the choreogrphy is tricky. As is, "Did the skater succeed in matching his/her performance to the requirements of the music." This pair of components are is not really very different from 6.0 ordinal judging -- whose performance did you like the best, who was second best, etc.

 

[icewhite]

I think I will miss the "Transitions" component. This was the only one of the five that could actually be evaaluated in a somewhat quantitative and objective manner. How many distinct recognizable transitional moves did a skater do, and of what difficulty and quality. I think that this is the reason why Transitions always received the lowest marks of the five, usually about 0.5 points lower than the other four -- the judges could back up their opinions with demponstrable facts, rather than rely solely on artistic judgment (although they still had to evaluate the extent to which the transitions imformed the program as a whole.)

As for "composition" -- this is primarily the work of the choreographer, not the skater. Trying to jjudge how well the skater is able tp carry out the artistic intent of the choreogrphy is tricky. As is, "Did the skater succeed in matching his/her performance to the requirements of the music." This pair of components are is not really very different from 6.0 ordinal judging -- whose performance did you like the best, who was second best, etc.

I also miss the transitions most.

But it is not the only component where facts matter. It's just that everyone treats it that way. That whole word "artistry" - for PCS is already so wrong. If someone balances on a slack line without holding back, without wobbles, just going confidently from start to finish, that is not "artistry". It doesn't have much to do with creative work. It is sport, although it's not in-you-face-boxing stuff. Or if someone does a cartwheel and a split jump on a balance beam, that's not artistry. Or if you have to execute a choreography fast correctly. Those things require all the small muscles, especially in the foot area, balance, core strength, coordination etc. It is a misunderstanding that all these things that are judged in the PCS category are something like the expression of an artist.
There are also factors like speed and ice coverage - ice coverage for instance is part of the "composition" component, as is variety of movement - of course a good choreographer can help a lot to show your strengths and push your weaknesses more into the background - but in the end of the day the choreographer will always try to make you cover as much ice as you can, will let you do the biggest variety of steps and movements that you are capable of. The limit here is defined in a much lesser extent by the abilities of the choreographer as by those of the skater - if the skater is just unable to perform more complex content or with lesser speed, the choreopher cannot come up with a program that would likely win perfect 10s in composition.

 

[NaVi]

A long time ago I wrote Reimagining PCS Categories advocating rearranging the PCS categories. What I was after in that thread was deemphasizing transitions because I felt it distorted program construction. I was also after making the categories better as a teaching tool for the skaters to internalize. While I didn't say it at the time, I never really though fiddling with the PCS would actually improve judging in itself that much. But judging systems do more than score and rank, it actually helps create the boundaries of the programs that are created and it molds the skaters over the years they're judged by the system.

I didn't actually advocate moving to 3 components, but I thought that judges seemed to focus essentially on 3 categories when judging PCS: Skating Skills, Transitions, and then Performance/Composition/Interpretation as one. I linked to a thread which basically advocated to moving to those 3 PCS categories and there were a couple people in the thread I started that wanted the categories reduced. And 2 months later a working group was setup and they eventually went the direction of reducing the PCS components to Composition, Presentation, and Skating Skills.

Composition​	Presentation​	Skating Skills​
The intentional, developed and / or original arrangement of the repertoire of all types of movements into a meaningful whole according to the principles of proportion, unity, space, pattern and musical structure.	The demonstration of engagement, commitment and involvement based on an understanding of the music and composition.	The ability of the skater to execute the skating repertoire of steps, turns and skating movements with blade and body control.
Unity	Expressiveness & projection	Variety of edges, steps, turns, movements and directions
Connections between and within the elements	Variety and contrast of energy and of movements	Clarity of edges, steps, turns, movements and body control
Pattern and ice coverage	Musical sensitivity and timing	Balance and glide
Multidimensional movements and use of space	Unison, oneness and awareness of space (Pair Skating, Ice Dance, Synchronized Skating)	Flow
Choreography reflecting musical phrase and form		Power and speed

I think at the time when it was announced that I felt the change was good since it got rid of the transitions score but I kind of felt that Composition and Presentation would be too close to one another. But even with the later I felt that producing fewer numbers that were just winged by judges was still an improvement.

Here's what I"d do differently with 3 PCS categories with minimal changes. In general, I think there's a issue in figure skating in not focusing more on what makes figure skating unique as a performing art in comparison to other performing arts.

Construction​	Presentation​	Skating Skills​
	Expressiveness & projection	Variety of edges, steps, turns, movements and directions
Connections between and within the elements	Variety and contrast of energy and of movements	Clarity of edges, steps, turns, movements and body control
Pattern and ice coverage	Musical sensitivity and timing	Balance and glide
Multidimensional movements and use of space	Unison, oneness and awareness of space (Pair Skating, Ice Dance, Synchronized Skating)	Flow
Optional: Varied skating tempo	Choreography reflecting musical phrase and form	Power and speed

I don't like the practice of partly judging a figure skating program by evaluating the the idea(or intention) and then execution(or performance) separately. I don't think it's that helpful and I think this comes from choreographers/coaches wanting some kind of credit or cushion for performances that have issues.

The bullet point that really ruins the schema here is "Choreography reflecting musical phrase and form" being put in Composition. That bullet point alone will end up muddling the distinction with Presentation and will overpower the rest of the bullet points in Composition.

The 3rd PCS factor besides Presentation and Skating Skills should be focused on the technical aesthetic qualities wanted in figure skating programs that are mostly specific to figure skating rather than general to most performing arts. The generalized aesthetic qualities of the program should be put in Presentation. I'd give it a different name than "Composition". Maybe "Construction", "Formation", "Form", "Aesthetic Technique".

The "Unity" bullet point is put in there placate those who want programs seen holistically. I understand where they're coming from and it's good in theory but I think it has problems in practice.
1. Unity is the least definable bullet point. It's far easier to conceive and articulate "Connections between and within the elements", "Pattern and ice coverage", and "Multidimensional movements and use of space" than "Unity".
2. Unity has to be judged more retrospectively than the other bullet points which will cause the less definable bullet points to be devalued and masked over. Programs can specifically be made to manipulate that process to mask deficiencies.
3. Unity could be inferred from "Connections between and within the elements". Or as an overall program effect it could be part of "Presentation".
4. I also kind of feel like Unity could end up penalizing programs with stempo changes(especially if they're deemd too sharp) even though that is something that should be promoted in figure skating programs IMO.

I do think that something like "Varying skating temp" could be part of "Construction" but part of me thinks it should be kept simple with just 3 bullet points.

 

[icewhite]

A long time ago I wrote Reimagining PCS Categories advocating rearranging the PCS categories. What I was after in that thread was deemphasizing transitions because I felt it distorted program construction. I was also after making the categories better as a teaching tool for the skaters to internalize. While I didn't say it at the time, I never really though fiddling with the PCS would actually improve judging in itself that much. But judging systems do more than score and rank, it actually helps create the boundaries of the programs that are created and it molds the skaters over the years they're judged by the system.

I didn't actually advocate moving to 3 components, but I thought that judges seemed to focus essentially on 3 categories when judging PCS: Skating Skills, Transitions, and then Performance/Composition/Interpretation as one. I linked to a thread which basically advocated to moving to those 3 PCS categories and there were a couple people in the thread I started that wanted the categories reduced. And 2 months later a working group was setup and they eventually went the direction of reducing the PCS components to Composition, Presentation, and Skating Skills.

Composition​	Presentation​	Skating Skills​
The intentional, developed and / or original arrangement of the repertoire of all types of movements into a meaningful whole according to the principles of proportion, unity, space, pattern and musical structure.	The demonstration of engagement, commitment and involvement based on an understanding of the music and composition.	The ability of the skater to execute the skating repertoire of steps, turns and skating movements with blade and body control.
Unity	Expressiveness & projection	Variety of edges, steps, turns, movements and directions
Connections between and within the elements	Variety and contrast of energy and of movements	Clarity of edges, steps, turns, movements and body control
Pattern and ice coverage	Musical sensitivity and timing	Balance and glide
Multidimensional movements and use of space	Unison, oneness and awareness of space (Pair Skating, Ice Dance, Synchronized Skating)	Flow
Choreography reflecting musical phrase and form		Power and speed

I think at the time when it was announced that I felt the change was good since it got rid of the transitions score but I kind of felt that Composition and Presentation would be too close to one another. But even with the later I felt that producing fewer numbers that were just winged by judges was still an improvement.

Here's what I"d do differently with 3 PCS categories with minimal changes. In general, I think there's a issue in figure skating in not focusing more on what makes figure skating unique as a performing art in comparison to other performing arts.

Construction​	Presentation​	Skating Skills​
	Expressiveness & projection	Variety of edges, steps, turns, movements and directions
Connections between and within the elements	Variety and contrast of energy and of movements	Clarity of edges, steps, turns, movements and body control
Pattern and ice coverage	Musical sensitivity and timing	Balance and glide
Multidimensional movements and use of space	Unison, oneness and awareness of space (Pair Skating, Ice Dance, Synchronized Skating)	Flow
Optional: Varied skating tempo	Choreography reflecting musical phrase and form	Power and speed

I don't like the practice of partly judging a figure skating program by evaluating the the idea(or intention) and then execution(or performance) separately. I don't think it's that helpful and I think this comes from choreographers/coaches wanting some kind of credit or cushion for performances that have issues.

The bullet point that really ruins the schema here is "Choreography reflecting musical phrase and form" being put in Composition. That bullet point alone will end up muddling the distinction with Presentation and will overpower the rest of the bullet points in Composition.

The 3rd PCS factor besides Presentation and Skating Skills should be focused on the technical aesthetic qualities wanted in figure skating programs that are mostly specific to figure skating rather than general to most performing arts. The generalized aesthetic qualities of the program should be put in Presentation. I'd give it a different name than "Composition". Maybe "Construction", "Formation", "Form", "Aesthetic Technique".

The "Unity" bullet point is put in there placate those who want programs seen holistically. I understand where they're coming from and it's good in theory but I think it has problems in practice.
1. Unity is the least definable bullet point. It's far easier to conceive and articulate "Connections between and within the elements", "Pattern and ice coverage", and "Multidimensional movements and use of space" than "Unity".
2. Unity has to be judged more retrospectively than the other bullet points which will cause the less definable bullet points to be devalued and masked over. Programs can specifically be made to manipulate that process to mask deficiencies.
3. Unity could be inferred from "Connections between and within the elements". Or as an overall program effect it could be part of "Presentation".
4. I also kind of feel like Unity could end up penalizing programs with stempo changes(especially if they're deemd too sharp) even though that is something that should be promoted in figure skating programs IMO.

I do think that something like "Varying skating temp" could be part of "Construction" but part of me thinks it should be kept simple with just 3 bullet points.

That's a suggestion I could get behind.

However I feel talking about/changing the structure of the components hasn't addressed the real problems of judging and wouldn't do so if they were arranged in another way.

The real problems in my eyes lie with the way that judges are educated and especially how they are evaluated, and the way that psychological factors in judging prevail.
The change of the component number has happened due to the idea that judges are not able to see and process things in such a short amount of time. But the bigger problem is that they don't dare to trust their own eyes.
Most of the judging is done like it would be done by people who only have a superficial knowledge of the sport. Why that is so partly baffles be, since they get, as far as I know, extensive education on judging fs.
Much of this is then described as "politics", aka some sort of bribery, but I think improvement can only come from a change in the way that judges are held to account and rewarded for good and bad judging. Right now they get "punished" for scores which deviate from the average, in addition to the general human attempt to fit into a group, do what you think the others do. It is based on the idea that the average score must be the right score. In reality the group might be wrong and deviating from what has been given to this skater before, and what you think they are going to get, should be rewarded if it is correct. And people who judge incorrectly, albeit just as their peers, need to experience some kind of repercussions, if only another workshop.
I am also a bit of a fan of a challenge system, but that will likely never happen.

 

[Mathman]

In reality the group might be wrong...

I think that this problem is insoluble. The indevidual judge might be "wrong." The group (the majority of the judging panel) that is influential in deciding what is right or wrong, might itself be right or wrong. The ISU oversight committee that decides whether the individual marks are right or wrong might be right or wrong. The consensus of the figure skating community might be right or wrong. God, judging along, might be right or wrong.

 

[Diana Delafield]

As for "composition" -- this is primarily the work of the choreographer, not the skater. Trying to jjudge how well the skater is able tp carry out the artistic intent of the choreogrphy is tricky.

That's what I was about to ask. Isn't that more marking the choreographer, not the skater? I can see some choreographers getting more business, based on their programs getting consistently higher marks. The "intent" part might be based on intangibles like the skater having to favour an injury or illness on the day, or nerves, not on whether the program was wrong for them. My partner and I usually did serious or romantic programs just because I'd draw blanks in competition and concentrate so hard on remembering what came next that he had to keep hissing "Smile!" at me if we were using upbeat music.

 

[Mathman]

My major complaint about the 5 component system was that the three "artistic" components -- performance, choreography and interpretation -- were usually just one mark repeated three times. I don't recall ever seeing a skater receive rave marks for "musical interpration" and bad marks for "composition" or "performance."

@gkelly once enlightened me as follows: If you have two skaters who are pretty evenly matched, but you very slightly prefer one over the other, then you can give the first skater 8.75, 8.75 and 9.0, and give the second skater 8.75, 8.75 and 8.75. This allows the judging panel to squeeze in enough gradations to accommodate all skaters from beginners to world champions on a single scale, and at the same time allow the judges to actually judge: "In my judgment skater A and skater B were very close, but skater A was a tiny bit better."

In other words, ordinal judging thinly disguised as CoP judging.

I think it will be the same with new system. Points, schmoits, the judges willo continue to make judgments as they have throughout the history of competative skating.

 

[Regjohn1]

I much preferred the old system.

The judges scored the trees (technical elements), and the forest (program components)

We had 2 technical components (Skating Skills, Transitions),
and 3 Artistic components (Performance, Choreography Interpretation)

I would have renamed the components.

• Basic Skating
  • Overall skating quality including edge control and flow over the ice surface (edges, steps, turns, speed, etc.).
  • Patrick Chan Four Seasons, Carolina Kostner Piano Concerto No 23
• Transitions
  • The varied and intricate footwork, positions and movements that link all elements
  • Jason Brown Tristan & Iseult, Yu Na Kim Concerto in F
• Presentation
  • Create a unique image, or series of unique, memorable images in a program (a visual art, like living statuary).
  • Virtue & Moir Carmen, Toller Cranston Graduation Ball, Torville and Dean Paso Doble
• Composition
  • Tell a coherent story that viewers understand (a performance art, like theater).
  • Rudy Galindo's Swan Lake, Ross Miner's Boston Strong, Zhiganshina& Gaszi's Zombies, Julia Lipnitskaia's Schindler's List, Davis & White Samson & Delilah, Torville & Dean Mack and Mabel, Duchesnays Missing
• Musicality
  • Execute appropriate movements in time to the music that causes the viewer to better feel that music (a performance art, like dance).
  • Davis & White Bollywood, Berezhnaya & Sikharulidze Lady Caliph, Stephanie Rosenthal Robot, Shen & Zhao Turandot

 

[icewhite]

I much preferred the old system.

The judges scored the trees (technical elements), and the forest (program components)

We had 2 technical components (Skating Skills, Transitions),
and 3 Artistic components (Performance, Choreography Interpretation)

I would have renamed the components.

• Basic Skating
  • Mastery in use of figure skating blade
  • Patrick Chan Four Seasons, Carolina Kostner Piano Concerto No 23
• Transitions
  • Detailed movement in between individual elements
  • Jason Brown Tristan & Iseult, Yu Na Kim Concerto in F
• Presentation
  • Create a unique image, or series of unique, memorable images in a program (a visual art, like living statuary).
  • Virtue & Moir Carmen, Toller Cranston Graduation Ball, Torville and Dean Paso Doble
• Composition
  • Tell a coherent story that viewers understand (a performance art, like theater).
  • Rudy Galindo's Swan Lake, Ross Miner's Boston Strong, Zhiganshina& Gaszi's Zombies, Julia Lipnitskaia's Schindler's List, Davis & White Samson & Delilah, Torville & Dean Mack and Mabel, Duchesnays Missing
• Musicality
  • Execute appropriate movements in time to the music that causes the viewer to better feel that music (a performance art, like dance).
  • Davis & White Bollywood, Berezhnaya & Sikharulidze Lady Caliph, Stephanie Rosenthal Robot, Shen & Zhao Turandot

While I agree with your general sentiment I think your interpretation of the last 3 categories is very narrow and subjective. Why, for instance, is that what "composition" should always aim for? Not only theatre has returned from this understanding long ago.

 

[gkelly]

The Choreography now Composition component has always included words such as "intentional" or "purpose" in the definition.

Telling a story is one kind of purpose, appreciated and rewarded when present, but not the only one expected or allowed.

If we think in terms of other artforms, "composition" in space as well as over time are relevant not only to theatre but also to dance, live music performance, and visual art, as well as to figure skating. And the compositional principles involved are often more abstract in these other artforms.

One could argue that the use of the body in space is more relevant to skating than is storytelling, in terms of demonstrating mastery of the technique.

 

[Jontor]

No I don't think so. Judges still have the mentality to compare skaters with each other - just like in the 6.0 era. That means that the first couple of skaters is the benchmark and sets the standard for the others to come. It's hard to get high PCS marks if you skate early because judges feel they need "room" for later skaters. And then skaters in the last group always get higher PCS marks even if they don't deserve it.

This means that "reputation" is still a thing. And PCS scoring still reflects that.

 

[4everchan]

Refreshing in the next gen comp from Skate Canada, scores that varied a lot from one component to the other... Sometimes, it was harsh... for instance a judge giving 3.75 for composition and 5.25 to the same skater for skating skills (if I recall correctly) but I did like the fact that it seemed that some judges were able to properly assess strength and weaknesses within the 3 categories of components, which was very rarely done within with the former 5 component system... Now, that's just one event, a domestic competition... let's see if we get more and more of that...