What kind of rubs me the wrong way, if we say that Michelle won 162.33 to 161.84, is that this gives the illusion that we have measured the two performances to greater accuracy than in fact we have.
No biggie.
Well, this is sort of the explanation of why I find it hard to be interested in competitive skating any more -- I didn't care for the 6.0 system, but I really HATE this aspect of the new system. In a close finish, I end up wondering if the winner is even the person the judging panel, as a whole, really thought should have won. Honestly, as the judges are going along, marking TES (let's see, is that a -1, a 0 or a +1 ...) and then, what, a half dozen or more presentation categories (hmmm, is that a 7.25 or a 7.3 for skating skills, and should it be a 7.75 or a 7.85 for whatever and whatever and whatever), they are not supposed to COMPARE to others, are they? Isn't the idea that they are simply quantifying THIS PARTICULAR performance, not comparing it to others (so there's no "leaving room" or anything antiquated like that -- simply hey, Skater A had a 7.25 level of skating skills in this program, and a 7.15 level of transitions, etc. -- NOT that Skater A had a 7.25 level of skating skills in comparison to Skater B, who had a 7.15 level of skating skills).
So, as the judges frantically try to quantify THIS PARTICULAR performance with a dozen or more scores for this element and that skill, do they really know what their SCORE for Skater A in relation to their SCORE for Skaters B and C? Are they trying to give first place to the skater they feel deserves first place (which was what 6.0 did -- you give the skater you felt should win your first-place ordinal, through whatever machinations you have to, and second-place ordinals to the skater you feel should finish second, etc.) or just trying to quantify one performance without any type of comparing with other performances? If you ARE trying to do that, then you don't really know who you are giving first place to -- you are independently looking at Skater A and giving what you think they deserve, and when you get to Skater K, you do the same thing, and deliberately try not to remember if you gave Skater G at 7.25 or Skater H a 7.15 or Skater B a 7.35 -- you just decide that this skater deserves, according to my thoughts, a 7.25 for skating skills. Or, are you comparing Skating K's skating skills to all the skaters before him, and trying to frantically figure out what you gave Skater B, who was a touch better than Skater K, and what you gave Skater G, who was not quite as good as Skater K, but WAS better than Skater H .... Honestly, what are these judges trying to do with all those marks? And when they've handed out all those marks, do we know -- heck, do THEY know -- if they gave first-place points to the skater they felt should be first? It appears that if it is done correctly, the judges wouldn't have any idea who they put in first or second or fifth or sixth -- they are simply touting up pluses and minuses for this or that and handing out random 7.25s or 8.35s or 6.55s or whatever. So when Michelle wins 184.15 to 183.95 over Lu, is that what the panel of judges MEANT to do, or is it just some random thing that doesn't reflect anything except it was close and this number got rounded up and that one got rounded down, so Michelle won. At least under 6.0, we KNOW that the majority of the panel of judges, say, in 1988, MEANT to put Brian Boitano first -- you can agree or disagree, but five of the judges knowingly put Boitano first and four knowingly put Orser second, so the gold went to the skater the judging panel overall decided should be the winner. Tiebreaks and such forsooth -- five judges said Boitano first, four said Orser first. Boitano win by a narrow concensus of the judging panel. Period).
But that is not the case with IJS. I may not trust the judges all that much, but that judging panel IS how figure skating is decided, and I'm not at all sure in close situations (or any situation, really, but especially the close ones) that the people we entrust to decide who wins and loses even know who THEY are putting in first as they hand out the scores. Do they KNOW that they've given Skater A .75 more points thant Skater B, or are they just handing out random marks and seeing where they fall? It drives me crazy to see this and feel like the people we've put in charge of deciding winners likely don't even know who they HAVE put as the winner unless they went into the event already deciding who they were going to put in first so they can knowingly award scores to that one skater that are higher than anything they have awarded previously or will award after. When someone wins a gold medal by .085, or misses the podium by .10, or a country loses a second or third skater for the following world championship because one of their skaters finished ninth rather than eighth by .005, it just drives me crazy. I KNOW that happened at times under 6.0, too, but at least that wasn't hyped as some mathematical formula that was going to give us a "real" winner, because we've quantified it and because this is a non-cheatable format. I just don't believe that any judge can go through all these scores and pluses and minuses for 20 or more skaters and really know, in real time, who they have in what position and by how much. And I think they SHOULD know that, because in one way or another, you really have to compare one performance to another in each different competition to come away with a winner who deserves to win THAT even.
And then there's the whole "non-cheatable" thing -- the format itself, especially combined with anonymous judging, is SO easy to cheat. So, what, you drop the high and low scores. So, even ONE judge wanting to try to skew things only has to give scores a LITTLE on the low side of what they think others will give -- they won't be out of line, just a little lower -- and that means any other low score automatically counts -- this judge doesn't even have to be in cahoots with anyone, just lowballs, a little, the skater he wants to hold down and highballs -- just a little - the skater(s) he wants to promote -- and even if his scores are both eliminated, it insures that all the lower scores (or higher scores) for the skaters will count, which, especially in a close event, can easily mean that the skater he wants will end up with .75 or .05 or whatever than the other skater, and end up finishing higher. It works the same way if you drop two highs and lows -- just highballing or lowballing the skaters you're trying to help or hurt makes sure that those skaters will have to count at least one higher or lower score, and you are "in line" enough that you never even get called on the carpet for it (if that even happens -- again, with the anonymous judging, who knows if the ISU is really policing this and trying to catch dishonest judging. I surely don't trust them to be doing it).
And we are all supposed to accept it because we can look at the protocols and say, well, they lost a few points here (don't know why Skater A's skating skills were 7.15 and Skater B's were 7.25, but since they were, and we have no idea which judge gave what, and hey, if this one judge gave a little lower than the others, well, it didn't count anyway), so that's why Skater A won.
And that's what I end up looking at when I watch competitions. All this quantifying and nitpicking and 7.25-ing are presented as a real, mathematical, non-cheatable way to arrive at the REAL outcome -- not some fake outcome like 6.0. But I'm seeing these people winning and losing and I have no confidence that the resulting order of finish had anything to do with what the judging panel saw or scored, because I don't know if even THEY know who they're putting in what position by how much. So my interest level in competitions has dropped a bunch -- I was all for a new judging system, but this one, to me, stinks, and leaves me looking for skating to watch that doesn't include the IJS.
I probably shouldn't post this because I know it's rambling and overlong, but I will, anyway. It's how I feel about this new system -- quite apart from the rather generic-looking programs we see and the backloading and the ugly looking spins (just because you CAN do it doesn't mean you SHOULD -- except, of course, if it will get you a level 4, and if it will, do it no matter how ugly it is) and the tick-it-off jumping passes, etc.
