Does anyone miss the "old" judging system?

[4everchan]

i do not miss it at all the sport is more exciting and allowing people like P/C to come from outside the top 10 to WC over a season...

However, it needs tweaking... both in TES and PCS department

 

[Li'Kitsu]

Coming from someone who only started watching figure skating with the CoP system... I don't feel that the 6.0 was all that easier to understand or more intuitive. Why is a 5.7 better to understand than a 125? As somebody who doesn't know the sport, I don't know why either number is what it is. You just agree or don't agree with the standings at the end.
Maybe it's just the way my brain works, but I have a better grip on what an IJS score means than what a 6.0 score meant. Or maybe it's just that most think the system they got to know first is the more intuitive one

As for how the programs are influenced by the system... 6.0 programs are different from CoP systems. But I wouldn't say either are generally better than the others - there are some master pieces, there are a lot which... aren't.

 

[Interspectator]

i do not miss it at all the sport is more exciting and allowing people like P/C to come from outside the top 10 to WC over a season...

However, it needs tweaking... both in TES and PCS department

A few Years ago in Artistic Gymnastics, Judges noticed that Vault scores were getting ridiculously high, due to the advancements in the field technically, so one year, they slashed the D (tech) scores by 1 point across the board.
Eventually, such an action may be needed for the advancing PCS scores in Figure skating? There will be riots in the fandom, but they are getting out of control.

 

[Blades of Passion]

Coming from someone who only started watching figure skating with the CoP system... I don't feel that the 6.0 was all that easier to understand or more intuitive. Why is a 5.7 better to understand than a 125?

Because everyone can understand that 5.7 is 3 marks off from a perfect score of 6.0. Everyone can immediately see the judge thought the skater did "very good, but not amazing", whereas '125' means nothing to most people.

 

[TheGrandSophy]

I think from the view of scoring (rather than programmes) not much has changed in understanding for the casual fan. Yes, they may have got the visceral thrill of seeing a 6.0 or the disappointment of seeing a 5.2, but no one really understood why those marks were given. And the marks may be different, but that still is the same now.

Until a mini, comprehensible version of a protocol can flash up on the screen after a skate and commentators actually spend 30 secs stating the highlights, not much will change. For example, have every element come up with green, amber or red next to it to symbolise GOE in a very visual way.

 

[sses1]

The only thing I miss from 6.0 is some of the choreography that we got to see and thats pretty much it. Watching 6.0 programs can be a bit boring for me because the technical side isn't as exciting as it now. Of course there are exceptions, but for the most part IJS has given us better spins, better lift positions (dance/pairs), and of course better jump layouts. There's still an issue with misjudging that the ISU should really fix but I don't buy into this whole myth that the artistry is now gone. Not every single skater in 6.0 times was artistically competent and now its even harder to hone you're artistic qualities but there are still many skaters who are beautiful to watch.

 

[thedybbuk]

I in general am fine with the current system. I do however believe there is truth in people saying it's hard to understand. For comparison, I find the open ended code in gymnastics pretty easy to understand. Each skill has a base value, putting skills together creates combination bonuses, everything is added together to create a difficulty score. Execution is then scored out of a 10, and voila, the two scores are easily combined and you have a total score. Anyone can pretty easily understand it in literally a few minutes. Skating by comparison you definitely have to put some work into understanding, and I imagine a lot of people are scared off by that.

 

[Mathman]

I think that the current scoring system has succeeded in making figure skating more like all other sports.

Be careful what you ask for.

 

[el henry]

I think that the current scoring system has succeeded in making figure skating more like all other sports.

Be careful what you ask for.

:agree:

But *I* didn't ask for it, I don't want figure skating to be more like a "sport", for that I will watch Chip Kelly do whatever the heck he's doing to the Iggles, thank you very much. I miss the East German judge and his 5.4 to 5.5s

 

[NorthernDancers]

I think from the view of scoring (rather than programmes) not much has changed in understanding for the casual fan. Yes, they may have got the visceral thrill of seeing a 6.0 or the disappointment of seeing a 5.2, but no one really understood why those marks were given. And the marks may be different, but that still is the same now.

Until a mini, comprehensible version of a protocol can flash up on the screen after a skate and commentators actually spend 30 secs stating the highlights, not much will change. For example, have every element come up with green, amber or red next to it to symbolise GOE in a very visual way.

I agree with this. And it's really not that hard to explain the new system to audiences. Some of our commentators in Canada have been doing a pretty good job. The most fundamental difference between the old system and the new system is the fact that the old system was about ordering and ranking 1 skater or team against the others. There was always "saving room" for the final flight. But the new system is about giving points for what is done on the ice, and the person or team with the most points wins. Judges and tech specialists are not choosing a winner, or 1 skater over another, but simply giving credit for the skating, and the points determine the winner. A judge or tech specialist wouldn't know the winner or understand the ranking until the end of the event. As for the marks themselves, a quick run down before an event - maybe 5 mins or 10 mins of a broadcast - to explain what the judges and tech specialists are looking for, and then the commentators help explain how the skater or team measured up to these high level goals would be more than sufficient. For example, it is helpful when someone like Kurt explains why a quad jump still gets points when a skater falls, or why a program that included a fall on a quad scored higher than a much simpler but "clean" program. The slow motion in the step sequence in dance while the scores are being tallied, with a good commentator who understands dance, can show really clearly what are good, clean crisp edges, matching depth of edges, lines, etc. vs not so good quality, or when one partner is out of sync or on flat edges, and therefore the edge doesn't count. It's really not that difficult. People will understand this. A little substance with the fluff when commentating goes a long way.

There is no question that programs today are generally more technical and difficult than under 6.0. That's a good thing for the sport. Generally the results are more fair. And it's possible to redeem oneself in the free after "bombing" in the short. (ie. Mao at the Olympics. Could have helped Kurt or Michelle back in the day.) And ice dance is infinitely better under the new system. I don't think the lack of artistry has as much to do with the system itself as the creativity and capability of the skaters/teams. The demands are much greater, and focus is on the technical elements first. Then there can be artistry. Virtue/Moir demonstrated beautifully that there can be dance in ice dance, not just tricks set to music. But as simple as it looks, it is actually incredibly difficult to combine the technical demands with all the little nuances and musicality. It takes incredible connection, understanding of music, and level of comfort with the technical demands. You have to really know how to twizzle before you can add speed differential and move between crouching and reaching in the middle of twizzles, all to match the change in dynamic of the music. Most teams are happy to just make the twizzles work to get a level 4. And right now there are not enough judges who really understand dance, or really want to judge PCS as the rules designed. PCS is in practice more like the old 6.0 ranking system right now, than following what the rules of the system were set out to do. And there's not enough reward for the combination of great technical with innovative artistry. Virtue/Moir were examples of that fact. And same with the results of last year's worlds. It bothers me a great deal to still hear that someone should be given greater credit because of "music choice" or "it's their turn" or elusive "reputation". None of that should have anything to do with results (unless music choice is about making sure the music matches the prescribed rhythm). I have hopes we will eventually get past this, and creativity will come back as PCS is properly rewarded.

 

[Mathman]

The most fundamental difference between the old system and the new system is the fact that the old system was about ordering and ranking 1 skater or team against the others... But the new system is about giving points for what is done on the ice, and the person or team with the most points wins.

That is what is wrong with the new system, IMHO. It takes a judged sport and tries to pretend that it is not.

 

[drivingmissdaisy]

That is what is wrong with the new system, IMHO. It takes a judged sport and tries to pretend that it is not.

That's an interesting point. Under 6.0, judges are picking placements whereas under IJS the judges are assessing factors. I prefer the latter because it forces the judge to examine each element. Under 6.0, it was more about the impression of the program and judges often overlooked shaky landings and poor spins if the overall presentation was strong.

 

[cl2]

Because everyone can understand that 5.7 is 3 marks off from a perfect score of 6.0. Everyone can immediately see the judge thought the skater did "very good, but not amazing", whereas '125' means nothing to most people.

6.0 doesn't allow the audience to compare how much better one skater is than another. Imagine that Skaters A, B, C got awarded score 5.6, 5.7, 5.8. Is Skater B better than A by the same amount that Skater C is better than B? Not necessary; all it says is that they are all "very good, but not amazing" and that the judges have to figure out a way to rank them using real numbers up to 1 decimal point. If Skater D comes along and should be placed between Skaters A and B, then oops, 5.65 isnt' allowed. That, IMHO, sounds completely arbitrary.

OTOH, if Skater E, F, G score 125, 135, 145 in IJS, we know that Skater F is better than E by the same amount that Skater G is better than F. That is completely clear as day.

 

[thedybbuk]

I also see the point about skating not being a perfectly neutral, quantifiable sport, so a neutral, quantifiable judging system doesn't fit perfectly. To compare to gymnastics again, I think this kind of judging mostly works. It's pretty easy to see if someone is objectively better than someone else on vault: they go higher, further, their legs are together, etc. So that kind of system works, and is understandable by the average fan who puts the slightest work into understanding it.

Skating however is more difficult. I think you can probably be neutral about judging things like jumps. Hanyu's 3A is clearly and obviously better than just about anyone else's, for instance. But it's everything else. How are things like skating skills or interpretation be evaluated in a neutral, logical manner that anyone can understand? They're not quite tangible. Some people would argue SS are tangible and understandable, but the fact people on here have arguments about who had good SS and who doesn't says it's not quite. So almost everything else besides jumps, and possibly even them sometimes, struggles with this. I also see the point from a regular fan's perspective, the current system isn't really that much more illuminative than the 6.0 system. If it's not clear what's behind the numbers, they're still basically abstract rankings.

With all that said, I still don't really support going back to 6.0. But I agree the system should be improved and made easier to understand. How, I don't know.

 

[Mathman]

That's an interesting point. Under 6.0, judges are picking placements whereas under IJS the judges are assessing factors. I prefer the latter because it forces the judge to examine each element. Under 6.0, it was more about the impression of the program and judges often overlooked shaky landings and poor spins if the overall presentation was strong.

To me it's a question of honesty. I think the CoP tries to hoodwink people into thinking that if a performance gets 129.47 points, then by gum this performance is worth 129.47 points. Not, for instance 129.46 points. Thus figure skating is a "real sport" just like horse racing, where your horse ran the route in 1 minute 29.47 seconds. (Which really is true in horse racing -- he did.)

Under ordinal judging, one skater wins because 6 out of the 9 judges gave that skater a first place ordinal. Thus is the exact 100% truth.

It is the difference between measuring a quantity and judging a quality.

 

[MaxSwagg]

I was doing some "fun" stuff some weeks ago, like scaling the technical elements based on 6.0. Like:

4A: 6.0
4F: 5.0
4T: 4.0

3A: 3.4
3Lz: 2.4
3T: 1.7

2A: 1.3

etc.

So then there's a "start value" for the technical mark, the sum of all the technical elements and divide by some factor. Then deductions are taken from that, so you have something like a typical Yuzu short program marked out of 5.9. Anyway, just so it's scaled towards 6.0.

 

[Mathman]

6.0 doesn't allow the audience to compare how much better one skater is than another.

TRhat is the whole point of ordinal judging. The responsibility is to decide which skater was best, which second best, etc. That's it. Simplicity itself

Imagine that Skaters A, B, C got awarded score 5.6, 5.7, 5.8. Is Skater B better than A by the same amount that Skater C is better than B? Not necessary; all it says is that they are all "very good, but not amazing" and that the judges have to figure out a way to rank them using real numbers up to 1 decimal point. If Skater D comes along and should be placed between Skaters A and B, then oops, 5.65 isnt' allowed. That, IMHO, sounds completely arbitrary.

It is completely arbitrary. The 5.7s, etc., are mnemonic devices to help the judges decide ordinal placement when there are a large number of skaters.

The problem that you mention of three skaters scored in a row is why judges always "leave room" for later skaters to insert themselves into the ordered list (or at the top as the case my be). With first marks, second marks, and tie breakers to play with, this is not a problem for experienced judges.

OTOH, if Skater E, F, G score 125, 135, 145 in IJS, we know that Skater F is better than E by the same amount that Skater G is better than F. That is completely clear as day.

The same in quantity of points. To me, the question of quality has been left behind -- or at least has been diluted by filtering it through an artificial and arbitrary math grid.

 

[cl2]

TRhat is the whole point of ordinal judging. The responsibility is to decide which skater was best, which second best, etc. That's it. Simplicity itself



It is completely arbitrary. The 5.7s, etc., are mnemonic devices to help the judges decide ordinal placement when there are a large number of skaters.

The problem that you mention of three skaters scored in a row is why judges always "leave room" for later skaters to insert themselves into the ordered list (or at the top as the case my be). With first marks, second marks, and tie breakers to play with, this is not a problem for experienced judges.



The same in quantity of points. To me, the question of quality has been left behind -- or at least has been diluted by filtering it through an artificial and arbitrary math grid.

I understand it is essentially an ordinal system. What I don't understand is why apologists for the 6.0 system wax about it being easy to understand "because 5.7 means such and such". As you pointed out, 5.7 was probably more a mnemonic device. The if you shuffle the same skater's start order, their scores would be different! A "perfect" performance that came before 5 other skaters might be awarded 5.8, whereas an identical performance that was skated last would have gotten 6.0 because it brought the house down and judges were riding on the atmosphere. Further, this relies even more heavily on prior assumption of the skaters' abilities. Remember that discussion about judges being Bayesian statisticians? The 6.0 judge certainly had to be staunch Bayesians with very strong priors, to work the system!

 

[Sam-Skwantch]

I barely remember 6.0 and wasn't really tuned in or old enough to understand it but I remember the drama when certain judges would lowball a skater and people would boo and my parents would say things like "that judge from England isn't even watching". It was actually quite fun and back then the judges were the bad guys and it seemed the skaters were always victims of scoring. Now it seems like I'm watching a U.S. Congressional hearing and all the good stuff is classified and people harp on the skaters for their scores.

 

[silverfoxes]

No, I don't miss 6.0 at all, but I wish there were more flexibility in COP, esp. for the free skate. And I wish the PCS criteria would be revamped somewhat with more clarity. There's never going to be a perfect system, because whoever's skater "wuzrobbed" is always going to find fault with the marks. It happened before and it will always continue to happen.

Or they could just make the judges superfluous and let the tv audience vote like they do on The Voice or DWTS, since everyone on the forums thinks they are better at judging than the judges are.