Does anyone miss the "old" judging system?

[jace93]

Is it just me or half the people that want the 6.0 back just want an easier system to b***h about the scores/placements? 0_0

 

[TheGrandSophy]

In the 6.0 era, I recall ice dance being a complete procession most of the time. The judges obviously had an idea of order and stuck to it. When a couple retired, everyone moved up a place. I hated it. Whilst there are still flaws and there will always be disagreement to an extent because some of it is subjective, I prefer them judging what happens on the ice that competition.

 

[karne]

Is it just me or half the people that want the 6.0 back just want an easier system to b***h about the scores/placements? 0_0

Looks that way to me.

As a skater I prefer skating under IJS because I know where I lost the points. I know what I did right and wrong.

 

[icedinn]

Look at what ijs has done to pair skating. Hardly watchable anymore with the exception of a few teams. It's also pretty telling how back in the good ol days arenas would be packed. Even at b competions. Now the attendance is practically abysmal, except for a few countries who keep track (Japan, Russia, China, maybe Canada). But it could be a case of those places actually airing FS on T.V. Or it could be networks feel fans should just stream it on the web, because after all it is the "internet age"

 

[Rossig]

There were voices, that ice dance benefitted from IJS. I only partly agree with this statement. Probably IJS is more fair, and it’s easier to climb up rankings now even if you are a still young team, which I approve.
But imho the programs are much more boring now than they used to be. And they are so similar to each other (I'm sorry but in my opinion it also concerns Virtue and Moir who were mentioned in thise thread). Personally I’m fed up with watching twizzles in each of the program. It doesn’t matter if they suit the program, they have to be present.
And if I were to choose my top 10 FDs of all time, probably I would include just maximum 2 FDs from IJS era.

 

[Tutto]

I miss the old system a lot. As many things before, the IJS started with good intentions to bring more objectivity, clarity & fairness into FS, in reality it is not any fairer than the old one as judges still can do what they want by manipulating the numbers and even more comfortably so than before as they now can hide behind anonymity. Programs are boring. Points are everything. I wonder if the math lessons will be a part of training soon as the ability to process numbers quickly in one's head while skating the program is crucial. How anyone can expect artistic expression from a skater who frantically trying to figure out which jump/combination they can add here as not to lose the points?
How the audiences suppose to understand that Gracie despite two great programs at SA lost to a skater who fell and had a stumble? Funnily if Gracie had two falls on rotated triples instead of doubling them she would have won. Does it makes sense? not to me..

 

[Mathman]

Is it just me or half the people that want the 6.0 back just want an easier system to b***h about the scores/placements? 0_0

That is what was so great about the good old days. Everyone got to be a judge, and we were all experts.

Now we are cowed into silence. One skater got 125.29 points, the other skater got 126.96 points. Well, you can't argue with math.

As a skater I prefer skating under IJS because I know where I lost the points. I know what I did right and wrong.

I agree with this. The new system is better for the skaters, although not quite so much fun for the fans. In so far as figure skating is a participatory sport, the IJS is the way to go. But then we cannot be surprised that figure skating as a spectator sport has taken a hit in popularity.

 

[Interspectator]

That is what was so great about the good old days. Everyone got to be a judge, and we were all experts.

Now we are cowed into silence. One skater got 125.29 points, the other skater got 126.96 points. Well, you can't argue with math.



I agree with this. The new system is better for the skaters, although not quite so much fun for the fans. In so far as figure skating is a participatory sport, the IJS is the way to go. But then we cannot be surprised that figure skating as a spectator sport has taken a hit in popularity.

Ha ha, you can too! Otherwise, what's this Forum for?

 

[daphenaxa]

I don't miss it and I generally prefer the well done programs now than the ones from the past.
I feel there are lots of problems with the scores with the new system esp PCS wise but I feel that at least they are understandable criterias and such. 6.0 scores, I never understood what they stood for and how judges got to them.

 

[QuadThrow]

This thread is very nice.

I became a figure skating fan during the last years of the old system. And to be honest. The old system seems to be a little bit naive and childish. One mark for more than 10 elements and one mark for the whole presentation... and in addition the complicated awarding of the points as the result of the overall placement.

When I compare "old" to "new" programms I am so glad about the new system. Better choreography. More creativity. Greater and clearer jumps and throws. And no fixed ice dancing ranking anymore.

 

[yuki]

How the audiences suppose to understand that Gracie despite two great programs at SA lost to a skater who fell and had a stumble? Funnily if Gracie had two falls on rotated triples instead of doubling them she would have won. Does it makes sense? not to me..

Gracie's 2F in the SP was not merely a doubled triple, but a major technical mistake and an invalid element. That she still finished the SP in 2nd place speaks more in favour of the new system than against it.

 

[Tutto]

Gracie's 2F in the SP was not merely a doubled triple, but a major technical mistake and an invalid element. That she still finished the SP in 2nd place speaks more in favour of the new system than against it.

And you think everyone in the arena understood that?

 

[gotoschool]

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.) .

I agree that one good thing about the new system is that it creates the possibility for more impressive performances because of skaters challenging more technical elements. However, I don't know how Mao getting 5th place in PCS and 6th place in GOE for a performance that so many thought was the best at Sochi shows that the judges offered any redemption at all. I think it was the power of Mao's performance, comments on forums, youtube, twitter and by many announcers not the stingy score and the far too low placement that gave her redemption.

While some of the best skaters display remarkably beautiful movements under COP, I think that other skaters are awarded points for rapid transitions and arm movements that often seem frantic and disconnected from the natural flow of motion and holding positions for an extended period of time which was more common in 6.0. While there may have been many skaters who showed awkward positions, I also think the elimination of the spiral sequence took away a lot from the best skaters holding beautiful positions for an extended period of time.

I also prefer the old system because there seemed to be more focus on the total impact of a performance as opposed to nitpicking every single detail often in a way that seems to target certain skaters, particularly with the tech crew focusing on instant replay of jumps. This reminds me of focusing on a tiny mole and ignoring the beautiful whole. I am much more impressed with the elements of the jump that can obviously be seen in real time.

I realize that urs and rotation were factored into the scores in 6.0, but in general it seemed to me that a program that had a lot of triples would get an excellent tech score and would not lose huge points based on the evaluation of a tech crew that sometimes contradicts the ruling of the judges. Basically, urs seemed to be more reasonably factored into the score in 6.0. I also find it annoying to have to see the tech counter "quantifying" the performance like some mathematical equation on the screen with the score sometimes mysteriously plummeting at the end sometimes even when the performance looks wonderful. The scoring of artistry also seems to be downplayed in the new system, even though this is one of the most important aspects to me.

In addition to anonymity, which I believe promotes shady scoring, I think there are more potential ways to manipulate scores under the new system by spreading it out between GOE, PCS and tech calls. For example, over the last two seasons, there have been some skaters who have been given unprecedented rapid increases in PCS scores which the older and best skaters never even came close to and still don't get. I don't remember seeing this under 6.0.

The fact that I knew who gave the low marks in 6.0 also made it obvious when there was preference in scoring, though it wouldn't change the results.

With all these negative points, I do think COP pushes skaters to attempt more athletically dazzling performances and this is a positive thing.

 

[plushyfan]

I'm an old fashioned Fs fan, I watched the fs in my whole life, I watched it since I remember.

The IJS ruined the pair skating. Where is the calm, harmonic skating???

The IJS ruined the ice dance. That was my second favorite discipline. That was diverse, artistic, full of emotions.The weaker pairs also were able to entertain the audience with their programs. I hate the twizzlies, the same elements in the very different dances. I enjoy the top 5-6 pairs, but the other are unwatchable for me. They are fighting with the rules, the elements, can't express emotions.

The individuals: I don't like these kind of steps, footworks. I liked the high-speed, interesting footworks. Most of the programs are too busy for me. The busy programs are fit only for some skaters, but annoying in most of cases. I have no time to enjoy the skater's beautiful moves. It would have been better if the ISU restored the compulsory exercises...

 

[Mathman]

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.

To me, this is not necessarily a bad thing or a flaw in the system.

Ideally, it ought to go like this. The first skater performs. The judge, relying on his experience of having judged hundreds of contests, says to himself: "compared to all the skates I have seen, I'll give that a 5.7, 5.6. (At this point there is a break while the median mark of all the judges is computed for that skater. I don't know exactly what use the judges were supposed to make of this information, but at least you knew whether you were tending to score on the high side or the low, compared to your fellow judges. Anyway…) Now the next skater goes. His performance is either better or worse than that of the first skater. You score him accordingly, being careful to leave enough room to insert someone else in between if that's how it turns out. If you give the second skater 5.7, 5.8, then on the "protocols" you see that this judge gave skater B a first place ordinal and thought that A and B were about equal in tech, but B was markedly better in presentation.

To me, this is perfectly easy to understand and a model of clarity. More so than saying, in the IJS, skater A deserved a score of 7.75 in choreography -- not 7.5 and not 8.0. But only a 7,50 in musical interpretation (not 7.25 or 7.75).

Remember that discussion about judges being Bayesian statisticians?

:agree:

The 6.0 judge certainly had to be staunch Bayesians with very strong priors, to work the system!

Not, I think, any more than with IJS. With ordinal judging, in principle for each skater you just say, that performance was better than the performances of A, B, and C, but not as good as D, E, and F.

But yeah, if Michelle Kwan knocks it out of the park, with six skaters left, I think a judge can safely give her a 5.8, 5.9, secure in the expectation that not all six are going to beat it. (Although if they did, you could give them 5.7, 6.0; 5.9, 5.9; 5.8, 6.0; 6.0, 5.9; 5.9, 6.0; and 6.0, 6.0. )

OK, so Michelle missed out on getting a the 6.0 that she would have got if she had skated last to thunderous climactic applause. (Poor baby. )

I don't think that this is incompatible with saying that 5.7 means sort of vaguely that the skater was pretty good but not all-time-great great.

It is true that if Michelle Kwan skates like Michelle Kwan, then she is a priori going to get at least a 5.8. Just like, under IJS, if Patrick Chan skates like Partrick Chan he is going to get 9s. (We are about to test this last hypothesis at Skate Canada a little bit later today, )

 

[Sam-Skwantch]

Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
That is what was so great about the good old days. Everyone got to be a judge, and we were all experts.

Now we are cowed into silence. One skater got 125.29 points, the other skater got 126.96 points. Well, you can't argue with math.

THIS should be the custom title for your profile :yes:

 

[yuki]

And you think everyone in the arena understood that?

Probably not, but this has more to do with the poor job most commentators are doing in explaining the system, not with the system itself. This rule is actually very straightforward: it was mandatory for her to do a triple as a solo jump and she didn't.

Since I'm not very familiar with 6.0 technical deductions: would Gracie still have been in medal contention under 6.0 after having an invalid element in the short program? I've always had the impression that these types of mistakes were punished more harshly under 6.0, but I might be wrong.

 

[plushyfan]

Probably not, but this has more to do with the poor job most commentators are doing in explaining the system, not with the system itself. This rule is actually very straightforward: it was mandatory for her to do a triple as a solo jump and she didn't.

Since I'm not very familiar with 6.0 technical deductions: would Gracie still have been in medal contention under 6.0 after having an invalid element in the short program? I've always had the impression that these types of mistakes were punished more harshly under 6.0, but I might be wrong.

It wouldn't have been invalid element

 

[plushyfan]

This. Elena Berezhnaya & Anton Sikharulidze Lady Caliph https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enegcJGB4NY

I can't imagine more beautiful pair SP. Pure beauty!!! Can anyone convert this for today's scoring?

 

[fallingsk8er]

I don't miss the old system. No matter what the system, its pretty obvious who the winner is at most competitions. To beat the champions, you have to outskate them with no doubt. Any doubt goes to the person with the best reputation. That rule always works when I watch an event.