Does anyone miss the "old" judging system?

[icedinn]

In what way does it pretend that the sport is not judged?

There are judges. Every score the judges give (GOEs and PCS) are based on qualitative judgment. No one ever claimed otherwise.

There are objective aspects to the scoring: the base value parts of the TES. (Even the Scale of Values is somewhat subjective in terms of quantifying how much more difficult one element is than another, which is why we get changes to the SoV every couple of years. But the values remain steady until the next rule change. And yes, there are gray areas where elements are borderline in terms of jump rotation, whether or not a skater achieved a level feature, where individual tech panel members' perceptions and strictness can come into play. But for the vast majority of elements, the base values are indisputable according to the current SoV.)

And all this is very similar to other judged sports such as diving, gymnastics, etc. A basically objective score for difficulty that is modified by some arithmetical processes to reflect the judgments of expert human judges regarding the quality of execution.

Does the fact that these sports do not use ordinal rankings mean that they are not judged?

The differences with figure skating that makes it different from most judged sports are that 1) Skating is not only about the elements but also largely (in some disciplines and some eras primarily) about the process of moving across the ice outside of discrete elements, and 2) aesthetic impact of the performance as a whole is incorporated into the scoring.




Do you have a problem with decimal places in diving or gymnastics scores? Do they hoodwink you into believing that those sports are purely objective and not judged?

Or are you just setting up a straw man argument?



I don't doubt that a lot of fans just want a system that provides them more fun as viewers, regardless of how it relates to the actual analysis of the skating difficulty and quality.

There are also some coaches, judges, former skaters, and some long-time fans who preferred the old system and would be happy to see it restored for reasons related to actual analysis of the skating.

I have no idea what percentage of those who miss 6.0 each group constitutes.

As someone mentioned earlier, I think there is a strong tendency to feel more warmth for the system one grew up with, that newer skaters/officials/fans are more likely to like the new system and those who had already invested decades of their lives getting to know with the old system inside and out are more likely to miss it.



Speaking for myself, I find pairs much more watchable now than in the past. You speaking for yourself have a different opinion. I guess we have different tastes. Chacun a son gout.[/B]

Yeah. WE have different tastes but mine is better because it's simple and with no filler. Speaking for myself that is.

 

[cl2]

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?

If someone in the arena didn't know that, it's justified that (s)he is puzzled. On the other hand, if you knew about that rule, it really is easy to understand.

 

[gmyers]

Backloading is not the right word. Its total midloading.

 

[Sandpiper]

Backloading is not the right word. Its total midloading.

True. It's "clock is at halfway mark, time-to-cram-in-all-my-jumps." (Tatsuki Machida tried something more spread out. He couldn't skate that LP clean all year and ultimately retired. )

 

[gmyers]

True. It's "clock is at halfway mark, time-to-cram-in-all-my-jumps." (Tatsuki Machida tried something more spread out. He couldn't skate that LP clean all year and ultimately retired. )

Glad you brought him up! True backloader.

 

[megenta]

I didn't follow figure skating during the 6.0 system but to me today's rules seem pretty ridiculous (to my untrained eye at least)- you're supposed to jam the whole program with every move ever invented, anywhere, but many of the positions and moves don't look good but just weird and uncomfortable. AND everyone keeps falling and getting injured all the time because the demands seem to be insane. I would much rather watch two somewhat wholesome programs without 4 falls, even if it means every single moment isn't filled with some twitching and jerking.

 

[Mathman]

^ I, too, am a fan of the "less is more" school. But, perhaps counterintuitively, there are still a lot of very enjoyable programs that have come out of the current system -- for instance, Patrick Chan's astonishing tour de force at Skate Canada just now. And there were plenty of 6.0 programs that were uninspiring. (Is this me saying this? )

To me, the issue is this. (Gkelly -- whom I have thoroghly annoyed on this thread -- taught me this.) Is figure skating a spectator port or a participatory sport? If it is a spectator sport, then it is legitimate to ask, as we are on this thread, what scoring system produces competitions that are most satisfying to the audience.

If it is a participatory sport, then the young athletes who undertake to compete -- well, they like to go higher, faster, stronger, to improve their skills to the max, and to try to beat each other and win medals by doing harder and harder stuff

You could even argue like this: money talks. Most of the expense of the sport of figure skating is born by the parents of the competitors, not by the fans in the seats (as is the case with some other and more popular sports). Furthermore, the great majority of participants in the sport are children competing (if they compete at all) in lower level contests. For beginners, intermediates, novices, etc., I think the feeling is pretty unanimous among parents, coaches, etc., that the kind of scoring and feedback that the new judging system provides is much better than just telling your son, "well, the judges didn't like your performance much and that's why they only gave you fifth place."

 

[karne]

I think the feeling is pretty unanimous among parents, coaches, etc., that the kind of scoring and feedback that the new judging system provides is much better than just telling your son, "well, the judges didn't like your performance much and that's why they only gave you fifth place."

This. I was relieved as heck to finally move up to IJS levels last year. It meant that when the competition was done, I could check my protocol and see: Okay, I got all -GOE for my jumps, well that sucks. Oh look, the tech panel very kindly called my "sit" spin an upright spin. I got no value for the last spin - I wonder why? - oh wait, I didn't hold it long enough on the second foot.

And so on. For me as a skater, it's a vastly better system.

 

[Moxiejan]

One thing i especially like about the "new" system is that it got rid of the ridiculous "factored placement" scoring, which did not reflect whether a skater won a segment by a large margin or a tiny one. And also made each skater's outcome dependent not just on his/her scoring but by whether Skater B beat Skater C but not Skater D.

 

[Blades of Passion]

CoP is the better system, but the rules need to be in place properly. There are way, way too many issues still.

Aside from all the scoring issues and technicalities, though, there's no reason why the judging should be anonymous and why the scores from each judge couldn't be displayed for the audience. All you have to do is divide the total tech element score and program component score by 10 and there you have it, easy to understand numbers for the audience to see and relate to, and WAY more excitement in the scores being read out. The tension and thrill of seeing the row of numbers come up from the judges needs to be brought back into the sport. No reason to just instantly announce the total score and kill that build of suspense.

 

[Mathman]

One thing i especially like about the "new" system is that it got rid of the ridiculous "factored placement" scoring, which did not reflect whether a skater won a segment by a large margin or a tiny one. And also made each skater's outcome dependent not just on his/her scoring but by whether Skater B beat Skater C but not Skater D.

I didn't really mind those aspects of the old system. Factored placements just meant that the sport was like the world series in baseball. It doesn't matter how many runs you beat the other team by in game one; the only thing that counts, going forward, is the win. That's OK with me, and in fact it increases that excitement of the subsequent games.

As for "flip-flops," that is not caused by factored placements; it is just a built-in property of any form of judging based on ordinal placements. The only reason it seems weird is that partial placements were announced before everyone has skated. (Skater A is ahead of skater B SO FAR.) The way around it is just to wait until everyone has skated before counting your chickens.

But yes, point total scoring eliminates all of this sort of funny business. At the cost, IMHO, of a certain esthetic appeal.

 

[gkelly]

But yes, point total scoring eliminates all of this sort of funny business. At the cost, IMHO, of a certain esthetic appeal.

Aesthetic appeal of the scoring system? Or of the skating?

Because it would be entirely possible to have a point-based scoring system that privileged quality/aesthetic appeal over difficulty, that gave more points for beautiful easy elements or in-betweens than to flawed difficult ones. If that were the case, you'd have more aesthetically appealing performances with the inherent features of a point-based marking system.

It would also be possible to use ordinal scoring and factored placements but to explicitly encourage judges to reward and skaters to attempt the maximum possible difficulty regardless of success or of aesthetic impact. In that case you'd have less attractive skating along with all the inherent features of a comparative ranking system.

 

[Mathman]

Aesthetic appeal of the scoring system? Or of the skating?

Of the scoring system. There is a little part of me that quaintly believes that in the best of all possible worlds the scoring system should capture the soul of the thing that is being scored. There is no art to adding up a column of decimal numbers.

Decathlon, yes. You get so many points for running 100 yards in 11.3 seconds and so many points for clearing 16 feet 9 inches on the pole vault. Add it up, and Bob's your uncle. This scoring system is just right for the sport of decathlon.

For figure skating, in the ordinal system (as in the sport itself) there is as much art as mathematics. At the end of the day we must produce a list of ordinal placements (who won? who got second?) from a list of many competitors with different strengths and weaknesses, all performing before a panel of many expert judges whose judgements differ widely one from another.

 

[solani]

@Mathman
Well put! I agree.

 

[lavender]

What I wish would happen is a combination. Do COP for technical, and back to 6.0 for presentation. The second mark is clearly wrong under COP, most judges just give the same scores across the board, no matter if a well executed program is devoid of transitions or choreo. You can tell a 5.7 versus 5.9 for presentation marks. Under this system, nothing seems to make sense. It's hard to be a fan of skating. I was a major uber fan now I just watch a few skates on Youtube. There's no fun or joy. You know who will bring in the PCS whether deserved or not.

This would be awesome. I miss the feelings I use to have for the programs as a whole during the 6.0 season.

 

[Blades of Passion]

It would be entirely possible to have a point-based scoring system that privileged quality/aesthetic appeal over difficulty, that gave more points for beautiful easy elements or in-betweens than to flawed difficult ones. If that were the case, you'd have more aesthetically appealing performances with the inherent features of a point-based marking system.

It would also be possible to use ordinal scoring and factored placements but to explicitly encourage judges to reward and skaters to attempt the maximum possible difficulty regardless of success or of aesthetic impact. In that case you'd have less attractive skating along with all the inherent features of a comparative ranking system.

OMG, this is your most succinct post ever I think! :gclap:

At the end of the day we must produce a list of ordinal placements (who won? who got second?) from a list of many competitors with different strengths and weaknesses, all performing before a panel of many expert judges whose judgements differ widely one from another

Well, it could be said that it's impossible under a 6.0 system to fairly judge competitors, since you have humans who are trying to assess all of the elements of the program (some of which they may not remember clearly or have overlooked) in a short amount of time. Under 6.0, judges were already trying to do what CoP is doing, adding up all the pluses and minuses, but the decision arrived at under 6.0 was like trying to do a difficult mathematics test with only with pencil-and-paper, no calculator allowed. It does help that programs were relatively simpler at the time, but still.

How does someone decide who should have won between Michelle Kwan and Lu Chen at 1996 Worlds? Under 6.0, many of the judges seemingly went "Michelle did a 7th Triple at the end of her program, she's the winner", while ignoring that Lu Chen's second Triple Lutz had better execution and that she add an additional Double Axel in the program (which is not all that less difficult than an extra Triple Toe).

 

[Mathman]

How does someone decide who should have won between Michelle Kwan and Lu Chen at 1996 Worlds? Under 6.0, many of the judges seemingly went "Michelle did a 7th Triple at the end of her program, she's the winner", while ignoring that Lu Chen's second Triple Lutz had better execution and that she add an additional Double Axel in the program (which is not all that less difficult than an extra Triple Toe).

A tough call indeed. But suppose we had CoP and it turned out that Michelle got 162.13 points and Lu Chen got 161.84. To be sure, we could look at the protocols and say, if Chen had got +2 instead of +1 on her second Lutz (which she should have) and if in addition a double Axel were scored at 3.5 points (as is only right) instead of the foolish 3.3, then Chen would have won. There is nothing particularly satisfying, to me, about such an exercise, and I don't think the CoP judging turned out any more "right" than the 6.0 judging.

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.

 

[Blades of Passion]

Well, the difference is Michelle might not have automatically won (the LP anyway, she definitely would have won overall after her amazing SP). The end result of 6.0 is the judges' minds are already made up and there's no other active force that makes them look at their decision more carefully. The other difference is skaters are able to better learn what they should improve on.

 

[bmcc102]

Just my opinion:

I hate program construction under COP. I miss having the fourth spin, think footwork takes up WAY too much time in most programs, and I also think that skaters need to stop doing half-assed 'choreographic sequences,' which frankly, suck. It has always driven me nuts when skaters do two spins in a row and now it seems to be the norm in many COP programs. COP doesn't seem to at all value positions (think of Elizaveta's HORRID sideways leaning spin or Yu-na's god awful spiral), but punishes to the hilt if a jump happens to be slightly short of rotation. At Skate Canada, it drove me crazy that Elizaveta's ugly triple axel attempt got ANY credit, but as the Eurosport guys said, "it was around, so she should get credit for it." Ridiculous judging flaw in the system, IMO.

Also sick of the love fest SP scoring that makes it possible for a skater to skate poorly in the LP, but still win. I know it's nothing new, but in 6.0 days, it was MUCH less likely with factored placements, which I preferred. Judges seem so desperate to make sure their preferred skater wins the SP that they go overboard with the second mark (since it is harder to figure out than a 5.9 or 6.0 mark), whether deserved or not. The second mark is used as a placeholder and doesn't actually work correctly. Julia Lipnitskaya is pretty much Russian Caroline Zhang these days, yet still scores strong PCs based on being Russian, and nothing else.

Ugh. Obviously, 6.0 is no longer a system we can use, but COP is most definitely not the answer either.

My idea: Look back on the old programs and see what everyone can agree was good, hell even great about them, then combine it with what we like about now (transitions are certainly better) and then create a new system. One that can quantify the technical but recognize the artistic for what it is. Also, skating skills should really be part of the technical mark, IMO, since it is more about technique than anything else.

 

[Blades of Passion]

All those things you are annoyed with, I agree. CoP can be modified exactly to fix all of those problems. ISU simply doesn't do it. The organization lacks the understanding and vision to implement what must be done and what is logistically not even difficult. It's as if CoP is a foreign language and they are only taking 1 class a month, learning it at a snail's pace.