How would you characterize the scoring in sports like gymnastics and diving? Do you consider them judged sports?
Does anyone miss the "old" judging system?
- Thread starter silverpond
- Start date
How would you characterize the scoring in sports like gymnastics and diving? Do you consider them judged sports?
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
Could go either way on that, though. Sandhu won only on a peculiar rules quirk that gave Plushenko 0 credit for his 3A+2T combo. Does this result cast the IJS in a good light or a bad?
By the way, here is the GS thread about it, from 2003. Many different opinions, including the charge that the IJS was a nefarious Canadian invention that was plotted by the sinister Canadian Federation just for this purpose.
http://www.goldenskate.com/forum/showthread.php?3518-Sandhu-The-New-Gpf-Champ-Of-2003!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
I don't follow diving. My impression is that the scoring system is a hybrid that comes down more on the "judged" side. The fact that the "base value" score and the "execution score" are multiplied together (rather than added, for instance) means, to me, that the emphasis is on judging: "yes, but "how well" did he perform that two-and-a-half somersault pike twist.
For gymnastics, the "new" system compared to the old 10.0 system raises the same questions for that sport as the similar debate in figure skating. If anything, more starkly. The official name of the sport is "artistic gymnastics," but the scoring system acknowledges that the "artistry" has all but disappeared. Someone can teeter and totter on the balance beam throughout the routine, but can still get an acceptable score if the level of technical difficulty is high enough.
On the other hand, Simone Biles
turns athletic technique into art. (Congrats to Simone for just becoming the all-time world gold medals champ with ten (counting all-round, apparatus, and team 
)Anyway, if I had to classify the system one way or the other, I would put diving somewhat more on the judged side, gymnastics somewhat more on the measured side, and figure skating in between. I put the IJS in between in actual fact, but I still think that it gives the impression, and deliberately so on the part of the ISU, of being more on the "measuring" side.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
Coda 
Gymnastics and diving are two interesting cases from the point of view of the once-every-four-years very casual viewer. For such viewers, all the dives are pretty and all the routines are awesome. The only thing I have to go on, as to who did well and who not so well, is "did the diver make a big splash?" "Did the gymnast stick the landing?"
In this regard I like figure skating better because not only can we say, this skater fell down, that one didn't, but we can also say, this performance was very beautiful, that one not so much. (Tech AND performance!
)
Gymnastics and diving are two interesting cases from the point of view of the once-every-four-years very casual viewer. For such viewers, all the dives are pretty and all the routines are awesome. The only thing I have to go on, as to who did well and who not so well, is "did the diver make a big splash?" "Did the gymnast stick the landing?"
In this regard I like figure skating better because not only can we say, this skater fell down, that one didn't, but we can also say, this performance was very beautiful, that one not so much. (Tech AND performance!
)
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
Ordinals give them way more power and less need to pay attention to details regarding each element.
So I'd say.... Ordinals.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
Not to mention, marking down the chief competitors of their national skaters.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
Well that was a prime example of a skater skating brilliantly but thinking he had done enough and won it (opting not to do his 8th jumping pass) and the scoring system denied him the victory. And the same happened in Sochi with him not optimizing his programs and assuming he would win with what *he* thought was sufficient to win.
Under 6.0, Plushenko would have beaten Sandhu due to ordinals so it was exciting to see Sandhu come from so far behind, which was unprecedented.
That's one of the biggest reasons I hated 6.0.... If everyone skated a clean SP, and in the FS everyone fell and the last place skater went lights out, there's no way for that last place skater to win or even medal. Now skaters in 10th or 12th feel like the FS can be meaningful and they can make up ground if they skate well instead of feeling resigned to their placement due to ordinals.
Last edited:
What about those judges who actually like paying attention to the details?
Which, I imagine, is most of them . . . even if those who get to the higher levels may also enjoy the perks and the power.
But it's an awful lot of hard work in cold unglamourous local rinks with a lot of bad skating, for no pay, before one can reach that level. I would that for those who stick it out, the process of analyzing the skating is rewarding in itself and not a chore to be avoided.
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2015
voluntary unless they are indeed bribed...
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
I don't think that many judges enter the discipline in the hope that maybe some day they will be able to hook a bribe. (This isn't FIFA, after all.
)I'm not sure about top ISU and International judges, but at lower levels (the great majority of skating competitions), judges that have expressed their opinions publicly have mostly been favorable to the IJS, I believe. They do indeed like being able to concentrate on individual criteria for which it is comparatively easy to justify their marks. Under ordinal judging sometimes they were left hanging out there with nothing to say except, "Well, yes, this skater did a nice double Salchow, but overall that skater was faster, so I decided to go with that one."
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
That's the problem. The scoring system should be in the business of scoring the event. It should not be in the business of "denying" anyone the victory that he earned on the ice.
Plushenko lost because he tacked an extra double toe onto a triple Axel. The rules (not Sandhu) pounced. "Aha! -- we will pretend falsely that you did not do the triple Axel that in truth you actually did. No gold medal for you, sucker."
The contest should be decided by the athletes on the field of play. The scoring system should never itself be a player. This is a big flaw in the IJS in my opinion.
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2008
No, that isn't what happened. Plushenko beat Sandu. An entire Triple Axel of his was given 0 points for a 100% nonsensical reason that is STILL plaguing the scoring system 12 years later. It's pathetic.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
I don't deny he "beat" Sandhu. But he also lost to Sandhu based on the rules that were in place. It would be like if a skater did three quads but no combinations or all basic spins. Under 6.0 they might be given the win but under CoP they would potentially lose to a skater.
CoP still feels like a minefield for losing points (especially with the stupid edge call deduction and double toe Zayaks), but it encourages skaters to execute their planned content and rewards skaters who adhere to the rules and optimize their programs as such.
Last edited:
What is the problem with edge calls? I don´t recall many times when an obviously correct edge (not cases when it was unclear and stuff only visible on slow motion replays etc etc etc) was called.
- Joined
- May 17, 2011
Feel the need to add, when I first started judging gymnastics, one of the things they mentioned was that it was important to get the routines in the right order. If the best routine wasn't winning, there was a problem. While that didn't mean that we should ignore deductions, it did mean that we had to be really aware of what deductions we were taking, how much we were taking, and if we were being consistent. We had to be aware of things like amplitude and overall dynamics throughout the routine. So yes, even in gymnastics, the judgement of what routine is overall the best is important.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
My issue is the massive 30% deduction incurred for "e" calls, and the additional GOE deduction that comes with it (essentially a double deduction). E.g. Mao's 3Z in her SP (which was indeed correctly called as a flutz) at CoC received only 3.72 points (3.38 if it hadn't been in the 2nd half). But the jump itself was fine.
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2010
I'm conflicted on this too, but I think the rule here is fair. There should be a mandatory GOE deduction for sure, but I guess the additional deduction is acceptable because the skater did not really execute a lutz (or flip). That SP layout is very impressive but she is going to be vulnerable to big deductions on her combination and solo jump if she keeps it.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
I think that this is a red herring in this discussion. We are not debating who ought to have been declared the winner. We are discussing whether the rules that were in place are good rules or bad rules.
Thank you so much for this insight. I hope that the same principle is true in figure skating judging.
After all, what other possible goal could a scoring system have, except to get the placements in the right order?
So how do we define what is the "right" order?
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
I think the only answer is, "in the judgement of the judges." This is the defining characteristic of a "judged sport."
When the CoP was under development, the ISU did a lot of practice scoring of old 6.0 competitions to see how it worked out. As I recall, they had to do quite a lot of twerking to make Yagudin come out ahead of Goebel at the 2002 Olympics. But everyone was in agreement that Yagudin totally killed both programs and anyone with eyes could see that he was the winner, so come hell or high water the scoring system had to accommodate that result.
I don't mind that, actually. The scoring system should be our servant, not our master.
