How Much of the Whole Package is Included in CoP?

[Mathman]

Hockeyfan makes an interesting point about whether Skating Skills and especially Transitions should count on the side of "adding up the points" or on the side of "one score for the duration." Do judges try to keep track somehow of how many Mohawks someone does? Do they make a special note that someone did a nice split jump? And then total all that up mentally to come up with a score?

Or do they just wait untill the end of the program and then say, yeah, she threw some good stuff in, I'll give the performance as a whole a 6.75?

But I do have one more bone to pick on the question of spectators understanding the scoring system. It is this: hundredths of a point?

Having seen a lot of skating performances at the highest level, I think I could take a reasonable stab at explaing to someone why I thought Michelle Kwan deserved a 5.7 on the first mark instead of a 5.8 at Skate America. And I can absolutely explain why I thought Michelle deserved a first place ordinal.

I can imagine that an experienced judge, having just given a novice skater a 4.2, could explain to that skater what he/she would have to do to get the mark up to a 4.3 or 4.4 next time.

I cannot explain to anyone why Shizuka Arakawa got 125.32 for her Olympic LP, rather than 125.31. I could not tell Shizuka what she needed to do to improve to 125.33 or 125.34 next time.

In fact, I am not sure I could explain anything except why she deserved placement ahead of Sasha and Irina.

 

[indicatoto101]

Mathman, you're comparing two very different scores. Yes, the skater judged under the 6.0 system could be told on how to improve because the score is low and unsignificant and might not impact the overall results but it wouldn't really work if her scores were closer to 6.0. Let's say MK receives 5.7s. In what way can you tell her to improve so that she gets 5.8s and 5.9s the next time? She could skate worse the next competition and get better marks. Likewise, she could skater better at another comp and receive even lower marks. It all depends on who she's competing against and what order she skates. A 5.7 could mean she skated her socks out (and still lost) or skated a dismal program but won because she skated last and her competition imploded, or skated well from what is expected of a 5.7 scoring program.

I can definately explain Shizuka's Olympic LP score by breaking down her elements and adding them up. At that point, it was the third highest scoring long program since the application of COP. That is GOOD. Generally, under COP, a program scoring 125 indicates the skater skated excellently; I can't say the same for a 5.7 program under the OJS. I can't tell her how to improve a 125.31 to a hundredths larger (because the decimals are largely based on chance), but I can absolutely give some advice as to how she could gain POINTS higher.

 

[Mathman]

I can definately explain Shizuka's Olympic LP score by breaking down her elements and adding them up...

But what I am wondering about is this. In explaining the score to a casual fan, can you break it down for him before he falls asleep or changes the channel?

 

[gsrossano]

But what I am wondering about is this. In explaining the score to a casual fan, can you break it down for him before he falls asleep or changes the channel?

No.

Originally the great minds thought the fans would just LOVE all the numbers because it would provide them with so much USEFULL information. So at the beginning when they read the marks they provided tons of numbers for each skater. That was boring and took forever, so then they simplified it, and the second season just read TES and the PC scores. That was boring and took forever. So this season all that they show is the TES, the PCS and the total, and call them the technical mark and the presentation mark.

So in terms of what goes up in the arena we are back at 6.0 -- you get to see the two marks and where the skaters place. Some fans have figured out what's a good TES or PCS score. But many still haven't. A 55.21 for the first mark and a 59.76 for the second mark. Is that good or bad? Can the casual fan's be educated to understand what is a good score or bad score the way they understood a 5.9 was good and 3.7 wasn't? Does it matter to the casual fans where the 55.21 came from? Did they ever care where the 5.9 came from?

Back in the late 90s I was working on point based scoring systems for figure skating (motivated by the judging scandals in 1996 and 1998). One aspect of the approach I was studying, that I thought was very important, was that any new scores should look as much like the old scores so there was continuity in understanding results. So the approach I took calculated two marks on a 6.0 scale, with the scores calibrated to more or less match what skaters were getting in 6.0 competition. That way no one would have to relearn what was a good score or a bad score, and new results could be compared to some extent to old results. IMO if IJS had been set up to produce TES and PCS on a 6.0 scale, matched to what skaters got under 6.0 everyone (particularly the fans) would have been a lot less confused and a lot less stressed out.

 

[hockeyfan228]

But what I am wondering about is this. In explaining the score to a casual fan, can you break it down for him before he falls asleep or changes the channel?

It is very easy to explain what a score is to a casual fan, if that's what commentators want to do:

1. 5 points above her personal best -- she really upped her technical content, or he finally landed all of his jumps or her PCS are significantly higher than at TEB.
2. 10 points lower than the Olympic gold standard.
3.Good enough to medal at Cup of China, but not in the top 10 Worlds range.
4. Had mistakes on the elements, but PCS offset the TCS.

Diving commentators, when they're not screeching, put the scores in context for the viewer: needs 90 points to lead, but never scored higher than 77 on this dive. Or needs 80 points to lead, but this dive isn't difficulty enough to score that high. Or needs 60 points to lead, but to stay competitive, must score at least 85.

I just don't see people in other countries screaming about the lack of 6.0's, I've never been at an international competition outside the US where fans held up "6.0" signs, although I haven't been everywhere, and Slater and Howarth have been doing just fine in explaining the system to British fans.

I wonder if the changes in presenting the scores from TES plus breakdown of PCS and PCS total was changed to TES and PCS, because all of the PCS were so close, which gave intelligent commentators nothing to work with, like, for example, "She was really rewarded for the originality and interpretation of her choreography, although she was slow and her edges were shallow."

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

(from grossano's post)

So in terms of what goes up in the arena we are back at 6.0 -- you get to see the two marks and where the skaters place. Some fans have figured out what's a good TES or PCS score. But many still haven't. A 55.21 for the first mark and a 59.76 for the second mark. Is that good or bad? Can the casual fan's be educated to understand what is a good score or bad score the way they understood a 5.9 was good and 3.7 wasn't? Does it matter to the casual fans where the 55.21 came from? Did they ever care where the 5.9 came from?

Very true and we compared total scores from individual judges in the CoP and gave them ordinals which showed there was little or no difference in 6.0 system.
on total scores.

But what bothers me about the differene between CoP and 6.0 is that the value of the points in the Tech outweigh the total points in the PCS So ther is a big difference here from two part scoring as being equal.

1. It puts the coach and choreographer at odds.
2. It encourages risk skating by the skater.

Are we happy about this?

Joe

 

[rain]

With the CoP the ISU created a system that predetermines what a good skating performance should be. But how can a skater properly interpret a piece of music using only level 3 or 4 elements? He can’t because music isn’t composed that way. How can a choreographer create a balanced program that juxtaposes the simple with the complex? He can’t because the CoP is anti-ethical to the tenants of good choreography. And how can a coach create confidence in a skater under this system? He can’t because in order to win you just need to rack up the most points; skating good, clean aesthetically pleasing programs where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts is irrelevant now.[/I]

This gets to the heart of what I think is one of the worst things about COP (anonymous judging being #1 by a landslide). There are things I like and appreciate about COP, and I think in some categories, ice dance, in particular, it has encouraged some positive changes. However it has stifled creativity, and made it much more difficult, IMO, to create that total package impression. Skaters by and large no longer do original moves because one, these moves don't get them a lot of points, so why bother, and two, if they do end up garnering points, it's only a matter of minutes before every other skater is also doing the move to the point where it become repetitive and annoying (Beillman).

Also, simple variations of moves, say, a classic layback, held for choreographic and musical reasons, have taken something that could have been a great highlight in a performance and tossed it in the trash. Nobody does simple anything anymore, no matter how well performed, or how well-suited to the program's overall effect because it does not help with the score — in fact, you can lose a competition because of it. Same goes for footwork.

It's interesting because these are technical elements, not the much-debated artistic scores, and it seems to me that the old 6.0 system was not simply more "holistic" in its second mark, but also in its first. I would argue that whatever their purpose or original intent, both the second marks under 6.0 and COP are being used as one big artistic impression/placeholder score by most of the judges. And given the picky and complex nature of the beast, I can't say that I particularly blame them. Too many details, too little time.

It is very easy to explain what a score is to a casual fan, if that's what commentators want to do:

1. 5 points above her personal best -- she really upped her technical content, or he finally landed all of his jumps or her PCS are significantly higher than at TEB.
2. 10 points lower than the Olympic gold standard.
3.Good enough to medal at Cup of China, but not in the top 10 Worlds range.
4. Had mistakes on the elements, but PCS offset the TCS.

Diving commentators, when they're not screeching, put the scores in context for the viewer: needs 90 points to lead, but never scored higher than 77 on this dive. Or needs 80 points to lead, but this dive isn't difficulty enough to score that high. Or needs 60 points to lead, but to stay competitive, must score at least 85.

Thank you so much for this. This has always been my impression as well — that COP was not nearly as spectator-unfriendly as some of the naysayers insisted. And there are many good commentators that do, in fact, do this kind of thing so the audience is not at all lost and knows what to look for when the scores come up.

(By the way, did you notice that the newly elected President of the French Skating Federation is...Didier Gailhauget? )

This absolutely sickens me. COP was a grand feat of misdirection — with one hand the corrupt ISU offered a new scoring system that was supposed to fix all ills, and with the other they swept the cheating (the real problem) under the carpet, wink, wink, toe-tapping with all these cheaters who should have been banned from the sport for life. It sends my blood pressure up to even think about the fiasco that passed for investigation and judgement in this case. All I can hope is that there's some eventual Karmic retribution — since we all know the ISU can't be trusted to adequately deal with it.

 

[hockeyfan228]

But what bothers me about the differene between CoP and 6.0 is that the value of the points in the Tech outweigh the total points in the PCS So ther is a big difference here from two part scoring as being equal.

The two parts were nominally equal, but individual judges could stack them to make one more important than the other, by manipulating the two numbers to come out with the preferred ordinal, as in:

I think Michelle Kwan is better: although her presentation was only 20% better than skater B, her technical skills were 30% worse/less difficult, but who's going to argue with 5.7/5.9 over 5.8/5.8 in the LP?

If you look at the argument often presented, that Berezhnaia/Sikharulidze should have won the Olympic Gold medal in SLC hands down over Sale/Pelletier because:

1. Their skating skills* and speed were so much stronger
2. Their program was full of transitions, while S/P's was empty

*Berezhnaia is a skater whom Gordeeva watched skate laps and wished she had those skills

(among the fans at least), and that's why their presentation mark was deservedly higher than S/P's (and should have been higher), and the simpler style, I believe described as "duetto" (?), is considered valid for lower levels, but not for the top senior pairs. However, the choreography-related criteria under 6.0 don't make a distinction between a simple program that shows "harmonious composition of the program as a whole and its conformity with the music chosen," "expression of the character of the music," and "easy movement and sureness in time to the music," and a complex program that does the same. Those are the explicit rules under which B/S and S/P competed in SLC.

In my opinion, taking transitions into consideration is surely part of the "whole package," something not stated explicitly in the "pre" criteria under 6.0, and is just as related to choreography as it is to a technical skill, as it sets a standard for choreographic complexity, if applied properly.

 

[Mathman]

...Can the casual fan's be educated to understand what is a good score or bad score the way they understood a 5.9 was good and 3.7 wasn't? Does it matter to the casual fans where the 55.21 came from? Did they ever care where the 5.9 came from?...

It is very easy to explain what a score is to a casual fan, if that's what commentators want to do:

1. 5 points above her personal best -- she really upped her technical content, or he finally landed all of his jumps or her PCS are significantly higher than at TEB....

In my opinion, what the CoP suffers from is a lack of intuitive immediacy between the performance and the scores.

Take your best friend, a casual fan, to a skating competition and ask him or her to score along with the judges.

Scenario 1: Ordinal judging. Your friend says, I would rate skater A the best, skater B the second best, and so on.

Why did you think skater A was better than skater B?

Well, I thought skater A had higher jumps and skated faster. He did a quad -- right? -- and the other guy didn't. Plus, I thought he moved better to the music. Even though he fell once and the other skater didn't, I still think that skater A deserves the top prize.

Scenario 2 -- 6.0 judging. Your friend has seen quite a few skating performances. He says, I would give Michelle a 5.7 for tech and a 5.9 for presentation.

Why?

Well, she skated clean, she did seven triple jumps (or was one of them a double Axel?), but she didn't spin as fast as Irina and she skidded a little that one time in her footwork. But I loved how she timed her spiral to the musical crescendo and she blew me away with that-- what do you call it, a Charlotte?

Scenario 3 -- point total judging.

OK, you just saw Lambiel skate. What score would you give him?

Your friend says, 132.67.

Why 132.67?

Well, we can always study the protocols on the Internet the next day and find out why. But IMHO the spectator has been denied that direct tie-in between the performance that he just saw and the numbers that appear on the scorebord. Why 132.67 indeed?

I am watching a football game as I type. The score is Washington 14, Seattle 13. Why 14? Why 13? Because I just saw Washington score two touchdowns in the last two minutes, and Seattle had scored a touchdown and two field goals in the first half.

That I understand. There is a direct correspondance between me watching the guy go across the goal line and seven points going up on the scoreboard. That is the gut sports experience that is missing in the CoP, IMHO.

 

[indicatoto101]

In my opinion, football is simpler sport than figure skating, and thus you can't score them the same way. In football, there are only a few ways to score (touchdown, conversion, field goal, safety) whereas in figure skating everything the skater does in that 2 or 4 minutes adds to the score in COP or the marks in 6.0. Again in football, how the player gets to the end zone is irrelevant, but in skating, quality is ever so important. I don't see a way to make figure skating scoring simpler so that casual fans can immediately connect the score with the performance but at the same time being objective because fs is just too complex.

Even under 6.0, there judges gave a variety of marks for skaters that sometimes ranged from .3 to .4 differences. For example, why did some judges give Arakawa a 5.7 while another judge gave her a 6.0 for the technical mark at Worlds? They're both good marks, but wouldn't some fans debate the 5.7 being too low and the 6.0 being too high considering she underrotated and lipped?

 

[Mathman]

Even under 6.0, there judges gave a variety of marks for skaters that sometimes ranged from .3 to .4 differences. For example, why did some judges give Arakawa a 5.7 while another judge gave her a 6.0 for the technical mark at Worlds? They're both good marks, but wouldn't some fans debate the 5.7 being too low and the 6.0 being too high considering she underrotated and lipped?

In my opinion, that by itself is not a turn-off for the fans. Disagreeing with the judges, and seeing the judges disagree among themselves, is part of the fun.

What is not fun, in my opinion, is not having a clue about how the computer came up with the numbers that you see.

I don't see a way to make figure skating scoring simpler so that casual fans can immediately connect the score with the performance but at the same time being objective because fs is just too complex.

Yeah, that's the $64 question. How can we do that.

What if they tried something like this? For each skater, show the list of elements that they are going to attempt and the base scores. Then have a running total as they complete each one. (Just count yes or no, let the running total show the base mark for a successful jump, -3 for a fall.) Then afterwards, they show the total GOEs and downgrades, etc., as a number to be taken off or added to the TES. Then show the PCS and the total.

So the running total woulkd go like this:

triple Lutz+double toe, 7.3 (check)
triple loop (5.0) 12.3 (check)
flying sit combination spin, level 3 (2.5) 14.8 (check)
...
...
double Axel* (3.85), final total 53.18

Then the adjustment score: - 8.90

TES 44.88.

Etc.

"So, Dick Button, why did this skater lose 8.9 points off her base mark?"

"Well, Terry, she underrotated her triple flip and only got credit for a double, so that lost her 3.8 points, she didn't do enough rotations in her sit spin and only got a level 2, but she had outstanding height and flow out of her double Axel, so that gave her an extra +1 point in GOE."

To me, that would be cool. :yes:

 

[gkelly]

So the running total woulkd go like this:

triple Lutz+double toe, 7.3 (check)
triple loop (5.0) 12.3 (check)
flying sit combination spin, level 3 (2.5) 14.8 (check)
...
...
double Axel* (3.85), final total 53.18

Then the adjustment score: - 8.90

TES 44.88.

Etc.

"So, Dick Button, why did this skater lose 8.9 points off her base mark?"

"Well, Terry, she underrotated her triple flip and only got credit for a double, so that lost her 3.8 points, she didn't do enough rotations in her sit spin and only got a level 2, but she had outstanding height and flow out of her double Axel, so that gave her an extra +1 point in GOE."

To me, that would be cool. :yes:

That could work on TV, not in the arena. (Of course, the average fan in the arena is more knowledgeable than the average home viewer, although knowledgeable fans can't attend every event in person and also watch on TV.)

However, the running total thing might prove distracting to fans who are more interested in the performances for their aesthetic more than their technical/competitive aspects.

It might be good to try it out for some broadcast and see how it goes over. If reactions are mixed, maybe it would work to choose one early skater to break down the scores that way so fans can get some knowledge about how the programs are scored but also let them watch the other performances without the added graphics or excessive commentary.

Or just save the rundown for the end of the program, or for the end of the competition to compare the gold vs. silver medalists.

Hard to do at live events because by the time one skater's actual scores are available to break down, it's time for the next skater to start skating.

 

[rain]

Take your best friend, a casual fan, to a skating competition and ask him or her to score along with the judges.

Scenario 1: Ordinal judging. Your friend says, I would rate skater A the best, skater B the second best, and so on.

Why did you think skater A was better than skater B?

Well, I thought skater A had higher jumps and skated faster. He did a quad -- right? -- and the other guy didn't. Plus, I thought he moved better to the music. Even though he fell once and the other skater didn't, I still think that skater A deserves the top prize.

Scenario 2 -- 6.0 judging. Your friend has seen quite a few skating performances. He says, I would give Michelle a 5.7 for tech and a 5.9 for presentation.

Why?

Well, she skated clean, she did seven triple jumps (or was one of them a double Axel?), but she didn't spin as fast as Irina and she skidded a little that one time in her footwork. But I loved how she timed her spiral to the musical crescendo and she blew me away with that-- what do you call it, a Charlotte?

Scenario 3 -- point total judging.

OK, you just saw Lambiel skate. What score would you give him?

Your friend says, 132.67.

Why 132.67?

Well, we can always study the protocols on the Internet the next day and find out why. But IMHO the spectator has been denied that direct tie-in between the performance that he just saw and the numbers that appear on the scorebord. Why 132.67 indeed?

I think you entirely overestimate what a casual skating fan knows and cares about in a performance, and I think they are much more able to be led by a commentator's explanation.

For example, a casual skating fan would not have a clue whether to give a 5.7 or a 5.9 or a 3.4, any more than they could explain or compute a 312.45. They cannot identify difficulty, much of the time, or even tell if a skater did a quad or a triple. What a casual fan knows is if somebody fell, or if somebody gave a particularly charismatic performance. Period. Beyond that, I think you would (or maybe wouldn't) be surprised to see them more or less parroting a commentator to explain a result in either system. What casual fans do is say who they thought was best in a straight top one, two, three. Most could only sort-of articulate why.

6.0 was around for a lot of years, so skating viewers came to recognize that a 5.9 was a good score. Likewise, though, I think given time viewers could come to know that 100 in a freedance, to take a current example is a good score and if a team cracks it they'll likely do very well.

 

[gsrossano]

That could work on TV, not in the arena. (Of course, the average fan in the arena is more knowledgeable than the average home viewer, although knowledgeable fans can't attend every event in person and also watch on TV.)

However, the running total thing might prove distracting to fans who are more interested in the performances for their aesthetic more than their technical/competitive aspects.

I don't think you will see running totals being displayed. The concern is that reviews at the end will change the point totals, and the judges also change their marks at the end of the performance. As a result the actual final points will not agree with the running total during the event. It is thought that this would be confusing. Having running totals was shot down a long time ago for this reason.

 

[Mathman]

I don't think you will see running totals being displayed. The concern is that reviews at the end will change the point totals, and the judges also change their marks at the end of the performance. As a result the actual final points will not agree with the running total during the event. It is thought that this would be confusing. Having running totals was shot down a long time ago for this reason.

But the idea of running totals for base values only (with 0 for a fall or element not completed) would get around that.

Then the correction displayed afterwards (one number showing the total GOEs, points lost from downgrades, reassignment of levels, etc.) would again bring the role of the judges and tech team into focus for the fans.

So at the end we would see total base values for successfully completed elements, judges/tech team adjustments (GOEs, etc.), final TES, final PCS, total.

I like GKelly's idea of testing it out by doing it afterward for the top two.

Yeah, at the arena it might not work so well to put the scores on the jumbotron, because you can't watch the skating and the scoreboard at the same time. Although sometimes I do watch the jumbotron during the performance because it gives a better view than my own.

 

[gsrossano]

But the idea of running totals for base values only (with 0 for a fall or element not completed) would get around that.

Why? With downgrades, changes to levels, elements eliminated due to rules violations, the base values are going to change too?

Plus, IMO, if people are more interested in watching the numbers on the scoreboard than in watching the skating, abandon all hope. All is lost.

 

[indicatoto101]

To give casual fans a fram of reference, commentators could announce the skater's pb score (before the skating starts. They have a habit of yapping through without saying much substance) and post the all-time highest scores for the SP and LP somewhere in the arena and label them. For example, a short program scoring higher than 71.92 would be a "record breaking" program. A 65+ sp is a superior program....60-64 - high (5.6, 5.7s)...55-59 - average and so on. Doing this gives casual fans a way to understand the program as a whole...as was done under 6.0 with its marks.

 

[hockeyfan228]

I think it's perfectly reasonable for commentators/TV to show the base score of the planned program, and during the program, noting things like:

1. She was required to do at least one triple in that combination, but didn't
2. He just did an extra jumping pass or element, which won't count
3. That combination will be counted as two jumps instead of one, which means his 8th planned jump element won't count.
4. That error on the footwork sequence will mean a downgrade to L1, the lowest level, vs. the L4, the highest level, planned
5. I don't think she held that the mandatory number of rotations/seconds for that to count towards a higher level
6. That jump looked underrotated, and if so, it will be downgraded to a triple
7. He did three triple jumps twice, and that is a violation of the Zayak rule
8. They didn't plan that combination, which earns more points than the sequence they planned.

and mention that this would increase/decrease the actual base score.

In the arena, I think it would be useful to put up:

Personal Best Total (which they already do, with coach, choreographer, and music)
Planned Base Score

before the skater performed, and then after the performance:

TES compared to planned Base Score (in the pause waiting for PCS)
Personal Best compared to Actual Score (which they already do)

On TV, during their moments of waiting between skaters or during the warm-up, they could show the planned base scores of the skaters/teams in the flight and talk both about relative planned difficulty, and even discuss the skaters' +/- percentage over the season. "Skater X plans high difficulty but hasn't come through (or rarely earns much + GOE", "Skater Y's dicier elements offset the great ones", "Skater Z doesn't have the highest difficulty, but s/he tends to get a lot of + GOE," "Skater A makes up the lack of a quad with high levels on the spins" or "It's no longer possible at the top of the Men's competition to make up base points with spins and footwork, since all of the top six Men in this competition have all L3-L4 elements."

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

The two parts were nominally equal, but individual judges could stack them to make one more important than the other, by manipulating the two numbers to come out with the preferred ordinal,

I think that is universally accepted:. My point was that in present day CoP, the Tech score outweighs the Performance scores. Am I correct?

This is what I said about the differences between the CoP and the 6.0 System.

But what bothers me about the differene between CoP and 6.0 is that the value of the points in the Tech outweigh the total points in the PCS So there is a big difference here from two part scoring as being equal.

1. It puts the coach and choreographer at odds.
2. It encourages risk skating by the skater.

Are we happy about this?

I would like to know if our makeshift panel here agrees or not that this is fair to have the Tech side outweigh the Performance side under CoP. Just your opinions. Not necessary to bring up the rules of the ISU which we all know that the ISU should not be questioned.

Joe

 

[hockeyfan228]

I think that is universally accepted:. My point was that in present day CoP, the Tech score outweighs the Performance scores. Am I correct?

This is what I said about the differences between the CoP and the 6.0 System.

Which is not a true statement, having already admitted that under 6.0, an equal balance under the two scores was not implemented, and explicity, the tie-breaker in the short program gave the tech score 100% impact and the tie-breaker in the long program gave the pre score 100% impact, after the initial marks were tallied.

So the difference between CoP and the 6.0 system is:

1. Under CoP, there are TES and PCS, both of which have been formulated through base scores, GOE, and weighting of PCS, to divide the score 50/50 between individual elements and performance over the duration of the program.

2. Under 6.0, the presentation score criteria were not entirely tech-free, even if the scores weren't manipulated to weigh the technical and presentation criteria as the judge saw fit, and the scores reflected the values of the judge within relatively broad criteria and taste.

I would like to know if our makeshift panel here agrees or not that this is fair to have the Tech side outweigh the Performance side under CoP. Just your opinions. Not necessary to bring up the rules of the ISU which we all know that the ISU should not be questioned.

Joe

You've never explained why, even if it were true, that you think that having the technically oriented points weigh more than the presentation oriented points is unfair. Please explain.