It's a nice idea, but I wonder how it would be scored. I mean, GOEs that have actual defined and very specific rules still get awarded... well, it's not exactly fair. This would be very subjective and basically anyone could justify basically any mark they give. So I fear it would just become subject to reputation judging and all the other problems we currently have with GOE and PCS scoring. Plus there kinda is space for skaters to be creative, in the choreo sequence. Though admittedly, the reward for that is next to nothing, and people get away with having literally a single spread eagle for it, so...
ISU VP Lakernik: № of quads may be limited
- Thread starter Tyranid
- Start date
It's a nice idea, but I wonder how it would be scored. I mean, GOEs that have actual defined and very specific rules still get awarded... well, it's not exactly fair. This would be very subjective and basically anyone could justify basically any mark they give. So I fear it would just become subject to reputation judging and all the other problems we currently have with GOE and PCS scoring. Plus there kinda is space for skaters to be creative, in the choreo sequence. Though admittedly, the reward for that is next to nothing, and people get away with having literally a single spread eagle for it, so...
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2018
Not quite. BVs are being reduced to shift points into GOEs, and each GOE level is worth 10% of BV. For positive GOEs, it’s one bullet per level. For negative GOEs, the penalties are harsh: -40% BV for falling, according to ISU’s own slides. (Total score deduction may still apply as well.) Quads are getting an additional BV cut, most likely. A well-executed triple can overtake a quad at about +4 GOE.
If the “no negative features” for +4 and +5 GOE rule from ice dancing carries over to singles and pairs, that would be interesting.
I have low confidence that the system will work as intended and the quad rep limitation proposal is one I’m firmly against, but until there’s more known about the new GOE scale (which bullets make the list, does “no negative features” hold, new BVs and SoV, etc.), all that’s left to do is speculate. There’s clear directionality in the changes being proposed; it’s not a mystery what ISU is trying to do, although I think they’ve created about twenty more problems for each one they’ve fixed. But what actually happens in practise? Who knows. I’m cynical but I’m open to the idea of being pleasantly surprised, at least for half a season while the judges are trying to adjust.
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2013
If they really go for it, the criteria can be worked out. It is, imho, even more transparent than PCS, as it is based on "not using any existing moves/jumps". It doesn't need a BV, it could be outright scoring, say 3 for OK and 10 for really WOW inventiveness in the LP.
It is a matter of having a panel of experts/specialists to draw up the criteria.
It can't be more complicated than awarding back-loading, and makes more sense in terms of making the programs more attractive, since this is a stated goal that everyone agrees on - better programs.
I feel that FS rewards good skating skills, good jumping, good performance but not good creativity/innovation/character-personality. Time to reward skaters for whatever special signature moves they can conjure up and bring. I feel it makes it more thrilling to watch too, with something unexpected one can look forward to from each skater.
- Joined
- May 10, 2010
The BV reduction of quads will certainly make a positive difference in the direction of quality (Hanyu, Brown, Zagitova, Medvedeva), but the expansion of the GOE range won't do that much.
Mathematically, it's still a net zero. Currently, if we're talking about just GOE for a standard triple (not the Axel), the bonus from a +3 GOE jump is cancelled out by the penalty of a -3 GOE jump (the only difference is that there's a -1 mandatory deduction for a fall).
In the upcoming system, from what I can tell, the bonus from a +5 GOE jump will just be pretty much cancelled out from a -5 GOE jump (again, the only difference is that there's a -1 mandatory deduction). Since it's based on percentages, it's not exact of course. A -5 GOE fall on a triple lutz would be -3 points whereas as +5 GOE on a triple toe would be +2.15 points. That said, the reverse is true. Getting a +5 GOE on a 3A or a quad will give a large technical cushion against mistakes on simpler triples.
Either way, I think I'm as cynical as you are with these changes. The unspoken politics and issues of judging with nationalistic scoring, inconsistent UR calls, and corridor judging are left unaddressed.
(I do need a link, though, to their proposed changes to the scale of values. I believe it's somewhere here on the forum...)
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2018
Your point’s well-taken, but I see the potential for much more volatility in TES. And I tl;dr’d earlier in the thread about how this could play out. If you take out the one rep per quad proposal, then there’s a realignment again; the more stable, high-GOE quads a skater has, the more competitive their TES. But the way the system (as we understand it) is going to work, a triple at +4/5 GOE is better than a quad at +0(~1-2?). So when considering how competitive a skater is, it’s not really BV so much as TES, and planning to rotate and fall isn’t going to be an acceptable strategy. More to the point, if the GOEs work the way they’re alleged to (and ignoring the quad rep proposal for the moment), a programme with high GOEs across the board but “only” a 4T and 4T combo could theoretically outscore one with a 4T, 4S, 4S combo in TES if the latter has weaker GOEs. It doesn’t sound like BV alone is going to have enough points in isolation, and I think the mental shift here is from expected BV based on submitted layout, hitting levels, and a clean skate to “expected TES.”
I’m curious as to how the judging corridor will work for GOEs under the new system. To be honest, I actually have no issue with the expanded positive range, and I vastly prefer “one bullet per level” to the current system. I don’t doubt we’ll get some mind-boggling calls, but at one bullet per level, I expect to see a fair number of one-point splits, but not a routine number of two or three point ones. Which is functionally the difference between +2 and +3 today, as positive GOEs are being weighed against any negative features the judges see that don’t rise to the level of a tech call, along with multiple bullets, so a one-point split covers a huge amount of range: for a +1 versus +2 split, two judges may disagree on whether or not one bullet was hit, which would have been enough to move up a GOE level, or one of the two judges only managed to check two bullets, while the other was one shy of six. The current system is ... definitely not transparent, and “one bullet per level” strikes me as a much better option.
Granted, I have my own thoughts on what I think GOEs should actually reward and incentivize but that’s neither here nor there.
We don’t have an actual SoV. Everything is rumour and conjecture for now. This is extremely old and almost certainly not the BVs we’re going to see, although who knows! But the math doesn’t fit. If 30-40% of BV is being cut to be moved into GOE range and quads are likely to take an additional 10% BV cut, those numbers are obviously nonsensical. Again, everything is rumour until the ISU Congress formally votes everything through and the new scoring rules are released, but even within the world of rumours and speculation, I wouldn’t take these numbers for much.
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2014
Thanks, great read and analysis from the author!
Doesn't surprise me that the pair skaters themselves aren't fans of the time reduction since as she points out from her sample, average LP is 4:40 minutes. I'm wondering if the ISU has done such analysis on the effect of cutting program times on the proportion of time dedicated to choreography and its impact on the artistic side of FS. Well, guess we (and the ISU) will know how this little experiment turns out next season
...
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2018
The ISU: does it cost money or involve math? We’re out.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2013
- Country
-
- accused or proven? Sacking judges based on accusations would leave us with no judges, as I am sure every judge has been accused by some skater's fans of corruption.
- they are. It's called the round table discussion that takes place after every event where the judges must account to the referee for any strange marks.
- trained journalists? Talk about making the sport even less accessible.
- the ISU judges are already required to take certain exams every year.
- I don't disagree with this one, but where is the ISU going to get the money to pay the pool of ISU judges a living wage every year? You see, there are rather a lot of judges, and many of them are in quite high-paying professions.
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2017
- Country
-
Where is your information about 30-40% of BV being cut for every jump sourced from, Metis? I've been trying to locate it but can only find references to quad BVs being decreased by 10%, not other jumps' BVs as well (aside from a very early initial suggestion of decreases across the board that hasn't seemed to come up again anywhere since).
If that's the case, a -30% or -40% decrease would come from the application of -3 and -4 GOEs to the existing BV, not from a change to the base value of the jump itself that would then get further GOE docked from it for errors. So for example a 3A would still be at 8.5 BV, but with -3 GOE across the board would drop to 5.95 and with -4 GOE for a fall to 5.1, with an extra -1.00 taken off the whole score in deductions. It seems fairly straightforward to me?
I definitely like the idea of each point in positive GOE being linked to one bullet point - especially if, as you've suggested before, the bullet points are cumulative - and I'd like to see the same for each point in negative GOE (though cumulative GOE there would be a little trickier to wrangle). But what I'd like to see before they spell out any of those changes is a clearly articulated definition of the 0 point on the scale. What, exactly, do you have to do to satisfy the basic requirement of having completed the jump/spin/step sequence/choreo sequence/lift/throw - what are the things which, if you haven't checked off all the items on the list, you cannot earn any positive GOE points for that element? Without that, everything's still a little hairy to me.
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2018
A user here who allegedly had seen the new system in action ~5 months ago? Except I am really bad at searching these boards and now can’t find the post. They were the one who mentioned the tipping point for triples over taking quads, as well. (Though BVs also have to be reduced, period, if each GOE level equals 10% BV and the GOE scale is expanded.) (Or... there’s technically the option of mucking around with factouring but that raises more problems than it solves, and also throws the whole “10% of BV per level” idea into disarray.) You can, in theory, earn more points under the new system than current; base value simply doesn’t guarantee what it used to (supposedly).
Regardless, there’s another good reason to suspect BV cuts: lack of PCS refactouring. With current or near-current BVs (lop 10% off the quads), the TES floor for the men’s short would start in the 70s with expanded positive GOEs. I went ahead and crunched some numbers the other day, and even Hanyu, who can be counted on to post the highest PCS for a clean short, has a bad ratio; his TES is worth an average of 7% more than his PCS in total score. (Just for fun: give him absolute max PCS for his OWG SP and his PCS still runs behind TES by 6% in TSS.) It’s even worse for others.
Assuming you want to keep PCS worth at least 30% of the FS and 40% of the SP total scores for men, but you aren’t willing to refactour PCS to bring it into alignment with TES, then BVs have to be lowered beyond the 10% in quads, as the ceiling for TES is being expanded even if you keep the 10% BV cut for quads. So if you want to expand the GOE scale, then one way to make the numbers work is to simply shave off 30-40% of current BV and move those points into GOE range. Is it my preferred idea? ISU, see me after class. Is this even guaranteed? Nope! Again: we don’t know anything until we see the new SoV. But does that particular rumour make sense? Well, I wouldn’t bet anything of value on the specific numbers, but on the whole, yes. Especially if your (stated) goal is to reward quality in execution, not just inclusion of an element.
Falls were worth -5 GOE at one point and we don’t know whether or not the total score deduction will still apply (and that’s a deduction listed to total score, not to the element, so it would be weird to calculate it as part of a BV “reduction”). Again, I can’t find the post (I’ll keep searching and update if I do, but my search-fu is weak), but I recall the poster specifically saying BVs had been reduced to move points into GOEs. If you’re going to raise the point ceiling in TES, you have to lower the floor if you want PCS to be even passingly relevant.
Without an updated SoV, it’s impossible to know how a -4 GOE will work in terms of points. Unless negative GOEs are always factored as 1, a -4 GOE won’t equate to losing -40% of the jump’s raw points, in the same way a +3 on a 3F or a spin isn’t worth three points. But if one GOE level is worth 10% BV, then that makes potential factouring... interesting, to say the least.
I’d love for them to be cumulative/for us to move to an actual GOE scale, but I doubt that’s happening. I think they’re going to tie one bullet to each level (possibly two for +4 or +5 given the slides, though that mysterious sixth bullet could be for 0 or a “no negative features” rule), but an actual cumulative scale is way too restrictive. But I have strong opinions on what I think GOE should be used to reward and how, so I’m outside the consensus corridor, and my preferences really only make as much sense as your tendency to agree with me. [emoji23] (This is also why I want a defined negative scale.)
Theoretically, if GOEs are a percentage of BV, you could apply negative GOE deductions until 100% of BV is lost. (This is largely why some of us have already begun speculating that UR + fall penalties have to change if BVs are reduced, as whether you take 40% off BV and then another 30% for the UR or vice versa, you’re still going to be left with a near-zero number. Though it does matter which deduction is taken first! Percentages!) Or you could allow judges to check positive and negative GOE bullets and the total is the final value but can’t exceed x based on severity of the error, and in the event of a negative value greater than 5, -5 GOE will be applied (and factoured). This only works if you use the negative GOEs for more than mandatory deductions, though; this would at least give some reward to skaters who went for a difficult entry, nailed the takeoff, had great ice coverage, and had a shaky landing. But that’s assuming you even want to separate out “you came close” issues from true splats that are arguably worth far too many points right now.
Me too! [emoji14] Welcome to the off-season and the speculative funhouse. My magic 8 ball says “outlook not so good,” but it doesn’t even let me finish a question with “ISU” in it before giving me that result.
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2014
Not exactly. You can use either agile or nimble for the word верткий. You can also use lithe, sort of. However, the word lithe is more about flexibility rather than speed or combination of speed and flexibility. If you REALLY want to break it down then you'd say: Fentz "rotates slower in the air" instead of "is less agile" but this is just nitpicking. Samuil Marshak didn't exactly do word-for-word translation but he got the point across clearly and that's what actually matters.
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2014
- proven of course. And although there are judges being "accused" of corruption by mad X fans who think that Y flutzes and judge Z took some money to hide it, it's actually very healthy for the sport. I mean "real" accusation which should be thoroughly examined, say SLC scandal or the problem with Spanish pairs (Golden spin it was??).
Of course, it is impossible to prove the corruption in a corrupted environment, thus some fundamental change would be needed.
- I didn't know about that, thank you. However, does it happen in public? Like - is the explanation made public?
- culture journalist should know A LOT about culture in order to promote some worthy aspects of it.
Science journalist should know A LOT about science in order to determine which scientist is making a significant impact and is worth writing about and who's an imposter
At the same time, sports journalist should know little about the sport (given that they are not such an ardent fans as we are) in order to popularize the sport. Seems legit.
- and it really works! Especially given how contrary to the system's principles are the athletes rewarded with PCS. Let alone what's happening in ice dance.
- so yeah, firstly I'm really sorry my post was misunderstood, as I'm always confused with words meaning wage/salary/etc, which is a weekly one, which is a monthly one, we only have one word for it in Polish so I almost always use 'salary'
I didn't mean living wage, not at all. I mean to give judges (by trying to get new sponsors... Maybe? Hard to say where the money should come from) SOME money as a reward for their efforts. It's way easier to hold them accountable that way.
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2018
There is a possibility that someone with only triples could win if they go pristine clean over quadsters, yes, but that competition is going to have to be quite cursed (like Worlds this year, but honestly speaking, I wouldn't have minded Deniss, Misha G., or even Kazuki on the podium that night)
The thing is, I think it's safe to say this year's Worlds is an outlier. For one, it's after Olys and a lot of athletes are tired, it's been a stressful season and so soon after Olys I would say many have a hard time pushing themselves. Another thing is a splatfest of this magnitude hasn't happened so frequently in this quad. For the last 4 years podium finishers in men might not always have two perfectly clean skates, but falls are not too many either.
What is more likely to happen (ignoring the quad repetition B.S for a sec) is athletes taking out the quads they have minimal success on. Mikhail's 4Lz might just disappear for now, Nathan's 4Lo is already practically unseen, Shoma might rethink on that 4Lo etc. But they would still have quads, even if it's mostly going to be the easiest 4T and 4S. At least for those two, I think the top 15 men on ISU WS now, aside from Rippon & Brown & retirees, have them consistently enough. And if they want to stay top 10, I think it's reasonable that they will keep the toe and sal. Plus for some of them, their triples are not exactly things of wonder either.
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2012
This is only an article by a Japanese journalist, but she wrote about one proposal of BV change and it was easy to understand for me who was not good at numbers at all lol.
4Lz 13.6 → 11.5
4T 10.3 → 9.5
3A 8.5 → 8.0
3Lz 6.0 → 5.9
She pointed out 3A with max GOE (+5) would beat 4Lz with no positive GOE. (Then what would happen to BV of 4A? Only 13 or so? :sad21
https://www.nikkei.com/article/DGXMZO28568840W8A320C1000000/?df=2
4Lz 13.6 → 11.5
4T 10.3 → 9.5
3A 8.5 → 8.0
3Lz 6.0 → 5.9
She pointed out 3A with max GOE (+5) would beat 4Lz with no positive GOE. (Then what would happen to BV of 4A? Only 13 or so? :sad21
https://www.nikkei.com/article/DGXMZO28568840W8A320C1000000/?df=2
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2017
Yes! This is OT, but it's very strange to me that people are so quick to say "Oh, that's just luck", or "Oh, that's just the benefit of the doubt", or "Oh, that's just lack of cameras", instead of questioning what's happening. The route in judged sports is never pretty, and it never helps when the fans who "accuse" the judges or the feds or the ISU of corruption or malpractice are termed "crazy haters", when the allegations and scandals, even if unproven have been aplenty in this sport. The viewers aren't fools, but the ISU keeps trying to paint them as fools, and it's strange some fans would rather say it's all stories.
If it is indeed stories, why be scared of launching proper investigations and prove their consistency and transparency?
It's an organization, and every organization must be questioned for it to remain healthy. It's a tenet. The viewers and the fans could have the power here, but won't if there's never a unified front.
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2017
This is only an article by a Japanese journalist, but she wrote about one proposal of BV change and it was easy to understand for me who was not good at numbers at all lol.
4Lz 13.6 → 11.5
4T 10.3 → 9.5
3A 8.5 → 8.0
3Lz 6.0 → 5.9
She pointed out 3A with max GOE (+5) would beat 4Lz with no positive GOE. (Then what would happen to BV of 4A? Only 13 or so? :sad21
https://www.nikkei.com/article/DGXMZO28568840W8A320C1000000/?df=2
I think that article is still based on the initial jump BV reduction proposal, posted by icenetwork back in September 2017. Each jump had a different percentage of reduction but nowadays there seems to be talks of a straight 10% reduction across quads, so the final BV values may be different than the table posted in the article.
Similar threads
