Jenny's latest: Problems with Cop

[ImaginaryPogue]

Die-hard fans will naturally know the ins and outs of the system but if it's a true sport we're talking about, general audiences will follow the sport and will be able to understand who won and why. WIthout a mass audience, how is your lovely sport going to be financed? Yes, some countries sustain the interest but I'm pretty sure (for some at least) their excitment for their star overshadows their discontent with the system..
Btw, I'm NOT saying we should go back to 6.0 system! It was unfair, there is no question about it. I don't think jenny is saying this either.. What we're saying is fix what you have, fix in a way so that instead of enhancing the problems and motivating ppl to dumb down their programmes, give them incentive to grow. Is the sport better athletically now? Really? With jump content reducing continiously.. I doubt it..
And also fix the scoring in a way to make it comparable for general audience.. Keep the current structure but transfer the final score into a different benchmark which is understandable.. I'm sure many ppl have ideas as to how this can be done, it's no rocket science.

1. How many people here do you think could watch a cricket match and understand it entirely? I've tried and I can't. Does that mean it's not a "true sport?"

2. How much understanding is necessary? I mean, to me, COP is fairly simple, and I became a diehard fan BECAUSE of it (or diehard enough to argue on message boards about it). COP isn't rocket science either, but people seem to have a tough time of it.

3. Popularity.... Man, such a double edged sword. More people under hte age of thirty in the USA have read Twilight than Marcel Proust or Thomas Mann. The Transformers sequel is the most popular movie of the year, whereas the most acclaimed films struggle to gross 5% of that blockbuster. More people watch that TLC show with the 8-kid family than watched Pushing Daisies/Arrested Development/Friday Night Lights/<insert show here>. Frankly, popularity is overrated. And yes, I recognize the need for it in terms of finances. But I don't want the sport to compete for an increasingly fractured, stupider audience by making the sport easier to understand.

4. I'd love to take a poll and compare the response to COP in America vs the rest of the world. It does seem to be concentrated in the USA, and given that COP has coincided with the worst time in American LADIES figure skating (the marquee event for a couple decades), I really truly wonder how much of it is COP's fault and how much of it is just circumstance/ebb and flow of these things.

 

[schiele]

4. I'd love to take a poll and compare the response to COP in America vs the rest of the world. It does seem to be concentrated in the USA, and given that COP has coincided with the worst time in American LADIES figure skating (the marquee event for a couple decades), I really truly wonder how much of it is COP's fault and how much of it is just circumstance/ebb and flow of these things.

Well, I'm not american (at all).
Although this point has some valid observation in it, I think it's a bit of an oversimplification. As you can see from my post, I'm not suggesting to strip down the COP, just to dumb down the final score presentation and fix the excessive penalties that deter the further growth of athletism and artistry.. It shouldn't be considered black and white as COP vs 6.0.

 

[antmanb]

1. How many people here do you think could watch a cricket match and understand it entirely? I've tried and I can't. Does that mean it's not a "true sport?"

2. How much understanding is necessary? I mean, to me, COP is fairly simple, and I became a diehard fan BECAUSE of it (or diehard enough to argue on message boards about it). COP isn't rocket science either, but people seem to have a tough time of it.

3. Popularity.... Man, such a double edged sword. More people under hte age of thirty in the USA have read Twilight than Marcel Proust or Thomas Mann. The Transformers sequel is the most popular movie of the year, whereas the most acclaimed films struggle to gross 5% of that blockbuster. More people watch that TLC show with the 8-kid family than watched Pushing Daisies/Arrested Development/Friday Night Lights/<insert show here>. Frankly, popularity is overrated. And yes, I recognize the need for it in terms of finances. But I don't want the sport to compete for an increasingly fractured, stupider audience by making the sport easier to understand.

4. I'd love to take a poll and compare the response to COP in America vs the rest of the world. It does seem to be concentrated in the USA, and given that COP has coincided with the worst time in American LADIES figure skating (the marquee event for a couple decades), I really truly wonder how much of it is COP's fault and how much of it is just circumstance/ebb and flow of these things.

I don't think your post even tried to deabte the most intersting/important part of schiele's post.

You focussed on a throw away comment about true sport (which i agree with you on!). And also on the popularity point.

With regards to popularity though you cannot ignore the basic fact that popularity = revenue for the sport. If you don't have popularity then eventually all the tv interest and revenues dry up, competitions don't recieve financial help for hosting competitions (like SA) and eventually it becomes a sport followed by participants and their friends and family. Now if you have no objection to that then fine.

I think the most important parts of schiele's post are the ones that validly point out that the COP is not perfect, in fact it really is lacking in some areas, for me the double penalty for under-rotations compared to the garnering of more points for falling on a rotated jump seems absurd. I'm not in a minority here.

The thrust of schiele's post was similar to my thoughts - i do not want to return to 6.0. there is no way we will return to 6.0 that is a given. As a system i think the COP is as good as any, but at the moment it still is not right. It needs fixing and some rules and point scales need to be looked at and clarified because i don't think they work. I think more thought needs to go into the PCS because i don't think the breakdown of categories works at all. I don't think judges have time to individually assess each of the categories alongside all the other technical scores they're giving.

Ant

 

[schiele]

I think more thought needs to go into the PCS because i don't think the breakdown of categories works at all. I don't think judges have time to individually assess each of the categories alongside all the other technical scores they're giving.

Ant

I completely forgot to metion that part, this was also another area with serious need of fixing. It's equivalent to asking a teacher to grade 600 papers in an hour or smth.
Btw, as much as I understand popularity vs. quality concern (fairly so, given the consumerism society), making the scoring more accessible to a lot of ppl does not necessarily make the sport stupidier. Anybody who's actually interested in how the scores are given can still look at the protocols, while the casual viewer will be able to get a sense of what is going on without having to study what score levels are good for TCS or PCS etc etc.. After all, this is no basketball or football where its totally clear who's ahead and who's not.

 

[janetfan]

I don't think your post even tried to deabte the most intersting/important part of schiele's post.

You focussed on a throw away comment about true sport (which i agree with you on!). And also on the popularity point.

With regards to popularity though you cannot ignore the basic fact that popularity = revenue for the sport. If you don't have popularity then eventually all the tv interest and revenues dry up, competitions don't recieve financial help for hosting competitions (like SA) and eventually it becomes a sport followed by participants and their friends and family. Now if you have no objection to that then fine.

I think the most important parts of schiele's post are the ones that validly point out that the COP is not perfect, in fact it really is lacking in some areas, for me the double penalty for under-rotations compared to the garnering of more points for falling on a rotated jump seems absurd. I'm not in a minority here.

The thrust of schiele's post was similar to my thoughts - i do not want to return to 6.0. there is no way we will return to 6.0 that is a given. As a system i think the COP is as good as any, but at the moment it still is not right. It needs fixing and some rules and point scales need to be looked at and clarified because i don't think they work. I think more thought needs to go into the PCS because i don't think the breakdown of categories works at all. I don't think judges have time to individually assess each of the categories alongside all the other technical scores they're giving.

Ant

Bravo Ant! :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :

That was the best post I have read in quite a while.
It is not always easy to express certain feelings and thoughts but you did a great job of saying what many fans are thinking.

I hope the issues you commented on are addressed by ISU sooner rather than later because I believe like many, they are necessary for the health of the sport.

 

[cosmos]

I don't understand some people keep saying they can understand 6.0 better. In both systems, higher score wins. What's the difference? The only difference is that under CoP you can understand why skater A got say 180 by reading protocols but under 6.0 you never knew why skater B got 5.5.

 

[janetfan]

I don't understand some people keep saying they can understand 6.0 better. In both systems, higher score wins. What's the difference? The only difference is that under CoP you can understand why skater A got say 180 by reading protocols but under 6.0 you never knew why skater B got 5.5.

FTR, I don't want a return to 6.0 - and see no harm in romanticizing memories from so many past competitions.

Having grown up under 6.0 one of the things I still don't get is the obsession by so many fans about the point totals in CoP.

I think the three most important aspects of judging are as follows:
1. placement of the skaters
2. placement of the skaters
3. placement of the skaters

This argument about Yuna deserved this high score and Mao should have gotten that high score doesn't register with me.

I think that CoP, more so than 6.0 is doing a very good job with the placements and that is what is most important.

What Jenny saw last week and commented about is important.
CoP is claiming to be producing more athletic and exciting skaters.

Kiira's silver medal performance at COC was neither exciting or particularly athletic.
Jenny observed that a flaw has developed in CoP strategy vs CoP reality.

She asked if under the current rules for scoring jumps if more skaters will start using a more conservative strategy? And if so, will this make skating more exciting?

I am surprised by the howls of disapproval because it is Jenny's job as a journalist to question and try to explain what she observes.

There can be little doubt that Jenny's observations were accurate. Something is amiss, or as Jenny said "askew."

 

[antmanb]

I don't understand some people keep saying they can understand 6.0 better. In both systems, higher score wins. What's the difference? The only difference is that under CoP you can understand why skater A got say 180 by reading protocols but under 6.0 you never knew why skater B got 5.5.

Actually under 6.0 looking at the factored placements it was lowest score wins

In reality i think a lot of it boils down to sentimentality and "what you're used to" i've started coming round to COP much more of late and part of that is because i'm participating (albeit recreationally) in the sport.

Ant

 

[newvie]

I don't think that the ISU is not doing anything.

As far as I know, they have recently changed a rule about jump rotation. Before, regardless of what judges think about the UR, if a technical caller announced UR, they were required to deduct some points. Now with the changed rule, the judges can ignore technical callers' opinions.

If they still insist giving negative GOEs to UR, it might be because the UR is just too clear to their eyes or in the slow-motion video.

I think what distinguishes sports competition from ice show is the 'jump'. In ice shows, we don't care if it's inside/outside edge, if the skater is prerotated/underotated, if it's 3lz or 3T. That's why some/many skaters look much better in ex programs because they are not stressed about the difficulty/quality of jumps.

I know severe penalties on incorrect jumps kind of kill the joy of the audience who is expecting a nice gala show with lots of jumps, but this is the sport. If we start to ignore principals of jumps, who knows? fluz or flip will be called lutz and two rotation jumps will be called triple jumps. Well, it could be better for skaters' health b/c they don't have to challenge themselves with correcting jumps or having more rotations in the air.

If I have to choose between CoP and 6.0, I will say CoP. Scores from the 6.0 system might give better overview at the moment of kiss & cry, but it can bewilder us afterwards. With COP, we can see what judges didn't like about the skater and skaters keep improving.

I personally think COP promotes more 'sports' elements and fairness compared to the 6.0 system. I don't agree with having the judges anonymous, though.

 

[gkelly]

Actually under 6.0 looking at the factored placements it was lowest score wins

Right. And lowest numbers for the ordinals, too.

Just looking at the actual judges' placeholder scores (5.5, 6.0, etc.), it would be perfectly possible for the skater with the highest total points not to win, because the calculations for determining placements did not involve adding up the points from all the judges.

 

[enlight78]

If I remember corectly back in pre 2007 COP UR and Wrong Edges were suppose to be taken off in GOE but the judges werent doing it so they had to have a special panel to implement the deductions and make them mandatory; And if we lessen the penalty for jump issues; I don't think the skaters will fix them; because skaters are just now making a huge effort to fix these problems when they should have been working on them since they were jr's. I don't think UR's will discorage skaters from doing difficult jumps as long as the skater want to win; guys are still doing quads; girl is still trying her 3A;

 

[Mathman]

I think it is something of a red herring to debate whether or not the CoP is too complicated for the general public to understand.

They are capable of understanding it. But do they want to? No scoring system can make someone take an interest in something that he is not interested in.

From everything I have read, the CoP seems to be a winner with skating insiders. Skaters like it better than 6.0, coaches like it better than 6.0, judges like it better than 6.0, Mr. Cinquanta likes it better than 6.0.

And people who are sensitive to the question of whether figure skating is a true sport, they too like the CoP better than the method of ordinal placements, which, after all, is basically the method by which we give out prizes in the pie-baking contest at the county fair.

So...with the CoP we please ourselves, "we" being skating enthusiasts and active participants in the sport. I guess we will have to wait and see what the judgment is of the other 99.99 per cent of sports fans, who vote with their remotes.

 

[janetfan]

which, after all, is basically the method by which we give out prizes in the pie-baking contest at the county fair.

So...with the CoP we please ourselves, "we" being skating enthusiasts and active participants in the sport. I guess we will have to wait and see what the judgment is of the other 99.99 per cent of sports fans, who vote with their remotes.

Good post - and I am still deciding, slowly evolving and getting more comfortable with CoP.

But like the 99% - I will always like a good homebaked pie from the county fair better than an anonymous judging system. :yes:

 

[Blades of Passion]

If we start to ignore principals of jumps, who knows? fluz or flip will be called lutz and two rotation jumps will be called triple jumps.

No....two rotation jumps would be called Double jumps.

 

[Bennett]

I agree with Jenny that UR calls are a bit too strickly penalized. I do not like the way in which subtle mistakes that even the expert commentators can barely see in slow motions are severely penalized.

I am also glad that they made a change in rules this year so that the double penalty on UR has become relaxed a bit (i.e., UR jumps used to be subject to a mandatory big deduction in GOE last season; but the latter condition is relaxed this season).

One suggestion I could make to her article is that some parts of the article might give an impression as if she were comparing the COP with the 6.0 system. This is a much bigger question that requires a bigger framework in her discussion. In reality, she is only questioning the way in which subtle mistakes may be penalized more severely than bigger mistakes under the current rules. I acknowledge that this question is not necessarily limited to URs, but could entail discussions about other types of subtle mistakes and corresponding penalties. Yet, it would be perhaps less confusing if she could stick to that point (i.e., subtle mistakes may be penalized more severely than bigger mistakes) without any recourse to the 6.0 system. It has been only recently when URs have become penalized so severely under the COP. There was a time under the COP when suble URs were not penalized as severely as it has been in the recent seasons (a similar thing happened to penalty for subtly wrong edges).

 

[AmEagle3313]

My issue with the code of points is that it's still difficult to quantify figure skating, which is supposed to be both sport AND artistry. You can quantify how difficult something is, but it's subjective how it relates to the music and the program as a whole:

Jumps, for example:
Plushenko's quad floats through the air, covers a lot of ice, and is beautiful.
Weir's quad (in competition) is almost always two-footed and UR.
That is quantifiable (speed, distance, rotation), and the CoP addresses that.

But Footwork:
Lysacek stops, starts, twizzles, and flaps to whatever music is playing in the background for his points, and he does a good job at getting those points.
Candeloro's 1998 Olympic 'footwork' section was essentially a couple footwork moves and lots of additional choreography to the music.
Was it difficult? Not particularly...but wait. If it's 'easy' to do steps, even simple ones, WITH the music, and to the character OF the music, why now is footwork this detached flap-fest from both men and women that could be interchanged with anything (or anyone) else? Not only that, why are men and women twizzling and flapping, even when lyrical, soft music is playing in the background? For the points.

And Spirals:
Are today's CoE spirals, with the wobbly positions held interminably until the gratuitous catch foot moment, more difficult than Kwan's CoE spiral? Of course. But Kwan's 'inferior' spiral was usually placed (at least in the long program) at a high point in the music, and she was consistently stable and glided with good speed. I know which would get more points, but which is more effective?

My issue isn't necessarily with the CoP itself...it's with the programs it has produced. The 'level' of skating has significantly improved since the 6.0 system, and elements that used to be a nuisance or thrown away are all now given weight and evaluated. I'm all for that. However, the requirements are so specific that originality and moments of TRUE artistry are limited.

Please don't think I look back at the 6.0 system with rose-colored glasses. Then, just as now, there were few skaters at World Champion level, and I do appreciate the quantifiable aspects of the CoP AND the removal of the ordinal system, giving the opportunity for a skater to come back from a big deficit after the SP with a lights-out FP. Not only that, the focus on the usually elusive clean program was just as difficult to achieve, and as I watch competitions from 6.0, there were just as many splat-fests as there are now (some even worse). The CoP has produced much more difficult skating, provided skaters and coaches with much more specific feedback, and I believe is generally more fair. Sometimes I look at the numbers themselves, and have to look again, and again. Usually though, it's the NUMBER I have an issue with, not necessarily the placement.

These are all the positives I see when watching these programs when compared to the 6.0 programs...yet many of these CoP programs leave me rolling my eyes through that CoE catch-foot 'variation' that 10 other skaters did. Or snickering through the flapping and twizzling that racks up points. Or the beautiful initial Angela-Nikodinov-classic-layback...oh wait...now she dropped the leg, and now caught her foot, and, yup, there's the Biellmann AGAIN. The programs are undeniably more difficult, but in an 'artistic sport', is 'difficult' always 'better'? I don't advocate a change back to 6.0, because CoP has brought some progress that I do appreciate (focus on all the elements, for one), but I also don't see how a happy medium can be established for those subjective issues (footwork that fits the actual music playing, or spins that are fast, and centered, but only change one position because it's what that point in the music calls for). Somebody smarter than me needs to figure it out, because I can't...so until then, I'll just keep snickering and rolling my eyes.

 

[newvie]

No....two rotation jumps would be called Double jumps.

Hopefully just as i cannot imagine seeing a single-rotation jump marked as a double jump.

I guess we will have to wait and see what the judgment is of the other 99.99 per cent of sports fans, who vote with their remotes.

I think viewership largely depends on if skaters of viewers' nationality are favorites to win (or likely to win). This is why I wish good luck to all the big countries with economic power and large population. And I really hope France can have top-level female figure skaters so that I can watch ladies' programs on TV

And we all know the rules will keep changing/evolving depending on the results of the worlds or the olympics to satisfy wealthy viewers' preferences for the winner. So, no worries :yes:

 

[ImaginaryPogue]

I don't think your post even tried to deabte the most intersting/important part of schiele's post.

You focussed on a throw away comment about true sport (which i agree with you on!). And also on the popularity point.

With regards to popularity though you cannot ignore the basic fact that popularity = revenue for the sport. If you don't have popularity then eventually all the tv interest and revenues dry up, competitions don't recieve financial help for hosting competitions (like SA) and eventually it becomes a sport followed by participants and their friends and family. Now if you have no objection to that then fine.

I think the most important parts of schiele's post are the ones that validly point out that the COP is not perfect, in fact it really is lacking in some areas, for me the double penalty for under-rotations compared to the garnering of more points for falling on a rotated jump seems absurd. I'm not in a minority here.

The thrust of schiele's post was similar to my thoughts - i do not want to return to 6.0. there is no way we will return to 6.0 that is a given. As a system i think the COP is as good as any, but at the moment it still is not right. It needs fixing and some rules and point scales need to be looked at and clarified because i don't think they work. I think more thought needs to go into the PCS because i don't think the breakdown of categories works at all. I don't think judges have time to individually assess each of the categories alongside all the other technical scores they're giving.

Ant

1. What was the most interesting part? I didn't mean to ignore it.

2. I'll echo the thrust of this now: COP is not perfect. It relies on a degree of precision that human beings are unlikely to ever accomplish. The base values of some things are questionable, as are the punishments for other things (BoP has me convinced of the UR concerns, even if I don't agree with his/her solution). But frankly, I'd rather have a system that asks too much from the judges than one that asks too little.

3. Schiele, I don't see how that's any different than what we have now. In any given program, we're given...

a) Where that skater ranked in the short (if long)
b) The skater's season's best (ie, what we can expect to see if he/she/they skate well)
c) After the performance, we're given the total element score, the program component score, the total score, if it's a season's best or not and where they rank overall.

What do you think they should add/change in terms of scoring?

4. I do think that making it more accessible is very close to making the sport simpler/stupider. But it goes back to how much understanding is necessary?

5. The big issue for me is this: I've seen so many people (here and elsewhere) bash COP for ruining the sport, blaming it for all it's current ills - financial, lack of popularity, killing artistry blah blah blah. So I over-react in the other direction. But a major shift in the cultural idiom, the lack of a strong skater in the marquee event, rather artificially inflated popularity in the first place all contributed to the sport's decline.

Having grown up under 6.0 one of the things I still don't get is the obsession by so many fans about the point totals in CoP.

I think the three most important aspects of judging are as follows:
1. placement of the skaters
2. placement of the skaters
3. placement of the skaters

Because a measurable difference should be noted. The best example I can think of is the Olympic 2002 Pairs competition. There seems to be a consensus that if it was held under COP, B/S would win by a longshot? Why, because the difference in the short programs was just that impressive that a close long program (assuming S/P won) wouldn't overcome it. But I also love trivia and minutiae.

Just looking at the actual judges' placeholder scores (5.5, 6.0, etc.), it would be perfectly possible for the skater with the highest total points not to win, because the calculations for determining placements did not involve adding up the points from all the judges.

Case and point: Bourne and Kraatz vs Lobacheva and Averbukh. This was the first season of the secret computer, and if you simply summed up the scores, L/A won the free dance.

My issue isn't necessarily with the CoP itself...it's with the programs it has produced. The 'level' of skating has significantly improved since the 6.0 system, and elements that used to be a nuisance or thrown away are all now given weight and evaluated. I'm all for that. However, the requirements are so specific that originality and moments of TRUE artistry are limited.

Please don't think I look back at the 6.0 system with rose-colored glasses. Then, just as now, there were few skaters at World Champion level, and I do appreciate the quantifiable aspects of the CoP AND the removal of the ordinal system, giving the opportunity for a skater to come back from a big deficit after the SP with a lights-out FP. Not only that, the focus on the usually elusive clean program was just as difficult to achieve, and as I watch competitions from 6.0, there were just as many splat-fests as there are now (some even worse). The CoP has produced much more difficult skating, provided skaters and coaches with much more specific feedback, and I believe is generally more fair. Sometimes I look at the numbers themselves, and have to look again, and again. Usually though, it's the NUMBER I have an issue with, not necessarily the placement.

How limited, comparatively? I'm genuinely curious, because this is another crux of the issue. I know it's silly to try and quantify this but I'm genuinely curious. I wish I had a better depth of understanding of 6.0 programs, because I can think of a huge number of COP era programs that I just flat out adore, but not so many from a similarly brief time from 6.0 - though, I reiterate, that lack of exposure is a huge liability here.

 

[gkelly]

Just looking at the actual judges' placeholder scores (5.5, 6.0, etc.), it would be perfectly possible for the skater with the highest total points not to win, because the calculations for determining placements did not involve adding up the points from all the judges.

Case and point: Bourne and Kraatz vs Lobacheva and Averbukh. This was the first season of the secret computer, and if you simply summed up the scores, L/A won the free dance.

Yes, but that was probably because more of the judges who preferred L/A were randomly selected not to count.

My point holds true even if all the judges' scores count.

For example, let's assume we're looking at a short program. The first mark is the tiebreaker.

Skater A skates clean with solid, well-rounded skills.

Let's say all judges give the same mark:
5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5
5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5

Skater B is either weaker technically but more artistic or is slightly stronger overall but has one major mistake that requires a big deduction.

Six judges give B their second-place ordinal, using the tiebreaker. Only one judge gives high enough scores to put B in first:

5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.4
5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.8

If you look at the ordinals, it's a strong win for A:
1 1 1 1 1 1 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 1

If you add up the totals, B comes out ahead by 0.2.
However, under the 6.0 system, the calculations do not add up the totals and B does not win.

 

[Mathman]

Yes, but that was probably because more of the judges who preferred L/A were randomly selected not to count.

My point holds true even if all the judges' scores count.

For example, let's assume we're looking at a short program. The first mark is the tiebreaker.

Skater A skates clean with solid, well-rounded skills.

Let's say all judges give the same mark:
5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5
5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5

Skater B is either weaker technically but more artistic or is slightly stronger overall but has one major mistake that requires a big deduction.

Six judges give B their second-place ordinal, using the tiebreaker. Only one judge gives high enough scores to put B in first:

5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.4
5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.8

If you look at the ordinals, it's a strong win for A:
1 1 1 1 1 1 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 1

If you add up the totals, B comes out ahead by 0.2.
However, under the 6.0 system, the calculations do not add up the totals and B does not win.

:yes: The electoral system. A skater can win the popular vote (as Al Gore did in 2000), yet lose the vote in the electoral college, because "winer takes all" in ternms of placements.