My angst focuses on a basic knowledge of figure skating technique – how axels, lutzes, flips, loops, camel spins, sit spins, scratch spins, etc – are supposed to be performed. Let’s stick to the basics, please. Judges have to be extremely knowledgeable on the elements if there is to be any level of expectation that they will award appropriate scores.
If I’m correct about this, national and international skating judges are required to pass competency tests and remain current on the process of judging. No doubt, some of them opted to jump ship when the tried and true 6.0 system was abolished. Those who chose to stay, and all new judges, absolutely MUST be up to speed on this process.
So where does your angst come in? Do you see a problem with the current knowledge level of the judges? the knowledge level fo the fans? the disconnect between them?
I prefer a “KISS” (keep it simple, skating) approach to scoring. Have a basic point assignment for the jumps – perhaps a 6 for a quad, a 5 for a triple/triple combination, a 4 for any other triple, a 3 for a double, a 4 for combination spins, a 3 for “single” spins, 4 for serpentine footwork, etc. Right next to the base element, have a point score of 1 to 5 for presentation. A completed quad would receive a 6, and if it was executed perfectly, it would receive a 5, for a total of 11. If a completed quad was executed poorly, it would receive a 1, for a total of 7.
I would award scores only on what was performed. If a skater falls on a lutz, that jump would not receive a score, plain and simple.
This has potential for a simplified version of elements scoring. A lot of the specifics would still need to be worked out, after which it might not be quite so simple. But if the idea is that every judge is allowed to make his or her own determination of the value of each element, according to the rules, then there will often be major disagreements on how to score specific elements but as long as each judge is working from their best possible knowledge of elements and rules and visual perception of the elements, then getting different points of view is why we have judging panels in the first place instead relying on just one person.
The panel of judges would consist of a dozen people representing the world on a global basis.
For major international events. Obviously this wouldn't be possible or necessary at domestic events, and it might be cost prohibitive at smaller internationals.
Six would serve as “technical” judges and six would serve as “presentation” judges. They would be paired in six teams, with two judges on each team.
Are you suggesting that one judge in a team would contribute a technical score, one would contribute a presentation score, and the scores would be combined into a single ordinal to be calculated by the majority system?
I remember hearing a similar idea floated by some figure skating officials back around 1998, but I foresee a lot of paradoxical unintended consequences with that approach. If that is what you were thinking of, I'll explain what I think the problem could be. If not . . . whoops, never mind.
Also, if you want to go back to the majority system, remember that you need an odd number of judges, or judge pairs as the case may be. So 10 or 14 judges, but not 12.
Overall total scores:
90 and above = 6.0
85-89 = 5.9
80-84 = 5.8
75-79 = 5.7
70-74 = 5.6
65-69 = 5.5
60-64 = 5.4
And so on…..
I know these are just rough examples. If you do want to work out the details, remember that the numbers have tocover a wide enough range to accommodate the weakest international skaters, who may struggle with double jumps etc. (or lower than that if it's to be used at even lower levels domestically), and with the envelope-pushing quad jumpers, and every level in between. And they need to be flexible enough to distinguish between multiple skaters who are close to exactly the same skill level, so when they all do the same elements the results will come down to very fine points of technique and, yes, individual judges' preferences.
The cutoff for a maximum score (6.0 or whatever you call it) would have to be well out of reach of the best jumpers of the current generation, and even so some fluky jumper would probably come along and break through the ceiling long before the powers that be anticipate that the scores need to be recalibrated.
How were you thinking that judges would determine their presentation scores?
Would breakdowns of the elements and different aspects of presentation be available after the fact, as in the current protocols, or only ever one mark for tech merit and one for presentation as under 6.0?
Just my two cents, of course.
Interesting thoughts! Want to play with the details?
and that seems to say it all. 
