- Joined
- Aug 18, 2010
:thumbsup: That says it all. That's the true spirit of CoP.
Wrong! That's the true spirit of 6.0 too. That's the true spirit of any judged competitions - sports and/or arts - with subjective criteria involved.
:thumbsup: That says it all. That's the true spirit of CoP.
How do you define "right"? Why are you so sure the claim that the current system might be wrong is not right? It all comes down to the logic, doesn't it? If one presents his opinion with logic, why do you want to object it?How do you define "wrong"?
Performance entails the emotional and intellectual involvement of the skater as he translates the intent of the music and choreography. When a skater chases after the music for a prolonged period, it becomes harder for the viewers to see it as an "honest" performance because feeling the music and lagging behind can hardly go together. Also, multiple visible errors (e.g., leg dropping in a spin, etc.) diminish the degree of precision in delivery.Timing...is a big part of Interpretation, even bigger for ice dancing than for freestyle. But it's not mentioned in the criteria for Performance/Execution (for which the word "presentation" could be used as a casual synonym) or Choreography at all.)
And therefore we expect a greater variation among scores in this very subjective category. But strangely, all judges but one gave a narrow corridor of scores. Why is that? One possible reason is "reputation judging"--The judges might have assigned scores based on those that the skater received in a prior competition. Another reason is "halo effect". The judges' evaluations on the components might have been influenced by a global evaluation, such as GOEs and the first category of the components. We often overlook the GOE impact on PCS. Since the judges focus their attention on elements during the performance, the impression based on the GOE scores they just gave is likely to influence their holistic PCS evaluations.If you were a judge..., you could bring your musical expertise to the judges' stand...Another judge might be an orthopedist by profession with a background in ballet and kinesiology...Another judge might be a visual artist who focuses primarily on the shapes that the body and the movement paths make in space...Another judge might be tone deaf...And so forth.
I gave my reason in Post #91. Is it a crime to think outside the box? How do we find areas for improvement if we all think in the same box? This thread invites people to play the judge. Instead of criticizing my scores, why don't you come out and give your scores and rationales? It's almost like getting yelled at for making a prediction in a prediction thread.In fact, you used your own version of the scoring to give more weight to what's important to you.
And the funny thing is that the singular form of bacteria is NOT bacterion, but bacterium.
German "hei da" (literally "hi there") was borrowed into Middle English as "heyda" and later "heyday", which was an archaic exclamation of cheerfulness, excitement and surprise and later reanalyzed as "high day" and adopted the meaning of "prime". Still, the construction of "hei" (hi) + "da" (there) was an ancient concept, literally "Hi, (one who is over) there" with an implication of physical distance, similar to the old nautical expression "Ahoy, there".why do some people say 'hi, there!', instead of hello? I know 'hi' and 'there', of course. But why does the word 'there' have to be combined with 'hi' to express hello?? What does 'there' mean in this circumstance???
How do you define "right"?
Performance entails the emotional and intellectual involvement of the skater as he translates the intent of the music and choreography. When a skater chases after the music for a prolonged period, it becomes harder for the viewers to see it as an "honest" performance because feeling the music and lagging behind can hardly go together.
Also, multiple visible errors (e.g., leg dropping in a spin, etc.) diminish the degree of precision in delivery.
And therefore we expect a greater variation among scores in this very subjective category. But strangely, all judges but one gave a narrow corridor of scores. Why is that? One possible reason is "reputation judging"--The judges assigned scores based on those that the skater received in a prior competition. Another reason is "halo effect". The judges' evaluations on the components were influenced by a global evaluation, such as GOEs and the first category (i.e., skating skills) of the components. We often overlook the GOE impact on PCS. Since the judges pay their attention on individual elements during the performance, the impression based on the GOE scores they just gave is likely to influence their holistic PCS evaluations.
I gave my reason in #91. Is it a crime to think outside the box?
How do we find areas for improvement if we all think in the same box? This thread invites people to play the judge. Instead of criticizing my scores, why don't you come out and give your scores and rationales? It's almost like getting yelled at for making a prediction in a prediction thread.
I think bacterium is Latin (even though it might have started out in Greek)? That would explain it. I'm fairly sure criterion is straight from Greek.
gkelly said:Contrary to a way of theorizing skating results that Mathman has invoked in the past, I don't think there's a platonic ideal right answer that preexists outside of the humans working within the guidelines to arrive at a consensus.
No, no, a thousand times no. I believe the exact opposite.
That is why I feel that the CoP is completely the wrong way to go about figure skating judging. When we assign numbers to something there is an implicit assumption that these numbers mean something. In fact, they don't. Their only meaning is, these are the numbers we assigned. Obviously, then, these numbers are "right" by default. I do not subscribe to this view.
Ordinal placements, on the other hand, do mean something. They mean that judge number three thought that skater A was better than skater B. To me, there is an honesty about that statement that, try as it might, the CoP cannot veil or obscure.
But I do not accept the argument that I can't complain about the judging system because one of the rules of the judging system is that I can't complain about the judging system.
bluebonnet said:But I think he had timing issue only in the last one minute of his program and he got -1 deduction for that already, also he got -0.79 off, which means that he got only 8.21 on IN.
I agree with almost everything you've said here (almost ). Where I diverge a bit is in being a kind of Platonist with regard to skating, a pragmatic Platonist as far as the "technical" aspects are concerned (which potentially includes skating skills and transitions), and a "modifed", or maybe even "evolutionary" Platonist with regard to the aesthetic aspects. Allow me to unpack:No, no, a thousand times no. I believe the exact opposite.
That is why I feel that the CoP is completely the wrong way to go about figure skating judging. When we assign numbers to something there is an implicit assumption that these numbers mean something. In fact, they don't. Their only meaning is, these are the numbers we assigned. Obviously, then, these numbers are "right" by default. I do not subscribe to this view.
Ordinal placements, on the other hand, do mean something. They mean that judge number three thought that skater A was better than skater B. To me, there is an honesty about that statement that, try as it might, the CoP cannot veil or obscure.
This is a judged sport. It is the CoP that pretends otherwise, referring silently to the Platonic ideal of a perfectly performed element or a perfectly composed program, and then tries to match up numbers as to how closely the actual performance measures up.
My main (and really my only) beef is this. I like figure skating. But I love numbers. I hate like anything to see them abused. I hate to see them forced into unwilling service by taskmasters who do not respect what they are.
That having been said, as a practical matter I am not against the CoP. It works as well as anything else in determining a winner to a skating competition, so pragmatically speaking I say, whatever. But I do not accept the argument that I can't complain about the judging system because one of the rules of the judging system is that I can't complain about the judging system.
German "hei da" (literally "hi there") was borrowed into Middle English as "heyda" and later "heyday", which was an archaic exclamation of cheerfulness, excitement and surprise and later reanalyzed as "high day" and adopted the meaning of "prime". Still, the construction of "hei" (hi) + "da" (there) was an ancient concept, literally "Hi, (one who is over) there" with an implication of physical distance, similar to the old nautical expression "Ahoy, there".
"Hello" is quite modern actually, first recorded in the late 19th century.
But I think he had timing issue only in the last one minute of his program and he got -1 deduction for that already, also he got -0.79 off, which means that he got only 8.21 on IN.
Chan was in the sixth place in the category of Interpretation. Lower than Takahashi, Hanyu, Amodio, Joubert, and Abbott. Wasn't that low enough already?!
-Both by concept as well as by personal observation (whatever that's worth), I believe that there is a right way to do a jump, a spin, change edges, etc., and a wrong way (actually, the wrong ways are endless, and may be the single biggest source of creativity in skating.
-With regard to the artistic, my own humble view is that ground for a "right" and "wrong" way can be achieved under at least two approaches. The first possibility is that the audience (including both general spectators and judges) share a fairly uniform set of aesthetic values. ... Of course, the much more diverse nature of modern skating audiences makes this a bit more difficult to achieve, but it has not, in my view, completely erased the phenomenon of value commonality. I would argue that there exists a kind of "skating culture" that cuts across traditional boundaries, which skaters, judges, and knowledgeable viewers all implicitly acknowledge, which dictates, at least in broad strokes, what is to be considered good or bad performance in skating, whether one is American, European, Asian, or whatever.
That being said, I entirely agree with you that, given the more holistic nature of artistic performance, it may be possible for most educated viewers to agree that one performance was better than another, but the level of precision that is implied in the system of scoring for the artistic aspects (PE, CH, I), down to the fractions of points, is conceptually inane.
Here's an idea that I'll run up the flagpole (and it's just an idea; I'm not wedded to it and would be interested in hearing responses): what if the artistic components were scored on a kind of "10-point must system" (like boxing)?
In other words, forget about whether a 10 is a "perfect" performance in any absolute sense. Instead, a 10 would be the score received by the skater who was, relative to that field, the best of the night. The second best skater would receive some set discount to that, say a 9, and it goes on down the line from there, at predetermined increments (8,7,6...etc.). There could be refinements. If you believe there is more than one skater who were the best of that competition, then you could give them both 10s (but with a strict limit on how many skaters could occupy a particular slot).
And, of course, the scale of this grading on a forced curve can be tinkered with. It could start with 30, say, (with some factoring, to give the desired weighting to overall scoring) and the increments can be adjusted, in accordance with how punitive one wants the curve to be.
The advantage of this system, it seems to me, is that it gives everyone in the field a fair chance, but it does not place a burden on judges to think cosmically about how this program compares to a theoretical version of perfection, or how it compared to all the performances that have historically been done.
It merely requires that the judge focus on the much narrower and more manageable question of: who was better than who, right here, right now?
And simply rank them, which takes the problematic issue of precision out of the judges' hands. The other possible advantage is that it really incentives the skaters to try to achieve a clear differentiation in the artistic qualities of their performance, one that allows them to stand out from the rest.
Does anyone have any idea of exactly how and by whom the CoP was devised? That would give us a lot of insight into its intention.
Carry on!
Does anyone have any idea of exactly how and by whom the CoP was devised? That would give us a lot of insight into its intention.
I don't know everyone who was who put the new system together. I do know that Ted Barton is the primary name I've heard associated with its development.
The judging criteria and the point values were established by the ISU Technical Committees and have been tweaked annually ever since.