More on the Code of Points

[moyesii]

I love discussions and disagreements about the COP, but if people are going to make assertions about it, I think they should at least make the effort to understand it and become familiar with the kinds of results skaters are getting.

...

As for the assertion that at IFSC Sasha's Component scores simply would've been elevated to make up for her poor Technical marks, the data we have from the GP series does not support this. As I said on another thread, given that Sasha fell three times and two-footed another jump, that means she would have received ZERO credit for three jumps and would have received a mandatory deduction for the two-foot landing of -3.

Just because you've said it before, doesn't make it more true when you repeat it. Skaters receive credit for failed elements. For example, for a triple lutz with base value of 6.1 and GOE of -3, the score is 3.41. Maybe you should listen to your own advice (quote #1 above), before you make your own assertions.

The judges had been giving Sasha 7s and 8s for her component scores until Lalique, where they gave her 6s and 7s; however, the judges had been giving all the skaters lower component marks since Cup of China when the ISU notified the judges to pay more attention to EXACTLY what each component meant. After all, this is a process. Anyway, with three falls and a two-foot, all the judges would have had to give Sasha all 9s and 10s in her component scores in order to keep her in 3rd. Remember, two judges don't even count, the two high and two low scores are thrown out, which leaves five judges' scores to determine the placements.

If the judges marked the IFSC the way they've been marking in the GP, then in CoP Sasha Cohen would have received higher component marks across the board over all the skaters that the judges ranked below her at the event. That is just the way that the judges have been marking. The component marks are still judged relatively, although the point values are on an absolute scale.

Otherwise just say, "I don't know enough about the COP to have an opinion yet." That I can understand and respect. After all, right now, there are a lot of areas regarding the COP about which nobody knows enough to have an opinion about yet.

...

They're not going to get this thing right the first few times out, but it's still far better, IMO, than the kindergarten method of the 6.0 system.

Based on what, the results we've been getting so far?

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

____________________________________________________
Quote:
One question I do have: I've heard Terry Gannon say that the judges can look at the video tape of any part of a skater's program to see if the skater hit the right edge on a jump or not.
____________________________________________________

If Terry is right, and I have no reason for him to be wrong then do the judges look? are they compelled to look? do they care? Imo, so much credit is given to attempt rather than correctness. (This goes for all contestants.)

Joe

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

And my big question whose answer seems to be constantly avoided:

Are FALLS disrupting the flow of the Presentation?

If so (as it is in other sports regardless of how well the judges know the contestant) then should there be an automatic deduction in both technical and presentation for a fall?

Joe

 

[Rgirl]

Just because you've said it before, doesn't make it more true when you repeat it. Skaters receive credit for failed elements. For example, for a triple lutz with base value of 6.1 and GOE of -3, the score is 3.41. Maybe you should listen to your own advice (quote #1 above), before you make your own assertions.

If the judges marked the IFSC the way they've been marking in the GP, then in CoP Sasha Cohen would have received higher component marks across the board over all the skaters that the judges ranked below her at the event. That is just the way that the judges have been marking. The component marks are still judged relatively, although the point values are on an absolute scale.

Based on what, the results we've been getting so far?

Moyesii, Hi! We haven't posted to each other before; however, I take it from the posts of yours I've read that you don't like either the COP or the way the judges are using it, but I'll won't decide until I hear it from you. As to your comments, I never said or implied that just because I said it before meant it was true. Now, please. It was just a note to let people know I had stated this same opinion on another thread, the IFSC one to be exact. And I do listen to my own advice. If Sasha two-footed a jump she would receive only 2.69 pts instead of 6.1. I never said a skater would get zero pts for a 2-ft, just anywhere from a -2 to a -3, and the judges have been almost entirely been giving -3 on a 2-ft. When I see which jumps Sasha fell on, 2-footed, where she tripped, and whatever other mistakes she made when IFSC is televised, I can give a specific comparison with at least Arakawara and Jenny, since they've competed under the COP. But until then, maybe you should read other people's assertions more carefully

"If the judges marked the IFSC the way they've been marking in the GP, then in CoP Sasha Cohen would have received higher component marks across the board over all the skaters that the judges ranked below her at the event. That is just the way that the judges have been marking." We can't know that since Sasha has never competed against Michelle under the COP. In the component elements, Michelle is superb and IMO, better than Sasha in almost every one, and the ones she might (might) not be better than Sasha in I would say they are about equal. Re the skaters Sasha has competed against in the GP series, I think overall Sasha does have better component skills and that's why she has been receiving higher component marks, not because the judges have been holding her up.

"The component marks are still judged relatively, although the point values are on an absolute scale. Based on what, the results we've been getting so far? " Based on the way the COP system has been set up If you fall, you get zero points, no ifs, ands, or buts. EDITED TO ADD: "THE INFO IN THE PREVIOUS SENTENCE IS WRONG! AND I GREATLY THANK GKELLY (SEE SUBSEQUENT POST) AND ALSO HOCKEYFAN, BOTH OF WHOM POINTED THIS OUT. (GKelly--Thanks not only for correcting me but also for the way you did it ITA with and appreciate your other comments too. I hope certain other posters note and follow your example.)" If Sasha fell on her 3L/2t, 3f/2t, and 3f (I don't know that these were the jumps she fell on, but just hypothetically speaking), she'd lose 19.9 pts right there. EDITED TO ADD: "THE PART ABOUT LOSING 19.9 POINTS IS TOTALLY WRONG TOO. SASHA WOULD HAVE A CERTAIN DEDUCTION DEPENDING ON THE BASE VALUE OF EACH JUMP, SOMETHING WHICH HOCKEYFAN EXPLAINS VERY WELL IN HER POST LATER ON. MANY THANKS TO HOCKEYFAN FOR THAT CORRECTION AS WELL. EVEN THOUGH THE AMOUNT OF THE DEDUCTION IS WRONG, IT'S STILL AN ABSOLUTE THAT A FULL DEDUCTION IS MADE FOR A FALL." That's absolute. True, the judges have subjective input when it comes to adding or subtracting points from a completed jump with errors such as being under-rotated, as well as errors on spins, spirals, and footwork still have an element of subjectivity, but much, much less so than under the 6.0 system. And of course the Comonent scores have the greatest degree of subjectivity, but IMO, still much less so than under the 6.0 system. In virtually every post I've said I think the COP needs changes and is a work in progress. But I have a question for you Moyesii: Would you rather they keep working to improve the COP or go back to the 6.0 system as it was?


TROPHEE LALIQUE SPOILER

S

P

O

I

L

E

R

I'm putting this here instead of the Lalique folder because it illustrates a point. I just saw the Lalique pairs final. Totmianina & Marinin were in first over Zhang & Zhang by about 2.2 points after the SP. Z/Z had an okay LP, but not great, with 113.76 pts. When T/M came out to skate, all they had to do was skate relatively clean and it seemed the gold would be there's. But they fell on their side-by-side 3toes, their sbs 3t/2t combos, they came out of unison on their sbs spins, and they blew their last lift (didn't fall, Maxim just couldn't get her up over his head). They lost to Z/Z by 13.44 pts and beat the US pair of Scott & Dulebohn by only 2.94 pts. I'd go into more detail but I'm late, but the point I wanted to make is that T/M were the clear favorites going into Lalique. Under the COP, the judges had to deduct a lot from their TES and thus they lost the gold. Under the 6.0 system, we might (might) have seen 5/4 split in favor of T/M based on a lot of things. Just for a couple of examples, Z/Z skated 5th while T/M skated 8th, so the judges would have had to hold back on scores or the compilation of the judges could have favored T/M to the extent that they would have won despite their poor skate. The Lalique pairs final seemed to be a similar situation to the IFSC, at least from the reports I've read. That's why Im hanging in there with the COP. I think that despite its current problems, it is still a vastly superior system to the 6.0 system and that thus far in the GP series, the right skaters have won the right medals in all disciplines. Of the events that have been televised, I've read some people say that so-and-so should have received higher TCS or something like that, but I've yet to read any "Skater A wuz robbed!" posts. And under the 6.0 system, that happened quite a bit.

Have a good day, Mayesii. BTW, I won't be snarky with you if you won't be snarky with me.
Rgirl

 

[gkelly]

Skaters receive credit for failed elements. For example, for a triple lutz with base value of 6.1 and GOE of -3, the score is 3.41.

Rgirl, note that this is true for jumps with falls, not just two-foots. Jumps with falls *do* receive the base mark -3 (or if they were really good before the fall, +1 and then -3 for a GOE of -2). They do not receive "zero credit."

If the judges marked the IFSC the way they've been marking in the GP, then in CoP Sasha Cohen would have received higher component marks across the board over all the skaters that the judges ranked below her at the event. That is just the way that the judges have been marking.

As a general rule, that's what's been happening, but not in every case.

In Sasha's case, she's won every CoP event she's entered so far (we'll see what happens this weekend) and also had the highest component scores across the board at those events.

But if you look lower down the standings or at other disciplines, you will find a significant minority of cases where skaters have received higher scores on one, some, or all components than skaters who ranked above them by virtue of higher elements scores.

 

[Mathman]

The scores posted above by Moyesii for Sasha, Jennifer and Jenny provide an excellent example of why so many people are dissatisfied with the old ordinal based judging system. Again, remember that the scores themselves (5.7, etc.) have no independent meaning, they just serve as place holders for the ordinals. So there is no point arguing about whether Sasha "deserved" a 5.7. The question is, did she deserve to be placed ahead of Jennifer Robinson, and (separately, under the OBO system), did she deserve to be placed ahead of Jenny Kirk.

Note that each of the three, Sasha, Jennifer and Jenny, got 2 votes of third place or better. If the vote of even a single judge had changed, the final placement woiuld have been different.

In fact, by changing the placements of just one judge (the Russian judge, as it turns out, LOL), Arakawa beats Kwan for first and Robinson beats Sasha for third.

It is random vagaries of this sort that have convinced many people to give the CoP a chance. I think that critics of the CoP should take a little bit longer view and see what happens. From the reading that I have done on the subject, it seems to me that a lot of people are rushing to judgment on the basis of questionable statistical theorizing before we have a sufficient data base to draw any legitimate conclusions.

Joe, I still think that there is room to distinguish between a fall that totally disrupts the program, leaving the skater flopping on her belly like a fish as the music moves on to the next theme, and a fall from which the skater can bounce right back and continue on as if nothing happened.

I think that's why there are two scores. Like in baseball, if someone strikes out at the plate you don't necessarily take away from his fielding percentage.

Mathman

 

[moyesii]

If the vote of even a single judge had changed, the final placement would have been different...
It is random vagaries of this sort that have convinced many people to give the CoP a chance.

Well I wouldn't say there was anything random about the placements... messy? yes, but so was the overall skating. The overall placements worked out, and it was only a 5 judge panel (with a weird judge on it to boot, and whom we were at least able to ID). According to your own math, which is fundamentally misapplied, but which I'll use here since it's your own twisted logic, according to these results Michelle Kwan had a 60% chance of beating Shizuka Arakawa with that skate under any panel of judges.
And besides, the CoP is equally, if not more sensitive to the vicissitudes of judging than ordinals.

 

[hockeyfan228]

An an FYI,

a) Falls don't receive 0 points. The only elements that are worth 0 points if the final score is -3 is in Dance for Optional Level 1 Lifts and Spins. (ISU Comm 1207. I haven't seen any subsequent updates to this.) The higher the difficulty for the jump, the more points the skater gets for attempting it. Weiss should try to rotate that 4Lz; it's worth at least 10.0 points if he falls (13.0 base -3.0), vs 9.1 for a +3 3Lz vs. 9.0 for a +1 4T.

b) Mandatory deductions of -1, -2, and -3 don't necessarily mean that the final score must be -1, -2, -3. It means that the judge starts with the mark before the error, and subtracts that from the score. According to Marie Hughes' posts, the ISU confirmed this at the seminar she attended.

I still don't understand how a jump could have been scored a +2 before the fall, change of edge, or double-foot, since the definition of +2 is that all phases of the jump be better than base, but the definition may have been changed. But it is very possible for the score to have started as a +1, to which -1 (base final), -2 (-1 final) or -3 (-2 final) was added.

c) Grades of +/-1, +/-2, and +/-3 don't necessarily mean the number of points added to/subtracted from base. Nor are all of the differences between grades exactly the same, or the differences the same between + and -. For example, a 1CUSP (Level 1 change of foot upright spin) has a base of 1.5. Each + represents + .5. -1 represents -.3, -2 represents -.6, and -3 represents -1.

Only when you get to triple jumps and higher are the differences between +/- points the same and in whole points.

 

[Mathman]

Moyesii, on the other thread I asked if you could give me a reference, some sort of textbook perhaps, or articles from serious mathematical journals, that would give me any sort of clue whatever as to the statistical reasoning you are using. I am still waiting.

Either you are making this up yourself, or else you got it from somewhere else. If you got it from somewhere else, I would be obliged to know so I can check it out. I am not opposed to learning something new about mathematics, even though I have been studying this topic for quite a while.

Mathman

PS. Under that "twisted logic" called inferential statistics, the best we can assert (with 95% certainty, say), is that if we scored the event over and over, the average percent of first place ordinals that Michelle receives would be somewhere between 17.1% and 102.9%!

 

[giseledepkat]

According to your own math, which is fundamentally misapplied, but which I'll use here since it's your own twisted logic...

Jeez Louise, moyesii! I really find your language, directed at our beloved moderator Mathman, to be offensive and demeaning! I've plowed through the whole NHK thread, and it's apparent to me that he has bent over backwards in an attempt to provide you with a forum to articulate and defend your arguments against the CoP...

...Cut it out. Please.

 

[CassidyL]

I agree. Couldn't believe it when I read it.

 

[moyesii]

Mathman,
In that post you refer to, I was trying to think outside the box. As you suggested, stats has a limited applicability in the real world of competition judging. But then you went ahead and did an inferential statistical analysis, even though you cannot make generalizations about the population from a non-random sample (the panel of judges, who are appointed):

Well, in the actual contest at Nagano the judges split 6-3 for Tara, so (as required by sampling theory) in the absence of any better estimate, let's pretend that in the great imaginary population of all possible figure skating judges, 2/3 of them would give Tara the first-place ordinal and 1/3 Michelle. What percent of the time would an arbitrary sample of nine judges have a majority for Michelle?

In other words, that question can't be answered, and I felt that your analysis was misleading.

giseledepkat and CassidyL,
Nothing wrong with calling twisted logic when I see it.

 

[giseledepkat]

Seems perfectly clear to me.

 

[Rgirl]

An an FYI,

a) Falls don't receive 0 points. The only elements that are worth 0 points if the final score is -3 is in Dance for Optional Level 1 Lifts and Spins. (ISU Comm 1207. I haven't seen any subsequent updates to this.) The higher the difficulty for the jump, the more points the skater gets for attempting it. Weiss should try to rotate that 4Lz; it's worth at least 10.0 points if he falls (13.0 base -3.0), vs 9.1 for a +3 3Lz vs. 9.0 for a +1 4T.

b) Mandatory deductions of -1, -2, and -3 don't necessarily mean that the final score must be -1, -2, -3. It means that the judge starts with the mark before the error, and subtracts that from the score. According to Marie Hughes' posts, the ISU confirmed this at the seminar she attended.

I still don't understand how a jump could have been scored a +2 before the fall, change of edge, or double-foot, since the definition of +2 is that all phases of the jump be better than base, but the definition may have been changed. But it is very possible for the score to have started as a +1, to which -1 (base final), -2 (-1 final) or -3 (-2 final) was added.

c) Grades of +/-1, +/-2, and +/-3 don't necessarily mean the number of points added to/subtracted from base. Nor are all of the differences between grades exactly the same, or the differences the same between + and -. For example, a 1CUSP (Level 1 change of foot upright spin) has a base of 1.5. Each + represents + .5. -1 represents -.3, -2 represents -.6, and -3 represents -1.

Only when you get to triple jumps and higher are the differences between +/- points the same and in whole points.

Hey Hockeyfan,
Thank you for correcting me on my embarrassing blunder of saying that falls (meaning in singles) received zero points. And especially thanks for correcting me in a neutral way, although given the way things can get with some posters, I would even call it nice--but I wouldn't want to give you a bad reputation Seriously, speaking only for myself, I know when I post when I'm tired or haven't been thinking in COP mode for a while, I tend to make air-brained mistakes and the COP is still a learning process--but that's no excuse for the mistake, I just plain screwed up. Anyway, I always appreciate corrections when I've made factual mistakes, and alluding to the recent posts about the way disagreements are worded, I also appreciate it when someone sticks to the facts and doesn't try to use such situations to denigrate other posters. I know other posters appreciate your approach too, no matter who you would have been correcting.

And thanks for clarifying the way the +/- scores work. In trying to be succinct (Rgirl--succinct?!) I wasn't clear on those things. As for the question about how can a jump receive a +2 before the fall, change of edge, or double-foot, I don't understand that either. Do you have a specific example for a skater in an event where that happened? I don't doubt that it did, I'd just like to see if I have it on tape so I can look at it and see if it makes any sense in any universe I know of.

Finally, at least for this part of the post, some people may recall that I tried starting, with contributions from others, a COP "tutorial" thread back in I think October. While people gave excellent COP "lessons," in retrospect I think the better way to learn the way the COP works is a little at a time while watching competitions so that you can see in action what can be very abstract reading the COP rules. Also, as posts such as yours and Marie Hughes's come up about the seminars she attended, I think it also makes it easier to discuss and understand the pros and cons of the COP as it now stands. In keeping with the saying, "We learn best from our mistakes," posts like yours will certainly make me remember the "fall rule" (I hope!) and by clarifying information that was not fully explained, I think it makes it easier for people to relate to. +3 to Hockeyfan, not that I'm any judge
Rgirl

---------------------------
Moyesii,
You and I had never posted each other and I had not read the posts between you and Mathman on the NHK thread before you responded to my post. When I read it, I thought, "Is this someone who can't stand me posting under a new name?" However, then I read your posts to Mathman in the NHK folder and realized that apparently this is the attitude you take toward anyone with whom you disagree. "Nothing wrong with calling twisted logic when I see it," you said. I say plenty wrong, at least on GS. There are plenty of FS forums where being rude and stating one's opinion, especially negative, as fact is de rigeur. They are easy to find. But if you read the posting guidelines, one of the things the GS administrator, GSk8, aka Paula, emphasizes is respect for fellow posters. Posters who have been at GS for even a few months, much less years like Mathman and myself, know that although many or even most of us have our snarky or emotional moments, in general the posters and moderators try to make sure that such things are kept to a minimum. IMO, youhave a great opportunity at this point to either adjust your attitude and language towards other posters or seek out another forum that is more in keeping with your style of posting. Finally, and maybe I shouldn't say this, but for those ofus who know Mathman's background and real-world work, you have no idea how much you are embarrassing yourself with your attacks on his logic. Mathman and I have argued over statistics plenty in the past and perhaps will again in the future, and I can verify that he is open to other ways of looking at things when it comes to those things open to interpretation. I may have had a different opinion about certain interpretations regarding the way statistics are applied, but never, ever did I not maintain the utmost respect for Mathman's absolute knowledge of mathematical facts. I don't want to get into my background, but IMO, your ideas about statistics don't jive with anything I've ever learned but even that would be fine if you presented them without the at best snide and at worst bellicose comments aimed at Mathman. And you continue that approach with other posters as well. Also, it's not like GS requires that posters be Pollyannish about arguments and we have a number of outspoken posters here who I and I know most GSers love because of their outspokenness. But it's one thing to speak your mind and another to speak it while attacking others. I'm no moderator and no saint when it comes to posting, but I have been around Paula's forum since early 2000 when it was on another site and thus have seen many posters with many different personalities and styles of posting. I just hope you'll think about what people are saying and also ask yourself why you're posting here. As I said, if you like a rock'em sock'em forum, there are a number you could go to. I'm not saying you should leave; in fact I'd rather you rethink your style and stay. But if "being the real you" requires that you post as you have been, maybe GS is not right for you.
Rgirl

 

[Rgirl]

____________________________________________________
Quote:
One question I do have: I've heard Terry Gannon say that the judges can look at the video tape of any part of a skater's program to see if the skater hit the right edge on a jump or not.
____________________________________________________

If Terry is right, and I have no reason for him to be wrong then do the judges look? are they compelled to look? do they care? Imo, so much credit is given to attempt rather than correctness. (This goes for all contestants.)
Joe

Joe,
The commentators have been wrong before re the COP, so at least I'm not putting all my faith in Terry Gannon, although he does get all my votes for cutest and least annoying guy commentator, lol. (Susie Wynn gets my votes for cutest and least annoying gal commentator--unless you count Daria Grinkova, who didn't really commentate but was cute through the roof!) I wouldn't think the judges are compelled to look. As for do they care, I think the answer is the same as all questions re judges--some do, some don't.

Re your opinion that so much credit is given to attempt rather than correctness, in some cases I agree, in others I disagree. For example, some mistakes on jumps always get a full -3 deduction whereas others don't get any deduction, at least from what I've seen so far in the GP series. For example, two-foot landings seem to always get a -3 from every judge, but incorrect take-off and/or landing edges, wide swinging free legs, and free turns on landings don't get deductions. Also, when it comes to step-outs, sometimes they get deductions, sometimes not. Same thing with pre-rotated and/or under-rotated jumps. Back to 2-ft landings, I'm all for mandatory deductions for this, however I'd like to see some allowance for "degree of two-footedness." That is, I think there should be a greater deduction for landing fully on both blades than for a slight touch down with the toe pick.

If the judges can indeed view any part of the program on video after the skater finishes, I think it's not conceivable nor necessary for the judges to review every single element. However, at least in singles, I think certain jumps should always be reviewed by every judge. For ladies, 3Lutz, 3Lutz combo, and 3/3 combos. For other elements, the caller should have the autority to decide if every judge should review an element. However, I think the caller is the weakest part of the COP system since no matter what kind of background the caller has, some are great at seeing mistakes and others seem to be of the "Hogan's Heroes" "I see NOTHING!" school. But with the best of all possible callers, examples of elements s/he might require the judges to review would be spins that travel, completed jumps but with wonky landings, footwork with errors, straightline fw that does not go the full length of the ice, circular fw that does make a full circle, or shallow serpentine fw. Also, edges on spirals. These are just some examples of things I've seen skaters make mistakes in or execute in a subpar manner that I felt should have received a deduction but didn't. And as you said, this goes for all skaters. I didn't get to what elements should require mandatory reviewing for the men, but basically it would be quads, quad comboes, and the rest that would be comparable to what I outlined for ladies. In pairs it obviously would be different and in dance, Oy! where to begin?!

BTW, there was something you said about the COP vs. the 6.0 system that we will have to agree to disagree on--I can't remember what it was, though it's at the beginning of the thread and on my computer I can't scroll back that far--but I just wanted to say, "Fair enough." Sometimes it's beneficial to continue a discussion but often one can tell early on that the"agree to disagree" approach is best

Finally, and this is just in general, not directed at you, Joe, I don't think we will be able to accurately assess a lot of things concerning the COP vs. the 6.0 system until not only the end of the '03/04 season, but also the end of the '04/05 season. IMO, we should bear in mind that these judges have been judging according to the 6.0 system for years, some for decades. Some judges are naturally going to take to the COP system easier than others, and some judges are goingto hae the COP system for any number of reasons, including those who just don't like change period. Also, although I've voiced my negative opinion about Speedy countless times, the COP was designed by what seems to me to be a good combination of coaches, judges, choreographers, skaters, statisticians, and others who truly understand the sport. No speed skaters on the COP development Anyway, I agree with Mathman that despite its growing pains that the COP is already a much better judging system than the 6.0 system and that eventually the bugs will be worked out. However, there will never be a solution to the human or "x" factor. Even in the best of all possible judging systems, occasionally there are going to be unfair results. This is axiomatic of any system that has human involvement. Also, although I think it's good to look at the details of how much is being deducted or not for improper jump edges or whatever, I think it's important not to lose sight of the outcomes. That is, overall, are the right skaters winning the right medals? Are the overall final placements fair? Even if a skater or team only wins by a few tenths of a point, it's still a win.

Having said that, I just watched the ice dancing finals for Trophee Lalique and for the first time since the implementation of the COP, I felt the final placements were very wrong and that the judging was very poor. I won't go into detail here but rather in the Lalique folder, but let's just say that at least in ice dancing with this caller and this group of judges, the "x" factor seemed to play a major negative role. But then ice dancing has always been the discipline most difficult to judge, even under the 6.0 system, so it's no surprise that this would be the first place we would see some significant problems, at least IMO. BTW, I probably won't get to that post in the Lalique folder until later this afternoon or evening, in case anyone is waiting with bated breath for my incredibly important opinions, lol.
Rgirl

 

[Rgirl]

Hi GKelly,
I'm sorry I didn't see your post until after I'd seen and responded to HockeyFan's post, but everything I said in my post to HockeFan goes for you too in terms of my appreciation for your corrections to the errors in my post re the COP and falls. Please see the edits to my post of 12-12-03 on p2 for the details. As I said in another post, I'll be spending the morning studying the ISU Communique on the COP, and getting my wrists slapped, natch But here suffice it to say, thanks.
Rgirl

 

[moyesii]

never, ever did I not maintain the utmost respect for Mathman's absolute knowledge of mathematical facts.

Wow, absolute? like the CoP? or the vodka?

I don't think there is anything wrong with my posts. I think I have a right to criticize Mathman's absolut logic when I see that he is knowingly manipulating the statistics in order to make a point. As a mathman, he knows about the laws of random sampling, and when they don't apply. In my opinion, spreading misinformation knowingly is much more offensive than anything I have posted here.

But it's one thing to speak your mind and another to speak it while attacking others.

I have never attacked anyone on this forum. I think I hurt your feelings when I called you on your "embarrassing blunder" (your words). I think you should let it go. In the future, you may want to follow your own advice and withhold stating your opinions as fact unless you really know what you're talking about.

 

[hockeyfan228]

As for the question about how can a jump receive a +2 before the fall, change of edge, or double-foot, I don't understand that either. Do you have a specific example for a skater in an event where that happened? I don't doubt that it did, I'd just like to see if I have it on tape so I can look at it and see if it makes any sense in any universe I know of.

The only place I've seen this happen was at TL in the OD, when Delobel and Schoenfelder took a nasty fall on the last original lift (OL1) and received two -1's, three -2's, and six -3's. I only looked because Susie Wynn was very upset about the TL scoring, and felt that mandatory deductions weren't being taken. This was the only one I could find on the technical side; the rest seemed to be on the PE side.

It was the same issue in the FD's that made me go back to the scale of values printout to look at the scoring. Wynn was very upset that Del/Sch did not beat Den/Sta in the FD at TL, and she kept talking about the fall on the COE lift. (That Den/Sta performed six other very good to superb Level 3 elements in the first 2/3 of the program didn't seem to count.) When I looked to see what credit Den/Sta received for the fall, I found a .32, which was due to some of the five -2's they received, presumably for how they performed the first half of the lift, and looking at the chart, and realized that with the automatic downgrade to Level 1, it was one of the few elements for which they would have received no points if they had gotten -3's across the board. (The mandatory deduction worked just as Marie Hughes reported in her post: against the GOE and level.)

Once I pick up a numbers chart, it's hard for me to put it down. Perusing the Scale of Values made me realize that a number of assumptions were not quite accurate, exacerbated by incorrect and out-of-context commentary on TV, and the truism that well-performed elements are worth more than missed attempts. (Mostly when the jumps aren't downgrade by one rev, an overrotation GOE deduction is taken, and the skater loses credit for the "same" jump down the line, which, according to Hughes' report, will be changed.)

And despite having the sheet in front of me, I made an even more inexcusable mistake -- a fall on a 4A, not a 4L, is worth 10.0 points, not a fall on a 4Lz. (Doh!!!!) A complete wipeout fall on a 4Lz is worth 7.5 (11 less 3 less a mandatory .5 deduction in Performance/Execution) points, a little less than a base 4T, and more than a double-footed 4T (6.0-7.0). (Which would still make it a better percentage attempt for Weiss, but still...)

 

[giseledepkat]

hockeyfan, I've really enjoyed your dispassionate and informed posts on the CoP! This last one makes me wonder, is anyone working on a quad axel? That would be something to see! Who does anyone think will be the first to land it?

I remember a couple of years ago, Brian Boitano said in an interview that if boots were revolutionized in figure skating the way equipment has been revolutionized in so many other sports, that we could expect to see quintuple jumps! I guess the designers of the CoP aren't looking that far ahead!

 

[hockeyfan228]

This last one makes me wonder, is anyone working on a quad axel? That would be something to see! Who does anyone think will be the first to land it?

I remember a couple of years ago, Brian Boitano said in an interview that if boots were revolutionized in figure skating the way equipment has been revolutionized in so many other sports, that we could expect to see quintuple jumps! I guess the designers of the CoP aren't looking that far ahead!

giseledepkat,
Thanks!

At one point I read that Plushenko was going to try all of the quads, but given his injury, I would think he's putting that plan on hold, at least until after he recovers from planned knee surgery. I wondered when the ISU didn't put 5T and 5S on the list, because I'd think that the Men would try the 5T before the 4A.

I wish Boitano had explained what about the current equipment would make the quint out of the question -- impossible to land on current skates? boots don't support and/or are restricting the movement necessary to get the proper force on push-off? equipment would have to "help" rather than simply not hinder in some way? I don't know enough about physics to know if there's a practical weight limitation for getting the combination of height and speed to perform 5 revs. I think we need Rgirl's help on this one