Multiplicative PCS scoring?

cohen-esque

Final Flight
Joined
Jan 27, 2014
No under the current system:
Quad teeny bopper (with 7.5s) = 100 + 75 = 175 total
Normal skater (with 7.5s) = 75 + 75 = 150 total
So quad teeny bopper wins by 25 points.

Under this insane multiplication system:
Quad teeny bopper 100 + {100×0.75=} 75 = 175 total
Normal skater 75 + {75×0.75=} 56.25 = 131.25 total

So in the multiplication system the teeny bopper wins by 43.75 points compared to winning by 25 points in the current system.

My point, which you seemingly missed, is that under the multiplication system two skaters could both get all 7.5s and yet get completely different PCS scores which is insane. In this example both skaters got 7.5s and yet one gets a PCS of 75 and the other gets a PCS of 56.25!

“Quad teeny bopper” usually refers to the ladies field, so it’s a little strange that you’re using men’s PCS factor, but you’re also objecting to a different system than is actually being discussed. The proposed system is:

100 TES and 75 PCS —> 100 x (75/100) = 75.00 Total
75 TES and 75 PCS —> 75 x (75/100) = 56.25 Total

Granted, under this multiplicative system Skater B only earns 75% of the points that Skater A earned, whereas under the current system, Skater B would earn 85.7% of the points that Skater A earned. I suppose you could raise an issue with that appearing to favor TES even more here, but with multiplying the gap will also close more dramatically as Skater B raises their PCS, so I’m not sure that’s meaningful.

(I do have a little philosophical quibble with relegating PCS to the “factoring” score under this system, but it is much more practical mathematically than the other way around would be.)
 

Mathman

Record Breaker
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Which doesn't change the fact that skaters are there who are judged and not their coaches and federations (or TV networks).

Back in the 6.0 days the ISU model went like this (and to some extent still does, I think).

First, no skater, coach or judge is a member of the ISU. The members of the ISU are the national federations. When a major event like the World Championship comes up, each member sends its dedicated team. The team consists of athletes, coaches, federation officials and judges. The mission of the team is to win as many medals as possible.

At the Salt Lake City Olympics the French team was accused of taking the team mission too literally. Two members of the team, a judge and the president of the federation, were sanctioned amid an uproar of unfavorable publicity for the ISU.

The ISU responded by rushing into place the Interim Judging System for the 2002-2003 season. Under this system judges were not identified by nationality, but rather listed as "ISU judges." (Eventually anonymous judging was discarded as a silly and ineffectual approach to the problem).

The next year the Code of Points was introduced. A novel feature was the institution of of the Technical Panel. The Technical Panal works for the ISU, not for any individual federation (this was the theory and the hope), thus cutting down on the power of national federations to manipulate the competition results.

I think it has worked to some extent. Modern day coaches, federation officials, etc., do seem to have less influence than they did in the past. In the U.S. for instance, the "common knowledge" was that if you wanted to win the Olympics, you better switch coaches to Gustave Lucci -- he was the guy who could deliver the gold medal. Nowadays days even a wildly successful coach like Eteri Tutberidze does not pull the strings of ISU puppets. So in this respect, I would say that the judging is getting better.
 
Last edited:

Mathman

Record Breaker
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
(I do have a little philosophical quibble with relegating PCS to the “factoring” score under this system, but it is much more practical mathematically than the other way around would be.)

It is just semantics.

TESx(PCS/80) = (TESxPCS)/80 = (PCSxTES)/80 = (TES/80)xPCS.

There is no reason to mention the /80 at all.

True, we are used to thinking of PCS as a percentage out of 10. If you get a score of 8.75 in Choreography, we tend to think of that as meaning "87.5% of the best possible choreography"), while we don't think that way on the TES side. (5.30 points for a triple flip is not thought of as a percent of anything.)

Again, the distinction between the language we tend to use to rate quantity versus quality. (We would not say that the Mona Lisa gets 164.27 art points, but we might say that it is in the top 1% of all paintings.)
 
Last edited:

Baron Vladimir

Record Breaker
Joined
Dec 18, 2014
I think it has worked to some extent. Modern day coaches, federation officials, etc., do seem to have less influence than they did in the past. In the U.S. for instance, the "common knowledge" was that if you wanted to win the Olympics, you better switch coaches to Gustave Lucci -- he was the guy who could deliver the gold medal. Nowadays days even a wildly successful coach like Eteri Tutberidze does not pull the strings of ISU puppets. So in this respect, I would say that the judging is getting better.

Thanks for the history :2thumbs: I agree with you how this system is a little bit better in restraining itself from the influences outside the skater performances. But people are speculating there are still 'influental' coaches, as Mari France Dubreil for example, in terms that she is coaching top skaters from many different nations, which make judges in the panel who have a national represent coached by her team (and there is a lot of them), to judge 'in favour' of all her teams because of it. (i wont comment on judging in favour of home nation skater in a 'hard define situations/calls' because that exists in every sport, and that is not connected with judging in favour of one coach/nation specifically). EDIT: But then again, Papadakis/Cizeron lost Europeans, so she is not that 'influental' after all. Maybe at Worlds she will be :biggrin:
 

Skatesocs

Final Flight
Joined
May 16, 2020
Again, the distinction between the language we tend to use to rate quantity versus quality. (We would not say that the Mona Lisa gets 164.27 art points, but we might say that it is in the top 1% of all paintings.)

I think the intuition you're providing for quantity and quality is the best argument in favour of the system for me.
 

Mathman

Record Breaker
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Granted, under this multiplicative system Skater B only earns 75% of the points that Skater A earned, whereas under the current system, Skater B would earn 85.7% of the points that Skater A earned. I suppose you could raise an issue with that appearing to favor TES even more here, but with multiplying the gap will also close more dramatically as Skater B raises their PCS, so I’m not sure that’s meaningful.

Good point and good question!
 

Mathman

Record Breaker
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Before my comment, I would suggest that if it is possible to find, anyone who wants to know what a spectacular single revolution jump looks like check out Robin Cousins. He did a DELAYED SINGLE AXEL that took your breath away.

:rock: Yuzuru Hanyu has a nice delayed Axel, too. But he only shows it in exhibitions, not competitions (not enough points :( )

I completely agree with your post: there ought to be a way of broadening the scoring system to include a greater variety of point-earning opportunities than just, how many revolutions in the air can you squeeze off in 4 minutes.
 

Baron Vladimir

Record Breaker
Joined
Dec 18, 2014
I completely agree with your post: there ought to be a way of broadening the scoring system to include a greater variety of point-earning opportunities than just, how many revolutions in the air can you squeeze off in 4 minutes.

Well, to be fair, that is the hardest skill this sport has to offer (and in comparation with the other sports too). It is easier to learn to skate 'beautifully' than to jump four rotation in the air. Like it is easier to learn to dance waltz than to rotate yourself in the air.
But i think ISU is trying to reward variety a lot more than before, the only question is if people really like variety/ outside the box things at all. They like the things they like and thats it. For example, Alina Zagitova Olympics free skate is for me a fundemental deffinition of variety/originality in a composition of the programme. However, people didn't like it very much.
 

Mathman

Record Breaker
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Well, to be fair, that is the hardest skill this sport has to offer (and in comparation with the other sports too). It is easier to learn to skate 'beautifully' than to jump four rotation in the air. Like it is easier to learn to dance waltz than to rotate yourself in the air.

To me, it's a tricky predicament. It is very difficult to learn how to tie a skate to the top of your head and skate around the rink upside down.

But just because it is difficult, that alone does not make me want to see more of it, or to want to assign it a base value of 15 points.

For example, Alina Zagitova Olympics free skate is for me a fundemental deffinition of variety/originality in a composition of the programme.

On the other hand, that program from the past would lose to what the girls are doing now, with three or four quads and not much of anything in the way of variety/originality. So I think that we can still ask ourselves if skating is going in the right direction or not.
 
Last edited:

Blades of Passion

Skating is Art, if you let it be
Record Breaker
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Well, to be fair, that is the hardest skill this sport has to offer (and in comparation with the other sports too). It is easier to learn to skate 'beautifully' than to jump four rotation in the air.

That's not necessarily true. We see more people do quads now, than the number of people who can skate with great artistry. Being a great artist takes a much skill/talent to achieve, and some people will never get there.

Alina Zagitova Olympics free skate is for me a fundemental deffinition of variety/originality in a composition of the programme

How....
 

Baron Vladimir

Record Breaker
Joined
Dec 18, 2014
That's not necessarily true. We see more people do quads now, than the number of people who can skate with great artistry. Being a great artist takes a much skill/talent to achieve, and some people will never get there.
I think the problem with it is because 'articism' is not 'objectively' defined to be learned the 'right' way like the other more technical skills, which i was talking about. As i was talking about Composition of the required tech elements. But what is 'original' may also be a subjective concept, what is 'variety' is more clear. And what is more creative or have more variety is often less pleasing for the eyes or doesn't look fully effortless sometimes.
 

Baron Vladimir

Record Breaker
Joined
Dec 18, 2014
To me, it's a tricky predicament. It is very difficult to learn how to tie a skate to the top of your head and skate around the rink upside down.

But just because it is difficult, that alone does not make me want to see more of it, or to want to assign it a base value of 15 points.

Yeah, it is also hard to develop your SS to be judged with 10.00, or to triple with +5 GOE across the board. That's why you are getting more points with it. I have no problem with BV of the quads. After all, the statistic shows that majority of quads have better height and distance than majority of triples, and you can see/hear how they are more appealing for the audience in the arena. The problem may be in the fact that quads with a higher positive GOE are getting too many points, it's the GOE as percentage of BV which make quads scores tricky :biggrin: But there is a difference between what is a harder skill and what is more appealing for someone. I prefer to see a 'dunk' in a basketball game, even scoring from a distance can get you 3 points, comparing to 2 points you are getting with a dunk. And there is a reason why we didn't see 4A yet, while we saw skaters getting 9.75 and some 10 in SS (at least in Ice Dance. I bet Yuzu can get those marks if he makes his programme to be all about SS and not about required elements. But jumps are the main reason why the single skate is more popular than ice dancing, after all. ISU could make a Single ice dance discipline, if they thought people would watch it. It's not the question what i personally want to see, but what general audience in the world today want to see).
 
Top