That leads me to the last question: Why the vote on the 5 pcs categories are always so close?
It's like thei're just braking down a single PCS vote they have in mind more than judging every single PCS....
I think there are basically three general ways that judges could approach assigning the 5 component marks:
*Get a general sense during the program of what range the components should be in (e.g., "8s"), and then when it's time to assign specific marks decide which component should be highest and lowest, how far apart, and fill in the others in between
*Start with assigning a score for whichever component makes the strongest impression first, most likely the strongest or weakest component for that performance, and then decide how far up or down to go for the other components. (This is likely to be the Skating Skills component for a couple of different reasons, but some judges may habitually start with a different component for every skater, and others will start with whatever is most salient for that particular performance.)
*Have clear mental benchmarks for each numerical value for each component, and assign scores for each component purely with reference to those benchmarks and with no mental comparison between one component and another.
Judges who use the last method would be most likely to have larger gaps between components.
Wide gaps would be appropriate for the skaters whose skills are more unbalanced.
On the other hand, even when judges make a conscious effort to separate their scores, many skaters are pretty well balanced in their performance skills, so it's not appropriate to separate the scores too far just for the sake of separating them.
For example, a skater with strong skating skills will tend to be more secure on their blades throughout the program (occasional errors aside), which would make everything look stronger than a skater with shakier skills. Even if the weaker skater makes a concerted effort to be artistic and the stronger skater does not.
Also, it depends what your point of reference is. Your mental benchmark for "average" or "poor" would be different if the worst skater you've ever seen is an average international-level competitor having a bad day, or if your mental image for "poor" is a below-average novice, or a beginner with limited skills doing their best.
In a field of world-class skaters, the scores are likely to range from 6s to 9s, and within that range the stronger skaters in the group will tend to have scores clustering toward the upper end of that range, the weaker ones (compared to the world-class elite; above average compared to all skaters) would have scores clustering toward the lower end of that range.
If we believe larger gaps should be very common rather than rare, then it would be helpful to give judges better training or better tools for thinking about the separate components separately. Maybe that would include judging (some components only).
Maybe like we have a tech panel we should have different judges for TES and PCS.
When people suggest this, I always say that the TES panel should also be tasked with scoring the Skating Skills and possibly the Transitions as well. Make these the technical judges, and let a separate panel concentrate on the performance aspects.
In addition to giving the technical judges something to think about between elements to keep them from getting bored out of their skulls, it would also make sure that no judges is anchoring their Performance or Interpretation scores directly their own Skating Skills scores, since they wouldn't be assigning SS scores at all.
How a further division of labor within the judging panel might work best -- assuming that practical aspects could be resolved -- would be an interesting discussion for another thread.
)
.
that's definitely something I'd buy as a video game.
