new scoring system

[JonnyCoop]

There are two main basic things that really tork (torque?) me about CoP.

First, I feel a system that convoluted and complicated was set up mainly to keep the judges, $peedy's little buddies, from coming under further scrutiny after SLC. (To which I'm sure many of you are probably saying, well, DUH!!! ) First of all, it protects these precious little flowers from being booed because most of the audience isn't sure whether or not a rip-off has occured (which touches a bit on my second point). And even with reading the protocols, who on earth knows who's doing what??

Secondly, $peedy and Company lost track of something extremely important. The ISU spent the 70s, 80s, and 90s trying various things to streamline the scoring system so the average viewer at home would be able to understand how final results of competitions were acheived. The relative placement system made sense, more or less. Now, with CoP, the average viewer at home is once again confused as to how in the world these numbers are arrived at. What makes the difference between 119.02 and 123.12?? How many people are going to delve into the protocols to figure all this crap out??

What I am also starting to have a serious problem with is people winning competitions based on huge margins acheived in the short program with just an average free skate. Why does the 2 1/2 minute program now often count for more than the 4 minute free skate? Especially since now there's no mandatory deductions in the SP anymore. I think it's conceivable you could now fall down twice and still manage to win the SP over people who skate cleaner.

BtW -- do any of you CoP savants out there who may be reading this know -- if in Pairs, BOTH partners go down on their side by side jumps (doesn't happen often, but I've seen it a couple of times in the last 25 years), do they get 1.00 in deductions or 2.00?

 

[Mathman]

2

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

For the young men, quads are quads and will influence the PCS scores. The skaters with the quads will be the only ones in contention for gold. It was that way in 6.0 and it is that way in CoP.

Similarly, the ladies with the most backbreaking inabauers and two 3x3s will be in contention for gold as they were in 6.0.

There is no radical change unless the PCS scores are judged by an independent group of judges.

The above is JMO.

Joe

 

[enlight78]

I feel doing away with figures is what has effected skaters skills more than revamping the judging system. Thank goodness there are skaters like Jeff Buttle who do pay attention to detail and use their edges to give quality to their performance. Good stroking skills are sadly lacking with some skaters. I don't think skaters are any less artistic with the new scoring system - it all depends on who does their choreography and just as before with the 6.0 system there are technical skaters and artistic skaters. It's just harder now for the artistic skaters to earn points because they have to make sure they include enough quads or triple jumps in their performance. Figure skating has undergone a lot of changes over the past few years - some good, some not so good, but overall figure skating has maintained its high level of achievement for the skaters. The skaters of today would do well to study great skaters from the 6.0 scoring days - like Toller Cranston and Donald Jackson - and take a page from their diary. These skaters were taught well in every aspect of their skating and applied it to their performance.

I think they should put figures in junior competition, in order to build good skating skills before they become senoir skaters. Or use figures at senoir worlds for the qualifying round.

P.S. I just love looking at the protocols after watching a skater's program to compare their impression with mine. Am I the only one.

 

[JonnyCoop]

2

Thanks. I was wondering. That certainly would be the logical answer, but some CoP logic is pretty sketchy at best, and I was thinking there may be a possibility that, well, even if only one went down, the element was still technically NOT completed, so why penalize it twice?

 

[enlight78]

I just got done reading ISU explanation of PCs. Afterwards I realize how difficult it will be to take some much information and turn into a reflective number. The judges are good at Skating Skills. I see how the other four parts can fall to the way side. The scores are represented as
10-outstanding
9- superior
8- verygood
7-good
6-above average
5- average

What is average interpitation? What is the true difference between good and very good? It is hard to be factual when something is based on oppinion almost completely.

 

[Mathman]

Thanks. I was wondering. That certainly would be the logical answer, but some CoP logic is pretty sketchy at best, and I was thinking there may be a possibility that, well, even if only one went down, the element was still technically NOT completed, so why penalize it twice?

This is new language in the rules this year. I don't know if was an actual change from previous seasons, or if they just wanted to clarify the rule about a double fall. But anyway, now it says explicitly, -2.

If one person does not complete the element and the other does, the team does not get any credit for the element. But only 1 extra point fall deduction at the end.

 

[debdelilah]

What is average interpitation? What is the true difference between good and very good? It is hard to be factual with is based on oppinion almost completely.

But isn't that like judging whether someone is a good actor, singer, or dancer? There would be a range of opinions, but there is still a certain skill set that everyone is evaluating. With skaters who are in the "seven" range, I generally am not tempted to look away while they are skating--it has entertainment value, aside from being a competition.

 

[gsrossano]

Thanks. I was wondering. That certainly would be the logical answer, but some CoP logic is pretty sketchy at best, and I was thinking there may be a possibility that, well, even if only one went down, the element was still technically NOT completed, so why penalize it twice?

It used to be only -1 for a simultaneous fall in Pairs. It was always -2 in Dance. Since the last Congress it has been -2 for a fall by both in Pairs.

The basic principle in pairs and dance is that the team gets the score for the weakest link. So is one skater pops a triple toe and the other lands it is scored (T = 0 points). If one falls and the other lands it, it would be (3T, GoE = -3, and -1 deductions). Etc.

Similar idea for feature, both skaters have to do the feature for it to count towards a level (but not necessarily at the same time).

(Hurray, I figured out how to spell check. Oh happy day!)

 

[gsrossano]

What is average interpitation? What is the true difference between good and very good? It is hard to be factual when something is based on oppinion almost completely.

An outstanding question. Probably the most difficult PC to judge, and the most difficult one to calibrate a person to judge on a numeric scale. Though, it is not supposed to be just an opinion.

Did the skater move effortlessly in time to the music? If it looks like they are struggling all the time to keep up, or keep in time, that's near the bottom. If they keep up for the whole program and look like they haven't a care in the world doing it, that's near the top.

Did they express the character and flavor of the music? For what fraction of the program? Did they skate happy to sad music? That's bad if they did! If the music made you feel happy, did they express happy in their movements? If they didn't, that's bad. If they did, that's great.

Did they make use of the subtleties of the music? First, to judge that, the judge has to be able to recognize the subtleties themself. Then they have to decide is the skater did anything in the performance using the subtleties (nuances) of the music. If the skater did nothing with the nuances, that's bad. If they used them throughout the program to perfection that's great.

Although 5 is called "average", 5 really means half way from not being able to satisfy the criteria at all, to fully satisfying the criteria to perfection.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

It's all so subjective. Some like Puccini others like Wagner still others like Gounod. There will never be a reliable decision in the PCS scores.

 

[amber68]

Maybe that's why the judges are afraid to use all the PCS as apparently should be used.
Maybe, to their merit, the judges admit that they are mere humans, fully aware of their incapacity of being totally objective and are trying not to let their personal taste interfere with the outcome of a competition. Maybe that’s why they use only the skating skills and P/E marks appropriately, the rest of PCS being within the same range.

 

[JonnyCoop]

It used to be only -1 for a simultaneous fall in Pairs. It was always -2 in Dance.

Thanks for that info as well; I never actually thought about it in Dance. But I suppose -2 would stand to reason, given that many falls in Dance take place when the partners are kind of tangled up in each other (out of lack of better term to come up with at 5AM) anyway, like the infamous Fusar-Poli/Margaglio splat in the Torino OD.

 

[enlight78]

Although 5 is called "average", 5 really means half way from not being able to satisfy the criteria at all, to fully satisfying the criteria to perfection.

Thank you. Because I was under the expression of that 5 reflected what an average skater was expected to peform. And If that was so wouldn't the expectations for junoirs be less then that of senoirs. If judges a following this check list, there not taking in the fact that a skater didn't express the criteria through the whole program. It seems that if you do it for at least a third of the of the program you get full credit.

 

[debdelilah]

Thank you. Because I was under the expression of that 5 reflected what an average skater was expected to peform. And If that was so wouldn't the expectations for junoirs be less then that of senoirs. If judges a following this check list, there not taking in the fact that a skater didn't express the criteria through the whole program. It seems that if you do it for at least a third of the of the program you get full credit.

Everyone is judged on the same scale--so "5" reflects a certain overall skill level, not an average that changes according to the age level of the skaters. It means the same thing in juniors or seniors. Juniors tend to get 3s and 4s, and only occasionally reach 5s.

I don't think anyone is getting full credit--10s and 9s are never seen. Eights are as high as any eligible skater seems to reach. For people who get 7s, generally their program can pull me in and entertain, even though the performance isn't perfect.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Nobody checks the references on the judges as to whether they qualify to judge the invidiual components. That is why I prefer the sport to pick up an independent PCS panel for judging the whole gamut of the PCS scores.

IMO, most of these judges have been around a long time and know the 6.0 system backwards and forwards, but there are now components which they have no background in the CoP scores.

Joe

 

[JonnyCoop]

IMO, most of these judges have been around a long time and know the 6.0 system backwards and forwards, but there are now components which they have no background in the CoP scores.

Joe

Exactly. Which I also consider to be a huge problem. Some of these people have been at it for 20, 25, 30 years. They were trained to use the 6.0 system and then all the sudden something more complicated comes up, using an entirely different mathemetical concept and everything else, a totally new way of judging a program that requires an entirely new way to look at it. And after all those of years of judging using 6.0 they were then supposed to somehow go into a completely different mental gear (which at the age of some of these people was REALLY asking for a lot, I imagine in some cases it would be like getting your 97 year old great grandmother to learn how to use the internet) and then judge accurately?? If mistakes in judging were made early on under CoP (and even if some still are) [which we know there are], I certainly do not entirely blame the judges for that, given the circumstances.

 

[gsrossano]

Nobody checks the references on the judges as to whether they qualify to judge the invidiual components. That is why I prefer the sport to pick up an independent PCS panel for judging the whole gamut of the PCS scores.

IMO, most of these judges have been around a long time and know the 6.0 system backwards and forwards, but there are now components which they have no background in the CoP scores.

Joe

In the U.S., in order to judge IJS, all the judges have been going through a continuing training program for the new system. There have been many training seminars since it was introduced and all the judges have been required to attend them if they want to judge IJS. USFSA tracks how many seminars and how much practice judging and how much trial judging (two different things) every judge has done every year. In order to judge a qualifying competition, a judge has to have a certain number of education credits in IJS.

The criteria for the PCs are drawn from the previous criteria for judging the second mark under 6.0. There is very little that is new in the criteria compared to what was previously judged. What is different is that the criteria have greater detail and complexity (too much in my mind) than before. Also, some of the criteria are things that were judged before, but never explicitly described in the rules. For example, the "relationship" in pairs is now called out explicitly in the new criteria, where it wasn't before. Nevertheless, the relationship is something that was always looked for in Pairs under 6.0.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

In the U.S., in order to judge IJS, all the judges have been going through a continuing training program for the new system. There have been many training seminars since it was introduced and all the judges have been required to attend them if they want to judge IJS. USFSA tracks how many seminars and how much practice judging and how much trial judging (two different things) every judge has done every year. In order to judge a qualifying competition, a judge has to have a certain number of education credits in IJS.

A quick example. How do they judge choreography? The skater does not makeup the choreography, but must put his/her stamp on it with feeling and interpretation. But the bottom line is how good is the choreography the skater has to deal with? Whom do we find fault with if it is not good?

I can't believe all those judges are so musically inclined and able to discern movements in space. If so, then so is everyone in the Arena. We don't need a judge for that.

Joe

 

[enlight78]

I don't think anyone is getting full credit--10s and 9s are never seen. Eights are as high as any eligible skater seems to reach. For people who get 7s, generally their program can pull me in and entertain, even though the performance isn't perfect.

In my opinion, a skater that shows relatively interesting expression and choreography equally distributed in program should get mid sevens or maybe higher. My point is that skaters who have little expression and almost no choreography until the late third of there long program are still getting near the mid seven range. I think the lop-sidedness of a program should account more in the scores.