New Scoring System

[Jhar55]

I am watching Skate America. They were trying to explain the new system. My question is, why do the judges need a tech caller to tell them what jump the skater has just made??
If the judge already can't tell what jump the skater had done what the heck are they doing judging anyway.
Sometimes I can't tell for sure what the jump was so in accordence with the new system, I could be a judge because someone is going to tell me what it was. I am I kind of right in my thinking.:\

 

[Ladskater]

I hate the new scoring system. I feel as though I am watching a swim meet or gymnastics, not figure skating. I have not a clue what the marks mean - if anything. Give me a 5.8 or 6.0 anyday!

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

jhar55 - I think the tech caller just confirms that the attempted jump was correct. It is up to the judges to decide on whether the mark includes a -3 to a +3.

There was the case in Nebehorn, I believe, that the caller decided that Amber's attempted triple was a double because she finished the jump on the ice by a half a turn. If it had been a quarter turn cheat, the triple would be confirmed but the judges would mark down for the 'technique' - not the technical.

With this in mind, I thought that if there was an attempted lutz and the skater rocked onto an inside edge that the caller would confirm that the jump was a flip and not a lutz. But I was advised that the term 'flutz' is ok in figure skating so that the skater can attempt a lutz; do a flutz instead, and the jump is judged on technqiue - the technical is ok.

How all this works out at the end of the season and the committees begin to discuss the GP as the testing ground will be of paramount importance for the future of figure skating judging.

IMO, the chance of reverting to the 6.0 system will be forgotten. They will work on fine tuning the new system.

Joe

 

[Emilieanne]

Jhar55, I agree that judges should be able to identify jumps and spins, etc. and the best ones can consistently do that. However, from what I understand, the purpose of the caller is to ensure that the judges evaluate the same item...that's all.

I do like the idea that all the items have to be evaluated on how they were performed at that very moment, and to win, a skater must "deliver the goods" better than anyone else. This in and of itself is going to make for a very interesting season.

Let's see how all this unfolds as the season goes on.

 

[April]

So Far So-So

I miss the old scoring too. The momentum is gone. The skaters seems just as clueless as the viewers. However, it seems the only good thing to come out of this is the judges feedback, and the fact that it's anyones game, no longer is being in the top 4 important. Will this new scoring plan be implemented at US nationals?

 

[Ptichka]

April, the Nationals will still be judged on the old.

I believe the "momentum" is only gone temporarily, while everyone is adjusting to the new system. I am sure we will get into it soon enough. However, there is definitely a reason why ISU only implements this at the GP -- Europeans, 4CC, Worlds will all be judged on 6.0 system for now.

I think "controller" is a good idea. If anything, I would have gone even further -- one of the proposals called for different judges to evaluate technical and presentation. This way, you have one specialist concentrating on one thing, and another on another.

Come on guys, give the new system a chance!

 

[lavender]

That contributed to the already boring competition. One saving grace for me was Jenny.

 

[LarasB]

To me, the new points system is confusing. Before, if a skater/skaters got 6.0 it was exciting, now there's no exitement in seeing those scores. Also, the problem has always been the judges themselves who are biased, so who's to say that will change with the points given now? Maybe I just don't understand the system yet.

 

[Mathman]

IMO the change over to the CoP is much, much more than just tinkering with the scoring system. It represents a different view of figure skating altogether.

Under the old system, the responsibility of the judges was simply to say, I thought this skater was the best, this one second, and so on. The actual marks -- 5.6 or whatever -- had no significance at all except as a mnemonic aid to help each judge keep track of what he thought of the performances.

It is like a juried art show. If a juror likes this ceramic vase better than that watercolor, well, that is his or her opinion and no amount of "we was robbed" or statistical analysis has anything to do with it.

Under the Code of Points, however, the judges are expected to evaluate the quality of each element according to standards that in principle at least are as carefully defined as possible. The most points wins.

This is like a sport.

I think that the CoP is the ISU's attempt at pushing figure skating, that hybrid pushme-pullyou, over into "sport" and away from "art."

I think that's smart. There is a lot more fan interest in football games than in art shows.

Mathman

 

[Tonichelle]

Come on guys, give the new system a chance!

ITA we haven't seen it in action enough to really get a feel for it.... I certainly miss reading 6.0... but at the same time... the movements in dance were incredibly exciting... I'm just as confused as the next person (I am horrible at math!) but I'm starting to get teh hang of the process... can't explain it... but I understand it

 

[Rgirl]

I would urge everyone to go to the results of Skate America at:
http://www.isufs.org/results/sa2003/index.htm
and click on Detailed Results (last box on the right). It's a PDF format so you have to download it for the SP and LP for each discipline, but I think it's really worth it.

Right now of course there's no momentum because we have no point of reference other than the scores of the other competitors. For example, with Sasha at SA, we see a Total Element Score (ie, technical) of 62.01 and and a Total Component Score of 68.88 and we can only compare these to the scores of the other skaters. We don't know if, under the 6.0 system, this would equal a general 5.8/5.9 or a 5.7/5.8 or even a 5.7/5.7.

But I think Mathman hit the nail on the head with his description of the 6.0 system. As much as the fans got excited at seeing a row of 5.9s or 6.0s, ultimately they were meaningless. There may have been a general correlation between the highest scores and who would be on the podium, it still came down to the ordinals. And like Mathman said, the ordinal system was like a juried art show.

A good example of how the 6.0 system leaves more open-ended questions than it answers are the results of ladies '96 Worlds. Most fans agree that both Michelle and Chen Lu skated beautifully, had high technical content, and great choreography. I don't have the scores, but I know both Lulu and Michelle received two 6.0s for presentation and that the ordinal breakdown was six first place for Michelle and three for Lulu. Many people have opined that it was the fact that Michelle did seven triples whereas Lulu did six that made the difference. Had this event been scored using the COP, even with the same outcome we could look at the Detailed Results and see exactly where Michelle received points over Lulu.

Also at '96 Worlds, Lulu skated before Michelle, so Michelle had an advantage, some might say, in knowing that Lulu had landed six triples and that if she could skate clean and land seven, she might win. I have no problem with Michelle winning, but IMO it seems to be unfair that under the 6.0 system, skate order can have an effect on the outcome. To use another example, many feel that at the '98 Olympics, Michelle would have won the gold over Tara had Michelle skated after Tara. As it is, we'll never know. Under the COP, skate order cannot affect the judges' scores nor the outcome of the competition. And that's just one advantage.

BTW, the more I read and understand the COP, the more I like it, especially after having seen it in action at SA. I agree with Dick Button that it will need tweaking and I'll never like the secrecy, but I agree with Mathman 100%. The COP finally allows figure skating to be evaluated as a sport while at the same time, ironically, distributing what I think is a more appropriate emphasis on the technical and presentation aspects of a program. I think that in time the COP will bring more respect to figure skating as a sport, not less. After all, how much lower can a sport sink in terms of respect given not just the SLC Olympic judging scandal, but all the judging scandals before it? For example, there were the allegations that at the '98 Olympics the fix was in to keep Bourne and Kraatz off the podium. Or the time a Canadian judge reported that she had been approached to put in a fix and she was punished by the ISU simply for reporting it. And those are just two of the ones we know about. When a judge pretty much only has to say "I liked A better than B" among skaters that are already near the top, even if we know who the judges are bias based on nationality or other nonskating issues are built in to the system.

Also, IMO, the 6.0 system has the propensity not only to hold down skaters who otherwise would be winning or on the podium, it also has the power to hold up skaters who have power either in their record or their coach. An example of this might be said of Grishuk and Platov. I really liked this couple's skating, but there were times they won with obvious mistakes (trips, near falls) over teams who had IMO equal dance skills and choreography plus a clean performance. To me, there was just too much wrong with the 6.0 system and although cheating in judging is definitely a problem, in some ways I think it's been made the scapegoat for all that's wrong with figure skating. IMO, the 6.0 system invited cheating because it made it so easy. With the COP, judges who want to cheat are going to have to work very, very hard to have any effect on the outcome. It's now going to take a whole hell of a lot more for judges to unfairly affect the outcome of an event than just toe tapping or phone calls. Although as I said, I'll never like the secrecy, I'd rather have anonymous judging and a system that makes cheating virtually impossible than knowing who the judges are and a system that makes cheating so easy you can't tell if a judge is even doing it.

Finally, I think one of the problems at this point is that the ISU articles on the COP are so long and impenetrable to the average fan. But I think there are ways to simplify it and I'm going to start a thread on it right now.
Rgirl

 

[Ladskater]

Mathman:

That's the difference though - figure skating is art, not a football game. If I want to watch a game that keeps score, I have hockey galore here in Canada.

Figure skating has always been more of an "elite" sport. A 6.0 really did mean something - to the skater and to the fan. It meant perfection. With the new scoring system all that is lost. There was something exciting about seeing a string of 5.8s or 5.9s and the odd 6.0 thrown in. For the skater it was a reward from the judges for a job well done.

Figure skating has always been riddled with politics so even with a new scoring system there is no guarantee that favortism won't come into play. There will still be the same "back room" deals going on just a new way to cover it up.

I say stick with the old judging system, but screen the judges better.

 

[mike79]

If the CoP ends up working the way it's supposed to then I'm all for it. I would love to be able to watch figure skating in a couple of years and say "I hope so-and-so can break the world record with however many points!" We will be able to know who really does have the most difficult program out there.

It is hard to get over the old 6.0, though.

 

[mpal2]

I'm still having issues with the way it has been pushed through. I bet that most of the crap gets pushed under a rug and never properly addressed. I don't think they followed proper procedures and England obviously thinks so as well. Any other federations that would have agreed have too much to lose. Remember Japan had to back down from their complaints because they were threatened with the loss of a Grand Prix event.

I think part of the reason why people are still struggling to understand it is because it took the ISU a long time to issue any information. They couldn't issue anything at times because they were still making it up as they went along.

I don't like the rush through something this major. Just the change in computer programming is enough to make me fear the worst. We just went through a "simple" upgrade at work. We had a test system where we duplicated everything we did in our live system as well as testing the processes that we only run once or twice a year. The only reason why we had 1 test system is because we kept 2 test systems for the current level of software. We never have less than 3 test systems.

We tested everything, marked processes as successful and tried to fix the broken ones. The problem we ran into is the "fix" for something that was broken made something else break. We had already marked those processes as testing successfully so we never knew the "fix" was bad and we upgraded the software in the live system. The past 2 weeks have been horrible at work because we are now finding things in the live system that the "fixes" broke and it's too late to go back now. Our live data is now corrupted.

The sad part of all of that is that this really is one of the "simplest" and "easiest" upgrades we have been through. So I'm not entirely convinced that brand new programming for a brand new system is really all that great in the short amount of time they've had it. Computers can make life so simple, but when any part of it breaks, it all goes downhill. There is always something else affected.

As for the code of points system itself, I'm still waiting to see what it really does. Two events are not enough especially when everyone is still in such a steep learning curve.

Edited: By the way, I'm not a complete idiot when it comes to computers. If anything I'm the department guru and I also was one of the individuals begging for the upgrade. So this is really not an anti-computer rant. It's just an inside track from someone who knows just how much an upgrade or system change can throw you off.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

As for the code of points system itself, I'm still waiting to see what it really does. Two events are not enough especially when everyone is still in such a steep learning curve.

I'm still all for it but still waiting for the final proof that this is the way to go and it's major goal of preventing judge manipulation.

From the SA, it didn't matter what system was being used the results would have been the same. Questions might have arose between the placing of Shizuka and Jennie but the others were all correct, imo.

Let's see with the remaining GP events and compare how the two systems (your basic opinion will serve as the 6.0 system) measure up.

I'm hoping the COP works but I would like a little more study on whether 'secret' judging is necessary.

Joe

 

[nymkfan51]

Right now, I have favorable opinions about COP. I was at SA and when the first marks went up, everyone was sort of laughing because noone really knew what they meant. But ... after three days of watching the scores, I did start to feel a sense of familiarity. I agree with Mathman ... this will give it more credibility as a sport. I know for me that one of my biggest complaints over the years was that figure skating wasn't considered a sport ... I do think this will help.
And RGirl brings up very good points about skating orders. I have always hated the fact that someone could lose a competition because they drew the wrong number from the hat. Not only that, but this system will look at everything ... which to me bodes well for more complete programs. I think there will have to be some changes made ... that is why using it for the GP series will provide the opportunity to find the problems. I loved the 6.0 too, but I am hoping this new system works.

 

[Ptichka]

Joe,

As I have answered you on another thread, The results under the old system would have only been the same for singels.

In Pairs, results would CERTAINLY be different, since under old system the team that is in 2nd after short and wins the free wins overall.

Dance would probably also be different, since I do not believe judges would have penalized the favorites so heavily, especially in the ODs, under the old system.

 

[dorispulaski]

I didn't hate it at SA. And I like the fact that when skaters skate in Skate Canada who didn't skate in Skate America, the scores have enough reality that if Jill and John got 212 combined in dance at Skate America and if Jane and Joe got 182 combined in Skate Canada, that it is a good bet that Jane and Joe had a worse performance than Jill and John. With the old system, both could have had 5.9/6.0 because the marks were really just place holders.

I think some tweaking is needed for the definitions of spin and footwork GOE. And the dance more work than either.

Ptichka is right-Petrova Tikhonov would definitely have won under the old system. There is work needed on the GOE for lifts.
But it's great that the new system is well enough defined that we can say this rather than saying the judges blew it.

However, B&A might well have won under the old system. G&G did not produce the performance that I would have expected from a team with their previous placings. It wasn't just the stumble. (But I still think it needs more work in dance than in the other disciplines).

dpp

 

[Nadine]

Weighing in with my opinion on COP...

Though most of my views can been seen over in the Skate America folder, I wanted to add one more reason why I'm not particularly in favor of COP (though I too am taking a wait & see approach). And that reason is b/c, in my mind, free skating is exactly that ~ free skating! Leave the requirements, number crunching & whatever else to the SP. But don't touch the free skating portion of a competition, unless one wishes to do away with free skating all together and just make it into a longer version of the SP (with its requisite requirements, et al). That's the part of the competition where a skater can truly be free and forget about the restrictions of the SP. And do whatever s/he feels in the sense that one can put together a creative program that highlights one's strengths & downplays one's weaknesses without worry of deductions, whereas the opposite was true of the SP. And, in my mind, the COP is quite similar to what we saw with the SP in terms of its requirements, restrictions and ALL the skaters virtually doing the same thing (3L/2T, 2A, 3F, spiral, spin, et al). My Gosh, with COP, I can just imagine how similar skaters' programs will be - ALL constructed to earn the maximum points - cookie-cutter programs (gone the risk, creativity, magic). In fact, one only need look at the state of gymnastics to see this. I'll even go one step further and say that the LP should just be eliminated all together. Rather, in its place one can just skate a long version of the SP. And thereby eliminate one having to skate a SP & LP; just do away with the latter all together. Because it is no longer free skating.

***Note: in essence, I just think that one cannot place a value on a performance as a whole. It just seems wrong to me to place points on spins, spirals, choreography, jumps, and that unidentifiable "something special" - one knows it when one sees it. The 6.0 system came the closest though. JMHO.***

By the way, IMHO the scoring system was never an issue with why the general public did not/does not view skating as a sport. Rather, it has to do with the make-up, sequins, costumes, and dancing on ice (all things I love btw ). You don't see this in other competitive sports. Its one saving grace in my humble opinion were/are the jumps........the jumps made it into a sport........made it accessible to sports fans b/c they could easily see how hard of an athletic feat they were/are to do. Just like in boxing, punches thrown & landed (TKOs, etc.) make it into a sport. Same goes for football (touchdowns), soccer (goals scored), baseball (homeruns), basketball (3pointers), et al. COP, in my mind, has nothing to do with it. Think about it - do you watch sports for the number crunching - or to see an athletic performance. For me, it is the latter. I know a good, great, or spectacular performance when I see it. And no number crunching is going to convince me otherwise. I would venture the same goes for the general public. JMHO of course. (;^)

Last note, I recall reading about several sportscasters & their reactions to Midori Ito when she came onto the scene - particularly when she appeared at the 1988 Olympics - they were ecstatic (no lie) and couldn't believe her power, speed, and how many triple jumps she landed (she, literally, blew the field away). Some were even in tears. She & Tonya Harding together made it into a sport, not a figure skating competition. Myself, though I admire their athletic achievements, I prefer the ONE that can blend both the sport & the art. And I have yet to find her, which to me would be a combination of Oksana Baiul & Midori Ito (my dream skater). Though I have yet to find such a ONE, I refuse to give up hope (she will come one day).

Peace, Love, & HAPPY HALLOWEEN!!! Nadine

P.S. Tonichelle, since viewing your signature pic of Jennifer Kirk, I've been on a mission to try to find more pics of that absolutely drop-dead-gorgeous dress (no lie)! It reminds me exactly of one that Oksana Baiul wore for the opening of 2000 COI - my favorite of ALL the costumes she has ever worn (no lie) - but she never wore it again. She looked just like Marilyn Monroe while skating to the Macarina Song. Here's a pic:

http://images.andale.com/f2/115/106/3632169/1069243275801_oksanabaiul.jpg
"The years go by...but moments never really slip away...they only grow more precious." - Oksana Baiul