Now that you've seen it

[mzheng]

having seen both the Russians and the French teams skate live on several occasions, my opinion is that the French are far better at both, aesthetically as a team I just love the French, he is a tall, strong and calm blond and she is a petite, firey brunnette and they fit together and balance each other so well. Also what they do on the ice is far more difficult and polished than the Russians and doesn't ever lose speed through the moves, which is something both the Russians and the Ukranians have problems with and the Israelis sacrafice the polish for the speed.
.

I agree with you. I just watched it again yesterday. I was really impressed by French team's FD. They are so smooth and fluid through out the whole program. And they kept the speed up through out those difficult move. They should've won this phase of dance.

Again, with the new CoP system, sounds to me the N/A( ESPN )commentators (Susie) more cautious with judges. With competetion like that under 6.0 Susie might come out laud that she would put French ahead of Rusians. But instead she just chittchatting how crispy lines that Rusians have. Don't even come close to commented on those losted twizzles.

 

[Jimena]

You are right that Delobel/Schoenfelder are underrated technically. I loved thier Frida program. I thought their choreography was great and they had a much better cut of the music than Liashenko uses for her free skate.

But I thought they had actually been ranked first in TES? So they are not undermarked technically. With TES they're getting their due. The problem, again, is the way PCS is being applied.

I loved the Frida program. I think it's the first free dance since A&P's Carmina Burana that has impressed me. DelSchoes were not perfect though (a couple of unison breaks), and that was reflected in PCS. Sadly, N&K were not perfect yet their PCS did not reflect that. However, people that were in the arena at the time reported that they do have much more speed than all the other couples, which should be reflected in PCS somehow. I just don't think that all the components should be marked the same way.

I've read that what is holding the DelSchoes back is the CD. But I don't know if that's the case since I haven't seen any CD's this year.

FWIW, I would've had them DelSchoes first, then N&K, then the GrushGons and finally C&S.

DenStas do indeed have a horrid free dance this year. And their OD does not fit them at all.

 

[hockeyfan228]

Now that I've seen it, I have these comments about Slutskaya's SP, which has gotten raves on the boards and from Susie Wynn.

According to the ISU rules, any element that has a single flaw cannot get more than base (0) value, and that's only if it starts with a +1 and not a 0. All but one phase must be good in order to start with +1. before deductions Even if the skater, for example, jumps higher than the boards, if there is a faulty entrance or exit, that jump doesn't get extra credit to increase the starting value to over +2, and the potential GOE maxes out at 0.

This is what I saw in Slutskaya's program. I'm assuming that all of the rotations and levels were called properly, and I'm not even touching PCS.

3Z/2Lo: entrance into Lutz was telegraphed -- not that I'm sure that any skater can do a Lutz without telegraphing, but it was 5-6 seconds telegraphed from the preparation to the pick -- and exit out of Loop didn't quite check out. By written standards, the combo should have received 0 -- which 8/12 judges gave her -- or -1; however 4/12 judges gave her +1.

Actual GOE +.14. I think this should be 0. Which is too bad, because lutz in the air was simply gorgeous, but the only extra credit she can get according to the rules is to start with a +1 instead of a 0.

3F: According to the written code, "a slight break between steps/moves and the jump (rhythm not maintained)" is a mandatory -1. "A longer break between steps and the jump (no rhythm maintained.)" There was a noticeable break between her steps and her 3F. I counted 4-5 seconds between the time she turned forward out of steps and the time she picked. That means the "benefit of the doubt" mark should have been 0, and the more accurate assessment should have been -1.

Actual GOE: .86. One judge gave -1, one judge gave 0, nine judges gave +1, and one judge gave +2. I think this should have been -1.

2A: Landing was a bit tight, but I think it was just as reasonable to give her a +1 as a 0. The difficult entrance doesn't count in GOE according to the code, though, unless the jump would have qualified as +2 without the entrance. The difficult entrance is supposed to be reflected in the transition score.

Actual GOE .57. 8/12 judges gave her +1, and the other four gave her zero. I think that is fair.

Note: spins don't have full points between GOE's the way triples jumps do, so trying to do the math on individual GOE to get actual GOE requires some factoring.

FCLSp2: Flying camel, with skid/travel on landing leg after fly, nice centering on the camel, until the change of position into the donut, with multiple travels. According to CoP, "slight re-centering" requires a -1 deduction and "moderate re-centering" requires a -2 deduction. (It wasn't technically a combo spin, or she'd qualify for -3 "completely re-centers or travels.")

Actual GOE: .57, with Susie Wynn waxing lyrical about her wonderful spins. 9/12 judges gave her +1 and 3/12 judges gave her +2. So no judge thought she travelled at all, because a single centering issue would have meant a maximum of 0. Given the mulitiple travels, I would have given her a -2.

SlSt2: Although it's hard to gauge speed on TV, I don't see any reason why Slutskaya's FW didn't meet the requirements for +1, and I would have given her +2, assuming she had her typical speed. (Even at Worlds last year, when she was generally sluggish, she flew in her SL FW sequence in the SP.)

Actual GOE: .50. nine judges gave her +1, two gave her +2, and I don't understand the reasoning behind the judge that gave her 0. I was with the larger minority.

LSp3: Again, she had multiple travels on the layback spin, most noticeably going in and out of the Biellmann. While some of her positions are top notch, others are not, and there is a mandatory -1 for "weak or inconsistent quality of positions."

Actual GOE: .50. three judges gave her 0, five judges gave her +1, and four judges gave her +2. I would have given her -2 for the multiple travels and inconsistent positions.

SpSt3: Slutskaya had several wobbles on her standing leg blade during the first forward Biellmann spiral, but I couldn't quite tell if she was shifting edges. Unfortunately, the camera didn't catch her blades on the second phase. The only thing in CoP that refers to this is "stumble," which I'm not sure applies.

Actual GOE: 1.0. four judges gave her 0, four judges gave her +1, three judges gave her +2, and one judge gave her +3. I would need a ruling from the technical committee before I could rank this one, because the surety of edge wasn't there, at least on the first of three spirals.

CCoSp1: Again multiple travels, and in a combo spin, -3 "completely re-centers or travels" would even qualify.

Actual GOE: .57 nine judges gave her +1 and three judges gave her +2. Not a single one noted all of the travels in her spin. I would have given her -2.

Just like last year, when Liashenko was getting + GOE on her lutzes and flips, despite egregious telegraphs that weren't deducted, and since the beginning, when flutzes haven't been called, Slutskaya's multiple travels didn't get the mandatory deductions

If Slutskaya's SP hadn't been scored liberally, at least the way I read the CoP GOE guidelines, she may very well have been the leader after the SP, but her lead would have been a lot less.

If you think I'm just being picky about Slutskaya, when I was in Portland, I looked at every element through CoP lens. I would have given Weir, who is absolutely one of my favorites, a -2 for the camel spin, a -1 on the footwork sequence, and a -1 on the 3F at the end of the program. And those are the ones I remember off the top of my head.

 

[mzheng]

Very detailed analysis on spot. I hope you'll be back after the worlds. Give us a detailed analysis like this for Ladies finished on top.

Did you watched pokio's SP? There are clips on FSU I believe. You can't be sure though if Irina's SP lead shouldn't be that high if you hadn't see how pokio and elena's SP had been scored.

But I do agree Irina got the generous GOE on her spins. I still think sometimes the judges misunderstood the difficult and quality. When they see the higher level element they tends to hand out big GOE mark. It was said last season, in dance judge they display the level of difficulty(lift or fw I forgot which one) on judge's screen after the element is called for. This season they removed the displaying of level because according to judges feed back they tends to hand out the big GOE when they see the more difficult level is displayed.

 

[hockeyfan228]

Did you watched pokio's SP? There are clips on FSU I believe. You can't be sure though if Irina's SP lead shouldn't be that high if you hadn't see how pokio and elena's SP had been scored.

But I do agree Irina got the generous GOE on her spins. I still think sometimes the judges misunderstood the difficult and quality. When they see the higher level element they tends to hand out big GOE mark. It was said last season, in dance judge they display the level of difficulty(lift or fw I forgot which one) on judge's screen after the element is called for. This season they removed the displaying of level because according to judges feed back they tends to hand out the big GOE when they see the more difficult level is displayed.

I've seen Poykio's, Slutskaya's, and Liashenko's LP's, but I haven't done element-by-element analysis yet. On first viewing a couple of nights ago, I noticed a travel on one of Poykio's spins, but I don't remember any others offhand. Her spin positions, simple as they are (level-wise), have clarity, and the quality of her positions in spins are uniformly good. The spins didn't look fast, but they were well done, on the whole. Liashenko does more than telegraph her jumps; she nearly squats before her 3F's. IIRC, Slutskaya traveled on most of her spins in the LP, but she was dead-centered on one of them. Her program was very weak in the beginning, but it picked up in the second half. Still, there were points when her skating was very labored in the second half.

The ISU actually stopped displaying levels part-way through the GP last year. Charlie Cyr, an international judge, gave a seminar, and one of the attendees posted a very detailed report on what he said. One of the things he reported was that the judges themselves asked for the levels not to appear, because they felt influenced by the difficulty, and they were scoring GOE higher whenever they saw level 3. But everytime a Biellmann or a quad is performed, it's clear that the element is difficult, and this could influence the judges in the same way.

 

[Jimena]

The ISU actually stopped displaying levels part-way through the GP last year. Charlie Cyr, an international judge, gave a seminar, and one of the attendees posted a very detailed report on what he said. One of the things he reported was that the judges themselves asked for the levels not to appear, because they felt influenced by the difficulty, and they were scoring GOE higher whenever they saw level 3. But everytime a Biellmann or a quad is performed, it's clear that the element is difficult, and this could influence the judges in the same way.

Huh. Interesting. I had heard that some skaters were complaining that the quad wasn't valued highly enough, but then someone (I can't remember who) mentioned that the judges were more generous with the GOEs with the quads than with other jumps, which basically increased the value of the quad under CoP. I guess the same thing is happening with other difficult skills.

 

[Mathman]

Thanks for the detailed anaysis, Hockeyfan. You make a very interesting point, that + GOE scores have specific criteria and are not awarded for looking pretty. I always felt that Michelle would clean up on the GOEs just because all of her moves are so grceful and "finished," but maybe not.

MM

 

[rjw]

Bielman Spiral

Why is a spiral with the leg held up a bad thing, but a spiral with the blade held up a great thing?

 

[Mathman]

Hi, rjw. Welcome to the forum!

From what I understand, a Bielmann spiral -- especially a change of edge spiral -- is difficult because it is harder to maintain your balance with your arms together over your head, than with your arms out to the side. Like a tightrope walker who balances with a long pole -- the longer the pole, the easier it is to keep your center of gravity over your blade.

So (if this is right) a spiral position where the free leg is held at the knee, but with the free leg bent and the other arm outstretched -- well, that's just unattractive and no one would do it unless thay can't do a real (arabesque) spiral.

With a Bielmann, on the other hand, the awkwardness and lack of aesthetic appeal of the position is supposedly made up for the difficulty of trying to stay on your feet in such a pose.

OT -- As for Bielman spins, Alissa Czysny is the only one of the U.S. ladies that has a fine one, IMHO.

Mathman

 

[Rgirl]

My late comments:
Firstly, kudos to Hockeyfan for the element-by-element analysis of Irina's scores. HF, when it comes to the COP, you're da BOMB!

Some people have said the COP is no different than the 6.0 system, that the judges inflate the component scores for their favorite skaters and deflate them for skaters they don't like.

People are of courese entitled to their opinion, but the way I see it is that if judges were doing the above, then there would be more variation among the component scores, not less. I don't believe that all 9 to 12 judges (or whatever) "like" and "dislike" the same skaters.

However, what I do think still influences the judges is reputation. That is, a skater who has been podium-level skaters at the world level for five or more years is going to get the benefit of the doubt if they have a wobbly night that skaters who've been hovering between 5th and 10th place for years won't get. In the best of all possible worlds, this would not happen. Skaters would come to each competition without any influencue from their reputations, positive or negative.
But the subjectivity will never be removed from figure skating judging, just as it will never be removed from judging for gymnastics, diving, synchronized swimming, and many other sports. Of course, reputation influenced judges under the 6.0 system just as much if not more as under the COP. So arguments that some of the Euro results were due to reputation because of the COP just don't hold water, IMO. Or should I say "don't hold ice"?

My feeling is to accept subjectivity in figure skating judging as an unavoidable part of the human element and to focus instead on getting the ISU to make sure judges understand the COP, can use it at the speeds necessary at competitions, and that they put it into practice at competitions; to continue to improve the COP; and put real teeth in the punishment of judges who are either found to be cheating or whose scores are consistently and unjustifiably skewed toward certain skaters. However, the former needs a significant change in an entrenched bureaucracy, which we all know moves as slow as Alaskan molasses. Unfortunately, the latter will take a couple of years in which to gather enough data on specific judges.

Also, I think people are overestimating how much the judges can skew the outcome of an event by inflating the component scores. If all the judges give a skater high component scores, then either all the judges are cheating, which is highly unlikely, or all the judges really see the quality of the skater's ability in those areas. If half the judges give significantly higher component scores than the other half, this could be a sign of favoritism, especially if the judges giving the high scores are all either western or eastern bloc judges and the skaters who benefit correspond to the judges bloc. However, blocs are not involved, such a situation indicates to me that the judges are thinking for themselves and not scoring based on reputation.

Finally, the COP is only in its second year, it has gone through numerous changes, and judges who have been scoring under the 6.0 system for years, if not decades, are having to grow a whole new part of their brains to both absorb the COP rules and think "COP" on the spot as they're judging.

I think the judging has very little, if anything, to do with the lower ratings for figure skating competitions. The live pro shows are suffering, too, and there's no judging there. I think five things have had the biggest influence on the decrease in the figure skating audience.
1. From 1994 until about '98 or later, figure skating had an enormous boom. Although the Tonya/Nancy scandal kicked it off, it was also a period during which there were both great eligible skaters and great pro skaters. I mean, real stars and superstars in both areas. As with almost any boom, it's followed by a bust or at least a decrease in interest. I think figure skating is simply going through the inevitable downturn after the inflated audiences of the mid-'90s.
2. Televised figure skating, at least in the US, is mostly on cable, which is a disadvantage any way you cut it. Even though most people have cable, no sport is as visible on cable as it is on network TV.
3. Figure skating on TV is almost exclusively eligible competitions. That means we see the same skaters doing the same programs all season long. During the days when pro skating was of high calibre technically and featured big names such as Kurt Browning, Kristi Yamaguchi, Torvill & Dean, and G&G some of the pros were able to do different programs for different competitions. Even if they didn't vary their programs, audiences got more variety simply because they saw eligible and pro programs. As much as I love the competitive element, if I watch every Grand Prix event plus the GPF, the three ISU events, US Nats, Euros, and Worlds, that means I'll mostly be seeing the same skaters repeatedly doing the same programs.
4. I feel the music choices and choreography most of the top singles skaters have been doing the last few years have become increasingly repetitive and conservative. By conservative I mean using warhorse music and standard choreography. Not all skaters, of course; in fact, the main reason I've been so thrilled with Jeff Buttle's LP this year was its unique creativity both musically and choreographically. Of course intense fans--like us --love to watch and analyze the details of skaters' technique, looking for improvements in things that casual fans wouldn't notice, such as jump height. edging. or any number of things.
5. Sheer competition in terms of sports and entertainment, including the Internet. Ten years ago, most people had 20 or 30 TV stations if they had cable, and most of them were pretty bad. Today people have at least 100 or hundreds of cable channels and the quality has much improved, meaning that at least the shows don't look as if they were shot in somebody's garage. Again, it's not the loyal fans who are going elsewhere, but if you're a casual fan of figure skating, you simply have so many more choices of what to watch or do.

I might add a 5a saying that figure skating either doesn't really have a star that appeals to both fans and non-fans of figure skating. Michelle Kwan is, of course, a superstar for FS fans and she's achieved iconic status being on "The Simpsons," not to mention her incredible accumulation of championships, medals, and athletic awards. The latter, however, are mostly important to FS fans. But as far as the general public goes, I think Michelle's Q rating may not be as high as fans who love her like crazy might assume it is. (NOTE: This is NOT a knock on Michelle. I think she's absolutely wonderful and SHOULD be a national superstar.) For example, a couple of years ago Michelle had, IIRC, two nationally televised commercials, one for Ford and one for something else. Since then, and please correct me if I'm wrong, Michelle hasn't done any national ad campaigns. We know that advertising agencies measure the response to commercials with statistics that rival NASA's, and perhaps figure skating's biggest star for FS fans, and many, many casual and non-fans for sure, Michelle Kwan, isn't as big a star to the general public. Without a superstar, one that crosses the boundaries between fans and nonfans, second-tier sports such as figure skating, gymnastics, swimming, etc. lose fans.

However, my point is that I don't think judging has been the main cause of the loss of interest in figure skating. IMO, I don't give a hoot if it looks like the "best" skater won or not to the casual viewer. Most casual viewers can't tell the difference between a 3Lutz and a 3toe, or even between a double and triple jump, not to mention all the other elements that go into assessing a skater's performance. Of course I want to see the COP continue to improve and the judges' ability to use it correctly and fairly improve as well. But even if the ISU came up with the "perfect" judging system (nothing perfect when humans are involved), I don't think a single casual fan would return to watching figure skating unless a lot of other things changed in the sport, some of which I mentioned previously.

For me, the placements at Euros were right. As someone else said, it was about bad skating rather than bad judging. The judges and the judging system are easy scapegoats, and I say that being fully aware that cheating does occur. But if you really look at the COP, as many posters have, there are too many safety checks in place that make it almost impossible for judges to skew the scores so a very undeserving skater will win. In Hockeyfan's superb analysis, traveling on spins was noted as something that did not receive a deduction, which HF would have given. However, either traveling on spins is something the ISU needs to reinforce with judges as something that requires a deduction or else the judges who did not deduct for Irina's traveing were looking at the total spin, i.e., the speed, the position, the transition between positions, the creativity of the spin, etc. and felt that the positive aspects of these elements of the spin canceled out the traveling. It may not be everyone's opinion, but IMO, the judges could make an argument to justify their scoring.

I think that as time goes on, the judges' scores will reflect more of the things that posters like eagle-eyed Hockeyfan see--that's a compliment--because the judges will think more "COP" and less "6.0." For me, the best thing about the COP compared to the 6.0 system is that with the COP, at least we can break it down and see where we disagree with the judges. With 6.0, if a skater we thought deserved an average of 5.5 got an average of 5.8 for technical or presentation, all we could do was scratch our heads or blame it on cheating.

So, if some/many people are upset at the way the COP worked on its first non-GP outing, I say better the COP have a bumpy ride during its "first time" than at the '06 Olympics. Yes, fans need to ride the ISU to keep improving all aspects of judging, but IMO, we also need to give the ISU a chance to work the bugs out and the judges a chance to keep all the requirements of the COP in their heads and compute them at the speed of figure skating.

Rgirl

P.S. I think Joe's question about the difference between a skater who skates with great speed as well as control versus someone who skates with equal speed but a lack of control is a very interesting one that addresses some of the issues in the COP. I hope he or someone uses the subject to start a thread on "The Edge."

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Rgirl - Hi. Nice to have you back. I'll nit pick one of your articles:
______________________________________________________________

3. Figure skating on TV is almost exclusively eligible competitions. That means we see the same skaters doing the same programs all season long. During the days when pro skating was of high calibre technically and featured big names such as Kurt Browning, Kristi Yamaguchi, Torvill & Dean, and G&G some of the pros were able to do different programs for different competitions. Even if they didn't vary their programs, audiences got more variety simply because they saw eligible and pro programs. As much as I love the competitive element, if I watch every Grand Prix event plus the GPF, the three ISU events, US Nats, Euros, and Worlds, that means I'll mostly be seeing the same skaters repeatedly doing the same programs.
_______________________________________________________________

I agree fs on TV is almost exclusively eligible competitions but even at that it is not as big as it once was. We lost a lot of viewers; not hard core fs fans, but the kinds of viewers that bring up the ratings. One can speculate on the reasons for that but for the networks to make money, they need viewers. The USA Nats and the big sponsored named cheesfests are what we get. The rest is delegated to cable and it is ok, imo, but wouldn't we all love to have a skating channel.

Big show skating comes around the December holidays and we also get SOI at some point. Pro competitive skating did not capture the USA audience for prime time and has basically disappeared.

The hard core fans really don't care about it as a sport. They just want to see their once-elligible skaters do a routine and scores do not matter. The last one I saw was a competition which included S&P and B&S. The both teams skated so beautiful and I was very happy to see them. It didn't matter who won. In fact today I can not remember the result but I do remember the skate.

I'm pessimistic about injecting some renewed energy into the sport. I think, however, it does better than many other sports including Skiing, SkateBoarding, Boxing, Wrestling, etc. As for show skating, the buzz has always been once you've seen one, you've seen them all, unfortunately.

ESPN is better than nothing. Let's hope we can keep it.

Joe

 

[hockeyfan228]

It's great to hear your voice again, Rgirl, and many thanks for the compliments. I do need to get better on determining levels though, which is why when I did the analysis, I didn't argue with the callers. I have some responses to your post:

Some people have said the COP is no different than the 6.0 system, that the judges inflate the component scores for their favorite skaters and deflate them for skaters they don't like.

People are of courese entitled to their opinion, but the way I see it is that if judges were doing the above, then there would be more variation among the component scores, not less. I don't believe that all 9 to 12 judges (or whatever) "like" and "dislike" the same skaters...

However, what I do think still influences the judges is reputation. That is, a skater who has been podium-level skaters at the world level for five or more years is going to get the benefit of the doubt if they have a wobbly night that skaters who've been hovering between 5th and 10th place for years won't get.

In my opinion, these two issues are interrelated, because at the end of every competition, the ISU analyzes each judges' scores to see how much they deviate from the trimmed mean, and not how much they deviate from the written standards. The judges "like" and "dislike" the same skaters because they are being rewarded for a herd mentality, and the only ways to be part of the herd are either to come to an agreement beforehand explicitly, or base the decision on reputation, because you can't "lose" that way. A judge who gave Slutskaya the scores I listed would have been red-flagged immediately, and who knows what would have happened had s/he quoted the code like I did. Sent to "re-education" camp, instead of the judges who broke the code left and right by ignoring major flaws with required deductions?

or else the judges who did not deduct for Irina's traveing were looking at the total spin, i.e., the speed, the position, the transition between positions, the creativity of the spin, etc. and felt that the positive aspects of these elements of the spin canceled out the traveling. It may not be everyone's opinion, but IMO, the judges could make an argument to justify their scoring.

This is the reasoning under 6.0. How many times did we see a world-class skater make a mistake in the SP where there was a required deduction of .3-.5, only to see that skater receive scores of 5.6/5.9, which in some cases meant the base score would have been 6.1 before deduction!, but mostly meant that the skater "would have" received a technical score of 5.9 or 6.0 before deduction? And that skater didn't earn those scores at his/her best. It was a way to take a favored skater with reputation, and place him/her above a skater who truly earned a 5.8/5.6, based on the actual base score and execution, and relative presentation.

Under CoP, if there is any flaw in any of the four phases of an element, it is not an option to "[look] at the total spin, i.e., the speed, the position, the transition between positions, the creativity of the spin, etc." except to determine if the start value before mandatory deductions is 0 or +1, and the latter can only be the start value if three of four phases are "very good." Under CoP, it does not matter if 3 of 4 aspects/phases are fit for the gods or Cranston-like in their creativity, if there is a flaw in any of the phases; the start value for a flawed element maxes out at +1 before deductions. Creativity can be rewarded in the Program Component scores, or, if the positions are difficult and creative, they can be rewarded in the element levels.

So if you look at a combination spin with multiple travels or complete re-centering, there is a mandatory -3 deduction, which means a maximum total score of -2 for the element, if all three other phases (entrance, speed, positions) are very good. The only discretion the judge has to argue that score is whether the deduction should be -2 or -3, but not whether the element should receive 0 or positive GOE. At least according to the written code.

For a flying camel with a skid on the entrance and travels, two of the phases are flawed, and the maximum start value is 0. For multiple travels/complete recentering, the required deduction is -2, which means the maximum score is -2 for the element. The only points a judge could argue is whether the skid entrance was within the realm of satisfactory, in which case, that judge could justify -1, but not 0's and 1's.

Slutskaya had three flawed spins and one terrific, well-centered one her long program. Not only did she skid into her flying camel, but she also had multiple travels, and the end of the spin died out in sloppy position, losing the speed she had gained. If the judges wanted to ignore the skid, she did not have three of four "very good" aspects to warrant a start value of +1, and when multiple travels and loss of speed were factored in, her score should have been -2, for a total score of -.6, not a +.36, a difference of +.96. She also travelled and died out of her combination spin. Again, because of the loss of speed and multiple travels, her start value shouldn't have been higher than 0, with a mandatory -3 deduction (travel on combo spin). She received .07, instead of -1, for a gain of 1.07. In her final combination spin, she travelled again, and even if the judges decided that her positions were better than I think they were, she still starts with +1 and has -2 in supposedly mandatory deductions. Another gift of .36, when the code would score it as -.30, or +.66 more than code. The travels were multiple and blatant in each of these spins. She gained over two and a half points this way. Assuming that the rest of the scoring held, this is the difference between first and third in the free skate.

This was a critical point in Liashenko's skate in the LP, where she received only a -1 for her first 3Flip, which had a major telegraph and form break as she bend from the waist on entrance (-2 required) as well as a turn-out at the end (-1). Two flaws -- entrance and exit -- mean a maximum base score of 0, less -3. Even if she had been given a -2, that was the difference between second and third in the free skate, that one point was the difference between Liashenko getting the bronze medal and Sebestyen getting the bronze medal. (On the whole, I think that Liashenko's other scores balanced out a little in her favor, but she was not rewarded for a couple of elements and did not receive mandatory deductions [particularly for the telegraph] for others.)

One of the points of the new scoring system was to take away the big discretion from the judges, and another was transparency. It's now possible to see how the elements are scored, and where there are flaws, but the discretion is still there, regardless of the rules.

 

[Mathman]

Hockeyfan, if only the ISU paid as much attention to the written CoP protocols as you do!

I am more and more turning to the view that we are being taken for a ride. When I a see a judge giving Irina 7.25, 7.25, 7.25, 7.25 and 7.25 for the five component scores, is that person judging 5 separate categories, each with it's own specific guidelines and rules? Or is he/she saying, well, Irina's a pretty skater, I'll give her a 7.25 in the second mark?

Hey, Rgirl

About (ahem) your point 5a, that the sport needs a superstar that attracts the attention of fans and non-fans alike. Well, there is Tiger Woods still hanging around, and Michael Jordan used to have broad appeal. But I think that every sport is in the same boat. Football is the 800 pound gorilla in terms of fan interest and revenue on the U.S. sports scene. But I can't think of any football player who is heavily featured in national TV advertising, except advertising for football.

Serena Williams is the bomb and tennis is a popular sport. But I haven't seen Serena on TV much except when she is playing. Shaquille Oneal has an ad for some kind of heating pad. Sasha Cohen sells Citizen's watches, but mostly in print ads in fashion magazines.

So I think all sports are more or less in the same boat in this regard. The stars do get product endorsements for products related to their sport, which appear in magazines with a targeted audience. But it seems to me that the whole celebrity endorsement thing (movie stars, too) has fallen on hard times. Advertisers seem to be drawing back from the idea that everyone will rush out and buy something just because Brad Pitt tells them to.

Kristi had a commercial for Smart Ones diet pizza. The message was, if you eat enough Smart Ones pizza, you will be as thin as Kristi and you will be able to skate like her, too. This ad was so effective that I went out and bought one (really). But then they dropped Kristi and went with ads featuring unknown bit actresses instead. I guess they figured no one but me fell for the Kristi ads.

Mathman

 

[Doggygirl]

Hockeyfan, if only the ISU paid as much attention to the written CoP protocols as you do!

I am more and more turning to the view that we are being taken for a ride. When I a see a judge giving Irina 7.25, 7.25, 7.25, 7.25 and 7.25 for the five component scores, is that person judging 5 separate categories, each with it's own specific guidelines and rules? Or is he/she saying, well, Irina's a pretty skater, I'll give her a 7.25 in the second mark?

Hey, Rgirl

Mathman

Hockeyfan, count me in as one of your COP students! And RGirl, as always I appreciate your insights, and I agree with you that IMO COP has a lot more potential as a judging system than 6.0 ever did. It will take time to perfect it. I really like having something more tangible to analyze post competition than trying to figure out why a 5.9 was given rather than a 5.7.

MM, I appreciate your point about the PCS scores. I'm not sure which comp you were looking at for Irina. But just to clarify, at Euros no judge gave Irina the exact same scores (7.25 or any other score) across the board for components. Yes, the scores were close, and I'm counting 3 of 12 judges who gave Irina the same score in 4 of the 5 categories. Just want to make sure the facts are straight. It's still a concern for me, and an opportunity for judging improvement, but it doesn't appear to be quite that extreme.

DG

 

[Mathman]

Well, here are a few scores from Four Continents, for the five component scores for Fumie and Jenny.

Judge #12

Suguri: 7.50, 7.50, 7.50, 7.50, 7.50
Kirk: 6.75, 6.75, 6.75, 6.75, 6.75

Judge #11

Suguri: 7.50, 7.25, 7.50, 7.50, 7.50

Judge #9

Kirk: 6.75, 6.75, 6.75, 6.75. 6.75

Hey, what's that 7.25 doing in there? Maybe the ISU should investigate.

OK, that's cheating on my part. You can mine any collection of data and find something to support any position. Still, the point is: Isn't it clear that the judges are just saying, well, Fumie's presentation deserved about a 5.8, while Jenny gets a 5.6?

MM

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

In my opinion, these two issues are interrelated, because at the end of every competition, the ISU analyzes each judges' scores to see how much they deviate from the trimmed mean, and not how much they deviate from the written standards. The judges "like" and "dislike" the same skaters because they are being rewarded for a herd mentality, and the only ways to be part of the herd are either to come to an agreement beforehand explicitly, or base the decision on reputation, because you can't "lose" that way. A judge who gave Slutskaya the scores I listed would have been red-flagged immediately, and who knows what would have happened had s/he quoted the code like I did. Sent to "re-education" camp, instead of the judges who broke the code left and right by ignoring major flaws with required deductions?One of the points of the new scoring system was to take away the big discretion from the judges, and another was transparency. It's now possible to see how the elements are scored, and where there are flaws, but the discretion is still there, regardless of the rules.

Your belief in the CoP is shared with me but.......
Some judges are connected with similar likes and dislikes in skating. We have to accept that these judges will be very close in scoring. Why should they not?
And they will influence a final score based soley on their preferences and not what the skater actually performed. What we don't have with the CoP is a complete acceptance of differentiation in style as well as holding on to past reputations. No way can a computer change this. No way can a meeting of the minds in May really agree on anything but accept what was judged.

In the case of Slutskaya, no one knows who those judges were and I doubt that the meeting of minds will ever concede that there was cultural bias. Why should they? The competition is over. Let's move on. Slutskaya will skate better in the next competition. The only one hurt is the skater who may have deserved a better score and who cares about that in May?

Sad, but that's the way it is with CoP. BTW, Please read any name you wish instead of Slutskaya. I used it only as from the previous post. What about banning Secre Judging to solve this?

Joe

 

[Doggygirl]

Lol...

Hey, what's that 7.25 doing in there? Maybe the ISU should investigate.


MM

Yes, bring on the investigation!!!

Actually, I'm with the camp who thinks scoring all the technical AND all the components in such a short amount of time is probably a very tall order for the judges. I hope the ISU considers splitting the panel. With time and training, I think the judging could improve and be more fair and accurate for the skaters with some specialization. Of course, if wishes were horses then beggars would ride, right?

DG

 

[hockeyfan228]

Sad, but that's the way it is with CoP. BTW, Please read any name you wish instead of Slutskaya. I used it only as from the previous post. What about banning Secre Judging to solve this?
Joe

Considering that all of the judges were in concensus that Slutskaya didn't travel in her spins during Europeans, and that all of the PCS scores for everyone were within the same range for each category, and that judges are reviewed based on how close they are to consensus, not the written code, what would displaying judges' names and countries prove, other than all judges from all countries are treating CoP like 6.0? It's not until the judges start judging by the code that their identities would tell anything.

Only the callers and what is programmed into the computer to assign appropriate points based on relative levels of difficulty and execution, to enforce counting all valid elements and giving no credit to invalid elements, to call cheated jumps, and to count mandatory deductions for music and costume violations, falls, etc. -- all of which in have in the past have been discretionary, because there's no way to know if the judges evaluated them properly -- have made a impact, and their names are right out in the open.

 

[hockeyfan228]

I hope the ISU considers splitting the panel. With time and training, I think the judging could improve and be more fair and accurate for the skaters with some specialization.
DG

ITA. This is done in some other judged sports, like snowboarding and aerial skiing, where some judges give style points and others judge technique. What's common to these sports, unlike diving or ski jumping -- where there is one "event" at a time", is that there is a series of elements, each of which has to be weighted and judged, as well as overall impression. One of the reasons I think this is important is because judging technique is now an element by element pursuit, which uses the brain very differently than trying to get the big picture of the program, which PCS are all about.

 

[Doggygirl]

ITA on the elements v. "big picture"

ITA. This is done in some other judged sports, like snowboarding and aerial skiing, where some judges give style points and others judge technique. What's common to these sports, unlike diving or ski jumping -- where there is one "event" at a time", is that there is a series of elements, each of which has to be weighted and judged, as well as overall impression. One of the reasons I think this is important is because judging technique is now an element by element pursuit, which uses the brain very differently than trying to get the big picture of the program, which PCS are all about.

I say OUT with Speedy, and you should take over his job.

DG