Other factors

[Mathman]

I think even the ISU acknowledges that they have their work cut out for them in achieving consistency and objectivity in the program component scores. The same was true in the 6.0 era, but at least then a judge could say, well, I thought skater X skated the prettiest overall, so I gave her a 5.8.

Now we see high scores in "transitions" for programs that have none, and the same for "choreography" (a challenging category to interpret in any case because the choreography is done by someone else, not by the skater who is being judged).

I do, however, cut the judges some slack in terms of having "expectations" that well-established champions will demonstrate outstanding skating skills such as edging and cognizance of the music. Call it pre-judging if you must, but I have never seen a Dorothy Hamill performance that did not feature clean edges, exquisite carriage and well-centered spins, giving her a 5.9 on the second mark going in.

It's the same in every sport. Michael Jordan travelled evey time he touched the ball. But the referees never called it because he was Michael Jordan. Not fair to the rookies who are trying to be the next Michael, but there you are. He's Michael, you're not (yet).

 

[Mathman]

Kwan did not deserve her 96 win.

And yet...she won!

 

[krenseby]

PCS boosting happens all the time. Despite her bad skates at Torino, Kostner still got fairly high PCS scores at Worlds 2006 (and her skating was still bad). Julia Sebestyen's and Elena Sokolova's PCS scores were held up at Euros even though both ladies had very disappointing skates. The judges tend to give the top skaters high PCS scores even when they don't skate particularly well, and they are stingy with PCS scores for newbies even when they skate very well indeed.

On the opposite side of the coin, skaters who have been lower in the standings for a couple of years and who suddenly improve won't see their scores go up that dramatically. They have to show a consistently high level of performance for their scores to move up. This has affected Joannie Rochette to some degree. Because she is inconsistent, even when she has a really good skate, her scores don't go way up.

Often, once a skater makes the podium at a high-level event (ISU championship), the judges will be inclined to hold those PCS scores up.

Wow, Chuck, thanks for this post. I think I am going to refer to it many times in the future because it pretty much describes the biases of COP judging!

I am very disappointed thought that an inconsistent skater who has the performance of her life will be undermarked for it because the judges will hold her PCS down. That is an outrage.

The second outrage, of course, is that not only that the PCS of the skaters who suddenly have an amazing performance, are held down but the PCS of those who skate badly but are more well-known for past accomplishments, are held up.

That puts the skater who unexpectedly well at a double disadvantage. They don't get a correct placement because their PCS are unfairly brought down and the PCS of their worse-performing but more famous opponents are brought up.

 

[Spun Silver]

Exactly. Somehow the tech scores are expected to be an accurate reflection what happens on the ice while the PCS are not. I don't get it.

I can't really deal with basketball analogies, sorry. But maybe my bf's Ted Williams story is relevant: A young pitcher was pitching to Williams for the first time. Williams was famous for his eye for pitches and kept passing up the rookie's best throws. The young pitcher got more and more frustrated as the ball count rose. Finally he exclaimed to the umpire, "Are you kidding me? Surely THAT one was a strike." The umpire replied, "When it's a strike, Mr. Williams will let you know."

A great story to illustrate MM's point but it still seems wrong for the situations krenseby is talking about.)

 

[Mathman]

Art imitates life. Not saying it's right, but that's how it is in every setting. The big fish get all the breaks, the little fish struggle to become big fish. John Baldwin was quoted recently as saying what a relief it is that now it's "our turn" to get the benefit of the scoring in U.S. competitions, having been held down for years in favor of Ina and Zimmerman.

 

[enlight78]

I think considering if the PCs scores are in parity in the womens field it all depends on if you include GOE's . At NHK Mao's program had a base value of 35.2 . If she did a 3A instead of 2A. Her base value would have been 39.4 A perfect score in PCs will yield 40.0
This gives the perception that PCs are given more importance than TEs.But if you take in the GOE's and the fact that nobody is going to get 10.0 in program components. I came up with a figure that had 43.9 for the TEs (+1 GOE across the board) and a 34.0 for the PCs( 8.5 across all components) That is about a 10.0 point difference. The difference will be huge when more women start doing level 4 spins and footwork with a quad.