Problems with CoP and how to fix them

[GoldMedalist]

I don't think it is possible to write rules that specify objectively the difference between, say, a -1.5 performance and a -2.0 performance.

Judges have 40 Program Component marks to choose from.

I found it very handy in my grading to have 13 different ways to grade a technical element. It's not unlike school either:

A+ down through F....13 grades.

 

[R.D.]

I think the cop should stay, but it should be simplified. I like the suggestion of fewer grades (10-13 instead of 40).

 

[gkelly]

I like the suggestion of fewer grades (10-13 instead of 40).

That doesn't make sense for skating skills if the scale is meant to cover the whole range of skaters from those just beginning in learn-to-skate up to world champions.

You could have macro grades of what general test level/competition level a skater belongs at, but everyone who's entered in the same competition will have to have met at least some minimum skill level and in may cases they'll all be at exactly the same level on the macro scale.

Then you could have micro distinctions within each level to separate the skaters in the same competition from each other in relation to the standard for that level. That's where the decimal places come in.

 

[goldenpleasures]

It's pretty crucial that at least 95% of the problems with CoP be fixed by the end of next season too (sadly unlikely to happen, given their current rate of progress, but this is a hopeful post). Then, after that happens, Michelle Kwan can announce that she is going to come back and compete for a year-and-a-half more. It would be nice if Cohen joins in on the fun too. The ISU should then try to create as big of a media storm as possible, drawing in viewers and letting them get used to the new system under the comfortable presence of THE KWAN. Then when Kwan and Cohen step down in 2010, Nagasu and Zhang and all the other girls will be mature enough to transition fans, finally, into the next era of Figure Skating (just as Kwan was the one to take advantage of "the next era" after the Kerrigan/Harding excitement which drew in so many people).

Figure skating isn't all about American skaters, you know. Where are Asada and Kim and Ando in this scenario? Or don't they count?

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

There is nothing clear cut about the scoring of Grades of Executions (GOEs).. If you look at the protocols, how often do AlL judges agree? GOEs are as subjective as the program component scores are.

There are definitions of the elements which when executed correctly should give the base value of the element. There is no need to give plusses. The element was done! Everyone who performed the element according to definition should get the base value. If someone jumped higher, travelled in the air more, or had better posture, let it be reflected in the PCS scores under skating ability

However, minus GOE scores have some relevance in that the element being judged is acceptable but flawed. (improper take-offs, bad landings, falls, etc.) While these too, can be reflected in the PCS scores, the flaw has a direct relevance to the definition of the element. Hence, minus GOEs should be utilized in the Technical.

Joe

 

[Mathman]

That doesn't make sense for skating skills if the scale is meant to cover the whole range of skaters from those just beginning in learn-to-skate up to world champions.

You could have macro grades of what general test level/competition level a skater belongs at, but everyone who's entered in the same competition will have to have met at least some minimum skill level and in may cases they'll all be at exactly the same level on the macro scale.

Then you could have micro distinctions within each level to separate the skaters in the same competition from each other in relation to the standard for that level. That's where the decimal places come in.

I agree with that. IMO, this is the only way the PCSs can be viewed. But by the same token, having 40 gradations does make a mockery of the claim that these scores follow objective and well-codified standards.

I do not believe that the ISU can write down, in a clear and unambiguous way, what the difference is between a performance that deserves a score of 5.50 in Interpretation and a performance that deserves a 5.75.

In Gold Medalist's example of giving out grades in school, you can do this. How many problems did you get right on the test? 93% to 100% = A, 90% to 92% = A-, 87% to 89% = B+. Or whatever. For that matter, you could let the percentages stand alone and have 100 gradations. No problem, and no burden upon the judge (the teacher).

This observation, however, is not a criticism of the New Judging System. The PCSs are essentially ordinals. Within each skill category, you give marks at the high end of the scale to the best performances and marks at the low end to the worst. In other words, ordinals.

Let's say its a novice competition, where you expect the skaters can do, say, a triple toe, a double Axel, a level 2 combination spin..., so that you expect the range of tech scores to be, say, 30 to 40. This corresponds to PCSs from 3.75 to 5.00. So, OK, the skaters whose presentation was best get 5.0, the worst get 3.75, with the others in the middle. The second mark.

IMHO no matter how we color it, the "performance art" side of figure skating, in common with piano-playing contests and the pie-baking contest at the county fair, is a judged sport. You win the contest by winning over the judges. I do not see any reason for figure skating to get all defensive about this fact and try to deny it.

Again, this is not a criticism, just (IMHO) a fact. As with a piano-playing contest, one pianist really is better than another, and we rely on panels of expert judges to render, well, expert judgment. (As fans, sometimes we agree with the judging panels and sometimes we don't -- that, too, is sport).

 

[Mathman]

Figure skating isn't all about American skaters, you know. Where are Asada and Kim and Ando in this scenario? Or don't they count?

:agree: I can see why people get so exasperated with Kwan fans (even though I am one myself, LOL).

The "what's happening now" girls certainly deserve to do their thing without being haunted by the ghosts of skaters past.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

from what I've been reading in this Thread is a lot of Arithmetic but very few constructive ways on how to fix the problems with CoP.

I presume the major conservative posters to this thread do not want any changes which will upset the present system of arithmetic. JMO.

Joe

 

[GoldMedalist]

Figure skating isn't all about American skaters, you know. Where are Asada and Kim and Ando in this scenario? Or don't they count?

My CoP changes have nothing to do with American skaters, lol, it would just be nice for skating in the AMERICAN market if they happened to fix the system up as much as possible before the end of next season and then Kwan came back to compete under it. :agree:

 

[enlight78]

I believe the jump points should be more along the lines of this.
VALUES FOR JUMPS:
Jump Base Increments of GOE
4Lutz - 9.0 (-1.5, +1.5 for GOE)
4Loop - 9.0 (-1.5, +1.5 for GOE)
4Flip - 9.0 (-1.5, +1.5 for GOE)
4Sal - 7.5 (-1., +1 for GOE)
4Toe - 7.5 (-1., +1 for GOE)

3Axel - 7.0 (-1, +1 for GOE)
3Lutz - 5.0 (-1, +1 for GOE)
3Loop - 5.0 (-1, +1 for GOE)
3Flip - 5.0 (-1, +1 for GOE)
3Sal - 4.0 (-1, +1 for GOE)
3Toe - 4.0 (-.1, +1 for GOE)

2Axel - 4.5 (-1, +1 for GOE)
2Lutz - 3.5 ( -.5, +.5 for GOE)
2Loop - 3.5 ( -.5 +.5 for GOE)
2Flip - 3.5 (-.5, +.5 for GOE)
2Sal - 2.5 ( -.5, +.5 for GOE)
2Toe - 2.5 ( -.5, +.5 for GOE)

1Axel - 2.0 ( -.2, +.2 for GOE)
1Lutz - 1.5 (-.2, +.2 for GOE)
1Loop - 1.5 (-.2, +.2 for GOE)
1Flip - 1.5 (-.2, +.2 for GOE)
1Sal - 1.0 (-.2, +.2 for GOE)
1Toe - 1.0 (-.2, +.2 for GOE)

I don't believe their should be any extra bones for certian combination or sequences. I also believe that a combination and sequences should be judge as on jump. The whole is no greater than the weakest part. I also believe underotated jumps should be downgraded but not double penalize. There should be no negative GOE to hurt the already penalized score. A underrotated 3A should get a 4.5 even if it is two footed and had two hands down.

A flutz or lip should get a manditory -1GOE if it is severe of very noticable.

I don't believe their should be bonus for having a complete jump layout. That should be reflecting in the skating skills. If there is a bonus, 1 pt is not near enough. It should be more like 3 or 5.

I believe that level 4 spins, spirals, and stepsequeces should be worth enough points to compete with triple jumps.

I believe having two programs is a way to make consistancy an important part of the sport. I think should tighten the requirements in the short program. I also believe failure to do an element shouldn't take points from an element. I rather 2 points be taken away from the total score for each requirement that wasn't completed. If the short program is tighten to the point where every skater has to do a level 2 spin and 3 loop 3loop combo and a 2A; then the short should be worth 50% score since there is very little room to gain enough lead to make up for possible mistakes in the free.

I believe the long program should only have limits. (For men and women)no more than seven jumping passes,no more than four combination or sequences,only on three jumb combination or sequence) No more than four spins, no more than two step sequence, no more than two spiral sequence. How the ingrediants are mix up is completely up to the skater.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

I reiterate: The plus GoEs belong in the PCS's 'skating ability' sector.

If one, however, is going to accept: falls, wrong edge takeoffs, double ft landings, poor posture, as 'attempts' therefore valid jumps, then there should be minus GoEs in the Technical Score.

(Note: no mention of Kwan, praise to be!)

Joe

 

[GoldMedalist]

Enlight...you have a 2Axel as worth more than a 3Toeloop/Salchow and very close to as much as a 3Flip/Loop/Lutz. :scratch:

Joe...that idea still doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Joe...that idea still doesn't make sense to me.

GM - We in Skateland have a conflicting view point on the GoEs and PCS's "Skating Ability" ok?

Now, I believe Skateland accepts as valid jumps, but flawed, with: dbl ft landings, improper take offs, falls, and other misdemeanors which prevent a jump by definition to be given the base value with minus GoE points. So what I am saying is that a skater can get partial credit for a faulty jump. (Personally, in most cases, I think the jump was not executed by definition, therefore, not valid) But no matter, it's legal according to official regulations. So the minus GoEs are therefore valid.

In the case of Plus GoEs, which I think whole heartedly should be covered in 'Skating Abiliy' (or get rid of Skating Ability) once the jump has been executed according to its definition it should get the entire Base Value. No problem. No need to give it any additional points in the Technical Score. The technical feat has been accompished. Now, how those 'perfect jumps' looked for the performance of the skater; should be shown in the PCS scores which is the proper area to judge the 'showmanship' of the skater.

The Thread Topic is looking for constructive ways to improve figure skating under the CoP - a food topic, btw. This would be my suggestion for having the officials compare the GoEs and the Skating Ability sectors.

Joe

 

[Mathman]

I believe the jump points should be more along the lines of this.

3Axel - 7.0 (-1, +1 for GOE)
3Lutz - 5.0 (-1, +1 for GOE)
3Loop - 5.0 (-1, +1 for GOE)
3Flip - 5.0 (-1, +1 for GOE)
3Sal - 4.0 (-1, +1 for GOE)
3Toe - 4.0 (-.1, +1 for GOE)

2Axel - 4.5 (-1, +1 for GOE)

I am liking this approach more and more. Change the double Axel to 4.0 and we have just two jump categories:

Loop, Flip, and Lutz = 5.0

Salchow, Toe Loop, and double Axel = 4.0

Then add:

2Lo, 2F, 2Lz, 2T, 2Lo, 1A, inside Axel, single Walley, Toe Wally = 1.5 points

Russian split jump, falling leaf, stag = 1.0 points

Keep the seven jumping passes and the Zayak rules for jumps and combos that have triple jumps (including double Axel), but (following Mafke's suggestion) allow any number of doubles, singles, splits, etc. as program embellishments. Give a 2 point bonus for all a six triples.

The point of these changes would be to simplify the rules (there is no reason to award an extra hundredth of a point to every arm movement), while at the same time rewarding and encouraging a greater variety of ways to "skin the cat."

So some typical jump layouts might be:

Top skater

3Lz+3Lo = 10.0
3F+3T = 9.0
3Lo = 5.0
3S = 4.0
3F = 5.0
3Lz = 5.0
2A = 4.0

2 falling leafs and an inside Axel = 3.5

Bonus for complete program = 2.0

Total = 47.5

Average skater

3Lz+2T = 6.5
3F+2Lo = 6.5
3S = 4.0
2A = 4.0
3Lo = 5.0
3Lz = 5.0
3T = 4.0

Double loop and split jump = 2.5

Bonus for complete program = 2.0

Total = 39.5

Junior. She doesn't have a 3Lz or a 3Lo


3T+2T = 5.5
3F = 5.0
3S = 4.0
3T = 4.0
3S+2Lo = 5.5
2A = 4.0

She is Zayaked out, but can still do

2F+2T, falling leaf = 4.0

Total = 32.0

 

[Mathman]

...In the same spirit, I think it would be better to have just two Program Components -- Performance/Execution and Interpretation/Choreography.

This is in line with Joe's idea. There is no reason to have positive GOEs and rewards for Skating Skills. Skating Skills are really part of the tech score.

I do not see anything wrong with having choeography and musical interpretation elevated in this way (to half of the second mark instead of only one-fifth). The objection might be that in part this is rewarding skters for the work of others (the choreographers, coaches and music specialists). But by the same token it would force the skaters to take ownership of this aspect of their performance.

If they are stuck with a bad cut of the music, or with choreography that does not match their vision of the program, it is their (the skaters') responsibilty to speak up and get it right.

 

[emma]

I'm still so behind with all of these threads....but I just read MM's summing up so far of what he likes in this one and I loved what I read - it just sounds great, and I love the idea of bonus for all triples and the idea that 'little jumps' (singles, falling leafs) could be incorporated and actually COUNT in a program. The SS in PCS has troubled me - so I like this clarifying the tech mark and by extention, then, what PCS should be.

 

[gkelly]

This is in line with Joe's idea. There is no reason to have positive GOEs and rewards for Skating Skills. Skating Skills are really part of the tech score.

Yes, Skating Skills is about technique, not artistry. BUT it is not about jumping technique or spinning technique. Positive GOEs on jumps and spins tell you almost nothing about how good a skater someone is (Surya Bonaly, anyone?).

Joe actually was suggesting not allowing positive GOEs and instead reflecting the quality of the jumps in the SS component. But again, that mark is supposed to be about the actual skating, not about the tricks.

I like rewarding elements that are better than adequate with some sort of bonus. If we wanted to scrap the current division of labor between technical panel and judges and start from scratch with a different setup, maybe we should allow the same people (technical judges?) to award bonus points both for extra difficulty and for extra quality. But an excellent spin is an excellent spin and should be rewarded for its excellence as a spin, not as an example of "skating skills" . . . skating skills is about how the skater covers the ice on edges, and excellent spins don't cover the ice.

And I like rewarding skating skills separately from the elements on the one hand and from the artistry on the other. Skating skills are important in and of themselves. In fact, a purist could argue that skating skills are the most important thing that is being judged and everything else is secondary.

 

[gkelly]

So some typical jump layouts might be:

Top skater

3Lz+3Lo = 10.0
3F+3T = 9.0
3Lo = 5.0
3S = 4.0
3F = 5.0
3Lz = 5.0
2A = 4.0

2 falling leafs and an inside Axel = 3.5

That's not legal because you've repeated three different triples (lutz, loop, and flip). The obvious way to fix it would be to change the 3Lo in the first combination to 2Lo+2Lo.

Junior. She doesn't have a 3Lz or a 3Lo

3T+2T = 5.5
3F = 5.0
3S = 4.0
3T = 4.0
3S+2Lo = 5.5
2A = 4.0

She is Zayaked out, but can still do

2F+2T, falling leaf = 4.0

Total = 32.0

Why not 2Lz+2Lo? Could she get a bonus that way by doing all different takeoffs as 2 revolutions or higher? Probably smaller than the bonus for doing all as 3 revs or higher.

And if the bonus also applies to men (or women with quads), then the bonus should apply for a jump layout like the following, even though it includes no triple toes:

3A
4T
3Lz
3F+2T+2T
3A+2T
3Lo
3S+2A + SEQ

 

[emma]

Yes, Skating Skills is about technique, not artistry. BUT it is not about jumping technique or spinning technique. Positive GOEs on jumps and spins tell you almost nothing about how good a skater someone is (Surya Bonaly, anyone?).

Joe actually was suggesting not allowing positive GOEs and instead reflecting the quality of the jumps in the SS component. But again, that mark is supposed to be about the actual skating, not about the tricks.

I like rewarding elements that are better than adequate with some sort of bonus. If we wanted to scrap the current division of labor between technical panel and judges and start from scratch with a different setup, maybe we should allow the same people (technical judges?) to award bonus points both for extra difficulty and for extra quality. But an excellent spin is an excellent spin and should be rewarded for its excellence as a spin, not as an example of "skating skills" . . . skating skills is about how the skater covers the ice on edges, and excellent spins don't cover the ice.

And I like rewarding skating skills separately from the elements on the one hand and from the artistry on the other. Skating skills are important in and of themselves. In fact, a purist could argue that skating skills are the most important thing that is being judged and everything else is secondary.

I forgot about this very important distinction between grading the quality of tricks and the quality of basic skating - stroking, ice coverage etc. Hmmm....I think I get Joe's point that you either execute the element or not, so why give extra for doing what you were supposed to do (so, why not just the base mark)...but, because we have all seen variation in technically correct jumps - like someone is higher or jumps further or lands with such a solid deep edge that can be held that he/she just looks so much better than the rest...so what to do about that??

 

[gkelly]

because we have all seen variation in technically correct jumps - like someone is higher or jumps further or lands with such a solid deep edge that can be held that he/she just looks so much better than the rest...so what to do about that??

My suggestion is that we reject Joe's suggestion because it's unfair to skaters who do things well.

Let's look at spins again.
For example, the ladies' short program requires a layback spin with at least 8 revolutions. Let's not even worry about extra features and extra levels -- just look at basic layback spins that would count as level 1 under the current system.

Skater A
medium speed, acceptable but somewhat stiff leg and back position, loops overlap to create a circle on the ice the size of a dinner plate, 8 revolutions exactly

This is an adequate layback spin that completely meets the requirements.
Under the old system it would deserve no deduction and would neither add to nor detract significantly from the short program base mark.
Under the current system it would be a level 1 layback with 0 GOE.

Skater B
very fast, beautiful attitude position with deep back arch, all revolutions directly on top of each other so the spin tracing is more the size of a saucer, 17 revolutions
Under the old system it would deserve no deduction and would likely add an extra 0.1, either on its own or in association with other high-quality elements, to the required elements base mark and/or the presentation mark from most judges.
Under the new system it would be a level 1 layback with +2 or +3 GOE, and the beautiful positions of the spin along with other beautiful positions throughout the program might add 0.25 or more to the Performance/Execution component.

Skater B deserves to be rewarded for a spin that goes far beyond meeting the minimum requirements for the element. At least as evidenced in that spin, she is a better spinner than Skater A. But she may not be a better skater, so a skating skills mark is not the place to reward it.

Also consider
Skater C
adequate spinning speed, weak back arch and droopy free leg, whole spin travels at least 3 feet from start to finish with the loops strung out next to each other not overlapping, 9 revolutions in the whole spin but only 5 in layback position because it took 2 upright revolutions before the skater was ready to lay back and then 2 more at the end before she was able to check out

This is an inadequate spin according to the requirements. We can all agree that it would receive 0.3 or 0.4 in deductions in the old system and -3 GOE in the new. If the weak positions and overall sense of sloppiness were pervasive throughout the program it would also contribute to lower presentation or P/E component. BUT the skater might actually have very strong basic skating skills and/or very strong artistry in general and just have had trouble with that particular element (maybe an inner ear infection makes her extra dizzy spinning in that position today), so the rest of the program might in fact be well skated and well performed and deserve high marks in general. Either way, it's good to be able to punish the problems on the spin in marking the spin and to consider their effect on the overall effect of the performance (presentation or P/E) only as a small part of that whole. But if there is a separate mark for Skating Skills, the quality of the spin really has nothing to do with the quality of the skating.