Proposed CoP Changes for Singles

[kate]

I'm not asking anything extra of the tech specialist? They already have to look at the super slow-motion replays and make calls, I've just set clarifications to make sure that they are looking correctly.

I was referring to how you would allow a skater to cheat the takeoff of a jump more if they cheated the landing of a jump less. Yes, this does ask more of the the technical specialist.

As for the other ones, I'm not going to repeat myself (again), since I've already addressed all of those points. I think we have a fundamental disagreement on how the system already works and what degree of difficulty the sport should reward.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

It might, however, be hard for judges to emremember the performances of the early skaters when comparing them to performances fifteen or twenty skaters later.

So we could augment this ordinal systemu by allowing the judges to keep little cheat sheets by their side. They could make notations to themselves, like 5.4 in tech, 5.6 in presentation, to stand in for the ordinals and help them remmeber their impressions of earlier skates.

Anyway, welcome to Golden Skate! Post often, post long! agree:

The judges remember. They havei been doing just that since time immemorial, and still do in sets of groups. They know who is the better in each group. At 2004 Worlds, Johnny Weir went from 3rd group, to 2nd group, to 1st group and placed 5th out of 6 top skaters. His first time in Worlds! The judges remembered.

And I too, welcome you to the Board, skatingpunk. It's nice to have someone else around who thinks that the CoP is not perfect. (If they do, the don't dare say it.)

 

[skatingbc]

It's nice to have someone else around who thinks that the CoP is not perfect. (If they do, the don't dare say it.)

What a ridiculous statement. This entire thread is about potential changes to CoP to make it better. I think CoP, on the whole, is a pretty good system, but by no means do I think it is perfect. I would be shocked if there was one poster on this board who tbelieves CoP is perfect and needs no changes whatsoever.

 

[dannyascii]

I really like the proposed changes to UR rules and required elements for the long programs. URs have gotten out of control and really make watching less enjoyable, and a lot of LPs have gotten horribly generic because of the concrete boundaries skaters are forced to conform to.

 

[Blades of Passion]

I was referring to how you would allow a skater to cheat the takeoff of a jump more if they cheated the landing of a jump less. Yes, this does ask more of the the technical specialist.

In the current system, there is no rule for cheating the takeoff. Only the landing.

If a skater pre-rotates 3/4 of a turn and then lands 1/4 of a turn short, that jump could still be called as a full Triple under the current rules.

 

[Mathman]

All that matters in skating is who is First, Second and Third. To determine that, all you need are ordinals.

There is one more problem, however. What if the judges don't agree on which skater is number one, number two or number three.

For instance, suppose the judges' lists of ordinals, for three skaters A, B and C, come out like this:

Judge #1: A, B, C, D
Judge #2: B, C, A, D
Judge #3: C, A, B, D

(the rock-paper-scissors paradox )

D loses but who wins?

So now we need something like majority of ordinals or one-by-one comparison to determine the order of the podium.

Or...

Judge #1: A, B, C, D, E
Judge #2: B, C, D, E, A
Judge#3: C, D, E, A, B
Judge #4: D, E, A, B, C
Judge #5: E, A, B, C, E

(the rock-paper-scissors-lizard-Spock paradox. )

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

What a ridiculous statement. This entire thread is about potential changes to CoP to make it better. I think CoP, on the whole, is a pretty good system, but by no means do I think it is perfect. I would be shocked if there was one poster on this board who tbelieves CoP is perfect and needs no changes whatsoever.

And if there are changes by the ISU, the defenders of the CoP will accept them as gospel, and forget they ever objected to them in the first place.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

So now we need something like majority of ordinals or one-by-one comparison to determine the order of the podium.

Is the majority of GoEs not the same?

 

[Mathman]

Is the majority of GoEs not the same?

No, not really, because you just add up all the Goes for all the judges and get one big number at the end.

But for ordinals, if one judge gives you second place and another judge gives you 5th place and another judges gives you first place, there is no natural way to combine that informative into an overall result.

 

[Blades of Passion]

And if there are changes by the ISU, the defenders of the CoP will accept them as gospel, and forget they ever objected to them in the first place.

Bingo.

The age-old problem of "if we see it in writing it must be true" rather than using the brain and using logic.

Certain people will say flawed aspects of CoP are perfectly fine until the rule gets changed. And then, suddenly, the new rule that they originally found to be bad when it was being proposed automatically becomes acceptable.

 

[skatingbc]

And if there are changes by the ISU, the defenders of the CoP will accept them as gospel, and forget they ever objected to them in the first place.

I don't think that is an accurate assessment, but to each his own.

 

[Blades of Passion]

Joe's post was was unfairly condemning, it's true. Not everyone who favors CoP over 6.0 feels it is infallible.

The idea is correct with regards to some individuals, though.

 

[skatingbc]

Joe's post was was unfairly condemning, it's true. Not everyone who favors CoP over 6.0 feels it is infallible.

The idea is correct with regards to some individuals, though.

It is definitely correct about some, but it is not fair to make such a sweeping statement about everyone who favours CoP. I personally enjoy using my brain and coming to my own conclusions, whether everyone agrees with them or not.

 

[kate]

In the current system, there is no rule for cheating the takeoff. Only the landing.

Yes, there is. Refer to the technical panel handbook:

"A clear forward (backward for Axel type jump) take-off will be considered as a cheated jump."

Again, as I have said 3 times now, I think this rule should be clearer (defined by fractions/degrees as it is on the landing, or at least make some mention of upper body vs. toepick), but you are incorrect to say that a rule does not exist. It does, and jumps are downgraded because of takeoffs, though it's not nearly as common as landing downgrades.

It is definitely correct about some, but it is not fair to make such a sweeping statement about everyone who favours CoP. I personally enjoy using my brain and coming to my own conclusions, whether everyone agrees with them or not.

Absolutely. Not everyone who agrees with much of the changes brought about by COP and many of the current standards and rules is a brainless idiot who just nods along to whatever the ISU does. I've thought about it -- and experienced both systems personally -- and happen to like most of the current rules. There are things I would change, sure, but on the whole I find it a huge improvement from 6.0. It offers new challenges and is a better scoring metric, on the whole, even if it's not perfect. And it's adapting and changing; usually when there is a strong consensus for a change (from officials, coaches, and skaters), it seems to be implemented the next year (or mid-season if it's a minor tweak) -- the Beillmann cap was one such rule.

 

[Blades of Passion]

Yes, there is.

No, there isn't. What you pointed out refers to jumps taking off with the entire body facing the wrong direction, not the blade rotating for an extra amount of time before leaving the ice.

The latter is important to look at, as is taking into consideration jumps that take off with less pre-rotation.

 

[Mathman]

The idea I like the best so far on this thread is gkelly's "moves in the field" sequence. But I think it would be even better to use this concept for a more sweeping change in the program component scores.

First, I think the three "performance" components -- P/E, Choreo, and Int, should be combined into one mark, all under the Performance/Execution heading. I do not see any value in rewarding good choregraphy -- meaming. what a choreographer gives you on paper -- unless that choreography is executed. I do not see why a skater should earn any points for having music in his soul, unless that musicality is displayed through his performance.

Now we come to Transitions. Instead of scoring a separate spiral sequence and a separate (as proposed) moves in the field sequence, I think it would be better if these moves were interspersed throughout the program. I don't know whether Transitions is the right name for this, but I would like to see the weights of the program components adjusted to massively reward programs that were full of cool stuff like Ina Bauers, stag jumps, single Walleys, spread eagles, and spirals of various sorts, all within the concept of the program as a whole.

Then Skating Skills would include (besides quality of edges, speed, etc.) steps and turns that are now part of the scored step sequence. Again, you should strive to fill your program with these moves, rather than gather them all together and say, "OK, now I am going to do a sequence of steps and turns."

 

[gkelly]

Apparently the number of components, the increments the judges get to use for components, and the factors that they're multiplied by, which vary for each phase of each discipline and competitive level, were chosen so that the total values of the PCS would be approximately on par with the values of the TES.

If the number of components is changed from five to three, then all those considerations will need to be recalibrated. By whoever it is who designs/updates the Scale of Values and the rules for component scores. And also by the judges who have just spent the last 6 years internalizing a 0-10 scale with 0.25 increments after growing up with a 0-6 scale with 0.1 increments.

If one number is going to cover everything that the three scores used to cover (P/E, CH, IN), then should the factor for that number be three times as high? And give the judges tenths instead of quarters of points to work with so they can make finer distinctions?

It will take a mathman (or mathwoman) familiar with the judging process to figure that out.

 

[Mathman]

Apparently the number of components, the increments the judges get to use for components, and the factors that they're multiplied by, which vary for each phase of each discipline and competitive level, were chosen so that the total values of the PCS would be approximately on par with the values of the TES.

I think it has taken people a long time to get used to the idea that the old "technical score versus performance score" has utterly been thrown oit the window in the IJS.

Now the distinction is "elements versus program." Each of these two, elements and program, has its own internal division into technical and performance. For the elements, the technical part is the base value and the old "artistic" mark is the GOE. As I understand it, at first the judges were left on their own to decide how much positive or negative GOE to give, but the judges were at sea as to what negative GOE was supposed to mean, so the ISU had to introduce all the little rules about underrotations, edge calls, hand down, two-foot, etc., to tell them what to do. (I think it would be better to go back to letting the judges give GOEs, both positive and negative, as they see fit.)

Likewise, we are supposed to think of SS and TR as the technical side of the porgram, while with the other three we evaluate the "artistic" part of the program.

Anyway, if we take the step sequences and spiral sequences away from the elements and give it to the program, that would leave only jumps and spins as individually scored elements.

So something like 33% elements (jumps and spins, including GOEs), 33% the augmented SS/TR component, which would include spirals, moves in the field, steps and turns throughout the program, and 33% Performance/musicality/etc. would be appropriate. I think SS&TR could be combined into one score, so the judges would give two component scores, together with GOEs (positive and negative) on the jumps and spins.

It will take a mathman...

Not really. The GOE part on jumps and spins would be the same, only with fewer bullets for the judges to memorize (like none, for instance. A figure skating judge knows the difference between a bad triple Lutz, a vey bad triple Lutz, an average triple Lutz, a WOW triple Lutz.) Taking off GOEs for spirals and step sequences would reduce the total elements score from 1/2 to 1/3 automatically without any mathematical manipulation.

For the two PCSs, again the judges could use the same 10 point scale with quarter-point gradations, and the scaling factors (2.0, 1.6. 1.0, and .8) could be adjusted as appropriate without the judges having to learn a new system. Actually, I would prefer fewer gradations in the PCSs, rather than more. I just don't think it is possible for a judge or anyone else to distinguish objectively between a program that "deserved" 5.50 rather than 5.25 for Interpretation, say.

Half-point gradations would be better, I think, for the overall "first program mark" and "second program mark."

 

[Blades of Passion]

First, I think the three "performance" components -- P/E, Choreo, and Int, should be combined into one mark, all under the Performance/Execution heading. I do not see any value in rewarding good choregraphy -- meaming. what a choreographer gives you on paper -- unless that choreography is executed. I do not see why a skater should earn any points for having music in his soul, unless that musicality is displayed through his performance.

I'm confused by your reasoning here.

The choreography mark only judges what is seen on the ice, not the program the choreographer and skater had potentially planned. The skater certainly has to execute it.

It's possible that the skater can give a lacking performance but still have pleasing choreography. Or, give an energetic and confident performance, but not have interesting choreography.

Putting those as one mark doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

 

[amateur]

The idea I like the best so far on this thread is gkelly's "moves in the field" sequence. But I think it would be even better to use this concept for a more sweeping change in the program component scores.

First, I think the three "performance" components -- P/E, Choreo, and Int, should be combined into one mark, all under the Performance/Execution heading. I do not see any value in rewarding good choregraphy -- meaming. what a choreographer gives you on paper -- unless that choreography is executed. I do not see why a skater should earn any points for having music in his soul, unless that musicality is displayed through his performance.

Now we come to Transitions. Instead of scoring a separate spiral sequence and a separate (as proposed) moves in the field sequence, I think it would be better if these moves were interspersed throughout the program. I don't know whether Transitions is the right name for this, but I would like to see the weights of the program components adjusted to massively reward programs that were full of cool stuff like Ina Bauers, stag jumps, single Walleys, spread eagles, and spirals of various sorts, all within the concept of the program as a whole.

Then Skating Skills would include (besides quality of edges, speed, etc.) steps and turns that are now part of the scored step sequence. Again, you should strive to fill your program with these moves, rather than gather them all together and say, "OK, now I am going to do a sequence of steps and turns."

I agree very much with all of this :agree:

To answer BoP's objection... first, if we were going to group the PCS in this way, we don't necessarily have to term the 3 that Mathman groups together "Performance/Execution" - it could equally well (to my mind) be termed "Performance/Interpretation", for example. Now I understand that Choreography is its own concept, but indeed, that as a concept exists first and foremost in the design, not what is executed on the ice. Now a superior- choreographed program should, among other things, be balanced, with interesting variety of skating moves - this aspect can be partially covered under "Transitions" if that concept were slightly re-imagined for this purpose. The other (and major) part of what Choreography represents can IMO be represented in the concept of "Interpretation" in this proposed "Performance/Interpretation" category.

Now in my version, I chose to de-emphasize the concept of "Execution" - this concept can still in part be present under a score we are going to call "Performance", but otherwise failures in execution, if you think about it, should already be reflected in technical errors (-GOE) or stumbly, slower skating, lacking attack (could be caught under Skating Skills). It's a bit of a superfluous category to me.

Now finally, combining "Interpretation" with "Performance"... First, my concept of performance here is a little less "Execution"-based, having divorced those concepts and deeming that Execution can be reflected mostly in tech and Skating Skills. So for me Performance/Interpretation (again, it need not be called precisely that) is about the musical quality, the merits of the Choreo as performed, and the integrity and conviction with which it is presented, etc.

The very concepts can easily be re-imagined somewhat, the lines drawn differently. But to me it's important to recognize that some of what PCS rewards is also rewarded in things like +GOEs, and also to be recognized (...and it surely is...) is the phenomenon that skaters with good (usually deserved) Skating Skills score can at times benefit from an automatic boost in the other PCS (to speak nothing of the effects of reputation), whereas those on a lower tier of Skating Skills tend to get underappreciated on the other PCS scores where they might sometimes deserve to be on par or better with a "top skater". For me, the important thing here, is that it makes absolute sense to reduce the number of categories, probably (or hopefully at least) increasing a judge's capacity to take a more thorough account of each one, and trying to reduce the redundancy between categories, which is IMO another thing that leads to the phenomenon of certain skaters getting excessively huge leads after the SP.

I had said before though, that this is probably a topic for another thread, as this one has been all about TES point values, and PCS is another (much larger) can of worms altogether... but I'm glad that Mathman opened it all the same