Question about the consistency of scores under 6.0

[yunasashafan]

I am a relatively new follower of skating (since 2006) and have watched only casually before that. That may be why the IJS makes so much sense to me. I like that I can look at the protocols and see how the elements were scored. While I agree that there are overscoring/underscoring/harsh edge and under-rotation call issues, and I definitely see room for improvement, I feel that we would not have been so informed of these issues (and are therefore able to discuss them) had it not been for the IJS.

So my question is, for you 6.0 oldies , how were you able to evaluate whether the scores were fair or not? I would think that scores would be much more unpredictable and inconsistent between competitions. Or was it mostly about placements? (sorry if my question is trivial, I don't know much about 6.0) I feel that, dispite all the complaining about IJS, it is a much more objective system than 6.0.

 

[miki88]

I don't think they were so inconsistent. Some of the things that happen in the old system still happen now, such as high-ranked skaters always receiving the higher scores in the presentation department. However, I feel the old system made it possible for upsets to happen more often because it was a ranking system. On the other hand, the CoP can allow a skater to win with mistakes because of a big lead in the SP. I think under 6.0 system, it was more important to deliver clean performances.

 

[blue_idealist]

I read in a recent Steve Milton book that under the 6.0 system, performances in different competitions could not be compared that well ebcause scores were based on ranking the skaters, not marking exactly what was done on the ice. COP scores (if the system is used correctly), should mark the elements seen on the ice,not rank skaters so therefore if a skater gives a similar performance they should receive a similar score no matter how other competitors do. Of course, we all know that sometimes that doesn't happen..

 

[Bennett]

I don't think they were so inconsistent. Some of the things that happen in the old system still happen now, such as high-ranked skaters always receiving the higher scores in the presentation department. However, I feel the old system made it possible for upsets to happen more often because it was a ranking system. On the other hand, the CoP can allow a skater to win with mistakes because of a big lead in the SP. I think under 6.0 system, it was more important to deliver clean performances.

yeah, i recall lambiel had a very bad SP and went very low and then went up in LP when everyone else did badly. commentators were surprisingly saying that, under the 6.0 system, lambiel would have been done in this competition when SP was over. that was funny and interesting.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

So my question is, for you 6.0 oldies , how were you able to evaluate whether the scores were fair or not? I would think that scores would be much more unpredictable and inconsistent between competitions. Or was it mostly about placements? (sorry if my question is trivial, I don't know much about 6.0) I feel that, dispite all the complaining about IJS, it is a much more objective system than 6.0.

It would seem to me (and I am an oldie oldie) that the CoP's layout for scoring has the same affect as in the old 6.0 system. The difference is that the judges have more nitty gritty items to check out in CoP where in the 6.0 system they had to remember those items before reaching a conclusive score. Questions arose about whether the items were covered by the judges. in the 6.0 system. In the Tech scores of the CoP, they seem to me anyway, to revert to the GoEs which are basically left-overs from the 6.0 system.

In the early days of the CoP, I used to assign ordinals to the results. (In those days, I don't think the judges were playing musical chairs), and the results of the Ordinals were in agreement with the results of the CoP. But now since judges are replaced between the SP and LP, I can't play the Ordinals game.

The CoP however prevents cheating in the form of collusions almost totally One does have to consider individual judging and we are not privileged for that as we were in the 6.0 system.