The abhorrent state of PCS judging

[UnChosen]

Let just say I expected 10x as much thinly veiled insults against Nathan on here and on social media about the death of figure skating, followed by multiple page essays by former skaters to the ISU about the totally broken system and worthless PCS.

Then at worlds I expect Nathan's PCS to go down a couple of points and prominent personalities ecstatic about judges finally giving out realistic PCS scores.

 

[bekalc]

Bolded for emphasis. Plushenko received some appropriate PCS that kept him from the gold in Vancouver, the fury never ceased, the sport wasn't progressing blah blah blah, so the only thing to do is make sure it's not possible (or barely possible) to win with quality over quantity. Because that means, apparently, that the sport is moving backwards. Evan did all the Jason Brown things (though not as well as Jason Brown) and won with them, while Plushenko did all his jumps in the first half and posed his way through his programs and happened to have a few quads, and he lost. From there, because of the outcry, it's basically been ensured that higher TES MUST mean higher PCS, in order to make sure the "right person" wins.

In 2015, when the men's competition all shook out, across both programs, Javier made the fewest mistakes. Based on that, he probably deserved to win. But he would've lost to Yuzu (probably) if both had been scored more accurately in PCS. Instead, both received similar PCS, allowing Javi to (correctly) win.

Also, the men's result in 2013, with flawed Patrick winning over Denis, much of which had to do with Patrick's insanely good (and mostly deserved) PCS, placed further emphasis on the technical aspects of skating needing to be somewhat in line with the TES (we don't always see this, but generally, esp at the big competitions, the CLEANEST top guy wins, even if his skating skills aren't as good as the guy below him).

I think that, results-wise, they've got it figured out. There really haven't been many/any major controversies in the results in men's skating since 2013. The problem is how the scoring system is being inaccurately applied in order to reach the correct result.

My problem is when I see somoeone falling all over the place than I think maybe they are not really able to do all that difficulty. For example many talked about how Kostner skated with incredible speed but for a lot of her career it was so much speed she could not handle. And I frankly found Kim going out there with less speed but still good speed going out there and landing things to be frankly a better display of skating skills. One is in control of herself the other is not.

2014 Sochi had two of the worst displays from an Olympic Gold and Silver medalist i ever saw and I don't understand why either of them got such high PCS. (Shudder). And I was not surprised by either performance either. Hanyu quad sal was not consistent and Chan's jump history is well known.

One thing I appreciate about Chen is he is doing content he is clearly capable of doing. He is not going out there and hoping for quad fall points. It's refreshing.

I also want to say this in a sport cannot technical greatness also turn into also a presentation greatness?

A woman landing a 7 triple program that is not a big deal. But when Midori Ito went out there and did a triple axel? Surely just the historical factor that this person is doing something literally no one else can do.

I though Kim's Vancouver won was fair but I do think the scores between her and Asada should have been closer because Asada landed 3 triple axels.

Elizavita two years again beautiful jumps and amazing triple axel.

Chen going out there and doing 4 different types of quads five times. To me I think you can make an argument that the historic factor of that she lead to high P/E scores at least.

 

[Li'Kitsu]

Well, maybe not. A plain old average quad must get superior height and distance, for instance, because otherwise the skater would not be able to get in the rotations. So maybe it is OK to give a plain old average quad Lutz a +1 while a plain old average triple Lutz only gets a 0. Also, a creative entry to a quad might be more highly prized than the exact same entry to a triple jump.

Higher, faster, stronger. That has to count for something in evaluating the overall impact of a performance in an Olympic sport. Or not?

I don't think in general all quads are bigger than all triples. Maybe it is very often the case, but I'm sure there are cases when a direct comparison doesn't look like that - for example, because skaters are not always limiting the height on their triples to what they actually need to complete the rotation. I don't think Shoma Unos 4T is bigger than Mikhail Kolyadas 3Lz (we might actually also stay with the same skater: Mikas 4T doesn't look bigger than his 3Lz to me either. And IMO, it makes sense. The 3Lz might have a rotation less, but the counter rotation still requires a lot of power/height on the take off, whereas the 4T entry doesn't need that). So, do the 4Ts still deserve a 'height/ice coverage' bonus on the merit of being quads? Even if they are not actually bigger?

And another point I mentioned in the other thread: quads are getting 100% GOE, most triples 70%. Between a 3Lo and a 4Lo, each getting +1, that's a 0.3 difference. But it can go up to 0.9 if a skater gets +3's - that is nearly a point. In the SP, that is the equivalent to nearly, say, a 10% higher transition score. Arguably more, since as repeated often enough the top skaters are basically only scored in the higher PCS ranges anyway. If the TR mark unofficially only ranges from 7-10, that point difference from getting +3 on a quad and not on a triple is a 25% increase in a single components mark. Doesn't that sound quite a lot?

 

[andromache]

My problem is when I see somoeone falling all over the place than I think maybe they are not really able to do all that difficulty. For example many talked about how Kostner skated with incredible speed but for a lot of her career it was so much speed she could not handle. And I frankly found Kim going out there with less speed but still good speed going out there and landing things to be frankly a better display of skating skills. One is in control of herself the other is not.

2014 Sochi had two of the worst displays from an Olympic Gold and Silver medalist i ever saw and I don't understand why either of them got such high PCS. (Shudder). And I was not surprised by either performance either. Hanyu quad sal was not consistent and Chan's jump history is well known.

One thing I appreciate about Chen is he is doing content he is clearly capable of doing. He is not going out there and hoping for quad fall points. It's refreshing.

I also want to say this in a sport cannot technical greatness also turn into also a presentation greatness?

A woman landing a 7 triple program that is not a big deal. But when Midori Ito went out there and did a triple axel? Surely just the historical factor that this person is doing something literally no one else can do.

I though Kim's Vancouver won was fair but I do think the scores between her and Asada should have been closer because Asada landed 3 triple axels.

Elizavita two years again beautiful jumps and amazing triple axel.

Chen going out there and doing 4 different types of quads five times. To me I think you can make an argument that the historic factor of that she lead to high P/E scores at least.

I don't disagree with any of this. A clean performance and/or a very memorable performance due to gorgeous jumps, it definitely leaves an impression. It's exciting! It engages the audience. Falls and other big mistakes really take the audience out, or at least take me out, of enjoying the performance.

But then take it to hypothetical extremes - how should a five-fall Patrick Chan compare to a clean Nam Nguyen, for example? (let's assume their actual jump content is similar, except Patrick falls on 5 and Nam lands everything cleanly). I'm using Nam here because I find his skating/programs/interpretation/packaging to be among the worst of the "top" men. In this fake scenario, I think Nam should obviously win. But what should the PCS look like? It's a very tough call, IMO, and I think the system should welcome/encourage judges with differing views.

If Judge A decides that the 5-fall penalty/negative GOE is enough punishment for Patrick and decides to still reward him 9s in PCS and give Nam 6s and 7s, and Judge B decides that those falls ruined everything for him and decides to give Patrick 6s and 7s and give Nam some scores in the 8s-9s, I think it's perfectly okay for those scores to be all over the place, because different judges can and should have different opinions regarding how mistakes/technical things impact the performance as a whole. A collection of differently-minded judges should end up putting them in about the right place overall (with one skater having a slight edge over the other in PCS, perhaps, depending on the make up of the judging panel) especially once TES (which Nam would win, obviously) is taken into account.

But the current problem seems to me to be that instead of all interpretations of how PCS should be impacted by technical content being welcomed, judges all try to score similarly to other judges - which results in different standards being applied to different skaters.

 

[Hevari]

Maybe the first step to fix the PCS problems is to make judges totally independent from national federations...

 

[karne]

You can't have it both ways. If PCS are going to skyrocket because someone starts landing stuff, then they have to equally drop like a stone when they fail. What we have is this situation:

- some skaters see a minimal creep upwards when they land stuff, but see it drop like a rock when they don't.

- some skaters see a massive boost when they land stuff, and see minimal drop when they don't.

- some skaters constantly get high (or low) PCS regardless of whether they land stuff or don't.

This inconsistency is probably what's hurting the most.

 

[Sam-Skwantch]

Maybe the first step to fix the PCS problems is to make judges totally independent from national federations...

I suggest we find people who frequent bowling alleys. They always seem to have free time and the ISU could afford them

 

[GGFan]

My problem is when I see somoeone falling all over the place than I think maybe they are not really able to do all that difficulty. For example many talked about how Kostner skated with incredible speed but for a lot of her career it was so much speed she could not handle. And I frankly found Kim going out there with less speed but still good speed going out there and landing things to be frankly a better display of skating skills. One is in control of herself the other is not.

2014 Sochi had two of the worst displays from an Olympic Gold and Silver medalist i ever saw and I don't understand why either of them got such high PCS. (Shudder). And I was not surprised by either performance either. Hanyu quad sal was not consistent and Chan's jump history is well known.

One thing I appreciate about Chen is he is doing content he is clearly capable of doing. He is not going out there and hoping for quad fall points. It's refreshing.

I also want to say this in a sport cannot technical greatness also turn into also a presentation greatness?

A woman landing a 7 triple program that is not a big deal. But when Midori Ito went out there and did a triple axel? Surely just the historical factor that this person is doing something literally no one else can do.

I though Kim's Vancouver won was fair but I do think the scores between her and Asada should have been closer because Asada landed 3 triple axels.

Elizavita two years again beautiful jumps and amazing triple axel.

Chen going out there and doing 4 different types of quads five times. To me I think you can make an argument that the historic factor of that she lead to high P/E scores at least.

Some would even argue with Midori that her technical brilliance was not properly rewarded. Hypothetically, for example, even with a botched triple axel, should her jump superiority/speed etc. have been enough to win over a clean Kristi who had some better positions and was more musical. Again, even as a Kristi fan I don't buy the 90s commentary of Kristi as some great artist. She really started to stretch herself artistically as a pro. Again, this just highlights a longstanding tension in the sport so it's hard to buy the cries of the sport's impending death.

 

[Hevari]

I suggest we find people who frequent bowling alleys. They always seem to have free time and the ISU could afford them

What do you mean?

 

[Sam-Skwantch]

What do you mean?

To judge

 

[Hevari]

To judge

I understand this..

 

[OS]

I want to add, if you don't think PCS complaints are legitimate, you just have to look at ladies FS event.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpR6cNqO6og

One of Zijun's best skate in ages (5th highest TES, 10th in PCS 7 triples program), and her team mate has
the better Princess Mononoke performance of the night, ends up being so low in PCS (50) compare to the worst of Kaetlyn, Rika, Wakaba, Karen, Mariah, Elzabet all had major disasters.

 

[Tavi...]

Losing is bitter and you can't handle it. You are jumping out to attack the skaters now, aren't you?

Why Nathan got 88 PCS? Because his performance blew up the arena and the WWW spheres. We saw the fierce competition last night. Yuzuru was determined and gusty. He added a 4T on the fly after popping the 4S and put down a skate worthy of a champion. Nathan responded cold bloodily. He skated a difficult layout that he had not fully practiced because he wanted to win (I'd rather see him stick to his national layout and skate it clean). Watching the two skated back to back was simply magnificent!

The sport is going in the exciting direction not the doom and gloom you proclaim. Not taking anything away from earlier skaters, but watching the skating of the glorious days of your liking does feel juniorish nowadays.

BoP has a history of claiming he is the judge of IJS system. To BoP and those insisting that Nathan's PCS is inflated, I am saying it again: Don't lie to yourself thinking you are better than the 9 trained judges on the panel. You better sing your "inflated PCS" lullaby in your own bed so that you could get a better sleep. No body buys your crap

Which component was blowing up the arena again?

http://static.isu.org/media/1009/program-component-chart_sandp-and-id_08-16.pdf

Note that performance and interpretation both relate to music.

 

[bekalc]

Some would even argue with Midori that her technical brilliance was not properly rewarded. Hypothetically, for example, even with a botched triple axel, should her jump superiority/speed etc. have been enough to win over a clean Kristi who had some better positions and was more musical. Again, even as a Kristi fan I don't buy the 90s commentary of Kristi as some great artist. She really started to stretch herself artistically as a pro. Again, this just highlights a longstanding tension in the sport so it's hard to buy the cries of the sport's

.

I am one of the people who would argue this. I love graceful skating with beautiful lines but is it the only kind of skating ever. When I watch back videos of Kristi I see yes a pretty skater but also smallish jumps.

Midori though she was something in any era.
Please not I am not saying well all quad performances should be rewarded with huge scores automatically.

But I do think when a skater is going out there and literally doing something that has never been done before that is truly historic that deserves to be rewarded and appreciated.

I would for example say Turks short program at Worlds was one of the best short programs done by a woman. Was she the most graceful ever no. But a triple axel and a 3/3 that is freaking amazing just as Asada doing a triple axel double toe at the Olympics.

And when skaters do I something special like that I think Higher PCS makes sense.

I would put Chen going out there and throwing done 5 quads to be one of those things.

How does a sport continue to be a sport if it stops rewarding these things. And in none of these cases do you have people who cannot skate decently.

 

[Mathman]

I understand this..

Sam_Swantch is making a little joke here.She is basically saying, "This is a good idea about making the judges independent of the national federations. But where would we find qualified judges except by having them recommended by and trained by their federations?"

And "The main thing that holds back this proposal is the increased cost to the ISU."

(How'd I do with that explanation, Sam? OK? )

The other reason is that having an independent pool of judges who work directly for the ISU -- this would require a change in the way that the ISU is organized. The ISU is a federation of national federations. It is the national federations (not individuals) that are "members" of the ISU. They are usually jealous of their prerogatives and don't like to cede power to the ISU any more than necessary.

 

[Tavi...]

To me, these arguments about PCSs rarely get very far. But if we look at GOEs maybe we can narrow the question down a bit.

Almost any quad that does not have an obvious error will automatically get positive GOE, just because it is a quad. Is this fair? The skater is already rewarded "just because it is a quad" in the base value. Shouldn't a plain old average quad get a zero, just like a plain old average triple?

Well, maybe not. A plain old average quad must get superior height and distance, for instance, because otherwise the skater would not be able to get in the rotations. So maybe it is OK to give a plain old average quad Lutz a +1 while a plain old average triple Lutz only gets a 0. Also, a creative entry to a quad might be more highly prized than the exact same entry to a triple jump.

Higher, faster, stronger. That has to count for something in evaluating the overall impact of a performance in an Olympic sport. Or not?

Umm no? A huge bonus is already build into the scale of values:

3t: 4.3
4T: 10.3
Bonus: 6

3z: 6.0
4Z: 13.6
Bonus: 7.6

Think about that. A skater who executes a 4t gets a bonus worth the value of an extra 3z, without any worries about zayaking. For a 4Z, the extra points are nearly equal to an extra 3A. What you're suggesting regarding height is to tack on another point for something that should already be accounted for in those bonus points.

In his FS, Nathan got 2.43 GOE on his opening combo, a 4z-3t, which has BV of 17.90, for a total of 20.03 points. For comparison, 3z-3t done as the opening combo would earn 9.3 without GOE.

Five judges awarded him +2 (4-5 bullet points) and four awarded him +3 (6+ bullet points).

He approached it from crossovers and a standard LBO edge. The 4Z had decent height, but he had almost no flow into the 3t and no speed, runout or difficult exit coming out of it. To me it didn't look effortless or especially well-matched to the music (although it was fine). So to be honest, I don't know where those judges found 4-6 bullet points.

I think they gave him 2.43 extra points simply because he did a 4Z-3t. And I think that's wrong. It seems to me that GOE given out like candy simply serves to make an already huge point advantage insurmountable, especially when you consider that the skater's PCS is probably also being inflated. I would love to hear a judge explain their logic in general, and point out the specific bullet points I've missed with respect to this particular combo.

http://static.isu.org/media/1003/2000-sptc-sov-and-goe-2016-2017_revised-july-14.pdf

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uDD3peVtG18

 

[Mathman]

I would also like to toss this out there.

I do not find the scoring of program components to be abhorrent. (Loathsome, well, yes. Vile, maybe so.)

I have to confess that I am not as passionate as Blades of Fervor. Most of the time the right skater wins. Just like with 6.0 judging.

 

[drivingmissdaisy]

My one criticism is that I thing Jin and Chen should be scored much closer in PCS that Nathan and the top guys. Maybe that means Boyang deserves better scores, but that's all I have to say on the matter.

 

[Ares]

Losing is bitter and you can't handle it. You are jumping out to attack the skaters now, aren't you?

Why Nathan got 88 PCS? Because his performance blew up the arena and the WWW spheres. We saw the fierce competition last night. Yuzuru was determined and gusty. He added a 4T on the fly after popping the 4S and put down a skate worthy of a champion. Nathan responded cold bloodily. He skated a difficult layout that he had not fully practiced because he wanted to win (I'd rather see him stick to his national layout and skate it clean). Watching the two skated back to back was simply magnificent!

The sport is going in the exciting direction not the doom and gloom you proclaim. Not taking anything away from earlier skaters, but watching the skating of the glorious days of your liking does feel juniorish nowadays.

BoP has a history of claiming he is the judge of IJS system. To BoP and those insisting that Nathan's PCS is inflated, I am saying it again: Don't lie to yourself thinking you are better than the 9 trained judges on the panel. You better sing your "inflated PCS" lullaby in your own bed so that you could get a better sleep. No body buys your crap

Blades of Passion is right though. Sometimes he has idealistic view on Figure Skating and it speaks through him, but there's no bitterness in his post.

 

[Hevari]

Sam_Swantch is making a little joke here.She is basically saying, "This is a good idea about making the judges independent of the national federations. But where would we find qualified judges except by having them recommended by and trained by their federations?"

And "The main thing that holds back this proposal is the increased cost to the ISU."

(How'd I do with that explanation, Sam? OK? )

The other reason is that having an independent pool of judges who work directly for the ISU -- this would require a change in the way that the ISU is organized. The ISU is a federation of national federations. It is the national federations (not individuals) that are "members" of the ISU. They are usually jealous of their prerogatives and don't like to cede power to the ISU any more than necessary.

OK... First - look the list of ISU Judges & Techs that is published by ISU every season. It's very huge - and all of them had met some requiremends needed to recieve an ISU category. So they are qualified, right?

Then - ISU arranges seminars and exams for juges to recieve an ISU category. Right? So it has some jurisdiction to work with judges directly.

And increased cost - but it worth, right?

"federation of national federations" - hmm... The FIFA itself (and not the national federations) decides about the list of referees to officiate, for example, World Cup matches. The FIS itself decides about the names of judges to officiate ski jumping or freestyle event (the names of judges, not the quotas for national feds).

The ISU needs to be tougher to national feds and their international rights and prerogatives - or the figure skating will turn into something kinda wrestling where the result is prearranged...

Seems that only in ISU the "international role"of national federations is so exaggregated... Maybe I'm wrong but most of other international sports governing bodies (The FIFA, The IIHF, The IHF, The FIS, The FIA, The FIM, The ITF, The IBU and so on) have much more rights to make changes without "asking permissions" of national feds