The New Judging System is much fairer than the Old 6.0 System

[Crylais]

Correct - that is how ties were broken under the 6.0 System.

Thanks I think I definitely like the current system more haha

How unfair would it be if two competitors tied but the one winning the short program won by say 10 points but lost the long program by like 1 point. (Just making the numbers up)

 

[peg]

Thanks I think I definitely like the current system more haha

How unfair would it be if two competitors tied but the one winning the short program won by say 10 points but lost the long program by like 1 point. (Just making the numbers up)

This is exactly why I thought the 6.0 system and ordinal placements were the most ridiculous approach ever to determining the outcome of a competition - even back when that system was in use and no alternative was being considered. (Well, one of two reasons. The other reason was the fact that a third ranked skater could flip around the standings of the top two after the fact. That was a major WT* and a real turnoff for me as a fan. I follow figure skating much more now that the judging actually makes sense)

 

[treeloving]

If it still 6.0 would Fernandez win free? He landed two quad, stay on his feet and has great projection?

 

[Mathman]

If it still 6.0 would Fernandez win free? He landed two quad, stay on his feet and has great projection?

That's a great question. 6.0 was a lot harder on falls that the present system. It would have been problematic to give the gold medal to either Hanyu with two falls or Chan with multiple obvious errors.

The other reason was the fact that a third ranked skater could flip around the standings of the top two after the fact. That was a major WT* and a real turnoff for me as a fan.

This could be a head-scratcher when watching the competition in real time. But if you think about it, "flip-flops" (technically, violations of the "principle of independence of irrelevant alternatives") just means that we counted our chickens before they hatched. Skater #3 stole some ordinals from skater #1, dropping that skater below skater #2 overall. Nothing outrageous about that.

Actually, the post has veered off track now, but the 'fairness' comparison was between the Current System & 6.0 System with respect to the SP ranking. At that point, the tight pack of 11 skaters (who were ALL within reach of the bronze medal) would have been 'artificially' spread apart under the old 6.0 System. So, despite the group of 11 being virtually tied after the SP, the factor placements (of the 6.0 System) would have made it more difficult by several multiples (~ 3x) for the CZE skaters to claim bronze compared to Daisuke, Peter or Jason.

An interesting point, but I am not sure that it speaks to the question of fairness per se. The system treats all skaters equally. The Czech staters had exactly the same opportunity as Dai, Peter, and Jason to place well in the short program and secure the advantage going into the final phase. In any sport you win or you lose, irrespective of the margin of victory.

Anyway, thanks for starting this great thread and for compiling all these comparisons. This is very cool.

 

[will74lsn]

Uh... Will... I think sowcow's entire thread is antithetical to your assessment

Wow sowcow... Just when I didn't think I could be more depressed after this event, I'm going to be even more depressed reading those charts. But thank you for doing the work.

I don't think so.

 

[volk]

I still wonder would Sarah Hughes have won 2002 Olympic with new judging system? If not who would the winner be?

 

[Poodlepal]

Well, we have an idea of what the jumps are worth. We can sit there and watch old competitions with a calculator and add them up. From what I gather, Sarah's skating didn't stand up to the level of nit-picking they do today, so possibly not.

Frankly, they can make anyone win who they want, with the PCS scores. Probably Sarah would have gotten the higher technical score, but who knows what they would have done with her second mark? I am more skeptical about the PCS scores than I was about that "second mark" and I truly don't know if it is being used as it should be, as a supposedly unbiased way of quantifying good edging and choreography, or if it has become biased bonus points to whomever is in favor or (God forbid) bribed the right person.

As for Patrick Chan last year, I think people were upset over his score more than the overall placement. His PCS scores, in many competitions over the years, overcame a lot of points lost by falling/hitting the wall/tripping in his footwork/not finishing with his music. He was bad again yesterday, and frankly, I thought Hanyu should have beaten him by a higher margin, falls and all.

 

[jenaj]

I don't have time to try to understand the numbers and the analysis that went into the assertion of the heading. But from an more empirical standpoint, I don't agree. There is still a lot of subjectivity in the "new" system, both on PCS and GOE. How is it fair that Denis Ten, who skated the long program with the fewest mistakes, good presentation and difficulty better than what Chan and Hanyu accomplished, didn't win the long program? Under IJS, the sum of the parts is greater than the whole. Also, comparing the two systems is kind of an apples and orange thing because the rules applied differently. Under 6.0, the short program score didn't carry over and the second mark would break a tie in the long program. Is that unfair? No, not unless the rules weren't followed.

 

[OS]

It is never about which system is better, but the judging panels that implement them. As long as the sport remain 100% human judging without need exact measurable stats in support or feel the need to recheck and verify possible human errors, it is vulnerable to human cheating.

I rather they do an overhaul of the current system particularly with accountability, transparency and PCS revamping.

Just to be a bit different, I would also consider change the rule for that there must be a gold, silver and bronze. If no one deserve the gold, then frankly no one should take the gold. I rather have Gold be a mark/symbol of excellence instead of by default of which skater did least badly like at Mens final.

 

[Mathman]

Just to be a bit different, I would also consider change the rule for that there must be a gold, silver and bronze. If no one deserve the gold, then frankly no one should take the gold. I rather have Gold be a mark/symbol of excellence instead of by default of which skater did least badly like at Mens final.

But then again, this isn't the Tchaikovsky prize for piano-playing. In sports, someone runs a mile in 18 minutes and loses, someone else goes seventeen 59 and wins.

 

[OS]

But then again, this isn't the Tchaikovsky prize for piano-playing. In sports, someone runs a mile in 18 minutes and loses, someone else goes seventeen 59 and wins.

I am fine with that, but if someone ran a mile in 38 minutes and won the gold at an event like THE Olympics - highest accolade in sport, the epitome of sporting excellence, the peak of mount Olympus etc.. because everyone had a cramp, food poisoned, or being PlushenKOed in this case, then this person should not deserve the gold? (Somewhere in the rule it need to state what is deemed worthy, now that is the tricky part).

 

[Crylais]

Despite their falls though, both Chan and Hanyu's LP achieved higher scores than any competitor did in 2010. Although Lysacek skated a clean program he didn't really have any difficult jumps (quads) in his programs. Is that really Olympic material? I am not saying he doesn't deserve the win but just raising a point of discussion. "Olympic Material" can be really subjective. Some people think a clean skate is olympic material and some will think that there must be at least a quad to be considered olympic material.

I don't think it's fair that someone is barred from winning an OGM simply because they did the least mistakes. If you put aside Hanyu's 4S fall (I wasn't expecting him to land this anyway given he only landed it once in competition) and 3F fall, he still landed a great 4T and 3A+3T.

Chan also probably landed one of the best 4T+3T I've seen in competition. I don't think his 3A and 2A mistakes were really a surprise. He hasn't landed them all week and during warm ups (the bits I saw) he didn't land any 3A.

 

[Bartek]

I still wonder would Sarah Hughes have won 2002 Olympic with new judging system? If not who would the winner be?

Slutskaya would have easily won the short and she would have also won the free thus making her the overall winner. Hughes wouldn't heve gotten any medal under CoP. Cohen and Suguri would have probably taken the other medals unless Kwan would have been held up in PCS to ensure her the bronze.

 

[jace93]

Despite their falls though, both Chan and Hanyu's LP achieved higher scores than any competitor did in 2010. Although Lysacek skated a clean program he didn't really have any difficult jumps (quads) in his programs. Is that really Olympic material? I am not saying he doesn't deserve the win but just raising a point of discussion. "Olympic Material" can be really subjective. Some people think a clean skate is olympic material and some will think that there must be at least a quad to be considered olympic material.

I don't think it's fair that someone is barred from winning an OGM simply because they did the least mistakes. If you put aside Hanyu's 4S fall (I wasn't expecting him to land this anyway given he only landed it once in competition) and 3F fall, he still landed a great 4T and 3A+3T.

Chan also probably landed one of the best 4T+3T I've seen in competition. I don't think his 3A and 2A mistakes were really a surprise. He hasn't landed them all week and during warm ups (the bits I saw) he didn't land any 3A.

Even increasing his pcs to the level a top contender is getting this year (ie 90 pti) he would still be third... and with a truly ridiculously easy technical contenent...

 

[moviechick]

So basically it's a debate between 2010's boring/safe vs. 2014 hot mess? Ugh, I'll take neither but at least Hanyu is way more fun to watch than that orange man.

 

[sowcow]

.
.

I don't have time to try to understand the numbers and the analysis that went into the assertion of the heading. But from an more empirical standpoint, I don't agree.

So, to be clear, you are disagreeing with the analysis & argument presented ... without taking the time to review and understand the analysis & argument presented?

---

There is still a lot of subjectivity in the "new" system, both on PCS and GOE. How is it fair that Denis Ten, who skated the long program with the fewest mistakes, good presentation and difficulty better than what Chan and Hanyu accomplished, didn't win the long program? Under IJS, the sum of the parts is greater than the whole.

I absolutely agree! There is still a lot of subjectivity in the "new" system (just as there will ALWAYS be subjectivity in any judged sport/event). And, precisely for that reason, the issue of judging was avoided altogether. Instead, the analysis looked at 'factor placements' of the 6.0 System versus the New System; as is stated up front:

...the analysis was designed to compare the Old vs. New Judging SYSTEM (irrespective of the actual judging) ... to demonstrate the different impact of each system to the 'spread' (or how close each competitor is to one another) ... if the ordinals & factor placements from the 6.0 System were still being used.

---

Also, comparing the two systems is kind of an apples and orange thing because the rules applied differently.

Oh yeah? Apples and oranges you say ...

Admittedly, comparing the Old vs. New System in this way is like comparing apples to oranges, as it ignores all kinds of complexity inherent within both judging systems.

.

---

Under 6.0, the short program score didn't carry over and the second mark would break a tie in the long program. Is that unfair? No, not unless the rules weren't followed.

Ok ... let me see if I've got this straight ...

Under the New System, the [short program score] that now exists ... would disappear under the 6.0 System; replaced by factor placements.

As to your Q&A: "Is that unfair? No, not unless the rules weren't followed": .

The long and the short of it: sometimes factor placements can work for you, and sometimes against you (...but that balance is what makes it fair).

Similarly, sometimes "not [taking] time to try to understand the numbers and the analysis" can work for you; and sometimes against you. It would appear to be the latter in this case.


.
.

 

[jenaj]

I don't think so but I don't have time to digest your lengthy rebuttal any more than I did your original post. I wasn't rebutting you because didn't read you. Sometimes less is more.

.
.


So, to be clear, you are disagreeing with the analysis & argument presented ... without taking the time to review and understand the analysis & argument presented?

---

I absolutely agree! There is still a lot of subjectivity in the "new" system (just as there will ALWAYS be subjectivity in any judged sport/event). And, precisely for that reason, the issue of judging was avoided altogether. Instead, the analysis looked at 'factor placements' of the 6.0 System versus the New System; as is stated up front:

---

Oh yeah? Apples and oranges you say ...

.

---

Ok ... let me see if I've got this straight ...



As to your Q&A: "Is that unfair? No, not unless the rules weren't followed": .



Similarly, sometimes "not [taking] time to try to understand the numbers and the analysis" can work for you; and sometimes against you. It would appear to be the latter in this case.


.
.

 

[snsd]

I wish people would stop calling it "the new judging system"

Its been around for nearly 10 years now

 

[sowcow]

I don't have time to digest your lengthy rebuttal any more than I did your original post ... Sometimes less is more.

Touché!

Too busy leaving 1-liner posts?? Quality over quantity.

 

[Frenchie]

I don't think so but I don't have time to digest your lengthy rebuttal any more than I did your original post. I wasn't rebutting you because didn't read you. Sometimes less is more.

Interesting how you repeatedly take the time to point out you don't have the time for this... Reading the post, answering to the post... But yet, you answer...
You might want to consider doing what you said, which would mean not posting then? Just a thought.
But I guess you won't read this, since you don't have the time...