The New Judging System: More Harm Than Good?
- Thread starter CDMM1991
- Start date
There are pros and cons to all judged sports but I do think that it is for the better. I like the point system of it instead of the 6.0 system but there is allot of room for improvement. Over time hopefully they will work the kinks out. I just wish that they would do away with the quad in Mens skating and in women's skating I think that some or most of the programs look the same because they are doing the same things out there. I am just an amature side line judge here but I think that it is better. Is any judged sport subjective----yes!
I'd have to lean towards "more harm", weighing all the pros and cons.
The pros for the new system (and, this, like all the following falls under the "IMHO" category) is that it is now possible for someone to win the title or a medal from a position they would have not been able to do do it from under the old system, like Liashenko winning one of her GP's from 7th place and Sandhu has pulled it off a couple of times. It is now also possible to win the long program even if you're not skating in the final group (as Karel Zalenka did at Karl Schaefer last week), which hardly ever happened before. It's also good to see more varied placements among the 3 phases of the dance competition; now it is not unusual to see someone pull a 3rd in the CD, a 5th in the OD, and a 1st in the FD, for example, as opposed to that ridicolous (and hideously inaccurate) 1-1-1, 2-2-2, 3-3-3, 4-4-4, thing they had going on for years. Also, at least on the junior level, I have to say there might actually be a possibility that the "anonymous judges" factor just might have something to do with seeing some new countries on the podium that never got there before; like the two Estonian ladies in the Czech Republic this past weekend and Spain's Sonia Lafuente medalling earlier in the JGP. Under the old system, I think the judges were to tied into rewarding "the usual suspects" and some of the "lesser nations" were totally ignored, regardless of how well they skated. (For example, if Drobiazko & Vanagas had skated for Russia or Ukraine instead of Lithuania, I think they would have a lot more medals in their trophy case.)
As to the cons -- first of all, as has been discussed in many contexts in many posts on this board, it encourages bad jumping. "No, I've only actually landed the thing once and that was like 8 months ago but I can usually get the rotations in so I'll get points for that so if I biff, I biff." :sheesh: :sheesh:
Secondly, it's just way too convoluted. The point values, the deductions, do you get more points if you do this jump at this point as opposed to 2 jumps 10 seconds earlier, don't you get bonus points for a blue dress?, does a lutz while the moon is full count more or less than one when it's only a sliver, oh man she would have gotten another +2 if she'd only held that edge for 1.77 more seconds.... come on here. Some of the score analyses I have seen pretty much give me a headache after about 10 seconds. Thirdly, sometimes a great long program works for you, sometimes it doesn't. Zalenka in Vienna went from 11th to 4th by winning the long program. On the flip side, Jennifer Robinson was 10th in the short at Cup of Russia (I think it was) a few years ago, was 3rd in the long but only moved up to 9th. What's the point of having the 3rd-best long program of the night if it's only going to move you up one lousy notch? Sometimes the short program makes a difference, sometimes it doesn't. I realize many may consider this to be a more exciting aspect of the whole thing, and to a point I agree, but I think it's kind of a mishmash. I've always been in favor of using the CoP to get a point amount for the actual program, but THEN turn the PLACEMENT into 0.5 or 1.0 like the old system and add them together. I really think that would be more fair.
But I think the main flaw in the system comes from an audience perspective. One of the greatest things in skating, for the audience as well as the skaters, was to see or skate a fabulous program and then see some 6s come up. The skaters were thrilled and the audience loved it. Having someone come out and skate brilliantly and then seeing something like a 123.67 posted just does not have anywhere NEAR the same resonance as hearing that "6.0" announced. I have not actually been to a competition in person since CoP was established, but just from watching on TV alone, I just get the impression that the energy in the building when the scores come up is just not what it used to be. You would think that since the skating audience is eroding, they would want something MORE viewer friendly, not less, but hey, as long as $peedy is getting his payoffs from whatever questionable sources, why should he care??????
The pros for the new system (and, this, like all the following falls under the "IMHO" category) is that it is now possible for someone to win the title or a medal from a position they would have not been able to do do it from under the old system, like Liashenko winning one of her GP's from 7th place and Sandhu has pulled it off a couple of times. It is now also possible to win the long program even if you're not skating in the final group (as Karel Zalenka did at Karl Schaefer last week), which hardly ever happened before. It's also good to see more varied placements among the 3 phases of the dance competition; now it is not unusual to see someone pull a 3rd in the CD, a 5th in the OD, and a 1st in the FD, for example, as opposed to that ridicolous (and hideously inaccurate) 1-1-1, 2-2-2, 3-3-3, 4-4-4, thing they had going on for years. Also, at least on the junior level, I have to say there might actually be a possibility that the "anonymous judges" factor just might have something to do with seeing some new countries on the podium that never got there before; like the two Estonian ladies in the Czech Republic this past weekend and Spain's Sonia Lafuente medalling earlier in the JGP. Under the old system, I think the judges were to tied into rewarding "the usual suspects" and some of the "lesser nations" were totally ignored, regardless of how well they skated. (For example, if Drobiazko & Vanagas had skated for Russia or Ukraine instead of Lithuania, I think they would have a lot more medals in their trophy case.)
As to the cons -- first of all, as has been discussed in many contexts in many posts on this board, it encourages bad jumping. "No, I've only actually landed the thing once and that was like 8 months ago but I can usually get the rotations in so I'll get points for that so if I biff, I biff." :sheesh: :sheesh:
Secondly, it's just way too convoluted. The point values, the deductions, do you get more points if you do this jump at this point as opposed to 2 jumps 10 seconds earlier, don't you get bonus points for a blue dress?, does a lutz while the moon is full count more or less than one when it's only a sliver, oh man she would have gotten another +2 if she'd only held that edge for 1.77 more seconds.... come on here. Some of the score analyses I have seen pretty much give me a headache after about 10 seconds. Thirdly, sometimes a great long program works for you, sometimes it doesn't. Zalenka in Vienna went from 11th to 4th by winning the long program. On the flip side, Jennifer Robinson was 10th in the short at Cup of Russia (I think it was) a few years ago, was 3rd in the long but only moved up to 9th. What's the point of having the 3rd-best long program of the night if it's only going to move you up one lousy notch? Sometimes the short program makes a difference, sometimes it doesn't. I realize many may consider this to be a more exciting aspect of the whole thing, and to a point I agree, but I think it's kind of a mishmash. I've always been in favor of using the CoP to get a point amount for the actual program, but THEN turn the PLACEMENT into 0.5 or 1.0 like the old system and add them together. I really think that would be more fair.But I think the main flaw in the system comes from an audience perspective. One of the greatest things in skating, for the audience as well as the skaters, was to see or skate a fabulous program and then see some 6s come up. The skaters were thrilled and the audience loved it. Having someone come out and skate brilliantly and then seeing something like a 123.67 posted just does not have anywhere NEAR the same resonance as hearing that "6.0" announced. I have not actually been to a competition in person since CoP was established, but just from watching on TV alone, I just get the impression that the energy in the building when the scores come up is just not what it used to be. You would think that since the skating audience is eroding, they would want something MORE viewer friendly, not less, but hey, as long as $peedy is getting his payoffs from whatever questionable sources, why should he care??????
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
I think this argument sweeps all before it. It doesn't matter what scoring system you use if no-one turns out to watch it.
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
I think it has more negative then positives personaly. Spins are much worse now, with excess position changes, and being on the wrong edge getting extra points, little value giving to GOE and poor GOE judging. Guys like Buttle and Lambiel should be crushing mediocre spinners like Plushenko and Lysacek, yet Plushenko and Lysacek and their mediocre spins score higher then the stunning spins of Buttle and Lambiel which is almost like cheating.
PCS scores are too vague and give too much liberty. The judges use it to hold up their pet skaters like they did Sasha Cohen and the Zhangs at the Olympics.
They also judge each component too similary, not with enough distinction between each. For example Plushenko is excellent in skating skills, performance, and to some extent interpretation, but not nearly as strong in transitions and choreography yet gets by far the highest scores in each of the 5. Cohen is far inferior to Suguri, Arakawa, and Slutskaya for example in skating skills yet receives top scores in that like the other areas as well.
I dont think doing harder jumps, falling on them, and getting more points is a good situation. I dont like 3-jump combos, they look ugly and dont really reflect superior jumping skill the way doing a triple-triple does. Not enough extra points are granted to doing triple-triples, nor the harder kind of triples-triples.
I also dont like the new death spirals being done by the pairs.
I dont like the new system in any event except dance. In dance it has far improved the sport. Every other event no.
PCS scores are too vague and give too much liberty. The judges use it to hold up their pet skaters like they did Sasha Cohen and the Zhangs at the Olympics.
They also judge each component too similary, not with enough distinction between each. For example Plushenko is excellent in skating skills, performance, and to some extent interpretation, but not nearly as strong in transitions and choreography yet gets by far the highest scores in each of the 5. Cohen is far inferior to Suguri, Arakawa, and Slutskaya for example in skating skills yet receives top scores in that like the other areas as well.
I dont think doing harder jumps, falling on them, and getting more points is a good situation. I dont like 3-jump combos, they look ugly and dont really reflect superior jumping skill the way doing a triple-triple does. Not enough extra points are granted to doing triple-triples, nor the harder kind of triples-triples.
I also dont like the new death spirals being done by the pairs.
I dont like the new system in any event except dance. In dance it has far improved the sport. Every other event no.
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2003
Maybe CoP should be kept for Dance, but the old system(or something like it, but better) go back to the rest of the fields in skating.
I'm sorry, but there is absolutely no way that the old system is better than the new. Before, judges just gave you a score, but there was nothing to answer to. As a skater you have no idea why you received the marks that you did. Judges could (and did) pick favourites to win, even when they didn't deserve it! Now you get a sheet that tells you exactly how each element was scored, and why your points could've been lower than someone elses. As far as it sacrificing spins for positions... I also dissagree. Some skaters, yes, they're just throwing on these hideous positions with no speed onto a terrible spin, but although their level will get them more points, their terrible spin quality will get them a terrible GOE from the judges. So it's all balanced, sometimes it's better to do a lower lever spin if you get a good GOE, it's worth more points. I realize we all have our own opinions, and I just thought I'd share mine. I do like this system, because it gives skaters a chance to understand their placing, and it makes judges have to answer to the facts.
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
Not true at all. If the better spins got more points you would never see Plushenko and Lysacek getting higher spin scores then Lambiel and Buttle regularly. A few things:
1)GOE on spins is halved, so GOE scores dont count as much on spins. This is ridiculous
2)Judges do a very poor job scoring GOE on spins, they bunch them all close together, mediocre spins still get atleast +1s from the judges, not even the best spins gets any +3s, and you have to do an amazing spin to get +2s. So GOE is all pretty much the same from spectacular to mediocre. Only below mediocre do you see a noteable difference.
3)The spin levels are worth much more points then the GOE, and are based on stupid things, like changing to a wrong edge on a spin, and changing to an ugly position from a proper one.
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
Getting the highest scores for an element does not mean you are the best at executing that element. Lysachek and Plushenko get higher scores on spins because of their higher levels, not because of GOE.
At Olympics, in the LP, Lambiel had three level 3 and one level2 (!!) spins and the GOE he got for these was +2,36 while Lysachek got +1,72 and Plushenko got +1,71 (Lysachek and Plushenko had two level 4 and two level 3 spins).
So the judges do recognize that Lambiel has the best execution but he needs maximize the levels if he wants the highest scores (I also much more prefer a simple beautifully executed spin but rules are rules ).
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
Well I think scores should be reflecting who is better at what. Also a 0.65 type total edge on GOE between Lambiel and guys like Plushenko and Lysacek on spins is much too low, that is less then a wobbly landing on a jump. That shows GOE needs to be worth more, not halved like it currently is, and judges need to differentiate between quality of spins when they score GOE better then they do now. Like I said spectacular spins to mediocre spins are scored almost the same, only below mediocre spins do you start to see a notable differene.
I also dont think spin levels should be determined by moving to an incorrect edge, and an incorrect position, which is what gives the higher levels. It is just plain stupid.
Right on Mathman
Right on Mathman, doesnt matter if no one watches. Campbells was an almost empty arena. I prefer quality skating personally. Been watching and talking to Kimmie and she is improving slightly. Give her time. I hope the TV coverage continues.
Right on Mathman, doesnt matter if no one watches. Campbells was an almost empty arena. I prefer quality skating personally. Been watching and talking to Kimmie and she is improving slightly. Give her time. I hope the TV coverage continues.
Dick Button weighed in on this subject on the Skate America telecast today. The CoP is "constipated, constricted and destructive of artistic exprssion."
I saw that, too, but I don't necessarily agree with that. CoP has nothing to do with the artistic capabilities of the skaters; if skaters are capable of artistic expression to any degree, I really don't think CoP is holding them back any more than the old system was. You either have artistry or you don't. Sasha Cohen, Johnny Weir, Shizuka Arakawa, Denkova/Staviysky, Deloebel/Schoenfelder, and many others can somehow manage to go out there and be interesting.
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2003
Maybe if they had taken much more time figuring out how to scandal proof the system, while at the same time trying to get more feedback from the skaters and actually listening and weighing those opinions, it would have turned out a better effective system. We could have lived with the old system a little longer, without any major problems happening in the meantime....hopefully, lol.
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2006
What if the point system was kept, but the numbers were converted into 6.0 grades?
Every decimal place within the 6.0 system would be given a certain score range depending on what type of competition it is (short program, long program, male, female). The judges would go through and grade all of the elements and then the total score each individual judge gave to a skater would dictate what 6.0 rating they receive. Each judge's individual 6.0 grade would be displayed along with the total amount of points the skater received for all the judges combined. The highest point total would still decide who wins the competition, but now the audience would have a better picture as to what is going on.
Hurray!
Every decimal place within the 6.0 system would be given a certain score range depending on what type of competition it is (short program, long program, male, female). The judges would go through and grade all of the elements and then the total score each individual judge gave to a skater would dictate what 6.0 rating they receive. Each judge's individual 6.0 grade would be displayed along with the total amount of points the skater received for all the judges combined. The highest point total would still decide who wins the competition, but now the audience would have a better picture as to what is going on.
Hurray!
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2006
Doesn't that just multiply the subjectivity by the number of graded elements and components?
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2006
Not really. Under the 6.0 system the technical grades skaters could receive would often times be HUGELY varied (and unfair). Look at Slutskaya getting some 5.9's for her 2002 Olympics long program in which she was not clean and did not do a Triple/Triple combination.
Given what she actually did, a 5.9 would be flat out IMPOSSIBLE with the current rules if you converted the points into the 6.0 system. Even with very generous positive GOEs on her clean elements, I think that a 5.8 would have been the highest possible score she could have received under the CoP grading system.
I like my idea a lot actually. I do miss the 6.0 grades, even though the new system has the potential to be more fair.
~Z
Given what she actually did, a 5.9 would be flat out IMPOSSIBLE with the current rules if you converted the points into the 6.0 system. Even with very generous positive GOEs on her clean elements, I think that a 5.8 would have been the highest possible score she could have received under the CoP grading system.
I like my idea a lot actually. I do miss the 6.0 grades, even though the new system has the potential to be more fair.
~Z
Similar threads
