The Podium at Calgary

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Alas, Joe, the audiences (TV commentators, too) are still stuck in the 6.0 era. Like, they cheer for Lambiel doing a triple Axel when the NJS says he only did a double.
MM

There you go again as President Reagan would always say. The Caller and the Judges are the Gods of Olympus and you obey them. The NJS didn't say he only did a double, it was your Gods!!!

Anyway, since I only look at the protocols, Brian got the TES and Stephane got the PCS (nothing to do with a triple axel). Stephane has the quad and quad combo as does Brian. Stephane has spins that Brian will never have. They will continue the rivalry which started way back in the Euros when Brian beat out Stephane for a bronze, if you remember it. At the moment, I do not see anyone to approach their 'lock' on 2010 yet. I think it will be Brian because Stephane's knees will probably not last much longer. Knee surgery even when successful doesn't allow for complete recovery and deterioration continues.

Joe

 

[Mathman]

It's a new age, Joe. We may not like it, but the ISU is bound and determined to turn figure skating into a "real sport."

I went to a baseball game. Yankees 2, Red Sox 7.

Well, my "opinion" is that the Yankees played better and they deserve the trophy. Also, I thought that last ball "should have" been called a strike.

How much is my opinion worth?

MM

 

[chuckm]

Elena could have upgraded her PCS scores in the FS by attacking her program the way she did at Euros. If she had skated both the QR and the FS the way she did at Euros, she would probably have won the bronze medal, because her SP was very good.

Elena is a charming girl and her best skates are wonderful. But she does need to work on her non-jump elements, or she will always be at a disadvantage skating against skaters who have well-rounded skills. I think she will be seriously challenged at 2007 Euros and Worlds by Sarah Meier, who skated well at both Torino (8th) and Worlds (6th) and did well in all phases of the competition.

 

[flowjo35]

I read Flojo was justifying Elena's bronze loss because of her QR, and why she brought in Michelle's QR in Dortmund (Mathman too) was ridiculous because Kwan did indeed move up to third place. Elena did not. Toni - Would you say Lysacek did not deserve to get 3rd place because of a poor QR?

All three phases of the competition count and are important and with Sasha winning the short, Elena had a whooping 9 points to make up and her bad QR did not help her case.

 

[R.D.]

It's a new age, Joe. We may not like it, but the ISU is bound and determined to turn figure skating into a "real sport."

I went to a baseball game. Yankees 2, Red Sox 7.

Well, my "opinion" is that the Yankees played better and they deserve the trophy. Also, I thought that last ball "should have" been called a strike.

How much is my opinion worth?

MM

But how could the Yankees have PLAYED better? I don't quite get it. That would not be the case unless there would have been a bunch of questionable calls in the Red Sox favor to get them more home runs.

 

[Mathman]

They couldn't have "played better." That's my point. It's silly to sit around afterward and say, so-and-so should have won. They didn't.

 

[R.D.]

...and that ITA with.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

It's a new age, Joe. We may not like it, but the ISU is bound and determined to turn figure skating into a "real sport."

I went to a baseball game. Yankees 2, Red Sox 7.Well, my "opinion" is that the Yankees played better and they deserve the trophy. Also, I thought that last ball "should have" been called a strike.How much is my opinion worth?MM

It's not you opinion, MM, it's your constant referral to scores that speciously prove your opinions correct. We can easily say that D&S beat D&L by .5 point which I would call a tie but I think you would insist it was not, because the numbers are not there. You would be correct but the feeling one gets that the second place winner was a horrible loser. (At least I would.) Personal selections of skaters are perfectly acceptable but nitpicking should have limited usage in determining a skaters overall performance, imo. A troublesome triple axel should not condemn a skater in favor of, imo, a limited musical skater, especially when the two men in question execute such fine quads. Both are fine competitors, just pick your choice with your imo, and not necessarily with the scores.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

They couldn't have "played better." That's my point. It's silly to sit around afterward and say, so-and-so should have won. They didn't.

Does that include Lambiel's win over Joubert?

 

[Mathman]

Does that include Lambiel's win over Joubert?

??? Of course. How can anyone say that Joubert won? He didn't.

What is this argument about, anyway?

Lambiel got 156.58 points in the free skate and won.
Joubert got 156.47 points and came in second.
Lysacek got 149.97 points and came in third.

We may not like it, but that's the New Judging System.

Over and out.

 

[Mathman]

We can easily say that D&S beat D&L by .5 point which I would call a tie but I think you would insist it was not...

Joe, in the real word (as opposed to the planet Zeton), this is not a tie. If D&S beat D&L by .5, then D&S take home the trophy. That's a fact, not an opinion.

Go look on D&S's mantle, and you will see their medal sitting there on display. In the fantasy world of some fans, you might see a medal on D&L's mantle. But not in the real world.

MM

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Joe, in the real word (as opposed to the planet Zeton), this is not a tie. If D&S beat D&L by .5, then D&S take home the trophy. That's a fact, not an opinion.

Go look on D&S's mantle, and you will see their medal sitting there on display. In the fantasy world of some fans, you might see a medal on D&L's mantle. But not in the real world.

MM

As I said, you are correct that skaters lose by tenths of a point like skiers timings but one can have feelings about other skaters without the doom of losing because of one panel of judges. Someday we will have two panels of judging (I hope). What if the two panels differ?

Joe

 

[antmanb]

As I said, you are correct that skaters lose by tenths of a point like skiers timings but one can have feelings about other skaters without the doom of losing because of one panel of judges. Someday we will have two panels of judging (I hope). What if the two panels differ?

Joe

Also hasn't the point already been made (MM you'd be more likely to know i'm guessing given your love of Maths) that the random selection can cause a variance in the marks of 2 or more points....in theory then people "beating" other sby less than this really does have to bring the "win" into question no?

Ant

 

[Mathman]

Also hasn't the point already been made (MM you'd be more likely to know i'm guessing given your love of Maths) that the random selection can cause a variance in the marks of 2 or more points....in theory then people "beating" others by less than this really does have to bring the "win" into question no?

The argument in opposition to this view is an interesting one. It goes like this.

Let's say there are 12 judges, and the random draw selects 9 whose scores will actually be counted. Then the 9 judges vote and a winner is determined.

(The other three go through the motions of voting in a silly pantomime designed to pull the wool over people's eyes.)

Statistically, this is the same as...

Six months before, a poll of judges is formed and 9 judges are drawn to officiate the contest. The 9 judges sit at the event and their scores determine the outcome.

In other words, choosing nine judges at random well before the event is exactly the same as choosing 12 first, then choosing 9 from the 12.

No matter how or when the nine judges are selected, you could always say, well, if a different judge had been chosen the outcome might have been different.

I do not see any way around this, in a judged sport.

(Personally, I am against the random draw feature of the NJS not because of any statistical issue, but because it's stupid. What possible purpose is served by having three dummies sitting up there pretending to be judges when they are not? It does not even aid in maintaining the anonymity of the judges, since you can almost always determine, from the judges' protocols, which nine scores were used and which three were eliminated.)

My point on this thread is quite different. It is, whether we like it or not, under the new judging system, whoever gets the most points (from the final panel of nine judges) wins.

Whoever gets the most points wins.

Whoever gets the most points wins.

Whoever gets the most points wins.

It seems like a lot of people don't believe this. To me, this is because they are still thinking 6.0, where the thing that counted was not the numerical scores but the ordinals. I thought skater A was better overall, you thought skater B was. OK.

At Skate America, Alissa Czisny fell in her short program and was several points behind Elena Sokolova. In the free skate they both skated very well. Most obsevers (as well as the judges) gave the edge to Czisny, but it was not enough to overcome Sokolova's lead and Sokolova won the gold medal.

Both Dick Button and Peggy Fleming said on the air that they disagreed with the judges, that they thought Czysny should have won because she skated so beautifully in the long program. Only Katarina Witt (the third commentator) had "wit" enough to say, well, Sokolova got more points, and that's why she won. Duh!

So I would have to say, no, Sokolova's win at Skate America was not "in question." She got the most points from the nine "real" judges. At the medal ceremony they played the Russian national anthem, not the Star Spangled Banner, Elena was on the top step of the podium, not Alissa -- and (in my opinion, LOL), these are facts not opinions. They really did play the Russian national anthem. Really and truly. That's what happened. Elena won. Everything else is just fantasy.

(That's what I think, LOL.)

MM

 

[antmanb]

The argument in opposition to this view is an interesting one. It goes like this.

Let's say there are 12 judges, and the random draw selects 9 whose scores will actually be counted. Then the 9 judges vote and a winner is determined.

(The other three go through the motions of voting in a silly pantomime designed to pull the wool over people's eyes.)

Statistically, this is the same as...

Six months before, a poll of judges is formed and 9 judges are drawn to officiate the contest. The 9 judges sit at the event and their scores determine the outcome.

In other words, choosing nine judges at random well before the event is exactly the same as choosing 12 first, then choosing 9 from the 12.

No matter how or when the nine judges are selected, you could always say, well, if a different judge had been chosen the outcome might have been different.

I do not see any way around this, in a judged sport.

(Personally, I am against the random draw feature of the NJS not because of any statistical issue, but because it's stupid. What possible purpose is served by having three dummies sitting up there pretending to be judges when they are not? It does not even aid in maintaining the anonymity of the judges, since you can almost always determine, from the judges' protocols, which nine scores were used and which three were eliminated.)

My point on this thread is quite different. It is, whether we like it or not, under the new judging system, whoever gets the most points (from the final panel of nine judges) wins.

Whoever gets the most points wins.

Whoever gets the most points wins.

Whoever gets the most points wins.

It seems like a lot of people don't believe this. To me, this is because they are still thinking 6.0, where the thing that counted was not the numerical scores but the ordinals. I thought skater A was better overall, you thought skater B was. OK.

[snippage of example]

Really and truly. That's what happened. Elena won. Everything else is just fantasy.

(That's what I think, LOL.)

MM

But MM are you saying that now because we have COP and "absolute" scores we're never allowed to question the judging???

As you say it is still a judged sport it doesn't matter whether the scoring system is COP or OBO or who picks the shortest straw....the point being made is - soomeone doesn't agree with the result...whether Elena got the most points or not in total, we can still say - but that's ludicrous the whole point of ever having a short and long program was that the short would be worth a third and the long two thirds, this new system gives them much closer to equal weighting and that's wrong.

Alternatively you could simply say - the judging of the elements that lead to the absolute score was faulty (as we we could also say under 6.0) and therefore such a body shouldn't have won.

I don't care how absolute the score was i still thing the Zhangs winning silver in Torino is more of a joke than the fiasco at SLC but because people are pointing to the score and saying - there it is on paper clear for the world to see, the Zhangs won silver. All i'm saying is - well the paper you're pointing to shows just how crooked and rotten the judging was and that outcome should not have been right and in my mind they are not the silver medalists any more than B&S are the only gold medal pair from SLC, it just happens that something was done about that fix as opposed the Torino fix.

Ant

 

[antmanb]

The argument in opposition to this view is an interesting one. It goes like this.

Let's say there are 12 judges, and the random draw selects 9 whose scores will actually be counted. Then the 9 judges vote and a winner is determined.

(The other three go through the motions of voting in a silly pantomime designed to pull the wool over people's eyes.)

Statistically, this is the same as...

Six months before, a poll of judges is formed and 9 judges are drawn to officiate the contest. The 9 judges sit at the event and their scores determine the outcome.

In other words, choosing nine judges at random well before the event is exactly the same as choosing 12 first, then choosing 9 from the 12.

No matter how or when the nine judges are selected, you could always say, well, if a different judge had been chosen the outcome might have been different.
MM

Ok so this is where i've been misinterpretting, i thought that the random selection was at least for each skater. I thought what happened was 12 judges judge, then once the skatrer finishes and the all of the marks are entered the random nine are selected, high and low amrks thrown and result calculated...repeat for each skater.

Are you saying that actually what happens is judges arrive on the day to mark the competition and the same nine judges are randomly selected and the other three sit there judging? Do the judges know who gets picked?

Ant

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

But MM are you saying that now because we have COP and "absolute" scores we're never allowed to question the judging???
Ant

It does make for a dull Forum. Absolute Rule with no questions permitted. Vivre le Roi!

Joe

 

[Mathman]

Are you saying that actually what happens is judges arrive on the day to mark the competition and the same nine judges are randomly selected and the other three sit there judging? Do the judges know who gets picked?

(Ant, can you see the text of this quote? You should see the last paragraph (two sentences) of your last post.)

The draw is made just before the start of the competiton, and is the same for all skaters. The judges do not know whether they made the cut or not. (In fact, I don't think they are ever told, even afterward.)

If I were a judge, I would feel insulted by this process. Cinquanta brought me all the way here just to sit me up like an idiot pretending to be judging the contest but actually just making a fool of myself? (Oh well, at least no one knows which judges Speedy has made a fool of.)

MM

 

[Mathman]

OK, you guys have worn me down, LOL.

I guess what I was nit-picking about is more language use. Suppose skater A gets 100 points and wins and skater B gets 99 points and finishes second.

I agree that it is quite possible for a fan to say, I thought the judges should have given more points to skater B and fewer to skater A. I agree that it is perfectly appropriate to say, the judges erred in giving skater A a +2 GOE on his triple Lutz, and the caller erred in downgrading skater B's triple Axel to a double.

I think it is quite OK to say, I thought skater B's interpretation of the music showed greater refinement than skater A's, and therefore skater B should have been awarded higher program component scores in this area.

I think it is quite OK to say, the New Judging System is an utter travesty if it allows for this kind of injustice to occur. And the judges are just a bunch of cheating crooks anyway.

What I object to is fans that say "Skater B really won."

No, skater A really won.

MM

 

[antmanb]

(Ant, can you see the text of this quote? You should see the last paragraph (two sentences) of your last post.)

The draw is made just before the start of the competiton, and is the same for all skaters. The judges do not know whether they made the cut or not. (In fact, I don't think they are ever told, even afterward.)

If I were a judge, I would feel insulted by this process. Cinquanta brought me all the way here just to sit me up like an idiot pretending to be judging the contest but actually just making a fool of myself? (Oh well, at least no one knows which judges Speedy has made a fool of.)

MM

Yes i can see the text fine now...who know what happened in that other thread!!

Ok so the random selection happens once at the start....i wasn't sure about that hence the point i made before...in that case maybe i misremembered what i read and maybe it was that tossing of high and low can change the result by up to 2 points...might that be right?

I Would hope and pray the judges are told who's marks counted, cos if they're not then they're clearly not being beaten with a stick when they judge incorrectly - and they should be...every judge should know and be questioned as to why they gave a skater -1 on a jump that every other judge deemed to be +1, cos to me that looks like an input error that should be corrected, and if it isn't then the judge should be made to justify why they gave that mark...i also think if the judge consistently keeps getting it wrong and despite being sent for further training still gets it wrong, they should not be put on senior international panels again until they prove that they can actually judge correctly. How about three stirkes and they're out? One strike is for a whole competition, after which you get training, do it again (that is get it wrong several times in one competition) and get sent for more training, then one more batch of wrong judging at another competition and you're out of there.

Ant