- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
Well put. So here I go with my speculative but illogical answers, LOL.Doggygirl said:I think we ARE asking the same set of questions. I seems that your primary question goes more to the "Why" (which is a very legitimate question, if true) and my question is leaning towards the "How" based on the current system.
I suspect we will both enjoy the season more if anyone can offer even a speculative (but reasonable, logical) answer to either or both of these questions.
1. Piel really asks two questions.
(a) Is Irina being gifted with undeserved high score in prelude to handing her the Olympic gold medal? and
(b) If so, why would the ISU and its member federations want to do such a thing?
IMHO the answer to the first question is no, and so the second is moot.
Irina has skated great at every outing this year, while all Michelle and Sasha have to show for their season so far is a a sore butt and a bum hip. Shizuka has been up and down. No one else has brought their A game yet.
I cannot think of any way in which it would profit the ISU to crown Irina especially rather than someone else, come February, if another skater mounts a challenge.
2. Doggygirl asks, show me the numbers.
I think the numbers go something like this. Suppose one judge acting alone wants Alissa Czisny to win Skate America instead of Elena Sokolova. So he raises Alissa's PCSs by, say, 0.50 points across the board, and lowers Sokolova's by a similar amount. It would certainly not attract attention to give a 6.75 instead of a 6.25. Depending somewhat on the random draw and trimming procedures, this translates into a net swing of about 1.7 points.
1.0 points x 5 components x 2.4 factor for SP and LP together / 7 (averaged over 7 judges) = 1.71.
So this one judge could change the result of a contest provided it was closer than 1.7 points.
In contrast, under ordinal judging one judge acting alone could change the outcome only in the case of a five / four split.
So which is more rare, a five/four split in the olden days, or a close contest of 1.7 points or less under CoP?
Two judges acting in concert could change the winner under ordinal judging in the case of a six / three split.
Under the NJS, they could do the same if the competitors finished within 3.4 points or so of each other.
So under both systems, in the case of a clear-cut winner, it is hard to cheat without getting caught.
But in a close contest it is easy in both systems.
Mathman
Last edited: