Re: The Problem With Figure Skating
Bumblebee,
Here's the link to an article called "Judging in Figure Skating, according to Skate Canada," by Phillip Saunders, CBC News Online, February 2002.
www.cbc.ca/news/features/...udges.html
I think you said it very well re presentation that at least some of it is like judging a work of art. One interesting feature is that Lori Nichol helped to develop and deliver seminars for the International Skating Union member groups on how to mark presentation. Of course I think Lori Nichol has done a lot of great choreography, but like anyone else, she has her preferences and biases. Thus for a judged sport, I don't think any one person, no matter who they are, should be giving seminars to ISU members and judges about how to score presentation. A group of choreographers, coaches, former top competitive skaters, skating critics, etc. doing this, yes; but one person, no. It's like having Bela Karyoli (sp?) as the only one giving seminars to gymnastics judges on how to score. IMO, one person's interpretation of what are subjective elements should not be the authoritative influence on how judges score presentation.
Here are some excerpts:
------------------------
What do judges look for?
<strong>Technical:</strong>
During competition judges take notes to record what elements a skater or pair completes, noting the quality of each jump, jump combination, jump sequence, spin, and footwork/field movement sequence. Even though two skaters may complete the same number and level of jumps, there may be a difference in quality.
Things that help differentiate between jump skills are: speed and flow on entry and exit, air position (proper backspin position versus a wrapped free leg), correct technique on take-off, and the height and distance achieved. All are criteria that apply to jump combinations or a series of jumps.
Judges also assess ice coverage and consistency in the height of each jump in the combinations or series. In spins and spin combinations judges look for proper and aesthetically pleasing positions, speed and number of revolutions, the amount of height obtained in flying spins and the ability to centre and control on entry and exit.
Footwork, field movements and ice coverage, variety, difficulty and use of all levels help differentiate between competitors.
<strong>Presentation:</strong>
There are eight components to the presentation mark.
<strong>1._Harmonious composition / conformity with chosen music</strong>
The overall look and feel of the program and how the skaters perform with the music they chose and with one another, in the case of pairs.
<strong>2._Variation of speed</strong>
Unlike the speed component in the technical requirements, variation of speed is also considered in the presentation marks and relates to the ease and variety of acceleration and deceleration that reflects the music.
<strong>3._Use of ice surface</strong>
This portion of the presentation mark concentrates on whether the skaters use the entire ice and the figures they use to that end. Highlights of a routine should be performed throughout the entire surface while use of pattern direction, level and placement if the highlights should be directed by the music.
<strong>4._Easy movement / sureness in time to the music</strong>
This portion of the mark concentrates on balance, strength, rhythm, timing and flow and the ease shown in the performance. The example used by Skate Canada of someone who generally exhibits this quality is Michelle Kwan.
<strong>5._Carriage and Style</strong>
This is used to reward skaters who perform with erect carriage and strong line with variation allowed only if aesthetically pleasing and if it is consistent with the music.
<strong>6._Originality</strong>
This is the portion of the presentation mark that rewards skaters and choreographers who try to advance the sport. Skaters like Canadian Toller Cranston and Ukrainian Dimitry Dimitrenko are used as examples of those who have achieved this quality.
<strong>7._Statement of the character of the music</strong>
This seems the most subjective of the variables in the presentation mark. Judges are encouraged to read the minds of the skaters, choreographers and coaches at to whether the program is skated feeling. "As with all art, choreography and movement should be inspired from within."
<strong>8._Unison (for Pairs)</strong>
This is considered a key component of the presentation mark for pairs and teams. Skaters are encouraged to "skate as one." Skaters must remain in reach of each other and remain consistent with the music. Jamie Salé and David Pelletier are used as a good example of skaters who exhibit this quality.
Lori Nichol, who choreographed the Jamie Salé and David Pelletier program, helped to develop and deliver seminars for the International Skating Union member groups on how to mark presentation. The presentation mark is often used to break a tie after technical marks have been awarded in a free program.
--------------------------
Mathman,
Thanks for the ISU links. Interesting that the language is not clear on when the scores that count are chosen. As for their attitude toward the WSF, pretty much the response one would expect considering the whole existence of the WSF is based on the proposition that the ISU sucks.
Not wanting to miss a chance to beat a dead horse (one of my favorite passtimes), there is one point about the interim system, random selection process that I don't think we have quite beaten to a pulp:lol: With the now-past interim random selection process, all 14 judges know their scores could be selected. Statistically, it's absolutely true that it makes no difference whether the judges are selected six months or six second prior to the competition as long as they never know if their scores are going to count or not. But in terms of human nature, I think the random selction process has an effect on the range and accuracy of the scores in terms of how well they reflect the merits of the skater's performance. Since all 14 judges know their scores might count, this can create a situation, IMO, where judges may inflate the scores for skaters they want to promote, regardless of the performance, and deflate the scores for skaters they want to hold back. The reason I say this is that all season we've been seeing extreme ranges in the scores for many skaters in all discplines. A range of 5.2 to 5.9 for either technical or presentation, whether the program was clean or not, especially in the LP, was not unusual from all 14 judges. This was not something we saw very often under the previous nine-judge, nonanonymous system. Of course there were always differences and often a single judge whose scores were way out of line with the others, but for the most part, there was usually only a three or four tenths range in the scores for a given program. But with the random selection system, it seems that the range of scores was much greater than under the old system. I haven't analyzed the scores under both systems and compared them, but with the exception of a few of the top skaters who skated great clean programs, the range for the scores seemed more extreme this season than in past years. This is where I think human bias comes into play and that the combination of anonymity and random selection made for an especially bad combination. For example, if Judge A wanted Flossie to win over Bessie
(using DorisPulaski's great skating names
), Judge A, even though he didn't know whether his scores had been preselected, might inflate Flossie's scores, giving her 5.8/5.9 when her performance really deserved 5.6/5.7, and giving Bessie scores of 5.3/5.4 when she really deserved 5.7/5.8. If you get a bloc of three or four judges who want Flossie to win over Bessie, you could get three or four scores similarly out of whack, which could, if they had been preselected, significantly affect a skater's placement.
I know, it's all numbers under the bridge now since the ISU is now going to play with a new system. In another thread, however, Doris pointed out that with the code of points, Judge A who wanted Flossie to win over Bessie could do the same thing, adding a couple of tenths to Flossie's points for each jump/element and deducting a couple of tenths from Bessie's, whether or not the scores accurately reflect what Flossie and Bessie did. Anyway, some of this is why I stand by my true score theory and that using better applied statistical methods can help compensate for the inherent bias in human nature and its effect on judging.
Rgirl
)
