^^ PTfan: Interesting analysis. I agree with some, but I still think Nagasu's short was underrated. The TES was certainly fair. The PCS, I still believe, was in large part decided before the competition, and not adjusted for what the judges actually saw on the ice. The PCS went up noticably in the LP. Her combined technical score was 3rd, edging out Rochette. For those who saw the US Nats, a 4th place in Vancouver should have been no surprise. I agree that skating early in the short may have been a factor in the low PCS score.
Was Mirai Nagasu underscored at the 2010 Olympics?
- Thread starter christinaskater
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2008
Oh, please. Base value is generally more objective for PCS - yes, that's true. But to suggest that somehow a skater receiving higher TES and lower PCS than his/her competitors is wrong, biased, or even cheating, I'm sorry, but that is ridiculous. I'll give an example that has nothing to do with Vancouver or even ladies skating: 2008 Worlds, the men's event. The LP with the second highest TES on the day was... Kevin van der Perren's. Does this mean he wuzrobbed because the judges did not give him PCS to match? Of course not; some skaters have strengths and weaknesses to their skating not reflected in the elements themselves, but in the program as a whole - which is the very point of PCS. There were stronger skaters in Vancouver than Mirai, and the marks reflected it. I suspect Mirai is happier with her placement there than many of her fans are, and it was a wonderful achievement for her - especially considering what a well-skated event that was overall. Perhaps with time her skating will get even better, allowing her to finish on the podium in Sochi.
- Joined
- May 19, 2011
I'm sorry, but you might have to explain that a bit better to me b/c I'm a bit lost.:sheesh:
There is no base value in PCS which is why skaters can go from getting low to mid 6s at one competition to mid to high 7s at another...but there is a base value in TES b/c there is a specific value assigned to each element. It's harder to cheat when it comes to TES because, at the very least, the skater garners the base value for what they do. The variable factor with TES is the GOE, be they positive or negative, which will either add to or take away from the score. In a way, GOEs can be used for cheating as well.:disapp:
I don't think a higher TES and lower PCS is wrong or cheating...when it's warranted. But in Mirai's case, she was low balled in her PCS in the SP compared to other skaters. She delivered her program with speed and charm, and deserved higher marks than what she got. The reason her scores were lower was b/c (1) she skated early and (2) it was her first senior international competition, thus the judges didn't know her and had no reason to hold her up. She wasn't better than the top 3, but she was definitely better than Ando and Flatt; IMO she should have been 4th going into the FS. It just so happened that her score in the SP was good enough to squeak by and skate in the final group. She delivered her program very well and, since she was skating last and the scores and standings were already set by that point, the judges rewarded her by placing her 4th.
If you believe the judges' integrity is so intact that they are above cheating, whether it be holding a skater down or boosting another up using PCS or GOEs, then I commend your faith...and lament your gullibility. I've watched this sport long enough to know otherwise. In this sport, it's about favorites, seniority and paying your dues. Often times a younger skater will be held down over a veteran even if the veteran has made mistakes or the younger skater out-skated them. That's how it is and how it's always been. That's why Miki Ando's clearly cheated 3F was ratified and she ended up ahead of both Flatt and Nagasu going into the FS. It's not right but that's the way it is.
Having said all that, I'll reiterate that I didn't have a problem with Joannie winning bronze and Mirai coming in 4th; in my mind, the margin of victory was too big (same can be said for 1st and 2nd) but I was and am happy for both. Some people feel Mirai got the marks she deserved, some felt she was overmarked, and others feel she wasn't marked high enough. That's another aspect of figure skating...people are never going to agree on the scores or the outcome.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2008
I meant to write that base values are more objective than PCS, and by neglecting to proof my post, ended up with something that made no sense. Base value is more objective than TES (because of the GOEs) and of course more objective than PCS, but that doesn't mean PCS are wholly subjective, so I stand by the rest of my comment. I honestly don't feel anyone was underscored at the Olympics; the judges were clearly in a generous mood (tech panels, too). Of course skating, like any other judged sport, has some degree of reputation-based judging - but those reputations are usually earned, and for the most part, the things PCS is meant to reflect don't fluctuate the way the elements might. Slippery ice, after all, doesn't suddenly make someone's interpretation poorer, but it sure can ruin a 3Lz landing. As for speed and charm - well, I've seen Mirai Nagasu live, and while she's not glacial by any means, there are faster skaters; charm is extremely subjective and not part of the PCS criteria anyway. If you think it should be, that's another matter. But based on what she put on the ice, I have no problem with her scoring.
BTW, in my time as a skating fan I've seen a lot of talk about sportsmanship and what constitutes good sportsmanship. Wuzrobbing and advancing conspiracy theories certainly doesn't, and it's to Nagasu's credit that (at least publicly) she has been nothing but positive about her achievement.
p.s. Anyone who thinks that the USFS doesn't lobby for its skaters and leaves it to all those other bad federations has to be awfully naive.
- Joined
- May 19, 2011
Okay, then, that makes sense now b/c before I wasn't quite following you; and yes, I agree that base values are objective because they are set values.
PCS follow a slightly more uniform model depending on the level of the skater: lesser skaters tend to get low 5s and 6s, better skaters get high 7s and 8s, so there is a bit more of an objective angle to it...but there's still lots of room for subjectivity to pop in every now and then and, more importantly, they can be used to manipulate the final outcome. But I still find PCS to be a joke a lot of the time...reference Plushy's PCS from the Olympics to see what I mean. 
I thought Mirai was underscored but not horribly so and, as I said, given it was her first senior international event, it made sense to me that she would score lower. Had she already been given the opportunity to debut on the international world stage prior to the Olympics, I'd probably be heading up the "wuz robbed" mob...however, given the circumstances, I was more than fine with where she ended up. I was extremely proud of her and consider it her greatest accomplishment to date to be honest. Final standings aside, I do think she was underscored in the SP but not enough to start a riot about it.
It's just dues newer skaters have to pay and she did. You see when she went to worlds a month later, she scored a 70+ in the SP with mid to high 7s for everything except transitions (7.1). That was evidence of the judges jumping behind her and giving her the go-ahead, so to speak. And if her SP scores were any indication, I honestly believe that if Mirai had been able to replicate her FS from the Olympics at worlds the judges would have placed her first ahead of both Mao and Yu-Na.
Do you mean to say that the USFSA had a hand in the mix when it came to placing Mirai 4th and Rachael 7th?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2008
Well, there you go, proofreading saves livesOkay, then, that makes sense now b/c before I wasn't quite following you; and yes, I agree that base values are objective because they are set values.
I have no desire to open another Vancouver can of worms, but I believe that the USFSA probably used its politikking mojo elsewhere
Still, let's not go there. After all, I think the ladies event was fantastic and the three medalists most deserving, so I'll let that be my final statement on this thread.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
One thing that affects the "objectivity" of base scores is the role of the technical panel. Under-rotations and edge calls can take away a lot of points. So can the tech panels' judgments about whether the skater took too many steps while changing position on a spin or between the two jumps of a sequence, etc.
About political lobbying by the USFSA, yeah, they try, but they are really bad at it. Other federations laugh at their fumbling efforts.
About political lobbying by the USFSA, yeah, they try, but they are really bad at it. Other federations laugh at their fumbling efforts.
- Joined
- May 19, 2011
One thing that affects the "objectivity" of base scores is the role of the technical panel. Under-rotations and edge calls can take away a lot of points. So can the tech panels' judgments about whether the skater took too many steps while changing position on a spin or between the two jumps of a sequence, etc.
About political lobbying by the USFSA, yeah, they try, but they are really bad at it. Other federations laugh at their fumbling efforts.
Good point about the tech caller Mathman. I thought that the caller from Vancouver definitely let Miki slide in the SP and that they may have unfairly dinged Rachael in the LP; both of her flips were called UR though they didn't look like it.
IDK, there's a lot of dirt that goes on in figure skating...I'm just waiting for a reality show about it!
Good point about the tech caller Mathman. I thought that the caller from Vancouver definitely let Miki slide in the SP and that they may have unfairly dinged Rachael in the LP; both of her flips were called UR though they didn't look like it.
IDK, there's a lot of dirt that goes on in figure skating...I'm just waiting for a reality show about it!
I loathe reality shows by and large, but at least a reality show about skating might get some more skating shown on TV!
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
^ I think it should be more like Survivor. Set in the frozen north, they would have to co-operate in survival skills, like walrus-hunting. To demonstrate artistry there would be competitions like chainsaw ice sculpting. They could form alliances, like the Chinese and Canadian tribes could conspire to vote off the French, then suddenly turn around and stab each other in the back. :yes:
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2009
Because PCS are utterly divorced from TES, I find it hard to draw correlations between them. Nagasu, for example, got the sixth highest PCS at Worlds 2010 for her free, but was ranked 14th in TES. Or Tomas Verner at Worlds 2008: the LOWEST TES in the FS but the sixth highest PCS. What PCS do people think Nagasu should've gotten?
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2010
Good point about the tech caller Mathman. I thought that the caller from Vancouver definitely let Miki slide in the SP and that they may have unfairly dinged Rachael in the LP; both of her flips were called UR though they didn't look like it.
IDK, there's a lot of dirt that goes on in figure skating...I'm just waiting for a reality show about it!
Someone better call Michael Moore then
Being a huge Mirai fan, and someone pegged her for the 'future', I do think she was slightly underscored during the Olympics for performing rather early before the slight over inflation after Lepisto performed where everyone were able to put on their life time's best, but certainly not enough to deserve the bronze. Joannie thoroughly deserve and earned her bronze that night, what she did was just incredible on so many levels.
I agree with you Kwanatic, that everyone has to pay their dues, it is just the way it is and has always been, and she was no exception. Actually I have always felt ISU does acknowledge her slight Olympic underscore and resulted in a generous SP mark at her WC2010. Therefore there's no doubt in my mind that amongst the ISU judges (I am sure they talk internally) consider her as a better and worthy competitor than Rachel Flatt as far as international figure skating is concerned.
IPogue, I will take up your question, from my perspective. Nagasu skated her short prgrams in Jan at US Nats, in Feb in Vancouver and at Torino in March. The shorts were all essentially the same program, same elements and the same choreography, and all were skated essentially clean. At Nats, she got a PCS of 29.86 with a 70.07 total for the short. In Vancouver, 26.76 for PCS and63.76 total. In Torino, 30.20 PCS, 70.40 total for the short. Keep in mind the 63 Nagasu received in the short was at a time when the 3 medalists were receiving extremely high scores. For those who say everyone was overscored in Vancouver, Nagasu received far less in the short than at Nats or Worlds. The anomaly that stands out isn't Nats with National judges, but the low PCS, especially in the short, in Vancouver.
In Vancouver she is tied in PCS with Sebesstyen, a good 6 points behind Asada. A month later, she is within a point of Asada in PCS. He PCS ranking went from a tie for 10th in Vancouver to 3rd, all in a month. I am not one to believe her skating skill, performance/execution, interpetation etc. vastly improved in one month. I believe she was slotted before the competition by a number of judges to finish in the 10th to 12th range, and that is the score that was put down for PCS, a tie for 10th. The TES score appears fair and based on what happened on the ice, but the PCS for the short was based on reputation. I also note going into Vancouver, Nagasu was just a former Nat champion without senior worlds experience, while Flatt was the current Nat. champion with worlds experience.. The PCS scores reflected this difference in reputation. So despite skating a strong and clean short, Nagasu was already effectively out of medal contention, being in 6th place, and 7.6 behind Rochette in 3rd. After the judges had a chance to reflect over their scores over the next 2 days, they correctly decided that Nagasu was undermarked in PCS. So during the free skate, Nagasu's PCS rises from a tie for 10th to 6th, over Flatt, Suzuki and Ando.
For those who don't believe in the "slotting" theory mentioned above, I refer you to Jon Jackson's book "On Edge." He was a judge in the 90's through the 2002 Olympics. He was a judge, was there, and he witnissed judging similar to the slotting.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
Just curioius. Did Jon Jackson say that he slotted the skaters in this fashion. or just that the other guys did?
I read the book a year ago, in large part because i was unhappy with Nagasu's scores in Vancouver, and I wanted to learn more about judging. I seem to recall a more experienced male judge took Jackson under his wings and told him he would teach him what he needed to know to advance in the senior ranks and to eventually become an international judge. This senior judge told Jackson with large fields of sometimes unknown skater, it is best to attend all the practices, find out who is good and who isn't, and to put skaters into groups, such as skater A has a skill of 10th to 15th. With large field's, that was a way of separating the various skills when one had adequate time, while during a competition, there is a very limited time to make many numerical judgements. I don't think Jackson admitted to the practice, just that his mentor used it. After the 2002 scandal, Jackson went on a crusade to clean up judging, and the slotting was one of the abuses he was against.
Here's the description from Jackson's book:
Here's a similar description by Canadian judge Frances Dafoe in Debbi Wilkes's book Ice Time, published in 1994:
Used honestly and responsibly, watching practices to note what skills each of the competitors are showing and getting an idea of how many skaters to expect in the top (medal contender), high-middle, low-middle, and bottom skill ranges for that competition would be more useful under 6.0 scoring than having all the judges see all the skaters for the very first time during the competition (except the ones they happened to know already from their home countries or home clubs or other previous competitions). At least you wouldn't get a situation of a judge expecting a lower or wider overall general skill level in the event than proves to be the case and marking the first couple of skaters so high or so close to each other that there's not enough room in the numbers for that judge to rank the rest of the skaters in the order the judge thinks they deserve.
Used carelessly, it could result in well-meaning judges inadvertently closing their minds to the possibility of skaters performing much differently in competition than in practice and marking what they expected to see rather than what's actually put in front of them during the competition.
Used dishonestly . . . well, no need for judges to even watch the competition if they've made up their minds beforehand.
Still, judges are human beings, and it's human nature to see what you expect to see. I think the 6.0 system was more vulnerable to that problem than IJS, but I don't think it can be avoided entirely as long as human perceptions of quality are at the heart of the scoring process.
Has it improved that problem at all? Made it worse? Stayed exactly the same? I guess we'd have to do some sort of large-scale statistical to know whether there's been a change one way or another.
Certainly there are examples, under both judging systems, of skaters skating early and receiving lower scores than expected or than comparable performances in later groups. There are also examples under both judging systems of comparatively unknown skaters skating early and earning scores or placements just about what they would have earned in the same field with a different skate order.
Mirai Nagasu in the short program at 2007 Junior Worlds, her first international, is one classic example.
http://www.isuresults.com/results/wjc2007/SEG002.HTM
Possibly her actual scores would have been higher if she had skated in the second half of the draw instead of 24th out of 52, but the placement probably would have been the same.
