- Joined
- Oct 24, 2009
Vote and say why you prefer CoP or 6.0 or neither.
Which juding system do you prefer: CoP or 6.0?
- Thread starter Phoenix347
- Start date
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2009
CoP 100%.
I never much cared to 6.0 because you never knew why someone got the score they did. And it didn't take into consideration that when judging programs against eachother, you're not judging apples to apples. I mean, if one person skates a very difficult program mediocre and someone skates a much easier program flawlessly, who do you give the higher marks to? I mean, I know there were protocols in place for situations like this, but I think through CoP, by having a pre-made standard, each program is rated fairly and objectively.
I definitely don't think CoP is perfect, but I think it offers a certain amount of objectivity and clarity that was not in the sport before. It also makes the freeskate much more interesting; with ordinals, who could win what medal was very limited by sp scores; CoP makes things more entertaining for viewers when anything can happen in the fs.
I never much cared to 6.0 because you never knew why someone got the score they did. And it didn't take into consideration that when judging programs against eachother, you're not judging apples to apples. I mean, if one person skates a very difficult program mediocre and someone skates a much easier program flawlessly, who do you give the higher marks to? I mean, I know there were protocols in place for situations like this, but I think through CoP, by having a pre-made standard, each program is rated fairly and objectively.
I definitely don't think CoP is perfect, but I think it offers a certain amount of objectivity and clarity that was not in the sport before. It also makes the freeskate much more interesting; with ordinals, who could win what medal was very limited by sp scores; CoP makes things more entertaining for viewers when anything can happen in the fs.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2003
CoP and, no, I've not been a recent fan... been a fan for over 20 years now...
CoP makes more sense. and I don't believe you can have a 100% fool proof judging system so long as it's a mix of "sport and art"...
CoP makes more sense. and I don't believe you can have a 100% fool proof judging system so long as it's a mix of "sport and art"...
CoP: despite all the criticisms around it, one positive aspect of it outweighs them all; while far from perfect, CoP is much fairer to skaters than 6.0 and at least gives reasoning behind the scores.
At least the chances of this nonsense happening with CoP would be slimmer; if incidents like this happen, they can at least make counter-argument based on the score sheet.
Lu Chen at 1998 Nagano:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFt3bDPar60
At least the chances of this nonsense happening with CoP would be slimmer; if incidents like this happen, they can at least make counter-argument based on the score sheet.
Lu Chen at 1998 Nagano:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFt3bDPar60
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2008
CoP still needs a lot of work, but I hated ordinals, and didn't like that only the top 3 after the SP had a chance - and that for them the SP counted for nothing. I like that CoP tells skaters what they need to improve upon, and that those things include spins and footwork (though I think the actual spin and footwork levels are at the top of the list of what needs revision). I like that dance teams no longer have to wait their turn. I like that skaters have PBs, that they're rewarded for what they do and not penalized for what they don't. I like that if a program is nothing but stroke-jump-stroke-jump, the marks will usually reflect it.
I hope after the Olympics the ISU takes a long hard look at what is working and what isn't, and make changes as needed. But I don't miss 6.0.
I hope after the Olympics the ISU takes a long hard look at what is working and what isn't, and make changes as needed. But I don't miss 6.0.
I agree with most of the above statements. Ice Dance has clearly benefited the most from CoP. Pairs has also been pushed forward from the ten year rut it got into with the same throws and sbs jumps and front loaded programs. The current system has made results far more defendable than under 6.0. Looking back at old programs, even from 2002, there is a stark difference in base level quality and far greater balance between all elements. It's not just about big tricks anymore.
I also think that as time has gone by under CoP, the quality of choreography within it has gotten better and will continue to improve. The more skaters are comfortable with it, the easier it will be to create interesting programs.
I do think, however, that the ISU needs to continue its recent trend of opening up the rules to give more room for creativity (i.e. optional elements). That will create less cookie cutter programs. I'd also like to see some way of encouraging programs, especially the SP, to avoid bunching jumps together to get them out of the way. I acknowledge Plushenko's talent and consistency, but his programs have had a very predictable pattern to them for almost the entire history of CoP. Unfortunately, his success with this formula lead to many other skaters following the pattern of jump combo-jump-jump first and then skate in the SP. I would prefer a better distribution of elements in unpredictable patterns (like in many pairs programs now). It would be far more interesting choreographically.
I also think that as time has gone by under CoP, the quality of choreography within it has gotten better and will continue to improve. The more skaters are comfortable with it, the easier it will be to create interesting programs.
I do think, however, that the ISU needs to continue its recent trend of opening up the rules to give more room for creativity (i.e. optional elements). That will create less cookie cutter programs. I'd also like to see some way of encouraging programs, especially the SP, to avoid bunching jumps together to get them out of the way. I acknowledge Plushenko's talent and consistency, but his programs have had a very predictable pattern to them for almost the entire history of CoP. Unfortunately, his success with this formula lead to many other skaters following the pattern of jump combo-jump-jump first and then skate in the SP. I would prefer a better distribution of elements in unpredictable patterns (like in many pairs programs now). It would be far more interesting choreographically.
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2004
I voted neither... I HATE CoP and find that the quality of skating has been negatively impacted by the changes. I understand why there are fans of the CoP but my largest issue is consided a plus by some:
danny: "if one person skates a very difficult program mediocre and someone skates a much easier program flawlessly, who do you give the higher marks to?" I say neither... the win should go to the person who skates a challenging program perfectly. But I've come around to the idea that I'm basing this opinion on a time when the skaters were probably more evenly matched than they are now and the perfect skater tended to win. What I will continue to complain about are skaters that skate difficult programs full of elements they know aren't 100% but do them anyway because of the base point. That's not good for the sport.
danny: "if one person skates a very difficult program mediocre and someone skates a much easier program flawlessly, who do you give the higher marks to?" I say neither... the win should go to the person who skates a challenging program perfectly. But I've come around to the idea that I'm basing this opinion on a time when the skaters were probably more evenly matched than they are now and the perfect skater tended to win. What I will continue to complain about are skaters that skate difficult programs full of elements they know aren't 100% but do them anyway because of the base point. That's not good for the sport.
While I don't believe CoP is even close to being perfect, I think it attemps to address the fundamental issue with 6.0; what does 6.0 system measure?
What does that mean if a judge gave 5.4 to a skater? Everything is mashed up in a blackbox and some number gets produced, and viewers and skaters are totally in the dark about how the number came out. The skaters learn absolutely nothing from their score, and all they can do is speculate. I mean, what is "presentation" score, for instance, and how is it different from "technical merit"? If skater like Chan shows a smooth skaing through his great edge work, is it a plus for technical merit or for presentation, or both?CoP at least attempts to address these confusions and to communicate with skaters in a more constructive and fairer way than 6.0.
However, is CoP good for the popularity of the sport? I think the major drawback of CoP is that its scoring e.g. 185.43 seems too complex and arbitary to the ordinary audience. ISU could come up with some alternative ways; they should consider translating the current CoP scores into 6.0 scale and present both numbers so that it is easier for the audiece to understand the score and at the same time know why the skater received the score.
What does that mean if a judge gave 5.4 to a skater? Everything is mashed up in a blackbox and some number gets produced, and viewers and skaters are totally in the dark about how the number came out. The skaters learn absolutely nothing from their score, and all they can do is speculate. I mean, what is "presentation" score, for instance, and how is it different from "technical merit"? If skater like Chan shows a smooth skaing through his great edge work, is it a plus for technical merit or for presentation, or both?CoP at least attempts to address these confusions and to communicate with skaters in a more constructive and fairer way than 6.0.
However, is CoP good for the popularity of the sport? I think the major drawback of CoP is that its scoring e.g. 185.43 seems too complex and arbitary to the ordinary audience. ISU could come up with some alternative ways; they should consider translating the current CoP scores into 6.0 scale and present both numbers so that it is easier for the audiece to understand the score and at the same time know why the skater received the score.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 26, 2009
CoP is a vast improvement over 6.0. I always hated that whole scenario where Skater X could win the gold but needed Skater Y to finish no higher than 5th in the long and needed Skater A to beat Skater B. So glad ordinals are gone. CoP could always be made better but at least it's a system you can improve, as opposed to 6.0, where it was so subjective that I can't see how anything could be done with it.
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2008
My rewritten version of CoP is the best judging system.
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2007
My rewritten version of CoP is the best judging system.
We'll name your revamp of CoP 'BoP' after you, then
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2006
CoP hands down. I'm in the "not perfect,but.." camp. That said , I think the framework is there to allow for improvements. A whole new system might be OK, then again, maybe not. Depends on the system. The worst thing about it is the effective anonymity of the judges. Any system will only be as good as the judging panel. At least transparency would bring a certain amount of accountability.
Last edited:
Similar threads
