Why do "full rotations" matter?

[discodisco]

Penalties for q's are too soft IMO. If you're a popular skater you still get +2/+3 and the judge "justifies" it by saying well it would have been a +5 if not for that minor technical error. Meanwhile a skater from a "lesser" country has no 'q' but their GOE starts off at +2 max, even for a strong jump.

q is also so arbitrary (Sakamoto's 3F+3T comes to mind in her NHK FS where the flip - never mind the PR - is DEFINITELY q if you slowmotion it, with 8 out of 9 judges giving 0 or +1 and only one -1); meanwhile Sarah Everhardt's 3Z+2T+2L gets nailed with a UR 2L and a q on her 3Z which IMO was arguably more rotated than Kaori's 3F in that combo - yielding -3 to -5 on GOE).

Like if you think about it, q is "on the quarter" — how many jumps are EXACTLY 90 degrees short of rotation, and yet we see "q" used so much in protocols? If it's 91 degrees it's UR, if it's 89 degrees there's no call. Wow, these skaters getting q's on their protocols should be commended for PRECISELY hitting that 90 degrees exact.

I agree. For example, Roman often gets a Q on his quad Sal, even when it’s really close. But skaters like Malinin or others near the top sometimes have theirs ignored—I call this “reputation rotation.” Sakamoto is another case: she frequently gets fully rotated calls on jumps with questionable rotations and egregious inside edges on Lutzes, while lower-ranked skaters get penalized for jumps that are no worse. Commentators are catching on too—they now say a jump was “called” or “deemed” fully rotated, because I feel like they realize how stupid it sounds to say it’s clean when slow motion clearly shows it’s a quarter or more under.

 

[4everchan]

Far be it from me to endanger anyone's physical and mental health.

But I am somewhat dispirited over the direction that the sport has become fixated on. In the Skate America women's short program just completed, Rinka Watanabe scored 74.35 points and Alisa Liu scored 73.73/.Well. it was close, but somebody has to win and somebody has to lose -- it's a sport, after all.

Now... why did Rinka win and Alysa lose? The protocols make it clear. Rinka did a 3Lz+3Tq and lost a fraction of a point in GOE. Alisa did a 3Lz+3Lo< and lost a little more than 1 full point. q versus <. Is this really what we watch figure sjkating for?

well... you didn't happen to see in the protocols that Rinka also landed a triple axel ? This is actually why she is in first place.

 

[discodisco]

Penalties for q's are too soft IMO. If you're a popular skater you still get +2/+3 and the judge "justifies" it by saying well it would have been a +5 if not for that minor technical error. Meanwhile a skater from a "lesser" country has no 'q' but their GOE starts off at +2 max, even for a strong jump.

q is also so arbitrary (Sakamoto's 3F+3T comes to mind in her NHK FS where the flip - never mind the PR - is DEFINITELY q if you slowmotion it, with 8 out of 9 judges giving 0 or +1 and only one -1); meanwhile Sarah Everhardt's 3Z+2T+2L gets nailed with a UR 2L and a q on her 3Z which IMO was arguably more rotated than Kaori's 3F in that combo - yielding -3 to -5 on GOE).

Like if you think about it, q is "on the quarter" — how many jumps are EXACTLY 90 degrees short of rotation, and yet we see "q" used so much in protocols? If it's 91 degrees it's UR, if it's 89 degrees there's no call. Wow, these skaters getting q's on their protocols should be commended for PRECISELY hitting that 90 degrees exact.

I think that the ISU is sympathetic to this goal but has not shown much imagination as to how to go about achieving it. Tinkering with reducing the number of jumping passes or introducing a choreo step or spiral sequence has not had much effect.

The most painless step would be simply to increase the PCSs factors across the board -- but that would invite more indignation about biased and subjective 6.0-type judging, and we are back to square one. In the men's free skate at Skate America Shaidorov did 4 quads including a quad Lutz and a quad flip. His 4 quads featured two falls, 2 URs, two unclear edges and a q. He got negative GOE on all of them except the Lutz. In PCSs he was 5th behind Aymos, Brown, Grassl, and Tomoko. Shaidorov won.

I 100% agree. I actually like the inclusion of the choreographic sequence—over the past year, we’ve seen creative elements like semi-acrobatic moves, slides, spirals, and unusual jumps such as Kevin’s tuck axle. Audiences often react strongly to these moments, similar to Malinin’s raspberry twizzle or other inventive sequences, which makes programs more engaging.

I fully support increasing the value of PCS, but only if it’s judged accurately. What’s the point of a masterpiece program—like Kagayama’s, with intricate edges, transitions, skating skills, interpretation, speed, and expression—if it earns only 2–3 points more than Malinin? Ilia’s technical superiority deserves high marks, but the current system lets skaters make up for artistry with one extra jump. The value of a double axle, which even pre-novice or juvenile skaters can land, shouldn’t outweigh the difference between Kagayama’s program and Malinin’s.

PCS spreads are far too narrow today. At Skate Canada, Ilia beat the last-place skater by ~90 points in technical but only ~24 in PCS, despite a 9.14 in skating skills. Historically, PCS offered more differentiation. At the 2007 Skate Canada, Buttle earned 7.05–7.4 for his Ararat program, while Abbott received only 5.05–6.05. In the same event, Asada led the women’s PCS at 7.45; Rochette averaged 6.6, and Wagner 5.6. At Vancouver 2010, Kim was the only skater without at least one seven; others like Asada and Rochette had multiple. The top 10 technical spread was ~22 points, PCS ~18 points. At the 2025 Women’s Worlds, the 20th-place finisher still received at least one 7.14. Today, PCS is compressed, and high scores are awarded regardless of quality differences. There needs to be a much broader spread and much more criticality in assigning PCS.

The system needs recalibration. PCS must reflect real differences in skill and artistry, giving top skaters mid- to high-nines for exceptional programs and lower scores to less accomplished skaters. There must be a way to give Kagayama 9.5 in skating skills and edge quality, Ilia 7.0, and scale other categories so differences are clear and properly rewarded. Otherwise, there’s little incentive to develop complex choreography or refine basic skating skills. Programs like Kagayama’s should stand out far more relative to skaters like Malinin, whose scores for basic skills are often inflated.

 

[4everchan]

I 100% agree. I actually like the inclusion of the choreographic sequence—over the past year, we’ve seen creative elements like semi-acrobatic moves, slides, spirals, and unusual jumps such as Kevin’s tuck axle. Audiences often react strongly to these moments, similar to Malinin’s raspberry twizzle or other inventive sequences, which makes programs more engaging.

I fully support increasing the value of PCS, but only if it’s judged accurately. What’s the point of a masterpiece program—like Kagayama’s, with intricate edges, transitions, skating skills, interpretation, speed, and expression—if it earns only 2–3 points more than Malinin? Ilia’s technical superiority deserves high marks, but the current system lets skaters make up for artistry with one extra jump. The value of a double axle, which even pre-novice or juvenile skaters can land, shouldn’t outweigh the difference between Kagayama’s program and Malinin’s.

PCS spreads are far too narrow today. At Skate Canada, Ilia beat the last-place skater by ~90 points in technical but only ~24 in PCS, despite a 9.14 in skating skills. Historically, PCS offered more differentiation. At the 2007 Skate Canada, Buttle earned 7.05–7.4 for his Ararat program, while Abbott received only 5.05–6.05. In the same event, Asada led the women’s PCS at 7.45; Rochette averaged 6.6, and Wagner 5.6. At Vancouver 2010, Kim was the only skater without at least one seven; others like Asada and Rochette had multiple. The top 10 technical spread was ~22 points, PCS ~18 points. At the 2025 Women’s Worlds, the 20th-place finisher still received at least one 7.14. Today, PCS is compressed, and high scores are awarded regardless of quality differences. There needs to be a much broader spread and much more criticality in assigning PCS.

The system needs recalibration. PCS must reflect real differences in skill and artistry, giving top skaters mid- to high-nines for exceptional programs and lower scores to less accomplished skaters. There must be a way to give Kagayama 9.5 in skating skills and edge quality, Ilia 7.0, and scale other categories so differences are clear and properly rewarded. Otherwise, there’s little incentive to develop complex choreography or refine basic skating skills. Programs like Kagayama’s should stand out far more relative to skaters like Malinin, whose scores for basic skills are often inflated.

Some of us have been preaching this for a decade now but I guess the ISU is not reading... maybe they'll read your post, that's all I can. wish for

 

[lariko]

I dodn't think Shaidorov won Skate America. My understanding it was Aymoz.

 

[Mathman]

well... you didn't happen to see in the protocols that Rinka also landed a triple axel ? This is actually why she is in first place.

Post #79 above.

 

[DizzyFrenchie]

I think that the ISU is sympathetic to this goal but has not shown much imagination as to how to go about achieving it. Tinkering with reducing the number of jumping passes or introducing a choreo step or spiral sequence has not had much effect.

The most painless step would be simply to increase the PCSs factors across the board -- but that would invite more indignation about biased and subjective 6.0-type judging, and we are back to square one. In the men's free skate at Skate America Shaidorov did 4 quads including a quad Lutz and a quad flip. His 4 quads featured two falls, 2 URs, two unclear edges and a q. He got negative GOE on all of them except the Lutz. In PCSs he was 5th behind Aymos, Brown, Grassl, and Tomoko. Shaidorov won.

Regarding automated rotation counting, I think that it would also allow a third factor to be taken into account, the total rotation in the air. The good albeit slightly underrotated combination I mentioned upper, was a 4F+3T with a really good take-off, so overall there was nearly 3½ rotations in the air, which objectively is acceptable, even for a Flip. But I don't know how the rules could take this into account. In fact, it would be very easy to adjust the Base Value to the completion of the rotations in a continuous or discrete-but-nearly-continuous way, with a precise expected number of rotation in the air assigned for each jump (being evident that the rotations expected wouldn't be the same for a Salchow or for a Lutz, I don't know if a Single or a Quadruple jump would have the same expectation with 360° increments though). This couldn't be done now with the lack of accuracy of rotation measurement, it would only propagate error (mathematically speaking).

Regarding PCS and Grades of Execution, I believe that each judge should submit a grid of appreciation for each season and discipline/category, and hold to it for all competitions. I don't imagine that some federations wouldn't intervene but at least, holding all skaters in a discipline/category to the same standards would be an extraordinary bounce. Even starting to discuss these standards would be a progress in my opinion.

In any case, gross scoring discrepancies are now unfightable (?) and that's not worthy of any Sports.

 

[gkelly]

Regarding PCS and Grades of Execution, I believe that each judge should submit a grid of appreciation for each season and discipline/category, and hold to it for all competitions.

How would this work?

I fully support increasing the value of PCS, but only if it’s judged accurately. What’s the point of a masterpiece program—like Kagayama’s, with intricate edges, transitions, skating skills, interpretation, speed, and expression—if it earns only 2–3 points more than Malinin? Ilia’s technical superiority deserves high marks, but the current system lets skaters make up for artistry with one extra jump. The value of a double axle, which even pre-novice or juvenile skaters can land, shouldn’t outweigh the difference between Kagayama’s program and Malinin’s.

PCS spreads are far too narrow today.

The system needs recalibration. PCS must reflect real differences in skill and artistry, giving top skaters mid- to high-nines for exceptional programs and lower scores to less accomplished skaters. There must be a way to give Kagayama 9.5 in skating skills and edge quality, Ilia 7.0, and scale other categories so differences are clear and properly rewarded.

So if Malinin gets 7.0, what would you give to the skaters who are currently earning 7 (i.e., the lowest score currently defined as "good" rather than "above average")?

And then if you lower those skaters' scores into the above average and average range, what scores do you give to skaters who are not at average senior skill level?

Considering that the vast majority of skaters in the world are not senior level and do not deserve 5s and higher. What scores should below-average seniors, average juniors, and below-junior skaters of all qualities earn if many skaters who deserve to compete at Worlds and Grand Prix are earning 5s on your scale?

Personally, I'd rather just increase the factoring of the PCS so that, e.g., for a senior men's short program the difference between 8.00 and 9.00 for skating skills would be more than 1.0, and for senior women at least 1.0, and double that for free skates. The current PCS factors were set 20+ years ago when two 4T and one 4S (or vice versa) was cutting edge jump difficulty for a men's FS. There needs to be room for potential differences in PCS totals to be more commensurate with potential differences in jump content, but not by stretching the meaning of the different scores at the upper end of the 0-10 range that covers a few hundred of senior skaters so far that the lower end of the range has to get compressed while covering many thousands of non-senior skaters around the world.

Should there be different PCS scales for different competition levels?

Especially when we're talking about Skating Skills.

Performance and Composition may need to be more strongly separated from the SS score when applicable, and have clearer standards that apply across all skill levels. But to the extent the execution of choreographic choices relies on control of the blades and vocabulary of blade-to-ice movement, they will remain fairly closely related.

And when it comes to evaluating artistry (i.e., the current Performance and Composition components), there need to be ways to reward creative and musical use of the blades regardless of the style of a particular program.

It could probably be possible (though not necessarily affordable) with today's technology to measure average and maximum ice speed throughout a program. Should be relatively easy for AI to count percentage of forward and backward, clockwise and counterclockwise skating. If there were technologically assessed scores for those aspects of skating skills, without judges knowing what the measurements/scores were, would that give more powerful and more multidirectional skating higher scores regardless of judges' opinions about the artistry or the jump content?

What about technological measurement of edge depth and security, and cleanness of turns, throughout a program? Efficiency of acceleration?
Not to mention "effortlessness." We're probably many years further away from technological assessment of those more subjective aspects of skating quality being a feasible addition. Maybe someday...

Would anything machine measurable end up being scored on an open-ended scale rather than being capped at 10.0?

 

[DizzyFrenchie]

How would this work?




So if Malinin gets 7.0, what would you give to the skaters who are currently earning 7 (i.e., the lowest score currently defined as "good" rather than "above average")?

And then if you lower those skaters' scores into the above average and average range, what scores do you give to skaters who are not at average senior skill level?

Considering that the vast majority of skaters in the world are not senior level and do not deserve 5s and higher. What scores should below-average seniors, average juniors, and below-junior skaters of all qualities earn if many skaters who deserve to compete at Worlds and Grand Prix are earning 5s on your scale?

Personally, I'd rather just increase the factoring of the PCS so that, e.g., for a senior men's short program the difference between 8.00 and 9.00 for skating skills would be more than 1.0, and for senior women at least 1.0, and double that for free skates. The current PCS factors were set 20+ years ago when two 4T and one 4S (or vice versa) was cutting edge jump difficulty for a men's FS. There needs to be room for potential differences in PCS totals to be more commensurate with potential differences in jump content, but not by stretching the meaning of the different scores at the upper end of the 0-10 range that covers a few hundred of senior skaters so far that the lower end of the range has to get compressed while covering many thousands of non-senior skaters around the world.

Should there be different PCS scales for different competition levels?

Especially when we're talking about Skating Skills.

Performance and Composition may need to be more strongly separated from the SS score when applicable, and have clearer standards that apply across all skill levels. But to the extent the execution of choreographic choices relies on control of the blades and vocabulary of blade-to-ice movement, they will remain fairly closely related.

And when it comes to evaluating artistry (i.e., the current Performance and Composition components), there need to be ways to reward creative and musical use of the blades regardless of the style of a particular program.

It could probably be possible (though not necessarily affordable) with today's technology to measure average and maximum ice speed throughout a program. Should be relatively easy for AI to count percentage of forward and backward, clockwise and counterclockwise skating. If there were technologically assessed scores for those aspects of skating skills, without judges knowing what the measurements/scores were, would that give more powerful and more multidirectional skating higher scores regardless of judges' opinions about the artistry or the jump content?

What about technological measurement of edge depth and security, and cleanness of turns, throughout a program? Efficiency of acceleration?
Not to mention "effortlessness." We're probably many years further away from technological assessment of those more subjective aspects of skating quality being a feasible addition. Maybe someday...

Would anything machine measurable end up being scored on an open-ended scale rather than being capped at 10.0?

How it would work? Like marking/grading school work, I would say.
For GOEs: there are some bullets which are defined in the rules (or would need more precise definition), and which happen to be measurable automatically without great difficulty; some which would need more work but would still be scored uniformally (good or bad take-off and landing, for instance) but the "very high and very long" bullet for instance, may be scored automatically WITH the input of the judge, within some limits of course; for instance, it couldn't be under an average of X skaters' recent jumps +10%, and it couldn't be more than the best jumper of this precise jump -20% (it's just an example). And the "very high and very long" would have a graph, there again with some input by the judge about the graph, so as to tell which leeway towards the "super high and long" or "super long and high" they would allow to give the bullet. It would be a bit of thinking at the setup, but after that, judges left independent would get simulators to find their own parameters, while some federations would give their judges a set of parameters to input ín the software. After that, they wouldn't even need to think about it during competitions at all.
For Components: each components has objectives in the skate. Each objective has criteria to assess how well (or not) the objectives have been reached in this skate. A judge is free to assign a value for each of their scores for each of the criteria, is free to assign a weight to each of the criteria in each objective, and is free to assign a weight to each of the objectives inside each of the Components. Only the Components themselves have obligatorily the same weight. Of course, a judge has to assign reasonable criteria and scales (although here comes your worry about the scoring of younger or local competition skaters, but it's done every day by judges; I would say that the scoring has something a bit logarithmic in my opinion, earning a point in Components between 1 and 2 needing much less talent and exertion than between 8 and 9, for instance); but this leaves a rather broad margin, particularly if caps are allowed. For instance, some judges may consider that a skater, even at the top, and even with the best multidirectional, balanced, edgy, easy, complex Skating Skills, who doesn't have a good basic stroke, cannot get over 8, or 9 in Skating Skills (I don't think that this ever happened to Alina Zagitova though) or they might just give a 0 in that box in the grid, which in the end would result in a tiny penalty. This grid would apply to all competitors judged by this judge, perhaps for a whole season? Because a judge's appreciation of what makes a good skate is likely to evolve in time.
I believe that in time, most of the criteria would be assessed automatically, but I think that a cheap, easy first try at automated scoring would include very little of Components, leaving much to do to the judge during the competition. A risk would then be that the whole Components score, instead of being aligned on jumps, would depend on these simple-to-measure (but very limited) criteria (a speed craze on Components seems to have already happened in Ice Dance in 2014?). I believe that some criteria, even in time, would be left to the judges to assess.
Scores above 10? I don't know.

 

[Isk]

I think that the ISU is sympathetic to this goal but has not shown much imagination as to how to go about achieving it. Tinkering with reducing the number of jumping passes or introducing a choreo step or spiral sequence has not had much effect.

The most painless step would be simply to increase the PCSs factors across the board -- but that would invite more indignation about biased and subjective 6.0-type judging, and we are back to square one. In the men's free skate at Skate America Shaidorov did 4 quads including a quad Lutz and a quad flip. His 4 quads featured two falls, 2 URs, two unclear edges and a q. He got negative GOE on all of them except the Lutz. In PCSs he was 5th behind Aymos, Brown, Grassl, and Tomoko. Shaidorov won.

I already mentioned that PCS < TES for top skaters is unbalanced, but if Malinin's 9s will give him even more edge in PCS, this is not going to work.
I think the question is as always: what do we want to achieve as the end result? I think ISU's priority no.1 is increase of money inflow into the sport. Of course the viewers' priority is making viewing the sport more enjoyable and available. For athletes it might be making practising it cheaper and more available. These are different priorities, they are not necessarily achieved simultaneously by the same means. Will counting rotations more accurately make any of this happen? I doubt it. There is much more to a beautiful jump than the position of the blade on the landing in degrees w.r.t. the motion trajectory. Of course having this one issue out of the way at the cost of major technological overhaul, one can and will need to focus on take-off, height, length, effortlessness, flow, etc., and those other things will still have to be balanced against rotation purity. In the end, nobody's being able rotate a few more degrees on a 4Lz has fed the poor or cured the sick. Most people can't even see it in real time. There is another issue that many people struggle with math, even mathpeople get enough of it at work, so they want something else as their recreation. It's very indicative that on platforms like this the most discussed discipline seems to be ice dance, which is the least precise and has no jumps.

 

[lariko]

The proration coefficient of PCSs is based on an average technical value of the programs. It already favors skaters with below average technical content/scores, like Brown and Aymoz. Increasing it further without average technical base going up is a clear step in devaluing tech. Malinin is an outlier. I am sure @eppen can calculate the technical average BV for the men (excluding Malinin) and compare it to the PCS proration and I am sure it is already too high, given that most men do not do 2 quads in the short and 3 quads in the free any longer, preferring to build newly allowed combos with triples and 2As that women can perform as well (with a lower coefficient for PCS proration).

PCS proration and recent changes to the rules (2A sequences going for full value, bumping GoE to +5, miniscule value for 4A and quad elements in pairs) all already favor the skaters with lower technical ability. and now the increased scrutiny of jumps that normally tends to hit the ultra c with reviews, not triple Ts...

 

[Mathman]

The proration coefficient of PCSs is based on an average technical value of the programs.

That is a challenge that the entire IJS must try to cope with. A single scale must accommodate skating at all levels, beginner to Olympians, strugglers to champions. Often one-size-fits-all does not fit anyone.

I think that this is the main reason why every season sees an avalanche of microscopic tweaks to the scale of values and other rules. It is never clear whether the new rules are any better or any worse than the last year's.

 

[lariko]

I mean, here too, the remedy is to invite Russians back in. It will create a larger 'middle tech' group, so the gap between Malinin and everyone else is not as insane the second three other skaters have an injury or use a different schedule to gain form.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

I 100% agree. I actually like the inclusion of the choreographic sequence—over the past year, we’ve seen creative elements like semi-acrobatic moves, slides, spirals, and unusual jumps such as Kevin’s tuck axle. Audiences often react strongly to these moments, similar to Malinin’s raspberry twizzle or other inventive sequences, which makes programs more engaging.

I fully support increasing the value of PCS, but only if it’s judged accurately. What’s the point of a masterpiece program—like Kagayama’s, with intricate edges, transitions, skating skills, interpretation, speed, and expression—if it earns only 2–3 points more than Malinin? Ilia’s technical superiority deserves high marks, but the current system lets skaters make up for artistry with one extra jump. The value of a double axle, which even pre-novice or juvenile skaters can land, shouldn’t outweigh the difference between Kagayama’s program and Malinin’s.

PCS spreads are far too narrow today. At Skate Canada, Ilia beat the last-place skater by ~90 points in technical but only ~24 in PCS, despite a 9.14 in skating skills. Historically, PCS offered more differentiation. At the 2007 Skate Canada, Buttle earned 7.05–7.4 for his Ararat program, while Abbott received only 5.05–6.05. In the same event, Asada led the women’s PCS at 7.45; Rochette averaged 6.6, and Wagner 5.6. At Vancouver 2010, Kim was the only skater without at least one seven; others like Asada and Rochette had multiple. The top 10 technical spread was ~22 points, PCS ~18 points. At the 2025 Women’s Worlds, the 20th-place finisher still received at least one 7.14. Today, PCS is compressed, and high scores are awarded regardless of quality differences. There needs to be a much broader spread and much more criticality in assigning PCS.

The system needs recalibration. PCS must reflect real differences in skill and artistry, giving top skaters mid- to high-nines for exceptional programs and lower scores to less accomplished skaters. There must be a way to give Kagayama 9.5 in skating skills and edge quality, Ilia 7.0, and scale other categories so differences are clear and properly rewarded. Otherwise, there’s little incentive to develop complex choreography or refine basic skating skills. Programs like Kagayama’s should stand out far more relative to skaters like Malinin, whose scores for basic skills are often inflated.

Nah I'm good with the PCS spreads being not as extensive - as it forces skaters to actually execute their elements and not be "saved" by the judges. After all, these are elite skaters, so they are all at least "good" (7.0 or higher) or above average (6.5). Brown already came 4th at Skate America and this type of PCS pre-scoring/reputation scoring could put him ahead of Shaidorov which would have been totally wrong given the much technically inferior program he put out there. And folks don't give me that whole Jason Brown's spiral and edge work should be worth more than Shaidorov's 3A+eu+4S any day! This isn't show skating, it's a sport if it's to maintain legitimacy of the sport, the technical side of skating should be the primary difference maker otherwise what's the point of even having quad jumps (or even triple axels).

And LOL 9.5 vs 7.0? You're just exaggerating right? Why even have them skate at all - let's just hand the gold over to Kagiyama and not even see how he skates, since he's a 9.5 in skating skills? FYI, Yuma Kagiyama doesn't go into a competition with 9.5 skating skills and Malinin doesn't go into a competition with 7.0 skating skills. They should be judged based on what they put out there, and how they actually skate on the day - not someone's pre-determined assessment of them. I can't even tell if you're being hyperbolic or not because a 2.5 spread on skating skills is just so ridiculously biased. Think about your scaling... if Ilia's edge quality is 7.0 compared to Kagiyama's 9.5 then you're asking for the lower tier of Worlds-level skaters to have their SS in the 4.0/5.0s's (unless you somehow think Malinin's SS are on par with the bottom skaters at Worlds)... which means you're putting junior skaters in the 3's.

PCS is so subjective. Skating skills a skater might have excellent speed but poor edges (like Joubert), or excellent edges but isn't the fastest or most explosive (Miyahara comes to mind). Presentation is so very obviously biased (look at the number of 8's given to the Georgians who had falls, a botched lift, and an obvious interruption/standstill https://www.isuresults.com/results/...------FNL-000100--_JudgesDetailsperSkater.pdf). If PCS were spread out more, the Georgians would have gained even more distance from the basically clean Canadians — who didn't get a single 8.00 and just one 7.75... even though I would say they did skate "very good" in terms of PCS i.e. 8.0 or higher)

The worst judged PCS though (and biggest reason the PCS spread should NOT be so big) is Composition - because if a skater is given a good program, and it is riddled with errors, the judges STILL award them 8's and 9's... whereas a lesser skater is predisposed to having an inferior program so they will max out at 7's or 8s, even if they go clean (again, see the Georgians and Canadians - and the judges didn't really account for the Georgians going way ahead of their music due to the falls and botched lift, even though that wasn't how the program construction is intended to be). It's how some skaters can get 9.00's even with 5 falls (never mind the fact that falls/botched lifts/etc. prevent a skater(s) from completing transitions and choreography that IS intended to be part of the program construction). https://www.isuresults.com/results/gpchn2014/gpchn2014_Men_FS_Scores.pdf (meanwhile skaters like Ge and Nguyen who were way cleaner and who skated relatively well got mostly 6's and 7's - how is that fair when someone falls 5 times and has 9's on their scoresheet?).

This is compounded by the fact that lesser popular skaters are also getting dinged on their jumps and elements. As it is, Litvinsev can barely hope to crack the 7's on PCS... but then gets just +1s on an excellent solo 4T. They even called his first 4T as < which is absolutely messed up - this is so unquestionably sufficiently rotated https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkDv25oHn7o#t=6m08s.

PCS shouldn't be spread out again. But what I would like to see is everyone dropping about 0.5-1.0 points to leave room for when skaters actually deliver. Yes, it's important to distinguish good skaters from great skaters — but I care more about the judges actually distinguishing good, well-executed SKATES from sloppy/error-filled skates where "great skaters" are propped up by PCS, because they can afford a better choreographer and have the name recognition entering the competition.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

I agree. For example, Roman often gets a Q on his quad Sal, even when it’s really close. But skaters like Malinin or others near the top sometimes have theirs ignored—I call this “reputation rotation.” Sakamoto is another case: she frequently gets fully rotated calls on jumps with questionable rotations and egregious inside edges on Lutzes, while lower-ranked skaters get penalized for jumps that are no worse. Commentators are catching on too—they now say a jump was “called” or “deemed” fully rotated, because I feel like they realize how stupid it sounds to say it’s clean when slow motion clearly shows it’s a quarter or more under.

It's hard when a skater gets a reputation - happened to Karen Chen a lot and once you get known as a notorious underrotater, it's hard to shake that. Roman's rotations aren't always full, so I get the greater scrutiny. But the point is, when he DOES rotate a jump he should be awarded it.

I like that some commentators are like "oh, and she had been actually flagged for a UR on that jump" - shows there can be a disparity between the call and everyone has their opinion. Judges also have different angles than the replay, but that's not to say they are more accurate (even though they are trained to be).

 

[Blades of Passion]

After all, these are elite skaters, so they are all at least "good" (7.0 or higher)

That's simply not true. Especially when it comes to artistry.

There were "elite" skaters in 2006 being given 4's in PCS. People who made it into the top 24 at the Olympics. I think going down into the 5's on PCS these days should definitely be on the table.

Now of course, PCS have almost never been used correctly. It's mainly a reputation/politics grade and each individual category not separated enough when there deserves to be large separation. Kagiyama does deserve an extremely high score on skating skills, yes 2 full points ahead of Ilia at times, but his performance and especially interpretation are often not great. He's never been "great" in that area, his only program that starts to approach greatness artistically is his 2021 SP - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECAKJPbgChc, where there is a constant attempt at using body movement to create a distinct feeling, and he's been noticeably less expressive after 2022.

I actually like the inclusion of the choreographic sequence—over the past year, we’ve seen creative elements like semi-acrobatic moves, slides, spirals, and unusual jumps such as Kevin’s tuck axle.

Those are things that used to already be included in programs as choreography, and actually went with the music when used. The "choreography sequence" has been mostly a flop because there's usually very little musical interpretation happening, it's just a couple random moves thrown into the program. It's not judged in a way that rewards something truly spectacular or sensitive.

And spirals LOL? Nobody for the past decade has done a spiral sequence on the level of Cohen, Kwan, Bobek, Arakawa, Asada. Karen Chen had the ability, but didn't hold her spiral position out for as long as she could have, since there was no explicit reward for doing so.

 

[Mathman]

And spirals LOL? Nobody for the past decade has done a spiral sequence on the level of Cohen, Kwan, Bobek, Arakawa, Asada. Karen Chen had the ability, but didn't hold her spiral position out for long as as she could have, since there was no explicit reward for doing so.

Not only no reward, but an actual disincentive for wasting time holding a spiral instead of rushing off to the next opportunity to grab another point. The spiral has all but disappeared from the "skating vocabulary/"

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

That's simply not true. Especially when it comes to artistry.

There were "elite" skaters in 2006 being given 4's in PCS. People who made it into the top 24 at the Olympics. I think going down into the 5's on PCS these days should definitely be on the table.

Now of course, PCS have almost never been used correctly. It's mainly a reputation/politics grade and each individual category not separated enough when there deserves to be large separation. Kagiyama does deserve an extremely high score on skating skills, yes 2 full points ahead of Ilia at times, but his performance and especially interpretation are often not great. He's never been "great" in that area, his only program that starts to approach greatness artistically is his 2021 SP - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECAKJPbgChc, where there is a constant attempt at using body movement to create a distinct feeling, and he's been noticeably less expressive after 2022.



Those are things that used to already be included in programs as choreography, and actually went with the music when used. The "choreography sequence" has been mostly a flop because there's usually very little musical interpretation happening, it's just a couple random moves thrown into the program. It's not judged in a way that rewards something truly spectacular or sensitive.

And spirals LOL? Nobody for the past decade has done a spiral sequence on the level of Cohen, Kwan, Bobek, Arakawa, Asada. Karen Chen had the ability, but didn't hold her spiral position out for long as as she could have, since there was no explicit reward for doing so.

Uh, 5.0s are still around. Even at Worlds. Maybe not for the skaters you would personally want to award them to but they still go that low.

ISU World Figure Skating Championships 2025 - Women - Free Skating

results.isu.org

 

[DizzyFrenchie]

The proration coefficient of PCSs is based on an average technical value of the programs. It already favors skaters with below average technical content/scores, like Brown and Aymoz. Increasing it further without average technical base going up is a clear step in devaluing tech. Malinin is an outlier. I am sure @eppen can calculate the technical average BV for the men (excluding Malinin) and compare it to the PCS proration and I am sure it is already too high, given that most men do not do 2 quads in the short and 3 quads in the free any longer, preferring to build newly allowed combos with triples and 2As that women can perform as well (with a lower coefficient for PCS proration).

PCS proration and recent changes to the rules (2A sequences going for full value, bumping GoE to +5, miniscule value for 4A and quad elements in pairs) all already favor the skaters with lower technical ability. and now the increased scrutiny of jumps that normally tends to hit the ultra c with reviews, not triple Ts...

But this is a complete reversion of what TES and PCS are?
The Technical Element Score assesses the technical quality and difficulty of the elements in the program: Jumps, Spins, Step Sequence, Choreographic Sequence in the Free. I don't know the proportion in time of the Elements in a Short or a Free program, but I'm sure that its way under half the program duration.
The Components Score assesses mostly the technical quality and difficulty of the rest of the program, and to a minority (if not marginally) the artistic value of the whole.
If it wasn't for compulsory jumps in the notion of "well-balanced program", in theory a skater could have a whole packed program without any Element and get a 0 in TES and over 45 or 90 (for Men; 36/72 for Women) in Components because of the high difficulty and proficiency of their steps, clusters and all? Of course there would be something able to be called a Choreographic Sequence in the Free but it's just an illustration. PCS are, say, at 90% a technical score!

 

[DizzyFrenchie]

Not only no reward, but an actual disincentive for wasting time holding a spiral instead of rushing off to the next opportunity to grab another point. The spiral has all but disappeared from the "skating vocabulary/"

Not to speak of lowering the Free Skating duration for Men. Outright Spiralslaughtering, unfortunately a notion absent from Penal Codes. Very few skaters with a number of Quadruple jumps and Triple Axels in the Free have been able to do significant Spirals since.