PDA

View Full Version : A thought-provoking article about CoP...



Pages : [1] 2

Primorskaya
12-03-2011, 08:47 PM
Beware: seriously massive article ahead! I find this pretty interesting and thought I'd share as I wonder what everyone will think of this. :blah: or :cool: ?

Link: http://www.soniabianchetti.com/writings_goodidea.html


A Good Idea
by Sonia Bianchetti
November 2011

In a very good interview published in the Italian figure skating magazine Doppio Axel at the beginning of November, Stephane Lambiel expresses his opinion on the International Judging System (IJS), giving an interesting suggestion on how, perhaps, it could be improved.

ADMIN EDIT: DO NOT COPY AND PASTE ARTICLES.

See Rule #13
http://www.fsuniverse.net/forum/announcement.php?f=14&a=37

Sylvia
12-03-2011, 08:48 PM
ETA: OK, just checked and this looks like a new article.

I agree with this part (sentence bolded by me):

The technical qualities of a spin have always been, and should continue to be, the correct basic position, the number of revolutions above the minimum required, the speed and the centring of the spin. Unfortunately, today, to get high levels, the skaters are obliged to execute spins with a ridiculous number of positions and number of turns in each position, changes of edges that make the spins too long and demanding, and horrible contortions suitable for acrobats of the Cirque du Soleil. These spins are all too often esthetically questionable and look absolutely the same.

Thanks for posting the link! Bianchetti makes good points (some already discussed here extensively by fans) and I wish they could/would be considered by the ISU.

Primorskaya
12-03-2011, 09:28 PM
My bad, I couldn't remember this rule and should have checked!

Japanfan
12-05-2011, 08:43 AM
Thought-provoking, perhaps, if you haven't read Bianchetti's past laments about CoP. She comes up with about one major missive per year about how the sport is being destroyed by COP and so on.

Honestly, if something you love is ruined for you by something beyond your control which isn't going to change, it's time to find a new love.

officialcoach
12-05-2011, 10:41 AM
You know that these ideas may be interesting but they leave out the corruption of the JUDGES. COP was a means of quantifying a sport that is art and an art that is sport. Assigning technical features that can be accounted for only makes it more fair than 6,0.
The programs have evolved with many skaters, passed the days of jumpers only win..ie Tim Goebel, Pleshenko.
The hardest part is the component mark for the judges.. They don't understand them and therefore do not use them with as originally intended.

officialcoach
12-05-2011, 10:42 AM
You know that these ideas may be interesting but they leave out the corruption of the JUDGES. COP was a means of quantifying a sport that is art and an art that is sport. Assigning technical features that can be accounted for only makes it more fair than 6,0.
The programs have evolved with many skaters, passed the days of jumpers only win..ie Tim Goebel, Pleshenko.
The hardest part is the component mark for the judges.. They don't understand them and therefore do not use them as originally intended.

AndyWarhol
12-05-2011, 12:14 PM
:watch:

oooh another CoP thread!!

Frau Muller
12-05-2011, 02:25 PM
Even before I opened the thread, I thought "It must be another Sonia Bianccheti article" just based on the title. BINGO!

Sylvia
12-05-2011, 02:28 PM
The hardest part is the component mark for the judges.. They don't understand them and therefore do not use them with as originally intended.
Or perhaps for some judges it's more "don't want to understand them"? ;)

ETA: The following was posted at the end of the last COP thread in GSD, and I believe there is some truth in this:

I've always been of the opinion that the Grade of Executions are actually more manipulative than Component Scores, especially in the long programs where there are 13/14 elements.

Macassar88
12-05-2011, 04:56 PM
I do not want to see any more skaters resembling flailing windmills in a tornado, struggling from one end of the arena to the other just to get more points.
lol

giselle23
12-05-2011, 05:08 PM
I think she makes some very good points. In particular, I think that the suggestion (attributed to Stephane Lambiel) about eliminating levels in the long program is a good one. Free the free program!

ETA: Also, anonymous judging needs to go. Make the judges accountable to the skaters and the public, and not just to Speedy, for their scores.

Louis
12-05-2011, 05:30 PM
Pre-COP spins were atrocious. I have many complaints about COP, and I agree with much of what Bianchetti says about spins, but the alternative is not to go back to pre-COP days! :scream:

If I ruled the world....
1) Each spin would be limited to one difficult variation
2) No difficult variation could be repeated for credit within the same program
3) Biellmann no longer counts as a layback feature
4) Eight revolutions in a single position is a requirement rather than a feature in a solo spin / six revolutions for a combo spin (negative GOE if not attained)
5) Change of edge is only a feature on camel spins

I also thinking judges need a lot of training (and discipline if the training is not effective) on:
1) Not automatically giving high GOE to complicated spins, if not done well
2) Not automatically giving high GOE to "name" skaters. YuNa Kim and Patrick Chan seem to start with +2 whereas they'd be receiving 0 for the same elements if their names were Suzy Smith or Adam Lee.

gkelly
12-05-2011, 05:47 PM
I'd almost rather see limits on levels and features in the short program -- make it a requirement to show standard basic positions there, and let the skaters get creative in the free program.

I know that skaters feel they're "required" (de facto, not de jure) to put difficult features in their long program spins in order to earn more points.

But I think just taking away that option -- or allowing them to do whatever they want but not giving higher base values, i.e., "choreo" spins with base values -- would make the scoring much more subjective.

Some of the specific base values in Bianchetti's article don't make sense (a Biellmann spin, regardless of quality or how long it's sustained, is worth more than a double axel??), but that kind of approach could work if you want to give more freedom back not only to the skaters in designing their programs but also to the judges to mark them however they want.

If you trust the judges to be knowledgeable and unbiased, then I suggest getting rid of levels, let the tech panel identify only the basic kind of spin executed, and give the judges 5 instead 3 positive grades of execution to reward both quality and difficulty (if executed well enough to deserve it, and if that judge recognizes what the skater did as difficult).

If you don't trust the judges to recognize difficulty or to reward it in a consistent manner without bias, then clear definitions of what does or doesn't qualify as a "feature" and a separate tech panel to call them is a better way to go.


Pre-COP spins were atrocious. I have many complaints about COP, and I agree with much of what Bianchetti says about spins, but the alternative is not to go back to pre-COP days! :scream:

If I ruled the world....
1) Each spin would be limited to one difficult variation
2) No difficult variation could be repeated for credit within the same program
3) Biellmann no longer counts as a layback feature
4) Eight revolutions in a single position is a requirement rather than a feature in a solo spin / six revolutions for a combo spin (negative GOE if not attained)
5) Change of edge is only a feature on camel spins

I could live with something like this. We're certainly closer to it now than in the early years of IJS, what with the various rule changes over the years.


2) Not automatically giving high GOE to "name" skaters. YuNa Kim and Patrick Chan seem to start with +2 whereas they'd be receiving 0 for the same elements if their names were Suzy Smith or Adam Lee.

Are you talking about spins specifically? I could probably agree with you there. But some of the jumps or in Chan's case step sequences for which they earn +2 do deserve higher scores than the average skater's; nor are they the only top skaters who earn them. That's what makes them top skaters.

euterpe
12-05-2011, 06:04 PM
I agree that the judges aren't using PCS as it was intended: to evaluate the performance taking place on the ice at that moment.

The judges inflate PCS scores for skaters who have been past champions, even though their current performances aren't nearly as good as their past ones. At the same time, the judges hold down the scores for new skaters. Too often, the PCS scores remain pretty much the same for established skaters, whether the performance was good or way below standard.

At the same time, the judges hold down PCS scores for new skaters and they may remain lower for more than one season, even though a new skater is performing consistently well.

With some judges, there is also a pattern of using the PCS scores as an ordinal to place skaters in the order the judge wants, regardless of the actual performance. It's not unusual to see a skater's protocol where the SS varies from 5.75 to 7.75.

At least the technical panel is being objective. Judges are subjective, and not all of them are fair and unbiased.

berthesghost
12-05-2011, 06:22 PM
Honestly, if something you love is ruined for you by something beyond your control which isn't going to change, it's time to find a new love.:lol: obviously, not everyone shares your view that it is useless to try and change cop. I don't think people within the skating world have come out against cop in droves because they are bored and publishing an article beats a walk in the park or going to the movies.

But perhaps you are right. What with all the elected offices and voting, I often mistake the isu for a democracy. You are probably right that it is more of a violent dictatorship where the whims of one man are all that matter and all opposition is dealt with by force.