PDA

View Full Version : Monica Friedlander: "International Skating Union Now Officially a Dictatorship"



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11

Nomad
07-04-2012, 04:38 PM
^ IOW, go back to 6.0?

judiz
07-04-2012, 05:32 PM
^ IOW, go back to 6.0?


No, because 6.0 didn't explain how the score was decided, but if the viewers are told a skater's routine has a start value of 198.50 and at the end of the routine, the score is posted as 185.00, the viewer knows how many points were deducted for skills left out, falls or under-rotations. In the current system, the casual viewer cannot follow how a skater could fall on a jump, slide across the ice and still wind up on the podium.

I know my idea needs a lot of tweaking and probably doesn't make sense to most but the idea came to me watching the women's olympic trials last weekend, I had no trouble following the scoring in the gymnastics.

Vagabond
07-04-2012, 06:14 PM
I know my idea needs a lot of tweaking and probably doesn't make sense to most but the idea came to me watching the women's olympic trials last weekend, I had no trouble following the scoring in the gymnastics.

It's entirely unrealistic to apply the sort of judging system to a Men's Free Skate that lasts four minutes and thirty seconds as is applied to a gymnastics vault that takes about six seconds to execute. Unless, of course, you want to eliminate scoring for interpretation, choreography, performance, and execution.

Morry Stillwell
07-04-2012, 06:25 PM
It's entirely unrealistic to apply the sort of judging system to a Men's Free Skate that lasts four minutes and thirty seconds as is applied to a gymnastics vault that takes about six seconds to execute. Unless, of course, you want to eliminate scoring for interpretation, choreography, performance, and execution.

Also, the gymnastics valt starts with a base value and the judges only apply deductions.

judiz
07-04-2012, 06:27 PM
Concede it was a stupid idea

kwanfan1818
07-04-2012, 07:24 PM
There's no reason to diminish +GOE on the technical side to dumb it down for the audience. The commentators could just as easily say that the planned base value is X, and when the technical scores come up, compare planned to earned for TES, and then compare components maximum (50, 40, 100, 80, etc.) for that discipline and segment.

To the left of the data provided on the host feed, they could publish something like this, with proper formatting:
(Example, Ashley Wagner's FS at Nice)

SB: 128.34


Planned: Executed:

TES: 57.70 62.91

PCS: 80.00 57.44

Total 137.44 120.61

Alternately, and probably more easily understood


Planned: Executed:

TES: 57.70 62.91 +5.21

PCS avg: 7.18 of 10

Mathman
07-04-2012, 07:57 PM
No, I like your first idea better:

Planned PCS: 80.00 :cool: (The best laid plans of mice and men...)

In general, though, about changing figure skating scoring to make it more like scoring in gymnastics, or diving, or equestrian, or trampoline -- I think that spotlights the problem. These sports do not aspire to attract viewers and spectators.

kwanfan1818
07-04-2012, 08:06 PM
80 doesn't mean anything to the average viewer, though, especially since it's 80 for the Ladies and Pairs FS, but 40 for Ladies and Pairs SP, but 100 for the Men's FS and 50 for Men's SP, and then who knows in Ice Dance with the different weightings per component. People understand that Men do harder jumps, and their base will likely be higher, although if Mao Asada rotates her 3A, she gets the same base as Patrick Chan, but why is it again that Men get 20% more points for the exact same criteria for components?

I think average on a scale of 1-10 is easily understood by both the average fan and the :COP:, since, for the most part, PCS are marked in such a narrow range by each judge, and seeing the SS mark is a great predictor of the rest.

ETA: I think it's possible to present the existing IJS scoring in a way that makes it more understandable for those watching on TV, and gives the commentators data points to work with. When they make the same comparisons over and over, it's a teaching tool. It only takes a few gymnasts worth to get the drift. They don't have to change the scoring system at all.

gingercrush
07-05-2012, 12:20 AM
Hmm she has written another article

http://www.examiner.com/article/artistic-heart-of-skating-torn-out-skaters-say

judiz
07-05-2012, 01:17 AM
She's written many articles, mostly for Blades on Ice and other skating magazines.

bmcg
07-05-2012, 01:38 AM
Hmm she has written another article

http://www.examiner.com/article/artistic-heart-of-skating-torn-out-skaters-say

Itīs interesting that she uses Toller Cranston to help prove her point and in the previous article used Patrick Chan as an example of all that is wrong with the new system because I don't think Toller is thinking of Patrick Chan in those comments. Toller has been very complimentary towards Chan.

Morry Stillwell
07-05-2012, 02:11 AM
Itīs interesting that she uses Toller Cranston to help prove her point and in the previous article used Patrick Chan as an example of all that is wrong with the new system because I don't think Toller is thinking of Patrick Chan in those comments. Toller has been very complimentary towards Chan.

If she realy knew much about the rules. she would be commenting on the requirments for a well ballance program. The WBP specifies the requiments while IJS only rules on how the WBP is evaluated. That may too deep for the writer to understand. WBPs have continued to be modifed each year and have nothing to do with the system of evaluation. Yes, as I judge I like IJS and we still use 6.0 for lower level catagories in the United States. I do not mind switching back and forth.

I seems that many comments on this subject have been based on watching a competition on TV. There is a much different impression when viewed rinkside or from the judges hot seat. The good here is that we do not have to listen to "talking heads" drivel and must make our own decisions.:)

tralfamadorian
07-05-2012, 04:11 AM
I am curious about the Japanese or Russian commentators. Two countries where figure skating is very popular, especially, Japan. Do their commentators explain the judging system to the audience? If they do, is that what the sport is so popular? I don't think so. Maybe our Russian and Japanese speaking members can weigh in and let us know what the commentators comment on during competition in their countries.
My Russian is very limited and I've only watched Russian commentary when Zhulin was there (:cool:) but based on those couple of times it's clear that the people in the commentary box can see the judges scores come up real time and they know the score before it comes up on the screen, they can also see the level calls of the tech panel already during the performance and also if something was marked for review. Not that they need the latter because they can see with their own eyes if a twizzle was three-turned or a step sequence not clean, etc.
I don't know if it's the same for the other disciplines (I assume it is), but it is for sure way more informative to watch with that kind of commentary and I wish everyone did it that way. (It would also go a long way convincing people that fs is not a fixed beauty contest but that there are actually some objective technical requirements/mistakes that the experts can in fact see.)

bmcg
07-05-2012, 04:28 AM
If she realy knew much about the rules. she would be commenting on the requirments for a well ballance program. The WBP specifies the requiments while IJS only rules on how the WBP is evaluated. That may too deep for the writer to understand. WBPs have continued to be modifed each year and have nothing to do with the system of evaluation. Yes, as I judge I like IJS and we still use 6.0 for lower level catagories in the United States. I do not mind switching back and forth.

I seems that many comments on this subject have been based on watching a competition on TV. There is a much different impression when viewed rinkside or from the judges hot seat. The good here is that we do not have to listen to "talking heads" drivel and must make our own decisions.:)

Bolded that part because it has always amused me how some critics of IJS will say in disgust how the system caters to certain skaters. How a skater won because they checked all the boxes as if it's a bad thing.

The way I see the system is that it rewards a skater who can jump well, spin well, skate well, do difficult turns and steps well, distributes their jump elements well throughout their program, has good choreography, performs well.... Isn't that a good thing?:D

overedge
07-05-2012, 05:49 AM
From the new article:


the current world champion, Patrick Chan, who has benefitted the most from the new system

"Benefitted the most"? That's debatable. Many other skaters have done very well under the new system too.


When the ISU set out to devise a new system in 2002 it was tasked with devising a new way to judge – not a new sport. With their actions they grossly overstepped their authority and desecrated the sport they were entrusted with preserving.

:rolleyes: Maybe this "journalist" should do some research into why the changes came about. Nobody oversees the ISU, so no one "tasked" the ISU with anything. And even if you don't like what the ISU did, they did not overstep their authority, because there isn't a higher authority they are accountable to.