Interesting aticle: Natural Bias in sports judging

Discussion in 'Great Skate Debate' started by maatTheViking, Nov 4, 2010.

  1. maatTheViking

    maatTheViking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2008
    Messages:
    1,720
    So, my main sport is dressage, and one of the main (independent!) news sites had a very interesting article posted about Natural Bias in sports judging, and how judging complex movements (such as figure skating, gymnastics or dressage) is simply too hard for the brain without using any kind of prior bias or knowledge.

    The guest article is a written by a researcher in sports psychology, Inga Wolframm, and I thought it was very enlightening, and applicable to Figure Skating as well.

    Enjoy!

    http://www.eurodressage.com/equestrian/2010/11/04/natural-bias-hidden-controversy-judging-sports


    Reading the article, do you think figure skating judging could be made more simple? How? I don't have a firm enough grasp on all the teknik stuff to have any ideas.

    I also wondered if the judges can see each other marks/screens sitting that close in competition?
  2. mag

    mag Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    6,995
    That is a fascinating article. Thanks for posting.
  3. joeperryfan

    joeperryfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Messages:
    2,010
    Thanks for posting, this article is quite interesting and I'll make sure to comment once I've read it thoroughly. :)
  4. gkelly

    gkelly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2003
    Messages:
    10,516
    The author writes:

    In skating, I think that equates to breaking down the technical scoring into scoring each technical element separately, and getting different panels to determine what was performed and how well.

    Looking at all the numbers generated by that process is more complicated than just looking at one Technical Merit mark, but the process of coming up with each of those numbers is a lot simpler than trying to keep all the elements in mind to assign a single mark, and it's less subject to skate order effects.

    The PCS scoring is still holistic and therefore still subjective and still subject to all these effects.

    There is such a thing as a filter that can be put over monitors to make them unreadable from anything but a straight-on view, but I don't know if it's common practice to use them on the judges' monitors.
    http://www.tech-faq.com/computer-privacy-screen.html
  5. dinakt

    dinakt Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    3,739
    Very interesting article and very relevant.
  6. overedge

    overedge Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2005
    Messages:
    17,494
    Great article. Thanks for posting the link.

    I would guess not - they look like small screens with a lot of information on them - e.g. video replay, which has to be large-ish so the details are visible - and the judges are sitting with some space between each seat. So unless they are entering the marks in 48-point font or some such, I think it would be pretty difficult to read a screen that was not your own.
    PeterG and (deleted member) like this.
  7. krenseby

    krenseby New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2006
    Messages:
    908
    This is the point that I found the most interesting: "Furthermore, in aesthetic sports... different movements are extremely complex, consisting of a number of technical and artistic elements that all need to be considered at once. However, research has shown that the processing of such complex information simply exceeds human capabilities. In order to be still be able to provide relevant scores within the given timeframe, judges fall back on schemas.. or “short-cuts” .. based on a number of different information sources, such as the athlete’s reputation, their previous performances, which team they belong to etc., [these] .. help judges come up with judgement decisions that, in their mind, approximate actual performances."

    This basically means that skaters are actually graded based on previous performances rather than on the current one, because all the movements in the program are too complicated to process and judges automatically fall back on an impression of the skater's previous performances.
  8. Blair

    Blair New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2002
    Messages:
    103
    This offers a great explanation for how PCS have manifested themselves over the last 7 years since the IJS was introduced.

    Really interesting article! Thanks for posting.
  9. Ziggy

    Ziggy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2002
    Messages:
    20,569
    There is no exact criteria and no methodology for coming up with the score.

    When with Monika we tried to do an experiment with judging PCS at 2010 Worlds, we had to come up with our own methodology, based on the very vague guidelines.

    The other thing which really bugs me is judges only noticing the first thing and failing to notice anything that came afterwards. It's very well studied and described in Social Psychology but I can't remember what this effect was called now.

    So in effect - somebody puts a hand down and then put the foot down. Judges give -1 GOE for that element.

    When you look at the deduction sheet, they should have deducted -1 for the hand down and -2 for the foot down, which in combination gives you a -3 GOE deduction.
  10. alilou

    alilou Crazy Stalker Lady

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2005
    Messages:
    3,984
    Very interesting article. I'm glad I read it. I don't have any brilliant insight or suggestions, but just want to say that it kind of helps me relax about it all, like I can finally exhale about the judging because it's just the way human beings are, and it doesn't matter what system is used these same "schemas" will still apply because it's a judged sport. Still, I do think a separate panel for TES and PCS would really help but I doubt that's ever going to happen.
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2010
  11. Ziggy

    Ziggy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2002
    Messages:
    20,569
    It would help but with ISU keeping making all the cutbacks... No chance, yep.
  12. dinakt

    dinakt Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    3,739
    Probably no chance, but that's my very strong wish, as well; separate the panels so people have specific limited tasks and actually can pay attention to technique and to performance/ choreography/ artistry- separately.
  13. BreakfastClub

    BreakfastClub Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2002
    Messages:
    782
    Go back to 6.0 and crack down on the cheating.

    I'm really not trying to be a jerk saying that. 6.0 was a very simple system - rank the skaters. Period. Cognitive science research has proven over and over that the human mind is much more effective at comparing things to each other (6.0) rather than against an arbitrary standard (COP).

    Sure it was easy to get a bloc together and that led to controversial 4/5 and 6/3 splits on the medal stand at the elite level, that were debatable for reasons of preference, politics or reputation.

    They had to toss out the toe tappers, the Marie-Reines, and the Alla Shekhovtsovas, but 6.0 was simpler and generally led to more logical results than the craziness of COP. Now judges need to assign 7-12+ or more GOE marks against arbitrarily assigned pages of standards/criteria, then assign five more overall PCS marks based on even more arbitrary criteria they need to memorize.

    And they need to do this all while trying to guess and stay "in the corridor" (the ultimate piece of BS) based on a skater's reputation.

    Then add in the fact that the base value for each technical element is arbitrary (yank your blade over your head and get more points, wheeee!!!) quads are now suddenly worth more this year, wheeee!!!), and the fact that there's a powerful caller out there splitting hairs to assign a level, a downgrade, etc....

    Ah, 6.0, where did you go?

    Great article. And I love dressage. Thanks for posting!
  14. aftershocks

    aftershocks Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,508
    Thanks for posting that article ... fascinating read. I too love dressage and anything to do with horses and horseback riding. [sidenote: Johnny attributes his erect posture on jump landings to his equestrian skills]

    I think what the writer said about judges relying on politics and athletes' reputation to help decide their scoring is pretty much the main modus operandi in figure skating judging. Let's not forget too that the Code of Points was essentially rushed into being mainly to protect the judges rather than helping to fairly judge the skaters. Whatever benefits may accrue as the system continues to develop, IMO, are tarnished by anonymous judging and the way CoP was rushed and forced into existence.

    So true re skaters being judged by previous performances -- case in point, Jeremy Abbott at Worlds 2010 (judges apparently couldn't forget images of Abbott falling and stumbling through his Olympic short progam -- one of the two best sp of last season, the other of course belonging to Daisuke). Abbott skated his sp beautifully at Worlds, but was marked lower than he deserved.

    There are rare occasions (Michelle Kwan many times, Brian Boitano at '88 Olympics, Rudy Galindo at 1996 Nationals and Worlds) where the judges had in mind to score differently, (i.e., politically, and based on things other than the skaters' performances), but couldn't in light of magical, bring down the house performances.

    Generally, I think figure skating is even more difficult to judge based on a set of criteria than other sports such as Gymnastics and Diving, because figure skating is sport and performance art, while I think gymnastics and diving have important aesthetic aspects, the performance aspect does not play as significant a role as it does in figure skating. For me taking a skater's performance apart to score on specific elements, without also truly looking at the whole and judging the whole without political bias and manipulation of PCS, is largely what sucks about current system .. along with the anonymous judging.
  15. millyskate

    millyskate Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2003
    Messages:
    9,021
    This can go further... When I was on a few piano panels, people would often get completely obsessed with one detail. Something they'd noticed at the start, and then failed to pay attention to any of the rest.
    It was generally the all-rounders that suffered.

    Starting off strong and collapsing at the end, or collapsing at the start and pulling it together at the end was often forgivable, but encountering a few problems interspersed throughout was generally the kiss of death.

    Being small and cute was a MASSIVE bonus. Any child tall for their age or slightly overweight was doomed unless they were outstanding, they rarely got more than a pass. I used to take :EVILLE: pleasure in looking up all the birth dates and pointing out the "small cute one" was the oldest of the pack.
  16. Japanfan

    Japanfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2002
    Messages:
    12,773
    Do you have a source? I'm not convinced that comparing things is easier than measuring them against a standard. It also really depends on the context. And, COP is hardly arbitrary.

    Under 6.0 bias and judging on reputation was arguably even more prevalent it is under COP. Remember those competitions where there was no movement whatsoever in the phases of the dance competition?

    Plus, judging in the LP was made really easy by the fact that the top three controlled their destiny (which also made for some major upsets, i.e. ladies at the 2002 Olympics). It was therefore easier to pick the podium in advance and manipulate the scores. Certainly judges manipulate PCS just as judges used to manipulate the second mark under 6.0. But, there is more room for movement and given all the numbers and computing involved, its harder to fix the final results.
    gkelly and (deleted member) like this.
  17. Ziggy

    Ziggy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2002
    Messages:
    20,569
    6.0 meant that the majority of what skaters did on the ice did not count and was not taken into consideration.

    With CoP at least they know what they are marked for.

    The system is far from perfect and there is a lot of room for improvement but at least skaters and coaches now are getting feedback and can work on improving individual elements.

    As for cognitive science, which was supposed to be the new direction and the beacon of light in psychology, the majority of it has been proven to be methodologically unsound if not outright falsified (ie. studying 100 people and taking the results of 3 into consideration :D). When the correlations they got have been checked mathematically, it turned out a lot of them have been impossible to achieve.
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2010
  18. Ziggy

    Ziggy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2002
    Messages:
    20,569
    That's another thing.

    The halo effect.

    Beautiful = good.

    I mean Korpi's PCS this season are seriously :huh:.
  19. zaphyre14

    zaphyre14 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2002
    Messages:
    4,637
    I've seen the IJS screens up close. The judges screen are small (approx 4"x 6")and have nothing on them other than the list of the element codes and the keypad for marks. It's pretty difficult to see what your neighbor is marking.

    The tech panel has the large monitors for replay and entering all the codes. The Accountant and Data people have full size monitors too but even seated shoulder to should, it's pretty hard to see each other's screens because they were mean to be viewed straight on. Also the print is really small (in order to get everything on there. Reading each other's screens is diffiuclt at best and for the average human, pretty close to impossible.
  20. gkelly

    gkelly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2003
    Messages:
    10,516
    Agreed.

    From one point of view, it's simpler to just rank skaters and give two marks. Much less complicated than looking at each aspect of the performances separately and giving lots of different marks.

    The protocols looked a lot simpler when it was just two marks per skater per judge and used up a lot less paper.

    But is that what the author of the article means by "simpler"?

    Think about what a judge has to do in order to rank skaters with some degree of "accuracy": Evaluate the basic skating skills, count the jumps and their difficulty, evaluate the quality of each jump, determine the difficulty and quality of all the spins and steps and spirals and other in-betweens, evaluate the skater's carriage and line, projection to the audience, connection between the movement and the music, etc. Were there obvious errors that should be penalized even more than the loss of credit for whatever skills they represented failures of? Was there any content that was unique in its difficulty or originality that should be rewarded for its uniqueness in addition to its actual technical value? Etc.

    Oh, and then decide which of the preceding skaters this skater was better or worse than.

    And somehow all that needs to get boiled down into two numbers, making sure to leave enough room between this skater's numbers and those who were immediately better or worse among the preceding skaters so that there will also be enough numbers left to slot in subsequent skaters above and/or below as needed.

    The resultant numbers look simple, but the thought processes required to arrive at those numbers are extremely complicated. Plenty of room for important details to get overlooked or for judges (and fans) to differ significantly in how they weight the most salient aspects of the performances. And plenty of room for "noise" such as reputation or skate order to overshadow the "signal" of the immediate performance as a deciding factor in a judge's decision on where to rank skaters with relatively comparable performances.

    On the other hand, evaluating an individual jump element is much simpler. There are clear guidelines defining the required takeoff and number of revolutions: the tech panel just has to decide yes or no whether those definitions were met, and if the rotation was short then by how much. Combos or sequences with unexpected errors might be a little trickier to define, but there are published guidelines for how to handle most situations.

    And then the judges just have to evaluate the element on a scale of -3 to +3 according to clearly spelled out guidelines, and then move on.

    There's no need to weigh the difficulty of one element against another or decide how much to value quality over difficulty or vice versa. Most of those weightings have been built into the scale of value and taken out of the hands of the judges, making the judges' task simpler.

    Defining spin and step levels is more complicated for the tech panel under the current rules. That's because most of the common-sense and gut feeling decisions about difficulty have now been codified, in ways that encourage certain kinds of difficulty and discourage others.

    We might disagree with some of those choices and want to see the rules and feature definitions and the scale of values rewritten to reflect our own preferences for what should be rewarded. But whatever those rules are, when calling a program the tech panel and judges don't need to make value judgments about what they think should or shouldn't be worth more, as the judges did under 6.0.

    The tech panel just needs to decide whether each attempted feature was achieved or not. Just a series of yes/no decisions, not value judgments.

    For the judges the process is similar to what they do for jumps: evaluate the element on a scale of -3 to +3 according to clearly spelled out guidelines, and then move on.

    There are a lot of separate decisions -- by two groups of officials -- producing a lot of separate numbers. Which in one way looks complicated. But it's a lot of separate simple decisions.

    It's a lot easier to decide "This spin meets four of the bullet points for positive GOE and doesn't have any errors -- +2 GOE" than it is to think "This spin was really good, but it wasn't very difficult and the rest of the program was generally sloppy and there were a couple of major errors on other elements, and this skater has never had good results in the past and is from a small country with no political influence -- wait, I'm not supposed to be judging those last facts -- well, it was a bad program and deserves low scores, but that was a very nice spin -- was it nice enough to score this skater above the skater I currently have in last place or not?"

    See what I mean?

    Now, the PCS are never going to be that simple.
  21. query5

    query5 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2009
    Messages:
    672
    kinda of agree with article--but figure skating bias goes a bit further than natural bias .
  22. Skittl1321

    Skittl1321 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    11,089
    Isn't bias like this part of the reason judges watch practices (actually, I don't know if they still do that) and why skaters submit a planned program sheet?

    It's easier to judge if they know what to expect- then if all the information was presented to them for the first time as they were watching.
  23. Ania

    Ania Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2002
    Messages:
    244
    The majority of cognitive science research is experimental and/or computational. Studies rarely rely ONLY on correlational evidence.
    Are you by any chance referring to Vul & Pashler's paper on "puzzlingly high correlations"? (http://psy2.ucsd.edu/~pwinkiel/vul-etal_correlations-main-2009.pdf) This paper has nothing to do with behavioral cognitive science (it's a critique of fMRI data analysis techniques in the field of social neuroscience).

    While there is some sloppy research in cognitive science (as in any other endeavor humans undertake, scientific or not), you'd be hard pressed to find factual support for saying that "the majority of it has been proven to be methodologically unsound if not outright falsified".
  24. Jun Y

    Jun Y Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2005
    Messages:
    1,077
    There are so many areas in the current and past figure skating judging systems that are subject to unconscious bias that I don't know where to start.

    One of many problems: the program components are poorly defined, too complicated, with too much overlap (vague rules, cognitive limitation, etc.). My very unscientific and very subjective observation of recent competition results has convinced me that many judges are frequently not following the guidelines. They probably can't, rather than are unwilling to, adhere to the rules, although I don't really know because I'm not in their heads. (It doesn't help that the rules keep shifting and changing every year.)

    All the hoopla about Transitions last year exposed the widespread problem, which still is and probably will be uncorrected for the foreseeable future. Except Skating Skills, the other 4 components often cannot stand up to much scrutiny, IN MY HUMBLE OPINION.

    As a sport, figure skating is fair only to a moderate extent. The internal complexity and contradictions make it impossible to produce a truly reliable, consistent, reproducible, and fair judging system. IMHO. If I had kids I would be very reluctant to let them get into a career in competitive figure skating.

    (In theory I think a holistic judging system based on competent and honest judges' overall impression may not be inherently more biased than the IJS. However, such a system makes it nearly impossible to detect intentional cheating and gross incompetence.)
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2010
  25. Visaliakid

    Visaliakid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Messages:
    3,304

    Returning to 6.0 will never happen! The cheating that was prevalent with that system spelled the deathknell to it. Unfortunate but inevitable.
  26. leafygreens

    leafygreens Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2009
    Messages:
    1,648
    Combining this with the other thread about more skating events in the Olympics, wouldn't that result in more fair judging? If judges were judging only jumps in one event and then only spins in another event, that would cut down on all the cognitive confusion of being bombarded with multiple elements and ways to mark them.
  27. aftershocks

    aftershocks Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,508
    :respec: :respec: :respec:


    I like the idea of more events and opportunities for skaters to medal on their strengths. However, figure skating is such a tradition-bound sport and extremely slow to change.* The only reason the scoring system changed so radically was due to the 2002 Olympic judging scandal. Pressure was placed on the ISU to do something about the judging fiasco in order to repair fs reputation as an Olympic sport. The changes largely were a smokescreen for business as usual for the judges, with a lot more protection and hiding room due to anonymity. Of course, the scoring rules changes have continued to change and to be reworked due to having been rushed into being. And the changes have drastically affected how we view the sport, and how the skaters train, and how programs are put together (in many ways adversely). A lot of fans, especially younger fans, IMO, love the accessibility of the scoring and the know-it-all ability and the numbers fix they get with CoP.

    Meanwhile, it was very possible for changes to have been instituted in a more thoughtful, reasoned way with the utmost purpose in mind of improving the sport and fairly judging the skaters, not protecting the judges.

    *Other changes such as creation of the short program in the early 70s (a good thing), and the complete dumping of figures in the early 90s (not so good) were changes that came about again due to pressures placed on the ISU-- the short program was created due to the effects of television -- media and viewers were astounded and confused about why a gorgeous Janet Lynn received bronze instead of gold for her beautiful free-skating at 1972 Worlds (figures counted for more and Beatrix Schuba was a genius at figures). The following year at Worlds the short program was in place for the first time, and Janet Lynn faltered (perhaps due to nerves and pressure -- because she was supposed to win now that she had two opportunities to showcase her free skating abilities). In 1973, Lynn came in second behind Karen Magnussen of Canada, and Schuba had retired as a result of the decrease in overall importance of figures in scoring.

    In the early 90s, largely because of the viewing demands of television, figures were completely dumped instead of being slowly phased out, or better yet, reduced to a separate event that didn't have to be widely covered (it was hardly covered prior to being dumped anyway). FS honchos failed to realize the importance of figures in helping skaters develop their edging skills. Obviously that is why a number of skaters today have problems with edging technique on the takeoff of their jumps. Figures could have been phased out of competition for singles skaters, but still kept as an important skill to practice and be tested on.
    alilou and (deleted member) like this.
  28. Aussie Willy

    Aussie Willy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2005
    Messages:
    18,018
    I might as well be honest. It is not that difficult to see what other judges have given. We have donated laptops that we set up for judging. Depends on the size of the screen you use.
  29. Ziggy

    Ziggy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2002
    Messages:
    20,569
    Zaphyre14, I'm not sure what you've seen but at competitions judges use normal size monitors (I'd guess "17).
  30. gkelly

    gkelly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2003
    Messages:
    10,516
    Maybe all the international competitions use the same kind (or maybe not -- I don't know), but within the US I've seen different kinds of monitors at different competitions. And domestic events in other countries probably use different systems.
  31. jenlyon60

    jenlyon60 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2003
    Messages:
    132
    There is at least 1 system in the US that uses regular laptops, but that one comes with screen protectors that prevent anyone not viewing the screen directly face-on from seeing what is on the screen.
  32. PUNKPRINCESS

    PUNKPRINCESS New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    Messages:
    236
    Exactly. Or, don't go specifically back to 6.0 since it had tons of other problems in bias that could easily be hidden, but implement a more holistic and less reductionist system than the current CoP.

    Yes. People (including even judges, it seems) don't seem to know what scores and point totals "mean" anymore. A comparative system with some BASIC breakdowns would work better than the points-based jumble we currently have.

    Who has the better display of overall skills? (skating skills, transitions, etc.) -- rank
    Who has better choreography and performance? -- rank
    Who had the more difficult technical run? -- rank
    etc.

    Simplify!

    I'm not exactly sure how you came to that conclusion. It seemed that most 6.0 judgments took the most important things into correct account. What wasn't clear was how they did it.

    Really? It's still not clear to me at all. When a sloppy skate by a highly-reputed skater gets an 8.x for Performance and a cleaner skate by a less-established skater gets an 8.x-3 for Performance, I am left scratching my head and asking WTF are they looking for when it comes to "performance."

    What in hell are you talking about? Can you be more specific? Cognitive science was never wholly dismissed as "methodologically unsound." :duh: And where does this reference to mathematics come from?

    I disagree with you when you say that coming up with a whole bunch of numbers and assigning marks to multiple items is SIMPLER than letting the mind take various factors into relative account and coming up with a single mark. Yes, it's true that it's less subject to skate-order effects, but you need to be paying attention to too many things in order to grade multiple things simultaneously--a near-impossible feat for the human mind.

    PCS scoring is holistically done but it was NEVER meant to be scored that way. You're supposed to assign separate grades to e.g. Skating Skills, Performance, Interpretation, Performance/Execution, Choreo, etc. and judges don't seem to do that because Cognitive Science tells us it's nearly impossible to do it properly unless you can hit Replay on a YouTube video repeatedly and judge the items separately at each run-through. That's why you get Patrick Chan getting a high score for Skating Skills and then judges automatically give him high PCS scores for the other crap, even when he falls three-four times and I have no idea how that translates to a similarly high level of Performance and Interpretation. Or Plushenko, who indeed has excellent Skating Skills as well but almost never had Transitions and yet had decent PC scores in that department. :confused: (I'm saying this as an admirer of Plushenko, just admitting that transitions in his competitive programs were not his forte.)

    It is fair and expected that judges take a look at every program before the actual performance. That gives them an idea of what to expect, which programs have better choreography, which skaters have the higher likelihood of doing better (technically or in various program components), etc. so then during the actual performance, they're able to filter out and judge based on their expectations vs. the performance.

    The CoP itself cannot account for every subtle piece of movement and interpretation, either.

    However, I think it is fair to say that without pointing at every specific moment, most people and especially judges should be able to gauge things like good jumps/spins, a good performance, nice choreography, and appropriate interpretation of the music. These are the things the judges should be holistically and generally gauging with their conscious minds.

    Their unconscious minds (which are far more efficient at processing tons of details all at once) will help to determine which smaller details contributed to the overall assessment.
  33. Ziggy

    Ziggy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2002
    Messages:
    20,569
    Have you already forgotten how non-jump elements looked before CoP?

    And to a lesser extent program construction too.

    Under 6.0, the judges only considered the jumps (and in a really weird way that didn't truly reflect what is difficult to perform and what isn't) and to a certain extent skating skills.

    Well, if you read the criteria you would find out. :p

    And if you're a skater, you want to know how each thing was graded exactly so that you can fix individual issues.

    ---

    Cognitive science - I don't want to get into a methodological argument. A lot of the correlations have been proven to be too high to be possible.

    Patrick Chan excels on all the PCS aspects and not just skating skills.

    The reason why PCS aren't more varied is twofold:

    - it's not possible to focus on both TES and PCS at the same time, panels should be split

    - judges are afraid of being outside the corridor, therefore they are playing it safe

    Gauge how?

    And how does it help the skaters if the placements are completely arbitrary and they have no clue what they did right, what they did wrong, what the judges liked and what they didn't like.
  34. PUNKPRINCESS

    PUNKPRINCESS New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    Messages:
    236
    You mean back in the day of Michelle Kwan's brilliant COE spirals...when Yuka Sato could beat Surya Bonaly with superior non-jump elements...of beautiful Weir, passionate Yagudin (who often overtook his slightly stronger jumping rival), sensational Kurt Browning?

    No, I haven't forgotten, and there is much I miss.

    So not true.

    The biggest problem I have with CoP is that their definitions of "difficulty" of especially non-jump elements are separate from the context of what's appropriate and fitting in terms of program artistry. Doing multiple positions in a spin often don't match the music, and what's more, a high-quality "lower-level" element according to CoP is actually rarer and more difficult than doing generic positions over and over again. Michelle's COE spiral is gorgeous and more difficult than the painful spirals we often saw these last few years in women's skating under CoP. Yagudin's Level 1 steps sequences could be electrifying and fit his programs better than if he were forced to do Level 4 steps that he was capable of. Fast spins with fewer positions are often more aesthetically pleasing and require more skill than doing 8(?) laboured revolutions of varying positions.

    :rolleyes:

    Oh yes, I can see that Chan at Skate Canada 2010 was "physically, emotionally, and intellectually" more involved in sweeping the ice with his butt than Rippon was.

    His SP just blazed with "Style" and "Clarity" - I could see that everything he did was in a superior mode of interpreting the music with precise, inspired movements. LOL!

    Variety and Contrast - oh, yeah. Instead of always being upright, it's nice to integrate some change and fall once or twice or three times.

    Now I totally get it. If I want to Perform well, I must follow that example.

    (Just to clarify, I like Patrick Chan! But come on, that scoring was a travesty.)

    How cute. I would imagine that bad scientific studies are bad scientific studies, but since I've seen correlations of a similar type to be too high with regards to Pharmacology studies, let's dismiss that entire field of science as well. We all know that dopamine antagonism of antipsychotic medications is just a little TOO convenient of an explanation. :hat1:

    Oh yes. But not at Skate Canada 2010 during his SP, I hope. Because if that is "excelling", then I am truly scared.

    Make broader categorizations of criteria to read and judge by. :p As I gave in my explanation in my previous post.

    It's not arbitrary at all. I believe judges should be given a certain amount of discretion, but still, they need clear examples and criteria of what's bad, what's good, and what's better.

    Having said that, assigning a value of "7" or "8" or "9" to any PCS is arbitrary to some extent in the sense that there is no inherent value or meaning to those numbers. The only real way that skaters know what they mean is *gasp* by reference and comparison to other skaters they scored higher or lower than. :) So I'm not proposing a change to this aspect of scoring, which is unavoidable. Relative standards have to be laid down somehow--what I'm asking for is for judges to be allowed to take multiple things into broad account so that there is an overarching context for the scoring that matches the overall impression of a skate.

    The possible downside is the introduction of unexplained bias. But you know, as I said, I don't think bias has been removed by CoP anyhow.
  35. neptune

    neptune New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2004
    Messages:
    3,952
    Definitely. As a matter of fact, I read last week that now the judges are going to have to start working the concession stands too. ;)
  36. AliasJohnDoe

    AliasJohnDoe Spin Alissa Spin!!!

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2004
    Messages:
    3,678
    I agree. I've always liked the idea of seperate judging panels for TES and PCS.
  37. millyskate

    millyskate Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2003
    Messages:
    9,021
    I actually don't want to see separate panels. Because overall impression is IMO more important than the sum of the parts.

    Many of the best programs IMO happened under 6.0, and they may not have been filled with transitions or complex spin positions, but the formed a cohesive ensemble.
  38. senorita

    senorita New Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2008
    Messages:
    1,945
    I would agree. I like the point system instead of 6.0 , I m not sure I like the requirements now. I watched 1996 to 2001 worlds last weekend, 5-6 top skaters from ladies and men and their programs flew by, no kitchen breaks and no 8 revolutions that look like 118 of the toe to the ear or nose. Who do I wait now to reach the spins moment in their program because CoP made them better? I can count them on my one hand. Mirai, Mao, Alissa, Lambiel before and Kozuka's scratch at the end. And how many make the spins or footwork relevant to the rest of the program, most pick the flowers from the ice and do high kicks in the middle of nowhere. Imagine Kulik high kick in his Aladin program.:D