PCS used correctly

Discussion in 'The Trash Can' started by gkelly, May 11, 2013.

What would it mean to score PCS correctly?

Poll closed Jun 10, 2013.
  1. Some judges do it right, too many do it wrong

    38 vote(s)
    43.2%
  2. No one official does it right, but it can be done.

    9 vote(s)
    10.2%
  3. The rules need to be written better.

    23 vote(s)
    26.1%
  4. Can't be done right, so don't do it at all.

    2 vote(s)
    2.3%
  5. Can't be done right, so just use one number.

    3 vote(s)
    3.4%
  6. Right vs. wrong is meaningless -- but there is better vs. worse

    13 vote(s)
    14.8%
  1. RFOS

    RFOS Well-Known Member

    2,437
    624
    113
    It's one of my pet peeves when people say things like this. Are the criteria for choreography just supposed to be ignored, then? Of course they need to be considered in the results. Even if the choreographer sets out the plan, the judges are only judging whatever choreography the skater actually executes. I don't see how saying the choreography mark is only judging the choreographer is much different from saying giving a GOE, for example, is judging the coach who taught the skater the technique and how to do that element. Obviously having a better coach and a better choreographer is going to be an advantage, and there are many other advantages some skaters might have over others, but what is (or should be) judged is what each skater puts out on the ice in competition.
     
  2. Aussie Willy

    Aussie Willy Well-Known Member

    18,142
    2,173
    113
    As someone using the system, I have no problem with there being 5 components. You can show skaters which ones they are stronger in through the PCS you give them.

    To say that there should be only one component is to simplify the system too much. For example, at lower levels (Preliminary and Elementary under the Australian system) we only use SS and PE. With the PE mark you are meant to consider pretty much everything that falls outside the SS mark. So if a skater has poor composition (layout of program on the ice) but really attacks the program (high energy, good expression), how can you cover that in just one mark? At the end the mark doesn't tell the story.

    When using all five components, you can differentiate between the energy and expression under PE and the composition under CH.

    From a judging point of view, I have no problem with the five components and if anything give me an opportunity to break down and evaluate the program better with regards to looking at particular aspects of skater's programs. If a skater has poor SS but wonderful IN, then you can reflect that in the marks you give.
     
  3. RFOS

    RFOS Well-Known Member

    2,437
    624
    113
    I agree, I like having 5 components and challenging myself to come up with better ways to differentiate them. Perhaps if the descriptions of the components were tweaked slightly there would be a little less overlap and it potentially reduce the tendency to keep all the marks at a similar level when it may not be warranted. There are many times when a skater is very strong and well-balanced among the components, or very weak on all of them, and most skaters who are really great at one or more components aren't going to be absolutely TERRIBLE at another (and vice versa) when consider the whole range of skating that one could possibly see (which is necessary if one wants to use the 0.25 - 10 scale in a consistent way across levels). Gaps of 5 points, or even 3 points, are IMO pretty rarely warranted. I find that 1.5 to 2 point differences are not that uncommon for me but more than that is pretty rare.

    I don't know if some who think that large differences are generally better are only comparing to other top world skaters (e.g., if a skater is in the 90th percentile of Olympic and World medalist caliber skaters on skating skills but only in the 50th percentile among that group on interpretation, that wouldn't warrant a 9.00 vs. a 5.00), or really think. I also notice that they very rarely provide specific examples of what they would do. I'd be very interested to hear some examples of where posters think such big differences should occur and the reasoning behind them. Sometimes I feel like skaters focus on the strongest areas of the stronger components and the weakest areas of the weaker components and that might exaggerate the difference. Patrick Chan with a lot of mistakes will probably have some momentary lapses in carriage and clarity of movement that might (for some) detract from the program more than the "percentage of time" that they are actually taking place. The particularly great and particular bad moments in a program would usually tend to stand out the most for obvious reasons, and maybe if they contribute more to the overall impression it wouldn't be unwarranted to weight them slightly more in the marks, but it's important not to forget the rest of the time also. But even if you do give the maybe 5% of the time a really good skater spends actually making mistakes on a really bad (technical, usually jump) day more than 5% weight, it it certainly shouldn't get 95% weight. The technical mark is already accounting for the mistakes and unless the skater completely gives up on the performance there are still probably going to be many positive qualities to the P&E mark.
     
    gkelly and (deleted member) like this.
  4. ciocio

    ciocio Active Member

    578
    38
    28
    Presentation, choreography, interpretation are subjective that's why IMO would be an improvement to put them together.
     
  5. skateboy

    skateboy Well-Known Member

    4,373
    918
    113
    The problem I have is the uniformity in which the 5 marks are often judged.

    I would defend the system more if I was seeing a real range of marks when deserved (i.e. SS = 5:00; CH = 8.25), but it almost never happens, even when it clearly should.
     
  6. rayhaneh

    rayhaneh New Member

    452
    102
    0
    Actually they are only partially subjective. And I don't think they are any more subjective than SS and, based on the way things have been judged at the highest level of late, Transitions. In fact, I'd argue that it is easier to assess the complexity of a choreography than the quality of SS, so I can't agree with your point
     
  7. gkelly

    gkelly Well-Known Member

    10,821
    2,414
    113
    Why does being subjective make it better to put them together?

    Why would it be preferable to 1) ask the judges to communicate less to us about their thought processes and 2) make it impossible for judges to show small distinctions between skaters on this set of criteria and allow them either the exact same mark or two adjacent marks that after factoring will have an effect of close to or more than a whole point?

    Make your case.

    Can you give an example of a performance that you think deserved SS = 5.00 and CH = 8.25, or similar gap between any two components, and explain why?

    Again, I ask that everyone who thinks they have a better approach give concrete examples of how that better approach would work. Convince us. Choose your own examples, or offer what you consider correct scoring to the examples I linked in post #27. I'd like to learn from others who have thought this through in detail.
     
  8. spikydurian

    spikydurian Well-Known Member

    2,701
    287
    83
    I like the debate in this thread. This thread should belong to the 'great debate' not trash can!
     
    TheIronLady and (deleted member) like this.
  9. ciocio

    ciocio Active Member

    578
    38
    28
    It is ok to have a gap between components. Maybe a skater has great SS but poor CH, or great IN, PE and lacks TR. This is how components should be scored according to the current rules.
    And I think less components will reduce somehow the subjectivity, even if I agree that it could also reduce the artistry.
     
  10. gkelly

    gkelly Well-Known Member

    10,821
    2,414
    113
    Why would fewer components reduce the subjectivity?

    I'm still waiting for someone to give examples of what would be a "correct" way to score these aspects of the program -- either according to the current rules, or under newer better rules.

    It's easy to say everyone else is doing it wrong. Not so easy to do it right, is it?
     
    RFOS and (deleted member) like this.
  11. julieann

    julieann Well-Known Member

    3,686
    345
    83
    How can you have great interpretation of poor choreography? They really go hand and hand. If it's interpreted well the choreography must have been good enough to convey the message from the skater to the judges.

    I can see having great choreography and poor execution. That happens all the time. I think the way everything is set up is fine, I think the judges need to be taught how to use it correctly through more education.
     
    alilou and (deleted member) like this.
  12. RFOS

    RFOS Well-Known Member

    2,437
    624
    113
    :respec:

    ETA: I'll try to get around to watching those programs later.
     
  13. gkelly

    gkelly Well-Known Member

    10,821
    2,414
    113
    The criteria for Choreography/Composition are:

    So I think it's possible that the skater could do a great job with using her body and the timing of her movements to reflect the phrasing and nuances of the music, and maybe even to convey a coherent point of view about the music. That would reflect positively on the Purpose and the Phrasing and Form criteria under Choreography, and probably Unity.

    But what if the program was significantly frontloaded or backloaded, the jumps were great but the spins were perfunctory or vice versa, everything was performed facing the judges, all the travel patterns were counterclockwise circles or straight lines from one end of the rink to the other, all the jumps were placed in the same two or three spots on the ice, all the spins were in the same spot, etc.

    And it's Carmen, using the same music cuts and arm gestures that hundreds of skaters have used before to interpret the same music. And the same steps and spin positions everyone uses to gain levels as easily as possible, just phrased better to the music than most.

    So the Proportion, Utilization of Personal and Public Space, Pattern and Ice Coverage, and Originality of Purpose, Movement, and Design criteria of the Choreography component are all far below what other skaters at this level are doing or what this skater is probably capable of.

    According to the Figure Skating definition of choreography, that would be a poorly choreographed program. It should be penalized in the Choreography component at the same time it's rewarded under Interpretation.

    The danger with combining those two components would be that instead of averaging out the good and bad aspects, each judge would either go too high if they're more impressed by the good aspects of the interpretation than annoyed by the bad aspects of the choreography, or too low if those bad aspects hit all their pet peeves.

    But even if the judge does come up with an averaged number based on balanced consideration of both the good and the bad aspects, the score won't tell the skater that she did a good job of interpreting music in a poorly laid out program. It will just tell her that her CH+IN were just pretty good overall.

    Why is it preferable NOT to give judges the option to communicate the more detailed assessment?
     
    alilou and (deleted member) like this.
  14. gkelly

    gkelly Well-Known Member

    10,821
    2,414
    113
    ETA:

    It's probably more common for a program to be well constructed but the skater not to make the most of interpreting the music, especially very early in the season when they're still thinking through what to do next, or on other occasions when it's important for them to put almost all their attention toward executing the technical content successfully.

    But rare skaters who are naturally musical may well interpret the heck out of a program that is poorly constructed spatially and temporally. In keeping with the 1994 Olympic ladies theme, I'd consider Oksana Baiul's freeskate to be an extreme example of that disparity.


    I'm wondering how many of the same people who are saying that Judges should give wider ranges between components for the same performance are also saying It would be better to combine the components.

    Those statements seem contradictory to me. If the problem is that there is a tool available to reflect differences between different aspects of the program, but many judges are not adequately reflecting those differences, wouldn't the next step be educating/encouraging the judges to use that tool better, rather than throwing the tool away?
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2013
  15. Jun Y

    Jun Y Well-Known Member

    1,141
    291
    83
    Perhaps the question is why the currently available tool that is supposed to reflect differences in distinct aspects of skating programs is not used to actually reflect those differences. I don't think we need to search for evidence that the component scores are not distinguishing differences in distinct aspects in skating performances. The question is why? Is it because judges are not trained well enough on the current definitions of program components? Or are the existing definitions poorly written and impossible to use effectively? Or the components are not the right components to begin with and should be recategorized? Or that it is in fact impossible to separate the various characteristics/aspects of skating into distinct categories because skating is better practiced and viewed as a whole? Is it ever possible to set up a tool or a standard that is intuitively usable, clear, objective, valid, and universally accepted in the skating community?

    I don't have an answer. I just think that we aren't even clear about what the questions are.

    I know insiders (e.g., judges) do not want the sport to be "dumbed down" to something that a casual viewer can judge as well as a trained experienced judge. I agree. The sport is complex and multifaceted and cannot be easily understood and assessed by a casual viewer who doesn't know the difference between a Choctaw and a Mohawk. However, I suggest that we not quickly dismiss the need for a judging system that is clear, CLEAR, as CLEAR AS POSSIBLE, that would allow for consistent and high-quality and FAIR judging in all levels of competitions over many, many years for all skaters.
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2013
    gkelly and (deleted member) like this.
  16. Aussie Willy

    Aussie Willy Well-Known Member

    18,142
    2,173
    113
    The problem with skating it is a very technical sport with a lot of intricacies and detail in every little thing a skater does. Becoming a good judge requires a lot of practise to learn to observe those and then evaluating them.

    I think there are those who want the system to be everything to everybody. Sorry but because of it's technical nature you are not going to get that. Maybe the skaters should do everything perfect so that it takes out of the equations the problems that judges are expected to pick up and then deduct for. Or all the coaches in the world teach every skater exactly the same thing so that they present elements and components exactly the same. But they don't and that is the reason why you need a system that is going to take all that lack of perfection into account.

    Skating is a bloody hard sport to get competency at. It is a sport that only a small percentage really excel at, but then you get various skill levels, techniques, abilities, interpretations below that. Some excellent, some good, some not so good and frankly some as just bad. Think of it as a triangle where that tip is your top and bottom is all those out there giving it a go. In the middle you will get varying degrees of skill and ability.

    So that is what your judging system is designed to do, to recognise the abilities of those who are at the top and then try to fit the others into the triangle somewhere. The only way you can do that is to evaluate with the human eye because no-one has come up with a system yet that can replace that. And because skating is not straightforward, your system is not going to be either.

    I think we need to put this into perspective as well. For all those who complain about it and get their knickers in a knot over whatever, it really is a first world problem.
     
  17. Susan M

    Susan M Well-Known Member

    1,542
    215
    63
    I voted for there is no right and wrong here, but I think I should have gone with needs a rewrite.

    You can't really say some judges do it right and others wrong because the panel numbers seem always to track pretty closely across the board.

    I think they need to do a complete re-think on PCS and what they are supposed to be trying to evaluate and reward.

    For starters, these were originally suppose to be the replacement for the presentation mark (more or less) yet the very first one, skating skills, is really a technical skill.

    Then you have the oddity of a separate mark which is really all about the work of the choreographer, who is not the competitor in the event. IMO, this is like giving the Best Screenplay Oscar to the lead actor in the film. This mark is not about how well the skater executes the choreo (that comes under Performance/ Execution) nor about how well it was executed in this particular event, but about the choreography itself. IMO this is really dumb. I would argue choreo and its execution really need to be combined, because they are supposed to be judging the athlete here, not the work of whoever he has paid to do his choreo.

    I also especially hate the idea of transitions as a component. Transitions in and of themselves are not of indefinite value. Where they are used to make an element entrance more difficult, they are already (appropriately) rewarded in the element score. Beyond that, they should not be rewarded for their own sake in a "more is better" manner. When I watch skating today, too often I think about Tim Gunn on Project Runway telling designers they need to edit. ("You have too many good ideas going on here" is my favorite.) There are some basic principles of good design that apply to pretty much all art, whether you are talking fashion design, choreography, painting, or designing a garden. One of those truisms is that more is not always better, and the ISU needs to stop encouraging choreographic clutter for its own sake. IMO they need to be evaluating these moves on their difficulty, the quality of their execution, and their effectiveness in enhancing the program, not marking based mostly on quantity like they do today. If that awkward leg grab is ugly and distracting, it should count against this mark, not add to it. really, I think I would prefer to see them just incorporate effective use of transitions into the Choreo/interpretation mark.

    They also need to reword all the elements to make sure they are always marking in the context of this particular performance.
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2013
    alilou, Cherub721, gkelly and 3 others like this.
  18. gkelly

    gkelly Well-Known Member

    10,821
    2,414
    113
    Good thoughts.

    So how would you suggest rewriting?

    Which of the criteria do you think should be thrown out and not count toward results at all? be defined differently? be rearranged and considered under a different part of the scoring?


    What concerns me most is the statement "these were originally suppose to be the replacement for the presentation mark (more or less) yet the very first one, skating skills, is really a technical skill."

    A very important technical skill, or rather set of technical skills, that is absolutely fundamental to the sport -- what makes this figure skating and not, say, gymnastics on ice.

    So where should actual skating skills be measured and rewarded? Especially everything that happens between the elements.
     
  19. Susan M

    Susan M Well-Known Member

    1,542
    215
    63
    Absolutely. This is the forest-trees dilemma that is a fundamental problem with the current judging system. By separating the big tricks into individually scored elements, that leaves a whole lot of the skating that is not getting a technical mark. They do need a place to score basic skating skills and the small stuff, but the current Skating Skills and Transitions marks are not doing that very well.
     
  20. gkelly

    gkelly Well-Known Member

    10,821
    2,414
    113
    Can we think of a better way to do it?

    Under 6.0, some of the between-element technical skills were considered in the technical merit mark. Earlier in the history of freeskating, when the elements were less important, the in-between skating counted for more there.

    But we're not going to go back to single jumps.

    Some aspects of the second mark (whether called Manner of Performance, Artistic Impression, Composition and Style, or Presentation) were entirely technical ("speed" in the days when that was a criterion of its own under the short program Presentation mark) or so dependent on technical aspects as to be almost directly proportional to technique (e.g., the "easy movement and sureness" part of "easy movement and sureness in time with the music").

    So if we wanted to design a new system that was neither 6.0 as practiced before IJS nor IJS as it is practiced now, where would be the right place to consider mastery of fundamental skating techniques?
     
  21. Jun Y

    Jun Y Well-Known Member

    1,141
    291
    83
    I have a sort of global question. Obviously we all agree figure skating is technical, and most of the aspects rewarded in competition, regardless of 6.0 or IJS system, are technical in different ways. Technical difficulty in jumps, in spins, in blade work ... Even skating to the timing of DIFFICULT music (varied tempo and mood would be more difficult to skate to than no change in tempo throughout) is technical. All fine and good and I agree. It's a competitive sport and we want to rank people by the degree of difficulty in what they do.

    So, how should the performance aspects be judged and rewarded as fairly as possile? Many issues that the casual viewer considers to be "artistic" are in fact also technical, such as skating precisely to the music and good posture and extension. Where aesthetics and techniques converge are easy to agree on. Hunched, laborious crossovers is both uglier and not as difficult as effortless, fast stroking. What I'm wondering about is whether skaters should be rewarded for comparatively simple but pleasing or moving things they do. For example, skating to elevator music but doing it well technically and hitting all the cues in the boring, overused music, versus skating to varied, subtle music and projecting to the audience with authentic feelings. The latter might not be technically more difficult but it is artistically more difficult (one could argue). Should the latter be rewarded beyond their technical skills and accomplishment?

    If your answer to the above question is yes, then we are opening a whole 'nother can of worms because such quality will always be subjective and nonuniversal, and an attempt to rank the "artistic" accomplishment will always be controversial and end up appealing to the "lowest common denominator" in a sport judged by consensus.

    Again, I don't have an answer. I'm just throwing it out there. My point is, I guess, that it is better to get it out there and have an open and honest discussion about the nature of the sport, and to admit the subjectivity and unquantifiability of some very important aspects. Just because some aspects are not rewarded, doesn't mean skaters will not try to express themselves and pursue artistic vision. I'd rather the community stop pretending that the judging system is achieving its claimed goals and purposes (neither system does) and the results are always rational and correct. To admit that it may be impossible to have a judging system that makes everyone happy and measures everything we want for skating is a necessary first step to build a better system.
     
  22. Jun Y

    Jun Y Well-Known Member

    1,141
    291
    83
    I have a sort of global question. Obviously we all agree figure skating is technical, and most of the aspects rewarded in competition, regardless of 6.0 or IJS system, are technical in different ways. Technical difficulty in jumps, in spins, in blade work ... Even skating to the timing of DIFFICULT music (varied tempo and mood would be more difficult to skate to than no change in tempo throughout) is technical. All fine and good and I agree. It's a competitive sport and we want to rank people by the degree of difficulty in what they do.

    So, how should the performance aspects be judged and rewarded as fairly as possile? Many issues that the casual viewer considers to be "artistic" are in fact also technical, such as skating precisely to the music and good posture and extension. Where aesthetics and techniques converge are easy to agree on. Hunched, laborious crossovers is both uglier and not as difficult as effortless, fast stroking. What I'm wondering about is whether skaters should be rewarded for comparatively simple but pleasing or moving things they do. For example, skating to elevator music but doing it well technically and hitting all the cues in the boring, overused music, versus skating to varied, subtle music and projecting to the audience with authentic feelings. The latter might not be technically more difficult but it is artistically more difficult (one could argue). Should the latter be rewarded beyond their technical skills and accomplishment?

    If your answer to the above question is yes, then we are opening a whole 'nother can of worms because such quality will always be subjective and nonuniversal, and an attempt to rank the "artistic" accomplishment will always be controversial and end up appealing to the "lowest common denominator" in a sport judged by consensus.

    Again, I don't have an answer. I'm just throwing it out there. My point is, I guess, that it is better to get it out there and have an open and honest discussion about the nature of the sport, and to admit the subjectivity and unquantifiability of some very important aspects. Just because some aspects are not rewarded, doesn't mean skaters will not try to express themselves and pursue artistic vision. I'd rather the community stop pretending that the judging system is achieving its claimed goals and purposes (neither system does) and the results are always rational and correct. To admit that it may be impossible to have a judging system that makes everyone happy and measures everything we want for skating is a necessary first step to build a better system.
     
    skateboy and (deleted member) like this.
  23. Aussie Willy

    Aussie Willy Well-Known Member

    18,142
    2,173
    113
    I have been saying this for ages.

    I am going to relate this to something that is near and dear to my heart which is the Heirachy of Control. It is a concept that is used in safety but I think it can equally be applied to why you will never get a judging system that makes everyone happy.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy_of_hazard_control

    To explain this, in our company we say anything that is Engineering and Isolation and above is an above the line control. Anything that is Administration and below is a below the line control.

    Okay if you were going to apply the top 3 controls here is how they would look in terms of skating judging.

    Eliminate - get rid of judging altogether.
    Substitute - find some other way to judge which is more fail safe. But how?
    Isolation and Engineering - not sure about isolation but the computer system goes some way to resolve this problem as it takes the calculations out of a person and hands it over to the computer. However the inputs that go into this are still based on a human decision making.
    Administration - what our judging system is principally based on

    The problem with Administrative controls is they are totally dependent on people doing the right things and following the procedures. Their success or otherwise is determined by skills, knowledge and training. Unfortunately with this level of control you also get people making mistakes because no-one is perfect and there are multiple personal judgements which also get applied. Also as the inputs into the system are principally decided by people so again you are subject to the same variations of attitude and perception.

    I think when you put judging in this context, you understand why it is the way it is. It is one of the reasons why I just don't get upset about results or even think there is a problem. Because no matter what system you put in place, unless you can get stronger above the line controls, you are never going to get a system that will keep everyone happy.
     
  24. Jun Y

    Jun Y Well-Known Member

    1,141
    291
    83
    Is it possible to create a judging system that makes everyone happy? Probably not.

    Is it possible to create a judging system that is more reliable and better for the competitive skating community than 6.0 and IJS in today's version? (It's been changing so much in the past decade that today's version resembles but is hardly the same as that of 2006 or 2010.) I hold out hope yes.

    I really think the construction of a rationale and fair judging system should be founded on past and present skaters' consensus, with experienced coaches' and choreographers' input, because skaters have the highest stakes. It is their bodies and health and livelihood that are at stake. They know better than most people what the consequence of many, many young girls attempting to practice Bielmann and many, many young boys practicing quad jumps for years and years is. I don't know how much input skaters have in the current IJS and its annual technical revisions. If they collectively have a very large say in this process and have no objections to the way program components are defined and applied regularly, then I am happy to take it as it is.
     
    spikydurian and (deleted member) like this.
  25. Aussie Willy

    Aussie Willy Well-Known Member

    18,142
    2,173
    113
    Sorry but I am not sure how that has anything to do with the judging system and how judges use it.

    However you want a system that looks after skater's health, then get rid of jumps, lifts, footwork and certain types of spins and people can just skated around in circles. It is a risky sport and it is not just top athletes that get injured but pretty much anyone who skates risks or suffers a major injury at one time or another. If you were going to do a risk assessment on the sport based on the heirachy of control link that I posted above, the sport would actually be banned.
     
  26. TheIronLady

    TheIronLady New Member

    1,520
    212
    0
    I have a question, particularly for the judges and IJS components experts. Let's say you put choreography and interpretation together into one category. Looking at the example of the ladies SP event in 2013 worlds as a case study, how could that change the scores given? Would it make any difference at all? If so how and why?
     
  27. gkelly

    gkelly Well-Known Member

    10,821
    2,414
    113
    What would admitting this mean?

    Should ISU officials put issue press releases, make statements when interviewed, etc., pointing out the fact that many of the evaluation are subject to human interpretation and opinion and therefore they acknowledge that no judging system will ever be completely objective or perceived as completely fair?

    Just stop emphasizing in their documentation and public statements the increased objectivity of the technical element score more clearly defined levels and video replay, because whenever they (over)praise the increased objectivity it gives the impression of making a false claim to greater objectivity than actually exists?

    Change details of the scoring itself to avoid claims (or the impression thereof) of greater precision than actually exists? E.g., continue using all decimal places for the calculations of second-half bonuses, jump sequence multiplier, PCS factors, and averaging of the judging panel's marks, but then round only to tenths, not to hundredths, in the final scores and accept a small increase in the number of ties?

    Change the rules or the wording of the rules to get rid of anything that seems to be based purely on aesthetic or emotional considerations without at least representing greater technical mastery required to achieve that effect?

    But suppose the written rules completely ignore rewards for things like "emotional and intellectual involvement" or "style and individuality/personality" or "Purpose (idea, concept, vision)" and the ISU requests that commentators refrain from using words like "artistic" and dissuade judges from rewarding anything not based in technique that lifts a performance into an artistic realm. As long as any skaters choose to go beyond just showing they skate with good form in time to their chosen music, fans will continue to enjoy those who do. And so will judges. And so there will always be suspicion that artistic matters that are not part of the written criteria are influencing the judging.

    Sort of the way costumes do (or are perceived to) now. There's nothing in the rules about considering costumes in the scoring, aside from certain deductions. But many skaters and fans enjoy clothing that's more designed than simple practice gear and enjoy self-expression in that area. And visual presentation that makes a better impression on judges does tend to correlate with higher scores.

    So even if the ISU officially says that costumes don't count, artistry doesn't count, all the criteria are about different ways of measuring different kinds of technical skills, there would still be some level of impression that those things do matter to the results.

    You could get rid of some of the confounding effects of music by getting rid of it entirely during competition -- save it for show skating/exhibitions. But then it's harder to judge the skaters' technical control of the timing of their movements.
     
  28. skateboy

    skateboy Well-Known Member

    4,373
    918
    113
    I think this is a valid question.
     
    TheIronLady and (deleted member) like this.
  29. gkelly

    gkelly Well-Known Member

    10,821
    2,414
    113
    I don't think we can answer that question definitively.

    At best we could say "This is how I would have scored those programs with the current five components, and this is how I would score them differently with combined components." I don't think we can guess how the actual judges on the panel would have scored differently if the rules had been different.
     
  30. skateboy

    skateboy Well-Known Member

    4,373
    918
    113
    gkelly, this is a wonderful discussion. Unfortunately, I cannot answer your question in a satisfactory manner, because I dislike IJS and would not add anything particularly meaningful. (My own opinion: I believe 6.0 could have been adjusted to work, rather than tossed aside. But I know it's not coming back.)

    I will say this: one of the things I (intensely) dislike about IJS is the extreme dissection of the skating. To me, that is the job of a coach, not the judges. It has very little to do with the performance itself. People argue that IJS provides the skaters with an idea of what they need to work on. Again, the job of a coach.

    I DO understand IJS, as I have gone to great lengths to do so. In the end, I just don't like it. No offense intended, JMO.
     
    Maofan7 and (deleted member) like this.