# Question about 6.0 and 1992 Worlds

Discussion in 'The Trash Can' started by kappa_1, Dec 20, 2010.

1. ### kappa_1Active Member

364
121
43
So I'm pretty sure the Ladies' 1992 Worlds LP has been discussed here and on other threads before, especially since Hubert was the victim of come weird ordinal flip, but I've never understood the math behind it...

...I didn't start watching skating until around 2001, so can someone explain to me how the 6.0 system evolved throughout the years? Specifically, did the criteria for ranking skaters change between when it was first introduced to when it died in 2004?

I was watching the 1992 Worlds ladies' LP and thought about this. It wasn't a very well skated competition. I about Hubert throwing in an illegal 3T which she fell on at the end.

Thanks!

2. ### gkellyWell-Known Member

12,463
5,124
113
There were a number of changes in the scoring and in the structure of competitions over the years.

The most significant changes for singles skating would be the reductions of the value of school figures compared to freeskating at various times, and also

1972-73 introduction of the short program
1980-81 change from judges ranking skaters for the whole competition to factored placements for each phase
1990-91 elimination of school figures
1998-99 change from majority ordinal to OBO (one-by-one) calculations)
2004-05 change from 6.0 scoring to IJS

As to criteria by which judges ranked the skaters within each phase of competition under 6.0, that was constantly evolving and varied not only across time but also from one geographic/cultural group of judges to another, and between individual judges.

3. ### kappa_1Active Member

364
121
43
Thanks, gkelly! Do you remember why that weird ordinal flip situation happened in '92?

4. ### smarts1Well-Known Member

2,362
411
83
^ What exactly was weird about that ordinal flip? Didn't ordinal flips happen all the time under the 6.0 system?

5. ### kappa_1Active Member

364
121
43
^Sure, I just remember posters discussing this particular one for some reason.

6. ### SeerekWell-Known Member

4,209
918
113
I'm not sure about the specifics, but I believe Nancy Kerrigan was initially behind Laetitia Hubert in the Original Program, but Tonya Harding caused a flip in the standings late in the draw, bumping Hubert from originally in 3rd place to 5th place overall.

The ordinals were extremely messy outside of Kristi Yamaguchi and Lu Chen with Kerrigan, Harding, Hubert, Chouinard and Preston all having varied ordinals from 3-8

7. ### Aussie WillyHates both vegemite and peanut butter

19,415
4,241
113
Makes me realise why COP is so much better. At least you can understand it!

8. ### zigzigWell-Known Member

398
281
63
What exactly was the one by one system?

9. ### gkellyWell-Known Member

12,463
5,124
113
The judges did exactly the same thing they always did, but the accounting algorithms to crunch the numbers were different and occasionally produced different results than majority calculations would.

Lots of detail here: http://www.frogsonice.com/skateweb/obo/

Read the "OBO: A Detailed Analysis" for the fullest explanation.

10. ### CaptCrunchNew Member

1,130
38
0
I'm pretty sure one by one was not in place back in 1992. It came to be much later.

The mens event at 97 Europeans had some flip-flops as well. Candelero was 4th before the last skater, Vlaschenko, and after Vlaschenko had skated he moved to 2nd. Flip-flops were caused because the ordinals were all over the board.

93 US Nationals ladies LP was another event with flip-flops. Before Lisa Ervin skated Tony Harding was ahead of Tonia Kwiatkowski but after Ervin's skate Harding dropped behind Tonia K. The two ended up finishing 3rd and 4th so Harding ended up missing the world team because of it.

11. ### gkellyWell-Known Member

12,463
5,124
113
Right. It was first used in 1998, as I mentioned in post 2 of this thread.

The flipflops came from both the ordinal majorities changing in the long program standings and also the factored placements changing between short and long program.

And this was the reason that OBO was invented. There was a lot of confusion at that event on the part of the media and the speedskater who headed the ISU. So he (Cinquanta) pressed for scoring changes that would eliminate or at least reduce the possiblity of flipflops. It did reduce the likelihood of ordinal flipflops within the same program, but not by that much. It didn't address the factored placement issues at all.

All this is detailed at the link I gave in post 9.

12. ### museksk8rHolding an edge and looking dangerously sexy

3,319
554
113
This was such a poorly skated event in the ladies' discipline. Aside from Yamaguchi, it was a total splatfest and an utterly forgettable competition. To see Kerrigan's performance without seeing the rest of the competition, you'd be totally shocked to learn that she won a silver medal with such a crappy skate.

13. ### kappa_1Active Member

364
121
43
Yah, I hadn't watched it in a while and was ready to wuzrob Lulu when I got reminded she won bronze. But then I re-watched her performance and was reminded she was very lucky to get a medal.

14. ### gkellyWell-Known Member

12,463
5,124
113
Here's a nice performance from that Worlds, albeit without the highest jump content.

bardtoob and (deleted member) like this.
15. ### CocoWell-Known Member

12,415
3,848
113
Wow!!! That was fantastic, thanks!

ETA: loved the alternating outside edge spread eagles into the final 2a!

16. ### SeerekWell-Known Member

4,209
918
113
Frankly, considering how many of the ladies in the final group skated, Alice Sue Claeys probably should have been even higher than 7th in the long program segment.