Discussion in 'The Trash Can' started by Maofan7, Mar 19, 2013.
I'd be very much interested in reading it !
So would I and I think it'd be a help for many people to understand the history of the sport better. Watching skating competitions from the past decades would become better if one could understand why skaters were judged a certain way. The rules keep changing and you can't find every peace of information, so it would be easier to find if there would be one complete source of correct information.
Thanks for the info, floskate.
This is what I'd like to know--before COP, was there ever "detailed" scoring in the technical mark of a non-figures segment, or just a single score from each judge? E.g., Skater A gets a 5.4 for technical merit, don't bother to ask why.
This is an interesting one. There was a book - hate to suggest maybe Brennan? - that showed a judges notes from a US Nationals IIRC. They made notes of all elements completed and scored based on the content. However there was no adding up of elements whereby a 7 triple ladies program complete with centred spins and a quick step sequence = 5.9. I do remember lots of cryptic comments from commentators saying that a skater wouldn't get 'full credit' for an element if it was 2footed or not totally clean, but it was never made clear how this actually came about.
Thanks--that's helpful, floskate.
I personally think there should be someone who officially enumerates all the elements for the judges to see, BUT I don't think there should be any points explicitly added up on paper. I think the judges should each look at the list of elements completed and give out a technical-merit mark that is not an absolute mark but a relative one. Under the current system, the judges can't see the forest for all the trees, it seems. However, it seems that it's fairly straightforward for judges to decide, "OK, Skater C was better in technical merit than Skater E, but not better than Skater B, etc."
Try anyway. Please! I can't think of anywhere where there is a history of judging and how it worked, except for a quick paragraph in one of the 1990s books (Brennan?) that covered the basics of 6.0. I think it went over the Nancy/Oksana outcome, but that was all.
Truer words were never spoken. I have a looooong list of people I want to interview, and wish I had the resources (time/money) to do it weekly instead of monthly. (The PSA Conference is here in May, and I'm getting as many people as I can while they are here). If you have contact information on anyone, I'm glad to take it and do my best to get an interview done.
Separate names with a comma.