Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 38 of 38
  1. #21
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    672
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    kinda of agree with article--but figure skating bias goes a bit further than natural bias .

  2. #22
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    11,012
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    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.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    244
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by Ziggy View Post
    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 ). When the correlations they got have been checked mathematically, it turned out a lot of them have been impossible to achieve.
    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-e...-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".

  4. #24
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,052
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    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 by Jun Y; 11-05-2010 at 08:54 PM.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Central California
    Posts
    3,300
    vCash
    402
    Rep Power
    4341
    Quote Originally Posted by BreakfastClub View Post
    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).

    <snip>

    Ah, 6.0, where did you go?

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

    Returning to 6.0 will never happen! The cheating that was prevalent with that system spelled the deathknell to it. Unfortunate but inevitable.
    There is nothing more captivating in this world than a woman's form gracing the ice in skating boots. It's simply sensational!

  6. #26
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    “It is far more important to have a good judge than a possible conflict of interest." - Ottavio Cinquanta
    Posts
    1,635
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    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.

  7. #27
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    4,340
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by query5 View Post
    kinda of agree with article--but figure skating bias goes a bit further than natural bias .



    Quote Originally Posted by leafygreens View Post
    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.
    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.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Age
    48
    Posts
    17,933
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    33055
    Quote Originally Posted by zaphyre14 View Post
    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.
    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.
    When you are up to your arse in alligators it is difficult to remember you were only meant to be draining the swamp.

  9. #29
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Two-foot skating = BAD
    Posts
    20,463
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Zaphyre14, I'm not sure what you've seen but at competitions judges use normal size monitors (I'd guess "17).

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    53
    Posts
    10,453
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    20970
    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.

  11. #31

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    132
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    831
    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.

  12. #32
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    236
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by BreakfastClub View Post
    Go back to 6.0 and crack down on the cheating.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by BreakfastClub View Post
    ...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....
    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!

    Quote Originally Posted by Ziggy View Post
    6.0 meant that the majority of what skaters did on the ice did not count and was not taken into consideration.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ziggy View Post
    With CoP at least they know what they are marked for.
    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."

    Quote Originally Posted by Ziggy View Post
    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 ). When the correlations they got have been checked mathematically, it turned out a lot of them have been impossible to achieve.
    What in hell are you talking about? Can you be more specific? Cognitive science was never wholly dismissed as "methodologically unsound." And where does this reference to mathematics come from?

    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    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.
    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. (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.

  13. #33
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Two-foot skating = BAD
    Posts
    20,463
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by PUNKPRINCESS View Post
    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by PUNKPRINCESS View Post
    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."
    Well, if you read the criteria you would find out.

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by PUNKPRINCESS View Post
    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.
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by PUNKPRINCESS View Post
    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.
    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.

  14. #34
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    236
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Ziggy View Post
    Have you already forgotten how non-jump elements looked before CoP?
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ziggy View Post
    Under 6.0, the judges only considered the jumps...
    So not true.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ziggy View Post
    ...(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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ziggy View Post
    Well, if you read the criteria you would find out.

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


    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.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Ziggy View Post
    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ziggy View Post
    Patrick Chan excels on all the PCS aspects and not just skating skills.
    Oh yes. But not at Skate Canada 2010 during his SP, I hope. Because if that is "excelling", then I am truly scared.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ziggy View Post
    Gauge how?
    Make broader categorizations of criteria to read and judge by. As I gave in my explanation in my previous post.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ziggy View Post
    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.
    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.

  15. #35
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    There's one near you!!! :)
    Posts
    3,952
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Ziggy View Post
    It would help [to have separate panels of judges] but with ISU keeping making all the cutbacks... No chance, yep.
    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.

  16. #36
    Spin Alissa Spin!!!
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Age
    52
    Posts
    3,657
    vCash
    565
    Rep Power
    9248
    I agree. I've always liked the idea of seperate judging panels for TES and PCS.

  17. #37

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Cuddling the sheep smilie
    Posts
    8,983
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    6476
    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.

  18. #38
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,945
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Ziggy View Post
    Have you already forgotten how non-jump elements looked before CoP?
    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.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •