O and if you go back and look again, I think the coaches
You name have more then one team they are coaching
Yes - bring back the 6.0 system (either as was or with improvements)
Yes - but replace it with a completely new marking system (i.e. not the 6.0 system)
O and if you go back and look again, I think the coaches
You name have more then one team they are coaching
I can't speak for anyone else, but for me the thing that bothers me is that skating had a chance to publicly fix itself after SLC. They could have dealt with what everyone "suspected" was going on. But they didn't. They ignored the real problem and changed the "system", claiming it would make it more difficult to judge with bias or make deals. For me that is ludicrous. That is admitting there is a problem with integrity, but not dealing with it. Any system can be manipulated, it may take some time to figure it out, but it can be done. There was never anything wrong with the math. Are there better ways of creating scores? Sure, but that was not the problem. It was the human beings using the math, that were the problem. It hurts skaters and it hurts the honest judges. It made all judges suspect, and that is not true.
Last edited by cruisin; 02-21-2012 at 05:02 PM.
Established pros.:Hamilton and yamaguchi were "once in a lifetime" pro skaters who showed a dedication and passion unheard of before and after them. throw in Wylie and wow.
Recent Olympians: class of 94 was unique in that it coupled established pros with having been recently seen at the olys so bringing in new viewers. Boitano, Witt, t&d and g&g we're also amazing stars who showed an amazing transition from eligable to pro. Couple that with skaters like baiul (who's one of the most charismatic skaters to ever lace up), sato, u&z, browning, and kerrigan (who was popular and had endorsements out the wazoo pre-whack) and you truly have an all star cast people want to see.
Class of 98 was filled with duds IMHO (tara, chen, candeloro, k&d, a g&p that never was) so it's no wonder sales declined.
The bubble may have been controlling things, but the embarasment of great skaters 94-98 followed by the 98-02 skaters that were frankly, just embarrassing, really helped it along.
Well then "let's just say" I've experienced CoP from both sides. Protests have happened other than SLC, they just haven't been as public because it wasn't the Olympics. Perhaps "justify" was the wrong word to use in terms of explaining marks to a skater, but it's absolutely not uncommon for a skater to ask a judge or referee to give feedback about competition marks so they can improve. Calling that "making excuses" shows you have absolutely no interest in seeing the judges or the judging system as anything other than corrupt and out to deliberately ruin the chances of your favourite skater.Let's just say I have insight. Are you any of the above? Understanding CoP is one thing. Understanding the actual implementation of any judging system can be quite another. No one protests results (except for SLC Olympics), no one wants to go up against the judges. When has an official ever had to justify their marks to a skater? They might, if requested, explain the marks/critique the skater (AKA make excuses), but justify - please. They may have to explain themselves to a referee, but that doesn't change the marks. And I've never seen a judge penalized for questionable results (again, with the exception of SLC Olympics).
Judges have absolutely been penalized for questionable results and stripped of their credentials outside SLC--again, simply not as public because it wasn't on the Olympic stage. The judging world is large.
Anything can be manipulated if enough effort is put forth. But manipulating CoP and getting away with it is unbelievably difficult, and there really isn't much point. It's easy to pick a judge or a few judges who have an agenda out of a line-up on the protocols. Seeing 9 judges give the same scores might mean *gasp* they actually all saw the same thing on the ice, not that they all got together to decide their scores beforehand in some kind of deal. Contrary to popular belief, every result that people don't agree with is not the consequence of a mass manipulation or conspiracy plan. If people continually don't understand why their skaters are scored a certain way, they need to go to the effort of REALLY learning how the system works before calling for it to be revamped or done away with.I will say this again, there are many judges who are fair and try to do their best without bias. But, anyone who thinks that CoP cannot be manipulated is naive.
Here's what I hate about this whole argument. It always goes like this:
Someone says: CoP has some very real problems.
The response is then loudly screamed: SO DID 6.0!
And that really isn't a valid argument. Saying that CoP has not solved the issue of biased judging or that it has weaknesses that may be hurting skating is not saying that 6.0 was a perfect system. In fact, I see a lot of posters who are not claiming 6.0 was flawless or even bringing it up at all. Throwing out the "6.0 was flawed, too!" retort is a logical fallacy. Because one system was flawed, it is not then okay that its replacement is flawed.
There are a lot of fans who would like to see improvements in judging. Why can't that discussion take place without the pointless 6.0 argument?
Yes, cop 6.0... Blah blah ... What have we learned here. To answer your question Maofan7.. What the ISU did was indeed put a bandage over the problem. If you don't
Get rid of the cancer and prevent it from coming back... It's going to continue to grow.
And it is still growing very productively. Yes yes yes... You can easily corrupt this new
System and guess what it's not that hard to do. I have plainly seen it and a skater lost
By 2 points because of it. Reporting misconduct? It happens and yes , I know of letters
That have been written. But it still does nothing dramatic to change the system.
The cancer must be cut out first !! Or no system will ever work. So sorry the bandage is
Already half off.
^^ PDilemma, I totally agree. There are/were good points to both systems. Neither one was/is perfect. Judging is flawed. It was under 6.0 and it is under CoP. The only difference is that it was more apparent under 6.0.
Luna_skater, I don't have a chip on my shoulder . And I have witnessed judges getting lectured by referees after an event. But, they still judge. And the unfair marks don't change.
As to skaters getting feedback from judges after events. Of course they ask why they were rewarded for XYZ and penalized for ABC. I have seen situations where skaters were penalized for a move for some bizarre reason, then at the next competition they are rewarded and praised for the same move. Told to take something out by one judge, told to leave it in by another. Where is the consistency?
It does not take that much effort to manipulate CoP. Math is math. The system is not rocket science.
There are plenty of judges (I would even grant, the majority) who judge what they see at any given competition. But, at major competitions, the judges go to practices. The judges have their own room, where they have hospitality. Do you honestly believe that they do not discuss the practices? Do you honestly believe that they are not influenced by other judges? Whether that influence is getting a judge to score according to an agenda or according to what another judges sees as better, it is what it is. Do you honestly believe that judges do not judge based on prior skates? That skaters are not held up based on reputation? When a panel is judging at Nationals, do you think that in the back of their minds they are thinking - who do we want to send to Worlds or the Olympics? Do they want to send a skater who just happens to have the skate of a lifetime, that day, or do they want to send a skater who is consistent and well known, but who happened to have a bad skate that day? Do you not think that judges politick/persuade for their preferred skater?
The ISU .... Hates hates hates controversy .. They do not want any scandals small or large. They do what they can to minimize the problem and make it go away ASAP .
You say judges have been penalized for questioning results... That's why most shut their
Mouth and just conform.
Crusin ,you forgot the dinners with heads of federation and discret meeting places to talk.
The initial post in this thread quoted an article that pulled together a bunch of criticisms and musings about, largely unrelated to each other, and asked "So, has the medicine done more damage than the original disease and is it time for COP/IJS to go?"
The poll, in response to the question "Is it time to get rid of COP/IJS?," offers the option of keeping the current system ("No" answer, with no elaboration, i.e., keep it as is), returning to 6.0, or rejecting both and coming up with a whole new system from scratch.
It seems to me a better way to address the question would be to ask what problems that we know existed under 6.0 as well have not been solved by introducing the new system and what might be some good ways to address them in the present context, without another massive overhaul of the scoring system.
And, separately, what problems have been introduced by IJS and how can they be addressed within the system, or are they so inherent in the approach to scoring that they could never be solved without scrapping the current system entirely?
And I think discussion of corruption in judging (under any judging system) probably belongs in a different thread (and a different newspaper article) from discussion of the aesthetic appeal of the programs, for example.
It's really too bad that the 2002 scandal caused the back-burner plan to update the method of evaluating the actual skating to be rushed into adoption along with other unrelated changes such as making judges anonymous. It seems impossible to keep the separate changes straight and evaluate them each on their own merits because they happened at the same time.
Maybe we can start a few different new threads:
*Have the introduction of the IJS and of anonymous judging at the international level improved the level of corruption? If not, what might be good steps the ISU could take to address the ongoing corruption?
*Has the IJS made skating programs less appealing to fans and/or skaters themselves? What changes could make them more appealing again?
*Has the IJS made the scoring harder for fans or skaters to understand? If so, how could it be made clearer?
Possible solutions to each of those questions might be 1) go back to 6.0 scoring exactly as it was practiced as of 2002; 2) start with 6.0 ca. 2002 and make X changes; 3) keep IJS exactly as it is practiced in 2012; 4) start with IJS as it is now practiced and make Y changes; 5) throw out both systems and start from scratch -- here's Z example of a new approach that might work better.
Of course, what happens if, for example, we decide that 2) would be the best approach for addressing corruption and 4) would be the best approach for making the scoring understandable?
Yes, I witnessed a deduct for an illegal lift, and That same lift was
Used at a prior event not long ago . And there was no deduction from the panel?
We are getting so upset lol... Do you think the ISU give a shit! NO
gkelly, good post. Reasoned and productive. I'm not sure (right off the top of my head) what the best solution is. I'm not sure that 6.0 was adequate. The first system changes: putting 15 on a panel, making the judges anonymous, dumping 6 random scores, and listing the two marks in numerical order, so that they were not necessarily one judge's scores side by side, was an abysmal failure. CoP seems too abstract, but it could be worked on. And I am not sure that the technical controller/specialist method is good. I certainly do not agree that they should be working coaches. I do not like the required element aspect, to the degree it has become implemented. I also don't like that pure skating is not rewarded as much as it should be. Too much emphasis is being placed on tricks. There is athleticism in artistry. There is value in technique and good edges. We need to bring some of that back.
Cruisin , I am with you 100%... From an international judges perspective. Not me of course
But close enough to me to know. You are right!!
My problem with some of the arguments being put here is that they paint all officials with the same tainted brush. They do not take into account that it is a minority who are a problem, not the majority. But it is like the old customer service adage - if you get good service you tell one person, if you get bad service you will tell 12. In this case, people are going to scream loudest about the negatives, not the positives.
Under any judging system, regardless of how it is used and otherwise, it is not the system that is the problem, it is people and how it is applied. And as figure skating is judged by people, you are always going to have problems.
If you were to do an objective audit of both IJS and 6.0, IJS would win hands down as the more robust, transparent and accountable system. However the analysis though would always come down hard on the the lowest form of control which is your Administration level.
When you are up to your arse in alligators it is difficult to remember you were only meant to be draining the swamp.
No it's about even.
Maybe you should go to an international level
For Australia .. The judge is very honest at that level
I can say that for sure