Monica Friedlander: "International Skating Union Now Officially a Dictatorship"

[Nomad]

^ IOW, go back to 6.0?

[judiz]

^ IOW, go back to 6.0?

No, because 6.0 didn't explain how the score was decided, but if the viewers are told a skater's routine has a start value of 198.50 and at the end of the routine, the score is posted as 185.00, the viewer knows how many points were deducted for skills left out, falls or under-rotations. In the current system, the casual viewer cannot follow how a skater could fall on a jump, slide across the ice and still wind up on the podium.

I know my idea needs a lot of tweaking and probably doesn't make sense to most but the idea came to me watching the women's olympic trials last weekend, I had no trouble following the scoring in the gymnastics.

[Vagabond]

I know my idea needs a lot of tweaking and probably doesn't make sense to most but the idea came to me watching the women's olympic trials last weekend, I had no trouble following the scoring in the gymnastics.

It's entirely unrealistic to apply the sort of judging system to a Men's Free Skate that lasts four minutes and thirty seconds as is applied to a gymnastics vault that takes about six seconds to execute. Unless, of course, you want to eliminate scoring for interpretation, choreography, performance, and execution.

[Morry Stillwell]

It's entirely unrealistic to apply the sort of judging system to a Men's Free Skate that lasts four minutes and thirty seconds as is applied to a gymnastics vault that takes about six seconds to execute. Unless, of course, you want to eliminate scoring for interpretation, choreography, performance, and execution.

Also, the gymnastics valt starts with a base value and the judges only apply deductions.

[judiz]

Concede it was a stupid idea

[kwanfan1818]

There's no reason to diminish +GOE on the technical side to dumb it down for the audience. The commentators could just as easily say that the planned base value is X, and when the technical scores come up, compare planned to earned for TES, and then compare components maximum (50, 40, 100, 80, etc.) for that discipline and segment.

To the left of the data provided on the host feed, they could publish something like this, with proper formatting:
(Example, Ashley Wagner's FS at Nice)

SB: 128.34

Planned: Executed:

TES: 57.70 62.91

PCS: 80.00 57.44

Total 137.44 120.61

Alternately, and probably more easily understood

Planned: Executed:

TES: 57.70 62.91 +5.21

PCS avg: 7.18 of 10

[Mathman]

No, I like your first idea better:

Planned PCS: 80.00 (The best laid plans of mice and men...)

In general, though, about changing figure skating scoring to make it more like scoring in gymnastics, or diving, or equestrian, or trampoline -- I think that spotlights the problem. These sports do not aspire to attract viewers and spectators.

[kwanfan1818]

80 doesn't mean anything to the average viewer, though, especially since it's 80 for the Ladies and Pairs FS, but 40 for Ladies and Pairs SP, but 100 for the Men's FS and 50 for Men's SP, and then who knows in Ice Dance with the different weightings per component. People understand that Men do harder jumps, and their base will likely be higher, although if Mao Asada rotates her 3A, she gets the same base as Patrick Chan, but why is it again that Men get 20% more points for the exact same criteria for components?

I think average on a scale of 1-10 is easily understood by both the average fan and the , since, for the most part, PCS are marked in such a narrow range by each judge, and seeing the SS mark is a great predictor of the rest.

ETA: I think it's possible to present the existing IJS scoring in a way that makes it more understandable for those watching on TV, and gives the commentators data points to work with. When they make the same comparisons over and over, it's a teaching tool. It only takes a few gymnasts worth to get the drift. They don't have to change the scoring system at all.

[gingercrush]

Hmm she has written another article

http://www.examiner.com/article/arti...ut-skaters-say

[judiz]

She's written many articles, mostly for Blades on Ice and other skating magazines.

[bmcg]

Hmm she has written another article

http://www.examiner.com/article/arti...ut-skaters-say

It´s interesting that she uses Toller Cranston to help prove her point and in the previous article used Patrick Chan as an example of all that is wrong with the new system because I don't think Toller is thinking of Patrick Chan in those comments. Toller has been very complimentary towards Chan.

[Morry Stillwell]

It´s interesting that she uses Toller Cranston to help prove her point and in the previous article used Patrick Chan as an example of all that is wrong with the new system because I don't think Toller is thinking of Patrick Chan in those comments. Toller has been very complimentary towards Chan.

If she realy knew much about the rules. she would be commenting on the requirments for a well ballance program. The WBP specifies the requiments while IJS only rules on how the WBP is evaluated. That may too deep for the writer to understand. WBPs have continued to be modifed each year and have nothing to do with the system of evaluation. Yes, as I judge I like IJS and we still use 6.0 for lower level catagories in the United States. I do not mind switching back and forth.

I seems that many comments on this subject have been based on watching a competition on TV. There is a much different impression when viewed rinkside or from the judges hot seat. The good here is that we do not have to listen to "talking heads" drivel and must make our own decisions.

[tralfamadorian]

I am curious about the Japanese or Russian commentators. Two countries where figure skating is very popular, especially, Japan. Do their commentators explain the judging system to the audience? If they do, is that what the sport is so popular? I don't think so. Maybe our Russian and Japanese speaking members can weigh in and let us know what the commentators comment on during competition in their countries.

My Russian is very limited and I've only watched Russian commentary when Zhulin was there () but based on those couple of times it's clear that the people in the commentary box can see the judges scores come up real time and they know the score before it comes up on the screen, they can also see the level calls of the tech panel already during the performance and also if something was marked for review. Not that they need the latter because they can see with their own eyes if a twizzle was three-turned or a step sequence not clean, etc.
I don't know if it's the same for the other disciplines (I assume it is), but it is for sure way more informative to watch with that kind of commentary and I wish everyone did it that way. (It would also go a long way convincing people that fs is not a fixed beauty contest but that there are actually some objective technical requirements/mistakes that the experts can in fact see.)

[bmcg]

If she realy knew much about the rules. she would be commenting on the requirments for a well ballance program. The WBP specifies the requiments while IJS only rules on how the WBP is evaluated. That may too deep for the writer to understand. WBPs have continued to be modifed each year and have nothing to do with the system of evaluation. Yes, as I judge I like IJS and we still use 6.0 for lower level catagories in the United States. I do not mind switching back and forth.

I seems that many comments on this subject have been based on watching a competition on TV. There is a much different impression when viewed rinkside or from the judges hot seat. The good here is that we do not have to listen to "talking heads" drivel and must make our own decisions.

Bolded that part because it has always amused me how some critics of IJS will say in disgust how the system caters to certain skaters. How a skater won because they checked all the boxes as if it's a bad thing.

The way I see the system is that it rewards a skater who can jump well, spin well, skate well, do difficult turns and steps well, distributes their jump elements well throughout their program, has good choreography, performs well.... Isn't that a good thing?

[overedge]

From the new article:

the current world champion, Patrick Chan, who has benefitted the most from the new system

"Benefitted the most"? That's debatable. Many other skaters have done very well under the new system too.

When the ISU set out to devise a new system in 2002 it was tasked with devising a new way to judge – not a new sport. With their actions they grossly overstepped their authority and desecrated the sport they were entrusted with preserving.

Maybe this "journalist" should do some research into why the changes came about. Nobody oversees the ISU, so no one "tasked" the ISU with anything. And even if you don't like what the ISU did, they did not overstep their authority, because there isn't a higher authority they are accountable to.

[BreakfastClub]

It's entirely unrealistic to apply the sort of judging system to a Men's Free Skate that lasts four minutes and thirty seconds as is applied to a gymnastics vault that takes about six seconds to execute. Unless, of course, you want to eliminate scoring for interpretation, choreography, performance, and execution.

No it's not. Vault is the exception. Other gymn apparatus allow up to 8 scoring elements for women and 10 for men and then they get bonuses for connections and variety. Skating SPs only have 7 scoring elements - less than a any beam, floor, high bar, p-bars, etc. routine. Free skates have 11 (ladies) or 13 (men), not much more than men's gymn routine.

[Aussie Willy]

My Russian is very limited and I've only watched Russian commentary when Zhulin was there () but based on those couple of times it's clear that the people in the commentary box can see the judges scores come up real time and they know the score before it comes up on the screen, they can also see the level calls of the tech panel already during the performance and also if something was marked for review. Not that they need the latter because they can see with their own eyes if a twizzle was three-turned or a step sequence not clean, etc.
I don't know if it's the same for the other disciplines (I assume it is), but it is for sure way more informative to watch with that kind of commentary and I wish everyone did it that way. (It would also go a long way convincing people that fs is not a fixed beauty contest but that there are actually some objective technical requirements/mistakes that the experts can in fact see.)

I have found the British commentators on Eurosport are very good. They have that information too so can provide informed commentary on the levels and why skaters do well or not so well. But they call it as they see it, rather than talk about perceptions of the system.

[allezfred]

I am curious about the Japanese or Russian commentators. Two countries where figure skating is very popular, especially, Japan. Do their commentators explain the judging system to the audience? If they do, is that what the sport is so popular?

Can't speak for Russia, but it's popular in Japan because they have a generation of superstar skaters first and foremost. Otherwise you wouldn't have three or four Japanese TV networks flinging money at the ISU for the broadcast rights to various events.

TV commentators in Japan have always tended to be very unbiased. Generally, they'll explain why they think a certain skater received the marks they did rather than just stating that they think the marking is right or wrong. That hasn't changed between when it was 6.0 and IJS.

They certainly do a lot better at getting the average viewer to understand how IJS works. I've seen them give benchmarks, ie 60 points for a ladies SP is a pretty good score.

I think giving too much information is a turnoff. Keep it simple innit.

[Zemgirl]

Friedlander's new article is no better than the previous one; would it kill her to link to the articles she's referring to? As a science writer she should know better. And this was just :

For the first time in the history of figure skating, a change in the judging system has not only changed the way skating is measured, but also the way it is performed.

I mean, didn't doing away with figures represent a major change in how skating was measured and performed?

Obviously there's plenty to discuss about the merits of the system and its weaker points, but less hyperbole and more factual discussion are better.

I would not blame the US commentators for the delcine in FS in the US, yes maybe they do not explain the system to the audience but if they did can we really say that FS would become popular again.

I have found the British commentators on Eurosport are very good. They have that information too so can provide informed commentary on the levels and why skaters do well or not so well. But they call it as they see it, rather than talk about perceptions of the system.

I wrote earlier that some of the decline in skating popularity have more to do with changes in the way people consume media and entertainment, and I don't know if skating can or will get back to the level of popularity it once enjoyed in the US; probably not. But still, American commentators could do a better job of explaining what is happening on the ice and why, and I imagine that at least for some viewers, this will indeed be helpful.

As Aussie Willy pointed out, the Eurosport commentators have been really good at this. In the past they would always point out how the technical panels were on the lookout for UR - I lost track of how many times I heard "if it's more than a quarter of a turn short, it will be marked as a bad double" - and what features the skaters were doing to get the levels up. I don't notice that as much anymore (and URd triples are no longer marked as bad doubles) but they are informative without overwhelming viewers with information. And usually if they criticize, it's on point and not general rants about the system.

[walei]

Her article is so ridiculously written I'm surprised she didn't simply say skating under the IJS is super popular in Japan/Korea now because Asians are good with math.

As for the declining popularity, now that I read this thread I definitely think commentators with bias against the new system from the get go are a contributing factor. IIRC, wasn't the coup against ISU with the World Skating Federation was lead by a more North American centric contingency? I don't think the general public would know about the back story but perhaps the commentators who were friendly to the cause still harbors some resentment towards the ISU and the IJS, and it rubs off during their commentating. Just some random thoughts.