ISU has lowered the 2013 Worlds minimum scores (TES) for men, ladies & pairs

[Lara]

Just to put it into perspective, Camilla Gjersem has just skated an SP with: 3loop/2toe, 3toe and 2axel. And she was a little short of reaching the minimum score (TES 25.73).

Wow. That's really harsh.

[kwanfan1818]

TES is not only about the jumps, though.

[allezfred]

TES is not only about the jumps, though.

It shouldn't be all about the TES either which is what the ISU is saying with these minimum scores.

[kwanfan1818]

I think that what they're saying is that at least for part of the TES value, there's a technical panel that is, at least in theory, accountable to them.

[allezfred]

Well let's just have a jumping and levels contest then and dispense with music and choreography. It'll make it all much fairer and be sure to be a ratings winner!

[julieann]

Just to put it into perspective, Camilla Gjersem has just skated an SP with: 3loop/2toe, 3toe and 2axel. And she was a little short of reaching the minimum score (TES 25.73). Yes she had some slightly negative GOEs and her levels could have been better but you really can't argue that this kind of technical content isn't good enough to warrant competing at Worlds.

It's one thing to want to ensure a competitive standard of skating, it's another to turn ISU Championships into an exclusive club for the select few.

Is it about how much you can cram into a program but not execute or how well someone can execute a pretty difficult program?

[gkelly]

Essentially, the minimum scores for the championships are like technical tests that skaters need to have passed to be allowed to enter the championship (or to be considered for entry, if their federations have more qualified skaters than spots available). The test that skaters have to pass to qualify for Worlds is harder than for the other ISU Championships, though not as hard as originally announced.

(And unlike tests the qualifications expire after two years.)

Because of the way it's set up, the minimum score measures only difficulty and execution of the elements.

If it weren't also serving the purpose of keeping the size of the field down to a manageable size, we could have more skaters entered and many of them would be cut after the first phase of competition.

However, the cuts made at the competition are based on placements, which also take into account the program components.

So if there were a qualifying round/qualifying competition that also served as an opportunity to earn the minimum scores (i.e., pass the tests), you might have some skaters who place high enough to advance to the next round largely on the strength of their skating skills and presentation but haven't met the minimum scores, and other skaters who have met the minimum scores but lost to skaters who didn't.

In that sense the process is not completely logically consistent.

I wish there were some way to take into account the Skating Skills as well. But the component score is too subject to judges' personal opinions, or worse.

[morqet]

I wish there were some way to take into account the Skating Skills as well. But the component score is too subject to judges' personal opinions, or worse.

But so are the technical scores, through the application of GOE. Just look at the protocols for any event, the judges are just as inconsistent with GOE as they are for PCS. For example at Europeans in the Men's SP: http://www.isuresults.com/results/ec..._SP_Scores.pdf

Plushenko's 3lz is given a range from 0 to -3
Fernandez's 4S & Jobert's CCoSp given a range 1 to 3
Pfeifer's CCSp3 given a range from 0 to 3
Besseghier's 3lz given a range from 1 to -2. The judges aren't even consistent on whether the element deserved a positive or negative grade!

[kwanfan1818]

The original minimum scores for championships were set, at least in the SP, around the minimal required technical content. They were set at the most minimal technical test a skater had to pass. Even if that skater did not attempt or had never attempted one or more required elements, like a 3/2 combo, any 3/2 combo, the skater was allowed to compensate by any combination of higher levels on leveled elements, GOE, and the base of the solo triple from steps.

The GP minimums, which include PCS, were created explicitly to create a high bar and ensure a quality standard. Last year, they were nearly impossible to meet if the championships skater earned the lowest TES minimums. Even so, minimums aren't required for all skaters: this year, comeback skaters were expected to meet the standard, based on past results, and the hosts were given a break (unlike last season) because the GP minimm was recommended, but not a rule to be broken.

This year, the minimums were created explicitly to limit the fields to a target number of skaters, give or take a few. The minimums aren't like a technical test in that sense. They don't require that a skater shows a specific skill set to pass, else fail. The Euros/4C's minimums were higher than last year's minimums, but they were still much closer to the minimum required content, at least for the SP, and it's possible to construe them as a technical test, but they were set specifically to limit the fields and lower the costs by eliminating the prelims, and this more-or-less worked, as they didn't raise the singles minimums to narrow the SP field from 36 to 30, for exampke. If the judges say that the fields were too big to judge the SP well -- the given reason for re-introducing quali rounds -- or they decided they didn't want to pay for a dozen extra skaters, then I'd expect the Euros/4C's minimums to be raised next year, if all variables were assessed individually.

Someone here posted the correct analogy, IMO, which is how in swimming, there's a set field, and the qualifying times are set based on the strength of the overall field to limit competition to the right number of spots. If the field is strong, the qualifying times are raised.

I don't think there's any confusion: it's the one place the ISU was quite explicit about its reasoning, and, unlike the GP minimum rules, they didn't allow anyone to break them.

Next year, if the SOV and the rules are the same or changed minimally, the final TES minimums for Worlds and Euros/4C's could change from this years' based on the strenth of the fields.