Page 11 of 28 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 220 of 542
  1. #201
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,125
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Prancer View Post
    I just don't understand how one arbitrary number that doesn't mean anything is more emotionally satisfying or inspiring than another. A 5.7 means nothing; it can, depending on the judging, mean exactly the same thing as a 5.8 or a 5.3 or any other number. What is it that you find so appealing about those numbers?
    It wasn't one 5.7 divorced of context (see you're so brainwashed by IJS you're used to numbers divorced from context). It was a row of scores that could be traced to judges (and debated)

    You can argue that 6.0 wasn't very exact and I'll agree, but as someone said it drew audiences in while IJS scores mostly keep them at arms distance unless they want to pour over protocals (again posting protocals is a wonderful thing, I just don't like the secrecy. It's almost as if judges were ashamed to be associated with their scores. If I were a judge I would insist on my scores being public and standing behind them.

  2. #202

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    53
    Posts
    10,469
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    21476
    For me it would be ideal if the judges were not anonymous, the columns on the protocols not scrambled. Heck, they could even put flags above each column of numbers to help remember who's who without flipping back to the cover page that lists the judges' names (in order!).


    But there's too much information in the protocols to announce in the arena during the event (Kiss&Cry time).

    What is most useful to see and hear during that quick announcement when we learn the current standings and anticipate the start of the next skater's program?

  3. #203

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Deep in a Dream
    Posts
    7,570
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    20067
    How exactly did 6.0 "draw people in"? It was the only scoring system most people knew, but I don't see how that drew people in. I never liked it, and quite a few fans I knew didn't like it, either, for reasons already discussed at length.
    My job requires me to be a juggler, but that does not mean that I enjoy working with clowns.

  4. #204
    AYS's snark-sponge
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    in the Bobrova & Soloviev Fan Clubhouse
    Posts
    41,908
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    30529
    Quote Originally Posted by Nomad View Post
    How exactly did 6.0 "draw people in"? It was the only scoring system most people knew, but I don't see how that drew people in. I never liked it, and quite a few fans I knew didn't like it, either, for reasons already discussed at length.
    People keep repeating over and over and over that 6.0 was favored by fans and that its replacement has caused a decline in interest in figure skating (in the US, though usually not stated so). But no one has presented any actual data or evidence to back up this assertion.

    Its basically people projecting their own views onto the public as far as I can see. Prancer presented some anecdotal evidence against it, but it seems more to be a matter of faith on the part of those who dislike the current judging system that the change of judging systems is responsible for the decline in interest in figure skating. It could be the factor or a factor, but just arguing why one thinks it is the factor does not show any actual evidence that it is.

    This is actually bugging me a lot. There are problems with the current judging system; people particularly perceived a problem with a result at 2013 Worlds. From those realities people jump to the conclusion that the replacement of 6.0 with IJS caused the decline in figure skating interest in the U.S. That simply isn't a valid argument.

    Just to be clear I am not arguing that what is being claimed is not the case, I am arguing that no evidence has been presented that to show that it is the case.
    Congratulations 2014 World Ice Dance Champions Anna Cappellini & Luca Lanotte!!!

  5. #205

    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    2,223
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    5970
    Quote Originally Posted by Prancer View Post
    Some online discussions of 6.0 by casual fans on non-skating sites:

    http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/.../t-234512.html

    https://groups.google.com/forum/?fro...ce/omy_MuOlyO4

    https://groups.google.com/forum/?fro...ng/ik9fUF2RKOc

    https://groups.google.com/forum/?fro...cs/RGGZqwyj210

    http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/...ad.php?t=73463

    These are just discussions about judging under 6.0. If anyone would like to read posts from casual fans insisting that they do not watch skating because of the way that it was judged under 6.0 or will never watch skating again because of the way it was judged under 6.0, I found plenty of them. I also restricted myself to only a couple of threads about the SLC scandal--I found loads of those, but I refrained from using them because most of them are arguing about S&P being robbed. I did like that last link, though, with the posters arguing over whether or not S&P lost because of their blah costumes, which had to affect their artistic score. I also didn't include links to discussions of whether or not figure skating is a sport, or should be removed from the Olympics altogether. I found a pretty interesting discussion about drum corps judging and figure skating judging, but I decided not to post it but I figure most people here wouldn't understand the drum corps judging posts, as most here aren't fans of drum corps.
    But what would be far more interesting and telling is finding out what these same folks think of the IJS. People like to complain ... about anything and everything. There are plenty of complaints on boards about COP. I think there would be a lot of "Be careful what you wish for" if these same folks were questioned about the state of figure skating and judging today.

    Fans are never happy, so it seems. That's part of watching sport. No bitching = not sport.

    O-

  6. #206
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    4,750
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    I guess I don't know why 6.0 has to be part of the discussion. Let it go. It isn't coming back. The discussion needs to be how to reform this system to help the sport stop hemorrhaging fans and make results more comprehensible to everyone. And "education" is not the answer any more than "bring back 6.0" is. On top of those two issues, the ISU needs to be having the discussion with its skaters and coaches, not us.

  7. #207

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    53
    Posts
    10,469
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    21476
    If the goal is to attract fans, they need to listen to fans. But those of us here are already attracted. They'd need to do market research with casual fans, former casual fans, members of the general public especially those in demographic groups most likely to be attracted.

    If the goal is to create a better and fairer sport for the athletes, they need to listen to the skaters and coaches.

    Ultimately, if the desires of the two groups conflict, I think those of the skaters and coaches should take precedence.

    And if the sport needs money from broadcast rights, ticket sales, and sponsorships to support what the skaters need, then the ISU would need to find ways to give both groups what they want. Which might mean two (or more) different kinds of elite events.

  8. #208

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    501
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    526
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueRidge View Post
    People keep repeating over and over and over that 6.0 was favored by fans and that its replacement has caused a decline in interest in figure skating (in the US, though usually not stated so). But no one has presented any actual data or evidence to back up this assertion.

    Its basically people projecting their own views onto the public as far as I can see. Prancer presented some anecdotal evidence against it, but it seems more to be a matter of faith on the part of those who dislike the current judging system that the change of judging systems is responsible for the decline in interest in figure skating. It could be the factor or a factor, but just arguing why one thinks it is the factor does not show any actual evidence that it is.

    This is actually bugging me a lot. There are problems with the current judging system; people particularly perceived a problem with a result at 2013 Worlds. From those realities people jump to the conclusion that the replacement of 6.0 with IJS caused the decline in figure skating interest in the U.S. That simply isn't a valid argument.

    Just to be clear I am not arguing that what is being claimed is not the case, I am arguing that no evidence has been presented that to show that it is the case.
    Well if you're looking for statistical evidence and group data - don't know how we would ever get that. But you have many individuals on this board who are much more than casual skating fans - ie, post on skating boards, watched on TV and followed skaters FOR YEARS and even attended competitions and events saying they essentially stopped watching as much, and lost interest in watching, mostly because of the redundant regimented programs that have been the rule since the initiation of IJS. That is a least some pretty convincing evidence that IJS has contributed to a decline in the interest of - at a minimum - many ardent fans who absolutely loved figure skating before

  9. #209
    AYS's snark-sponge
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    in the Bobrova & Soloviev Fan Clubhouse
    Posts
    41,908
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    30529
    Quote Originally Posted by kathy sullivan View Post
    Well if you're looking for statistical evidence and group data - don't know how we would ever get that. But you have many individuals on this board who are much more than casual skating fans - ie, post on skating boards, watched on TV and followed skaters FOR YEARS and even attended competitions and events saying they essentially stopped watching as much, and lost interest in watching, mostly because of the redundant regimented programs that have been the rule since the initiation of IJS. That is a least some pretty convincing evidence that IJS has contributed to a decline in the interest of - at a minimum - many ardent fans who absolutely loved figure skating before
    This board has grown vastly since IJS was adopted. I don't think you can say that's because of IJS but it doesn't show any decline here. We've seen a few people say they aren't watching anymore but I'd guess most people who post here are still watching.

    Its likely true there isn't any systematic data available but that doesn't alleviate people making claims of needing to provide it. If you can't provide data, then you are speculating which is fine but I think a lot of people think there is a factual basis for the claim that figure skating has declined because of IJS. None has been shown and there are other arguments that can be made, first and foremost that IJS failed to save figure skating which had already been irreparably undermined by scandals under 6.0. How do you know which it is? Did the decline happen only because of IJS, or were scandals like SLC responsible for undermining any credibility for the sport and IJS failed to restore the credibility? How do we know?
    Congratulations 2014 World Ice Dance Champions Anna Cappellini & Luca Lanotte!!!

  10. #210
    Corgi Wrangler
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Not Wearing Enough Sparkles
    Posts
    6,456
    vCash
    510
    Rep Power
    5546
    Quote Originally Posted by Mafke View Post
    It wasn't one 5.7 divorced of context (see you're so brainwashed by IJS you're used to numbers divorced from context). It was a row of scores that could be traced to judges (and debated)
    I don't think it's even so much that, though the ability to link marks to judges helped (even helped people who liked to argue and claim 'wuzrobbed.') But whether it's a 10 or a 6.0 or whatever maximum possible value is assigned, there was an easy, obvious standard of perfection. Take T&D's Bolero--the INSTANT those marks came up, everyone knew the score was perfect. They didn't have to sit there and do math, or try to remember what the highest previous score ever given was, everyone watching just knew. Viewers of something like skating (that isn't a timed sport, or adversarial like football et al) like knowing what perfect or at least the best possible score is.

  11. #211
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    1,153
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by demetriosj View Post
    Oh, yah, that's a great thing for kids to emulate....Good advice! No wonder our country is going to hell in a hand basket.................
    I'm sorry, when did I say this behavior should be emulated?

    When it comes to a being TV moment, it's an important thing. In our lives, it's miniscule.

    If one second of a teen showing her true feelings means our country is going to hell in a hand basket, you might want to get out before the hellfire comes.

  12. #212
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    820
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Prancer View Post
    I just don't understand how one arbitrary number that doesn't mean anything is more emotionally satisfying or inspiring than another. A 5.7 means nothing; it can, depending on the judging, mean exactly the same thing as a 5.8 or a 5.3 or any other number. What is it that you find so appealing about those numbers?
    To me, its what you do with those numbers. A 5.7 means nothing, but it is a temporary place holder for ordinals. An ordinal makes perfect sense. Judge #3 felt that this skater was second best, better than skater B but not as good as slater C.

    One of my quarrels with the CoP is that it disrespects the operation of addition. Just because you have two numbers, that doesn't mean that any sense can be attached to their sum. The acidity of orange juice is 2.8 and the mass of Jupiter is 1.9. Add them together and you get 4.7.

    But the IJS sees nothing strange about adding together an 8.25 in choreography with a 4.2 for doing a triple Salchow.

  13. #213

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Deep in a Dream
    Posts
    7,570
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    20067
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    ...

    But the IJS sees nothing strange about adding together an 8.25 in choreography with a 4.2 for doing a triple Salchow.
    I don't see anything strange about it if the skater delivered really good choreography.
    My job requires me to be a juggler, but that does not mean that I enjoy working with clowns.

  14. #214
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    1,520
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    For me it would be ideal if the judges were not anonymous, the columns on the protocols not scrambled.
    Are the columns all scrambled in a different order for each skater's report? LOL. Now that would be faith in your judges! Not!

  15. #215

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    666
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Prancer View Post
    This article talks about some of the controversies in skating and other judges Olympic sports before the SLC Olys: http://www.la84foundation.org/Sports...2/johv8n2i.pdf
    Prancer, thank you for the interesting article about the advent of subjective, artistic "sports" in the Olympics.

    Leaving subjective judging aside for the moment, I think all it would take to revive figure skating is an American champion-darling (like Peggy Flemming or Michelle Kwan).

  16. #216
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    820
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Nomad View Post
    I don't see anything strange about it if the skater delivered really good choreography.
    What seems strange about it to me is that there is no apparent justification to adding those two numbers together. What can the sum, 12.45, possible mean? 12.45 whats? Why not multiply them instead, or perform some other esoteric mathematical operation with them? What is it about these two unrelated measures that makes us want to add them together, of all things?

  17. #217

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Deep in a Dream
    Posts
    7,570
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    20067
    Well, what does a first place ordinal from the judge from Tonga really mean? That Vera Voidskaya was the best that night? That Tonga has always liked Voidskaya and she's skated well all season until tonight, and she "won" the practices, so he'll cut her some slack? That the judge from Tonga is in the pocket of the Konspiristani Fed? Who knows, other than the judge from Tonga (and possibly Greaseyerpalm Politikov, head of the Konspiristani Fed)?
    My job requires me to be a juggler, but that does not mean that I enjoy working with clowns.

  18. #218
    Bountifully Enmeshed
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    At the Christmas Bizarre
    Posts
    38,162
    vCash
    250
    Rep Power
    46687
    Quote Originally Posted by Mafke View Post
    (see you're so brainwashed by IJS you're used to numbers divorced from context).
    End of discussion with you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    To me, its what you do with those numbers. A 5.7 means nothing, but it is a temporary place holder for ordinals. An ordinal makes perfect sense. Judge #3 felt that this skater was second best, better than skater B but not as good as slater C.
    So why bother with a 5.7? Why not just rank the skaters? Every time they entered ordinals, they changed the standings. Why the extra and overly complex step?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    One of my quarrels with the CoP is that it disrespects the operation of addition. Just because you have two numbers, that doesn't mean that any sense can be attached to their sum. The acidity of orange juice is 2.8 and the mass of Jupiter is 1.9. Add them together and you get 4.7.

    But the IJS sees nothing strange about adding together an 8.25 in choreography with a 4.2 for doing a triple Salchow.
    I don't see anything strange in that. If anything, it's familiar. Of course, I don't equate it to adding the acidity of orange juice and the mass of a planet, as the elements of a program are actually, you know, related to one another.

    Quote Originally Posted by danceronice View Post
    I don't think it's even so much that, though the ability to link marks to judges helped (even helped people who liked to argue and claim 'wuzrobbed.') But whether it's a 10 or a 6.0 or whatever maximum possible value is assigned, there was an easy, obvious standard of perfection. Take T&D's Bolero--the INSTANT those marks came up, everyone knew the score was perfect. They didn't have to sit there and do math, or try to remember what the highest previous score ever given was, everyone watching just knew. Viewers of something like skating (that isn't a timed sport, or adversarial like football et al) like knowing what perfect or at least the best possible score is.
    But 6.0 was not a score; it was a mark. All marks in the 6.0 system were placeholders. Judges gave programs with mistakes 6.0s even though they were not perfect because that was sometimes the only place to go in terms of ranking skaters. It didn't happen very often, but it did happen. And there would be OUTRAGE.

    People can't have it both ways and tell me how much sense the ordinal system made and then tell me that a 6.0 is a perfect SCORE (I realize that it's not the same people saying this). That right there is one of the problems with 6.0. You can talk about ordinals all you like; casual fans still considered the marks scores, which they were not. A lot of hardcore fans never got that straight, either. Even the skating federations would go on about ordinals and then talk about the perfect score of 6.0.
    "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."-- Albert Einstein.

  19. #219
    Corgi Wrangler
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Not Wearing Enough Sparkles
    Posts
    6,456
    vCash
    510
    Rep Power
    5546
    See, it's irrelevant to most viewers that it's an ordinal system (it's not even obvious that it is. Dance, which mistakenly calls it the skating system', uses pure ordinals, though you couldn't do that in skating as judges in dance are watching the final 6-8 all at the same time.) Casual fans like a "perfect" number. Someone gets a 6.0, that's GREAT! Like getting a 10 in gymnastics--what did that mean? I dunno, I know nothing about gymnastics. But I know it was good! No one knows what "68.73" means, and odds are they aren't going to remember it long enough to know what happens when the next skater gets a 67.2. And the LAST thing any casual fan wants is to get a screen full of umpteen different decimal-point scores. The problem with 6.0 was the two separate scores meant it took some math and memory to guess where a skater was going to wind up in ordinals. That was EASY, two-digit decimal math. Trying to juggle a bunch of different scores for elements that aren't even clearly defined is bad enough. Then you start getting in plus and minus GOEs for things viewers can't even identify...if people liked Byzantine scoring systems and oblique methods of scoring, cricket would be the most popular sport on Earth.

    And the capper is that the anonymous judging and the plus/minus GOEs and PCS scores don't solve the problem they were allegedly created to address. They make it look WORSE. The average viewer has trouble telling how many times a jump was rotated, never mind differentiating between kinds of jumps, but they do know a butt-plant when they see one, they can see a two-footed landing, a hand down, when a skater falls out of a spin, trips on footwork. With the new system, they are seeing unknown judges place programs with what look like glaring faults (falls) over clean-LOOKING programs. They really don't want to hear "Well, yes, Skater A may have sat down on two jumps, but Skater B's skate was slightly turned out too much on all their landings, and on that one jump they were on the wrong edge of the blade when they took off, and Skater A's pretzel spin had more pretzel-y shapes than Skater B's pretzel spin despite it looking slower, and the choreography that looks exactly the same to you for A was better for B, so even though Skater B stayed upright and completed everything as far as the naked eye could tell, they're still second." Average viewer: "So...it's still fixed, and now there's a bunch of numbers and I don't know which judges were fixing it." The one thing a viewer used to be able to count on understand (fall = bad) is gone, and throwing a ton of numbers (note these are not statistics, they're just numbers, which change with no rhyme or reason and in the case of PCS are assigned to highly subjective and ill-defined attributes that are just as oblique as what the "artistic" mark meant.)

    And when you resolved the 6.0 scores to the ordinal placement--that made sense. It was a RANKING: at this competition, A is first, B is second, C is third, etc, ranked against each other on this particular day. A skated better than B at this event. Now instead of having an ordinal system with a "perfect score" that might not be an absolute, there's a scoring system that assumes all elements DO have an absolute value, but it's never clear what that value is, how it's achieved, or why skaters with what LOOK like bigger mistakes earn more points and have a higher value than ones who appear to be clean are marked down. It's supposed to make it more obvious why the marks are given, but it encourages point-chasing on the athletes' end and confuses the viewers, alienating them. With the bonus point that most of the programs, with a very few exceptions, now look an awful lot alike and you can SEE the skaters ticking off elements. It's great to have programs that are more than "crosscut, crosscut, crosscut, jump", but it's been replaced by "crosscut, bracket, grab the blade, forward spiral for two seconds switch to back switch again, stick leg in air, jump, grab the foot, bunch of footwork that has crap-all to do with the music, jump, spin and change positions as fast as I can...." Over and over again. It's like there are required elements for both SP and LP.

    No, we're not going back to 6.0, but there has to be a much better way to score things than this.

  20. #220

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Partying with Oda
    Posts
    4,226
    vCash
    1799
    Rep Power
    34903
    Quote Originally Posted by danceronice View Post
    Entire post [and]

    No, we're not going back to 6.0, but there has to be a much better way to score things than this.
    Thank you.
    "I hit him with my shoes... if he had given me the medal like I told him to, I wouldn't have had to hit him!" -- 8-year-old Rhoda Penmark in "The Bad Seed"

Page 11 of 28 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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