Page 16 of 28 FirstFirst ... 6141516171826 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 320 of 542
  1. #301

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Some place competitive and athletic, but ultimately more like an audition than anything else.
    Posts
    7,780
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    19086
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueRidge View Post
    FSU was here when discussions of a new system were going on. It would be interesting to dig those up if they are still in the archives. My impression is that there were people who favored adopting a new system and others who vehemently opposed the idea, certain it would ruin skating. That's not directly related to whether 6.0 was popular in of itself of course.
    I remember KWAN COHEN ... then neither landed on the top of the World or Olympic podium after the transition ...

  2. #302
    Bountifully Enmeshed
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    At the Christmas Bizarre
    Posts
    38,154
    vCash
    250
    Rep Power
    46687
    Quote Originally Posted by flowerpower View Post
    Can you imagine how many 6.0 judging decisions would have been eviscerated on this forum, and the online world in general, if the internet, various social media platforms, etc. had existed back in those days? It would have been brutal.


    The internet was around during 6.0 days. So was this forum and other skating forums besides, some longer than this one.

    And yes, judging decisions were regularly ripped to shreds.
    "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."-- Albert Einstein.

  3. #303
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,692
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Prancer View Post


    The internet was around during 6.0 days. So was this forum and other skating forums besides, some longer than this one.

    And yes, judging decisions were regularly ripped to shreds.
    Let me clarify what I meant... yes the internet was around at the end of the 6.0 era, and there were some forums, and decisions were ripped to shreds. But no one beyond the forums much cared what we said.

    Now we have numerous blogs and various social media platforms and constant online dialogue, much of it very uninformed, and some of it quite partisan. What is written online matters. Politicking used to be in back rooms, now it's online, consciously done or not. Many sports writers source their material from FSU, where sometimes I think we like arguing more than watching figure skating . Where that leads us, we'll see.

    ETA: I also meant that if the 6.0 results had the level of scrutiny today's results have, with people watching competitions avidly online via live streams and dissecting minutely in real time...there'd have been an uproar and the judging system would have changed sooner, IMO. Maybe that would have been good, but what would we have changed it to? CoP or some other analytical marking scheme most likely.
    Last edited by flowerpower; 03-23-2013 at 03:59 AM.

  4. #304

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    1,158
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    4049
    Quote Originally Posted by Prancer View Post


    The internet was around during 6.0 days. So was this forum and other skating forums besides, some longer than this one.

    And yes, judging decisions were regularly ripped to shreds.
    oh yes, sashafans.com haha.

  5. #305
    Internet Beyotch
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    15,808
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    23556
    Quote Originally Posted by Asli View Post
    Was there any discussion among fans about the 6.0 system while it was used? I mean, not about the politics or conspiracy theories, but about the judging system itself?
    Oh yes, there was tons. Several people posted very intelligently about it. I love reading analysis from certain lower level judges about why a certain judge who was out of line with the panel might have judged the way they did. One particularly intelligent poster was my friend Ed Russell. Ed's profession involved stats and he wrote a lot of articles about how an ordinal ranking system was the way to go and how it solved all these problems that other proposed systems had. These other proposed systems were proposed because people hated 6.0!

    Note: I didn't just say EVERYONE hated it. But people did hate it. How many? Hard to say. But basically every time there was a controversial or incomprehensible judging decision, people ripped 6.0 to shreds.

    Sometimes people just ripped the judges. Sometimes this ripping wasn't very informed. Like "how could Judge 1 give skater A a 5.4 when all the other judges gave him 5.6-5.8" and then we'd explain how 5.4 wasn't necessarily out of line because you had to look at the ordinals. (And often the 5.4 judge wasn't out of line.) Sometimes the ripping was informed but it would quickly go around in circles because we didn't really know why the judges ranked the skaters why they did. But the technical analysis could be interesting if you could filter through the crap and the whacko political theories.

    Kind of like now.

    Some common complaints:

    -Too easy to manipulate
    -Too hard to keep all the performances in your head so you can accurately rank them
    -Performances of 6th ranked skater would change who was in 3rd and 4th if 6th ranked skater skated later
    -Presentation and Technical scores were too tightly wrapped together (you never saw 4.4 for tech and 5.8 for presentation)
    -Reputation judging
    -Jumps were too rewarded over other skills like spins and footwork
    -Falls weren't punished enough
    -Holding marks for later skaters if a really good skater skated earlier
    Last edited by MacMadame; 03-23-2013 at 03:49 AM.
    Actual bumper sticker series: Jesus is my co-pilot. Satan is my financial advisor. Budha is my therapist. L. Ron Hubbard owes me $50.

  6. #306

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    53
    Posts
    10,451
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    20970
    Quote Originally Posted by Asli View Post
    Was there any discussion among fans about the 6.0 system while it was used? I mean, not about the politics or conspiracy theories, but about the judging system itself?

    My impression was that the 6.0 system was neither popular nor unpopular. It was just there and we thought it would always be. There was nothing to compare it to.
    Quote Originally Posted by Prancer View Post
    I think that is pretty much true, although there was always a lot of discussion about how the system needed to be reformed.

    I think that rather argues against the system being popular, but perhaps I am not remembering expressions of fondness for the system.
    I liked 6.0 and put up with its paradoxes because it seemed to me that it usually produced results that were at the very least justifiable, even if an alternative result seemed even more so.

    The more I learned about skating technique and rules, the more I understood and often agreed with the results.

    So when people online argued against results they disagreed with -- and that did happen frequently -- or when I disagreed with the results myself, I usually tried to analyze why the judges might have come up with the rankings they did. Sometimes I changed my mind and sometimes I didn't. If I posted my thoughts online, maybe sometimes I changed other fans' minds about a particular result, or maybe not.

    When people argued in favor of alternative systems, I usually defended the 6.0 system as it was practiced in the 1990s/early 2000s and pointed out potential drawbacks of the alternatives. I definitely did not like the idea of adopting the pro competition approach of giving two scores for technical merit and artistic impression, dropping high and low, and adding the remaining scores, because that could lead to even more paradoxes than ordinals.

    A handful of thoughtful fans suggested more points-oriented systems, but the ones I discussed it with didn't have as much knowledge of skating technique so they couldn't provide detailed suggestions. I tended to point out what I saw as potential problems with what they proposed.

    As a thought experiment I tried imagining different approaches to scoring that would be more specific than the two marks to produce ordinals approach. One possibility that I thought of was essentially a code of points with bonuses (+GOE for both quality and difficulty) and deductions (-GOE), without a separate tech panel. I had some reservations about whether the results would be worth the added complexity so I didn't spend much time discussing it.

    When the IJS was first proposed I was wary. I'd already thought of some possible objections before the topic was even raised officially. And the earliest descriptions raised as many new questions as they answered. But after the full system was revealed and started to be used, I decided that I did like the detailed approach better than two marks.

    I still had objections from the beginning to some of the specific rules. As the rules have changed and the system has been tweaked over the past 9 years, some of my objections have been solved and others have become apparent. But in most cases I think that tweaking the rules here and there can solve the problems.

    There are some drawbacks inherent in the code of points approach and some values to the two marks/ordinals approach that get lost by breaking down the scores into separate pieces. But on balance I was soon convinced and remain so that the separate marks are more beneficial for skating as a sport.

    There are more drawbacks for skating as popular entertainment.

    By all means keep improving the detailed rules in directions that will allow the results to better match the educated opinions of skaters, coaches, officials, and knowledgeable fans based on appreciation of skating technique. There will still always be disagreements even within those groups.

    But I would hate to see the sport compromise on rewarding good technique just to attract fans who don't care about the details.

    Quote Originally Posted by flowerpower View Post
    CoP is more analytically evidence-based, but it's far from perfect. No judging system can ever be perfect in this sport. IMO either we accept this, enjoy the wonderful performances of the top skaters in each discipline, and try to be philosophical when judging decisions have some merits on both sides of the coin, or abandon the sport. Maybe that's where we're headed, and I think that would be very unfortunate - it's a sport of great athleticism and beauty, and there's nothing like the feeling of flying across the ice. To see what today's skaters can do is simply amazing. JMO.
    I agree. That's why I'd like to see more celebration in the media of the cool things that skaters are doing. I think there are a lot of fans who have the potential to understand and appreciate more if not talked down to as much as mass-market TV usually does.

    But with the fragmentation of the media entertainment market, getting people who would be interested in sport skating to know it exists is increasingly difficult.

    Casual viewers are most likely to first be exposed to skating through the Olympics. Next time something exciting and intriguing happens in that context, interest will go up. Hopefully no one will have to be physically assaulted and the exciting part will happen during the actual skating.

    And I wish there were ways to make the American public more aware of opportunities to get into rinks themselves -- as participants, or as spectators at live events with good but not necessarily great skaters, just because it's a whole different experience up close and unmediated.

    Maybe pro competitions, skating reality shows, cheesefests, etc., could be a way to capture people's attention and bring some money into the sport. And then direct the sports fans in the audience to the real competitions, arts fans to high-level ice theatre.

  7. #307
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,692
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by MacMadame View Post
    Some common complaints:

    -Too easy to manipulate
    -Too hard to keep all the performances in your head so you can accurately rank them
    -Performances of 6th ranked skater would change who was in 3rd and 4th if 6th ranked skater skated later
    -Presentation and Technical scores were too tightly wrapped together (you never saw 4.4 for tech and 5.8 for presentation)
    -Reputation judging
    -Jumps were too rewarded over other skills like spins and footwork
    -Falls weren't punished enough
    -Holding marks for later skaters if a really good skater skated earlier
    So true.

    Sorry, I have no nostalgia for 6.0.

  8. #308

    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    781
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    1925
    Quote Originally Posted by Asli View Post
    Was there any discussion among fans about the 6.0 system while it was used? I mean, not about the politics or conspiracy theories, but about the judging system itself?

    My impression was that the 6.0 system was neither popular nor unpopular. It was just there and we thought it would always be. There was nothing to compare it to.
    Yes, that's pretty much what it was like. I've been avidly discussing skating online since I first got on the internet c. 1996 - rssif, FSW, the aol boards, skatefans mailing list. I haven't posted much in the last decade because I sort of got it all out of my system by 2002 or so, and COP has made discussing skating a lot less interesting.

    As a few have already mentioned, the 6.0 system itself was rarely discussed, there was a lot more debate around the ordinals of individual judges, national bias and reputation judging and conspiracy theories for block judging. Some decisions were controversial but they never felt unjustifiable. (I can't recall a situation ever where someone with 2 or 3 big errors won over someone with no error and the same or just slightly less jumping difficultly and overall quality.)

    As gkelly and others said, it was more of a debate why the decision went this way or that way and would you have gone with the majority or minority. Basically, 6.0 was subjective, but everyone knew it was subjective, accepted it and instead engaged in debate - sometimes healthy, sometimes angry, sometimes intellectual, but always interesting, especially the close ones.

    For example, Boitano only beat Orser 5-4 on that magical night and conventional wisdom says Boitano was flawless with 2 triple axels and while Orser had one minor mistake and only one triple axel. But Orser did skate with a more nuanced and complex choreography, ("transitions" if you will ) and I think he really kept up more speed, power and flow through to the end of the program - I can see the POV of the judges who may have awarded him their 1st place ordinal though I'd clearly side with the judges who gave it to Boitano on the clearly superior technical merit and still quite good presentation. Or consider Kerrigan vs Baiul in 1994 another 5-4 decision. Most were quick to point out all of Baiul's little quality issues and flaws and scream Nancy wuz robbed, but Oksana's power and speed were second to none and her ease of movement and presentation and interpretation superior to Kerrigan. Many judges who awarded Baiul the 1st place ordinal were on record saying just that - she had more powerful spins and spirals, a bigger lutz and and superior presentation and that Nancy was tentative and also had a mistake herself.

    Lots of but it was just different than COP, which invites acceptance and "these are the rules, everyone knows what they have to do to earn points and that's the way it is. Who are we to question it." Boy do I miss the debates!

    My issue with COP is that it was rolled out to grandiose fanfare as an objective system not a subjective one, meant to end all debate. Debate is what made being a hardcore skating fan interesting. You can't apply objectivity to what are inherently subjective judgements, but it seems like newer fans tend to believe in the be-all-end-all single truth of the COP score - "at least now we know how they came up with the score." No, we don't. Often the GOEs are all over the place and more inconsistent than the ordinals under 6.0. The PCS is just cray. Way more cray than any ordinal I ever saw under 6.0 (except maybe the cray Hungarian judge in the ladies SP at 1998 Worlds. )

    COP also asks far too much cognitively of the human mind. Our brains are hardwired to directly compare things to each other, not indirectly compare them to a prescribed standard. It's much easier to look at two apples and directly compare them to each other (this one is bigger, that one is more symmetrical, this one is a deeper red) than indirectly compare them individually and without bias to some written standards of perfection for apple color, size and shape. 6.0 asked for the former, COP claims to ask for the latter but (especially with PCS), the judges fall back on direct comparison because it's natural, especially when you consider the fact that each PCS mark is asking the judge to compare it program indirectly against about 20 different criteria and assign five marks against a 10.0 standard for perfection. Really just not possible for anyone but a savant.

    I agree the place where 6.0 could seem like it got things pretty wrong was in the middle of the pack because it was cognitively taxing to compare a field of more than about 12 skaters. In a big field the top few were almost always really clear and the lowest skills were clear too - it was the vast middle that was hard to retain in working memory and assign a justifiable ordinal.

  9. #309
    Bountifully Enmeshed
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    At the Christmas Bizarre
    Posts
    38,154
    vCash
    250
    Rep Power
    46687
    Quote Originally Posted by BreakfastClub View Post
    COP, which invites acceptance and "these are the rules, everyone knows what they have to do to earn points and that's the way it is. Who are we to question it." Boy do I miss the debates!
    We must not read the same board. I see endless debates after every competition--most of them about GOE and PCS. There are many threads questioning COP. THIS thread is one of them.

    Quote Originally Posted by BreakfastClub View Post
    Often the GOEs are all over the place and more inconsistent than the ordinals under 6.0. The PCS is just cray.
    Hence all the debates.

    Quote Originally Posted by BreakfastClub View Post
    It's much easier to look at two apples and directly compare them to each other (this one is bigger, that one is more symmetrical, this one is a deeper red) than indirectly compare them individually and without bias to some written standards of perfection for apple color, size and shape.
    How do all of us teacher types grade papers? Or critics review books, plays, performances? Or doctors diagnose disease? Or apple farmers sort apples?

    None of those things involve directly comparing A and B to see which one is better. They do involve having many years of looking at many As and Bs and Cs and developing a sense of range, but in the end, a paper is either good or not on its own merit, not because it is better or worse than the others in the pile. The play is good or bad on its own merit, not because of how it stacks up to the last one I saw. The disease either fits the established parameters of a particular condition or it does not. The apple is either that size, that size or that size, and is either for eating or cooking or mulching, all based on preset standards for apples. There are differences of opinion for all of those things--yet no one says that the problem lies in having standards, only that the standards sometimes need to be adjusted or enforced.

    I think all of us can look at a single apple and determine whether it looks good or not without seeing another apple beside it, because we have a concept of what a good apple should be. If we have never seen an apple before, a single apple will be rather confounding, but seeing another apple next to it won't clarify the issue. What if both are rotten? What if both are perfect? We can only know that if we already know enough about apples to tell the difference or we have something that tells us what a good or rotten apple is like.

    It may be more cognitively challenging (or not--I'm not sure) to have to make a decision about a single apple, but it's hardly impossible. In some ways, it's easier. You only have to assess one, and you are assessing it against a preset measure of apple greatness. That doesn't strike me as exceptionally challenging. Even if you have never seen an apple before, you are given an idea of what an excellent apple should be and you can make at least a crude determination from that. If you have seen a lot of apples before, it's pretty easy to categorize them. You don't even have to decide which apple is the best; you just score them all individually and see which one comes out on top. Much easier, IMO, than trying to remember all the other apples you looked at consecutively in the last hour but can't see now and trying to figure out if this apple is better or worse than each of them.
    "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."-- Albert Einstein.

  10. #310
    AYS's snark-sponge
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    in the Bobrova & Soloviev Fan Clubhouse
    Posts
    41,890
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    30529
    Quote Originally Posted by BreakfastClub View Post
    ...

    As a few have already mentioned, the 6.0 system itself was rarely discussed, there was a lot more debate around the ordinals of individual judges, national bias and reputation judging and conspiracy theories for block judging...
    ^ This conflicts with this:

    As gkelly and others said, it was more of a debate why the decision went this way or that way and would you have gone with the majority or minority. Basically, 6.0 was subjective, but everyone knew it was subjective, accepted it and instead engaged in debate - sometimes healthy, sometimes angry, sometimes intellectual, but always interesting, especially the close ones.
    As you note first, 6.0 leant itself to debating bias and supposed bloc judging. People seemed to relish those debates. But they ultimately undermined the system itself when it got out of hand in SLC.

    ...
    ...My issue with COP is that it was rolled out to grandiose fanfare as an objective system not a subjective one, meant to end all debate. ...
    How else could they roll it out? "Here's a new system that you'll all enjoy tearing apart because its no less subjective than the last one"? I don't see a point in being very bothered with the ISU making claims for the new system that it would be fair and just; they couldn't exactly say anything else.

    And needless to say it has hardly ended debate.

    My impression at the time was that after SLC, the ISU was under the gun. It had a choice, be an Olympic sport or don't be and COP was the answer to that. They probably did rush it but they were in crisis mode with media and the IOC and fans demanding change at a fever pitch.

    Ultimately to get back to Christine Brennan's article, she may be right that when skating was the "ultimate reality show" it appealed more to casual fans (in the U.S.). Certainly the Nancy/Tonya sideshow was a lot more interesting to a lot of people than the skating itself.

    Brennan seems to imply that skating could have chosen the reality show route. But it couldn't do that and continue as a Olympic sport. The ISU chose to go for being an Olympic Sport. If the reality show side could have supported itself then pro-skating wouldn't have died off I suppose but it did.

    And we are left with an Olympic sport whose scoring system wasn't designed to appeal to casual fans.

    This is fine with me because I don't like reality shows and I do like Olympic sports. I also hated all the old cacophony about biased and corrupt judging that accompanied 6.0, even though it otherwise was a workable system, IMO.

    I think that fans, skaters and other stakeholders should continue to debate how to make changes to the COP that improve the sport, but I don't think that has much to do with bringing in casual fans.
    Congratulations 2014 World Ice Dance Champions Anna Cappellini & Luca Lanotte!!!

  11. #311

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Oz
    Posts
    2,683
    vCash
    400
    Rep Power
    8867
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly
    That's why I'd like to see more celebration in the media of the cool things that skaters are doing.
    Indeed, there seems to be lot of negativity surrounding figure skating particularly in America. A fan wrote that in Japan, the focus on Chan's win is how he managed even with the two falls, instead of allegations of corruption and attacking the skater.

    But with the fragmentation of the media entertainment market, getting people who would be interested in sport skating to know it exists is increasingly difficult.
    The reality is that judged sports will never beat club and male sports in popularity.

    Maybe pro competitions, skating reality shows, cheesefests, etc., could be a way to capture people's attention and bring some money into the sport. And then direct the sports fans in the audience to the real competitions, arts fans to high-level ice theatre.
    Some fans seem to prefer the 'artistic' side of figure skating and some 'sports', I like the idea of pro competitions as this will allow the more 'artistic' skaters with beautiful upper body movements but for one or another is unlikely to win any medals in Worlds or Olympics, to share their 'artistic' talent with fans who prefer to view figure skating as an art than sport. In this way, we satisfy both preferences - art versus sports.
    Prosperity makes friends, adversity tries them. – Publilius Syrus

  12. #312
    Cruder than you thought
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    All choked up
    Posts
    19,294
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    37244
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    I liked 6.0 and put up with its paradoxes because it seemed to me that it usually produced results that were at the very least justifiable, even if an alternative result seemed even more so.
    .
    I agree with this, but I also think the exact same statement can be made about COP.

    In my view, this hits the nail on the head...it comes down to the judging decisions, not the judging system.
    Quote Originally Posted by giselle23 View Post
    The point is not love for the 6.0 system. What needed fixing was the judging. Instead of addressing corrupt judging, the whole system was thrown out in favor of a system that still doesn't address the judging problem. It just makes the results more difficult to understand and cheating more difficult to uncover. There is nothing in the new system to stop judges from colluding to give high or low GOE's or, especially, high or low component scores. In fact, the judges are now anonymous, so only Speedy and his minions would be able to ferret out cheating, if it occurred. I suppose that is the way they want it...
    I actually don't agree that judging is generally corrupt. However, sometimes it is and sometimes it is simply flawed or arguable, because it is subjective. I don't think any change in a judging system will change this. BlueRidge was right, though, in that the ISU had its back against the wall in '02 and had to do something to try to "prove" they were addressing charges of judging corruption. Which IJS really didn't do. The ISU is famously hyperreactive, rather than proactive.

    There are things individuals would like tweaked in one or the other system...you may think COP doesn't punish falls enough, someone else thinks taking off on a wrong edge should be penalized more in COP. Others thought 6.0 didn't weigh base difficulty enough and it rarely clearly penalized wrong edges and urs (see Hughes SLC). But when people complain about a judging result, they are still mostly complaining about the decisions that are made by the judges. If Chan had been marked down on PCS just a little bit more, the way a lot of people here think he should have (maybe scored 1 point less on PE and 0.5 point less on IN, which are subjective judging decisions), Ten would have won the competition, and we wouldn't even be having this debate. We'd probably be lauding IJS as producing fairer results than 6.0 because it allowed for a great upset.
    Disclaimer: The post contained herein represents the opinions of a fan and may or may not bear any relation to reality.

  13. #313
    Internet Beyotch
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    15,808
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    23556
    Quote Originally Posted by Prancer View Post
    None of those things involve directly comparing A and B to see which one is better. They do involve having many years of looking at many As and Bs and Cs and developing a sense of range, but in the end, a paper is either good or not on its own merit, not because it is better or worse than the others in the pile. The play is good or bad on its own merit, not because of how it stacks up to the last one I saw. The disease either fits the established parameters of a particular condition or it does not. The apple is either that size, that size or that size, and is either for eating or cooking or mulching, all based on preset standards for apples. There are differences of opinion for all of those things--yet no one says that the problem lies in having standards, only that the standards sometimes need to be adjusted or enforced.

    I think all of us can look at a single apple and determine whether it looks good or not without seeing another apple beside it, because we have a concept of what a good apple should be. If we have never seen an apple before, a single apple will be rather confounding, but seeing another apple next to it won't clarify the issue. What if both are rotten? What if both are perfect? We can only know that if we already know enough about apples to tell the difference or we have something that tells us what a good or rotten apple is like.
    I really, really like this analysis.

    For years I bought into the idea that an ordinal ranking system really was the fairest way to score skaters even though it seemed convoluted and was difficult to explain and had all these weird side-effect like a skater down in 6th place skating last and suddenly the 1st place skater was the 2nd place skater. But when I saw how a CoP could work and all the advantages it brought to the sport I changed my mind. I couldn't really explain why it appealed to me more expect to say that it worked out better in the field.

    But this explanation of grading papers and judging apples really does explain it. I have graded papers and judged apples all the time and that really is how you do it. And I like the idea of judging them on their own merit against a standard of perfection and then letting the chips fall where they may in terms of which ones ends up in which place.
    Actual bumper sticker series: Jesus is my co-pilot. Satan is my financial advisor. Budha is my therapist. L. Ron Hubbard owes me $50.

  14. #314

    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    781
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    1925
    Quote Originally Posted by Prancer View Post
    We must not read the same board. I see endless debates after every competition--most of them about GOE and PCS. There are many threads questioning COP. THIS thread is one of them.
    Yes, there are lots of people questioning, challenging and debating the merits of COP. What I was saying is that pre-2003, folks rarely questioned, challenged or debated the merits of the 6.0 system. I agree with other long-time posters who are responding to the folks who asked, "can you imagine the arguments around the 6.0 system if the internet had existed before they invented social media?" Just pointing out Internet discussion has been alive and well long before Twitter, and I've been arguing about skating on the Internet probably longer than some posters here have been alive... and the arguing was hardly ever around the system itself and how it should be changed. Rather, it was almost always more around the judges themselves, their decisions (especially at the very top of the podium), if they were cheating, and "which way would you have gone [with your ordinals] and why?" etc. People didn't really think 6.0 was bad, but the judges were sometimes bad, biased or incompetent.

    Under COP the argument is a lot more about the system itself... errrr, scratch that. Actually, it's only about the system itself. Because only the sekret komputer knows which mark belongs to which judge and which marks were thrown out. So we can't effectively debate individual GOEs or PCS. Quite frankly, the ISU achieved it's goal of effectively sweeping any discussion of corruption under the rug by discouraging scrutiny of individual judges' marks for bias, corruption, or incompetence, and they effectively discouraged any sense that a decision could have gone one way or other and either decision was justifiable.

    If you mine back through all these threads and others, there are a lot of people making statements along the lines of, "at least now I understand the score. I understand where the 143.56 came from but I never understood where a 5.4 came from." Folks who say this infuriate me. How can you when the GOE and PCS are all over the map and no one knows who assigned which mark?


    Quote Originally Posted by Prancer View Post
    How do all of us teacher types grade papers?
    Uh oh, the human factors professional meets her favorite English professor in a battle of rhetoric. (I know I'm on the losing end already )

    Quote Originally Posted by Prancer View Post
    They do involve having many years of looking at many As and Bs and Cs and developing a sense of range, but in the end, a paper is either good or not on its own merit, not because it is better or worse than the others in the pile.
    You can award ties, Prancer, that's the difference. You can give two papers an A+. You can award multiple papers A's, B+'s, C's and that's just fine. (I can hear the.... "oh no our administration is fighting against grade inflation" arguments coming now. ) In a competition, you have to force ranking. There's a completely different psychology that comes into play. Even if COP says that a judge is just supposed to assign marks and not be concerned with ranking like they were under 6.0, it's really difficult to do so. Especially when most of the judges are still those who were raised up under the 6.0 ranking system. I've read lots of posts implying that the PCS is being used like the old 6.0 to rank skaters. I see it too and totally agree and it makes sense why.

    Also, in your examples, you have control over the standard. The standard is a personal standard you've developed in your head based on your years of experience. It may include some recognized standards (like grammatical rules - I've probably broken half of them in my post) but it also includes your own opinion of what's good/not good. The IJS dictates an overload of standards that you have to memorize and apply and may even disagree with, but you cannot change them and you're supposed to consider all of them. It's totally crazy!

    Along these lines, one the most puzzling things to me about the evolution of the IJS is that a trial with a split panel - one for TES and one for PCS "failed." I've seen it suggested over and over, with most serious fans not even realizing that it was tried. IIRC they tried it once at Nebelhorn and declared it a failure with very little said or published. (IMO because it's too expensive to have so many judges, ) With so much to recall about what makes a -1 vs a +2 and so much to recall about what might make good PE and IN ... all while you're judging GOE, maybe looking down, missing a TR or two... seemed like a major improvement would be to split the panels. Let one set of judges get really clear about the criteria for technical elements and assign GOE without concern for assessing timing and rhythm to the music or choreographic nuances that properly highlight the theme. And let another panel watch the program as a whole, and at the end assign the PCS based on the overall observation without having to worry about if the skater did adequate steps into and out of the a jump to warrant a +2 or +3. It's just way too much for the human mind to assess it all.

  15. #315

    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    In Canuck Land, hey!
    Age
    56
    Posts
    3,819
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    2416
    Having taught at a local college, I understand the analogy of marking papers and knowing what grade it would likely receive. However, to rightly assign the correct grade, I use a rubric -- a standard that all the papers/tests are marked against. In that way, the student knows that they have achieved not just an "A" grade, but an actual mark. They can also see where they went wrong, what they perhaps should have done to have met the specification for that particular question. For my students, this was a much better way of receiving a mark. They could take the test/paper back and see what exactly they did correct and what area(s) they needed to improve. Generally speaking, this feedback usually meant they did much better on a more comprehensive level later in the semester. As a student, I also appreciated that kind of feedback so that I knew why my paper was only a "B" and what I needed to do to bring it up to an "A".

    In the same manner, I believe COP has done this for the skaters. They can take their protocol sheets with them, ask for feedback in the specific areas where they had problems and then go away and figure out how to do better. I think this kind of feedback makes the sport better for the skaters and their teams. Knowing what the standard is, getting feedback specifically on how well you did (or didn't) reach the standard, is something that I think most of us understand better. It's probably why I understand COP better than the 6.0 and ordinal system. I really did try to figure it out, but after a number of years, just gave up.

    As for why figure skating is apparently dying -- well I think it's more than just the "new" marking system, and dying is in the eyes of the beholder. Ask someone in Japan if THEY feel it's a dying sport. I think you'd likely get a very different answer.
    Crazy about sports!

  16. #316
    Bountifully Enmeshed
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    At the Christmas Bizarre
    Posts
    38,154
    vCash
    250
    Rep Power
    46687
    Quote Originally Posted by BreakfastClub View Post
    "oh no our administration is fighting against grade inflation" arguments coming now.
    Au contraire. Viva la grade inflation!

    Quote Originally Posted by BreakfastClub View Post
    Also, in your examples, you have control over the standard. The standard is a personal standard you've developed in your head based on your years of experience. It may include some recognized standards (like grammatical rules - I've probably broken half of them in my post) but it also includes your own opinion of what's good/not good. The IJS dictates an overload of standards that you have to memorize and apply and may even disagree with, but you cannot change them and you're supposed to consider all of them. It's totally crazy!
    Are you talking about grading? Again, not so. I have a set of standards I must use to grade, and if a grade is challenged, I am required to defend myself using those standards. I can say that I consider a paper good or not good, but I have to be able to point to why I think it is good or not good based on the department's definitions, not my own. Fortunately, I happen to agree with the department's definitions, but while I technically have the right to grade as I see fit, it would not go well for me if I decided to exercise my right to open university policy.

    As for tying, the possibility exists, but I am no longer allowed to put a mere letter grade on a paper. I must use points. Soon I will have to use a rubric, but for now, I can just use points. I don't get a lot of ties. And IIRC, ties sometimes happen in skating, too, just not very often.

    I have also done ranking. I really, really hate ranking. At the moment, I am judging papers in a writing contest and must rank them all from first to last place. I've ranked textbooks and prospective new faculty. I find it very hard most of the time to just line them all up and put them in some kind of order in comparison to one another; there are too many positives and negatives to assess and weigh. Cognitively, I find it much easier to judge things based on an objective standard than a side-by-side comparison (which isn't even what happens in skating), but that might be because I am just more used to assessing one by one instead of ranking. Or maybe I just have a different kind of brain. Or something. But I'd rather assess what's right in front of me and go on without worrying about what came before and what will come after. I find it very hard, even with charts and lists, to keep all the details straight.
    "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."-- Albert Einstein.

  17. #317
    Internet Beyotch
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    15,808
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    23556
    Quote Originally Posted by BreakfastClub View Post
    What I was saying is that pre-2003, folks rarely questioned, challenged or debated the merits of the 6.0 system.
    And you are wrong. I've been online talking about skating since 1994. From the very first day, I participated in debates about the merits of the 6.0 system. Maybe you ignored those conversations because they didn't interest you but they existed and were not remotely rare.
    Actual bumper sticker series: Jesus is my co-pilot. Satan is my financial advisor. Budha is my therapist. L. Ron Hubbard owes me $50.

  18. #318
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    swimming across the Atlantic
    Posts
    1,215
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by MacMadame
    whole post
    Yes, reputation judging occurred under 6.0, but to a lesser extent. Someone, not sure if here or elsewhere, made a valid point that under 6.0, even heavy favorites like Michelle Kwan were still vulnerable to being upset by younger ones like Tara, Sasha, or Sarah if she made a mistake or if the young'uns skated harder programs. Under CoP, that's not the case. Someone like Gracie Gold could skate totally clean as the top people have splatfests, and she'd still 100% have no shot at winning bc she was 20 points down PCS wise to begin with.

    Everyone here on either side of this debate seems to be pretty knowledgeable about skating, so saying that people you happen to disagree with don't know anything about skating or CoP is not a valid argument.

    As far as people blaming CoP for the decline of the sport, whose to say that it wasn't a factor, even if it wasn't the only factor? In every other major sport, basketball, baseball, football, the way points are tallied is very easy to follow. Here, unless someone makes the effort to go online after watching and review the protocols, it IS harder for the casual fan to follow.
    Last edited by iloveemoticons; 03-23-2013 at 08:10 PM.

  19. #319
    Bountifully Enmeshed
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    At the Christmas Bizarre
    Posts
    38,154
    vCash
    250
    Rep Power
    46687
    Quote Originally Posted by iloveemoticons View Post
    Yes, reputation judging occurred under 6.0, but to a lesser extent. Someone, not sure if here or elsewhere, made a valid point that under 6.0, even heavy favorites like Michelle Kwan were still vulnerable to being upset by younger ones like Tara, Sasha, or Sarah if she made a mistake or if the young'uns skated harder programs. Under CoP, that's not the case. Someone like Gracie Gold could skate totally clean as the top people have splatfests, and she'd still 100% have no shot at winning bc she was 20 points down PCS wise to begin with.
    It seems to me that a lot of skaters who would have never gotten near the medal stand under 6.0 have surged ahead and the results are much more unpredictable.

    Quote Originally Posted by iloveemoticons View Post
    Everyone here on either side of this debate seems to be pretty knowledgeable about skating, so saying that people you happen to disagree with don't know anything about skating or CoP is not a valid argument.
    I don't think anyone has said that here, but the validity of the argument would not, in any case, be dependent on what seems to be. It would depend on whether I was right in what I said.

    Quote Originally Posted by iloveemoticons View Post
    As far as people blaming CoP for the decline of the sport, whose to say that it wasn't a factor, even if it wasn't the only factor?
    Um, who is to say that it IS?

    If one side can't say anything, neither can the other.

    Quote Originally Posted by iloveemoticons View Post
    Here, unless someone makes the effort to go online after watching and review the protocols, it IS harder for the casual fan to follow.
    In what way? What did the casual fans have under 6.0 that they don't have under COP? Either way, they had a placements and no explanations.
    "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."-- Albert Einstein.

  20. #320
    I <3 Kozuka
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Vancouver/Seattle
    Posts
    19,175
    vCash
    730
    Rep Power
    43796
    I know thay writers don't of ten write their own headlines, but I see it as a problem if the judges are propping anything up. That's DWTS and SYTYCD -- i.e. patially scripted and heavily edited commercial venture -- territory.
    "The team doesn't get automatic capacity because management is mad" -- Greg Smith, agile guy

Page 16 of 28 FirstFirst ... 6141516171826 ... 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
  •