I don't think they're too difficult, although I sometimes have to ask Mr. Overedge to explain some of the more uncommon notations.
I also don't think they're necessary to appreciate the game. One of the things I like about watching the game is watching the strategy of the plays unfold, which the box scores don't really capture. But just like the protocol sheets in skating, the information in the box scores is a good way to understand how the final score came about.
Stale pastry is hollow succour to a man who is bereft of ostrich. - Sheldon Cooper, The Big Bang Theory
When I was a baseball fan, I was a box score fanatic. I loved all the stats and spent hours on it. I'll glance at skating protocols but don't spend a lot of time on it. If I wonder about something I ask AYS about it.
I really don't think figure skating and baseball are all that different in that way.
In other words, I think the claim that skating loses casual fans because the judging system is too hard to understand is bogus. There are other complaints that have merit regarding the judging system but that one I find not to have any.
Geese fight back.
Until the boom caused by the whack, I think figure skating was perceived by the networks as entertainment, not a sport, so it wasn't taken seriously and got even less respect than it gets now. JMO.
Getting a round tuit.
Anyway, I like box scores and I like protocols. It's like knowing a fun language that gives you more information than you might have otherwise.
To some extent, while I think it is sad I watched World's in Latvian and Russian, I also think it is an embarassment of riches. I got to watch EVERY program of the event (if I wanted to- I missed a couple).
I don't think that happened even in the hey-day. Did any network show every single skater? Live?
The problem is that Universal Sports doesn't seem to think this is worth doing. I don't want to subscribe to their website- and apparently they don't think they can sell commercials. Next year I'll subscribe to IceNetwork because they have the rights for all the events.
And personally, I LOVE reading protocols. The sport makes so much more sense. I never understood 6.0 and was just happy when the American won. But I wasn't 'into' the sport as a sport, because I didn't understand where points came from. Now I enjoy it as a sport.
But that was better for the casual fans?
It may have been more fun to argue about 6.0--but that's because you could say ANYTHING with 6.0 and it might be valid (also true for the judges). Who knows why judge #3 placed skater X over skater Y? No one knew, so we could all argue our pet theories to death. But I fail to understand how that could possibly have been a better system for the casual fans. With COP, even the commentators can look right at the scores and say "Two jumps were downgraded" and show them in slo-mo and explain them. That may be boring, but less comprehensible?
I think COP has resulted in some really boring and fugly programs. I can understand people thinking that that would drive the casual fans away. But the scoring?
They're, their, and there. Get it right your in college.
I'm a fan of many sports, truth to tell. If there's a score of a game that I want to know, I look it up. Seldom do I want to look at the box score. However, I am inclined to read some articles about said game on a sports website -- especially box lacrosse.
Of course, it helps to actually understand the game. Looking at boxscores/gamesheets of a sport only makes sense if you understand at least some of the basic rules and abbreviations used. And how does one get acquainted with such, one could ask? Well in my case, it usually involved listening to people during the broadcast of that sport. They explained rules in the context of the game, using examples to point out why one thing versus another. Not that my eye could always see, but at least I could understand it a bit better.
Then, if I really wanted to know more about that sport, I'd probably start talking to people who are more knowledgeable about it. Getting their take on things, getting rules explained to me. I've even been known to crack open a rule book or two.
So what's the point? If I'm just a casual observer of a sport, I'm not likely to understand it much if the people "covering" it can't be bothered to explain even some of the simple things to me. For instance, a number of years ago I was watching one of the Winter Olympic sports where they have to ski around and then shoot at targets. I noticed that some people seemed to be skiing in a circuit and had no idea what on earth that was about. Fortunately for me, the person doing the commentary explained that it was a place where shooters did a "penalty lap" when they missed a target. OK, that made sense to me so I continued to watch. They made this point most times a shooter missed. Because they took the time to explain something as simple as that, I felt like I better understood at least that sport and continued to watch it til the end. Would I have continued to watch it at that time? Maybe, but I would be puzzled as to why some skiers did that extra lap while others didn't.
So why am I including this story? Because I feel that this is where the U.S. has done a big disservice to their figure skating fans. I've tried watching figure skating on U.S. channels and I find it mind boggling that they cannot or will not explain some of the simpler aspects of COP. It really isn't that difficult so the conclusion I've come to is one of two things
1) the commentators are too lazy to learn
2) they think their viewer are too stupid to understand
I don't mean they have to know every single bullet for each and every level, but they could do something as simple as what PJ does. She gives a breakdown of what is a good/excellent/exceptional score. During the skating she and other Canadian commentators explain some of the things we've seen -- sometimes during the skate, other times when they show the replays. It's because of such that I've taken the time to at least become better acquainted with COP. Do I know as much as say Tracy or PJ? Nope! Probably not as much as some posters here but I do understand that the person with the highest score wins, I understand that levels are given for elements by the Tech committee and that the judges determine how well an element was done. I understand PCS to a lower degree but do know that there is information out there if I really want to get down to the nitty gritty of things. And you know what, it tends to be that way with any sport for which a person really wants to understand. Sometimes it takes a bit of patience, sometimes perseverance, and occasionally some time.
With the 6.0 system I did try to understand the ordinals but I found it very confusing, especially when positions switched amongst skaters. I really didn't get flip flops -- confused the living daylights out of me.
Crazy about sports!
What does this even mean? Stuck in the past- games in sochi - Russian resaissance? But where is the success for Russia in the past years in IJS? Worlds 2013 had 2 medalists and Vancouver had 2 medalists. The system wont change to please Russia because IJS as it is now is good for Russia? No- it certainly is not!!But figure skating? It remains stuck in the past. That might not be a problem for a Games in Sochi and a Russian renaissance, but, long term, it will kill the sport.
That's really a matter of opinion, because PCS is subjective. I think Kostner should learn to be consistent, Yuna should learn a triple loop, and Mao should learn a triple lutz if they want to keep the younger skaters at bay. Those are objective weaknesses, whereas vague PCS criteria like "effortlessness," "emotional involvement," "style," "clarity of movement," etc. are subjective.Originally Posted by Ziggy
I agree that 6.0 wasn't perfect, but the scoring was a lot less egregious overall than now. I would guess that those who placed above her in that competition did not fall three times and likely skated clean or close to clean as well. Under CoP, it is possible for a skater to fall three times and still win over a totally clean program because of PCS, which is what I disagree with.2) It's another example of memory reconstructing the past. Such results used to happen all the time under the old judging system. I cried all day after Gusmeroli was 4th at 2000 Europeans, having skating a beautiful and clean free program.
It seems like a good chunk of falls don't get a UR call, but even if a fall gets a UR call, it isn't really a penalty for falling, because skaters that don't fall and seem to land their jumps cleanly still often get UR calls, so the UR calls apply equally to all skaters, fall or no fall.Originally Posted by Asli
This is true. I like the UR feature of CoP, although I think sometimes the UR calls are applied unevenly for borderline jumps.There is one aspect of the jumps that the 6.0 system hardly ever penalised: Underrotated jumps were usually considered successful if landed. Sarah Hughes won the olympic gold with a whole bunch of severely underrotated triples that would be called as doubles today. With the CoP underrotating jumps by more than half a rotation is a very costly mistake.
This kind of reminds me of when they got rid of school figures. 1. so tedious to watch it was not TV friendly, 2. the general viewer didn't understand why the strongest free skater didn't win.
I think I will have a snack and take a nap before I eat and go to sleep.
The articles mainly talk about the effect in the U.S., how the new scorubg systthm is n't winning fans over. Thecontinual over scoring hurts it or having a champ win twice by falling at,least twice,in each of programs. Under 6.0 falling twice you rarely won world or olypicx ezpecially if your nearedt main,competitor stood. Besides that is one reason the short program came in the 1973 to give free skaters achane to ein if skated clean because with just figure could win figures & screw up free &still win. Problem started wth,overscoring patrick in short.. Short program use to mean required elements and Mandatory deductions for not doing them properly. Now just points left on table nothissg really taken off .
I think I will have a snack and take a nap before I eat and go to sleep.
This is a pretty fair comparison to figure skating; baseball also has subjective judging, and favorites can be 'held up' just the same. And depending on who you talk to- often are.
So the outcome may be determined by what happens on the field, but there is a human element to calling 'what happens', so just like I may not understand why someone got +GOE and someone got -GOE and blame politics the same thing comes into play when I question why an umpire would call someone safe and someone else out. Is it politics or just a bad call? In skating, the fans always say politics, but chances are they are human and it may have been a bad call.
However, your point is irrelevant because the post I was responding to compared box scores to protocol sheets. Totally different things. The protocols determine the outcome in skating. The box score in baseball merely reports it.
I've heard at least two commentators, Peter Carruthers and Susie Wynne, talk about it during 4CCs about nine years ago. IIRC, Dick and Peggy had something to say about Amber's cheated jumps as well. Her triple-triples were allegedly downgraded as well. Susie said something to the effect that this "always" hurts Amber.How do you know she was?
Skaters who don't have the same level of skating skills need many crossovers to obtain he same speed and lose speed during footwork, needing toe pushes and extra srossovers or getting stuck in the ice. This is not a subjective criterion, just like most of the other criteria.
IMO it is very important to reward good skating as well as good jumping, because this is, after all, a skating competition. Jumps have become an important aspect of figure skating, but should this mean that they are the one and only important aspect?
Last edited by Asli; 03-18-2013 at 11:35 PM.