Jackie Wong Analyzes Program Component Scores

[VGThuy]

I think you pretty much summarized all of my contradictions, I'd like a holistic approach and for figure skating to go back to being about a whole than element-by-element style skating, but then I turn around and complain when GOEs are seemingly used by judges to make sure a certain ranking happens rather than judging the element itself.

 

[dinakt]

Despite my arguments in the Trash Can that P/E and IN are distinct categories, I REALLY like @clairecloutier 's proposal (post 40). There are elements, there are skating skills, and there is artistry (presentation/musicality). Though I consider musicality and presentation quite different, one can argue for the "impact" of a performance, whether P/E or IN are prevalent. If it is both, give them 10s IF the system separates SS (as I really think it should) and then judges on "artistic impact" as a separate category, the system would be improved. We'll still argue till we're hoarse about the artistry, but separating SS will hopefully provide a more independent view of both.

 

[Coco]

There's a different kind of attention for marking individual elements in depth and trying to evaluate a series of qualities over the duration of a program.

I completely agree! This is one of many reasons I feel the callers should be assessing the GOE, and the judges could grade the big picture things.

It wouldn't even bother me if the GOE bullet points were reduced simply to items that had to do with the technique of the skill and the body position during the skill.

For the record, my phone corrected body position to Bible session.

 

[Bellanca]

What's there to analyze? We all know the PCS are rep. scores. Even the GoE's most of the times are about rep.
Don't bother too much with that, otherwise you'll go nuts.

Exactly.

JW & forum posters can Poindexter this subject to death, but you're pretty much spot-on.

 

[tony]

If the panels are going to stay the same going forward (technical panel and one GOE/PCS panel of judges), then I don't think a -5 to +5 scale is going to do any good. The judges are going to have to be even more meticulous about whether they should score element A a +2 or a +3, and so on.

The bullet point criteria for how to earn a +1, +2, and +3 also should definitely be condensed.

1) unexpected / creative / difficult entry
2) clear recognizable (creative, interesting, original for jump preceded by steps/movements of
the Short Program) steps/free skating movements immediately preceding element
3) varied position in the air / delay in rotation
4) good height and distance
5) good extension on landing / creative exit
6) good flow from entry to exit including jump combinations / sequences
7) effortless throughout
8) element matched to the musical structure

This is straight from the ISU. In order for a +3 to be considered on any jump or jumping pass, a minimum of 6 of these features must be achieved (and 4 for a +2, 2 for a +1).

But for starters, if you have #1, you probably have #2.
#6 and #7 could also be combined (if you have one, you probably are going to have the other). And even a bit of #5 could be thrown in with these.
I already mentioned #8 being somewhat silly and extremely subjective, because if a skater has slow music without a really clear beat, who is to say they did or did not match the structure? That one should definitely be gone and more impacted in what would be the presentation part of PCS.

I think the GOE of a jump should be based on the entry, the air position and height/distance, and then the exit extension and flow. All three of those should simply warrant a +3 and there's not too much room for open interpretation. In the short program, the judges are still throwing out huge GOEs for solo quadruple jumps without any steps at all. So remove the 'steps into the solo jump' requirement and just reward it with the GOE, if they do accomplish it (ie. you can't get a +3 unless you do some kind of steps or creative movements into the jump)

A jump done on the wrong edge should never get more than a -1 GOE in my opinion, even if it's the ! call. Many years ago I thought technical panels should really just call the jump as it is attempted (the edge it takes off), and if you can't do a flip or Lutz the right way, you have to find another way to earn points. It's silly to give skaters the majority of the credit for a third (or even fourth) attempt at the same exact jump but completely void the element if it were a toe loop, Salchow, or loop. JMO.

There needs to be a way to separate the panels, but giving the technical panel the duty of assigning GOE's on top of element levels gives three people too much power IMO. With a really clear-cut definition of what is needed for a +3 rather than these lax criteria that overlap each other, there isn't really a need for a panel of 9 or however many judges to assign the GOE. 5 would probably even suffice. A panel of 7 watching the skating skills and presentation of the program may also work since they are not focused on the elements. So you'd require 12 judges per event, and I'd even say that their positions in the short and long segments could be drawn randomly- so they may judge TES one day and PCS the next.

But in the end, just like in the ordinal system, they will find a way to boost or lower skaters' scores if they really want to, as has been addressed by a few posters. But it may not be as much of a case of wanting to do so versus having to focus so closely on the program and then at the end thinking 'Well the audience reaction is great, the skater did pretty well and skates late in the day, so I think I'll give X score for PCS since I wasn't paying as much attention as I should'.

One thing that is better about IJS and the single biggest reason I prefer it over ordinals is that if Skater A has a bad day in the short program, they can beat Skater B by a large margin in the long program and win overall. In 6.0, Skater A's bad short program made it a nearly impossible task, even if they were a 5.9/6.0 on the free skate and Skater B (who was good enough for 2nd in said free skate) only earned a 5.2/5.5.

 

[Foolhardy Ham Lint]

If the panels are going to stay the same going forward (technical panel and one GOE/PCS panel of judges), then I don't think a -5 to +5 scale is going to do any good. The judges are going to have to be even more meticulous about whether they should score element A a +2 or a +3, and so on.

The bullet point criteria for how to earn a +1, +2, and +3 also should definitely be condensed.



This is straight from the ISU. In order for a +3 to be considered on any jump or jumping pass, a minimum of 6 of these features must be achieved (and 4 for a +2, 2 for a +1).

But for starters, if you have #1, you probably have #2. Laurine Lecavelier's back bend movement into her solo Lutz in the early versions of her short program last year would be a rare case of having #1 but not really having #2 (unless you consider that a free skating movement-- I guess you could), but in most cases it is the steps aspect that makes it a creative or difficult entry.
#6 and #7 could also be combined (if you have one, you probably are going to have the other). And even a bit of #5 could be thrown in with these.
I already mentioned #8 being somewhat silly and extremely subjective, because if a skater has slow music without a really clear beat, who is to say they did or did not match the structure? That one should definitely be gone and more impacted in what would be the presentation part of PCS.

I think the GOE of a jump should be based on the entry, the air position and height/distance, and then the exit extension and flow. All three of those should simply warrant a +3 and there's not too much room for open interpretation. In the short program, the judges are still throwing out huge GOEs for solo quadruple jumps without any steps at all. So remove the 'steps into the solo jump' requirement and just reward it with the GOE, if they do accomplish it (ie. you can't get a +3 unless you do some kind of steps or creative movements into the jump)

A jump done on the wrong edge should never get more than a -1 GOE in my opinion, even if it's the ! call. Many years ago I thought technical panels should really just call the jump as it is attempted (the edge it takes off), and if you can't do a flip or Lutz the right way, you have to find another way to earn points. It's silly to give skaters the majority of the credit for a third (or even fourth) attempt at the same exact jump but completely void the element if it were a toe loop, Salchow, or loop. JMO.

There needs to be a way to separate the panels, but giving the technical panel the duty of assigning GOE's on top of element levels gives three people too much power IMO. With a really clear-cut definition of what is needed for a +3 rather than these lax criteria that overlap each other, there isn't really a need for a panel of 9 or however many judges to assign the GOE. 5 would probably even suffice. A panel of 7 watching the skating skills and presentation of the program may also work since they are not focused on the elements. So you'd require 12 judges per event, and I'd even say that their positions in the short and long segments could be drawn randomly- so they may judge TES one day and PCS the next.

But in the end, just like in the ordinal system, they will find a way to boost or lower skaters' scores if they really want to, as has been addressed by a few posters. But it may not be as much of a case of wanting to do so versus having to focus so closely on the program and then at the end thinking 'Well the audience reaction is great, the skater did pretty well and skates late in the day, so I think I'll give X score for PCS since I wasn't paying as much attention as I should'.

One thing that is better about IJS and the single biggest reason I prefer it over ordinals is that if Skater A has a bad day in the short program, they can beat Skater B by a large margin in the long program and win overall. In 6.0, Skater A's bad short program made it a nearly impossible task, even if they were a 5.9/6.0 on the free skate and Skater B (who was good enough for 2nd in said free skate) only earned a 5.2/5.5.

Thank you for your excellent, in-depth analysis, Tony.

Plus FIVE GOE! Jump entries are complex enough. At times, the Russian girls could double as egg beaters, trying to earn plus three.

Unless of course, the judges are planning to allow Surya Bonaly's one-footed backflip into a triple salchow into eligible competition.

I miss the days when less was more.

 

[MAXSwagg]

...
A jump done on the wrong edge should never get more than a -1 GOE in my opinion, even if it's the ! call. ...

I disagree. Incorrect or unclear edges are technical/foundational flaws, and should be addressed in the base value. A Lutz or flip could be on the wrong edge but the quality of the jump could still be there.

 

[Amantide]

I disagree. Incorrect or unclear edges are technical/foundational flaws, and should be addressed in the base value. A Lutz or flip could be on the wrong edge but the quality of the jump could still be there.

If the quality of the jump isn't there they would get a -2 or -3. A -0 or -1 for wrong edge is fair, IMO.

 

[poths]

Yeah, I think two panels is the best option. Still, I'm not sure it would change much, if the PCS are about rep. which I believe they are.

I just think...Have a separate panel of dance experts to evaluate 'artistry' (components is a crap term IMHO) This way there MIGHT actually be significant differences between TES, IN and CO

SS and TR could directly relate with GOE. That is, jumps/spins on weak edges or without proceeding steps should not receive additional points. If they want to rank, then actually rank at the end of a competition giving 24 additional points to your number one, 23 to your number 2 etc.

 

[Jun Y]

It's pointless to endlessly modify the rules if ISU fails to enforce the rules and discipline or kick out judges and officials who ignore the rules. Changing rules just tortures skaters and coaches some more but lets bad judges off the hook.

 

[gkelly]

I'm most interested in discussing how the rules/guidelines as currently written should best be applied.

How would we use these guidelines to assign scores if we were judging?

How would the ideal judges do it? And what might be preventing real-life judges from behaving ideally? Can the obstacles to ideal implementation be minimized within the current rules?

Real people are never going to behave like platonic ideals no matter how expert and well-intentioned. So even if rules/guidelines get rewritten, will the same obstacles to ideal behavior still apply?

 

[Miki89]

But I'm somebody that has absolutely no problem with Kostner receiving high or the highest PCS marks. She has remarkable control over her entire body and the movements are done with such ease and little effort. She should always be getting higher PCS than Medvedeva, even if Evgenia is spot on. Carolina's last few free skates have been masterpieces to me. As far as Asada goes, she had her fair share of technique problems, stalking jumps (that preparation for the 3A... I realize it's insanely difficult and all..) but I do agree on certain occasions the judges did her no favors-- 2014 Olympics LP being the big obvious one.

Carolina telegraphs her jumps far more than Mao. I only recall Mao having a fairly long preparation for her 3A. But if you rewatch her programs, it isn't like she is doing no choreography either. She is usually setting the mood at the beginning before launching the 3A, which was almost always well-timed to the music in her later years. The thing that always impressed me about Mao was that she added difficulty and intricacy to her programs while still being effortless and ethereal. Sometimes I forget how difficult and complicated her step sequences were because she made them look easy. She should definitely have been rewarded more for her ability to do that.

Also, if Caro's technical errors shouldn't affect her PCS scores, then Mao shouldn't have been punished in PCS for her technique issues which was already reflected in TES imo. I also find the argument that Carolina deserves high PCS because she should get higher PCS than Med hollow and quite ridiculous. Both of them are overscored because the judging system isn't working well. If PCS is used as a way for judges to just place skaters the way they want, then why not bring back ordinals? It's subjective but so much easier to understand.

 

[Spun Silver]

I'm most interested in discussing how the rules/guidelines as currently written should best be applied.

How would we use these guidelines to assign scores if we were judging?

How would the ideal judges do it? And what might be preventing real-life judges from behaving ideally? Can the obstacles to ideal implementation be minimized within the current rules?

Real people are never going to behave like platonic ideals no matter how expert and well-intentioned. So even if rules/guidelines get rewritten, will the same obstacles to ideal behavior still apply?

Aren’t you the one who organized a PCS judging exercise here a couple years ago? You must have encouraged anyone to participate because obviously I am just a fan, not an expert. One thing about that stuck in my mind. You (if it was you) IIRC encouraged us to judge absolutely, not relatively, and to treat every skater like a blank slate. I tried to do that, and I gave quite high marks to Laurine Lecavelier who impressed me a lot despite technical weaknesses. This was probably the season before she started getting much attention here. To my surprise, my fellow judges all awarded her low corridor marks. Looking back, that was sheer reputation judging IMHO. So that showed me that fans, even expert fans, are no different from judges.

I still remember feeling foolish because my marks stood out from everyone else’s. So maybe the judges invented the corridor all by themselves so no one would feel left out and embarrassed. :/

 

[Amantide]

So that showed me that fans, even expert fans, are no different from judges.

Sure we are. We are biased as well and as much as we might try to be objective it's not always possible. After all, we all do have our preferences and favorites. Between two good skaters you have to choose one and you choose the one that suits more to your "gusto".

 

[Deleted member 19433]

In general it is much easier to complain when we think someone else has done something wrong than it is to do everything right ourselves. Even if we really feel we are fully justified in believing a mark is wrong, we would not be immune to giving marks that others would deem wrong. It also is a different experience to have to mark every element in real time as well as the components than it is to just watch a program and form some overall impressions about it, as some posters learned from the mock judging exercises.

 

[VGThuy]

That's true. I think if we were all judges, we'd be complaining about each other's marks no question. It's like when fans complain about skating music but then we come up with suggestions and other fans think they're awful.

 

[gkelly]

I really like hearing different opinions on how to score different programs -- in the context of each of us sharing our own analyses, not imposing one's own analysis as right and anyone who disagrees as wrong.

Part of what fascinates me about this sport is how complex it is and how many different moving parts there are to every aspect of its evaluation. And we all bring different knowledge to what we see, whether it's experience in ballroom dance or ballet, or skating school figures or jumping triples ourselves, or familiarity with cultural resonances from different parts of the world.

 

[Amantide]

That's true. I think if we were all judges, we'd be complaining about each other's marks no question. It's like when fans complain about skating music but then we come up with suggestions and other fans think they're awful.

In Italy we say: everyone is a coach and a referee (when speaking about football).

 

[AxelAnnie]

I'm most interested in discussing how the rules/guidelines as currently written should best be applied.

How would we use these guidelines to assign scores if we were judging?

How would the ideal judges do it? And what might be preventing real-life judges from behaving ideally? Can the obstacles to ideal implementation be minimized within the current rules?

Real people are never going to behave like platonic ideals no matter how expert and well-intentioned. So even if rules/guidelines get rewritten, will the same obstacles to ideal behavior still apply?

IMO COP is trying to quantify something that cannot be quantified.

To Judge means

form an opinion or conclusion about.

Opinion is:

a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

A judged sport is always going to be swayed by opinion. IMO, the TES scores could be cleared up and quantified. I think it would help skating as a sport. A touchdown, for example, is when the ball goes over the end zone. And then, you count the number of times that happens, and the highest score wins. Basketball - the ball goes through the hoop...not close to it, or almost in. There is no +GOE. It is in or out.

I think part of what is damaging skating is awarding points for falls. What regular person (and I don't think anyone on this board is regular ) can understand that? We have numbers, we can sort of understand....but how can someone who just tuned in to watch a random event understand? There are numbers, but they don't make sense.

 

[gkelly]

I think part of what is damaging skating is awarding points for falls. What regular person (and I don't think anyone on this board is regular ) can understand that?

I think most people can understand if it's explained:
E.g., a triple axel is worth 8.5 points. So he started with 8.5 for taking off from the forward and rotating 3 and a half times. Then he lost 4 points for falling (3 in grade of execution and one in fall deduction), so the attempt only earned him 4.5 points overall instead 8.5 if he'd landed it.

It might be simpler to explain if the GOEs were a straight percentage of the base value: he lost 50% (or more) of the base value because of the fall.

Of course it does get more complicate if underrotations or edge calls also affect the base value.

Put another way:
If you fall on nothing, you only lose points for falling.

If you fall on something, you gain points for as much as the something you did was worth. Then you lose a big chunk of those points, plus one more point, for the fall.

 

[Spun Silver]

I think most people can understand if it's explained:
E.g., a triple axel is worth 8.5 points. So he started with 8.5 for taking off from the forward and rotating 3 and a half times. Then he lost 4 points for falling (3 in grade of execution and one in fall deduction), so the attempt only earned him 4.5 points overall instead 8.5 if he'd landed it.

It might be simpler to explain if the GOEs were a straight percentage of the base value: he lost 50% (or more) of the base value because of the fall.

Of course it does get more complicate if underrotations or edge calls also affect the base value.

Put another way:
If you fall on nothing, you only lose points for falling.

If you fall on something, you gain points for as much as the something you did was worth. Then you lose a big chunk of those points, plus one more point, for the fall.

Why do we never hear such clear explanations from the commentators? So much repetitive gab to fill up so-called empty air, so little explanation of the IJS.

 

[Dobre]

I think most people can understand if it's explained

I don't know. I explain it to a lot of people sitting in the vicinity when I attend skating events, and they do not understand. Or rather, they do not accept it. They comprehend that athletes are earning those points within the boundaries of the rulebook; but they disagree with them. Strongly if the performance aspect of other athletes is stronger than the athlete winning with falls.

And these are not casual fans. They are people who paid hundreds of dollars & set aside days of their lives to attend an event. They do better if they purchase a skate radio & have a professional voice explaining the jumps and missed levels, etc. But I do think that rewarding falls has damaged the way the audience views the sport. Audience members, of course, have always disagreed with skating results. Viewers go into events with more knowledge about/personal connection to specific athletes. But when those athletes make mistakes, they understand that there should be deductions. The idea that a failed element can be worth more than a clean one goes against intuition. And often intuition trumps logic.

 

[VGThuy]

I explain the scoring system on a very basic level when I watch it on tv with other people. Explaining that falls, doubles, UR loses points and that footwork, spins, lifts, etc. are all worth a certain base value and that there are levels of difficulty giving those moves more points if the skater achieves it. Some want more specifics while others are content with just the basics. They have somehow adopted the habit of saying "stupid scoring system" if they disagree with a result. I swear I was only partially responsible for that.

ETA: For first time watchers who think it's "cute" that I'm so into it that I host parties and such, they are just simply surprised that there's a whole scoring system and stringent rules. They thought skaters just went out there and improvised whatever. Many of them are probably imagining all the made-for-tv pro events (though those were choreographed routines as well) OR they just never thought about figure skating having strict rules like every other sports. When some found out that I've seen this choreography already and I explained that skaters tend to keep a program for a whole season to perfect it for the big competitions, they don't quite grasp how hard the sport is and how unforgiving the scoring system is as to why that makes sense. They thought skaters should come up with new routines after every competition. I try my best, and I think I convinced some why it's the only rational way skaters can compete but some others just like giving me a hard time.

 

[Spun Silver]

...some others just like giving me a hard time.

I hope Mr VGT-to-be would never do such an unfeeling thing!

ETA: When it comes to outsiders and newbies, so much comes down to having no clue how difficult the sport is. And again, the commentators! They just keep talking about the thin blade which I think is common knowledge at this point. I just asked my husband about the blade. He thought there were two, but he guessed 1/8” thick which is pretty good. Then he said he thought there was something about the blade that gave it two edges. So — I think the commentators could shut up about that and the second half bonus and give more detail about scoring!

(My husband very rarely watches skating. He does hear me talk about it all the time, but not about the blade. “I learned that when I was four years old!”)

 

[missing]

I don't know. I explain it to a lot of people sitting in the vicinity when I attend skating events, and they do not understand. Or rather, they do not accept it. They comprehend that athletes are earning those points within the boundaries of the rulebook; but they disagree with them. Strongly if the performance aspect of other athletes is stronger than the athlete winning with falls.

And these are not casual fans. They are people who paid hundreds of dollars & set aside days of their lives to attend an event. They do better if they purchase a skate radio & have a professional voice explaining the jumps and missed levels, etc. But I do think that rewarding falls has damaged the way the audience views the sport. Audience members, of course, have always disagreed with skating results. Viewers go into events with more knowledge/personal connection to specific athletes. But when those athletes make mistakes, they understand that there should be deductions. The idea that a failed element can be worth more than a clean one goes against intuition. And often intuition trumps logic.

I've been thinking a lot about this and my feelings are just as Dobre voiced them. I finally summed it up as: In the current system, what happens before the landing is more important than the landing. To me, the landing itself is more important than what happens before it.

What can get irritating is the assumption that my attitude is wrong. I don't think it is. And my guess is commentators would be loathe to explain skating with a statement as simple as What happens before the landing is more important than the landing itself.

Commentators come in two varieties, those who have competed in the sport and those who represent fans. I thought about three other sports where landings factor in the judging- gymnastics. diving and ski jumping. And in all those sports, the commentators who represent the fans focus on the landing- is it stuck, is there splash, is it clean. Maybe it's simplistic on the part of the commentators, but it's also the easiest thing for them and the fans to understand.

I'm a fan of figure skating for a great many reasons, but not because what happens before the landing is more important than the landing itself. Higher, stronger, faster, etc. isn't a convincing argument for me either. I'd rather see a pairs team land side by side double axels than fall on side by side triple toe loops.

 

[Simone411]

Isn't that how it used to be with the 6.0 system? It was what happened after the jump (the way they landed and looking at the edges) instead of viewing what's going on before the jump. That doesn't even make a lot of sense to me at all. Now, I don't know a lot of the technicalities with the new scoring system at all. I just know when I see how a skater lands the jump and if they have clean edges and when they two-foot a landing. This before stuff just doesn't even seem right.

 

[tony]

We've always seen steps into jumps. It has been a long-running requirement in the short program that the solo jump needs to have steps directly into it. The ladies were first allowed to do a triple jump out of steps in the 1995 season. Whether the judges deducted in 6.0 or even in IJS is still questionable in some cases, but that's a different story that's already been brought up. We've also seen skaters use the multiple three-turn entry into their triple loop jumps, and skaters like Kaetlyn Osmond still prefer this method.

But now, since the creative/difficult/unique steps or movements preceding the jump comprise 2 of the 8 jump bullet points in IJS, we of course see it much more and the top skaters are attempting some kind of movements into every jump. Sometimes it works beautifully (think Yuzuru Hanyu's set-up into his triple Axel) and sometimes it just looks repetitive or mechanical (sorry, but this applies to most of the junior Russian ladies).

I'm still fine with giving the absolute top +3 GOE to a skater that has a great entry, air position/height/distance, and landing. But the jumps are going the same way as the spins-- so many features required for the top marks that it doesn't 'paint a picture', in some similar words of Dick Button, as it would when everything was much less complicated.

If you wanted to remove the entry steps/movements and attribute that more to the presentation side of things (just like I feel landing on the music should be), I wonder how the ISU could come up with enough bullet points to still achieve the +3. Maybe air position and height/distance could be considered to be different, and then landing position/runout being a third. But then it doesn't really reward variations in the air, which as much as some people hate them, they really do make the jumps that much more difficult.

 

[tony]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3Jar2dY3ow&t=150s

Check this out. I was always in awe of this particularly solo jump in the short program by Viktor Pfeifer because of the amount of content he had going in, during, and coming out-- wasn't common at all pre-2016 or so. Would all of the stuff happening right before and the variation on the landing be more of a GOE thing for you, or would it be reflected more in the transitions and composition of the program? Or both?

 

[MAXSwagg]

If the quality of the jump isn't there they would get a -2 or -3. A -0 or -1 for wrong edge is fair, IMO.

That isn't large enough of a deduction for a severe error in fundamental technique.

 

[Foolhardy Ham Lint]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3Jar2dY3ow&t=150s

Check this out. I was always in awe of this particularly solo jump in the short program by Viktor Pfeifer because of the amount of content he had going in, during, and coming out-- wasn't common at all pre-2016 or so. Would all of the stuff happening right before and the variation on the landing be more of a GOE thing for you, or would it be reflected more in the transitions and composition of the program? Or both?

Pfeifer was one of the few who could turn mathematics into art. He really was the John Curry of his generation.