ISU floats possible changes to judging system

[Coco]

The whole point of IJS is to have open ended scoring, so that a skater could deliver a 'knockout' punch with a huge element.

Keeping TES and PCS at 50% each, even theoretically, is looking like a thing of the past.

 

[overedge]

Lol quad eliminationists are angry!!

No one other than you gets their shorts into such a knot about the issue.

 

[tony]

The whole point of IJS is to have open ended scoring, so that a skater could deliver a 'knockout' punch with a huge element.

Keeping TES and PCS at 50% each, even theoretically, is looking like a thing of the past.

But components scores have remained the same since IJS was created. Sure, the judges were afraid to go above 8 before 2010, but now they are afraid to go below 8 for any top skater, regardless of how little may be going on in the actual program or how weak the basic skating skills may be. Chan's 95 PCS points now don't mean nearly as much as they would have before the 4-quad program trend (or quads at all for that matter) and I think in order to keep it a balanced sport, both aspects of it need to be on the same scale.

There is just obviously an imbalance in the two sets of scores and it's only going to get bigger as the skaters push more and more technically (we are seeing it already with the ladies but wait until 3A and quads are the norm for them, too.)

 

[nimi]

Sure, the judges were afraid to go above 8 before 2010, but now they are afraid to go below 8 for any top skater, regardless of how little may be going on in the actual program or how weak the basic skating skills may be.

THIS.

 

[Karpenko]

There's a ceiling on PCS scoring while technical can always go higher and higher. The only way to solve the problem is to increase whatever they multiply the individual PCS to get the final PCS tally IMO. Otherwise the technical will always be worth more in men's skating from here on out.

Also the scoring for PCS will always be out of whack no matter what because people are people, manipulation will always be there. It'll eventually just go back up again if PCS comes back down to the 7-8 range, and then TES is worth even more in the final score.

 

[Seerek]

I did some quick and dirty math using the 2017 Worlds results and the only significant change for the men if a PCS multiplier of 1.2/2.4 was used would be Javier Fernandez winning bronze. Most of the other overall placements would not change (and if they did, it would only be a change of 1-2 spots).

 

[Karpenko]

Going off my last post, the most difficult short program a man could skate at this moment is probably this:
4Lz+3Lo, 4F, 3A, FCSp4, CSSp4, CCoSp4, StSq4. I know the Lo hasn't happened after a quad but I think it will and gives skaters something even more to push for.

With that said, the total element score, with all +3 for those elements, would be 68.70 points. That's the absolute ceiling as the rules currently stand (4A not being realistic for a combo jump at this point). If the technical panels and statisticians could somehow figure out how to turn that into 50.00 TES points, we'd have something.

By the way, I'd get rid of the second-half jump bonus and rather credit that to the PCS.

A bare minimum senior mens short program would look like this:
3T+2T, 3S, 2A, FSSpB, CCSpB, CCoSpB, StSqB
Fulfills all the requirements at the absolute minimum, but clearly not competitive. +3's across the board for all of these elements would be 31.50 TES points, so a little bit under half of what the most difficult program could achieve. Converting that to the 50 point scale, it would be somewhere around 22.93 points, or if using the PCS-defined scores, it would put the skater somewhere between 'fair' and 'average' for their effort. Maybe the basemark here should be 25.00 points, which would involve some re-working of values.

The scores would definitely be closer together, but I think that makes things more exciting and really gives a balance to both aspects of what consummates figure skating.

I don't necessarily think it's fair that someone can 'run away' with the technical score, while skaters like Patrick Chan, who was infinitely better than the majority of his competition from 2009-2013 or so as far as PCS is concerned, was usually lumped very closely with other top competitors (see 2009 Worlds PCS as a great example). If anything, he should have been the one running away with those scores but there was a ceiling regardless of how much better he was. The ceiling needs to be placed on the TES, too.

Tony if you place a ceiling on the technical, the men will just break it somehow later on. Look how much it's evolved in a very short time. Your idea makes things way too complicated, a simpler solution would be to make the PCS ceiling worth more in relation to whatever the top skaters are doing technically. (The total components score, all individual components stay out of 10) Then both scores will be similar in value.

It doesn't have to be so drastic and complicated, with this idea you're punishing the skaters for moving the sport forward technically and discouraging it from happening in the future.

 

[MAXSwagg]

Sounds good to my non-expert ears.
This would also free up the judges to spend more time & attention to the actual program as a whole being skated instead of mentally juggling with the GOE bullet points for jumps.

...or just increase the number of judges and split the panel to have one set judging GOE, and another judging the components.

 

[tony]

Tony if you place a ceiling on the technical, the men will just break it somehow later on. Look how much it's evolved in a very short time. Your idea makes things way too complicated, a simpler solution would be to make the PCS ceiling worth more in relation to whatever the top skaters are doing technically. (The total components score, all individual components stay out of 10) Then both scores will be similar in value.

It doesn't have to be so drastic and complicated, with this idea you're punishing the skaters for moving the sport forward technically and discouraging it from happening in the future.

But Hanyu was at 126 with high GOE on everything at the 2017 Worlds, but still the potential to add a 5th (or 6th...) quad in there. So what is the fair PCS factor? 1.3?

From a non-hardcore fan standpoint, a 50.00 / 50.00 and 100.00 / 100.00 scale would probably be much easier to understand. The closer the man is to 300 points in the end, the better he skated.

I know it would take a lot of reworking and the world records would not be broken, but either way we have the same concept in mind but in different directions. I'm not limiting any skater from pushing the sport. That 50 point technical score that I gave as an example comes from having the absolute hardest elements being done at absolute perfection. Just as the 50 points in PCS, if ever given, would be absolute perfection (or so we'd hope).

 

[gkelly]

Move the "timed with the music" GOE bullet point to one of the PCS categories (composition?)

Why?

Why give the judges less flexibility to reward individual elements where appropriate or construction of the program as a whole where appropriate or both where appropriate?

Let the callers assess GOE

Sounds good to my non-expert ears.
This would also free up the judges to spend more time & attention to the actual program as a whole being skated instead of mentally juggling with the GOE bullet points for jumps.

It would un-free the tech panel's time. They're busy enough already. Asking the tech panel to juggle both levels/jump calls and GOEs would undoubtedly make the wait for reviews last longer and likely result in more erroneous calls. Plus it would make it harder to reward skaters for good aspects of elements with technical flaws that affect the scores, e.g., a flying sit that takes just a little too long to get into position but is really fast and beautiful once it gets there.

Look into making GOE a % of base value

Yes!

Reallocate the P/E criteria to the other four components
Corridor will now only apply to the four remaining components
New fifth component (replacing P/E) Take average raw GOE for the program, scale it from 0-10 (GOE of zero would equal 5, -3=0, +3=10)

Not sure what this gains.

...or just increase the number of judges and split the panel to have one set judging GOE, and another judging the components.

Can we let the GOE judges also assess Skating Skills and maybe Transitions, to give them something to think about between elements and to allow the PCS judges to assess the artistic qualities without reference to quantified technical skills? Maybe call the two sets technical judges and performance judges.

 

[MAXSwagg]

Going off my last post, the most difficult short program a man could skate at this moment is probably this:
4Lz+3Lo, 4F, 3A, FCSp4, CSSp4, CCoSp4, StSq4. I know the Lo hasn't happened after a quad but I think it will and gives skaters something even more to push for.

With that said, the total element score, with all +3 for those elements, would be 68.70 points. That's the absolute ceiling as the rules currently stand (4A not being realistic for a combo jump at this point). If the technical panels and statisticians could somehow figure out how to turn that into 50.00 TES points, we'd have something.

By the way, I'd get rid of the second-half jump bonus and rather credit that to the PCS.

A bare minimum senior mens short program would look like this:
3T+2T, 3S, 2A, FSSpB, CCSpB, CCoSpB, StSqB
Fulfills all the requirements at the absolute minimum, but clearly not competitive. +3's across the board for all of these elements would be 31.50 TES points, so a little bit under half of what the most difficult program could achieve. Converting that to the 50 point scale, it would be somewhere around 22.93 points, or if using the PCS-defined scores, it would put the skater somewhere between 'fair' and 'average' for their effort. Maybe the basemark here should be 25.00 points, which would involve some re-working of values.

The scores would definitely be closer together, but I think that makes things more exciting and really gives a balance to both aspects of what consummates figure skating.

I don't necessarily think it's fair that someone can 'run away' with the technical score, while skaters like Patrick Chan, who was infinitely better than the majority of his competition from 2009-2013 or so as far as PCS is concerned, was usually lumped very closely with other top competitors (see 2009 Worlds PCS as a great example). If anything, he should have been the one running away with those scores but there was a ceiling regardless of how much better he was. The ceiling needs to be placed on the TES, too.

This is not true. Lol Takahashi handily beats him during this era in performance, composition, and interpretation.

 

[tony]

Why?
Can we let the GOE judges also assess Skating Skills and maybe Transitions, to give them something to think about between elements and to allow the PCS judges to assess the artistic qualities without reference to quantified technical skills? Maybe call the two sets technical judges and performance judges.

Remember when they somewhat tried this at Nebelhorn IIRC a few seasons ago? Not split in the way you suggested, but split the panels into one for GOE and one for PCS. Even with some judges solely looking at components, the disparity in scores was hilarious.

 

[MAXSwagg]

Why?

Why give the judges less flexibility to reward individual elements where appropriate or construction of the program as a whole where appropriate or both where appropriate?




It would un-free the tech panel's time. They're busy enough already. Asking the tech panel to juggle both levels/jump calls and GOEs would undoubtedly make the wait for reviews last longer and likely result in more erroneous calls. Plus it would make it harder to reward skaters for good aspects of elements with technical flaws that affect the scores, e.g., a flying sit that takes just a little too long to get into position but is really fast and beautiful once it gets there.


Yes!



Not sure what this gains.



Can we let the GOE judges also assess Skating Skills and maybe Transitions, to give them something to think about between elements and to allow the PCS judges to assess the artistic qualities without reference to quantified technical skills? Maybe call the two sets technical judges and performance judges.

Yes! This makes even more sense.

 

[tony]

This is not true. Lol Takahashi handily beats him during this era in performance, composition, and interpretation.

Selective reading. I did say 'the majority' for a reason.

 

[nimi]

Can we let the GOE judges also assess Skating Skills and maybe Transitions, to give them something to think about between elements and to allow the PCS judges to assess the artistic qualities without reference to quantified technical skills? Maybe call the two sets technical judges and performance judges.

I like the idea of separate GOE+SS(TR) judges and PCS judges, but would this be doable without increasing the size of judging panels?

 

[gkelly]

I like the idea of separate GOE+SS(TR) judges and PCS judges, but would this be doable without increasing the size of judging panels?

It could be done with 10 judges, 5 for each side, which is similar to the current number at ISU championships and some fall events.

It would be a burden at smaller competitions that only use 5, 6, or 7 judges to begin with. Three for each panel probably wouldn't give a wide enough range of opinions.

 

[pairskatingfan]

Why not convert scores into 10.0 scores based on their relative difficulty in the field. So in the men's field, a TES score of 100+ in the free would be worth a 10.0, and maybe a 70+ TES score for ladies, with fall deductions taking off a mandatory amount (say, -.4 or something). Then factor scores from there so they have their own value as well. Add the PCS scores together and find a PCS average per skater (So the mean of the SS, TR, P/E mark etc, and each judge would give their own marks) and go back to ordinals (although this may not be necessary, I like a system where a 4th place SP skater can still win, in old system that is impossible). Any ties (such as both skaters getting 10.0 in TES and PCS) would go back to the true technical score to break the tie.

This should even things out from a TES vs PCS perspective, so that only so many quads can help you.

 

[kwanfan1818]

The technical panel is already evaluating jumps, just like they evaluate throws, lifts, spins. I think they should level the jumps in the process, and that jumps themselves should be evaluated on quality only, which includes the qualify of entrances, air position, leg position, rotation, and landing, as well as the transition between and balance of jump combinations and sequences. If there's something special in the entrances or exits that is creative or a choreographic highlight, the judges can reflect that in PCS.

The tech panel in synchro divvies up the work by focusing on different sub-groups, and the primary/secondary duties could be split on the tech panel.

 

[Karpenko]

Why not convert scores into 10.0 scores based on their relative difficulty in the field. So in the men's field, a TES score of 100+ in the free would be worth a 10.0, and maybe a 70+ TES score for ladies, with fall deductions taking off a mandatory amount (say, -.4 or something). Then factor scores from there so they have their own value as well. Add the PCS scores together and find a PCS average per skater (So the mean of the SS, TR, P/E mark etc, and each judge would give their own marks) and go back to ordinals (although this may not be necessary, I like a system where a 4th place SP skater can still win, in old system that is impossible). Any ties (such as both skaters getting 10.0 in TES and PCS) would go back to the true technical score to break the tie.

This should even things out from a TES vs PCS perspective, so that only so many quads can help you.

...so would going back to 6.0? Creating a ceiling for the technical score (a 10) completely eliminates the need to have COP. remember why we have this new system to begin with? There was a technical/artistic ceiling in scores which made all of the skaters really bunched up together in scores, impossible to rank, etc. it would create a brand new set of problems.

You might as well just rank the skaters with ordinals again. It shouldn't have to be so complicated to fix a problem like this, maybe they should've thought this through better before creating the new COP. making the PCS ceiling higher than 100 points is the only way to make sure the technical/artistic side of skating is balanced based on what's been going down. There shouldn't be a huge overhaul on skating's COP overhaul, it kind of defeats the purpose of the original overhaul

 

[thvu]

Remember when they somewhat tried this at Nebelhorn IIRC a few seasons ago? Not split in the way you suggested, but split the panels into one for GOE and one for PCS. Even with some judges solely looking at components, the disparity in scores was hilarious.

Wasn't it a parallel panel, and not the official panel that judged that competition? Wasn't it just a test to see if splitting GoE and PCS judging resulted in meaningful differences, and the ISU claimed that it didn't? I don't recall them ever releasing the actual results from the parallel test panel, but of course, it's been years and I'm not 100% sure at this point.

 

[Karpenko]

But Hanyu was at 126 with high GOE on everything at the 2017 Worlds, but still the potential to add a 5th (or 6th...) quad in there. So what is the fair PCS factor? 1.3?

From a non-hardcore fan standpoint, a 50.00 / 50.00 and 100.00 / 100.00 scale would probably be much easier to understand. The closer the man is to 300 points in the end, the better he skated.

I know it would take a lot of reworking and the world records would not be broken, but either way we have the same concept in mind but in different directions. I'm not limiting any skater from pushing the sport. That 50 point technical score that I gave as an example comes from having the absolute hardest elements being done at absolute perfection. Just as the 50 points in PCS, if ever given, would be absolute perfection (or so we'd hope).

You're basically reworking things into the 6.0 system. It confuses me that you're the one doing this suggestion, because when COP first came out you were the one always trying to show people how much you know about it? Why this skaters deserves so and so for their marks, etc. Now everyone else has figured out the system and you want to completely change it. Don't you agree that making PCS worth more makes it less complicated than what you're presenting? I just don't think you've thought this through as well as you think you've thought it through. you'd be presented with a brand new set of problems, and it also leaves more room to manipulate the scores in someone's favor IMO. There has to be an open ended system or 12 years of progress goes down the drain.

 

[Coco]

Why?

Why give the judges less flexibility to reward individual elements where appropriate or construction of the program as a whole where appropriate or both where appropriate?

The musical structure bullet point is the only one that doesn't really deal with technique or body position(s).

It would un-free the tech panel's time. They're busy enough already. Asking the tech panel to juggle both levels/jump calls and GOEs would undoubtedly make the wait for reviews last longer and likely result in more erroneous calls. Plus it would make it harder to reward skaters for good aspects of elements with technical flaws that affect the scores, e.g., a flying sit that takes just a little too long to get into position but is really fast and beautiful once it gets there.

@nimi was saying that if the judges (not the tech panel) didn't have to worry about GOE, that would free them up. I think in practice, the assessment of GOE dovetails nicely, certainly better, with the work of the tech panel when compared to the work of the judges. In my magic world, I would also add at least 2 tech specialists so there would be 5 of them.

Reallocate the P/E criteria to the other four components
Corridor will now only apply to the four remaining components
New fifth component (replacing P/E) Take average raw GOE for the program, scale it from 0-10 (GOE of zero would equal 5, -3=0, +3=10)

Not sure what this gains.

Maybe we just add a 6th "component?" And that would go a ways towards "balancing" TES and PCS?

In any event, my idea to count GOE twice could help avoid situations like 2013 World Champion Patrick Chan. [ETA: Even if he still wins overall, the world would still see a lower mark than a clean skater and that would make people think the system was fair.] Basically, it would penalize poorly performed skills twice. It would only have an impact, though, if the GOE on the other skills weren't inflated as judges sometimes do when they see a favorite struggling. This is why I would like the GOE to be assessed by the tech panel, who are all employed by the ISU and presumably held accountable.

 

[Karpenko]

The two separate panels idea we've been suggesting forever. (pretty much every fan has at some point by now) it's still a logical, rational, brilliant idea that should've been done long ago. Honestly maybe a panel for each component mark, screw it. if you can't even get just one mark right then no excuses, bye! You had one job.. The more judges the merrier

 

[MAXSwagg]

The ISU hasn't really made any significant functional changes to this scoring system. Is there anyone in that organization that has any common sense???

 

[Bellanca]

The ISU hasn't really made any significant functional changes to this scoring system. Is there anyone in that organization that has any common sense???

No.

 

[Roux]

Remember when they somewhat tried this at Nebelhorn IIRC a few seasons ago? Not split in the way you suggested, but split the panels into one for GOE and one for PCS. Even with some judges solely looking at components, the disparity in scores was hilarious.

I don't know anything in particular about judges' backgrounds, but I feel like part of the problem is that they're not only splitting their focus between the technical and artistic, they become judges because of their technical eye. I would be interested, actually -- and I know there's plenty imperfection in this idea -- to experiment with judges of performance/artistry who don't necessarily come from a skating background but from dance or something... of course, then we'd have to separate the more technical components, like skating skills... (In my perfect world, you don't need a whole panel averaging scores to get a reasonable result )

 

[aftershocks]

Eh, the politics of it all and the manipulation. Might as well try to field performance and choreographic and movement quality experts from other fields with no vested interests to judge on the components. As it stands PCS is always manipulated. And how backwards to institute faulty, incomplete IJS and then spend the next 13 to 14 years making constant tweaks and endless rules changes. The people involved in the ISU decisionmaking are speed skaters who know zip about figure skating and officials connected to different feds bringing their own individual politicking biases and vested interests to the rules committees and judging panels.

It's still laughable that it took young guns throwing quads right and left, and one particular young gun from the U.S. to unbelievably and eye-poppingly land 5 quads cleanly in a fp (& 7 total quads added to two in the sp, again cleanly) for TPTB to feel the urgency to fall into an anxious tizzy about the need to find balance in the scoring. Where was the deep concern when there were four men or so battling for the podium? And with two podium fixtures often receiving humongous scores for sloppy mistake-filled performances, sometimes highlighted by a couple of brilliant quads mixed in with some failed attempts? And on a few notable occasions, finally some clean performances, but always the OTT PCS scores, as if the top veteran quadsters have nothing to work on re their presentation skills.

It was all the rage to gasp over split-second rotations, while making excuses for falls on landings (which began with Patrick Chan circa 2012-2013). Even at the beginning of last season when Nathan was making quad attempts with falls, there was a lot of people unfazed and saying it was okay because he's making the effort and it's alright for him to fall as long as he goes for quads. As soon as Nathan showed he could not only go for and land 4 quads, but that he could perform 5 cleanly and easily with energy to spare (7 total in back-to-back events and beating Hanyu at 4CCs), then suddenly something's wrong which must be fixed asap. It would have helped had TPTB used better judgment circa 2010, and had there been better leadership and vision during the 1990s and early 2000s.

Patrick Commentates Skating breaks it down. I love the dramatic introduction. And the points he lays out during Nathan's performance. Nathan's not just a jumper, he understands how to perform to the music. He does not skate over the music. He's still maturing, but he's got budding artistic chops that many skaters never develop, much less already possess at the age of 17.
The Lord of the Quads!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTM1rpnqoTw

 

[tony]

You're basically reworking things into the 6.0 system. It confuses me that you're the one doing this suggestion, because when COP first came out you were the one always trying to show people how much you know about it? Why this skaters deserves so and so for their marks, etc. Now everyone else has figured out the system and you want to completely change it. Don't you agree that making PCS worth more makes it less complicated than what you're presenting? I just don't think you've thought this through as well as you think you've thought it through. you'd be presented with a brand new set of problems, and it also leaves more room to manipulate the scores in someone's favor IMO. There has to be an open ended system or 12 years of progress goes down the drain.

No. The 6.0 system, at least in the free skates, basically gave judges the chance to rank the skater wherever they wanted because this was a head-to-head comparison and the only number that mattered in the end was the ordinal, not the individual scores for technical merit and presentation. A lot of factors also played part in 6.0 - skate order, judges boxing themselves in and having no option but to throw out outrageous marks that made little sense as individual scores, skaters controlling their own destinies through factored placements, and so on. This is NOTHING like that. It's not as if the judges are deciding to hand out a 47.0 for the elements with no basis behind it. They would still keep GOE's to determine the score and have a start value based on the difficulty of the program.

Going back to what I suggested-- make the absolute highest possible technical score in the short program worth the 50.0 points (for the men). If things change over time and the ISU suddenly adds 5-rotation jumps to their scale of values, then that would be the highest score. But as it stands now, we basically know what the highest TES score can be thanks to their published scale of values.

I'm not doing anything except making sure an absolutely perfect program with the highest amount of difficulty technically is worth the exact same amount as a perfect program components-wise. No matter what the case. You're never going to have a perfect split using a random factor like you suggest.

How are you manipulating scores in someones favor if everything is essentially staying the same except for the amount of cushion one can earn technically?

And as far as 'everyone figuring out the system' -- I'd disagree and say most people have no idea how things are scored still unless they are long-time and/or math fans.

 

[Karpenko]

I do know how 6.0 works. The point is you have a technical/artistic ceiling on both marks, just like the 6.0 system was structured (a "perfect" maximum score on both marks) and you're trying to sell this idea to make the TES/PCS more equal. That's why ranking the skaters was so hard in 6.0, what was considered "perfect" in technical and artistic was always changing. That's why they went open-ended system?

If every skater starts doing what's necessary for a 50, you're left with the same bunched together scoring as 6.0, and eventually would have to adjust the requirements for 50 points when the entire field catches up. You're left with the same problem eventually as we're in now so why make things so drastic? That's like telling the skaters they're getting too good for your new system, so you have to make it harder to get 50 once everyone in the field starts hitting the current standard for it. You'll be left with the same problem of the skaters catching up to the technical demands, so it seems counter productive and a waste to completely change things.

Also this would level the field compared to how it is right now, because of less points available, and I don't really understand the need to do that unless you're sick of certain skaters that you don't care for always dominating? Those skaters are so dominant for a reason, even if scores can be sometimes inflated. I think the overall rankings have been pretty accurate. Unless you just want to continually pat yourself on the back and be figure skatings hero I think it'd be easier to just accommodate how much the PCS weighs in total score. Changing everything, once again, means credibility goes down in the sport IMO (once again).

Why change something so much just because the skaters caught up to the demands of the system? You're still going to have shady judging regardless of the system, that's why it has to be open ended IMO to alleviate the potential to cheat somewhat. This COP was originally supposed to be foolproof, but people have caught on how to do the same cheating as before. I don't really see the point in it, I'm not trying to be a jerk but you don't seem to think the opposing opinion could possibly be right or have a point.. so agree to disagree with you.

I do agree that TES and PCS should be equally balanced, so we'll always have that at least.

 

[tony]

If every skater starts doing what's necessary for a 50, you're left with the same bunched together scoring as 6.0, and eventually would have to adjust the requirements for 50 points when the entire field catches up. You're left with the same problem eventually as we're in now so why make things so drastic? That's like telling the skaters they're getting too good for your new system, so you have to make it harder to get 50 once everyone in the field starts hitting the current standard for it. You'll be left with the same problem of the skaters catching up to the technical demands, so it seems counter productive and a waste to completely change things.

A score of 50 would be the highest GOE on every single one of the most difficult elements possible. That means someone would have to do the elements I listed earlier in the thread all to absolute perfection in order to get a 50. It's not as if every single skater is going to suddenly be doing the elements required (on top of it with the highest GOE) to get that score. But it's something to work toward, just as personal bests are now. Why should the PCS continue to be at a ceiling if the TES isn't?

I do agree that TES and PCS should be equally balanced, so we'll always have that at least.

...Then I don't know why you are coming across as bitter when I am offering a solution to make them equally balanced. This is the whole and sole point of everything I've brought up.

Also this would level the field compared to how it is right now, because of less points available, and I don't really understand the need to do that unless you're sick of certain skaters that you don't care for always dominating? Those skaters are so dominant for a reason, even if scores can be sometimes inflated. I think the overall rankings have been pretty accurate. Unless you just want to continually pat yourself on the back and be figure skatings hero I think it'd be easier to just accommodate how much the PCS weighs in total score. Changing everything, once again, means credibility goes down in the sport IMO (once again).

It's not leveling the field at all. If you are doing a 4T+3T, 3Lz, and 3A in the short program versus someone who is doing 4Lz+3T, 4F, and 3A successfully-- there's still going to be a noticeable spread. It's just giving equal weight to the other half of what figure skating is supposed to be.

I gave the example of the bare minimum elements that would receive credit in the senior mens' short program earlier in the thread and showed how much of a difference technically that would be.