ISU floats possible changes to judging system

[missing]

He has 6 tweets on the subject:

Philip Hersh‏ @olyphil




1 / Source tells me any change in base values for quads cannot take effect until next season, when it’s to be combined with wider GOE spread

2 / idea behind new base values for quads and wider GOE spread is to penalize bad quads as compared to very good triples

3/ the changes in quad base values and GOE spread are only in discussion stage now.


4 / Also concern men’s TES / PCS balance out of whack. 2014 worlds FS marks http://www.isuresults.com/results/wc2014/SEG002.HTM … vs. 2017 marks http://www.isuresults.com/results/season1617/wc2017/SEG002.HTM …


5/ So the changes under discussion are clearly meant to put more emphasis back on artistry in a sport undergoing a quad revolution

6/ You can also see a balance shift in women’s TES / PCS scores from 2014 http://www.isuresults.com/results/wc2014/SEG004.HTM … compared to 2017 http://www.isuresults.com/results/season1617/wc2017/SEG004.HTM …

 

[Bellanca]

He has 6 tweets on the subject:

Philip Hersh‏ @olyphil




1 / Source tells me any change in base values for quads cannot take effect until next season, when it’s to be combined with wider GOE spread

2 / idea behind new base values for quads and wider GOE spread is to penalize bad quads as compared to very good triples

3/ the changes in quad base values and GOE spread are only in discussion stage now.


4 / Also concern men’s TES / PCS balance out of whack. 2014 worlds FS marks http://www.isuresults.com/results/wc2014/SEG002.HTM … vs. 2017 marks http://www.isuresults.com/results/season1617/wc2017/SEG002.HTM …


5/ So the changes under discussion are clearly meant to put more emphasis back on artistry in a sport undergoing a quad revolution

6/ You can also see a balance shift in women’s TES / PCS scores from 2014 http://www.isuresults.com/results/wc2014/SEG004.HTM … compared to 2017 http://www.isuresults.com/results/season1617/wc2017/SEG004.HTM …

There are plenty of subjects that the ISU should discuss after the Olympic Games.

 

[aftershocks]

So, did it take a U.S. man, Nathan Chen, watching China's Jin Boyang reach the podium in his first year in seniors with rare quad-lutz triple weapon, and Chen saying, "I can do that too and then some!" And Chen proving it and then some , for TPTB to finally say, "Hey, wait a minute, what is this: a jumping contest?"

Nathan Slaythan sure rattled more than a few officials, competitors and their coaches, and he upset the applecart.

Or, maybe changes in how quads are scored were scuttling around at the outskirts for awhile and then began to be discussed in earnest circa five clean quads being landed in a free program by a young man who can actually do it all (tech & budding artistry), but who was concentrating on the jumps because that's what IJS rewards the mostest.

Film at eleven.

 

[Impromptu]

This isn't really "new" is it? I thought it was voted on by the ISU in the summer of 2015 or 2016, but they decided to wait until after the 2018 Olympics to put it into effect. (I know this isn't the first I've heard about it). So while it might be meant to put more emphasis on artistry, I doubt it was aimed at any of the quadsters that emerged in the past year, since the original decision took place prior to the 2016 season.

 

[MAXSwagg]

So, did it take a U.S. man, Nathan Chen, watching China's Jin Boyang reach the podium in his first year in seniors with rare quad-lutz triple weapon, and Chen saying, "I can do that too and then some!" And Chen proving it and then some , for TPTB to finally say, "Hey, wait a minute, what is this: a jumping contest?"

Nathan Slaythan sure rattled more than a few officials, competitors and their coaches, and he upset the applecart.

Or, maybe changes in how quads are scored were scuttling around at the outskirts for awhile and then began to be discussed in earnest circa five clean quads being landed in a free program by a young man who can actually do it all (tech & budding artistry), but who was concentrating on the jumps because that's what IJS rewards the mostest.

Film at eleven.

No, it's because great jumpers and great skaters (Fernandez...Hanyu and Chan, mostly) need to have their abilities rewarded more compared to those who rotate the quads with only average-good technique and average or slightly above average skating. The latter two skaters who's marks were suspiciously lower last season compared to the other top 6 men for similar and better performances.

 

[analia]

I don't think Nathan Chen is a factor in this. He hasn't even medaled at Worlds. Boyang Jin and Chen are not really good examples that quad values are too high. Both would lose to a clean Chan or Fernandez in the current code with two or three more quads.
If they are contemplating lowering quad values because of TES/PCS imbalance then technical elements' BV or factor should drop across the board, not just for quads. I do think intentional quad-to-fall cheats (Rippon comes to mind) should be penalized more though.

 

[gkelly]

If they are contemplating lowering quad values because of TES/PCS imbalance then technical elements' BV or factor should drop across the board, not just for quads.

Or increase the PCS factors so the total PCS will be more in line with the TES.

The current base values and PCS factors were designed over a decade ago, with some tweaks more recently, when 2 "easy" quads in a short program or 3 quads in a freeskate was really pushing the limits. Now that several skaters can do that and a few can do considerably more, it's the quads that are unbalancing the ratio, not the other elements. If anything, the other elements are worth less now than they were 10+ years ago, with only 3 spins instead of 4 allowed in the freeskate, the removal of the second step sequence/spiral sequence from the short program entirely and replacing it with a non-leveled choreo sequence in the freeskate. So that's two ways that jumps now count for more compared to everything else than the system originally allowed for.

We don't see the same kind of unbalance in the ladies' event at this point. If several ladies start doing eight-triple freeskates with two triple axels, or including two quads or a triple axel plus quad, then it will be necessary to rethink the balance between tech and PCS. There's an obvious solution there, though: make the PCS factors 1.00 and 2.00 for the short program and freeskate, respectively, as they currently are for the men.

I do think intentional quad-to-fall cheats (Rippon comes to mind) should be penalized more though.

But how does the technical panel (or whoever makes the determination in any given competition) know what the skater intended? They're not mindreaders, they won't have closely followed the competition history and success landing these elements in practice for every competitor in every event. The default assumption has to be that the skater intended to land the jump, however unlikely that may seem from the outside.

What can be penalized are attempts that don't even come close. Increase the negative GOE on these high-value elements so that the remaining value on a failed quad, especially an underrotated one, after -3 or -5 GOE is no more than a good double or so-so triple. (Already the case for failed and downgraded quad attempts, which could end up penalized even more if the negative GOE takes away a quad's worth of failure from a triple's worth of base value.) That would take away the incentive to attempt jumps the skater has little realistic hope of rotating or landing.

 

[Bellanca]

The ISU has an uncanny way of trying to level the playing field via 'new' rules for their own highly invested reasons. Whether it is keeping a high-profile male skater in the mix via TES inflation, as of late - or PCS inflation, not so long ago, they've done it.

For high-profile ladies, PCS has been inflated and/or abused. It's been a shameless practice, IMHO. They'll probably never learn and will continue to manipulate...

 

[Marco]

My wish list:

1. rewarding combinations and sequences with some sort of factor

2. re-valuing BVs for spins and footwork. currently they are worth too little compared to jumps

3. re-valuing GOEs so that a perfect level 3 spins should be worth more than just decent level 4 spins

 

[aftershocks]

This isn't really "new" is it? I thought it was voted on by the ISU in the summer of 2015 or 2016, but they decided to wait until after the 2018 Olympics to put it into effect. (I know this isn't the first I've heard about it). So while it might be meant to put more emphasis on artistry, I doubt it was aimed at any of the quadsters that emerged in the past year, since the original decision took place prior to the 2016 season.

Yep, so the idea and the intent of scoring reform has been skittering around for awhile, even on skating forums unsurprisingly.

After a 'game-changing' season in the men's division, as I said, there's seemingly a new urgency. I'm not saying reform isn't needed, just that the urgency should always have been evident to the TPTB. It's always a bottom up process though. And some heads were turned this past season, and the usual suspect pecking order threatened, and a lot of things got clearer fast, what with all those apples rolling about helter skelter.

No matter what any of us status-quo and 'in-the-know' apologists prefer to think.

Of course reforms are not meant to adversely single out, nor to benefit any one skater or group of skaters (just as overvaluing quads wasn't really meant to benefit one skater or group of skaters). But in any case, there is one skater who's largely responsible for changing the quad landscape this past season. Resoundingly.

 

[MAXSwagg]

The problem is mostly because the judges award improper PCS. Of course when you bunch everyone up at 8.00+, of course it's going to be unbalanced.

 

[overedge]

"Source" from where? This could be the wish list of someone involved in skating with no basis in reality.

 

[aftershocks]

I don't think Nathan Chen is a factor in this... Jin and Chen are not really good examples that quad values are too high

Whoa Nelly! Hee Haw! I remember being roundly castigated and practically run out of threads on here quite often for questioning the overweighted quad point values well before Nathan Chen landed his first quad as a Junior.

Yeah sure, now everybody recognizes that quad values are too freakin' high! Wowza, ya don't say! But nope I actually did say it, time and again. And I was labeled a 'quad-hater.' Not true, it's the sport's governing bodies that needed to pay more attention to quads and their development in the 1990s! TPTB are always forced into change out of necessity, instead of putting skaters first and figuring out how to lead change ahead of unforeseen developments, for the skaters' benefit and the sport's growth.

Come on now! Nathan's game-changing performances have certainly been a factor. Comfort yourself all you desire about Nathan not being a World medalist - yet. If stating so makes you feel real good.

I didn't say anyone was out to get Nathan. But most definitely Mr. Slaythan showed the ISU the errors of IJS. Pretty much everyone had gotten quite comfy with Javi and Hanyu (and a few others like D10 on occasion and more recently Boyang) throwing two quads in a fp cleanly or uncleanly, and attempting three often sloppily. And even then the TES and PCS were unfailingly always out the wazoo for boffo suspended quad kings Javi and Hanyu.

Of course Hanyu achieved record-breaking scores and skated cleanly for the first time a couple of seasons ago, and he began to think about solidifying three quads and attempting four. But there was no hurry, just a friendly rivalry with the popular guy from Spain. But then those pesky Americanos steeped in artistry and trying to catch up with quads suddenly spawned a clean five-quadster gamechanger which took everyone by surprise, including cool, calm and collected Mr. Slaythan himself. He tried and succeeded in landing 5 clean quads in a fp because he could, even after coming back from a surgery-shortened season.

And btw, some feds that were formerly quite comfortable with the slow pace of simply reflecting upon quad reforms, have more clout than others. Twiddly dee, twiddly dum...

 

[caseyedwards]

They better not pass rules that lead to men eliminating quads again! If there isn't reward men won't do them. They won't work and work to do them well they will just stop doing them. The ur rules showed that. Give them an ur on a quad toe they won't try until they rotate them fully they will just stop doing them all together!

 

[Bellanca]

We'll have to summon Elvis Stojko and Plushy.

 

[aftershocks]

No, it's because great jumpers and great skaters (Fernandez...Hanyu and Chan, mostly) need to have their abilities rewarded more compared to those who rotate the quads with only average-good technique and average or slightly above average skating. The latter two skaters who's marks were suspiciously lower last season compared to the other top 6 men for similar and better performances.

They should hire you as their shill.

 

[Frida80]

It's ironic that seven years after Plushenko lost to a skater who performed no quads are they going to reduce their value again. After all that? The last two seasons have been amazing. We now have all quads (sans 4A) performed in one competition for the first time ever. Two new quads that have never been landed before. Three, four, and five quads in just one FS. Men have been pushing the limits and it's amazing to see. I'm irritated by the idea reversing all this and going back to before. Before when a few vets won all the competition based on their PCS score but only one or two quads. Of course that's been happening all along, until someone used the system to their advantage. I feel like they're not only going after potential Nathans and Shomas but also future Evgenias.

This could not have come at a worse time. Right now their are like 6 or 7 ladies that will attempt quads or triple axels this year. It took this long just to get ladies to really try for those jumps. Without the base value, what's the point?

 

[aftershocks]

to penalize bad quads as compared to very good triples

Vague. What is meant by "a bad quad"? A fall with full rotations, a double or triple turn out, two-footed landing...? They will need to be specific. I personally have always felt that good execution demands a fully and cleanly landed jump element, and not just completing the rotations and falling. In gymnastics and diving, if you perform well in the air but splat on the dismount/splash on the pool entry, you didn't execute well, and you don't receive many points just for good air quality and completing rotations.

Is the ISU actually admitting their mistakes after all these years? First, they realize that anonymous judging was idiotic and designed to protect judges, not to benefit the sport. It should never have been instituted. And then they suddenly realize that the scoring base values are out of whack in the men's division (heavily weighted for quads, which was deliberately instituted). Why are they deciding to make changes now? Are some of these new reforms the result of new ISU blood at the helm? Notice I did not use the misnomer 'leadership' when referencing the ISU!

 

[nimi]

Vague. What is meant by "a bad quad"? A fall with full rotations, a double or triple turn out, two-footed landing...? They will need to be specific.

Hopefully there will be guidelines that are both specific and as clear as possible!

In theory, I think "get the BV but get hammered in the GOEs" is a good approach for scoring "bad quads", but in practice there's sometimes a bit too much reputational judging going on in the GOEs, so I don't know...

In gymnastics and diving, if you perform well in the air but splat on the dismount/splash on the pool entry, you didn't execute well, and you don't receive many points just for good air quality and completing rotations.

Good analogy.

 

[Jaana]

I think there is something to be corrected

- if a skater gets high PCS more or less based on having difficult jumps
- if a skater gets high PCS without having the most difficult jumps

On the other hand the skaters that have both, should be rewarded more, because they are the only ones that have the right balance, IMO.

 

[SkateFanBerlin]

No, it's because great jumpers and great skaters (Fernandez...Hanyu and Chan, mostly) need to have their abilities rewarded more compared to those who rotate the quads with only average-good technique and average or slightly above average skating. The latter two skaters who's marks were suspiciously lower last season compared to the other top 6 men for similar and better performances.

The maddening thing is those with average technique have been getting PCS only a few points behind the Chan's, Fernandez's, making the score practically irrelevant.

 

[Judge Dred]

They better not pass rules that lead to men eliminating quads again! If there isn't reward men won't do them. They won't work and work to do them well they will just stop doing them. The ur rules showed that. Give them an ur on a quad toe they won't try until they rotate them fully they will just stop doing them all together!

I would rather see a good triple than a bad quad. I don't want to see FS going in the same direction as gymnastics by becoming nothing more than a jumping contest in which poor execution is not properly penalised.

 

[gkelly]

I think there is something to be corrected

- if a skater gets high PCS more or less based on having difficult jumps
- if a skater gets high PCS without having the most difficult jumps

On the other hand the skaters that have both, should be rewarded more, because they are the only ones that have the right balance, IMO.

The way to reward the skater who has both most fairly is to keep the jump content and the PCS separate.

I hope you're not suggesting that men without quads should never earn 9s in any component even if they're among the best in the world at those skills.

 

[overedge]

A really useful new ISU rule would a rule to be ban @caseyedwards from posting anything about quads on FSU.

It's been almost eight years. Give it up already.

 

[caseyedwards]

A really useful new ISU rule would a rule to be ban @caseyedwards from posting anything about quads on FSU.

It's been almost eight years. Give it up already.

Lol quad eliminationists are angry!!

 

[Willin]

Good to see that the ISU is maybe, possibly realizing that quads are overvalued. I know their intent was to overvalue them so that more men would try them (because if you do a bad quad and still get a ton of points for it, why not try it?), but it's really done nothing but make all the men focus on quads and ignore the other parts of their skating. There are some men - the top men - that can do good quads and everything else, but 3-5/20+ men who do this well in a competition is far too few.

 

[Coco]

Move the "timed with the music" GOE bullet point to one of the PCS categories (composition?)
Let the callers assess GOE
Look into making GOE a % of base value
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)

 

[nimi]

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

 

[tony]

The only way the whole balancing act between the technical and components sides is going to truly work and end all the discussions is if the ISU figures out a way to factor the TES to be on a 100.0 scale for the mens free skate, for example. 100 being absolute perfection for the most difficult program, just as a string of 10.00 components scores would result in 100 points in that segment.

The problem is that the technical scores ARE going through the roof in mens skating, especially in the previous season because they are all pushing each other to do 3, 4, or even 5 quads, which is fantastic. But when you are only differentiating components scores by ~5 total points between the top skaters, the name of the game heavily relies on the elements scores as it now stands.

Since the ISU wants to move the GOE from -5 to +5, giving the judges 11 total possibilities in which they can mark every element, I'd like to see some scientists or statisticians come up with a PCS-like formula for the elements, but instead of using the +/-, they should switch to the same 0 to 10 scale, but without the .25 increments. Then, figuring out the most difficult program achievable by today's standards, make that the maximum 100 points. (ie. something like 4Lutz, 4Flip, 4Loop, 4Sal, 4Toe, two of them repeated in combos of some sort, 3A, all level 4 spins and footwork, etc). If a skater were to get all scores of 10 on the GOE for that program, they would get 100 technical points. Any program that has lesser content would start at a lower (although not drastically) base maximum value, and so on.

 

[tony]

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.