Wednesday, December 1

My Scoring System in Play: Skate Canada Mens Short Program

Yeah, I'm using the Skate Canada mens short as an example once again. I kept all of the program components and spin/footwork GOE's exactly as they were scored in Canada as I haven't really thought of any ideas on re-tooling those aspects of the system, but I did convert all of the jump element scores using the system I came up with in my previous post.

The results..

1. Nobunari Oda 80.02 Points (-1.35 points) Technical Score- 42.02
2. Kevin Reynolds 78.91 Points (-1.18 points) Technical Score- 44.85
3. Adam Rippon 76.75 Points (-0.78 points) Technical Score- 40.32
4. Alban Preaubert 69.05 Points (-0.66 points) Technical Score- 34.91
5. Patrick Chan 68.48 Points* (-4.72 points) Technical Score- 30.01
6. Javier Fernandez 65.61 Points (-1.13 points) Technical Score- 33.19
7. Artur Gachinski 63.55 Points (-3.02 points) Technical Score- 31.12

* Includes the 1-point deduction for the footwork fall as I haven't figured out how, if at all, I would adjust the scoring for spins and footwork.

What does my system tell me? Gachinski had an unsuccessful quad which ended up being his combo attempt, and Chan (you know by now) had two falls on jumps. Obviously my system hurts skaters that attempt the difficult jumps more severely than how the actual scoring works.

Everyone else lost right around a point, which has to do with the percentage being the factor for GOE on jumps rather than equal increments in the real system.

More ideas? Suggestions?


aims said...

Tony, how I wish you have friends on the ISU board or whatever that deals with the ISJ, or know influential people that make a difference...
Regardless of whether your system is workable or not, fresh ideas like yours which completely differ in theory with the current flawed version ARE SO NEEDED at this point.
If not, I feel that all they'll do yet again is simply and merely tinker with the + and - GOE scales of values, which won't solve the core problem and really misses the point.

Tony said...

Thanks for the nice comments!

In all reality, it seems like my concept of having percentages stay consistent throughout all of the jumping elements results in VERY similar numbers to the way the judging system worked last season. I really only spent about 20 minutes coming up with the whole idea, but I one day would love to work with other people as passionate about the fundamentals and come up with something even more solid-- even if it doesn't get anywhere.

Anonymous said...

Your ideas of TES judging system are much better than renewed one and much understandable or acceptable for us. Great job, Tony!
However, other PCS (someone called Patrick Chan Scores) are still hard to understand and a little far from our impressions sometimes, especially over 2 points' gaps between judges or very tiny difference with multiple falls. I know it is not easy to make exchange to clear or understandable number without studying ISU judging system, though.