I absolutely love the discussions and sharing of opinions taking place in the comments sections of my last few posts. It seems that many people are still fixated on the Performance/Execution mark specifically, and how they believe that it should be changed to reflect the falls and general messiness of poor skates.
I understand why that argument continues to be presented-- don't get me wrong. But I also think that a lot of people are looking for that 'extra point or two' that, in this case, would have given Denis Ten the win over Patrick Chan at the World Championships.
I think what is happening here is the P/E mark, or any of the components for that matter, are the easiest to single out because they are presented separately on score sheets while the total element score is just one combined total. If you read the protocols, you can go in-depth and see just where the skaters were adding up their points technically, but with components, it's easy to compare across the columns between skater A and skater B.
All things considered, true-- Chan received an 8.61 in the free skate for his performance and execution. Drop that down to a 7.96 and the two skaters would have tied overall, with Ten winning based on the higher free skate score.
I don't see many (if any) arguments except for myself that the 5.63 point difference technically between the two skaters seems a little 'off'. True, Chan did two great quads while Ten only did one, but Ten also had positive GOE's on every single jump element he completed, and only doubled the flip while Chan was making several other major errors, as we all clearly know.
My argument to those people bent out of shape about one or two of the PCS marks is that if the rules do start to reflect the falls and major errors, Chan might lose a point here or there off of his total score, but in the end it will be nothing major. If you are one of those people that thinks he should drop down into the 5.00's or 6.00's for any component, then that is a whole different discussion that I won't ever understand.
However, if we go back to the technical mark, Chan would lose points by having a greater reduction in elements with falls and/or major errors. Also, if the panels get separated and the GOE is reduced from -2 to +2, we may not see instances where he is still receiving +2 and +3's for his final double Axel in the program, which I thought was clearly a 0 (average in every way) element.
With all of these things considered, his technical score will be at a level that actually reflects the type of content he completed, and then we may not have to pull up one of the PCS scores to explain why the results didn't come out right.
Maybe both sides of the system need tweaking. But if you are one of those people who think the entire problem lies within the scoring of one single component, I advise you to really think about the points I presented above.
As always, share your opinions with me!