Thursday, March 21

Another Thought to Consider RE: PCS vs. TES

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!


Anonymous said...

Get on the ISU FS Board, Tony ! Any way to do that??

Tony said...

I didn't know it was still functioning, to be honest.

I would love to be an ISU 'Fan Ambassador' or something of the like that sits in countless numbers of meetings with current officials, skaters-- whoever, and argue the points that I think need to be addressed until I was blue in the face.

It seems to me the technical committee comes up with the rules, modifies them slightly every few seasons, and generally just accepts them as excellent. Pretty small group making all of the big decisions if you ask me.

aims said...

Just kinda shows the stance of the ISU.
Like I mentioned in the comment on the last thread, if outsiders are able to come up with all these interesting proposals to make the system better, and can get heated up in constructive debates in the meantime, you'd think that they can do it, too. I really feel that they should take the trouble to visit all these cyber-debates going on just to get the knack of what the spectators really think is the problem. Or maybe that's just wishful thinking (sigh).
I still think that come post-olympic season, we'll be seeing alot of major modifications. Hopefully for the better.

Anonymous said...

6.0 system was around for some 90 years. IJS about a decade.So it is still in its infancy. As a judge (low level competitions) I really like using IJS I just wish judges would use it to its fullest potential as it stands now. For example, do we really think that the majority of skaters only have a .25 or .50 difference in every PCS mark? Internationally, judges are concerned about staying within the corridor so they don't usally award marks like a 9.00 for Skating Skills and 6.50 for Interpretation. Wouldn't that be nice to see. I think another thing affecting the marks is judges being afraid to give the marks they want to and going against what their federation has suggested. Another factor may be the judges skill and ability to award appropriate marks. I have judged with some international judges from other countries that were giving incorrect marks in situations when there is no leeway. For instance, in the short program - wrong element must be -3. 0's were given. I also had an international judge from Japan judging at an invitational competition that turned her screen to me to ask me if her PCS were in the "right range". I almsot died.
Why are people so fixed on P/E mark and falls? The description of P/E does not talk about falls. Execution is the overall execution of movemnt with refined lines of all parts of the body along with Carriage, Involvement, Style, Variety, and Projection. If a judge is basing the P/E mark on falls alone, they are missing the point.

Tony said...

I have been on the 'separate the components marks' bandwagon for a long time now, and even asked Patrick Ibens about why we don't see more variation right after the 2010 Olympics in the article I published here.

I used Michal Brezina in a previous post as an example. People are picking on Chan and whether his 8.whatever was accurate for P/E as opposed to a 7.something, but then we have skaters like Brezina with very little to NO choreography (see SP) still scoring almost 8 on all of those components!

Many skaters do seem to be pretty consistent between the five, but there are definitely the exceptions and that should be reflected.

There was a former Swiss judge who replied to one of my previous posts saying the corridor has nothing to do with the scores we see, but I think the corridor is used in the sense that skaters who are in the later groups generally have had the more successful rankings or placements, so it makes sense for that judge to keep going upwards with their PCS or at least score them all close enough (as you said) that they don't have to worry about being out of line.

And I totally agree about P/E and falls. Refer to the post before this one and you will see we are on the same wavelengths!

Anonymous said...

Why are people so fixed on P/E mark and falls? The description of P/E does not talk about falls. Execution is the overall execution of movemnt with refined lines of all parts of the body along with Carriage, Involvement, Style, Variety, and Projection. If a judge is basing the P/E mark on falls alone, they are missing the point. "

And once again, how is falling showing refined lines, great control of your body or excellent movement?"

Rather its distracting and glaring. I'm sorry but the mark needs NOT be performance/execution if falling is not going to be taken off. I definetly think you can have a great performance with a fall but not with multiple ones.

A lot of folks don't think you fell multiple times "what a great performance" Oh boy I want to watch that performance again. No. Its a terrible performance.

Anonymous said...

And I frankly don't car who it was, daisuke, V/T, G/G in their glory days. If the program is pepped with falls. That is not a great showing of lines, movement or execution. Its not a program anyone is going to really want to see again. The sport, I'm sorry SHOULD be thinking about what multiple falls do to the understanding of the sport in general. This is not figure falling part of the jumps that makes a jump skating is landing on one blade.... Other sports in general care about execution. If we are going to have jumps and elements in programs than how they are overall executed should matter.

Anonymous said...

Watching folks win with multiple falls, only convinces people that the actual performance doesn't matter.

Anonymous said...

Maybe it all comes down to the quality of the judges. If they did their work properly, we may not be seeing all these debates.

Anonymous said...

Tony, I'm not one of those people who think the problem lies withing scoring of PE.

But I see 2 other ways of how Ten could win this worlds.

Oh and if you choose to register on the ISU board, you may want list things like gardening and reading as your interests. Because I filled in CoP, scores, IJS and protocols, and my registration application was never approved.

Pete Murray said...

Hmmm... So Speedy's minions are censoring who gets to express opinions on the ISU Forum. Now why does that tidbit not not surprise me!