Thursday, March 21

Brushing Up on the Criteria Behind the Program Components

http://www.isu.org/vsite/vfile/page/fileurl/0,11040,4844-152086-169302-64121-0-file,00.pdf

Check out the resource linked above, which is an explanation of each program component from the ISU. I just keep seeing so many comments about how this or what technical mistake should contribute to the significant dropping of one of the areas of PCS, but I really believe these assumptions come from people creating their own definitions of what the criteria mean.

For example, the skating skill mark does not have some formula that states that you take the total amount of time a skater remains on his/her feet in the program, divided by the total length of the program, and then you assign that percentage as the skating skill for that skater. Sound funny? Read some of the comments across the internet!

10 comments:

Sevice said...

Here's an idea: reduce the number of components to 2:

1. skating skills: relatively stable across competitions
2. performance: allows the judge to reward an inspired/clean performance by a lesser skater, or penalize a good skater on a bad night. Rewards choreography, interpretation etc.

You can apply weights (1/3, 2/3) to the extent that one criterion is more important than the other.

5 components is too much for judges to handle given the time, and fans don't understand them as you argue convincingly.

Anonymous said...

Right! And then apply the appropriate factors so that they will ideally represent abt 50percent of a program as compared to the TES.

Tony said...

Still, the choreography and interpretation can be lightyears stronger for Skater A that falls or makes a few mistakes, compared to Skater B that lands everything but doesn't really have anything to offer aside from the technical elements.

If we clump all of the factors into one, then you might see a huge benefit for Skater B, who is already benefiting from the higher TES score according to my proposal in the post below this one.

Sevice said...

Not sure I understand your response. With 2 PCs instead of 5 you can reward choreography as much or as little as with 5.

This would be in addition to tweaking the TES so that falls are costlier. I like your proposal in the previous post, though perhaps a less revolutionary way of implementing essentially the same idea, is to leave the TES as is but automatically apply a downgrade when a fall happens, so you get the BV from a triple if you attempted a quadruple etc. That is, you only get the BV of a quad if you rotate AND stay on your feet. If you stay on your feet but do not rotate, then you might get an underrotation or a downgrade as is the case now. Perhaps remove the -1 automatic deduction if that ends up being too harsh. I think it would amount to the same thing as your proposal (I would be curious to know how it compares precisely), but look like a smaller change, so the ISU might be more easily convinced?

Bekalynn said...

I'm fine with SS marks staying around the same, although I'd argue that your landing your jumps on your edges it should affect the SS mark some. Also if your falling it should hit your transitions.

But Performance/Execution. They should be hit hard-very, very hard for multiple errors.

I can live with one fall. But I'm sorry multiple errors like Chan it affects the performance in the mind of the watchers.

For the record I also think skaters this level would double multiple jumps a la Lepisto in 2010 should also be hit on P/E. This is a sport.

Tony said...

But if you have only two program components, as you'd want it, it seems to me like the idea would be to give the skaters who are skating the cleaner or more engaging programs the high score within that clumped-together component.

I am not applying the -1.00 deduction in my proposal. Like I showcased with the absolute nightmare of a program that Denis Ten had at 2010 Skate America (5 falls, only 2 jump elements with + GOE at all), the difference in points is just over 8 less with my system being used. Reminding you-- that is with FIVE falls. A program with a mistake here or there isn't going to lose the skater 10 points each time or something crazy.

Here's the thing about everyone voicing their opinions on which PCS should or should not be affected. In the current rules, there is not a single PCS that has a relation to the technical errors being made. I understand that some people think that the transitions or the performance/execution (or whatever) criteria should be modified to reflect that.

However, right now, that isn't how the rules work. I had a proposal in an earlier post that any flutz or lip jump shouldn't even be counted. It makes no sense to me how doing 3 or 4 of the *exact same jump* in a program earns a skater an additional 8-10 points technically, but a skater who prefers a loop or Salchow is held back to ONLY doing two (and one of them has to be in combination/sequence to get full credit and all of that).

If I listen to everyone else and just start applying crazy drops to the PCS scores, does that mean I can also just not count the flutzes or lips at all because I don't like the benefit given to the skater?

aims said...

Interesting, interesting debate going on here.
Some want to revise the TES side while others want to revise the PCS side. In all cases, people just want a fairer method of judging the performances, period.
I just sincerely hope that similar heated debate is going on within the ISU figure skating officials themselves. If we outsiders (so to speak) can get so heated about how to make the system better and can come up with all these numerous interesting proposals (realistic or not aside), why can't the experts??

Anonymous said...

Tony where did I say get rid of most of the components? I'm fine with keeping all of the sections. The only one I question is transitions, seeing as transitions gets rewarded with GOE, and could be considered part of choreography.

I'd agree for the most part skater has great choreography that doesn't change it remains great choreography. Skater has great basic skating skills, they are always going to get high SS. Although I think landing your jumps beautifully enhances things. I still think people should get high SS.

But I think its dangerous for half the mark to be Static. And thats why I think especially P/E should heavily reflect the actual performance. And its ridiculous to say that the elements have nothing to do with the performance. It does in the audience's mind. I think P/E should be heavily waited PC too.

In my mind landing all your triple jumps shouldn't necessarily get you 9s in P/E if the performance is slow, tepid not engaging. But falling all over the place shouldn't be getting you 9s in P/E either, if your falling all over the place.

And in general I stand by my question Chan's consistently doing messy programs. He hasn't shown he can actually consistency do his uber difficult programs. So why should he be rewarded that much. If he was actually going to be hit hard for multiple errors, he'd probably lessen his content. And he'd be far more watcheable for the general public. And he'd still have those gorgeous edges, basic skating skills his ubers love so much.

Its ridiculous to say a spade is not a spade and a skater making multiple major errors has no effect on the performance.

Bekalynn said...

Part of what makes skating truly great is when the elements and the program tie together. Kim's skate I felt showed that, the control she landed those jumps with ease as a feather. And then into the program.. Other than that one minor fall V/T's performance showed that.

Anonymous said...

I like your suggestion that they should have the separate PCS judging panel to grade on each bullet point under each of five components. The more specific you are, the more accountable you become, hence less chance of cheating.

Currently, PCS seems to function as a place holder.

Another suggestion I have is that personal sponsors of specific skaters should not become the event sponsors. This is a judged sport. By allowing personal sponsors of specific skaters to become the event sponsors, the event will have greater chances of unfair judging. This can operate consciously or unconsciously. But we all know that 1) ISU has been having a hard time keeping the sponsors and 2) the sponsors of the specific skaters want them to do well.