The roles of PCS/GOE vs ISU's agenda in the new scoring system

[makebelieveup]

3 hours ago, hoodie axel said:

Yes. Every single element and movement on the ice is a part of the choreography and interpretation (along with the technique imparted by skating skills, the difficulty and creativity of transitions, and the overall execution and engagement via performance). Why else do you think they are artificially trying to limit PCS for "serious errors

but the judges never really go by this rule all the time. they are selectively doing so only for certain skaters. so personally i think this rule should be get rid of altogether and in my opinion, the elements should only be graded on the grade of execution.

 

3 hours ago, hoodie axel said:

But this is directly against what I'm saying. If everyone's PCS is to be scaled by 1.3, then EVERYONE's PCS will be higher. Take whatever PCS the top 6 got at worlds, and multiply those by 1.3. That's what we'll have. Their PCS will still be capped: at 130, instead of 100.

 

why is it like we are in a violent agreement that PCS should not be scaled? its just that you dont see the significance of it while I do think thats a chance for judges to widen the scoring gap.

 

First, i was not thinking about PCS rescaling. I was thinking judges should give Vincent 88 only if Yuzu starts at 120. and thats what I feel would be most impactful about raising the PCS to 130 and i also think thats what Mass is trying to say. And thats why I feel even so, in the hands of the judges, the situation could have be reversed because there is a high chance they will give Yuzu lower PCS than someone like Nathan. and thats why I believe raising the PCS is even more dangerous.

 

now the reason you seem to think its pointless to raise the pcs is due to the rescaling method. and yes, i agree it makes less of a difference if all of them are rescaled. but still, the difference seems to be higher than how it would be without rescaling. so if yuzu were to get 95 while nathan a 96, when scaled it by 1.30, the difference would be even greater. Yuzu would get 123.5 pts while Nathan 124.8 pts. so while skaters are still capped at either 130 or 100, at least with the current 100 pt,the difference is less. And to me a couple points is still a couple of points more to consider.

 

3 hours ago, hoodie axel said:

No. I don't see the point of +GOEs scaled as they are currently, is all, because the rewards are too great. The harsher penalties as dealt by the -GOEs, OTOH, is desirable, for me; I would even say they should be harsher.

But i asked you if you prefer the +3 system, which wasnt scaled. and you said no? but you said you dont see the point of the new +5 GOE system. so what would you prefer then? if neither, what is your suggestion?

[makebelieveup]

2 hours ago, WinForPooh said:

lol I thought I was done but I'm not because I just read @hoodie axel's comment properly and I don't know if this is what you're getting at but I don't think a really great jump should get an additional 50% of its BV.

 

That was supposed to reward quality, that rule, but what that actually did is just lower the bar so much for what an acceptable jump is. What would have got a +1 before now gets +3 (if the flag is right, of course) and the only way they give anything lower than -2 is if they splat. Now the BV seems to be for 'on their feet, no hand down, no foot down'. How many quads have got just the BV in the last season? What exactly is a quad that just gets its BV now? I haven't the slightest clue. An average in every way quad should get BV, I think, but it automatically gets +2 or +3! Visible wobbliness in the air or on landing should get negative GOE but ??????? I don't know. The new GOE system is turning out to be a modern mini 6-point system for the highest value individual elements in a programme and that's not a step forward. Well unless they know what they're stepping towards and this is where they wanna go, in which case I suppose it is.

dont forget certain skaters got positive goe for a hands down. that to me was the most outrageous. and some got postive goe when their jumps were underrotated

[hoodie axel]

1 hour ago, makebelieveup said:

but the judges never really go by this rule all the time

But we weren't talking about what the judges do...? At least, I wasn't. I merely answered your questions about what *I* think should be the case.

 

1 hour ago, makebelieveup said:

the elements should only be graded on the grade of execution.

What will you be using to grade the program PCS? No spins, no steps, no jumps. So only the transitions between these elements? And how will you ignore the impression these elements create in your mind? Will the judges close their eyes, stuff their ears, and hum when they happen?

 

If you still want to include steps and spins, why are they specifically part of the choreography and interpretation, and not the jumps?

 

Looking at what the judges are doing and disabling them from doing so by forcing artifice isn't a fix. This isn't how you debug code; you instead find what's wrong with your algorithm.

 

1 hour ago, makebelieveup said:

why is it like we are in a violent agreement that PCS should not be scaled?

We're not. I said I don't care either way, in a more roundabout fashion.

 

The *correct* scoring of pcs is a different issue altogether. Even then, that would be done on a raw pcs template, and scaled up.

 

1 hour ago, makebelieveup said:

but you said you dont see the point of the new +5 GOE system

I didn't though? I said the rewards for +GOE are too high. If it were +5%, +10% and so on, it could work.

[WinForPooh]

5 hours ago, hoodie axel said:

OK, so you were talking about jump landings. "Good flow" is also a way to judge SS, though. How would you describe "good flow across the ice" less vaguely?

 

I also don't know if there's such a thing as an "ideal" landing posture, as much as there is a correct "over the skates" alignment.

 

Even for this though, I don't think the "must use eyes" part of the sport can ever be discarded... I think it's less a problem of the rulebook (in this particular case, but also many others: how do you describe depth of edge?) and more a part of the training.

 

I also don't care (or at least have begun to stop caring) about what fans say on Twitter, or even here or other websites, in the context of their favorites. The competitive spirits are high, the objectivity is out of the window, and I hardly expect everyone to know the rulebook and skating (and I'm fine with it). It's the judging that bothers me, not the inane justifications for it from fans.

 

(It must be said, I find your use of language absolute hilarious. It's great.)

 

I don't want the 'must use eyes' part to be discarded, but I was talking more about the 'good flow' part of GOE, out of jumps, which should at the very least have a few examples of what it is not. For SS, or any marks out of ten that essentially works like the out of six artistic marks, the only solution that has any hope of working is somehow instilling in the judges integrity and loyalty to the sport instead of to their federations and I don't think medical science will get that advanced in the time we have left before the apocalypse. I mentioned the twitter comment mostly because most of these comments are being made to justify scores that have already been given, so these points of view don't exist in a vacuum, they're being supported by the scores.  And the comments then support the scores, and that then... But I don't think it's because the judges lack training. Well maybe they don't, but go farther down than the top five or six and we see skaters and their skills being judged quite according to how you'd expect the CoP to be applied. 

 

(  Thank you, I do believe in keeping my rants as entertaining as possible, we need the laughs.) 

 

 

[makebelieveup]

6 hours ago, hoodie axel said:

But we weren't talking about what the judges do...? At least, I wasn't. I merely answered your questions about what *I* think should be the case.

  

What will you be using to grade the program PCS? No spins, no steps, no jumps. So only the transitions between these elements? And how will you ignore the impression these elements create in your mind? Will the judges close their eyes, stuff their ears, and hum when they happen?

 

If you still want to include steps and spins, why are they specifically part of the choreography and interpretation, and not the jumps?

 

Looking at what the judges are doing and disabling them from doing so by forcing artifice isn't a fix. This isn't how you debug code; you instead find what's wrong with your algorithm.

  

We're not. I said I don't care either way, in a more roundabout fashion.

 

So I must confess I read all of the responses in this thread via my phone on a busy working day, so I misunderstood some points from your previous responses and I apologize for that. I appreciate that you clarified but please review your tone as it was not very nice. I also take it back that PCS and TES are entirely separate because I agree with @WinForPooh 's earlier comment about PCS having technical aspects to it. I missed her response and rereading it, I think I couldn't have explained it better. I still think there are skaters who could get high TES simply by executing their required elements well without committing to the rest of the program or contribute to the overall in betweens.

 

 

 

 

 

[WinForPooh]

1 hour ago, makebelieveup said:

 

I also take it back that PCS and TES are entirely separate because I agree with @WinForPooh 's earlier comment about PCS having technical aspects to it. I missed her response and rereading it, I think I couldn't have explained it better. I still think there are skaters who could get high TES simply by executing their required elements well without committing to the rest of the program or contribute to the overall in betweens.

 

I agree, there are. I think that is because jumps are over-valued, and the CoP allows bad spinners to hit level 4s, and TPs don't evaluate StSq properly. I don't think jumps should be worth so much more than everything else, tbh, because why are they? I think a very well done StSq should be worth as much as a 4Lz. So should a very well executed level 4 spin, and I don't think awkward spins should get level 4s. Could a skater execute quads and spins and the StSq and the ChSq well, really well, without committing to the in-between? I don't know, actually. We do know that having good SS doesn't mean they'll use them between elements, Shoma still does all the crossovers even if we know he has the ability to do a lot more. But he does commit to the programme despite that. 

 

You know, it's funny. ISU talked such a big game about reassuring judges that they're important and things haven't really changed and all of these are guidelines and all of that, but those caps for PCS tell another story, don't they? That's a blatant admission that they think judges were doing their jobs wrong and giving too many 10s. It also kind of gives the impression that clean programme = winning programme, doesn't it? 

[Paskud]

34 minutes ago, WinForPooh said:

 

I agree, there are. I think that is because jumps are over-valued, and the CoP allows bad spinners to hit level 4s, and TPs don't evaluate StSq properly. I don't think jumps should be worth so much more than everything else, tbh, because why are they? I think a very well done StSq should be worth as much as a 4Lz. So should a very well executed level 4 spin, and I don't think awkward spins should get level 4s. Could a skater execute quads and spins and the StSq and the ChSq well, really well, without committing to the in-between? I don't know, actually. We do know that having good SS doesn't mean they'll use them between elements, Shoma still does all the crossovers even if we know he has the ability to do a lot more. But he does commit to the programme despite that. 

 

You know, it's funny. ISU talked such a big game about reassuring judges that they're important and things haven't really changed and all of these are guidelines and all of that, but those caps for PCS tell another story, don't they? That's a blatant admission that they think judges were doing their jobs wrong and giving too many 10s. It also kind of gives the impression that clean programme = winning programme, doesn't it? 

I think it is possible to do bad spin or StSq with all features to get level 4. That's why minus GOE and negative bullets exist. But people usually don't care about them because it doesn't matter if spin gives you 3 points or 13 when difference between level 4 and 3  is only 0,5 point or so (that's why ice dance has so many problems).
 

About clean program = winning program - yes, that's why they changed it. It was mentioned many times how people can't understand situation when someone skates clean but can't win against someone with falls. So now visible mistakes cost you more. On other hand it's easier to meet bullets and good GOE gives you much more points than before. But in situation when GOE are linked to BV, it's better to go for elements with higher BV (and higher GOE). That's why Zazura said that BV is more important now and he needs quads with higher BV (and higher GOE). 

[WinForPooh]

55 minutes ago, Paskud said:

I think it is possible to do bad spin or StSq with all features to get level 4. That's why minus GOE and negative bullets exist. But people usually don't care about them because it doesn't matter if spin gives you 3 points or 13 when difference between level 4 and 3  is only 0,5 point or so (that's why ice dance has so many problems).
 

About clean program = winning program - yes, that's why they changed it. It was mentioned many times how people can't understand situation when someone skates clean but can't win against someone with falls. So now visible mistakes cost you more. On other hand it's easier to meet bullets and good GOE gives you much more points than before. But in situation when GOE are linked to BV, it's better to go for elements with higher BV (and higher GOE). That's why Zazura said that BV is more important now and he needs quads with higher BV (and higher GOE). 

 

It is possible, but it shouldn't be. I mean I love Empress Liza so much but that her spins get level 4s with positive GOE is wild. The way the levels are set up now, it's perfectly fair that she gets them, but the way I see it, good spins need skill, and it's just as impressive a skill as jumping. The difference in spin skills between Liza and Satoko should be worth more than a couple of points. The difference in jumping skills between the two of them is worth a lot more, as it should be. CoP undervalues everything except jumps, because with GOEs tied to BV, even a +5 on spin only gives you a couple of points.

 

I don't think that a bad StSq could give level 4 because StSq requirements are far stricter. You can get away with a kinda-layback-ish spin but you have to have edge control to be able to do a three-turn cluster, you have to have the curves to do a rocker or a counter, you have to be able to change foot, direction and edge to do a choctaw, you need excellent control to keep the blade on the ice when you do an inside loop. For spins, you can hit the required number of rotations if you can hold it, but for StSq, you really cannot get the level 4 without having good SS. Well, you shouldn't be able to, I haven't a clue how Vincent's StSq got the levels they did because I couldn't tell between counters and brackets, how do you tell when everything looks so flat? Curve, what curve, where? 

 

But yeah, BV is the most important thing now, which means jumps and going clean are the most important things. That's why Nathan is very smart to stick with the high value jumps he's confident of landing, he gets both BV and consistency. That is the winning combination right there. He has established his reputation as having good toe jumps so the fact that his Flip edge has been getting flatter and flatter in the last two seasons doesn't seem to matter. If Samarin can drill his jumps enough to land them, he'll start getting high GOE and PCS too, irrespective of how his axis wobbles in the air. 

 

We can debate the current rules all we want but I think, realistically, the judging we've seen this season shows what ISU wants. It's not like they make the technical handbooks and then some random strange aliens from outer space with no context apply them. The rules are being applied by the people who made the rules so I think we can conclude that what we've seen is exactly what they intended from the rules. PCS and GOE both depend on BV, technical requirements are guidelines, and not falling on quads no matter how they're executed will win. The tech panel isn't made of strangers to the rule-making, either. I don't know why they want the sport to head in this direction, but they do, and they control it. 

 

ETA: Should we have a thread where we try to guess what ISU want? I mean what do they want exactly and why do they do what they do? It might descend into all kinds of mayhem though. 

[hoodie axel]

@makebelieveup sorry for the tone. In that post, I was confused where the miscommunication occurred, and also didn't understand why technical elements shouldn't be part of PCS.

[Paskud]

29 minutes ago, WinForPooh said:

 

It is possible, but it shouldn't be. I mean I love Empress Liza so much but that her spins get level 4s with positive GOE is wild. The way the levels are set up now, it's perfectly fair that she gets them, but the way I see it, good spins need skill, and it's just as impressive a skill as jumping. The difference in spin skills between Liza and Satoko should be worth more than a couple of points. The difference in jumping skills between the two of them is worth a lot more, as it should be. CoP undervalues everything except jumps, because with GOEs tied to BV, even a +5 on spin only gives you a couple of points.

 

I don't think that a bad StSq could give level 4 because StSq requirements are far stricter. You can get away with a kinda-layback-ish spin but you have to have edge control to be able to do a three-turn cluster, you have to have the curves to do a rocker or a counter, you have to be able to change foot, direction and edge to do a choctaw, you need excellent control to keep the blade on the ice when you do an inside loop. For spins, you can hit the required number of rotations if you can hold it, but for StSq, you really cannot get the level 4 without having good SS. Well, you shouldn't be able to, I haven't a clue how Vincent's StSq got the levels they did because I couldn't tell between counters and brackets, how do you tell when everything looks so flat? Curve, what curve, where? 

 

But yeah, BV is the most important thing now, which means jumps and going clean are the most important things. That's why Nathan is very smart to stick with the high value jumps he's confident of landing, he gets both BV and consistency. That is the winning combination right there. He has established his reputation as having good toe jumps so the fact that his Flip edge has been getting flatter and flatter in the last two seasons doesn't seem to matter. If Samarin can drill his jumps enough to land them, he'll start getting high GOE and PCS too, irrespective of how his axis wobbles in the air.

Yeah, I also thought about Liza.  My problem is that often people say "oh, I want more points for spins" but it doesn't matter if spin BV is 3, 30, 300 or 3000000 - difference between levels and, yes, GOE is small, so no one pay too much attention to them. I checked protocols from 4cc and in men SP (25 competitors) and I counted only 7 examples of spin or stsq with minus goe (and even then it's only 0/-1/-2 GOE). Also levels on spins and steps rarely go lower that level 3. Maybe with more punishment it would change and bad spinners wouldn't be overlooked. 

About steps, in theory I can see slow and careful stsq with all steps and turns required (and -5 GOE). Probably even Vince or Nate would be able to do it. Then again, casual viewers won't see hopped turn, so who cares? Difference between level 2 and 4 is small after all.

[WinForPooh]

10 minutes ago, Paskud said:

Yeah, I also thought about Liza.  My problem is that often people say "oh, I want more points for spins" but it doesn't matter if spin BV is 3, 30, 300 or 3000000 - difference between levels and, yes, GOE is small, so no one pay too much attention to them. I checked protocols from 4cc and in men SP (25 competitors) and I counted only 7 examples of spin or stsq with minus goe (and even then it's only 0/-1/-2 GOE). Also levels on spins and steps rarely go lower that level 3. Maybe with more punishment it would change and bad spinners wouldn't be overlooked. 

About steps, in theory I can see slow and careful stsq with all steps and turns required (and -5 GOE). Probably even Vince or Nate would be able to do it. Then again, casual viewers won't see hopped turn, so who cares? Difference between level 2 and 4 is small after all.

 

It's not just Liza, you know. I mean I love Caro but her spins are not exactly great, either. Her jumps are fabulous once she gets the long setup over with, and her SS are sublime, but her spins... And probably every junior among Japanese men.  Maybe difference between levels for spins and stsq should be like differences between single, double, triple and quad jumps. Theoretically, about StSq, if the levels were distinguished like that, then a very slow and not musical StSq would get negative GOE and one with deep edges like Chiddy or lightning fast footwork like LGC would get positive GOE. 

 

But even if there was a system like that, ISU would do the same thing they're doing now with jumps  Suddenly soft knees would become ugly and winks would become essential GOE bullet for StSq. It just doesn't matter what the system is if they keep it deliberately vague and ignore what specifics they do give, you know? They are, like @makebelieveup said, deliberately going in a certain direction that does look very much like agenda. 

[Paskud]

7 hours ago, WinForPooh said:

 

It's not just Liza, you know. I mean I love Caro but her spins are not exactly great, either. Her jumps are fabulous once she gets the long setup over with, and her SS are sublime, but her spins... And probably every junior among Japanese men.  Maybe difference between levels for spins and stsq should be like differences between single, double, triple and quad jumps. Theoretically, about StSq, if the levels were distinguished like that, then a very slow and not musical StSq would get negative GOE and one with deep edges like Chiddy or lightning fast footwork like LGC would get positive GOE. 

 

But even if there was a system like that, ISU would do the same thing they're doing now with jumps  Suddenly soft knees would become ugly and winks would become essential GOE bullet for StSq. It just doesn't matter what the system is if they keep it deliberately vague and ignore what specifics they do give, you know? They are, like @makebelieveup said, deliberately going in a certain direction that does look very much like agenda. 

Liza is the most recent and glaring example.
I don't think it's so easy to say "ISU has agenda". Current system actually works, when applied correctly - with minus goe for bad position in spin or telegraphed jump. The problem is that system was applied with current field of skaters (and created around them until now narration), current low education among judges and situation when judges depend on feds. ISU don't have too much to say here.

[WinForPooh]

53 minutes ago, Paskud said:

Liza is the most recent and glaring example.
I don't think it's so easy to say "ISU has agenda". Current system actually works, when applied correctly - with minus goe for bad position in spin or telegraphed jump. The problem is that system was applied with current field of skaters (and created around them until now narration), current low education among judges and situation when judges depend on feds. ISU don't have too much to say here.

 

ISU is an international body made up of member federations and the ISU council is basically put together from major participating federations - USA, Russia, Japan, Spain, Canada and a couple of other countries are in the ISU council - so it's not like it's a separate thing, the politics we see in judging (judges are also representing their countries' feds) is probably just a sample of the politics that go on during rule-making and conferences of ISU. And I don't buy the judges aren't trained thing at all, they are very well trained when they have to spot edges and UR when done by skaters from smaller feds. I didn't see any of Emmi's URs go uncalled, iirc, for instance. There are better words for such selective incompetence. 

[makebelieveup]

12 hours ago, WinForPooh said:

ETA: Should we have a thread where we try to guess what ISU want? I mean what do they want exactly and why do they do what they do? It might descend into all kinds of mayhem though. 

I think this thread is meant for it. But if you would like to start a new thread, go for it! I mean hey fanyus are crazy obsessive creatures who talk about scores and conspiracy theories all day, every day anyway. so why not

[hoodie axel]

The ISU want to make sure there are two "top" competitors that can draw an audience as a "match up" in the big meets -- aka money.