There are countless claims of under/over scoring on these boards.
But how many are made with a reasoned supporting argument?
What do I mean by a "reasoned argument"? As I see it, if people want to make a case for under/over scoring, it should be made in terms of:
Without that - it seems to me a complainer doesn't actually know what they are complaining about. They may be actually be right, but since their complaint is unsubstantiated - it's more likely just wishful thinking, bias, favouritism, hot air, sour grapes, etc... and I can't take it seriously.
Unfortunately, the number of times I see a "reasoned argument" is very, very small.
And the few that are posted, may be buried under large numbers of "unsubstantiated" posts. The sort where people think that PCS stands for "Popularity Contest Score" ie. the points a skater "deserves", because "I like that performance". Or that skaters were "held back" or "boosted" by being in an earlier or later group, by having a particular nationality/fed/reputation, by competing at a certain location, etc etc... as if these things are all givens (which they aren't), and they happen at every competition (which they don't).
And I wish this would change... more "reasoned argument" posts would be educational for all... help people understand scoring better generally... understand when scores are actually reasonable, even if they seem too high or too low at first... vs when there really IS a reason to pick up the pitchforks and burning torches and form an angry mob. Because as it is, it feels like it's "pitchforks and burning torches" for every... single... competition. I see no proper justification, which makes it very tiresome.
Is there any hope?
I'd love to see "official GS" reviews of scoring, that examine the protocols in these terms, and indicate how reasonable/justifiable the scoring was... I know there are a few GS posters who (I think) have the knowledge/experience required to do such a thing, because I have occasionally seen posts like that... but I guess it would take quite some time and effort to do it on a regular basis, so perhaps not feasible?
Is there somewhere else to turn for "reasoned arguments" or assessments? I have been impressed in the past by Yukiko Okabe's commentary on skating competitions - she is an ISU judge and technical controller, and her insights into a skater's performance vs what judges are looking for... is valuable, very educational and sometimes surprising. I wish that type of broadcast were made more frequently, and more accessible. I feel it helped my understanding of scoring immensely. But the only ones I've seen were made months after the event, and only on Japanese TV in Japanese language.
Are there other FS commentators who are equally "authentic" or knowledegable, impartial, and provide that level of detail in commentary? Or bloggers, or whatever? Chris Howarth (an active FS coach) on British Eurosport seems quite good (unlike Simon and Nicky, bless :-D) but he's not there for every competition, and doesn't always go into a lot of detail, presumably in the interests of keeping things light and entertaining and unintrusive?
But how many are made with a reasoned supporting argument?
What do I mean by a "reasoned argument"? As I see it, if people want to make a case for under/over scoring, it should be made in terms of:
- the protocols for the competition (tech calls included),
- the GoE bullet points that a skater should or should not have been awarded for each element, and
- the PCS criteria they met or didn't meet for each component.
Without that - it seems to me a complainer doesn't actually know what they are complaining about. They may be actually be right, but since their complaint is unsubstantiated - it's more likely just wishful thinking, bias, favouritism, hot air, sour grapes, etc... and I can't take it seriously.
Unfortunately, the number of times I see a "reasoned argument" is very, very small.
And the few that are posted, may be buried under large numbers of "unsubstantiated" posts. The sort where people think that PCS stands for "Popularity Contest Score" ie. the points a skater "deserves", because "I like that performance". Or that skaters were "held back" or "boosted" by being in an earlier or later group, by having a particular nationality/fed/reputation, by competing at a certain location, etc etc... as if these things are all givens (which they aren't), and they happen at every competition (which they don't).
And I wish this would change... more "reasoned argument" posts would be educational for all... help people understand scoring better generally... understand when scores are actually reasonable, even if they seem too high or too low at first... vs when there really IS a reason to pick up the pitchforks and burning torches and form an angry mob. Because as it is, it feels like it's "pitchforks and burning torches" for every... single... competition. I see no proper justification, which makes it very tiresome.
Is there any hope?
I'd love to see "official GS" reviews of scoring, that examine the protocols in these terms, and indicate how reasonable/justifiable the scoring was... I know there are a few GS posters who (I think) have the knowledge/experience required to do such a thing, because I have occasionally seen posts like that... but I guess it would take quite some time and effort to do it on a regular basis, so perhaps not feasible?
Is there somewhere else to turn for "reasoned arguments" or assessments? I have been impressed in the past by Yukiko Okabe's commentary on skating competitions - she is an ISU judge and technical controller, and her insights into a skater's performance vs what judges are looking for... is valuable, very educational and sometimes surprising. I wish that type of broadcast were made more frequently, and more accessible. I feel it helped my understanding of scoring immensely. But the only ones I've seen were made months after the event, and only on Japanese TV in Japanese language.
Are there other FS commentators who are equally "authentic" or knowledegable, impartial, and provide that level of detail in commentary? Or bloggers, or whatever? Chris Howarth (an active FS coach) on British Eurosport seems quite good (unlike Simon and Nicky, bless :-D) but he's not there for every competition, and doesn't always go into a lot of detail, presumably in the interests of keeping things light and entertaining and unintrusive?
Last edited:
. 
