2017 Scale of Value and Guidelines for GOE | Page 3 | Golden Skate

2017 Scale of Value and Guidelines for GOE

CanadianSkaterGuy

Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
can you give some specific moments in which this has happened? Usually to be a "top skater" this means that the quality of execution or the difficulty of their program is leaps and bounds ahead of the lower tier skaters. so sometimes when you watch a lower tier skater skate perfectly they can still get+1 GOE or less because they do not fulfill the difficulty required to get higher GOEs. again, it is very hard to have a conversation like this if you do not provide actual examples of if/when someone was truly cheated in their GOEs. I mean I can think of a few TOP skaters who get lowballed GOEs.

Flawlessness does not equal high GOEs or automatic 10s in PCS. Flawlessness & high difficulty of technique and jumps give skaters high GOE and 10s on components

You also say that "it's frustrating when a lesser skater can cleanly land a jump and get 0 GOE" do you forget that there are necessary bullets one must hit in order to get positive GOE? the landing is just one criteria of GOE

But a 10.00 should be given for flawless execution, not just high difficulty. And as far as GOE goes, if the element is poorly executed or has a serious error, then that shouldn't be "saved" by the positive GOE bullets.

We've seen Asada get 0 GOE for a UR 3A, and positive GOE for a two-footed 3A. We've seen tons of pairs skaters (e.g. V/T or T/M) have two-footed throws and still get positive GOE. We've seen Chan get +1's for stepping out of a quad. We've seen skaters like Kostner and Hanyu get -2's for falls (and bad falls at that), while other skaters are given -2s for merely a hand down or two-foot. We've seen pairs skaters have asynchronous SBS spins and get +GOE, because the rest of the spins are okay, even though unison is essentially the defining feature. We've seen SO many ice dancers have their twizzles out of sync (e.g. C/L had a twizzle sequence where he did one more turn than her), and yet they're awarded higher GOE than ice dancers who execute them cleanly and in unison.

Of course, none of this is the fault of these skaters, but the judges need to be taken to task for favouritism and generosity, and judge consistently.
 

Ender

Match Penalty
Joined
May 17, 2017
I think people should agree that World Team Trophy is a joke competition. I hope I won't get shots from Japanese fans.
 

SnowWhite

Record Breaker
Joined
Nov 30, 2016
Country
Canada
And to a degree, he is absolutely correct. Take a look at Brendan Kerry's and Kevin Reynolds' short programs from Helsinki. Brendan was foot-perfect, flawless, presented with charm, technically competition (no shadow of doubt on his quad toe). Kevin was sloppy, stumbly, technically flawed (UR-central), in a way that took from his performance.

Kevin came out on top. Why? You could have many theories, including that Kevin attempted two quads (key word: attempt), but really, the net result: Kevin is Canadian (a big skating country with lots of power). Brendan is Australian (a little skating country with very little power). I've seen Brendan get robbed against other big-country skaters too - like Kovtun.

oh please Karne... why always getting back to this topic of Canadian skaters getting an edge always...

Kevin rotated BOTH his quads in the SP... if you disagree with the tech panel, I cannot do anything for you. He still got a very big PCS deficit compared to many of the other guys.... if indeed a Canadian was going to be favoured, one that lands two quads in a SP, do you think his PCS would stay in the 7s???? like in his FP, where PCS clearly held him down.

I really feel sorry if Canada has done something to you... as we say in this country : eh... sorry!

But there is no point bashing a skater here and a whole country when we are talking about scale of value and GOE guidelines... look at Kevin's GOE... they are low.

In fact, Brendan's total GOE was 4.66, and Kevin's was 2.88. Kevin got 0.46 more in PCS, Brendan got more level 4's. The entire difference was the 4S Kevin did as opposed to Brendan's 3Lz. And Karne, I don't know what you consider "stumbly", but I watched it twice on Youtube just now, and I didn't see anything that would make me describe that SP as "stumbly".
 

CanadianSkaterGuy

Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
I think people should agree that World Team Trophy is a joke competition. I hope I won't get shots from Japanese fans.

Agreed, but it counts for scoring records and personal bests, and the skaters still treat their performances seriously and risk hard elements. It is, after all a competition to end the season.
 

drivingmissdaisy

Record Breaker
Joined
Feb 17, 2010
I'm a bit confused by your post. You're mentioning negative GOE? Do you mean you don't see anywhere that a pop automatically means you get lesser PCS? In that case, yes, a pop should get less PCS because it's an error which mars a performance. If we say that 1 pop shouldn't affect PCS, then 8 pops shouldn't affect PCS either by that notion, which is obviously absurd. It's ridiculous if a skater popped/fell on multiple jumps got 9.5's on their PCS (of which there are several examples).

I think, after Sochi, we are seeing this more. We've had skaters like Kostner win world titles with low technical content, and the men's OGMist with multiple errors. Mao received relatively low PCS scores this season because her technical content was not up to par. Conversely, Nathan received very high PCS at times when he executed his difficult elements well. It appears that PCS is increasingly tied to the successful execution of difficult elements, so that is reassuring. It would be unfortunate if the next men's OGMist wins by default again.
 

CanadianSkaterGuy

Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
I think, after Sochi, we are seeing this more. We've had skaters like Kostner win world titles with low technical content, and the men's OGMist with multiple errors. Mao received relatively low PCS scores this season because her technical content was not up to par. Conversely, Nathan received very high PCS at times when he executed his difficult elements well. It appears that PCS is increasingly tied to the successful execution of difficult elements, so that is reassuring. It would be unfortunate if the next men's OGMist wins by default again.

It also seems consistency is the name of the game... it's why skaters like Medvedeva had continually rising PCS, and formerly strong contenders/Worlds champs like Gold, Liza, and Asada have had their PCS scores tank. On the men's side, it definitely seems like difficulty is tied to PCS (with deserving exceptions, like Brown). At some point, all the top guys are going to be clustered at the top that their PCS won't really matter and their actual technical ability/consistency/difficulty will be the deciding factor (as you alluded to), and that is reassuring. But it's still frustrating for other skaters trying to break into the top group when the top skaters can have an error-fest and still bag 90+ points in the bank (i.e. 9's/9.5's from the judges), and you have to skate with insane difficulty (see Jin and Chen) - and land it - to get even 10 points fewer than them and have a hope of challenging them.
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Or they could improve their actual skating and performance quality to the point where they would de see eve the higher pcs. But for younger skaters it may be more efficient to add harder jumps, if they can.
 

Neenah16

On the Ice
Joined
Dec 4, 2016
It also seems consistency is the name of the game... it's why skaters like Medvedeva had continually rising PCS, and formerly strong contenders/Worlds champs like Gold, Liza, and Asada have had their PCS scores tank. On the men's side, it definitely seems like difficulty is tied to PCS (with deserving exceptions, like Brown). At some point, all the top guys are going to be clustered at the top that their PCS won't really matter and their actual technical ability/consistency/difficulty will be the deciding factor (as you alluded to), and that is reassuring. But it's still frustrating for other skaters trying to break into the top group when the top skaters can have an error-fest and still bag 90+ points in the bank (i.e. 9's/9.5's from the judges), and you have to skate with insane difficulty (see Jin and Chen) - and land it - to get even 10 points fewer than them and have a hope of challenging them.

This is a serious question I hope you can answer as I am trying to understand your position on this debate.. What do you think the reason that those top skaters are at the top and how did they get there?
 

drivingmissdaisy

Record Breaker
Joined
Feb 17, 2010
Or they could improve their actual skating and performance quality to the point where they would de see eve the higher pcs. But for younger skaters it may be more efficient to add harder jumps, if they can.

For me, there is something special about a skater who cleanly completes a program with high technical difficulty. It lifts the performance level, much like we see when Gracie finishes her jumps. To a certain extent, I think the ISU needs to further calibrate the scoring system in a way that encourages winning programs look like winning programs, both for die-hard fans and casual viewers. I'd like to see a system in which clean Boyang beats any skater in the world who falls twice.
 

chillgil

Match Penalty
Joined
Apr 12, 2017
I'm a bit confused by your post. You're mentioning negative GOE? Do you mean you don't see anywhere that a pop automatically means you get lesser PCS? In that case, yes, a pop should get less PCS because it's an error which mars a performance. If we say that 1 pop shouldn't affect PCS, then 8 pops shouldn't affect PCS either by that notion, which is obviously absurd. It's ridiculous if a skater popped/fell on multiple jumps got 9.5's on their PCS (of which there are several examples).

And IMO, an edge call on a jump definitely means you shouldn't get a 10.00 for SS (which is partially defined by edge control and clarity of technique). And a step-out is an ability to control a landing edge, as well as can mean the skater doesn't do planned exit transitions - not to mention is an "ugly" moment which should affect PE and IN. Basically, if a skater has a clean performance and a performance filled with stepouts and pops or falls, don't you think the PCS should be different?

I'm also not sure what you mean by I do not have an unbiased perspective on it? Is it because I'm not a top skater that I'm automatically biased towards scoring of top skaters (in which case, we all are, lol)? I haven't mentioned any particular skaters in my previous posts on this. But if you want names, on the men's side, there are skaters from Chan to Hanyu to Fernandez to Uno who have gotten 9.5's or even 10.00's for programs with multiple errors/falls.

first, where in the rulebook in BOTH pcs and GOE criteria does it say that a pop should be penalized? PCS has nothing to do with quality of jump!!

i also said that i agreed with you that if a skater messes up his jump it may reflect in his performance or interpretation score but not in the other categories.

also I was merely pointing out that no skating fan is unbiased in his/her judgement of rules/skaters/programs. so while in your opinion PCS is being handed out unfairly and the rules don't make sense, the rules were not made for your understanding they were made to let the best, most athletic, ambitious, and creative skaters rise to the top. the rules are not made for your favorite skaters, just as they are not made for mine.

thank you for the examples :)
 

chillgil

Match Penalty
Joined
Apr 12, 2017
But a 10.00 should be given for flawless execution, not just high difficulty. And as far as GOE goes, if the element is poorly executed or has a serious error, then that shouldn't be "saved" by the positive GOE bullets.

We've seen Asada get 0 GOE for a UR 3A, and positive GOE for a two-footed 3A. We've seen tons of pairs skaters (e.g. V/T or T/M) have two-footed throws and still get positive GOE. We've seen Chan get +1's for stepping out of a quad. We've seen skaters like Kostner and Hanyu get -2's for falls (and bad falls at that), while other skaters are given -2s for merely a hand down or two-foot. We've seen pairs skaters have asynchronous SBS spins and get +GOE, because the rest of the spins are okay, even though unison is essentially the defining feature. We've seen SO many ice dancers have their twizzles out of sync (e.g. C/L had a twizzle sequence where he did one more turn than her), and yet they're awarded higher GOE than ice dancers who execute them cleanly and in unison.

Of course, none of this is the fault of these skaters, but the judges need to be taken to task for favouritism and generosity, and judge consistently.

i think you could save yourself a lot of headaches if you read the rulebook. just because you fall doesnt mean that there were other GOE criteria you hit in order to not get penalized to the fullest degree. a skater could have had hit 4 GOE bullets but fell and it would mean that he did not get -3 on the jump. do you get what im saying? there are MULTIPLE bullet points you must hit in order to get positive GOE-it does not depend on the landing alone

i think you misunderstood my statement as well. i clearly stated that flawless execution and high difficulty give skaters high GOE. I never said only for high difficuly. I said just flawlessness will not give you the GOE you want. you can hit a quad toe with great height/distance with great flow coming in and out of it but that only gives you +1 GOE, even though the jump itself looked perfect.
 

chillgil

Match Penalty
Joined
Apr 12, 2017
i actually think it would help a lot of people enjoy results of major competitions more if they realize that even if a skater falls during his/her performance and runs away with the gold, that there are a hundred more aspects to a program than just nicely landed jumps. in my opinion a skater with high level difficulty of both jumps and skating content (many transitions, steps, emotion,etc) who messes up in an aspect of their program is still the righteous winner above any skater who performs flawlessly with much lower content both technically and PCS categories wise. and i believe many casual skating fans feel that way too, at least i hope so ;)
 

CanadianSkaterGuy

Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
This is a serious question I hope you can answer as I am trying to understand your position on this debate.. What do you think the reason that those top skaters are at the top and how did they get there?

This is an odd question. The top skaters are at the top because they have achieved a level of technical ability and artistic performance that sets them apart from other skaters. However, it does not preclude them to facing equal scrutiny from the judges as "lesser" skaters, which does not always happen - as I've pointed out in a few (of which there are many) examples where judges have been overly generous.

To answer chillgal - a fall is an error which detrimentally affects a program's overall quality. Do you think a program with 8 falls/pops should still be able to get awarded 10.00 on any component? If your answer is no, then that negates your assertion that PCS is independent of major errors. If your answer is yes, then we clearly interpret the rules differently. P.s. I've read the rule book, so being condescending to me isn't really conducive to conversation. Someone disagreeing with you doesn't mean they're not entitled to their own opinion. A lot of judges too have read the rule book but occasionally ignore criteria and guidelines.

There is a reason the ISU is suggesting that the judges do not give 10.00's for a program with a fall. The fact that they have to do that (and even have it as just a suggestion at that) is laughable. A major flaw, ie an imperfect program, shouldn't receive perfect program quality scores. That's stating the obvious and it boggles my mind how anyone can defend perfect scores for programs that aren't perfect.
 

CanadianSkaterGuy

Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
i think you could save yourself a lot of headaches if you read the rulebook. just because you fall doesnt mean that there were other GOE criteria you hit in order to not get penalized to the fullest degree. a skater could have had hit 4 GOE bullets but fell and it would mean that he did not get -3 on the jump. do you get what im saying? there are MULTIPLE bullet points you must hit in order to get positive GOE-it does not depend on the landing alone

i think you misunderstood my statement as well. i clearly stated that flawless execution and high difficulty give skaters high GOE. I never said only for high difficuly. I said just flawlessness will not give you the GOE you want. you can hit a quad toe with great height/distance with great flow coming in and out of it but that only gives you +1 GOE, even though the jump itself looked perfect.

I'm saying GOE bullets shouldn't be considered in the case of a fall/pop. Here's a question: why do you think most skaters get -3s for falls on fully rotated jumping passes when several of these jumping passes usually meet at least 2 GOE criteria (so start off at a +1 and then a fall would bring it to a -2)? Shouldn't they be getting -2's across the board and no less? :sarcasm:

If Medvedeva does a jump with a creative entry, difficult preceding movements, a tano, and the jump matches musical structure, then she has met 4 GOE bullets -- so even if she falls on the jump, which is a -3 reduction, according you she should receive no less than a -1 for that fall?

If a skater does 6+ GOE bullets but the jump is a pop - does that mean the judges should be giving the popped jump +3 across the board?
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
I'm saying GOE bullets shouldn't be considered in the case of a fall/pop. Here's a question: why do you think most skaters get -3s for falls on fully rotated jumping passes when several of these jumping passes usually meet at least 2 GOE criteria (so start off at a +1 and then a fall would bring it to a -2)? Shouldn't they be getting -2's across the board and no less? :sarcasm:

If Medvedeva does a jump with a creative entry, difficult preceding movements, a tano, and the jump matches musical structure, then she has met 4 GOE bullets -- so even if she falls on the jump, which is a -3 reduction, according you she should receive no less than a -1 for that fall?

On a jump with a fall, the fall itself will lead to a -3 reduction in the GOE. There might be other things wrong with the jump: underrotation in many case, lack of flow on the landing especially if no landing edge is established before the fall, often a lean/awkward air position or shaky takeoff, etc. If any of those problems are present in addition to the mere fact of a fall, then the reductions would add up and the judge would end up at -3. But if the skater really lands the jump on a back outside edge with some flow and then falls, especially in a combination or sequence where the first jump was great, and enough positive bullet points are present, then it is legal and even encouraged to start with positive GOE and end up at -2 or maybe -1.

They have to take it on a case by case basis. And if in doubt, default to the -3 for the element with the fall.

If a skater does 6+ GOE bullets but the jump is a pop - does that mean the judges should be giving the popped jump +3 across the board?

If the skater plans a triple jump but ends up with an excellent single that you wouldn't know wasn't planned that way, then it would certainly be appropriate for any judge to award +3 to that single jump (unless it's in a short program where a triple was required, but that's more about the rules than the quality). Even moreso if they turn a planned triple into a double that looks like an excellent planned double. Sometimes they even do that on purpose.

If by "pop" you mean an ugly open air position with obvious lack of control of the rotation, then 0 or -1 is more likely. Maybe +1 if the air position isn't bad enough for a reduction and there are still some positive bullet points present.

Again, each judge has to decide case by case. And they're not all going to agree with each other every time, on any landed jump with or without errors. So expecting a certain score "across the board" is usually unrealistic. But that doesn't mean a judge who evaluates a jump differently than you do, or than the rest of the panel does, is wrong -- as long as their score is within the range for the obvious deductions after positive bullet points one could make a case for being present. Obviously positive GOE for a jump with a fall is not correct, but any non-positive score including 0 would be legal according to the rules, at each judge's individual discretion.

And the skaters who usually earn +2s and +3s on their successful jumps are most likely to wind up with scores higher than -3 for their jumps with falls. But not every time, and not from every judge.
 

chillgil

Match Penalty
Joined
Apr 12, 2017
To answer chillgal - a fall is an error which detrimentally affects a program's overall quality. Do you think a program with 8 falls/pops should still be able to get awarded 10.00 on any component? If your answer is no, then that negates your assertion that PCS is independent of major errors. If your answer is yes, then we clearly interpret the rules differently. P.s. I've read the rule book, so being condescending to me isn't really conducive to conversation. Someone disagreeing with you doesn't mean they're not entitled to their own opinion. A lot of judges too have read the rule book but occasionally ignore criteria and guidelines.

i guess we do interpret the rules differently in which i see that there are deductions made in the correct category (tech) when there is a fall, and no deduction needed for the rest of the program components (PCS) it just doesnt make sense to judge skating skills, footwork, choreography, interpretation based on a marred jump when it's already being penalized in the tech category.

i mean, like i said, if the jump that is planned is well integrated into the performance/program and the skater falls then i can see PE or interpretation being marked down. but if you plan a triple and it turns into a single i honestly wonder why should SS or TR or even performance and interpretation be marked down?
 

Neenah16

On the Ice
Joined
Dec 4, 2016
This is an odd question. The top skaters are at the top because they have achieved a level of technical ability and artistic performance that sets them apart from other skaters. However, it does not preclude them to facing equal scrutiny from the judges as "lesser" skaters, which does not always happen - as I've pointed out in a few (of which there are many) examples where judges have been overly generous.

To answer chillgal - a fall is an error which detrimentally affects a program's overall quality. Do you think a program with 8 falls/pops should still be able to get awarded 10.00 on any component? If your answer is no, then that negates your assertion that PCS is independent of major errors. If your answer is yes, then we clearly interpret the rules differently. P.s. I've read the rule book, so being condescending to me isn't really conducive to conversation. Someone disagreeing with you doesn't mean they're not entitled to their own opinion. A lot of judges too have read the rule book but occasionally ignore criteria and guidelines.

There is a reason the ISU is suggesting that the judges do not give 10.00's for a program with a fall. The fact that they have to do that (and even have it as just a suggestion at that) is laughable. A major flaw, ie an imperfect program, shouldn't receive perfect program quality scores. That's stating the obvious and it boggles my mind how anyone can defend perfect scores for programs that aren't perfect.

Thank you for answering my question, I agree with you.

As for your other point, don't you think it is a bit of an extreme example? a skater falling or popping many jumps have a real problem and I doubt the performance will not suffer as a result. However, we are discussing one or two errors were the skater can recover quickly and save the performance. I have watched skaters fall and proceed to deliver a brilliant performance that I totally forgot that there was a fall, and I also watched skaters who let the mistake weigh them down and the whole program suffers. So do you think that both cases should have the same PC if they both made the exact same mistakes (technically)?
 

CanadianSkaterGuy

Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Depends on the skater. If you compare meltdowns like Osmond at Skate Canada 2015 or Mao at Trophee this season or Anna at Worlds this season, each skater had a varying level of performance in spite of errors.

While 8 errors should affect the performance (and I'm being hypothetical because very rarely does a skater have 8 errors), so should 1 major error.

I guess it depends on where the fall is whether it affects the performance. Kolyada's WTT skate was still good because the error was at the beginning) on a very difficult element at that. But Kostner 3S<< fall in Bolero or Chan's waxel fall in Worlds 2012 leaves more of bad impression being at the end, even though the rest of the program was pretty solid. But in all those instances it was "only" 1 fall.

I certainly don't forget if a skater has fallen in a program and the judges definitely shouldn't. Falls are major errors and the one error that anyone watching - even those who have never seen figure skating - can say for certain is a blatant error which should immediately prevent any perfect score from being awarded.

For the sport to be taken seriously, the judges need to stop handing out 10s to imperfect skates. I told my bf that, "You know, now in figure skating, they have requested that the judges not hand out 10's if a skater falls." And he laughed, "Who came up with that rule, that French judge?" :laugh: To which I said, "Well, it's only a suggestion, not a rule." To which he said, "Yeah... your sport's corrupt." :biggrin: :p
 

chillgil

Match Penalty
Joined
Apr 12, 2017
For the sport to be taken seriously, the judges need to stop handing out 10s to imperfect skates.

sorry to keep drudging up an argument with you but really "imperfect" is a subjective term especially in the case of figure skating where there are two different categories of how to assess a program. if you mess up in one category then you deserve to be marked down in that category only.

if i fail a math class, why should my english grade go down as well?

if tom brady has 5 interceptions in a football game and his team still wins, should the other team have won?

i wont be delusional and say that there aren't any judges who score more subjectively rather than abide objectively by the rulebook, but that's only because the judges are human. we combat this human component by averaging out all the judges scores; i do think that there should be some sort of system that allows the judges to pick which bullets of the GOE criteria a skater accomplishes at the end of each element, just so that we can see they are thinking when they award too high/too low GOE. I also believe that there are judges who confuse PCS with the technical difficulty of jumps and give skaters who have very empty programs high PCS scores and that's obviously something the sport needs to fix in order to improve.

but i think you are worried too much about what casual fans or even people who do not watch figure skating at all think. i agree that it is a little confusing for someone who is a casual viewer to watch a program with a fall and see that the skater won gold anyway, i do think that it is easy for that person to say "well that was a flawed skate, they do not deserve gold, this sport is rigged" because they don't know the rules or requirements that are required in a program. it's like i said before, the rules are not made for casual viewers, they are not made for our favorite skaters, they are made so that the most ambitious athletes in the sport get rewarded so that the sport can be pushed forward.

i feel like i've said pretty much everything i need to so i promise, ill stop picking fights xD
 
Top