Is it still possible to participate? I'd love to if there's a free space and could fill in the scores by the beginning of next week at the latest, if that would still be fine.
Are the GS judges going to do pairs, too? Shen and Zhou won the short and overall, but with only so-so skating compared with the great masterpieces of their career, such as 2003 Worlds). They were the emotional favorites and everyone was satisfied with their win. But Pang and Tong won the LP and skated great. Was there any "controversy" about the outcome?
If you're going to make a project of Golden Skate rescoring these events, wouldn't it be more honest to do so without reminding oneself in advance of opinions about the official judging at the time? Just score what you see (according to the rules at the time if you want to compare Golden Skate to official results afterward) . . . and see where you agreed or disagreed with the official panel after all the GS scores are in and can no longer be influenced.
Rehashing the real scoring in advance seems all too likely to lead to conscious or unconscious attempts to prove the original judging wrong or to prove it right, depending on each fan's predilections, rather than just focusing on what the skaters did and applying the rules in effect at the time with as few preconceptions as possible.
Did I see correctly we've got a judge number 9 now?
and so far each person has had a different winner (par two judges who had the same winner)
Are the GS judges going to do pairs, too? Shen and Zhou won the short and overall, but with only so-so skating compared with the great masterpieces of their career, such as 2003 Worlds). They were the emotional favorites and everyone was satisfied with their win. But Pang and Tong won the LP and skated great. Was there any "controversy" about the outcome?
If you're going to make a project of Golden Skate rescoring these events, wouldn't it be more honest to do so without reminding oneself in advance of opinions about the official judging at the time? Just score what you see (according to the rules at the time if you want to compare Golden Skate to official results afterward) . . . and see where you agreed or disagreed with the official panel after all the GS scores are in and can no longer be influenced.
Rehashing the real scoring in advance seems all too likely to lead to conscious or unconscious attempts to prove the original judging wrong or to prove it right, depending on each fan's predilections, rather than just focusing on what the skaters did and applying the rules in effect at the time with as few preconceptions as possible.
Agreed. It creates more skepticism towards the legitimacy of certain skaters and frankly comes across as trying to engineer the results to favour/hinder particular skater(s). I saw technical calls I didn't necessarily agree with but specifically didn't call them out for this very purpose of actually keeping the game fair and limiting any further bias.
If judges have yet to input their scores, then announcing how one thinks elements should have been judged, or announcing the results of one's own scoresheet can affect the outcome compared to if all judges independently inputted their scores. That "table talk" is the kind of shady politicizing that leads to judging controversies, where a judge(s) deliberately tries to affect the scores/opinions of other judges, before those other judges have actually inputted their scores or the competition has even started.
It's precisely why I'm not putting up my own results before the other judges are done their scoring, even though I'm really itching to talk about them! It's also why I hope that any judge who has yet to input their scores dismisses any table talk that's gone on in this thread by people who have shared their own scoring/results.
Honestly, I just sat down and watched the event and put in my numbers. I hope 9 judges will balance it a bit. It won't be perfect, and I'm curious to see what will happen. It's an average of all the scores, and so far each person has had a different winner (par two judges who had the same winner). I don't care so much about the scores, but more how it will effect placements, and how close people will see different performances as.
I saw technical calls I didn't necessarily agree with but specifically didn't call them out for this very purpose of actually keeping the game fair and limiting any further bias.
That "table talk" is the kind of shady politicizing that leads to judging controversies, where a judge(s) deliberately tries to affect the scores/opinions of other judges, before those other judges have actually inputted their scores or the competition has even started.
OMG really?! Well this will be interesting indeed. I'm so curious to see what the "ordinals" looked like. And no wonder the placements are so close.
That's not shady politicizing. It's exactly what should be happening. Discussion is necessary to come to the best communal understanding of something. Judges might not see or understand something about a program or technical aspect. Everyone should hear different viewpoints and be able to take that info and make their own decision. It's ignorance to not listen to all of the info or discuss specifics.
I’m one of the judges for this fun project, and I just want to say that I personally did not know much about the men’s event here.
Yes -- that's why there are (sometimes) roundtable discussions about an event that has just taken place after it has finished.
And why referees hold pre-event meetings to remind judges of what to pay particular attention to, especially in light of recent rule changes or points that the ISU brass have decided to encourage judges to pay closer attention to going forward.
Judges can also discuss informally among themselves what they were impressed by, or the opposite, in events they have just finished judging. Or can enthuse to each other before an event about cool details they noticed during practice or at previous performances by the current skaters.
But that's very different from judges discussing what they noticed about how the skater executed specific elements or the program as a whole, and how they scored or would score it, while they're in the middle of scoring the event.
Discussing in detail an event that took place last week or 10 years ago and then trying to score that very event with an unbiased, open mind is close to impossible.
That's the tricky part about revisiting past events. You've probably already watched it at least once and heard/read other commentators' and fans' opinions and maybe even gotten some firsthand input from members of the panel. You can watch and rewatch often with different camera angles and listen to/read lots of different opinions of this specific performance before you judge it.
Real judges or tech specialists don't have that option. They have to score what they see when they see it, in real time and with a couple minutes for allowed replays from one official camera angle. The tech panels do get to have quick discussions with each other.
They can second guess themselves or each other after the fact, but not in the middle of the event.
Fans watching then discussing then watching again and then scoring would be nothing like the process of actually scoring in real time.
watching then discussing then watching again and then scoring would be nothing like the process of actually scoring in real time.
My opinion about the result of 2010 hasn't changed since the moment I watched the performances live, over a decade ago.
It may not be feasible to have discussions right after the performances, before setting the scores (although that would be the ideal way to judge a competition IMO), but certainly before the competition starts and throughout the course of it, all kinds of talk should be happening. Even during the ice resurfacing between groups of competitors.
My opinion about the result of 2010 hasn't changed since the moment I watched the performances live, over a decade ago. The morning afterward, I wrote here on the forum that Kozuka should have won the LP and finished 2nd overall, Takahashi should have won the competition overall, Lysacek's footwork being called Level 4 was wrong, Weir deserved higher PCS than Plushenko/Lysacek, etc.
It may not be feasible to have discussions right after the performances, before setting the scores (although that would be the ideal way to judge a competition IMO), but certainly before the competition starts and throughout the course of it, all kinds of talk should be happening. Even during the ice resurfacing between groups of competitors. I'm saying the judges should have a complete understanding of how to score things, which they were very clueless about during the earlier years of CoP, and remain quite clueless about. If a judging panel did work independent of any federation and was trusted to be a voice of reason and knowledge, rather than just being shills who are sent by individual federations and are often not great at their job, that would be a lot better.
Huh?! Discussion should never occur *during* the competition - that’s how scandals happen as judges in real time manipulate results.
The reality is, like a skater, the judges train prior to the event and are prepared to judge based on this training. That is where they gain “complete understanding” as you said. There is no reason they should be communicating with other judges during the competition - they go out there and do their job. And after the competition is over their individual “performance” can be analyzed or discussed.
But telling posters participating in the exercise how we think a particular skater or element in the event they're trying to score should be scored would rob them of the opportunity to apply what they're learning and to score it honestly for themselves.
If you're proposing that judges should consult about every performance before finalizing their scores, then you might as well invent an entirely new scoring system
Many judges aren't prepared to judge though. Even besides the whole bias issue, too many lack a deep understanding of skating and how to apply the scoring system, and only have the little examples provided in the very basic ISU training, along with whatever their federation is telling them to do. It's like asking someone to be a judge of what the best films ever are, when they've only ever watched popular English films, mainly from the past few decades. Big problem.
Even if a panel of the absolute best and most unbiased in the world could be brought together, it never hurts to hear other opinions. Broadening your horizons and keeping up to date with information is how you become a continually good judge or an expert in a field. For skating, this especially applies to assessing programs under a new set of rules, and new programs.
The argument both of you are trying to put forth is like saying judges should never watch practices at competitions or talk to *anyone* during the course of a competition. If you are going to be consistent about your opinion, then you should lobby for the ISU to keep the judges under constant supervision and in solitary confinement, only letting them out to be escorted into the competition venue at the exact time they need to be there, before the performances start. This is how business must be conducted, since according to your line of reasoning, being exposed to any outside interaction during the competition will negatively influence their ability to judge..