Ideas for how to rescore figure skating? | Page 2 | Golden Skate

Ideas for how to rescore figure skating?

studentsb

Rinkside
Joined
Jan 10, 2014
I think that the current GOE system is broken. A quad jump already has a higher base value than a triple jump; the fact that a decent quad jump can get 3-4 points on GOE alone vs. 1-2 for a triple jump I think adds too much value for a quad jump.

I also agree that greater value should be placed on spins and step sequences!
 

Seren

Wakabond Forever
Record Breaker
Joined
Dec 21, 2014
I do think spins and step sequences should be worth more- I am an adult skater and I don’t think people realize how hard they are- count how many skaters do a left inside twizzle in their footwork sequence. I’ll give you a hint- not many. It’s hard. Quads and difficult jumps are always going to be worth a lot of points- they should be as they are incredibly difficult. But a level four spin and footwork sequence are also incredibly difficult. I would like to see them worth a few more points. This has been my opinion since before the quad question rose.

Being a strong jumper does not exclude being an artistic skater- look at Alena K. I think she is probably one of the most complete skaters right now- she has the 3A now, but her skating is also magical and mature beyond her years.

I think when this question keeps coming up over and over what people are really asking is “how do we make sure we don’t lose the other wonderful aspects of skating in the pursuit of the advancement of jumping?” Messing with PCS is going to go nowhere but I do think increasing the value of other technical elements is a valid option. It would encourage skaters to not neglect these aspects while they work on their jumps while still motivating them to advance technically.

TL:DR- Spins and footwork are really hard and should be worth a bit more. This wouldn’t take anything away from jumping.
 

Miller

Final Flight
Joined
Dec 29, 2016
Fiddling with the PCS multiplier is not going to work. Better PCS judging processes/guidelines is not going to work(though I support reforming the categories).

I would only extend ladies' pcs to 50/100 same as men. Now we have the tech limit in ladies of 100 - if it is matched by pcs limit of 100 we shall have balanced scores.

My point about PCS was to fully utilise whatever existing scale they have. Women right now are essentially judged from 50-75 in the long. That's a terribly narrow range. I was suggesting we find a way to make more use of the numbers we DO have available to us. Give out more 3s and 4s out of 10, for instance.

Rather than go down I would extend upwards, but do it in such a way that the current gap between Ladies remains the same, but that there's far more scope for a higher PCS score.

E.g. Extend PCS scores to 50/100 to match the TES scores now being seen, but change the criteria/expectations so that only skaters with fantastic PCS skills can get close to these figures.

E.g I would change the criteria so that a skater currently getting low 60s would get something like low 70s in PCS, and a skater getting low 70s would get low 80s i.e. the gap remains the same, but now there's a further 15 points that a skater with fantastic PCS skills can aim for rather than the current 5.

Also this would have the advantage of not penalising any current skaters who have worked on their TES scores more than their PCS, whereas increasing the multiplier would do this, albeit by not a huge amount - if the multiplier went from 1.6 to 2.0 the gap between skaters would increase by 25% i.e. 2.5 marks in the example quoted, but under my idea the gap would be exactly the same, and the skater would have to work harder to get the new higher scores.
 

Joekaz

On the Ice
Joined
Feb 13, 2018
PCS will never really change, even if it was "overhauled" it would be open to exactly the same flaws as it is now and as it was under the 6.0 system.
Because it's largely subjective, it isn't the same as the set values TES has.
TES is also very subjective, as are GOE. The whole sport is very subjective and incredibly corrupt.The skaters are however very enjoyable to watch perform, so its best to enjoy the performances and not worry too much about the ridiculous scoring that occurs.
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
PCS is currently scaled on a 7-10 scale, not 1-10.

Not true. If you're only watching the senior Grand Prix and senior international championships, especially if you skip the earlier freeskate groups, you may never see skaters who earn less that 7s for the program components.

They exist. They are far far far more numerous than the elite skaters that most fans like to watch. Sometimes the average and below-average seniors end up competing against the elites, at senior B events or in domestic competitions. So you might see skaters earning well above 7 and well below 7 at the same competition. But skaters who don't deserve 7s rarely earn spots on the Grand Prix or in the freeskate at Worlds and Olympics, so if those are the only competitions you watch, you won't often see the lower scores given out.

Look at the protocols for senior B events (especially the non-Challenger ones), or for the Junior Grand Prix (the whole field, not just the final freeskate group) or national qualifying competitions in the US or Canada or Japan or smaller federations. Look at protocols for novice competitions, and not just the winners. There you will see lower scores, sometimes much lower.

If possible, watch those skaters who are earning 5s and 4s and 3s. Then compare the quality of their performances to the seniors earning 7s that you think should be scoring lower.

This weekend I watched a skater in a flying camel spin. The spin was wobbly, transitions between positions noticeably labored, and it traveled quite a bit.

That spin was marked L4 with a generous GOE. It didn't make sense at the time, and it doesn't now.

The level 4 call makes sense: if the skater achieves 4 features, even with wobbling and traveling, then they earn the level 4. Tech panel calls on spins are all about what they did, how difficult it was, not how well it was performed. Same as a skater who rotates a triple axel gets the base value for triple axel, even if it was telegraphed and slow and scratchy with poor positions on the takeoff, air position, and landing. It's still a triple axel, or still a level 4 spin, just not a very good one.

If there were really many weak qualities to the execution of the spin, then high GOE would not make sense. But if there were several good qualities and also a couple of weak qualities, the judges are supposed to add up the positives first and then subtract the negatives -- they might still end up on the positive side of 0.

My point about PCS was to fully utilise whatever existing scale they have. Women right now are essentially judged from 50-75 in the long.

Senior ladies who are good enough to compete internationally. But if you give lower scores (on the 0-10 scale) to few hundred above-average seniors in the world, there won't enough scores lower left to distinguish the thousands and thousands of skaters, even senior skaters, worldwide who are not senior international caliber.

If you're thinking in terms of total scores (50-75 for five components times 1.6 in a freeskate, as opposed to ~6.25-9.25 per component), then one way to increase the total number of points available to top senior ladies and also to make larger distinctions between the outstanding, very good, good, and above-average competitors would be to use a larger factor for the program components. Start with 1.0 for the SP and 2.0 for the freeskate, as has been the case for the men. (And maybe raise the men's factor higher than that if enough average senior men are rotating quads.)

But you still have to leave scores for judges to use for the average and below-average and way-below-average seniors, and lower level skaters, that fans rarely if ever get to see.

I was suggesting we find a way to make more use of the numbers we DO have available to us. Give out more 3s and 4s out of 10, for instance.

Suppose an elite skater goes to her nationals or to a minor senior B event. On a good day she usually gets PCS in the 8s, but she has a really bad day. How low should the judges go?

In the same competition, there may be skaters who are nowhere near good enough to get sent to Worlds or Grand Prix or even Euros/4Cs or even Challenger events. Maybe one of them typically earns 5s on a good day, and another isn't even that good and is lucky to break 4.0 on her best day. Both of them also have an equally bad day to the elite skater.

How can judges distinguish between a strong skater having a bad skate vs. an average or weak skater having a bad skate?

How about adding a PCS specialist and PCS controller, similar to the Technical panel?

Interesting thought. How would that work?
 

colormyworld240

Medalist
Joined
Dec 9, 2017
How about adding a PCS specialist and PCS controller, similar to the Technical panel?

This is an interesting idea but I don't see what they would look for. TES controllers look for things that are measurable; number of revolutions in jumps and spins, degree of rotation and angle of edges in jumps, number of positions in spins, and number of different elements in step sequences. For PCS controllers, they'd have to look for something quantifiable in the components. Perhaps number of transitions and number of crossovers and speed can be quantified for TR/SS and maybe how deep the edges are in non-TES portions of the programs (but even then I'd argue speed and edges are quality ie. given by the panel not controllers), but what about PE, IN, CH? Maybe number of different elements in choreography? That's all I can see because the quality of TES and PCS are both evaluated by the panel not the controllers.
 

Alexz

Medalist
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Country
United-States
Our curent POTUS: "if we are not winning [in trade or smth] we need to change the rules." ;) We are looking to do the same thing in figure skating as well now? Dont we hear how they are already laughing at us across 2 ponds. We dont need to change the scoring system in figure skating. It works. Stronger athletes are deservedly winning right now. And very righteously I might add. It is a cycle, US ladies will get back up. That was just some really bad policies a cycle ago by previous USFSA administration on limiting learning tripples at young ages. USFS just needs to do some soul-searching like Rus fed a decade ago after drought years past Plushy, Yags, Butyrskaya and Slutskaya and create a better skaters' developmental program for US kids. That's it. For a now we need to celebrate and set as an example to our American kids of those skaters who are the best right now - Japanese, Russians and Koreans. Take on their best practices and implement them here in US. DIXI.
 

TontoK

Hot Tonto
Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Country
United-States
The level 4 call makes sense: if the skater achieves 4 features, even with wobbling and traveling, then they earn the level 4. Tech panel calls on spins are all about what they did, how difficult it was, not how well it was performed. Same as a skater who rotates a triple axel gets the base value for triple axel, even if it was telegraphed and slow and scratchy with poor positions on the takeoff, air position, and landing. It's still a triple axel, or still a level 4 spin, just not a very good one.

If there were really many weak qualities to the execution of the spin, then high GOE would not make sense. But if there were several good qualities and also a couple of weak qualities, the judges are supposed to add up the positives first and then subtract the negatives -- they might still end up on the positive side of 0.


Oh, I agree with what you've written, even your contributions on levels. The spin may have been scored correctly according to the rules.

My point is that the rules allowed for a pretty poor element, in terms of the mechanics and of appearance, to rack up the points it did.

To be honest, I'm probably just being overly crabby. This is the second weekend in a row that I've been disappointed in the overall quality of the skating. Very few high points - lots of mediocrity. I hope for better event in France.
 

MalAssada

Medalist
Joined
Jun 28, 2014
What I would like to see (though I know it can't be done) is an explanation for why a judge gave that GOE for that element. I saw some shaky landings these weekends (and frankly I don't remember who landed them, so I genuinely don't think I'm biased) that got positive GOE. One, I believe, +1.34 or something like that, which isn't that high but is higher than I believe the jump deserved due to that landing. So, what made the judges choose those +1s? Which bullets did the skater hit?

As for PCS, yes, I'd like to see a wider variation that actually changes from performance to performance depending on how the skater actually, you know, performs that day. While I agree that the subjectivity won't go away, maybe a different panel for PCS could work. There's just so much to see in a program, and inevitably judges will look down to add GOE to technical elements, so do they really manage to pay enough attention to PCS?
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
This is a little tangential on this thread, but I would like to mention that I think the ISU did a pretty good job of coming to terms with edge calls and under-rotations , and also falls. Penalties for these errors have fluctuated wildly throughout the history of the IJS, generally pleasing no one.

What they they do now is basically to treat a wrong edge or under-rotated jump as a separate type of named jump with it's own base value. A triple flutz is worth 4.72 points -- less than a triple Lutz or a triple flip or a triple loop, but more than a triple toe or Salchow.

An under-rotated triple toe is worth 3.36 points. Less than a fully rotated triple toe (4.10) but more than a double toe (1.30). In fact, it is about the same as a double Axel (2.5 revolutions, worth 3.3 points).
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
What I would like to see (though I know it can't be done) is an explanation for why a judge gave that GOE for that element. I saw some shaky landings these weekends (and frankly I don't remember who landed them, so I genuinely don't think I'm biased) that got positive GOE. One, I believe, +1.34 or something like that, which isn't that high but is higher than I believe the jump deserved due to that landing. ...

I agree with this. I am not completely sold on the idea that the judges are expected to count up a list of binary bullet points, yes or no, and that's it. I suppose one could argue that this is more "objective." But the whole point is of GOE is to reward the quality of the jump.

I wish we would see more 0's given out. The skater performed the jump adequately, did not make a major error, landed OK.
 
Last edited:

b-man

Final Flight
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
If you're thinking in terms of total scores (50-75 for five components times 1.6 in a freeskate, as opposed to ~6.25-9.25 per component), then one way to increase the total number of points available to top senior ladies and also to make larger distinctions between the outstanding, very good, good, and above-average competitors would be to use a larger factor for the program components. Start with 1.0 for the SP and 2.0 for the freeskate, as has been the case for the men. (And maybe raise the men's factor higher than that if enough average senior men are rotating quads.)

THIS

If no changes are made, we will see more and more ladies, who cannot do quads, try them anyway, in the belief that is the only way to win. We will see these same ladies neglect their programs, believing a great program with a good performance quality is no longer necessary to win. Competitions will turn into splatfests with empty programs.

I don't follow mens skating closely, but did have the misfortune of attending the mens FS at the 2013 London worlds. I saw many competitors try and fail at quads, while presenting very empty programs. It was not enjoyable to watch. I hope ladies skating does not follow that path.
 

kenboy123

On the Ice
Joined
Oct 20, 2017
They need to start to judge every element fairly, so skaters can't earn a huge amount of points just for trying some "hard stuff" and failing...the GOEs actually need to mean something...they need to punish bad quads more harshly and let them know they can't just "rack up" points for trying to do it...also the maximum component score and technical score should be the same in my opinion...figure skating can be technical, but it also beautiful to look it...
 

MGstyle

Crawling around on the ice after chestnuts
Medalist
Joined
Sep 1, 2015
IMO the first and foremost thing is to reduce the disproportional value of quads. While not limiting or denying them for those who are capable of, and willing to go for them, but to clarify that they shouldn't be the main focus of the whole thing, they should be only "a part" of the whole program.
 

Baron Vladimir

Record Breaker
Joined
Dec 18, 2014
I wish we would see more 0's given out. The skater performed the jump adequately, did not make a major error, landed OK.

But that is not 0 GOE according to current requirements. If a jump is landed OK, that already can be +1 GOE. Actually if a jump doesn't have any jumping quality to itself, and its just matching the music it will get +1 GOE. With matching the music and being connected with the whole skating (by having transitions in and out) it will get +2. And for +5 you even don't need to have all the GOE bullets presented in your jump, except the core bullets. I mean, 0 GOE doesn't mean that jump is OK, it only means that there is nothing visually wrong with it :biggrin:
 

rlopen

On the Ice
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Someone took a video on how one judge scores Marin Honda's program.

I think judges already had the bullet points pre-calculated from watching the practice, and already had a GOE in mind for each element.

Exactly why you need a (not cost effective I know) separate panel judging PCS. I’ve tried scoring the way judges score before and TES takes up so much time and deliberate thought that it’s really rough to concentrate on the PCS aspect and get everything done in a time effective manner. Being a judge is rough and that’s why I don’t fault the judges anymore. Sometimes it’s just automatic and people make mistakes.
 

macy

Record Breaker
Joined
Nov 12, 2011
i would love to to see spins and steps worth more points. both of them take quite a bit of energy to do nicely. there would definitely be more incentive to work on them instead of only jumps (worth way more), creating more well rounded skaters. i'd love to see that.
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Exactly why you need a (not cost effective I know) separate panel judging PCS. I’ve tried scoring the way judges score before and TES takes up so much time and deliberate thought that it’s really rough to concentrate on the PCS aspect and get everything done in a time effective manner.

When you're scoring TES, are you thinking about levels on spins and steps? That's the tech panel's job -- judges don't have to spend mental energy on them while judging.

Or do you spend a lot of time thinking about exactly how well rotated a jump was while watching in real time? That's what reviews are for.

Pairs and dance are more complicated, but for singles there are only three general types of elements (four if you include the senior FS choreo sequence as a separate type) and now only six bullet points for each type. For someone who judges dozens and sometimes hundreds of programs in a week for many weeks each year, it shouldn't be hard to memorize the available bullet points and to tick them off in their head in real time.

We can think a lot faster than we can write or talk, so what may take a minute to explain in words might take only a second or two decide in one's head and maybe a couple more seconds to notate with an efficient shorthand. And another split second to click the correct score on the screen.

Similarly, judges can have lots of thoughts about the various program components while the program is in process, but it would take a lot of time to write down all those thoughts, even with a good shorthand. So five or ten or more thoughts about each component might get recorded only as one 0-10 score. Communicating the contents of the thoughts that led to those numbers would be the tricky part. And maybe sometimes remembering specific details/thoughts from the beginning of the program when it comes time to decide on a score at the end. So each component score may end up being more of each judge's holistic impression of the Skating Skills or Interpretation etc., based on all the thoughts they had during the program that they integrated in their brain but didn't have time to document individually.

Being a judge is rough and that’s why I don’t fault the judges anymore. Sometimes it’s just automatic and people make mistakes.

Very true.

And if there is an isolated mistake here or there, it's easy to focus on those and ignore the preponderance of other scores that did not stand out.
 
Top