Rescoring of 2010 Olympics
- Thread starter kolyadafan2002
- Start date
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2019
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.
sure, welcome judge 9.
Honestly, I have no clue about pairs. I have no clue on how the scoring works for it, so will not participate in pairs.
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.
Yup
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2014
That is so funny. I'm not sure how my placements look like, i didnt care about it, i was judging based on elements. I don't know how getting to the final scores even worked back then. I would probably have the different outcome if the task was to rank skaters (to judge by 6.0 system).
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
This is a tricky one. To me, S/Z's lead in the SP was enough to "save" the gold. That lift was a very costly error in the FS, but most of S/Z's elements were executed well (often better than Pang/Tong). Pang and Tong were flawless but there is still something a bit safe about their skating. They would have been worthy gold medalists, but I personally don't think they were robbed.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
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 (edit: okay I did divulge about Chan, but that was it) 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 (which I've also done a bit of, though nothing drastic or with the intent of swaying others) that's gone on in this thread by people who have shared their own scoring/results.
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2019
Hi, judges generally PM me with results (and I put them together - I have already done my scoring). Afterwards I will publish only when every judge has submitted their scores.
-as a side note the scores are looking a lot closer than normally would be, and it's coming down to a couple of elements between some placements. Of course, I'm waiting on a few more.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
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.
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2008
- Country
-
Opposite land again. If a call is blatantly wrong, that is the definition of unfair, and should be corrected. Bias would be letting a broken law (tech call) remain in place, simply because it already happened on paper.
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.
It may be the regular practice for federations to blindly push their skaters with little regard for objectivity, but that is a totally different thing from clear analysis of exactly how and why skaters deserve to be scored. Judges will not become better, more knowledgeable, without taking part in that process.
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2012
- Country
-
OMG really?!
If we've all tried (and for the ones who haven't done it yet: try) to judge by putting in our numbers and tried not to do 'ordinals' - even though we might do so unconsciously - the outcome of the 'ordinals' (an outcome, not an intention) could be very different indeed. I think it's going to be a lot of fun to see the end result.:cool2:
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.
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2012
- Country
-
It's the reason I didn't and don't want to bash judges gkelly...I judged on the basis of what I saw on screne and tried to block out commentary (not always possible) but I realise I wasn't sitting there in real time, nor do I think I can professionally judge. Still, this should be a great excercise. And we will see...
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. I was always a longtime ladies‘ event fan and only started really paying attention to mens around 2017-18 (which is why I’d LOVE to do a ladies event project BTW so please consider it! 
). All that I knew about the men at 2010 Olympics were:
1) There was a controversy with the top 2
2) Takahashi skated to La Strada and placed 3rd
3) Chan placed 5th
...and on top of that I only ever watched Lysacek’s and Takahashi’s performances once without thinking much about the results.
So for me, it was practically my first time watching the SPs and LPs here. And as it was way before I became a fan of men’s, I barely knew the skaters too. Obviously I, like anyone else, would be biased towards skaters whose skating and performing styles are close to my preferences, but I really did my best to keep all that to a minimum and instead focus on what’s truly happening on the ice and just followed the scoring guidelines.
). All that I knew about the men at 2010 Olympics were:1) There was a controversy with the top 2
2) Takahashi skated to La Strada and placed 3rd
3) Chan placed 5th
...and on top of that I only ever watched Lysacek’s and Takahashi’s performances once without thinking much about the results.
So for me, it was practically my first time watching the SPs and LPs here. And as it was way before I became a fan of men’s, I barely knew the skaters too. Obviously I, like anyone else, would be biased towards skaters whose skating and performing styles are close to my preferences, but I really did my best to keep all that to a minimum and instead focus on what’s truly happening on the ice and just followed the scoring guidelines.
That's the way to do it!
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
Yes this is what I’m getting at. Saying “I put this skater in first/last! I hope you did too!” before all the judges have inputted their score is introducing bias.
Talking about scoring AFTER the event is always better.
Although generally judges act autonomously. Not everyone will place Takahashi higher or Lysacek lower, or put Kozuka in first just because certain person probably want the final placements to end up that way and are thus trying to sway the scoring to how they personally want it to be.
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2008
- Country
-
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.
Then there's no point in participating in a rescoring exercise.
No point for me to do so either if I remember the original event, my thoughts at the time, and what I saw in the protocols and read/heard discussed afterward.
Discuss principles and rules of scoring, how to interpret the rules, what to look for, etc., in general terms, would be useful for the benefit of posters who are still figuring out what the rules are (or were, for a historical event) and how to apply them. That would be the equivalent of judges' training. 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.
Are you talking about real-life practice, not Golden Skate exercises?
That's a bold suggestion! Judges consulting during the event rather than judging independently would fly in the face of the entire history of how figure skating has been judged. Consulting on how to rank or score skaters while an event is in process has been considered the worst possible transgression on the part of the judges under all judging systems. Which isn't to say it hasn't happened, but doing so has been considered dishonest, or at best giving the appearance of dishonesty.
(Unlike judges, tech panels are supposed to consult -- but only about what they saw in a given element and how the rules apply to what they saw. Not about how skaters should be ranked.)
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 and an entirely new code of ethics because that would be disregarding the existing rules entirely.
Meanwhile, for purposes of an exercise like this, my understanding was that the point was for posters to watch and score the performances as if they were judging the event for themselves. And then to see what the consensus of Golden Skaters' opinions is, which will likely be different from each other as well as from the consensus of the official panel.
After the fact, it will be interesting to read why different posters scored particular elements or components the way they did. That will be the time for detailed discussion of this event. We can all learn something about skating, about the judging process, about these specific performances by comparing notes afterward.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
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 should not be communicating while giving individual assessments. And after the competition is over, their individual judging “performance” can be analyzed or discussed.
I’m not even going to get into your typical cynicism of ISU judging/training and judges being unqualified/shady. Which is ironic given the code of ethics you seem to espouse when it comes to judges consulting with each other as the competition is going on or talking about the quality of skaters/programs leading up to a competition.
You are entitled to your opinion as to how the placements should have been (personally I found Kozuka’s programs to be a snooze fest even if his elements were solid). I can only anticipate you will deride and dismiss any of us who deviate from your placements/scores in this exercise the same way as you always try to discredit ISU judges’ scores and try to convince everyone they are merely untrained shills/sheep/etc. simply because they don’t align with your thinking.
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2008
- Country
-
No. Scandals happen because judges are corrupt (including national favoritism), or bad at their job, or because the scoring system is bad. Not because of discussion about skating. Those corrupt deals and politics are already hashed out before they input their scores.
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.
What do you mean "apply what they're learning" and "score it honestly"? Learning is the process of obtaining information and gaining understanding. Discussing things like that is exactly learning. Nobody has to change their score because of what they heard, it's just extra information to think about. If someone doesn't really understand a scoring system or an element of a performance, then how it is "honest" to just throw them into judging it? That's actually ignorance.
Knowing what happened at a competition shouldn't change the way someone judges it. The analysis of each element and component should be the same regardless, based upon the individual's own understanding and thought process. That understanding and thought process could come from watching other competitions before watching the event, learning more about technique issues (including ones to specific to certain competitors at the event) or how to score something. Judges who were sitting there in 2010 watched the practices at the very least, it's not like they went into it totally blind.
Why? There's nothing about discussion that impedes the process of the scoring system we have, assuming it's all done in good faith. It's not logistically possible to have a lengthy discussion following every performance at a competition, of course, but I don't think some communication and comparison is a bad thing. I actually think that not doing such things is what leads to the really bad scoring inflation we often see, as judges scramble to push their scores up across the board for the skaters they favor, in order to make sure they aren't keeping them too far behind in the points.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
I don't get why you keep parroting that most judges aren't prepared to judge. I get that you have a longstanding bitterness towards the ISU/judging, but you have yet to provide any concrete evidence that actually substantiates this assumption/accusation. I don't get the false equivalency of watching films either - there's nothing to suggest that judges don't independently study the sport themselves (the way fans like you or I do) in conjunction with their ISU/federation training. And from what I gather, it is rigorous work to get to that level. Sure there are cases of nepotism, but to be able to judge at an ISU level, you need vast experience and training. Just because judges constantly disagree with your scorecard BoP doesn't mean their assessments should be automatically delegitimized or dismissed as being "unprepared to judge". It just means you have an opinion that differs from theirs. You think figure skating should be judged a certain way, which is fine. But your continual premise that everyone who doesn't agree with you is poorly trained or out to lunch is discounting the FACT that these judges are trained and more experienced than any of us. How many competitions have you judged, and at what level?
And yes, the ideal would be that judges do not discuss skaters in the leadup to and over the course of the competition, except in a controlled setting like the meeting between officials after each segment. Obviously we can't lock them up in isolation, and talk is bound to happen - the point gkelly and I are making is that it SHOULDN'T happen. In high profile competitions like the Olympics, I believe the ISU/IOC should make concerted efforts to limit communication between judges over the course of the competition, and thus mitigate potential foul play or collusion.
Yes, you hope that judges aren't corrupt but it is completely ridiculous if in between flights judges are encouraged to discuss the competition - while it's still happening. Such discussion introduces greater bias when it comes to the fair assessment of skaters. After the competition, that's fine, because the judges have already made their independent decisions.
If you can't see why it's an issue with judges discussing skaters, then we agree to disagree. But if a judge said something like "I put Skater X in 1st. I hope you did too!", when others still have yet to submit their scores, it can be construed as that judge attempting to influence others to align with his/her own marks. Ideal judging has each judge arriving at their decisions independently, and not based off the opinions of someone else.
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2015
I am dying to discuss my scores but have been keeping my mouth shut because I want everyone to come to a conclusion independently.
I hope whoever has not filled out their spreadsheet yet doesn't take any of this discussion too seriously, because I know I would have second guessed some of my picks based on what's been said already.
I hope whoever has not filled out their spreadsheet yet doesn't take any of this discussion too seriously, because I know I would have second guessed some of my picks based on what's been said already.
