Rescoring of 2010 Olympics | Page 5 | Golden Skate

Rescoring of 2010 Olympics

Blades of Passion

Skating is Art, if you let it be
Record Breaker
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Country
France
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.

So what if they are attempting to influence others to align with their marks? EVERY judge should be doing that, the same as in any debate. It's the entire purpose of debate! All sides make their points heard, and people either shift their opinion based upon the outside perspective they've been given, or they come to the conclusion that their own opinion was already the most sound. If someone is so insecure in their own opinion that any outside pressure will cause them to crumble and shift like the wind, then that person is not fit to be a judge in the first place!

There are quick, important things that could be said between judges such as "did you see that two-foot landing? might have been hard to spot" or "did you see their wobbly edge in the footwork?" If attention can be brought to something that an observer might have missed, then it should be. Tech panels already communicate and I think the judging should be divided between Tech elements and PCS anyway, with all of the Tech judges serving as both callers and GOE assigners. The PCS judges being able to briefly discuss nuances and features of the program and performance is healthy to me too. Again, assuming these panels operated as honest, objective academic peer groups. Why wait until after everything is over to address problems that happened during the competition and possibly could have been fixed? That's like telling a gaming team they can't use voice communication during a match. The difference in coordination between having it or not is drastic.

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.

There is no requirement in the ISU that the judges independently study the sport, and many of them don't, and weren't skaters themselves (which IS a concrete fact). In order for something to be legitimate it should be directly enforced. Imagine if doctors didn't have to pass rigorous training and testing, and just given basic overview and then let out there to be making important decisions. The ISU testing and assessment of judges is a joke, maybe that's my opinion but I've seen the actual tests, so at least I can say it's far below what I think the standard should be. It's another concrete fact, however, that judges are not selected on absolute merit by the ISU, since there is a limit of 1 judge sent per federation and those judges are put forth by the individual federations, not the ISU themselves.

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.

You need to travel to competitions and play politics with the federation. Maybe that qualifies as rigorous busy work, but it doesn't make it inherently great work or great experience in having deep understanding about skating itself and the scoring system and how to use it. Very comparable to a factory worker being taught how to press all the buttons and look at things solely within the limited specifications given to them. To make the assembly line move. People who do that well get rewarded, but that doesn't mean they fully understand the product they've made (like a computer for example) and how it objectively compares in usage to other similar products.
 

Baron Vladimir

Record Breaker
Joined
Dec 18, 2014
So what if they are attempting to influence others to align with their marks? EVERY judge should be doing that, the same as in any debate. It's the entire purpose of debate! All sides make their points heard, and people either shift their opinion based upon the outside perspective they've been given, or they come to the conclusion that their own opinion was already the most sound. If someone is so insecure in their own opinion that any outside pressure will cause them to crumble and shift like the wind, then that person is not fit to be a judge in the first place!

Your statements sound to me as a relict from a 6.0 system. I'm pretty sure judges (and the whole figure skating) 'work' with different philosophy these days.
 

Blades of Passion

Skating is Art, if you let it be
Record Breaker
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Country
France
Your statements sound to me as a relict from a 6.0 system. I'm pretty sure judges (and the whole figure skating) 'work' with different philosophy these days.

They don't though. Every element, every component is supposed to be assessed on universal scale. So are they scoring all of it correctly or not? If not, it needs to be improved. Teaching them and fixing bad scoring decisions before they happen is a good thing. Just letting a problem sit there out of some kind of need for decorum, like the corona virus for example, only causes harm.
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
They don't though. Every element, every component is supposed to be assessed on universal scale. So are they scoring all of it correctly or not? If not, it needs to be improved. Teaching them and fixing bad scoring decisions before they happen is a good thing. Just letting a problem sit there out of some kind of need for decorum, like the corona virus for example, only causes harm.


One -- Just because some judges are less knowledgeable doesn't mean that all judges are automatically suspect.

Two -- For those judges who need more training, that's what trial judging, seminars, pre-event meetings, watching practices, and post-event reviews are for. The whole point is to educate them enough to be able to judge on their own, not to educate them what the correct scores or correct opinions on particular elements and programs should be.

Three -- Even less experienced judges will sometimes see different details that are also important that more experienced judges missed. As well as judges with equal experience noticing different things. That's why there are multiple judges on a panel. That's why talking about what they saw after the fact is useful.

There is not one correct answer or one correct score for most elements or for all components. There are better answers and worse answers, but difference of opinion is built into the nature of the sport and the sport is stronger for that.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
So what if they are attempting to influence others to align with their marks? EVERY judge should be doing that, the same as in any debate. It's the entire purpose of debate!

It is the purpose of debate, but I don't think that it is the purpose of judging.

In a criminal trial the lawyers for the two sides go at it, each trying to convince the judge to see things one way or another. The judge, however, has a different role: what does the law say?
 

Blades of Passion

Skating is Art, if you let it be
Record Breaker
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Country
France
For those judges who need more training, that's what trial judging, seminars, pre-event meetings, watching practices, and post-event reviews are for. The whole point is to educate them enough to be able to judge on their own, not to educate them what the correct scores or correct opinions on particular elements and programs should be.

That doesn't educate them properly though, seeing as how there is not enough good information given to them, about how to assess a program and score it within the context of a universal standard and the system we have. They absolutely should be educated on what an approximately "correct" score is for an element; this argument you're putting forth is very strange to me. It would be like saying doctors should not be educated on the correct chemical interactions of drugs, they should just be let out there and allowed to prescribe medications with no context for how those meds interact with each other. There will be some debate about the exact score for an element (or such things in the medical world), but there's a high level of understanding and applied skill that simply MUST be there before someone deserves to be considered among the best in their field (which is what judges at the most important skating events should be).
 

Baron Vladimir

Record Breaker
Joined
Dec 18, 2014
They don't though. Every element, every component is supposed to be assessed on universal scale. So are they scoring all of it correctly or not? If not, it needs to be improved. Teaching them and fixing bad scoring decisions before they happen is a good thing. Just letting a problem sit there out of some kind of need for decorum, like the corona virus for example, only causes harm.

I meant to say how todays judging is working with different philosophy from the philosophy of 6.0 system. There is no universal scale for judging, that's why the 'system' is constantly changing. I was just saying that your statements are more in line with how 6.0 system worked (where you could 'debate'/instruct others about what is 'right' or 'wrong', technical or artistic, east or west), and i'm not sure that philosophy is applicable in a same way today.
 

Skatesocs

Final Flight
Joined
May 16, 2020
In a criminal trial the lawyers for the two sides go at it, each trying to convince the judge to see things one way or another. The judge, however, has a different role: what does the law say?
Is this the correct comparison? I have always felt the judges are more like a jury in competitions, and I do think conferring isn't a problem. The issue there will be corruption - but the judges can be selected with keeping impartiality in mind, then.

I tried to look it up for how some other art competitions go, but most of what I could find indicates that the judges lack time in the initial phase of selecting the finalists. But I'd hope they at least have a lot more time when they get to the finalists. In skating, though, I feel as if they don't even have the time during the world championships to really determine the scores of as many things as they should - it really is going to be touch and go for a lot of them, even discounting expertise. I'd at least like to see them get more time there... but it's perhaps not possible given the TV channel requirement.

I agree that judges should be calling tech on their own. But since we're assuming they have enough time and knowledge to do so, I'd also like to see them come to conclusions on PCS, too, instead of splitting the panel... Time and selection is the real issue to me, though.
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.
So none of your opinions have changed since you first watched the event? None of them at all?
 

Skatesocs

Final Flight
Joined
May 16, 2020
(which is why I’d LOVE to do a ladies event project BTW so please consider it! :biggrin:).

I'd love to do one too, but this is taking way too long, with much of the discussion having little to do with the event :slink: I was hoping we'd already be at this stage of the thread:
I am dying to discuss my scores

But if we are, suggest an event, and I'll join it if it's interesting to me.

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?
I recently rewatched as part of the "wrong olympics results" thread, so I can say: I don't think it was the wrong result, though I found all four performances bland. S/Z had a clear mistake in the LP, but I did think the SP was still enough to place them ahead.
 

CanadianSkaterGuy

Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
So what if they are attempting to influence others to align with their marks? EVERY judge should be doing that, the same as in any debate. It's the entire purpose of debate! All sides make their points heard, and people either shift their opinion based upon the outside perspective they've been given, or they come to the conclusion that their own opinion was already the most sound. If someone is so insecure in their own opinion that any outside pressure will cause them to crumble and shift like the wind, then that person is not fit to be a judge in the first place!

There are quick, important things that could be said between judges such as "did you see that two-foot landing? might have been hard to spot" or "did you see their wobbly edge in the footwork?" If attention can be brought to something that an observer might have missed, then it should be. Tech panels already communicate and I think the judging should be divided between Tech elements and PCS anyway, with all of the Tech judges serving as both callers and GOE assigners. The PCS judges being able to briefly discuss nuances and features of the program and performance is healthy to me too. Again, assuming these panels operated as honest, objective academic peer groups. Why wait until after everything is over to address problems that happened during the competition and possibly could have been fixed? That's like telling a gaming team they can't use voice communication during a match. The difference in coordination between having it or not is drastic.



There is no requirement in the ISU that the judges independently study the sport, and many of them don't, and weren't skaters themselves (which IS a concrete fact). In order for something to be legitimate it should be directly enforced. Imagine if doctors didn't have to pass rigorous training and testing, and just given basic overview and then let out there to be making important decisions. The ISU testing and assessment of judges is a joke, maybe that's my opinion but I've seen the actual tests, so at least I can say it's far below what I think the standard should be. It's another concrete fact, however, that judges are not selected on absolute merit by the ISU, since there is a limit of 1 judge sent per federation and those judges are put forth by the individual federations, not the ISU themselves.



You need to travel to competitions and play politics with the federation. Maybe that qualifies as rigorous busy work, but it doesn't make it inherently great work or great experience in having deep understanding about skating itself and the scoring system and how to use it. Very comparable to a factory worker being taught how to press all the buttons and look at things solely within the limited specifications given to them. To make the assembly line move. People who do that well get rewarded, but that doesn't mean they fully understand the product they've made (like a computer for example) and how it objectively compares in usage to other similar products.

Lol, wow. Okay, so clearly there is a disparity in your ethics and my ethics when it comes to judging. I think we see the point of judging as different. You believe it should be some consensus (of course a consensus that aligns with your own scoresheet otherwise it’s illegitimate), and I view it as scores that should be independently derived and then hopefully there is a modicum of consistency as per the training prior to said assessment.

I ask you this: what is the purpose of judges discussing these things during the COURSE of the competition? So that they can rectify their scores going into the FS? So they can align their scores with the judge pointing out these mistakes?

A judge telling another judge did you see the two-foot landing after the fact is fine but who the heck tells someone - hey, I marked them right, and you should acknowledge that you marked them wrong because you scored them differently than I did? “Hey! Did you see that they attempted a rocker but it was actually a 3-turn and thus their TR score should be marked lower! That’s what I’m doing - how about you?” :laugh: The judge should respect that the other judge doesn’t need to have their hand held when coming to a decision about their scores — they are professionals (unless of course they score 0.25 higher or lower than you in which case, yes, by all means let’s rake them over the coals, lol :sarcasm:).

Fair question: do you ever respect or acknowledge a difference of opinion that doesn’t align with yours? Or are you just adamant in trying to convince them that they are wrong, and if they don’t agree with you then they are ill-trained or trivial in their own personal assessment of a competition? Because you’re not exactly indicating otherwise...

Can’t wait to see how you dissect the scores of the other 8 judges in this exercise as I honestly expect nothing better than you deriding us for any scoring that deviates even marginally from your own scores, although hopefully you will prove me wrong. Even if you do, whatevs - works both ways and we are all entitled to our own opinions, even if you happen to disagree.
 

Skatesocs

Final Flight
Joined
May 16, 2020
Lol, wow. Okay, so clearly there is a disparity in your ethics and my ethics when it comes to judging. I think we see the point of judging as different. You believe it should be some consensus
I don't see why this is "lol". There's nothing wrong for me if someone wants to confer and discuss what ends up being rated as the overall best - there are way too many things that need review in a skate, and it's possible to miss some things. Ideally, we'd have judges from vastly different backgrounds and high level of expertise, and they'd certainly need to keep an open mind overall.

You should at least agree that the current judging process leaves too little time for review though. I'd like some others to respond and not you - did you give yourself the same amount of time that the judges in a competition do for their judging, for GOE and PCS, and score with exactly one viewing of the skate? If yes, in retrospect, did you still end up with what you thought was the correct result, or did you find yourself more reactionary than usual?

Oh also, if someone were so invested in judging this event EXACTLY as the judges in 2010 did, I don't see why they'd forget this:

So if you want to try judging the way 2010 judges did, then rely on your own eyes and not on the tech panel calls, which judges did not have access to during the competition by that year's rules.

Judging by the thread, neither CanadianSkaterGuy nor Daniel1998 did that.
 

Blades of Passion

Skating is Art, if you let it be
Record Breaker
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Country
France
I meant to say how todays judging is working with different philosophy from the philosophy of 6.0 system. There is no universal scale for judging, that's why the 'system' is constantly changing.

You've got it backwards. The 6.0 system wasn't a universal scale, it was just using numbers as placeholders. Whereas with CoP, it is supposed to be a universal scale for judging. That's the whole point of the scoring system, the reason it was created. Every element and component getting graded accurately for what it's worth. If that's not happening, then there is no point in having the scoring system. Again, there will be some differences of opinion (and the values of elements may get periodically adjusted), but a judge should be coming to that opinion via a very thorough understanding of skating, and what the scores they are inputting mean. They should be able to comparatively assess the differences and be able to separate them within the marks as meaningfully as possible.

It's been quite a problem ever since this system existed, of how vague the components are and how poorly they are applied. The 1-10 range is definitely supposed to be a universal scale, with the judge applying a mark in a range from "worst possible" to "best possible", but the numbers are being abused and misunderstood, like a corporation fudging their taxes in whatever various ways. GOE applications also tend to be similarly obnoxious and just lose meaning when extremely high marks are given out. For example, Kostornaia is great and does many things well, but her spins (as they currently exist) should not be getting a +5 GOE from a judge, not ever. That is simply wrong, as they are merely good rather than amazing; there are significantly faster and better positioned spins in existence.

I think we see the point of judging as different. You believe it should be some consensus and I view it as scores that should be independently derived and then hopefully there is a modicum of consistency as per the training prior to said assessment.

It shouldn't be a consensus exactly. It should be a forum. People speaking what they feel and pointing out details and giving reasoning. The scores are then input and the result is the averaged mixture of those opinions.

I ask you this: what is the purpose of judges discussing these things during the COURSE of the competition? So that they can rectify their scores going into the FS? So they can align their scores with the judge pointing out these mistakes?

Yes. If there are mistakes, why should they continue? Not necessarily align exactly either, but rather alter. Like if one judge feels something is a +3 GOE and another feels it is a +1 GOE, then maybe one of them will shift their grade by one GOE interval, to what should now be the objectively more accurate overall assessment. Objectivity meaning the best possible assessment of something when looking at it from every angle, depth of understanding, and weighing of factors as possible.

A judge telling another judge did you see the two-foot landing after the fact is fine but who the heck tells someone - hey, I marked them right, and you should acknowledge that you marked them wrong because you scored them differently than I did? Fair question: do you ever respect or acknowledge a difference of opinion that doesn’t align with yours? Or are you just adamant in trying to convince them that they are wrong, and if they don’t agree with you then they are ill-trained or trivial in their own personal assessment of a competition?

I've lost count of the number of bird houses I've constructed from the straw men you are always unloading onto my property. Aren't there any goats or other small mammals to feed some of this hay to? Goat milk is healthier than cow milk, also for the environment, I'd recommend some for your farm.

It's not some simple thing of "every mark you did is wrong if it's different from mine". It's giving a clear and thorough description of how you think something should be scored, and making sure to address significant discrepancies. Which, again, EVERY judge should be doing. Like questioning why someone gave a 7.0 if you felt it was an 8.5 (much different than your rabid description of throwing a fit over a .25 difference). Assuming people are highly educated in something, and thus deservedly feel their opinion is correct, then it's always a process of trying to explain why you think something is wrong. You inherently do want to change other opinions and provide a level of understanding on a topic that someone may not have.

That's how any beneficial change in the world happens. You must show other people your own perspective and "fight" to change the opposing viewpoint, unless you to come to a realization on a topic that your own viewpoint was the less correct one. Then you alter your own opinion, to what should now be a better one. There many complexities and facets to all of this as well, including having a genuine split opinion of your own and perhaps shifting back and forth as you keep considering different information or trains of thought.

As for respecting differences of opinions, yes that has a place, assuming the other person deserves to be respected. Depends on exactly what we mean by "respect" here too. Considering other opinions (as time allows) is a good thing, but probably someone will not respect an opinion if they consider it to be wrongly ill-informed or poorly reasoned, when it comes to matters of voting on something important. There are some people who tend to have a much different opinion than my own who I do respect, because they explain themselves well and it's about matters that aren't, like, harming me or the world or w/e. Ideally it's good to have a suitable group of people to bounce ideas off of, but that can't always be found.

So none of your opinions have since you first watched the event?

A few small things I suppose, but not the major concerns and assessments.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
It shouldn't be a consensus exactly. It should be a forum.

I think there is a danger in that approach. A forum can easily be dominated by whoever speaks the loudest.

Even if it is dominated instead by the person who offers the best argument, still, I don't think the outcome of an athletic contest should depend on who has the strongest advocacy on the judging panel, or on which judge is best at swaying the opinion of others.
 

Skatesocs

Final Flight
Joined
May 16, 2020
I think there is a danger in that approach. A forum can easily be dominated by whoever speaks the loudest.

Even if it is dominated instead by the person who offers the best argument, still, I don't think the outcome of an athletic contest should depend on who has the strongest advocacy on the judging panel, or on which judge is best at swaying the opinion of others.

I frankly don't want it to be an artistic competition, tbh. I think just judging GOE would make the judging much better. But if they're judging artistry, well, if not conference, IMO, we need more time.

For instance, in this case we see GOE is done fine, but PCS is given very little thought: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NXaHWmgWV4
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Thanks for the link.

For instance, in this case we see GOE is done fine, but PCS is given very little thought: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NXaHWmgWV4

We can't know what thoughts were or were not going on in the judge's head during the program, especially during the times between the elements.

As far as what was noted on paper, we did see the judge making a note during or immediately after an element, entering the score, and then writing something else before the skater even started to approach the next element. Some of those notes were added in a completely different part of the paper. So those in-between notes were all probably notes about PCS qualities or about program content other than the elements (i.e., transitions).
 

CanadianSkaterGuy

Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
I think there is a danger in that approach. A forum can easily be dominated by whoever speaks the loudest.

Even if it is dominated instead by the person who offers the best argument, still, I don't think the outcome of an athletic contest should depend on who has the strongest advocacy on the judging panel, or on which judge is best at swaying the opinion of others.

Precisely this. Moreso if there is a block of judges espousing particular opinions.

I’m sure every judge had their own process for this exercise... mine was as follows (if you haven’t submitted scores yet, maybe don’t read further).

I watched the whole program first and scored my PCS at the end based off how I felt the program components were, trying to ignore who the skater was. Then I went back and scored the individual elements. I get that this differs from what a judge would typically do but such is the luxury of video replay and not having to submit scores for tabulation ASAP. I certainly spent more time on scrutinizing elements than a judge gets to spend when in a real-time competition because a) I’m not trained to recognize/assess GOE as quickly as ISU judges are, and b) I wanted accuracy in my GOE (eg did a spin have more than the required rotations/was it truly centred? Did a jump have steps preceding/match the musical structure?). Step sequences weren’t reviewed exhaustively but rather given GOE based off my overall impression of the element. I also ignored any technical panel changes from what was proposed in this thread and went with the tech panel from the official protocols (sorry, not sorry, BoP) even if I thought the level/edge call should be different than what was called. Although I didn’t really let the tech call affect my GOE considerably. If it was a very nice level 1 spin or 3F! or even a well executed jump that happened to be UR, it could still possibly get a +1. However, if a skater made any sort of “perceptible” mistake on an element or had an awkward position I was far likelier to deduct/cap my GOE. Eg a spin with poor centering or super slow or a stumble in a footwork would get negative GOE or a 0 at best only if all other aspects of the jumps/spin/sequence were pristine. Watching 16 programs takes time too so I also wasn’t checking frame by frame or analyzing every turn in a footwork sequence. I also happened to score each skater in the order on the spreadsheet and scored PCS as an absolute, while making a concerted effort not to think about the popularity/clout/career of that skater but rather as if I were watching them skate for the first time - this was admittedly hard to do.

Oh, and then I decided I couldn’t properly judge unless I knew what every other judge scored so I threw my independent assessment out the window by consulting with all the other judges as to what scores to give, and proceeded to change my scoresheet accordingly... (j/k). :biggrin: :p
 

Skatesocs

Final Flight
Joined
May 16, 2020
Thanks for the link.



We can't know what thoughts were or were not going on in the judge's head during the program, especially during the times between the elements.

As far as what was noted on paper, we did see the judge making a note during or immediately after an element, entering the score, and then writing something else before the skater even started to approach the next element. Some of those notes were added in a completely different part of the paper. So those in-between notes were all probably notes about PCS qualities or about program content other than the elements (i.e., transitions).

OK, I don't see it your way, that's for certain. But I reject the thought that in that time they did any meaningful analysis of choreography and interpretation. Not particularly informative analysis anyway. Again, if you've been going along this rescoring, and chose to do it exactly as the judges do it, what analysis did you arrive to? I'd love to see it here. That's the most interesting part, if anyone has actually done it like that.
 

Blades of Passion

Skating is Art, if you let it be
Record Breaker
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Country
France
The judges aren't even watching the performance at times. That's a problem, and another good reason why judging should be split between Tech elements and PCS - if you are constantly looking at a computer screen and going back after the performance to review elements, then did you even see all of the details of the performance, were you able to absorb them, are you able to accurately assess all of those qualities between all the skaters? The answer is generally no. If we want as accurate of results as possible, in as little time as possible, then it should be split up. Tech callers are already looking every element in detail, they should be able to assess their quality, the same as anyone who is judging technical elements should be knowledgeable enough to understand spin positions and turns and if they were difficult enough or well executed enough to count.

I think there is a danger in that approach. A forum can easily be dominated by whoever speaks the loudest.

Even if it is dominated instead by the person who offers the best argument, still, I don't think the outcome of an athletic contest should depend on who has the strongest advocacy on the judging panel, or on which judge is best at swaying the opinion of others.

We already have that with the way tech panels operate and with the federations controlling the judges, so....

If the judges are all good and secure in their role, this shouldn't happen, in a system of having independent judges. They have equal voting power in the end and there's no social impetus to follow someone else's lead. It's not like real life politics or social dynamics where the image or public support for an individual (and their ideas) gives them relatively more bargaining power. It's just peers talking and then voting. The most pure form of exchanging information and being able to express an opinion.

Do you think it's better for scientists, teachers, etc to not share information with each other? To just let them discover things on their own, instead of having access to a wider net of knowledge?

Precisely this. Moreso if there is a block of judges espousing particular opinions.

If there is a block of people with the same opinion, then exposing them to a minority/different opinion only serves to add balance. The voting block has no additional power. It doesn't matter how much of a majority there is, if someone is firm and confident about their beliefs, then that minority will stick to their opinion. Since, again, in a real meeting of minds like this, it's all about sharing information and coming to the most objective conclusion. Unlike other instances in real life, nobody in a group like this gets physically attacked or monetarily threatened or socially "cancelled" for expressing their opinion.
 

Baron Vladimir

Record Breaker
Joined
Dec 18, 2014
You've got it backwards. The 6.0 system wasn't a universal scale, it was just using numbers as placeholders. Whereas with CoP, it is supposed to be a universal scale for judging. That's the whole point of the scoring system, the reason it was created.

No, even the new system is not universal in those things you are talking about, it is actually an opposite of it. Because for a +4 GOE on jumps or spins there is at least 3 different ways to do it, for +3 GOE element there are more than 10 equally valuable ways. For a 8 in a component there are more than 10 different ways to get there etc etc That's why the new system doesn't pretend to value one quality more than another per se (like the old one did), and you can't claim how one quality is better than another, because you can get to the similar degree of quality in many different ways by having many different criteria (actually written) to told you that. In this system it is written that two different things can be equally better, so there is no point to 'debate' how one is better than another.
 

Blades of Passion

Skating is Art, if you let it be
Record Breaker
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Country
France
That's not what a universal scale means, and 6.0 system never said you can't "get to the similar degree of quality in different ways". Also, with the CoP system you absolutely can "claim one quality is better than another". It's still up to the judges if they want to value height in a jump more than an arm position, or a good spiral as a better transition than turn, or a certain spin position as better than another, or whatever else in terms of the program components.

You're contradicting yourself too, because the new system DOES "value one quality more than another" - look at the footwork rules for example. There are many other different ways to do footwork, but the system only rewards a very limited set of movements/turns instead.
 
Top