Domestic scoring in Russia

[skatesofgold]

I am not assuming. I watched a few programs from before. It was a yawn-fest, save for Plushenko; I also liked that Mister X skate by Urmanov. Old women were simply unwatchable, all of them. They barely did anything save for spirals. My life is literally too short to watch Kwan. And the ice dance is the only thing getting good now, actually, with the acrobatics and the musical themes versus people skating in circles, pointing toes for a while.

Samarin may have been stiff, but damn it if he didn't leap over half the rink in that one combo and lifted like a meter in the air. Now, that's something.

If I ever decide to watch old stuff, it's going to be 2014-2018s when women finally started to jump and men got multiple quads

I recently watched the one time Kwan won worlds with a triple-triple combination (2001), and that's literally the only time she's ever excited me.

 

[Mathman]

I recently watched the one time Kwan won worlds with a triple-triple combination (2001), and that's literally the only time she's ever excited me.

Weren't you excited when she won 2000 Worlds (The Red Viiolin) with a triple-triple (after her father had to nail the heel back on her boot before the performance and she skated with one heel higher than the other)? Or when she did a triple-triple at 1995 Skate America or 1997 Worlds or 1999 U.S. Nationals or 1999 Skate America or the 2001 Grand Prix Final?

Guess who was the first person ever to land a triple-triple in the Olympics? Brian Boitano, 1988.

Guess who was the first "woman" to land a triple-triple in a major ISU championship? Midori Ito, age 11, 1981-82 World Juniors. (Alas, she was 17th in figures and finished 8th overall.)

Midori Ito - 1982 Jnr Worlds first triple-triple combination

Actually taking place in December of 1981, at the 1982 Junior World Championships Midori became the first woman to land a triple toe - triple toe combo. She ...

youtu.be

 

[Mathman]

By the way, there is something about a triple-triple that, in its own way, makes it just as impressive as a quad -- especially if the quad involves a substantial pre-rotatoion on the ice before the actual launch into the air.

For a quad you have only one job. Somehow by hook or crook, spin your body around as fast as you can.But a triple-triple requires the extra skill of landing the first jump with sufficient technical precision that you can get the second one off without intervening step, balance check or wobble.

That, to me, is the genius of figure skating. There are many ways to strut your stuff.

 

[Baron Vladimir]

Okay, that might be a reason for the Russian judges. I don't get that exactly, though. I would much rather watch Kolyada skate with falls and pops than watch most other skaters skate clean, and I think people will (fondly) remember him and his skating for a long time,

It's one thing to prefer let's say Kolyada to Semenenko as a skater. But when you are talking about scores at one exact competition, and how judges prefer some things to another is a different issue. I would just say it is clearly stated in the recommendation for the judging that if skater performance involve one serious error, you must deduct from his PCS score, If there are two you must deduct more points. So in that case 'clean' Semenenko will in theory get similar PCS as Kolayada with one pop and one fall, no matter which performance you prefer or enjoy more (In domestic competition clean Kolyada will get around 9.5, which means that internationally he will get around 9. But with two serious errors he will get no more than 8.5 and Semenenko clean quads performance will match that). E: The only difference i see is that PCS in domestic competitions elsewhere are generally higher comparing to the international scores (except maybe in Japan).

 

[snowed]

I would just say it is clearly stated in the recommendation for the judging that if skater performance involve one serious error, you must deduct from his PCS score, If there are two you must deduct more points.

There is no such recommendation. The recommendation you think of only states that for a program with 1 serious error the maximum component is 9.50, and for 2 or more serious program, 8.75, but this would affect the very few top programs in each category. There is nowhere stated that judges have to deduct for any program for components 0.5 for a fall or 1.25 for 2 falls... If ISU would have wanted that it would have stated that clearly.
In my understanding it depends how much interruption a fall causes in the program, so it is not the fall that it's punished (that is punished anyhow by the -1 deduction for each fall), but what emptiness it provokes in that time it takes the skater o get back into the program (connections, turns, interpretation that are not done). So a more complex program, even with falls, especially if the recovery was very quick will have higher components scores than a simpler program.
Let's also not forget that the components description got an overhaul last year, so older programs may not totally align with the new "rules"

 

[icewhite]

It's one thing to prefer let's say Kolyada to Semenenko as a skater. But when you are talking about scores at one exact competition, and how judges prefer some things to another is a different issue. I would just say it is clearly stated in the recommendation for the judging that if skater performance involve one serious error, you must deduct from his PCS score, If there are two you must deduct more points. So in that case 'clean' Semenenko will in theory get similar PCS as Kolayada with one pop and one fall, no matter which performance you prefer or enjoy more (In domestic competition clean Kolyada will get around 9.5, which means that internationally he will get around 9. But with two serious errors he will get no more than 8.5 and Semenenko clean quads performance will match that)

I love both Kolyada and Semenenko - for different reasons. And if they compete against each other - which unfortunately they don't do anymore - my only wish is for both skating as good as possible and getting fair scores.

 

[skatesofgold]

Weren't you excited when she won 2000 Worlds (The Red Viiolin) with a triple-triple (after her father had to nail the heel back on her boot before the performance and she skated with one heel higher than the other)? Or when she did a triple-triple at 1995 Skate America or 1997 Worlds or 1999 U.S. Nationals or 1999 Skate America or the 2001 Grand Prix Final?

Guess who was the first person ever to land a triple-triple in the Olympics? Brian Boitano, 1988.

Guess who was the first "woman" to land a triple-triple in a major ISU championship? Midori Ito, age 11, 1981-82 World Juniors. (Alas, she was 17th in figures and finished 8th overall.)

Midori Ito - 1982 Jnr Worlds first triple-triple combination

Actually taking place in December of 1981, at the 1982 Junior World Championships Midori became the first woman to land a triple toe - triple toe combo. She ...

youtu.be

I didn't watch figure skating as much in the 90s because I was a kid who could really only keep track of Nickelodeon's schedule., so if there were more accomplishments among the women besides Tara Lipinski (a triple-triple combination and a triple-Euler-triple combination), Kristi Yamaguchi (triple lutz-triple toe), Midori Ito and Tonya Harding (triple axels), and Surya Bonaly (back flip landing on one leg and back flip-jump combination), I'm not aware of them. I maybe saw three competitions on TV between the 1994 Olympics and the 1998 Olympics and I didn't watch the sport again until 2002. I was never drawn to Kwan because most of what she could do jump-wise was done by someone before. I think my excitement from the one video I watched stemmed from the fact that I hadn't seen any of Kwan's succesful triple-triple combinations before. I always heard that Kwan was known as a jumping bean initially, but I never understood why because for as long as I can remember there have been better jumpers than her. I just know that 1994 and 2006 olympics are two of my least favorite women's competitions, and 1998, 2002, 2010, 2018, and 2022 (aside from the Kamila and post-competition drama) are among my favorites. I'm also super disappointed that a program with only triple-double combinations won a Grand Prix competition in 2023 even if she is American.

 

[Mathman]

^ Kwan was known as a "jumping bean" only as a junior, when she quickly picked up all her triples. At age 12 she snuck behind her coach's back and tested to become senior -- Frank Carroll was mad, but by the time he found out it was a fait accompli.

Anyway, already by age 15 she was celebrated as a "second mark" skater. She received 57 perfect 6.0's in major competition during her career. (counting U.S. Nationals. I believe that Alexei Yagudin holds the artistic mark record just counting international com[petitions.) She didn't invent any new jumps. but in the period 1996 (her first word championship) to 2003 (her fifth), she prided herself on introducing a ubique spin or spiral variation or a move in the field in each successive program. For the second half of her career, in fact, she had to work hard to keep up with ever-advancing technical requirements.

Here is her world SP in 1996. Her "jumping bean days were already behind her -- but look at the exit egde on that double Axel.

Michelle Kwan 1996 Worlds SP - Romanza Eurosport

www.youtube.com

Not impressed by this type of skating? OK.

 

[Baron Vladimir]

There is no such recommendation. The recommendation you think of only states that for a program with 1 serious error the maximum component is 9.50, and for 2 or more serious program, 8.75, but this would affect the very few top programs in each category. There is nowhere stated that judges have to deduct for any program for components 0.5 for a fall or 1.25 for 2 falls... If ISU would have wanted that it would have stated that clearly.
In my understanding it depends how much interruption a fall causes in the program, so it is not the fall that it's punished (that is punished anyhow by the -1 deduction for each fall), but what emptiness it provokes in that time it takes the skater o get back into the program (connections, turns, interpretation that are not done). So a more complex program, even with falls, especially if the recovery was very quick will have higher components scores than a simpler program.
Let's also not forget that the components description got an overhaul last year, so older programs may not totally align with the new "rules"

**When there are 2 or more errors and these errors only minimally impact the program, the maximum score of 8.75 is possible.
And - "Serious errors are falls and/or mistakes which result in a break in the delivery of the program. This break can beminimal or more pronounced and noticeable. These errors must be reflected in the mark awarded for each programcomponent. The consequence depends on the severity and impact they have on the fluidity and continuity of theprogram.Similar limitations must be applied to all levels of Skaters from extremely poor to outstanding."
But yes, i agree that some skaters can still perform well even with the errors, just the impact of the errors is still there, more or less. https://www.isu.org/figure-skating/rules/fsk-communications/31370-isu-communication-2569/file Page 28 is saying you all, there is even a column named errors there, and it's the biggest one

 

[anonymoose_au]

All the judges except one just zeroed out the performance, but one judge gave tham a 0.25 in choreography for their bow.

It must have been a very nice bow

And yeah I've always found it interesting that figure skating scores aren't graded, like the basic novices are scored with the same system as Seniors are.

I'd have thought something like ice coverage would be graded for a tiny kid compared to a fully grown adult or even teenager, but there you go.

 

[Skating91]

About edge and underrotations calls I hope you know that the tech panel is calling what they actually see (in their direct line of sight or for reviews, the official camera angle), not what they think they see, or suspect it is. Whatever they cannot see, it passes as correct. The skaters and coaches know this and accept this, otherwise they wouldn't compete. It is far from perfect but I wouldn't call it robbing, I would rather see it as robbing if the tech panels would "guess" the calls. And I don't see how it can be done better... maybe have more cameras, but that would increase the reviews time.
Also the official camera is different than the commercial camera so we see a different angle than the tech panel, so we see different mistakes. I wish tech panel and we, would see the same video...

I agree with you. But I can predict with which skaters the officials seem to every single time get a bad angle and not see the clear wrong edge or a massive underrotation. Also, I can predict which skaters the officials will get a great angle be able to ding them for the slightest of flaws. Or sometimes the angle must be so good that it creates some kind of optical illusion on their own special cameras because the punish skaters for jumps that seem perfectly fine on the broadcast camera.

Maybe it's a strategy by some skaters. They know where the official camera is so position themselves in such a way so that any wrong edge or underrotation is ignored. That's really smart if any coach/skater is employing such tactics.

Maybe it's time to give officials access to different angles and better technology. If money is tight just have some people standing around the rink livestreaming back to the judges with a gimbal.

We all want the same thing which is more accurate judging.

 

[Skating91]

By the time the individual tournament began, this possibility no longer existed. Even if Kamila had already been found completely innocent, the blow had been dealt, and she clearly would not have been able to recover from it.

But even if we talk about a hypothetical situation in which there is no doping scandal, I am not at all confident in Kamila’s victory. The base value of Trusova's free program was 95.39 points, the base value of Shcherbakova's program with 3 quads was 87.58 points, and the base value of Valieva's program (in the best version) was 86.07 points. Of course, there is also a short program and a triple axel, but all this is quite shaky - a few little mistakes are enough to lose.

At the same time, Kamila’s probability of mistakes consistently increased with each new skate. She reached peak of her shape at the beginning of the last stage of the Grand Prix (Rostelecom Cup), and after that she began a smooth, at first barely noticeable decline. But already at the European Championships, she actually lost to Shcherbakova in the free skate - the judges simply did not dare to accept it. And this despite the fact that Anna then had only one quad. In the team tournament, when there was no talk about doping yet, Kamila again made very serious mistakes, and she also spent a lot of physical and nervous energy on these performances.

All this is controversial, of course. We will now never know how this competition would have ended without the scandal. But I remember a short video that was published shortly before the start of the Olympics. In that video, a “psychological portrait” of Trusova, Shcherbakova and Valieva was compiled, and at the end a forecast was made about which of them had a better chance of winning. And oddly enough, the choice was in favor of Anna. To be honest, I think that psychology is not much different from astrology or alchemy, but the accuracy of this forecast subsequently surprised me.

At Europeans Shcherbakova had a close to perfect skate with one quad but judges ignored some of the problems with landing. Scored 168. BV of 73.

Valieva at Europeans scored 168, fell on the 3A, given an invalid element for the 4T-EU-3S so the BV was downgraded to 8.36. The BV was still 78 for the program.

The team event at the Olympics Valieva has a BV of 86, falls on the 4T, TES is 105. Score 178

Shcherbakova in a perfect performance in the free skate, the performance of her life which she would never have repeated had a BV of 79, TES of 100. Score 175.

Not to mention Valieva was landing her 3A all season up until the Olympic individual event (and we know why her performance suffered). Still with the step out on the 3A she still had a 2 point advantage over Shcherbakova after the short program.

Valieva could afford to go out there and make two errors across two programs and still beat Shcherbakova even if she skated two absolute perfect programs at her absolute limit (which fortunately for her she did).

If you simulated that Olympics 100 times (and assuming Valieva didn't have the worst moment of her life sprung on her 48 hours before the event), Shcherbakova skates two perfect programs at her absolute limit like that maybe 5/100 times. Trusova attempts 5 quads and lands most of her jumps maybe 15/100 times. Valieva just had to turn up and put in two solid performances, they didn't need to be perfect and gold would be hers. The odds of Shcherbakova being perfect across two programs like that were so low if you get beaten then so be it.

 

[Magill]

About edge and underrotations calls I hope you know that the tech panel is calling what they actually see (in their direct line of sight or for reviews, the official camera angle), not what they think they see, or suspect it is. Whatever they cannot see, it passes as correct. The skaters and coaches know this and accept this, otherwise they wouldn't compete. It is far from perfect but I wouldn't call it robbing, I would rather see it as robbing if the tech panels would "guess" the calls. And I don't see how it can be done better... maybe have more cameras, but that would increase the reviews time.
Also the official camera is different than the commercial camera so we see a different angle than the tech panel, so we see different mistakes. I wish tech panel and we, would see the same video...

Do you know in what way the tech panel camera differs from what the audience can see and what is the rationale behind using a different camera for them? Just a genuine question. It would be interesting to compare. It would be also interesting if during the review time, when we are shown slow-mo, we could actually see the image from the tech camera, or - even better - a split screen with images from both, to see more angles etc. for better comparison Surely would be great for more transparency and better understanding of the scores. And with the screens people use for watching being larger and larger, no details would be lost.

 

[Skating91]

Do you know in what way the tech panel camera differs from what the audience can see and what is the rationale behind using a different camera for them? Just a genuine question. It would be interesting to compare. It would be also interesting if during the review time, when we are shown slow-mo, we could actually see the image from the tech camera, or - even better - a split screen with images from both, to see more angles etc. for better comparison Surely would be great for more transparency and better understanding of the scores. And with the screens people use for watching being larger and larger, no details would be lost.

The audience should see exactly what the officials are seeing in the replays after the skate.

 

[eppen]

Do you know in what way the tech panel camera differs from what the audience can see and what is the rationale behind using a different camera for them? Just a genuine question. It would be interesting to compare. It would be also interesting if during the review time, when we are shown slow-mo, we could actually see the image from the tech camera, or - even better - a split screen with images from both, to see more angles etc. for better comparison Surely would be great for more transparency and better understanding of the scores. And with the screens people use for watching being larger and larger, no details would be lost.

The official camera is usually to the right of the tech panel, close to the ice level. So basically if you jump in the left hand corner on the judges side, it might not be possible to get a very good view of the jump with that camera position. There is a video operator who does the editing so that the both panels are capable of watching the clips right after the skater has finished.

My assumption is that they use a camera of their own so that they can get a similar feed in all competitions. Most comps don't get broadcast and the TV cameras could be in very different positions depending on the rink. In the big comps, the TV cameras are most of often on the judges side, but in the middle and close to the corners.

I have sat behind the judges and the Tech Panel quite a few times and followed what they do. The judges have about 2 min for scoring and the Tech Panel works really fast usually (unless they have had to flag just about every element for review) - by the time the skaters end their bows, they have done all or most of the reviews. In those moments in comps, it is unfortunately not really possible to compare what the judges have and what comes out in slow mo, because in that moment you watch one or the either...

 

[Magill]

The official camera is usually to the right of the tech panel, close to the ice level. So basically if you jump in the left hand corner on the judges side, it might not be possible to get a very good view of the jump with that camera position. There is a video operator who does the editing so that the both panels are capable of watching the clips right after the skater has finished.

My assumption is that they use a camera of their own so that they can get a similar feed in all competitions. Most comps don't get broadcast and the TV cameras could be in very different positions depending on the rink. In the big comps, the TV cameras are most of often on the judges side, but in the middle and close to the corners.

I have sat behind the judges and the Tech Panel quite a few times and followed what they do. The judges have about 2 min for scoring and the Tech Panel works really fast usually (unless they have had to flag just about every element for review) - by the time the skaters end their bows, they have done all or most of the reviews. In those moments in comps, it is unfortunately not really possible to compare what the judges have and what comes out in slow mo, because in that moment you watch one or the either...

Thank you for your explanations!
As for watching one or the other, well, this is what the split screens are for, allow you to watch one and the other
OTOH, if there are places or angles on the ice where the "official" camera does not reach, and everyone seems to be well aware of it, shouldn't they at least introduce two "official" cameras to have a better material for evaluation/review/re-evaluation and get rid of those blind spots? I mean, with today's tech and its prices that should not really be such a problem, I can't believe it would.
BTW, I don't think the tech panel should work on "the faster, the better" mode. I think "the more accurate, the better" should be their life motto, IMHO And obviously , giving the audience the view of what the tech panel and the judges can actually see would make the whole process way more transparent which could only help.

 

[Skating91]

Thank you for your explanations!
As for watching one or the other, well, this is what the split screens are for, allow you to watch one and the other
OTOH, if there are places or angles on the ice where the "official" camera does not reach, and everyone seems to be well aware of it, shouldn't they at least introduce two "official" cameras to have a better material for evaluation/review/re-evaluation and get rid of those blind spots? I mean, with today's tech and its prices that should not really be such a problem, I can't believe it would.
BTW, I don't think the tech panel should work on "the faster, the better" mode. I think "the more accurate, the better" should be their life motto, IMHO And obviously , giving the audience the view of what the tech panel and the judges can actually see would make the whole process way more transparent which could only help.

If there is one sport that could take advantage of cheap and accessible technology it is figure skating. People watching Youtube feeds are able to pick up on these things. For all the senior competitions, literally have an additional 7 people sitting at home their job is to just sit there are watching one single jump element each. Go crazy make it 14 people, two on each jump element. Review it several times. Anything suspect about any aspect of jump flag it for review. If any of the volunteers miss anything, don't use them again. Keep the technical panel on their toes.

It would be the cost of a couples pairs of skating boots to get a second camera set up on a tripod. The camera will outlive the life of a pair of boots by many years as well.

 

[eppen]

What I meant about watching two things at the same time is me comparing what the judges see and what gets shown as slow mo on the screen when I am watching the live comp at the rink... Can't make myself watch screens below and above me at the time

A few years back, there was a desire to make comps go by faster and talk of shortening warmup times as well as times btw announcements and getting to the starting pose. These would have meant reducing the comp length maybe 10-15 minutes depending how many skaters you would have. If that is still the thinking then lengthening the judging time is probably not high in the agenda.

Thinking that the judging procedure is the same to most competitions, having two or more cameras would mean the same number of operators for shooting and maybe an additional person to do the replays.

People watching feeds? Well, you would have to have a reliable feed (and we all know how difficult that is) plus trained personnel to watch them even if they are at not at the rink. That would make the panel even bigger than it is now.

 

[katymay]

Weren't you excited when she won 2000 Worlds (The Red Viiolin) with a triple-triple (after her father had to nail the heel back on her boot before the performance and she skated with one heel higher than the other)? Or when she did a triple-triple at 1995 Skate America or 1997 Worlds or 1999 U.S. Nationals or 1999 Skate America or the 2001 Grand Prix Final?

Guess who was the first person ever to land a triple-triple in the Olympics? Brian Boitano, 1988.

Guess who was the first "woman" to land a triple-triple in a major ISU championship? Midori Ito, age 11, 1981-82 World Juniors. (Alas, she was 17th in figures and finished 8th overall.)

Midori Ito - 1982 Jnr Worlds first triple-triple combination

Actually taking place in December of 1981, at the 1982 Junior World Championships Midori became the first woman to land a triple toe - triple toe combo. She ...

youtu.be

Midori Ito's 88 FS remains the most exciting performance for me in my lifetime. I never ever get tired of watching it. A true Olympic moment, even if she didn't make the podium.

 

[katymay]

The official camera is usually to the right of the tech panel, close to the ice level. So basically if you jump in the left hand corner on the judges side, it might not be possible to get a very good view of the jump with that camera position. There is a video operator who does the editing so that the both panels are capable of watching the clips right after the skater has finished.

My assumption is that they use a camera of their own so that they can get a similar feed in all competitions. Most comps don't get broadcast and the TV cameras could be in very different positions depending on the rink. In the big comps, the TV cameras are most of often on the judges side, but in the middle and close to the corners.

I have sat behind the judges and the Tech Panel quite a few times and followed what they do. The judges have about 2 min for scoring and the Tech Panel works really fast usually (unless they have had to flag just about every element for review) - by the time the skaters end their bows, they have done all or most of the reviews. In those moments in comps, it is unfortunately not really possible to compare what the judges have and what comes out in slow mo, because in that moment you watch one or the either...

I noticed that at the Russian GP this year scoring adjustments after the fact have been common. I do not know if this is a coach objection or what, (or training for new judges/tech officials) but it seems to me this is the way to go- 'unofficial' results, then official after any objections are lodged.