- Joined
- Apr 13, 2007
What do you like/not like about the ISU judging system?
- Thread starter Mathman
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
If they kept the same old judges then the cheater who was not in the SP would not be in the LP. The poor cheater loses out in toto.
At least he'll have a chance to cheat in the LP with the reshuffling.
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2007
I think what i like about spiral and spins under the new system is that they are long enough.
Although Lu Chen was my favorite skater, I am now surprised to see that some of her programs had spins that were very short and do not really look spins (some of the ones that she had at the intro part of the Last Emperor program look kinds of spins but not really "spins." Shall we consider them as "choreo", rather than "spins"?).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PIaruQ6Pns
Also, when I Youtubed Ms.Yuka Sato and Bonaly, I was surprised to see their spirals last like 1.5 seconds long.
So I like spins that are more fully rotated and spirals that last 3 seconds.
On the other hand, I don't like it when skaters incorporate "difficult variations" of the spins that are slow and not-so-good-looking.
Another thing is that the skaters have less time to dance. When I see Lu Chen's performance, I could see how much more she danced than the current skaters, using the extra time that she had because of the shorter spiral sequence and spins. For example, this year's World Champ, Miki, barely had time to do choreo in her LP, except for the one moment where she posed and did some arms before the step sequence. That was unfortunate. The marked exception from the current ladies may be Fumie's LP but she might have needed to sacrifice some of the elements in order to do so.
Although Lu Chen was my favorite skater, I am now surprised to see that some of her programs had spins that were very short and do not really look spins (some of the ones that she had at the intro part of the Last Emperor program look kinds of spins but not really "spins." Shall we consider them as "choreo", rather than "spins"?).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PIaruQ6Pns
Also, when I Youtubed Ms.Yuka Sato and Bonaly, I was surprised to see their spirals last like 1.5 seconds long.
So I like spins that are more fully rotated and spirals that last 3 seconds.
On the other hand, I don't like it when skaters incorporate "difficult variations" of the spins that are slow and not-so-good-looking.
Another thing is that the skaters have less time to dance. When I see Lu Chen's performance, I could see how much more she danced than the current skaters, using the extra time that she had because of the shorter spiral sequence and spins. For example, this year's World Champ, Miki, barely had time to do choreo in her LP, except for the one moment where she posed and did some arms before the step sequence. That was unfortunate. The marked exception from the current ladies may be Fumie's LP but she might have needed to sacrifice some of the elements in order to do so.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2003
I like
*the detailed protocols
*the concept of each element weighed between difficulty and execution
*that elements are marked as they occur, so that, psychologically and memory-wise, what happens last isn't over-weighed, and that there isn't a single point where the judges can make a decision without waiting for the whole, at least in the TES
*that while someone who wins a medal by .08 still wins the medal, the relative scores show how little difference there is between the skaters
*that the relative differences between skaters are shown: if there's a huge gap between 1 and 2 in the LP, that difference isn't flattened.
*that the results aren't determined by the SP placement, and skaters/teams can move (or drop drastically)
I dislike
*how the base scores and the rules for combinations and sequences don't reflect relative difficulty between elements, but a distribution based on a pre-determined "right" program for which CoP provides incentives.
*how the PCS scores are being used like ordinals at the top levels, and how lower-level skaters who have one superb quality, be it skating skills or interpretation, aren't getting more than 4-5 in everything.
*how the same judges are expected to judge one element at a time vs. the program as a whole, very different skills and focus
*that the judges still belong to the federations, not the ISU
*that strong federations can influence the technical committee to make changes to help their top skaters -- by upping the point values or requiring skills that they can do, but their rivals cannot -- or by lowering the requirements for the highest levels, not rewarding difficult moves properly, and limiting high-level elements (like lifts)
*that the rules changed significantly for pairs (new jump requirements, lowering the difficulty at the top levels for lifts, can't remember if the lift restriction was that season or this season) the year before the Olympics
*that skaters who deserve +2 and +3 GOEs aren't getting them, especially if they're not a top 10 skater (or one with a top 10 rep). That near-perfect 3S isn't being rewarded
*subcomplaint: the idea that the multiplication tables would be in effect -- a great simple element would get the same score as a complicated element done badly -- has not happened, and the skaters have no incentive to do simple moves superbly
I like that the data and the value charges show clearly everything that I don't like about the system.
*the detailed protocols
*the concept of each element weighed between difficulty and execution
*that elements are marked as they occur, so that, psychologically and memory-wise, what happens last isn't over-weighed, and that there isn't a single point where the judges can make a decision without waiting for the whole, at least in the TES
*that while someone who wins a medal by .08 still wins the medal, the relative scores show how little difference there is between the skaters
*that the relative differences between skaters are shown: if there's a huge gap between 1 and 2 in the LP, that difference isn't flattened.
*that the results aren't determined by the SP placement, and skaters/teams can move (or drop drastically)
I dislike
*how the base scores and the rules for combinations and sequences don't reflect relative difficulty between elements, but a distribution based on a pre-determined "right" program for which CoP provides incentives.
*how the PCS scores are being used like ordinals at the top levels, and how lower-level skaters who have one superb quality, be it skating skills or interpretation, aren't getting more than 4-5 in everything.
*how the same judges are expected to judge one element at a time vs. the program as a whole, very different skills and focus
*that the judges still belong to the federations, not the ISU
*that strong federations can influence the technical committee to make changes to help their top skaters -- by upping the point values or requiring skills that they can do, but their rivals cannot -- or by lowering the requirements for the highest levels, not rewarding difficult moves properly, and limiting high-level elements (like lifts)
*that the rules changed significantly for pairs (new jump requirements, lowering the difficulty at the top levels for lifts, can't remember if the lift restriction was that season or this season) the year before the Olympics
*that skaters who deserve +2 and +3 GOEs aren't getting them, especially if they're not a top 10 skater (or one with a top 10 rep). That near-perfect 3S isn't being rewarded
*subcomplaint: the idea that the multiplication tables would be in effect -- a great simple element would get the same score as a complicated element done badly -- has not happened, and the skaters have no incentive to do simple moves superbly
I like that the data and the value charges show clearly everything that I don't like about the system.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2006
- Country
-
This is really interesting. What kinds of effects might this have?
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
Consider the Salt Lake City judging scandal. The suspicion is that the Russian federation (Piseev) and the French federation (Gailhaguet) made a deal, pairs for dance. Gailhaguet hand-picks MMe Le Gougne to be the judge, telling her, "This is the way it is; go along or I'll never send to to judge anything again."
Well, maybe it didn't happen that way. But Gailhaguet is on record for having said, Of course we make deals. It's my job to secure medals for France, and without deals with other federations that would never happen.
After the deal blew up in their faces, the French side was found guilty of conspiracy and "punished." Since no one but Mme Le Gougne ever publically confessed to any wrongdoing, it officially goes into the ISU books as a conspiracy of one. (?)
What Hockeyfan is saying is that it would be better if the judges were appointed directly by the ISU. Then in principle they would not be beholden to their national federation for future judging assignments and other considerations.
I think that Cinquanta, too, would like to go in this direction, but he also serves at the pleasure of the federations, so it's kind of a tricky road.
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2006
- Country
-
Sometimes I give too much info and others not enough. I totally agree and that is what I was gathering from the post as well.
That is nice if Speedy is thinking this too for that may have "positive integrity" implications to the future of judging. At least it seems like it would e a good move IMO. Even better than knowing their names - which I still don't see that detouring "cheating" in anyway shape or form, it didn't did it? No, so why would it now? - but all belonging to the ISU and NOT their own federation when judging "world" events, that could really be a good move and have the results desired. Possibly. JAT
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
This has been bugging me even in the 6.0 system. Those groups of six which form after the Short Program, tend to remain in that same group after the Long Program. It seems to me that the judges score within the framework of the Group they are watching. I don't think it is intentional but a mindset. There are, of course, a few exceptions where a skater finishing in the 4th Group moves up to the 3rd. Johnny Weir in Dortmund, moved up to the 'last group to skate' because of two drop outs.
Skaters, like all athletes, care about their placements, and if one believes he should have been 13th instead of 15th, that is important to him.
Aside from a whimsical call by the Tech Asst, the judges GoEs play an important role in the outcome of a competition. JMO
Joe
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
I dislike how skaters from very small countries have a hard time getting the scores they deserve. Stephane Lambiel would be the biggest example of that. Suffering from massive underscoring under the old system, but continuing to so under COP. I am sure he had hoped that the new system would mean he would finally start getting a fair shake from the judges. Sadly not so. However he perseveres like a true champion, and shows the judges he will keep on fighting no matter how much they want him to fail. That is the kind of heart and spirit he has.
Other examples of skaters from smaller countries being hurt by not coming from a bigger country with a more powerful federation would be-Kristoffer Berntsson, Sarah Meier, Susanna Poykio, Kiira Korpi.
Other examples of skaters from smaller countries being hurt by not coming from a bigger country with a more powerful federation would be-Kristoffer Berntsson, Sarah Meier, Susanna Poykio, Kiira Korpi.
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2007
Has Stephane been underscored?
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
Lets just say he is not held up. Some top male skaters don't knock you over with their spinning and others don't want to smile at you. Stephane has the whole package. Can you picture Joubert doing a flamenco?
Joe
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2007
Yes, I agree that Stephane is the whole package. I liked flamenco very much, but somehow loved zebra even better perhaps because of the uniqueness. I have not been closely following his scores and don't know about possible struggles of him in the past. But at least during this past season, I didn't feel that he was underscored (even if not overscored). He proved himself so well despite some inconsistencies in SPs. I also remember British commentators saying in one of the competitions (was that Worlds?) that his reputation would help him with marks.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2005
:scratch::scratch:
You know, I absolutely adore Lambiel. He is easily the most interesting and creative skater out there today , and I feel like he's the only one who bothers to put any kind of originality or creativity into what he is doing, however, I'm not sure that your assessment is so correct. Stephane almost never skates a clean short program, under the OBO/ordinals system that would have been the kiss of death , however under the COP he won Skate Canada and medaled at worlds despite completely bombing in both SPs.
While his jumps are decent with regards to his technique , he doesn't have the amplitude of say a Brian Joubert,and that would have held him down as well. His footwork is second to none and his spins are just INSANE, but sadly under OBO/ordinals, those things were almost routinely ignored in favor of jumps (remember how Tara Lipinski used to do a row of mohawks and call it footwork ?) I actually feel like Stephane is one of the success stories of the COP, his talents /abilities would have just fallen by the wayside otherwise.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
All very true compliments about Lambiel. But some posters, maybe most posters demand Jumps and nothing else really matters as long as these other skaters present a facsimile of other elements and music is not important.
Joe
Joe
Last edited:
They are one and the same. ( IMHO)
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
Not important. They work very well together.
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2007
That's something new that I learned from your posts. It sounded somewhat confusing to me. Is it the cleanness of 3T that distinguishes the underrotated 4T from a simple 3T?
I agree. I don't find it very fun to watch that the skater's fate is determined by something you cannot see in live, but by a slow motion video.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
I don't follow the rule for underrotation. For me it is obvious if a person is going for a Quad and underrotates. All well and good for the deductions.
But if a skater was going for a Quad according to his Program Sheet, and for whatever reason does a Triple and an excellent one. Why should he be marked down for a Quad. I thought there was some semblance of the "Free" skate left.
Anyone?
Joe
But if a skater was going for a Quad according to his Program Sheet, and for whatever reason does a Triple and an excellent one. Why should he be marked down for a Quad. I thought there was some semblance of the "Free" skate left.
Anyone?
Joe
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2003
He isn't marked down. However, the 3T counts towards the Zayak rule, and if he has two other 3T's planned and completes them, he loses credit for the last for violating the Zayak rule.
Mathman's point is that if he goes for the quad and underrotates it, it doesn't count as a 3T for the purposes of the Zayak rule.
