http://www.iceskatingintnl.com/archive/commentaries/Sonia%20Oct2013.htm
Thought this was a good assessment.
I totally agree with what the writer said. The programs all look alike now. And I hate upside spins with a passion.
How was 6.0 easier for the audience to understand? I have competed under both systems and 6.0 competition results always left me scratching my head. And, let's face it, if they hadn't switched from 6.0 to IJS, the current drop in viewership would just be blamed on the "unfair judging" (remember the 2002 SLC Olympics, where the 6.0 judging scandal is what started this big judging system change in the first place?). People cannot analyze things like this in a vacuum. If the judging system were the only reason for skating's drop in popularity, why hasn't gymnastics shown the same drop?
So let's pull out of this vacuum for a minute. . . First of all, figure skating was more popular when the U.S. had female Olympic champions and a knee-bruising scandal, neither of which has happened since the adoption of IJS. Secondly, there are so many more sports and entertainment options than there used to be, both on TV and the Internet. The market has become more fragmented, not just for figure skating viewership, but for everything. Finally, people like to idealize the days of 6.0, but, just like today, there were a few amazingly artistic skaters while most of them just jumped and jumped and didn't do a lot of choreography. The same is true today. The truly great skaters (Chan, Fernandez, Takahashi, Kostner, Asada, etc.) can complete jumps and spins with high technical difficulty while incorporating interesting choreography and expressing the music.
It's true that IJS keeps getting tweaked each year, but the most recent changes should make critics like this happy. For example, judges are required to add or subtract grades of execution based on whether elements are performed in accordance with the timing and emotion of the music. Also, there is now a choreo sequence instead of a spiral sequence for the ladies and a choreo step sequence instead of two leveled step sequences for the men. This is so that skaters have an opportunity to show that they can do difficult footwork, but are also given the opportunity to just express the music. I'll wager that whoever wrote this had no idea these rules existed.
Regardless of the judging system, people will always argue about figure skating judging because it has to strike a balance between technical difficulty--which much be quantifiable--and artistry, which is much more subjective.
I think the "easier to understand" part of 6.0 is really the lack of understanding needed to judge the winner. Frankly, there were plenty of disagreements about judging and "fix" was bantered then and now. The audience judged the skaters based on how they looked, how hard they thought the skater worked and how much they liked the skater/country/etc. In many cases, their preferences matched the judges, although 2002 comes to mind...
IJS is more like the old ISI competition scoring: there are required elements, each one gets a grade, toss some artsy-fartsy points in the pot and tada! You have a less-subjective method of choosing a winner, with numbers that quantify the outcome. Unfortunately, the math is complicated under IJS. The audience has to be educated, but the casual fan doesn't want to be schooled. Maybe the "Boys Who Score" can figure out a simple way to explain why two falls and a few underrotated jumps can't offset huge PCS scores. *whistles in the dark* A scary thought, indeed.
I believe that Americans lost interest when skating became an Job for the entire family. Families mortgaged their houses, took second or third jobs, split up their families and relocated to pursue training. Wardrobe alone was enough to turn many people's stomachs, which is one of the reasons parents shy away from letting their kids start taking lessons today. They know it's an expensive sport, most coaches are very honest about it, so those without disposable income stay away. Skating parents think they're being funny when they warn off newbies with a "get out while you can" comment, but they are being honest and perhaps, regretful in some ways.
Can I also say that skating has overwhelmed its intended audience with the level of skating we see today, with perfectly choreographed programs done by boneless spinners and wicked jumpers? Only the naive can watch a senior competitor skate and think "I can do that." Back in the 1960's, crazy people could and would "go for it" and achieve some level of success on par with the elites.
Plus, there are plenty of other, seemingly less-expensive options to figure skating in the US. Kids are overscheduled with activities and interests. People my age make remarks like "we used to play outside all afternoon until dinner - why don't kids today do that?" My 10-year younger relatives remark on "instead of the mall, we hung out at the ice rink or the pool." (Today, that would involve explanations to child protective services.) The rinks that are really "making it" have afterschool programs and weekend skating. They have very little public skating because they make more money with organized hockey. Parents love organized hockey - you can drop the kid off and go shopping at Walmart. When I skated, FS clubs rented ice and conducted the classes. Today, we have rinks hiring professional instructors to teach toddlers how to (kudos to slusher) "lick the ice." Rinks run drop-in freestyle sessions and everyone's schedules are so busy and erratic that families can't commit to a Club-contract ice package. Some clubs still have their ice time, but fewer and fewer are able to offer that, which is why clubs are in decline as well. There's limited cameraderie in a sport like this, which is why the Team Trophy has been added to the Olympics.
I don't think the abolishment of Figures or the introduction of IJS has had as much impact on interest in skating as chalking it up to simple lifestyle changes.
Unfortunately whatever judging system is used, skating is a subjective sport. It's not how many goals or how fast. It's what looks nicest. Diving and gymnastics have similar problems but they generally only focus on elements while skating is focussing on a performance which makes it even harder to judge.
This means that under any system the audience and all the judges will have lots of differing opinions on who is best.
I think however IJS has done us a favour by analysing technical difficulty so we can say that X it harder than Y. And the ISU are making small tweaks to the singles and dance rules to balance things out and provide more technical challenge so the sport can continue to evolve. They seem to be struggling with synchro as the sport is developing so much faster. So every couple of years they throw out the rules on what is difficult and introduce something else. And then when the teams demonstrate they can do the harder elements, they throw them out and start over again.
I think that the loss of skating interest in the US -- at least as spectators -- is mainly because there has been less and less US skaters making it to the podium in Worlds/Olympics. Japan and Korea have become skating-crazy AFTER the IJS was implemented -- and for obvious reasons.
I personally like what is happening with skating today. While there are those outliers, such as a "butt spin", in general, the choreography is much more intricate. There were a lot of crossovers in the old programs, albeit with monstrous speeds, but there are plenty of those amazing skaters who blend artistry and speed with incredibly difficult elements and that has really been the same.
Figure skating is a sport and must be fairly quantified in some way. 6.0 system, while very dramatic, was hugely subjective.
I think the drop off in viewership has to do less with IJS and more with the knee bashing events fading into memory and lack of Americans on the podium (like someone else mentioned here). In Russia, for example, figure skating has always been a televised sport that a lot of people followed and IJS has not changed that. In Russia the way figure skating is taught, has not really changed much. Private coaching is not the norm- kids are formed into groups and have organized group practices, which allows for training cost control.
One comment I found interesting in the article was how IJS is making everyone do the same elements, and programs are boring because of that. This doesn't ring true at all. I compete under 6.0, and most programs that are at the top of the level have the same jumps and spins, and it comes down to quality and execution of those elements, plus presentation.
It was really the same for the elites under 6.0 as well. The top competitors, to be competitive, usually had the same jumps (i.e. all of them did triple loops, or triple flips or lutzes once those came along). I really wouldn't say that everyone trying the same jumps and spins is something new because of IJS.
Quote from: TreSk8sAZ on October 18, 2013, 01:31:54 PM
It was really the same for the elites under 6.0 as well. The top competitors, to be competitive, usually had the same jumps (i.e. all of them did triple loops, or triple flips or lutzes once those came along). I really wouldn't say that everyone trying the same jumps and spins is something new because of IJS.
Wow, I agree with all that is said - Doubletoe, Figurespins, Sampugita, fsk8r - I could not have said it better myself!
And your comment TreSk8sAZ also rings true - my friends say they got bored with skating because it is ALL THE SAME - and it is true, the same spins, the same jumps, maybe this is the limitation of the sport inself (such a hard sport - don't they realize it?) - so as skaters we look at who does it THE BEST and the most beautiful, etc. - who "gets" it and can do it with music! And of course the successful skaters retire and then we have new ones.. learning the same elements and sometimes tweaking them to make them more interesting, better, etc., and so you see the same things over and over (I watch a lot of grass-roots development skaters as a judge and if I didn't totally enjoy it I would probably be bored silly!).
ONSkater - have you been over to FSU (www.fsuniverse.net I believe is the url) - you will find a lot of simliar articles and discussions about skating viewership and the knowlege over there might just blow your mind - the person who wrote this article that you posted has been posting similar articles for years - I believe she is a disgruntled ex-ISU official - just sour grapes as far as I'm concerned.
Carry on. Looking forward to seeing some coverage of Skate America this weekend! What will our new and old skaters be doing? Same old stuff in a more beautiful way? Fingers crossed.
Hey, I've got no dog in this fight. I am only involved in this as a cerebral exercise. I do not compete.
I agree with those who indicate that north American lifestyle changes in the last 2 decades have greatly influenced this process. For a great many people disposable income is shrinking to the point where the options for extra curricular events for the kids is zero unless it is free. Mom and dad are both working and frazzled trying to make ends meet.
Hockey here gets the gravy...a kid who turns out decent has a shot of playing and making solid money by the time he is out of college. Plus hockey is cool for guys to do... figure skating? hahahahahaha... 88)
I'm a non-competitive guy, hate competing, don't give a damn if I win or not. I skate for the joy of gliding and feeling my body respond to the physical forces and space around me. I'm too old to tackle jumps and spins. My passions lie elsewhere...
What makes me sad is the lack of professional competitions nowadays. There's not much "career" in skating anymore. It was those professional shows and competitions where I would see routines that really gave me goosebumps.
The entertainment options are so many now, any live theatrical event has to endlessly strive to see black ink. The days of Ice Capades are done. There is no real way to mount such a spectacle in today's climate here in the West and make it pay. I knew a girl who skated with Holiday On Ice for like 7 years and it was all South America and Europe.
A cultural shift has no means of reversing itself...
OMG, I hate ski racing. It's all the same, they ALL go through the SAME gates as fast as they can!
OMG, I hate track, all they do is run as fast as they can and they all run the SAME WAY!!!
OMG, I hate gymnastics, they all do the same moves and it all looks the SAME and they're all spineless!!
I agree with those who say people are idealizing 6.0. Plenty of boring-as-all-getout programs then, just as now. The one thing IJS has not "fixed" is the judging, and that will never be perfect, because judging is subjective and people are human. The end.
It doesn't seem to me the all the credit or blame belongs to the head of the IJS. He didn't make the rules or decide how points are earned and deducted.
A significant problem lies in how NBC television (in the U.S.) handles the sport. If they had a separate show where they systematically went through the top routines step by step, and showed how the points were awarded and deducted, people could understand the system much better. As it stands, many spectators don't even know the precise definitions of the various moves, let alone how points are awarded. The rulebook itself, and the technical notes that are meant to clarify the GOE system, are virtually incomprehensible to all but a select few.
I would love to watch such a show.
Of course, the training needed to make such an analysis is the same type of training needed qualify s a judge for top level international competition. And the judges themselves might be excluded from participating in such professional activity.
In any event, I enjoy some of the ice shows more than the international competitions, precisely because they are more free to use interesting choreography and emphasize the artistic elements more effectively.
I believe that NBC chooses to present IJS as it does (too hard, OMG, no one will ever *get* it!) :nvm:
Watch youtube of Eurosport or CBC - they discuss points...
Quote from: techskater on October 26, 2013, 10:39:17 AM
I believe that NBC chooses to present IJS as it does (too hard, OMG, no one will ever *get* it!) :nvm:
Watch youtube of Eurosport or CBC - they discuss points...
British Eurosport was yesterday commenting that one of the Men at Skate Canada in the Short Program had one spin which in the commentator's opinion wouldn't score higher than a level 2, and then when analysing the jumps were commenting on how the rotation was short and so would be downgraded.
Not watching NBC, I thought this was how all the commentators discuss skating programs. They don't assume the audience is absolutely stupid but they're also adding to the education of the audience by discussing and analysing jump rotations so that people can then watch and understand what is fully rotated and what is underrotated.
I WISH! NBC's take (Hamilton and Bezic) is that it's too hard to discuss the finer details, everything is worth points, but it's too hard to explain. I hate the treatment of it and always look for a English Eurosport, Japanese, Russian, or Latvian feed instead (and I don't speak Japanese, Russian or Latvian, but they are at least quiet during programs versus Hamilton sounding like he's having a bowel movement).
I like the European feeds for the same reason, but announcer-free during performances is even better. Broadcasters should use their Secondary Audio Programming for a music-only feed.
The Omer NBC put up dirung the second half of the program is distracting, especially since it isn't labeled.
I went to the eurosport.com website, and selected British, then chose Winter Sports, and figure skating. I didn't see any links to skating videos. Am I looking in the wrong place, or are you folks looking at TV shows (which we in the U.S. probably can't see)?
Youtube is such a mixed bag. Are there any channels to look at there for authoritative analysis?
Late to this discussion but I have an aunt who is a skating fan and often comments she wishes the commentators would explain more why things are one level and not another. I think this is where lies the confusion with the IJS system. With the 6.0 system if it was perfect they got a 6.0. Now what the heck constitutes a perfect program? My husband often asks what a perfect mark it. There really isn't one anymore..
As a skater, I like the new system partly because I know that I would have really benefitted from the IJS when I was competing. I like that falls get a deduction rather than just overlooked completely.
As far as popularity of skating goes I think Sampaguita has a great point. Gone are the days of the Battle of the Brians or the Battle of the Carmens.
Query, I often go to Goldenskate to determine what open stream there is so I don't have to watch NBC. I've gotten everything from Russian, Latvian, Japanese, Justin TV (French), Eurosport....Youtube is a great place to go find ANYONE else's versions.
Unfortunately, most of the commentators are from the 6.0 era and still don't really have a grasp of the IJS rules. I would personally love to have a feed of the technical specialist calling each element for the judges, but then I'm a nerd like that.
The best way to understand the scores is to look at the judges' scoresheets after the competition is over. Just go to www.isu.org and find the event (there will be a link on the main page if it's a major event), click on that, then click on the link for "Starting Orders/Detailed Results" and then "Judges' Scores". By the time the events are televised, they have usually already happened and the results are up on the website. I love watching the competition while looking at the scoresheets and seeing how each element got scored. Again, I realize I am a nerd, but I have learned a LOT from doing it. ;)
Quote from: Doubletoe on October 28, 2013, 08:14:55 PM
I would personally love to have a feed of the technical specialist calling each element for the judges, but then I'm a nerd like that.
The $20 "earbug" they sold at Nationals a few years ago was worth every penny, just to listen to the tech specialist feed. I learned tons of things about IJS levels and credit from that feed, although I'm not sure if the broadcast was the official tech specialist speaking. (Might have been unofficial; I don't remember.)
Quote from: FigureSpins on October 28, 2013, 08:25:22 PM
The $20 "earbug" they sold at Nationals a few years ago was worth every penny, just to listen to the tech specialist feed. I learned tons of things about IJS levels and credit from that feed, although I'm not sure if the broadcast was the official tech specialist speaking. (Might have been unofficial; I don't remember.)
Not official. I guess you are thinking of David Kirby's axel radio:
http://www.manleywoman.com/episode-50-david-kirby/
I have not used it.
I found the notesheet for the earbug - it was called "US Championships Skate Radio."
The channels were:
Channel A - Live commentary featuring technical expert David Kirby
Channel B - icenetwork.com live coverage
Channel C - NBC Sports live coverage (when available)
I switched back and forth, but Kirby's commentary was usually more reliable than NBC Sports. icenetwork was good, too.
The PSA used the same technology for large conference presentations, although I haven't been to one in two years; maybe they don't use them anymore. (Very likely, since I own two working earpieces, lol.) I knew that David Kirby brought the technology to skating. I had a similar radio from a US Open tennis tourney years earlier, so we were playing catch-up anyway.
It's a handy device - there's a hook-style external earpiece with a foam cover, which plugs into the headphone slot of a lightweight portable receiver. You can also use your own headphones/earbuds, which I did during the PSA conference during lunchtime, when the mall was crowded and loud. I never bothered to figure out what frequencies each channel used.
Never heard it called "axel radio." *shrugs*
Quote from: Doubletoe on October 28, 2013, 08:14:55 PM
Unfortunately, most of the commentators are from the 6.0 era and still don't really have a grasp of the IJS rules. I would personally love to have a feed of the technical specialist calling each element for the judges, but then I'm a nerd like that.
I think this is where British Eurosport has the advantage. Chris Howarth spends most of the year coaching so has to know the IJS rules.
He might not be a technical specialist but as a coach needs to know how to maximise points.
But it's hard for them to be knowledgeable about all the disciplines.
Quote from: fsk8r on October 29, 2013, 03:07:52 AM
I think this is where British Eurosport has the advantage. Chris Howarth spends most of the year coaching so has to know the IJS rules.
He might not be a technical specialist but as a coach needs to know how to maximise points.
But it's hard for them to be knowledgeable about all the disciplines.
I agree that British Eurosport commentating is less annoying than most. Maybe that's why! Having said that, it's amazing how many coaches fail to keep up with the IJS rules! Neither my current coach nor my previous coach have managed to keep up with the rules, and I'm sure would have been clueless as to why Patrick Chan only got a level 1 on the final spin in his Skate Canada freeskate (answer: He did not get 2 revolutions in sit position and the skater needs to have 2 revolutions in all 3 basic positions--camel, sit and upright--in order to get a level 2 or higher on a change-foot combination spin).
Why aren't coaches keeping up with the rules?
All the British coaches are now having to swot up as the majority of competitions are now IJS from the first test level up. The only level on the old system is Beginners.
While the ones with skaters at Novice and higher are completely on top of the rules, the rest need to understand enough to increase spin levels and improve GOE on jumps.
I'm surprised coaches aren't keeping up with IJS rules! Surely most competitions in most places are run under IJS now? Almost all competitions are IJS (beginner level is still RJS) in the UK so coaches who coach anything above SkateUK need to know at least the basics appropriate for their levels of skaters. I presumed the same would hold true in other parts of the world too!
Even our test system is in the process of being updated to IJS too. The 1st step is moving to an IJS style GOE marking (+3 to -3) on test elements along with scoring program components too (Poor/Weak/Acceptable/Good/Excellent). Apparently at some point down the line there will be a move to passing NISA level tests in competition for all levels of skater, not just the competitive test passes for Advanced novice / Junior / Senior equivalent levels we have currently.
Why would you assume that "everyone" is using IJS throughout their structure? Absolutely untrue in the US. Here, the standard track free skate events from Juvenile. The Adult Gold/Adult Jr-Sr free skate events are supposed to be IJS as well. However, the Basic Skills/No Test/Pre-Prel through Pre-Juv/Adult Pre-Bronze through Silver events are judged under 6.0 using ordinals. All the freestyle-related events (jump, spin, compulsories, artistic, showcase, etc.) are under 6.0. (Pairs is structured similarly; I'm not sure when IJS is used for Ice Dance; I assume the higher levels as well.)
US non-qualifying Club competitions have the option of using IJS for all levels, but very few make that choice, afaik. I know that several clubs on the other side of the country do so; Sherwood Invitational is one.
The full-blown US IJS system is expensive to use for competitions because of the technology and additional trained volunteers needed. The paper-based "Modified IJS" would be good to use in lieu of 6.0 scoring, imo. Ordinals are meaningless and often swing widely from competition to competition. I'd rather the skaters get a solid numeric score so they can set goals and strive for "personal bests" before the next event. It would be wonderful to get an element-by-element plus overall score, like the old ISI results, but I suspect it's too time-consuming.
The USFSA Continuing Education Requirements (CER) are required for any coach presenting students for tests or competitions. There are two tiers: CER-B for those whose skaters are not competing in qualifying events and CER-A for those with qualifying-event skaters. The difference is simply that the qualifying coaches have to take an IJS course. There are a number to choose from, including "Current Season Singles Skating," which outlines things like spins with 3 revs in position, difficult entries, step sequence vs. chore sequence, etc.
I don't have any skaters at the qualifying levels, but I comply with CER-A each year to pick up additional knowledge for the future, even though it costs an extra $25. I bring that to my lower-level skaters since many judges have indicated that they use the IJS standards to judge tests and 6.0 events.
One note: just because a skater doesn't do three revs in each spin position doesn't indicate the coach was ignorant or the choregrapher blew it - sometimes, it's the skater's fault. You have to know that the elite skaters at the ISU Senior Grand Prix know they're supposed to do something. There are any number of reasons why they give away points.
IJS is eventually coming to ALL levels, right down to snowplow 1.
When?
Quote from: Doubletoe on October 28, 2013, 08:14:55 PMJust go to www.isu.org and find the event (there will be a link on the main page if it's a major event), click on that, then click on the link for "Starting Orders/Detailed Results" and then "Judges' Scores".
Thanks! That's a lot of what I wanted to see.
I am surprised to find that judges typically vary in their GOE scores for the same move by most of the available range. [I'm ignoring component factors because I don't understand them at all.] I thought the whole point of judge's training was to get the judges to the point of scoring people almost identically, especially by the time judges are working at the highest levels. Apparently such a goal is not met.
Of course, given that the score differential between judges is so large, what I wanted to see - a step by step explanation of how the scores for each skating performance move are arrived at - is impractical. You can't explain what the score should be, point by point, if the score assigned varies judge-by-judge by most of the available range.
And the fact that they aren't giving each score by named judge, but are reported in random order, means you can't see the biases of each judge. One of the major goals of IJS was to eliminate the perception that judges from one country might be tempted to favor their own skaters. What the random reporting order does instead is to hide any existing bias. Are each judge's scores reported by judge name anywhere?
I get that some aspects of figure skating have to be subjective, but I am more convinced than ever that figure skating at the upper levels should have professional judges, subject to strong peer review, with severe penalties for excess score deviation or signs of bias.
Edit: Obviously that would be a very painful standard to hold amateur judges to who have to pay for their own training, but it is a standard to which professional referees are held to in many sports.
[Obviously the technical specialist is subject to individual scrutiny.]
I was timekeeper at an IJS adult competition and sat in the middle of the panel. The judges were split either side of me. At one point when the referee was signing off the score sheets, the judge sitting next to her commented on how the GOE varied from one side of the panel to the other and how she'd not realised the angle could make such a difference.
While we'd like the scores to be goals to improve upon, there's still an element of human judgement so GOE will vary from one judge to another. As long as the judges are consistent across the field that variation will come out in the wash.
I do however agree that judges shouldn't be anonymous. There's more accountability when people are identified.
But the judges do have review meetings after competitions where they need to justify if they deviate to far from the norm.
It is interesting that the US still hasn't switched to IJS. It is a lot more expensive for clubs to run the competitions and you do need more officials, but most club competitions in Europe seem to be IJS and that has driven the UK to switch. And we're always under the constant impression the whole world has switched and we're slow.
Quote from: Query on October 30, 2013, 01:05:00 PM
I am surprised to find that judges typically vary in their GOE scores for the same move by most of the available range. [I'm ignoring component factors because I don't understand them at all.] I thought the whole point of judge's training was to get the judges to the point of scoring people almost identically, especially by the time judges are working at the highest levels. Apparently such a goal is not met.
Of course, given that the score differential between judges is so large, what I wanted to see - a step by step explanation of how the scores for each skating performance move are arrived at - is impractical. You can't explain what the score should be, point by point, if the score assigned varies judge-by-judge by most of the available range.
And the fact that they aren't giving each score by named judge, but are reported in random order, means you can't see the biases of each judge. One of the major goals of IJS was to eliminate the perception that judges from one country might be tempted to favor their own skaters. What the random reporting order does instead is to hide any existing bias. Are each judge's scores reported by judge name anywhere?
Quote from: fsk8r on October 30, 2013, 02:55:12 PM
I was timekeeper at an IJS adult competition and sat in the middle of the panel. The judges were split either side of me. At one point when the referee was signing off the score sheets, the judge sitting next to her commented on how the GOE varied from one side of the panel to the other and how she'd not realised the angle could make such a difference.
While we'd like the scores to be goals to improve upon, there's still an element of human judgement so GOE will vary from one judge to another. As long as the judges are consistent across the field that variation will come out in the wash.
I do however agree that judges shouldn't be anonymous. There's more accountability when people are identified.
But the judges do have review meetings after competitions where they need to justify if they deviate to far from the norm.
It is interesting that the US still hasn't switched to IJS. It is a lot more expensive for clubs to run the competitions and you do need more officials, but most club competitions in Europe seem to be IJS and that has driven the UK to switch. And we're always under the constant impression the whole world has switched and we're slow.
It's absolutely true that different judges have different viewing angles and some might catch under-rotations or edge changes while others won't. Here are a few other things to keep in mind before crying bias:
(1) Different judges value different things; some value jump height and distance, others value clean landings, others value clean takeoffs, others value air position, etc. When you have 9 judges, those different emphases tend to balance out, which is exactly why you have 9 judges.
(2) The highest and lowest scores are dropped, so being the one judge who gives a -3 or +3 on an element won't get you anywhere. The same is true for PCS.
(3) You can't just look at the scores for one skater and decide that the judge who gave the lowest marks or highest marks for that skater was biased. In most cases, judges are very consistent with the way they score skaters and either score everyone leniently or everyone strictly. You have to look at that judge's scores across the entire flight of skaters.
Judges are not anonymous at U.S.F.S.A. competitions. The main scoresheet has every judge listed (with the number) and they are also announced by name and number during the 6-minute warmup at the competition. There's one judge in my area whose name I don't need to look for on my scoresheet. If I see a string of negative GOE's down one of the judging columns on the scoresheets, I know what number judge he was, just because he is notoriously strict and always gives the lowest scores. Sometimes I wonder if it bothers him that his scores are always the ones that get dropped, LOL!
In U.S. adult competitions, Adult Gold and above (i.e., skaters who are required to land a single axel on the test) are all judged on IJS. In addition to cost, the other reason to keep the lower levels on 6.0 is that so many skaters are under-rotating single jumps, not getting enough revolutions in position on spins, etc., that it makes it tough to judge (and tough on the skaters, too).
Quote from: Doubletoe on October 30, 2013, 05:13:21 PM
In U.S. adult competitions, Adult Gold and above (i.e., skaters who are required to land a single axel on the test) are all judged on IJS. In addition to cost, the other reason to keep the lower levels on 6.0 is that so many skaters are under-rotating single jumps, not getting enough revolutions in position on spins, etc., that it makes it tough to judge (and tough on the skaters, too).
We had this argument in the UK as well about the under-rotation and the spin positions. The first year at the British Adults the only things being called were step sequences so it was all down to PCS to sort out placement. Now adults are getting low enough on sit spins and hold the legs high enough on camel spins. And under-rotation is being reduced as well. It helps that the Technical Specialists are getting more practice calling lower level elements, but it also helps that we're all aiming to get the calls so are working hard to fix things.
There's no incentive to fix your jump rotation unless you can see if having a clear impact on your score.
Quote from: fsk8r on October 31, 2013, 01:39:21 AM
We had this argument in the UK as well about the under-rotation and the spin positions. The first year at the British Adults the only things being called were step sequences so it was all down to PCS to sort out placement. Now adults are getting low enough on sit spins and hold the legs high enough on camel spins. And under-rotation is being reduced as well. It helps that the Technical Specialists are getting more practice calling lower level elements, but it also helps that we're all aiming to get the calls so are working hard to fix things.
There's no incentive to fix your jump rotation unless you can see if having a clear impact on your score.
You have a good argument.
1. I think it is good that USFSA judges are not anonymous.
But an obvious source of bias is Nationalism - though judges who know individual skaters might also be biased. So it is the ISU more than the USFSA that really needs to be open.
Perhaps the ISU decision makers felt that anonymous judges would be less biased, because the national skating associations couldn't penalize the judges for being unbiased. I seem to recall that a Soviet judge made that accusation against the Russian Skating Federation just before the ISU went to IJS, and that it caused the scandal that drove the ISU to change to IJS. (I wonder if it is possible for the national skating organizations to use cameras or binoculars to capture the judges' score sheets.)
But the assumption that openness causes more corruption than secrecy isn't necessarily correct. That certainly isn't usually the assumption in politics. A more obvious solution would have been to remove the judges' affiliations with National associations. Something that a separate professional corp organized by the ISU could perhaps do.
2. As to the idea that the spread in scores is unimportant if the individual judges are consistent - that can't be evaluated if you can't figure out which scores belong to the same judge.
3. I buy the idea that viewing angle makes a big difference. But by the Grand Prix competition level, don't the judges use video replays?
4. Oh well. I guess there is no more potential for unfair bias than in reality TV shows where the public votes.
Quote from: Query on November 02, 2013, 04:20:59 PM
2. As to the idea that the spread in scores is unimportant if the individual judges are consistent - that can't be evaluated if you can't figure out which scores belong to the same judge.
You CAN figure out which scores belong to the same judge, since each judge has a number that is used consistently throughout the same competition. The Judge #3 whose scores show up under the Judge #3 column on the scoresheet for skater #1 is the same Judge #3 on the scoresheet for skater #12.
Oh. :-[
Judges are also evaluated regularly for consistency. There is a "corridor" I.e. A range of +/- GOE and a judge's scores are checked to see if they're within the corridor. If they're out of kilter it is addressed ... the goal is consistency always. Frankly, I have seen improvements with judging consistency and more importantly with the tech specialist calling of the elements as we've moved further into IJS. An inaccurate tech specialist is a bigger factor than an individual judge.
Tech specialists use video replays. Judges don't.
As for consistency... I remember very clearly the inconsistency in OBO scores in comps...
Quote from: Doubletoe on November 03, 2013, 12:53:58 AM
You CAN figure out which scores belong to the same judge, since each judge has a number that is used consistently throughout the same competition. The Judge #3 whose scores show up under the Judge #3 column on the scoresheet for skater #1 is the same Judge #3 on the scoresheet for skater #12.
Domestically yes, but I'm told they absolutely mix the judges' columns between skaters for internationals. Certainly for the major internationals they do (source = my coach who is regularly on international panels).
While I love the IJS for the feedback it gives skaters on the technical side ("did I rotate that jump?"), its major flaw in my view is judge anonymity. There are no good reasons of probity to have it, and so many good reasons against it.
The other major flaw of the IJS is corridor judging in the PCS marks. It's ridiculous and unrealistic that nearly every skater will score all their individual PCS's within a band of less than one mark; judges need to be able to give, for example, 3 for transitions and 6 for skating skills, where that is warranted.
Quote from: Sk8tmum on November 03, 2013, 04:58:27 PMAs for consistency... I remember very clearly the inconsistency in OBO scores in comps...
OBO?? Huh?
P.S. Interesting that Johnny Weir, a U.S. sportscaster who skated under IJS, doesn't discuss it at length. Maybe he has it right. After all, most sports fans don't know all the rules of their favorite sports.
Quote from: Query on November 03, 2013, 06:31:15 PM
OBO?? Huh?
One By One. Also known as 6.0 and ordinals. A somewhat convoluted system, where the winner was chosen by place (highest number of judges giving highest place wins), rather than by score (highest score wins). The skaters got very little feedback from the resuts generated by the OBO system. A skater could have two judges placing him/her 1st, two 4th placings, a 7th, and come 2nd, depending on how the other skaters placed.
Quote from: aussieskater on November 03, 2013, 10:53:37 PM
One By One. Also known as 6.0 and ordinals. A somewhat convoluted system, where the winner was chosen by place (highest number of judges giving highest place wins), rather than by score (highest score wins). The skaters got very little feedback from the resuts generated by the OBO system. A skater could have two judges placing him/her 1st, two 4th placings, a 7th, and come 2nd, depending on how the other skaters placed.
You just described the USFSA 6.0/Ordinals system perfectly.
The ISI used to judge differently, which was better than 6.0/Ordinals and more like IJS. I believe the ISI software now just lists the skaters placements; I'm not even sure if the total score is still listed on the sheet. (All of the rinks in my state have switched to Basic Skills.)
Each judge on the panel would be asked to score specific elements from that level's required skills, along with some more-subjective items like music interpretation/rhythm, posture, duration, edges/flow, and general overall. There was a specific point range for each element/category. When the event finished, the accountant would add up all the judge's scores for each element/category and whoever had the highest score won. The published result sheet, which was stuck on the wall, showed each of the required elements and "other" items across the top of the page. The skater could see that their Flip jump was the lowest-scored one of the entire flight and compare their score with the same element score from prior competitions.
Xanboni did a good job of explaining the ISI judging on a blog post, but the illustration is not real; it shows all three judges using the same sheet. Just focus on one judge at a time and you'll see the division of labor: http://xan-boni.blogspot.com/2011/09/sample-isi-judging-sheet-explained.html This judging system was one of the reasons the ISI asks coaches to judge; you have to know the correct way to do a Flip jump in order to judge it and most well-meaning spectators don't have that knowledge.
I would really like to see the USFSA Basic Skills program implement (and the ISI, return to) a scoring result sheet like that; IJS is fine for the higher levels with the +/- GOE on each element, but at the learn-the-skate levels, focusing on the skills is more important. Simplifying the score result sheet would make that more clear. The transparency is also good, imo.
Quote from: Query on November 03, 2013, 06:31:15 PM
OBO?? Huh?
P.S. Interesting that Johnny Weir, a U.S. sportscaster who skated under IJS, doesn't discuss it at length. Maybe he has it right. After all, most sports fans don't know all the rules of their favorite sports.
Johnny was never one of those skaters who studied the judging system and used it strategically to his advantage. He was known for not doing jump combinations just because he didn't want to, even though tacking on a double toeloop could mean the difference between a podium spot or not. So if Johnny isn't very specific about IJS scoring, it may be because he's never learned the rules very thoroughly himself.
Quote from: Doubletoe on November 04, 2013, 10:15:39 PM
Johnny was never one of those skaters who studied the judging system and used it strategically to his advantage. He was known for not doing jump combinations just because he didn't want to, even though tacking on a double toeloop could mean the difference between a podium spot or not. So if Johnny isn't very specific about IJS scoring, it may be because he's never learned the rules very thoroughly himself.
Agreed!!
His programs were basically big, empty '90's programs... beautiful but not so intricate...
I do like his commentary though. He is very kind to the skaters.