Even with IJS, wide variation in scoring!

[jumpingbeansmom]

My dd has now been to two competitions at Juvenile and the scores overall were so different-  meaning, at one competition they were generally lower, lots of GOE deductions and spins not counted etc, and at another, the scores were overall several points higher (generally) and now I am seeing that at the regionals that are starting to post on icenetwork.com, some of the regions had what seemed to be high-ish scores comparatively. 

I guess I didn't expect that and now I see why one of the other parents (whose dd is intermediate) at the rink was saying how she didn't like the system at Mid-Atlantics where they took the top 2 from each group and then the 6 highest scores-- there seems to be quite a difference depending on the judging panel.

[Skittl1321]

This is why they say that scores cannot be compared from one competition to another (and why qualifying rounds take the 3 highest of the group, and not the 10 best, for example).  Because when the panel changes, the scores change.  Sounds like mid-atlantics did a little of both to be as fair as possible- the best of the group (where even if the scores were low it may have been due to "tough" judges) and the highest total (so if a draw resulted in "hard" groups the skaters weren't penalized.

What matters is that within any event that the panel judges the scores should be more consistent than 6.0- because the elements performed are scored for what they are and there is no necessity to "hold a place" in the ordinals should something better come along.  So if say UGL had super low scores, it could mean the panel is tough, or it could mean they are in for a tough time at sectionals

[drskater]

ITA! I looked at the scores for Northwest Pacific (that is for Juvenile and higher) and was amazed at how high the scores were for the top placers.

[jumpingbeansmom]

ITA! I looked at the scores for Northwest Pacific (that is for Juvenile and higher) and was amazed at how high the scores were for the top placers.

Actually some of the groups for one of the just finished regionals had pretty high scores.  At another competition, my dd was in a group with another youngish girl who was also new to juvenile.   They place literally right next to each other at the non-regional competition- both square in the middle of the pack which seemed right to me.    So for regionals this other little girl managed over 30 points with no jump better than a double toe (which was downgraded in both instances) and ended with a 6 points in component higher compared to the last time.  I mean, how much better could skating skills, interpretation and transitions be in 2 weeks?   6 points is huge difference!

To me, I was stunned to see how different the emphasis can be from judging panel to judging panel. 

[fsk8r]

Actually some of the groups for North Atlantics had pretty high scores.  At Mids, my dd was in a group with another youngish girl who was also new to juvenile.   They place literally right next to each other at Mids- both square in the middle of the pack which seemed right to me.    So for regionals this girl managed 33 points with no jump better than a double toe (which was downgraded in both instances) and ended with 18 points in component compared to barely making 12 at mids for component.  I mean, how much better could skating skills, interpretation and transitions be in 2 weeks?   6 points is huge difference!

To me, I was stunned to see 33 for 2 double sals and two cheater double toes!

I've been told that different competitions weight PCS differently. Could that have been the case?
Otherwise it's down to how the judges found the skating. Different judges, different marks. I've heard the PCS mark described as a way for the judges to rank skaters when there's not a high elements mark differentiating them.

[jumpingbeansmom]

I've been told that different competitions weight PCS differently. Could that have been the case?
Otherwise it's down to how the judges found the skating. Different judges, different marks. I've heard the PCS mark described as a way for the judges to rank skaters when there's not a high elements mark differentiating them.

I don't know-  I am really new to IJS generally.   

[kssk8fan]

I'm not sure the rules about identifying information - based on your description it was pretty easy to find this skaters results.  Personally, I would hedge on identifying info....the parent of that skater may be a poster.   With that said - this skater that you mentioned obtained a level 3 spin, and a level 2 footwork.  Level 2 footwork is VERY hard for skaters to achieve especially at the juvenile level.  If you look at the group, this skater had the third highest PCS scores of the group.  It has become very apparent that the judges are rewarding aesthetically pleasing programs that the skaters themselves can do well, over program packed with difficulty that the skaters struggle through.  It's not just about the jumps anymore.  It's about the overall package.

If a double lutz is under-rotated or  doesn't meet the positive GOE bullets for whatever reason, it's probably won't be worth as much as a double toe that gets +3's across the board and comes at the end of a program.  A level 2 footwork sequence with 0's or positive GOE's could be  worth more than a not so good double axel!   Skating skills are so much more important now than ever before.  

"Do what you can do and do it well".....I think this is what the judges are trying to tell us, over and over and over again!!!!

[jumpingbeansmom]

I'm not sure the rules about identifying information - based on your description it was pretty easy to find this skaters results.  Personally, I would hedge on identifying info....the parent of that skater may be a poster.   With that said - this skater that you mentioned obtained a level 3 spin, and a level 2 footwork.  Level 2 footwork is VERY hard for skaters to achieve especially at the juvenile level.  If you look at the group, this skater had the third highest PCS scores of the group.  It has become very apparent that the judges are rewarding aesthetically pleasing programs that the skaters themselves can do well, over program packed with difficulty that the skaters struggle through.  It's not just about the jumps anymore.  It's about the overall package.

If a double lutz is under-rotated or  doesn't meet the positive GOE bullets for whatever reason, it's probably won't be worth as much as a double toe that gets +3's across the board and comes at the end of a program.  A level 2 footwork sequence with 0's or positive GOE's could be  worth more than a not so good double axel!   Skating skills are so much more important now than ever before.  

"Do what you can do and do it well".....I think this is what the judges are trying to tell us, over and over and over again!!!!

Sorry you are right about that-- I fixed it to be a little less specific...I am just learning how different the scoring can be.  I know it isn't and shouldn't be all about jumps, but it doesn't seem to be the case necessarily at all competitions, which was the 'wow' to my post- the variance in what they are looking at and liking seems so different.   I did notice the spins and footwork and yes the program is very aesthetically pleasing..I liked it alot myself!  I am glad to see it rewarded, but it wasn't really rewarded at the previous competition it seems.

[Sk8tmum]

I'm not sure what your detail reports look like. The ones that I get have each individual judge's individual scoring of each element. Looking at them, I sometimes wonder if the judges were watching the same program ... the most amazing one was a range of 3.75 down to 1.75 for skating skills.  However, as long as a judge is consistent from skater to skater, it will even out as all are equally impacted.

Spins seem to be a point this year. Some comps are calling them strictly and by the new rules - the slightest divergence above the horizontal on Sit for example will result in a call of Upright instead of Sit - others are slightly more generous.  Again, as long as it's consistent skater to skater ...

In terms of how much growth you can have in six weeks: it can be huge. At the young ages, things can suddenly "click" which have been missing or worked on for a long time. Also, the first skate could have been on a day when the skater was contending with illness, new skates, new blades, a rough spot they hit on the ice ... and the second skate could have been at their "normal" level. As an example; my kid had a pulled muscle, thus, couldn't get down in the sits properly, or extend on the camel very well; 4 weeks later, when healed, the spins were back, and the points jumped, as did the skating skills scores, as the ability to stroke, interpret and do the transitions was far higher healthy than injured.

[jumpingbeansmom]

I'm not sure what your detail reports look like. The ones that I get have each individual judge's individual scoring of each element. Looking at them, I sometimes wonder if the judges were watching the same program ... the most amazing one was a range of 3.75 down to 1.75 for skating skills.  However, as long as a judge is consistent from skater to skater, it will even out as all are equally impacted.

Spins seem to be a point this year. Some comps are calling them strictly and by the new rules - the slightest divergence above the horizontal on Sit for example will result in a call of Upright instead of Sit - others are slightly more generous.  Again, as long as it's consistent skater to skater ...

In terms of how much growth you can have in six weeks: it can be huge. At the young ages, things can suddenly "click" which have been missing or worked on for a long time. Also, the first skate could have been on a day when the skater was contending with illness, new skates, new blades, a rough spot they hit on the ice ... and the second skate could have been at their "normal" level. As an example; my kid had a pulled muscle, thus, couldn't get down in the sits properly, or extend on the camel very well; 4 weeks later, when healed, the spins were back, and the points jumped, as did the skating skills scores, as the ability to stroke, interpret and do the transitions was far higher healthy than injured.

We went to one of those tough competitions with the spins, and my dd lost points on one spin and got nothing on another at all--- it was a great lesson though and she has been really watching those positions in practice-- she was capable of it then, but was apparently not concentrating on it until she saw those scores!  Those are a wide variation in component scores for sure-- and yes, they were higher overall at the regional competition with winners having in the 4 rather than the 3 range.   

My dd's first time out for juvenile, she literally got lost on the ice and her component scores were (rightfully) awful-- then the next competition where she executed really well, they were only slightly higher-- and this was the same pattern of the competitions overall.  I just never thought of it until I saw it play out!

[fsk8r]

I'm not sure what your detail reports look like. The ones that I get have each individual judge's individual scoring of each element. Looking at them, I sometimes wonder if the judges were watching the same program ... the most amazing one was a range of 3.75 down to 1.75 for skating skills.  However, as long as a judge is consistent from skater to skater, it will even out as all are equally impacted.

Isn't there some sort of questioning of the judges if they deviate too far from the mean? It's quite possible for one judge to see something and another at a different angle to see something else, but I'm sure there's a bit where they have to justify if they're too far out from the others. It's a way of checking that they're all following the same guidelines to try and make the marks slightly more consistent across competitions (whilst it's always going to be subjective to a certain extent).

[techskater]

Yes, it's called the judging corridor, but too much is made of that. 

[Doubletoe]

This is why they say that scores cannot be compared from one competition to another (and why qualifying rounds take the 3 highest of the group, and not the 10 best, for example).  Because when the panel changes, the scores change.  Sounds like mid-atlantics did a little of both to be as fair as possible- the best of the group (where even if the scores were low it may have been due to "tough" judges) and the highest total (so if a draw resulted in "hard" groups the skaters weren't penalized.

What matters is that within any event that the panel judges the scores should be more consistent than 6.0- because the elements performed are scored for what they are and there is no necessity to "hold a place" in the ordinals should something better come along.  So if say UGL had super low scores, it could mean the panel is tough, or it could mean they are in for a tough time at sectionals

Exactly.

[jumpingbeansmom]

Exactly.

I can see it now...interesting and good to know!