Notes & Tales from My U.S. Nationals
Skatephile
Last year was my very first U.S. Nationals experience -- I drove five
hours to Nashville with a friend to catch the final weekend of the men's
and ladies' free skates plus the exhibition. This year in Philadelphia, I
attended those two finals again, along with two more events (ladies'
short and pairs' free) and also managed to squeeze in a few practice
sessions and, of course, the mandatory skatefan activity of "hotel
lobby lounging." I enjoyed this year's Nationals tremendously, but still
felt I was missing out on the "complete experience" because: 1) I didn't
have an All-Event ticket, and 2) I was commuting daily (1.5 hours each
way) to my chosen events except for one night mid-week. But all in
all, I am certainly not complaining!
Here are my Personal Skating Highlights (listed in chronological order):
--Ryan Jahnke's short program run through early Monday afternoon.
Smetana's symphonic poem, "The Moldau" (River) is one of my favorite
pieces of music and Ryan's program edited together all the sections I
would have chosen. This was my one and only chance to see the
men's SPs and because it was the first practice at the competition
arena, everyone showed up.
--Michael Chack's stirring long program run through late Monday
afternoon (already alluded to in previous 'net reports) at the Convention
Center rink. I may have witnessed Michael's peak performance at
Nationals (if only...), and what a skate it was! His jumps: 3axel-2toe,
3lutz-3toe, 3flip, 2axel, second 3axel (slightly 2-footed), 3loop, 3lutz,
3sal-2toe. We 'netters applauded and cheered for him afterwards.
--Michelle Kwan's Rachmaninov short program on Thursday afternoon
gave me the chills! (I had a much closer seat for the short than for the
long and that heightened the impact considerably).
--Tiffany Stiegler's facial expression (astonishment and delight) after
she *barely* hung onto the landing of the throw triple salchow in their
enchanting long program (her back was to the ABC camera).
And here are my Significant Non-Skating Moments (also in chronological
order):
--Meeting (old and new) 'netters galore! (so sorry to have missed you in
particular, Rob M., on Thursday).
--Me to Danny Kwan as Michelle' was patiently signing a seemingly
endless stream of autographs following her late evening practice
session on Wednesday night: "You've brought up your daughter well."
He solemnly thanked me.
[Side Note: I ended up getting just four autographs total (I'm really not
into autograph seeking in general, but I've recently taken a page from a
fellow 'netters' book by having skaters sign photos I've taken of them).
That night I decided, on a lark, to get on the end of the autograph line
after Michelle's practice and see what would happen. She eventually
worked her way down to me and signed my photo (which I later gave
away to my friend who actually took the photo).]
--Catching Thursday's men's long program warmup by passively
resisting the ushers' attempts to toss a fellow 'netter and me out
following the Dance OD session (only All-Event ticket holders were
being re-admitted into the arena for the warmup and I did not want to
be stuck outside the turnstiles during it!).
--While sitting in the media section of the stands on Thursday night
(I moved down from the rafters for the final flight of men), I was
introduced to "Barret Brown from the Skating Club of Boston" whose
name sounded vaguely familiar. As I frantically racked my brain to try
and come up with something intelligent to say to this woman,
somehow -- from that vast clutter of useless skating information stored
in my head -- I came up with a nonchalant "oh right, you coached Ron
(Kravette) and Amy (Webster), right?" (Phew, I guessed right!)
--Spotting Naomi Nari Nam (Junior pewter medalist) after the men's
final -- and I just happened to have with me a photograph of her doing
a "headless" Biellmann spin from the Evening with Champions show
at Harvard last October and decided to ask her sign it. She pertly
asked my name so she could personalize my photo -- obviously she's
quite the little veteran at this by now!
--Me spontaneously to John Zimmerman in Starbuck's Coffee on
Friday afternoon: " So, will you be attending the [pairs] final tonight or
would that be too painful for you?" (ack! :-P). But he just laughed
good-naturedly and replied that he would be there rooting for his pal,
Charles Bernhard (hey, they're both IVs!).
--While engrossed in deep conversation with other 'netters outside the
Convention Center practice rink on Friday night, I suddenly heard a
rustling/bustling noise, looked up, and saw a television camera crew
bearing down upon us. I leapt nimbly out of the way and narrowly
avoided being trampled underfoot by the circus surrounding the Kwan
entourage!
--Obtaining Peggy Fleming's autograph on 2 copies of a photo I took
of her (in a nice layback during the Fassi tribute show last August)
without bothering her directly (I just handed the photos to an ABC
minion and returned to the booth later). And I was happy to see that
she took one of my extra copies for herself.
--Me to E.M. Swift of _Sports Illustrated_ (who had just been
conversing in a group of people that included Brian Boitano in a
baseball cap -- whom nobody in the crowd streaming out into the
concourse following the pairs' final seemed to recognize! -- when he
(Ed) had finished and come over to me): "I bet I'm one of the very few
skatefans who was waiting to talk to you and not Brian!" He laughed:
"You may be right!"
--Having Aren Nielsen plop down on the sofa opposite me in the lobby
lounge on Saturday afternoon. I asked him what his plans were and
he replied that he would be preparing for a pro competition in April to be
held in Spain.
--Catching Brian Wells' eye on Saturday as I was leaving the hotel and
having him smile and nod at me from a group of people (I smiled back).
Maybe he actually remembered me from our brief conversation at the
Broadmoor rink in Colorado Springs on Jan. 1st?
--Encountering Michael Chack in the concourse after the ladies' final
and obtaining, in addition to an autograph, a free skating tip from him
on the proper free leg position on jump landings ("hips square!"). My
photo he so graciously signed was of him landing a jump, and when I
complimented him on his beautiful landing postions, he told me that
when he first started with Frank Carroll, Carroll was quick to correct his
free hip as being *too* open, which apparently was one cause of his
chronic groin injuries over the years. Michael also told me that he
"still loves it" [skating] -- so I guess we'll just have to wait and see what
happens.
--And last but not least -- hearing the Speedskater get roundly booed
during the ladies' medal ceremony on Saturday night! ;-)
I think I'll just *have* to go to Worlds now!
--Sylvia
Skate...@aol.com
LyraAngel1
<<And last but not least -- hearing the Speedskater get roundly booed
during the ladies' medal ceremony on Saturday night! ;->>
Can someone please tell me -- who is the Speedskater?? :-//
"Michelle skates like an angel."
Barbara M. Kostanick
Skatephile wrote:
<snipped lots of interesting notes about a great week>
> --And last but not least -- hearing the Speedskater get roundly booed
> during the ladies' medal ceremony on Saturday night! ;-)
>
> I think I'll just *have* to go to Worlds now!
>
> --Sylvia
> Skate...@aol.com
The Speedskater doesn't sound like the kind of guy who has a sense of
humor. Anyone else worried that he may take some action that will
negatively affect our skaters because he's mad that he was booed? That
must have been mighty uncomfortable for Morry and the other USFSA folks.
Barb Kostanick
Boulder
Trish O'Brien
On Thu, 15 Jan 1998 13:23:39 -0800, "Barbara M. Kostanick" <ba...@indra.com>
wrote:
>Skatephile wrote:
>
>> --And last but not least -- hearing the Speedskater get roundly booed
>> during the ladies' medal ceremony on Saturday night! ;-)
>>
>> I think I'll just *have* to go to Worlds now!
>The Speedskater doesn't sound like the kind of guy who has a sense of
>humor. Anyone else worried that he may take some action that will
>negatively affect our skaters because he's mad that he was booed? That
>must have been mighty uncomfortable for Morry and the other USFSA folks.
Hmmm....US and Canadian Nationals going on simultaneously. How did the US get
the honor of his presence? < <sarcasm>>
Trish O'Brien
paobrien!@.ix.netcom.com
(get rid of the ! to mail me.)
John & Pat Colpitts
LyraAngel1 wrote in message
<19980115130...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
><<And last but not least -- hearing the Speedskater get roundly booed
>during the ladies' medal ceremony on Saturday night! ;->>
>
>Can someone please tell me -- who is the Speedskater?? :-//
Ottavio Cinquanta, President of the Skating Committee, ISU.
Pat C
Eda M. Tseinyev
Skatephile (Sylvia) wrote:
> --Me spontaneously to John Zimmerman in Starbuck's Coffee on
> Friday afternoon: " So, will you be attending the [pairs] final tonight or
> would that be too painful for you?" (ack! :-P). But he just laughed
> good-naturedly and replied that he would be there rooting for his pal,
> Charles Bernhard (hey, they're both IVs!).
IVs = ??? (I hesitate to guess)
> I think I'll just *have* to go to Worlds now!
It will be quite a party!
Eric C West
In article <34BE0F...@mtl.mit.edu>, Eda M. Tseinyev wrote:
>Skatephile (Sylvia) wrote:
[about John Zimmerman]
>> good-naturedly and replied that he would be there rooting for his pal,
>> Charles Bernhard (hey, they're both IVs!).
>
>IVs = ??? (I hesitate to guess)
Think Roman.
PegLewis
In article <69mnal$q9i$1...@f02s02.tac.net>, "John & Pat Colpitts"
<pcol...@t2.net> writes:
(Int'l Skating Union, the governing body of skating on ice - oversees both
speedskating (both kinds) and figure skating - the president comes from one of
the two branches, and The Speedskater is from the Other Side... and thinks he
knows ways to improve a sport he obviously knows next to nothing about, and
seems to care less about genuinely learning about it, or even pretending to be
interested in it.
This is the man who advocates having two long programs in a season, who wants
to change the scoring system so no one can be passed in the standings via
ordinal shakedowns, etc.
There is a profile of him in the recent IFS (Int'l Figure Skating) Magazine -
the one with Michelle Kwan on the cover, I believe (she is in a much nicer pose
than the one depicted on the IFS television ad, I might add).
Peg
(PegL...@aol.com)
Visit The All-Kwan Network at http://members.aol.com/AllKwanNet/index.html
Visit Ljudmillia's text archives (courtesy Don Edwards) at
http://home.swbell.net/icedance/millia.htm
SmallovianNGB site coming soon!
JM
On 17 Jan 1998 10:08:58 GMT, pegl...@aol.com (PegLewis) wrote:
>This is the man who advocates having two long programs in a season, who wants
>to change the scoring system so no one can be passed in the standings via
>ordinal shakedowns, etc.
The scoring system could stand an overhaul. In that, he's right.
Sandra Loosemore
j...@nospam.com (JM) writes:
> The scoring system could stand an overhaul. In that, he's right.
Except that the scoring system The Speedskater is trying to push down
everyone's throat is significantly more complicated than the current
system, is more prone to manipulation by erroneous marks from one or
two judges, and does not even solve the problem with flip-flops in the
standings that led him to believe a new scoring system is necessary.
Hype: Cinquanta's statement last month that "If one skater is in front
of another, he should remain there."
Reality: If the new scoring system had been in place for yesterday's
ladies short program at the European Championships, we would have seen
a skater drop two places below another skater she was originally in front
of, and move in and out of a tie with a third skater *five times* through
the course of the event.
-Sandra
JM
On 17 Jan 1998 10:39:30 -0500, Sandra Loosemore <san...@shore.net>
wrote:
>j...@nospam.com (JM) writes:
>
>> The scoring system could stand an overhaul. In that, he's right.
>
>Except that the scoring system The Speedskater is trying to push down
>everyone's throat is significantly more complicated than the current
>system, is more prone to manipulation by erroneous marks from one or
>two judges, and does not even solve the problem with flip-flops in the
>standings that led him to believe a new scoring system is necessary.
Well, then forget his. But remember that the current system sucks,
even though "we've always done it this way".
PosterBoy
j...@nospam.com (JM) writes: > On 17 Jan 1998 10:39:30 -0500, Sandra Loosemore <san...@shore.net>
But that is a major part of the point, JM.
We have NOT always "done it this way." It keeps changing..in both
major and minor ways!
Cheers.
Louis Epstein
John & Pat Colpitts (pcol...@t2.net) wrote:
:
: LyraAngel1 wrote in message
: <19980115130...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
: ><<And last but not least -- hearing the Speedskater get roundly booed
: >during the ladies' medal ceremony on Saturday night! ;->>
: >
: >Can someone please tell me -- who is the Speedskater?? :-//
:
: Ottavio Cinquanta, President of the Skating Committee, ISU.
: Pat C
President of the ISU,actually.
Louis Epstein
Skatephile (Skate...@aol.com) wrote:
:
: --Tiffany Stiegler's facial expression (astonishment and delight) after
: enchanting long program (her back was to the ABC camera).
Hmm,should a move that you're surprised to be able to finish really
be in your competitive program?
Louis Epstein
JM (j...@nospam.com) wrote:
: On 17 Jan 1998 10:39:30 -0500, Sandra Loosemore <san...@shore.net>
: wrote:
:
: >j...@nospam.com (JM) writes:
: >
: >> The scoring system could stand an overhaul. In that, he's right.
: >
: >Except that the scoring system The Speedskater is trying to push down
: >everyone's throat is significantly more complicated than the current
: >system, is more prone to manipulation by erroneous marks from one or
: >two judges, and does not even solve the problem with flip-flops in the
: >standings that led him to believe a new scoring system is necessary.
:
: Well, then forget his. But remember that the current system sucks,
: even though "we've always done it this way".
Please explain a system that you can convince us doesn't "suck".
HILL JANET SWAN
In article <34c114b8....@news.wavetech.net>, JM <j...@nospam.com> wrote:
>On 17 Jan 1998 10:39:30 -0500, Sandra Loosemore <san...@shore.net>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>Except that the scoring system The Speedskater is trying to push down
>>everyone's throat is significantly more complicated than the current
>>system, is more prone to manipulation by erroneous marks from one or
>>two judges, and does not even solve the problem with flip-flops in the
>>standings that led him to believe a new scoring system is necessary.
>
>Well, then forget his. But remember that the current system sucks,
>even though "we've always done it this way".
Well, we haven't "always done it this way". "We" used to do it in the
various ways that people often suggest (as if their proposals were new),
and abandoned them because they had problems. The current system most
emphatically does not "suck". In fact, it's rather beautiful. Not
perfect, but no system that is ever proposed as a substitute is any better
-- and many are much worse.
janet
--
Joanne Petithory
Barbara M. Kostanick wrote:
> The Speedskater doesn't sound like the kind of guy who has a sense of
> humor. Anyone else worried that he may take some action that will
> negatively affect our skaters because he's mad that he was booed? That
> must have been mighty uncomfortable for Morry and the other USFSA > folks.
Well, at the Philly airport the next day he blew right past my friends
Leigh and Emma while they were waiting in line for their turn to check
in at the United Airlines counter. Maybe he was upset over being booed.
Or maybe he's just a jerk.
- Jo.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Joanne Petithory joa...@best.com
PegLewis
>On 17 Jan 1998 10:08:58 GMT, pegl...@aol.com (PegLewis) wrote:
>
>>This is the man who advocates having two long programs in a season, who wants
>>to change the scoring system so no one can be passed in the standings
>>via ordinal shakedowns, etc.
>
>The scoring system could stand an overhaul. In that, he's right.
The ordinal system is very fair. I'd love to hear what your new, improved
system would be like. Do tell, please.
JM
On Sat, 17 Jan 1998 21:14:28 GMT, l...@put.com (Louis Epstein) wrote:
>Please explain a system that you can convince us doesn't "suck".
Already have.
JM
On 17 Jan 1998 23:28:52 GMT, hil...@spot.colorado.edu (HILL JANET
SWAN) wrote:
>Well, we haven't "always done it this way". "We" used to do it in the
>various ways that people often suggest (as if their proposals were new),
>and abandoned them because they had problems. The current system most
>emphatically does not "suck". In fact, it's rather beautiful. Not
>perfect, but no system that is ever proposed as a substitute is any better
>-- and many are much worse.
Not in the time period 1968-1998. Its been almost precisely the same
system in that time period. So, just how old ARE you? Are you
referring to pre-war or what?
JM
On 18 Jan 1998 01:02:47 GMT, pegl...@aol.com (PegLewis) wrote:
>
>The ordinal system is very fair. I'd love to hear what your new, improved
>system would be like. Do tell, please.
Why do I have to re-explain things I've already gone over. Plus, you
don't have to have a new system in place to recognize that an old one
has problems. Did the founding figures in American history have a
blueprint for the new government when they wrote the Declaration of
Independence? No, it was a critique of the old system, why it had
become intolerable.
Frankly, the critique of the old judging system is splattered all over
this news group. But maybe you missed that, too.
Revjoelle
>Frankly, the critique of the old judging system is splattered all over this
news group. But maybe you missed that, too.
First off--for someone who has missed the postings of the FAQ here--you really
aren't one to be saying people are missing stuff.
and all I have seen plastered all over the newstgroup is people complaining
about the judging when they didn't understand it, or the one they wanted to win
didn't.
Joelle
"Life is an adventure...it's not meant to be easy and I learned its not
supposed to be fair. It's what you make of it, where you take it, how you deal
with it."
Scott Hamilton
JM
On 18 Jan 1998 12:41:10 GMT, revj...@aol.com (Revjoelle) wrote:
>First off--for someone who has missed the postings of the FAQ here--you really
>aren't one to be saying people are missing stuff.
"Missed"? I didnt "miss" it, its not on the freaking server! Whereas
the messages in which I described alternatives are.
MorryS
"The ordinal system is very fair. I'd love to hear what your new, improved
system would be like. Do tell, please."
The ordinal system is one of the most effective systems of assuring fairness
and will not be changed should the "New system OBO" be accepted by the ISU
Congress. It is really not very revolutionary, it only reduces the number of
placement reversals to skaters who skate in an early part of the event by
skaters who skate later. Judges will still give their marks which will be
converted into ordinals and in all cases the majority will still prevail.
Sandra Loosemore
mor...@aol.com (MorryS) writes:
> The ordinal system is one of the most effective systems of assuring fairness
> and will not be changed should the "New system OBO" be accepted by the ISU
> Congress. It is really not very revolutionary, it only reduces the number of
> placement reversals to skaters who skate in an early part of the event by
> skaters who skate later. Judges will still give their marks which will be
> converted into ordinals and in all cases the majority will still prevail.
Re "in all cases the majority will still prevail". If you look at the
examples which I have been publishing on my web page, Morry, you will
see that this is not the case. I think you have perhaps been
misinformed by proponents of OBO who have no background in mathematics
and/or who have not taken the time to actually look at how the system
works in practice.
Simulations of the recent World Junior and European Championships have
shown that the OBO system is prone to manipulation by erroneous marks
by a single judge, in particular because the tie-breaking mechanism it
uses takes into account the average ordinals from *all* of the judges
and not just the ordinals of the judges in the majority. For example,
if you look at the simulation of the ladies' free skate from
Europeans, OBO would have put Surya Bonaly ahead of Kriztina Czako
even though a majority of judges put Czako ahead of Bonaly in a
head-to-head comparison of their marks. and the majority also had
Czako ahead of Bonaly in the current scoring system.
Moreover, after Mr. Cinquanta has gone around making statements to the
effect that he considers place-switching completely unacceptable -- he
was widely quoted as saying "If one skater is in front of another, he
should remain there" just last month -- I wonder how he would explain
the situation that would have occurred in the ladies' short program at
Europeans had OBO been used there, where one competitor would have
moved in and out of a tie no less than *5 times* and wound up *2 places*
behind a skater she had originally been in front of.
Since you seem inclined to defend OBO in public, I wish you would actually
address the specific technical criticisms I have raised about the system
instead of just mouthing platitudes about how OBO isn't such a big change
at all. My series of articles are readily available on the web; the
URLS are
http://frog.simplenet.com/skateweb/articles/score-tech.shtml
http://frog.simplenet.com/skateweb/articles/score-obo.shtml
http://frog.simplenet.com/skateweb/articles/obo-euros.shtml
By the way, if OBO had been used at Europeans, Irina Slutskaya would
have won the competition rather than Maria Butyrskaya. I rather think
this would make a difference to the athletes involved and is not just
an obscure point of theory being argued by mathemeticians.
-Sandra
Jay Gluck
>The ordinal system is one of the most effective systems of
assuring fairness
>and will not be changed should the "New system OBO" be accepted by
the ISU
>Congress. It is really not very revolutionary, it only reduces
the number of
>placement reversals to skaters who skate in an early part of the
event by
>skaters who skate later. Judges will still give their marks which
will be
>converted into ordinals and in all cases the majority will still
prevail.
>
I have gone on this ng enough expressing my disdain for the
figure skating scoring system. But I've asked this before and have
not received an answer, so I will ask it again: If the ordinal and
factored placement system is so fair, why is figure skating the
only judged sport to use it?
And let's extend the argument to non-judged sports. Why not change
the decathlon to an ordinal/factored placement competition over the
ten events (i.e. assign ordinals based on results of each
individual event), instead of accumulating points and establishing
margins of achievement in each event? Do you think that we would
then get a "fairer" result?
Jay
Barbara M. Kostanick
JM wrote:
>
> On 17 Jan 1998 10:08:58 GMT, pegl...@aol.com (PegLewis) wrote:
>
> >This is the man who advocates having two long programs in a season, who wants
> >to change the scoring system so no one can be passed in the standings via
> >ordinal shakedowns, etc.
>
> The scoring system could stand an overhaul. In that, he's right.
I have this feeling that the skating score system has less room for
improvement that you'd like, and a lot of room for making it worse. It
seems rather like the comment someone (Churchhill?) made about democracy
- something to the effect that it was a terrible system, but better than
any of the alternatives. I think that ordinals are a terrible system,
but with fewer, more manageable problems than any of the other systems
so far proposed.
Having said that, I'm also pretty comfortable that there could be many
improvements to the rulebook to provide judges and observers more
guidance on marks, and more explicit discussion of what the skating
community values.
Somehow, O.C. doesn't seem to be the one to lead this effort. On the
other hand, perhaps we could begin to be involved in rules definition for
speedskating. For one, I think that those one-piece costumes that
cover the head should definitely go. It makes them all look like space
aliens and it ruins hairdo's. Then, what about points for presentation
and style. Face it, someone who grimaces while racing just doesn't have
the presentation that someone does who doesn't. Finally, wouldn't music
add a lot to the competition?
Barb Kostanick
Boulder
Sandra Loosemore
"Barbara M. Kostanick" <ba...@indra.com> writes:
> Somehow, O.C. doesn't seem to be the one to lead this effort. On the
> other hand, perhaps we could begin to be involved in rules definition for
> speedskating. For one, I think that those one-piece costumes that
> cover the head should definitely go. It makes them all look like space
> aliens and it ruins hairdo's. Then, what about points for presentation
> and style. Face it, someone who grimaces while racing just doesn't have
> the presentation that someone does who doesn't. Finally, wouldn't music
> add a lot to the competition?
Well, I think the problem with speed skating is that it's just too
boring. All the races I see on TV look exactly the same. I propose
that they change the rules so that the skaters have to skate every
other race in the opposite direction around the track. Or, even
better, let's require each pair of skaters to go backwards in opposite
directions around the rink. That should definitely make speed skating
competitions less boring, and increase TV ratings.
-Sandra the cynic
Louis Epstein
JM (j...@wavetech.net) wrote:
: On Sat, 17 Jan 1998 21:14:28 GMT, l...@put.com (Louis Epstein) wrote:
:
: >Please explain a system that you can convince us doesn't "suck".
:
: Already have.
I don't recall our being convinced.Try again.
Louis Epstein
Sk8Maven (sk8m...@monumental.com) wrote:
: > On 17 Jan 1998 23:28:52 GMT, hil...@spot.colorado.edu (HILL JANET
: > SWAN) wrote:
: > >Well, we haven't "always done it this way". "We" used to do it in the
: > >various ways that people often suggest (as if their proposals were
: > >new), and abandoned them because they had problems. The current
: > >system most emphatically does not "suck". In fact, it's rather
: > >beautiful. Not perfect, but no system that is ever proposed as a
: > >substitute is any better -- and many are much worse.
: JM snidely and erroneously replied:
: > Not in the time period 1968-1998. Its been almost precisely the same
: > system in that time period. So, just how old ARE you? Are you
: > referring to pre-war or what?
: Yeah, right. JM, you have finally proved conclusively that you do NOT
: know what you are talking about.
:
: From 1968 to 1972, figures counted for (at least) 60% of the total
: score, and the freeskate counted for the remainder. There was no short
Wrong...figures were reduced from 60% to 50% in 1968.
(They had been reduced from 2/3 to 60% in 1905).
: program. All scores were cumulative throughout the competition, and the
: ordinals were derived only AFTER the entire competition. This worked
: very well at the 1968 Olympics, when Peggy Fleming piled up an enormous
: lead in figures and went on to win with a freeskate that was well below
: her usual standard. It worked very poorly in 1971-72, when Beatrix
: Schuba piled up huge leads in compulsory figures and went on to win with
: freeskates that were not even top-5 quality but were the best she could
: do -- and the world felt that Janet Lynn was robbed because she was a
: much better freeskater.
:
: From 1973 to 1980, figures counted for 30% of the total score, the newly
: introduced short program for 20%, and the value of the freeskate was
: increased to 50%. All scores were still cumulative through all phases of
: the competition and ordinals were still derived only at the end. This
: sometimes worked and sometimes didn't (it got Robin Cousins an Olympic
: championship but denied him a World championship, and put Anett Poetsch
: over Linda Fratianne both times).
"Worked" how?Bettered freeskaters at the expense of figure champions?
(I think there was a period in which figures were 40%)
: From 1981 to 1988, figures counted for 30%, the short program for 20%,
: and the freeskate for 50% -- but ordinals were compiled for each segment
: individually and *factorial placements* were added to derive the overall
: results. The first tiebreaker was the technical mark in both the short
: and the long programs. (The 1984 and 1988 Olympic results pointed up
: significant flaws in this system.)
:
: In 1989-90, figures were reduced to 20%, the short program was worth
: 30%, and the freeskate was worth 50%. Men were permitted to do a solo
: triple in the short program, but because there was no rule forbidding
: the repetition of a triple in this program, the top men started using
: the triple Lutz or triple Axel as *both* their solo and combination
: jumps.
:
: Since 1991, compulsory figures have been done away with.
Turned into a separate event not competed at ISU Championships.
: The short
: program is worth 1/3 of the overall score, and repeating a jump in the
: short program is forbidden. The long program is worth 2/3 of the overall
: score, and the first tiebreaker is the *presentation* mark, not the
: technical mark.
:
: This system isn't perfect either, but *no* system handles situations
: well in which the competitors have various problems and there is no
: obvious consensus as to which of three or more performed better.
:
: People who have been following professional skating competitions have
: had their noses rubbed in the problems with the "trimmed-mean" system,
: particularly when it involves two programs weighted 50-50.
:
: I strongly suggest that you go to Sandra's Skateweb page
: (http://frog.simplenet.com/skateweb) and follow her links to discussions
: of the various proposed scoring systems. The OBO system which The
: Speedskater is touting so highly has been tested and failed miserably at
: the very things he was so sure it would solve.
:
: Maven
Louis Epstein
JM (j...@nospam.com) wrote:
: On 17 Jan 1998 23:28:52 GMT, hil...@spot.colorado.edu (HILL JANET
: SWAN) wrote:
:
: >Well, we haven't "always done it this way". "We" used to do it in the
: >various ways that people often suggest (as if their proposals were new),
: >and abandoned them because they had problems. The current system most
: >emphatically does not "suck". In fact, it's rather beautiful. Not
: >perfect, but no system that is ever proposed as a substitute is any better
: >-- and many are much worse.
:
: system in that time period. So, just how old ARE you? Are you
: referring to pre-war or what?
There have been major revisions of the competitive format in
1973,1980,and 1990,and others in between.Just how young are you?
(I refer to the introduction of short programs,
elimination of consolidated ordinals,
and severance of figures and free skating)
Barbara Hoffman
Sandra Loosemore wrote:
Speedskaters should definitely be required to wear costumes. The 1500-meter
race would be much more interesting with skaters dressed as Napoleon, dying
swans, matadors and Zorba the Greek. However, if such a change in the rules
would require women to wear skirts, then men must be required to wear skirts,
also.
I think it's unfair that female figure skaters are required to wear clothes ill
suited to athletic competition. Unitards are banned as being too suggestive,
yet short skirts with several TV cameras pointed directly up the wazoo are
considered perfectly proper. I'm in favor of one-piece uniforms, at least for
the technical program. For those of us unwilling (in my case, unable) to give
up bad costumes, I suppose the freeskate could also be the freecostume.
I wouldn't mind a ban on anything that could fall off a skater onto the ice --
hairpins and clips, jewelry, sequins, beads, and those hair scrunchies (I saw
three come off during Nationals practices). Wasn't there a European
competition in which a costume came apart, scattering sequins far and wide? As
I recall, I read that at least one skater that followed fell on sequins missed
during the clean-up attempt. Precision skating is ahead of figure skating when
it comes to safety.
Barbara
(whose coworker, when told she intended to wear a tacky Tonya Harding-type
skating costume with sequins to work, said, "Again?")
"Is there anyone on this ship who even remotely looks like Satan?" - Capt. Kirk
Ann Reed
Louis Epstein wrote:
> There have been major revisions of the competitive format in
> 1973,1980,and 1990,and others in between.Just how young are you?
>
> (I refer to the introduction of short programs,
> elimination of consolidated ordinals,
> and severance of figures and free skating)
what were consolidated ordinals, and why were they eliminated?
-- Ann.
Ann Reed
Please disregard my previous question re consolidated ordinals; Bettina
and Louis answered it under another portion of this thread. (I know, I
should have read it all first. Next time . . . )
-- Ann.
Trish O'Brien
On 18 Jan 1998 15:00:12 -0500, Sandra Loosemore <san...@shore.net> wrote:
>
>Well, I think the problem with speed skating is that it's just too
>boring. All the races I see on TV look exactly the same. I propose
>that they change the rules so that the skaters have to skate every
>other race in the opposite direction around the track. Or, even
>better, let's require each pair of skaters to go backwards in opposite
>directions around the rink. That should definitely make speed skating
>competitions less boring, and increase TV ratings.
>
>-Sandra the cynic
Yeah, I know I'm tired of seeing skaters always skate the same distance all the
time. Thet should make them skate a different distance in every competition.
Skating the same race over and over isn't good television. After all, what's
important is not that a skater should do one thing really, really well, or even
become the best. Nope, above all, I must be entertained.
(Maybe Sandra's cynicism is contagious.....)
Trish O'Brien
paob...@ix.netcom.com
"Success didn't spoil me; I've always been insufferable."
--Fran Leibowitz
Jun Yan
> I have gone on this ng enough expressing my disdain for the
> figure skating scoring system. But I've asked this before and have
> not received an answer, so I will ask it again: If the ordinal and
> factored placement system is so fair, why is figure skating the
> only judged sport to use it?
OK, I haven't heard of the new scoring system, so I'll just try to
speculate the difference in judging systems between ordinals and
accumulating points. Take gynmastics for example, every program is
composed of a lot of technical moves and every such move has been assigned
a certain numerical value, so the judges have numbers to go on with.
Missing one certain move gets a definitive deduction. But you can't do
that in figure skating. How much does a triple salchow count? How much
deduction do you take for a two-footed landing of a triple lutz, how about
a hand touch down of a triple flip? Although there is relative difficulty
and values to certain moves in figure skating, there is no way we can
assign numerical values to the elements of figure skating. How much does
a footwork sequence count? We don't know, we have to compare the skaters'
individual performances because they are all different. And ice dance is
the most difficult one to judge. Without ordinal system, ice dance might
as well die now. I think ordinal system is the fairest system there could
be for figure skating as a sport.
jun
Sk8Maven
> On 17 Jan 1998 23:28:52 GMT, hil...@spot.colorado.edu (HILL JANET
> SWAN) wrote:
> >Well, we haven't "always done it this way". "We" used to do it in the
> >various ways that people often suggest (as if their proposals were
> >new), and abandoned them because they had problems. The current
> >system most emphatically does not "suck". In fact, it's rather
> >beautiful. Not perfect, but no system that is ever proposed as a
> >substitute is any better -- and many are much worse.
>
> system in that time period. So, just how old ARE you? Are you
> referring to pre-war or what?
Yeah, right. JM, you have finally proved conclusively that you do NOT
know what you are talking about.
From 1968 to 1972, figures counted for (at least) 60% of the total
score, and the freeskate counted for the remainder. There was no short
program. All scores were cumulative throughout the competition, and the
ordinals were derived only AFTER the entire competition. This worked
very well at the 1968 Olympics, when Peggy Fleming piled up an enormous
lead in figures and went on to win with a freeskate that was well below
her usual standard. It worked very poorly in 1971-72, when Beatrix
Schuba piled up huge leads in compulsory figures and went on to win with
freeskates that were not even top-5 quality but were the best she could
do -- and the world felt that Janet Lynn was robbed because she was a
much better freeskater.
From 1973 to 1980, figures counted for 30% of the total score, the newly
introduced short program for 20%, and the value of the freeskate was
increased to 50%. All scores were still cumulative through all phases of
the competition and ordinals were still derived only at the end. This
sometimes worked and sometimes didn't (it got Robin Cousins an Olympic
championship but denied him a World championship, and put Anett Poetsch
over Linda Fratianne both times).
From 1981 to 1988, figures counted for 30%, the short program for 20%,
and the freeskate for 50% -- but ordinals were compiled for each segment
individually and *factorial placements* were added to derive the overall
results. The first tiebreaker was the technical mark in both the short
and the long programs. (The 1984 and 1988 Olympic results pointed up
significant flaws in this system.)
In 1989-90, figures were reduced to 20%, the short program was worth
30%, and the freeskate was worth 50%. Men were permitted to do a solo
triple in the short program, but because there was no rule forbidding
the repetition of a triple in this program, the top men started using
the triple Lutz or triple Axel as *both* their solo and combination
jumps.
Since 1991, compulsory figures have been done away with. The short
Sk8Maven
JM wrote:
> Why do I have to re-explain things I've already gone over. Plus, you
> don't have to have a new system in place to recognize that an old one
> has problems.
Some of us missed the one and only time you deigned to explain what you
thought you were talking about. And if you are going to insist that an
existing scoring system is broken and MUST be changed, then you had
better have a good idea what you want it changed TO -- and why you think
it will work better. And don't be too dismayed when real-life tests
prove that your new idea is no better than, and quite possibly worse
than, the old way. Specific reference: The Speedskater and his bogus OBO
proposal.)
Maven
Sk8Maven
Jay Gluck wrote:
> I have gone on this ng enough expressing my disdain for the
> figure skating scoring system. But I've asked this before and have
> not received an answer, so I will ask it again: If the ordinal and
> factored placement system is so fair, why is figure skating the
> only judged sport to use it?
*No* two judged sports use the same scoring system -- have you noticed?
In most cases each scoring system evolved out of the traditions of the
sport, and there are entrenched interests opposed to any changes until
it is proven to even the most ossified intellect among them that changes
are *necessary*. Usually they only result in a modification of the
existing system (changing the scale from base-7 to base-10, for
instance), not in throwing out the scoring system and imposing a new one
from the top down.
You came onto this ng with the preconceived idea that the figure skating
scoring system was worthless, and you have not listened to any arguments
in its favor. You have apparently not bothered to research the studies
presented on Sandra's Web page (http://frog.simplenet.com/skateweb),
even though you must have seen the URL posted more than once and must
have been told that those studies were to be found there.
If you won't take the trouble to learn what you are talking about, why
should any of us take you seriously?
Maven
Sk8Maven
MorryS wrote:
> The ordinal system is one of the most effective systems of
> assuring fairness and will not be changed should the "New system OBO"
> skaters who skate in an early part of the event by skaters who skate
> later.
Nice try, Morry -- except that one actual field trial and rigorous
statistical analyses based on actual events have proved that it DOES NOT
reduce the number of placement reversals. If anything, it appears to
*increase* them.
Is Mr. Ottavio Cinquanta still prepared to foist this system on the ISU
Congress just because *he* proposed it, when he and they no longer have
any excuse for not knowing that it doesn't do what he claims? Is the ISU
Congress prepared to roll over meekly and go along with this in order to
please him? Or will we see the whole project quietly filed "for further
study" and then even more quietly forgotten?
Maven
HILL JANET SWAN
Trish O'Brien <paob...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>On 18 Jan 1998 15:00:12 -0500, Sandra Loosemore <san...@shore.net> wrote:
>
>>Well, I think the problem with speed skating is that it's just too
>>boring. All the races I see on TV look exactly the same. I propose
>>that they change the rules so that the skaters have to skate every
>>other race in the opposite direction around the track. Or, even
>>better, let's require each pair of skaters to go backwards in opposite
>>directions around the rink. That should definitely make speed skating
>>competitions less boring, and increase TV ratings.
>
>Yeah, I know I'm tired of seeing skaters always skate the same distance all the
>time. Thet should make them skate a different distance in every competition.
Well *I* want to see them skating on a figure 8. Trying not to run into
people at the intersection should add a little interest.
janet
--
Louis Epstein
HILL JANET SWAN (hil...@spot.colorado.edu) wrote:
Yeah,and let's have them practice by having to pass figure tests!
LARRY MAHON
Jennifer Rodriquez, a member of the US Olympic long track speed skating
team, was a former National Champion in figures and I believe she also
placed at Worlds in figures (this was on roller skates though). She
made the change to ice less than 2 1/2 years ago. She was had several
National placements in freestyle also (in rollerskating).
Jay Gluck
I am not familiar with the new proposed system either, so I only
concentrate my comments on the current one. (But the OBO system I
think also is based on ordinals.)
My big problem with ordinals and factored placements is that there
are equally incremental differences in score between 1st and 2nd
place, 2nd and 3rd place, etc. in each program, so there is no
measure of "margin of victory" and this, in my opinion, penalizes
those who are either just narrowly beaten out in a program, or
someone who is immensely superior to everybody else in a program.
Yes, there is no strict guideline on what jumps and spins are worth
what score (ESPECIALLY when it comes to artistic impression), but a
score still has to be posted. Perhaps there should be some
guidelines based on what has already been achieved. For example,
since Elvis Stojko has already landed a quad-triple combination in
competition, it seems to me that no man should ever get a 6.0 for
technical merit without accomplishing that feat in his program -
the benchmark has been set.
There are no specific guidelines for manouvres in synchronized
swimming, yet they use cumulative scores in that sport. And I can't
recall ever hearing major uproars about results in that sport.
(Except when the judge pushed the wrong button and entered the
wrong score, but that was a technology problem.)
Actually, I wouldn't have as much of a problem with ordinals if the
high and low were dropped for each skater (and placements be
determined based on 7 ordinals instead of 9), thus eliminating a
little bit of the bias.
Jay
PosterBoy
LARRY MAHON <lma...@sprintmail.com> writes:
> Jennifer Rodriquez, a member of the US Olympic long track speed skating
> team, was a former National Champion in figures and I believe she also
> placed at Worlds in figures (this was on roller skates though). She
> made the change to ice less than 2 1/2 years ago. She was had several
> National placements in freestyle also (in rollerskating).
Susan McDonald, another one of Canada's brightest prospects who
never made it to the top world echelon (nov., jun. champ I think, and
third in Canadian Nationals) retired from figure skating in the late
1970s.
After a two-year layoff, she decided as a "fun thing" to try
speedskating. She won so fast and often, it was scary. She felt,
however, the sport was not exciting enough..and dropped it.
Today, she says, most any proficient figure skater can excel in
speedskater, if any are so inclined.
She is cerebral, multi-talented and multi-faceted, and I tend to
accept what she says with nary a grain of salt!
Louis Epstein
PosterBoy (bra...@bigfoot.com) wrote:
I know a number of former figure skaters have won Olympic events in
speedskating...the most recent former figure skater from the USA
Olympic team was Chantal Dunn Bailey,who did not come close to medals.
Louis Epstein
Jay Gluck (jgl...@interlog.com) wrote:
:
: Actually, I wouldn't have as much of a problem with ordinals if the
: determined based on 7 ordinals instead of 9), thus eliminating a
: little bit of the bias.
The accounting rules look for a majority of ordinals...there's no way a
uniquely high or low ordinal will significantly affect a result unless
the whole panel is absurdly fractured.
Jay Gluck
In many cases, there are a number of split decisions. Perhaps this
rarely happens in first place, but for second, thrid and fourth it
most certainly does happen.
Jay
In article <En28v...@news2.new-york.net>, l...@put.com (Louis
Gerald Olchowy
In article <6a0p64$7qv$2...@news.interlog.com>, jgl...@interlog.com (Jay Gluck) writes:
|> I am not familiar with the new proposed system either, so I only
|> concentrate my comments on the current one. (But the OBO system I
|> think also is based on ordinals.)
|>
|> My big problem with ordinals and factored placements is that there
|> are equally incremental differences in score between 1st and 2nd
|> place, 2nd and 3rd place, etc. in each program, so there is no
|> measure of "margin of victory" and this, in my opinion, penalizes
|> those who are either just narrowly beaten out in a program, or
|> someone who is immensely superior to everybody else in a program.
|>
There is an indication of margin of victory...the number of votes
for a placement that you recent.
To use the actual scores of the judges would give the worst or
most-biased judges the most power. Instead of requiring five
votes to decide the competition (5 out of nine), your point is that
the single most biased judge (1 of 9) should decide the competition.
Makes a hell of a lot of sense to me!
--
Gerald
Fiona McQuarrie
My problem with the current scoring system is that the marks are forced to
serve
dual purposes - as indicators of level of performance and as ordinals.
The rulebooks for the ISU members lay out very clearly what mark
corresponds to what level of performance, and lay out deductions for
particular errors. So a mark means something in and of itself (e.g. 5.8 is
less than perfect but still pretty good). However, the scoring system also
requires judges to give marks so they serve as ordinals. So in addition to
judging the level of performance, the judge also has to award a mark that
ranks the skater against other skaters. This leads to the general
perception that the judging is biased: e.g. "that skater did great and
only got a 5.3, how come?" So what we see is judges having to jig the
marks on the 6-point scale to be able to award marks that have meanings as
ordinals as well. This doesn't work. It's also confusing to the skaters as
feedback - the rule book says what marks should be awarded for what level
of performance, but the marks that are awarded are often totally out of
line with that (e.g. someone who skates early in the draw and does really
well getting marks in the 4.9 range just because the judges need to leave
room for later skaters).
To me, this suggests that a reform of the marking system should do one of
two things:
1) junk ordinals completely, each skater gets marked on the 6 point scale
(and allowing the same mark to be awarded more than once), add up the
points, highest total wins, highest marks in presentation serve as
tiebreaker.
2) junk the 6-point scale and just have the judges award ordinals. Highest
number of ordinals wins.
Perhaps someone who knows more about the Speedskater's planned marking
system could comment on whether this "dual purpose" problem will be
avoided with the new system.
Sandra Loosemore
mcqu...@sfu.ca (Fiona McQuarrie) writes:
> Perhaps someone who knows more about the Speedskater's planned marking
> system could comment on whether this "dual purpose" problem will be
> avoided with the new system.
In a word, no. The OBO proposal is still based on marks that are
converted into ordinals, but it uses a much more complex method to
combine them into placements, that is also less resistant to
manipulation and erroneous results due to judging errors than the
current scoring system.
-Sandra
Ellyn Kestnbaum
mcqu...@sfu.ca (Fiona McQuarrie) wrote:
>My problem with the current scoring system is that the marks are forced to
>serve
>dual purposes - as indicators of level of performance and as ordinals.
>ranks the skater against other skaters. This leads to the general
>perception that the judging is biased: e.g. "that skater did great and
>only got a 5.3, how come?" So what we see is judges having to jig the
>marks on the 6-point scale to be able to award marks that have meanings as
>ordinals as well. This doesn't work. It's also confusing to the skaters as
>feedback - the rule book says what marks should be awarded for what level
>of performance, but the marks that are awarded are often totally out of
>line with that (e.g. someone who skates early in the draw and does really
>well getting marks in the 4.9 range just because the judges need to leave
>room for later skaters).
I don't see this as a serious problem. The primary purpose of the marks
in competition are as place holders for ordinals. To some degree they
also indicate a level of performance, but there is no exact correlation
between a given level and the marks the skater receives. To the extent
that a judge has clearly awarded numbers much higher or lower than
necessary to achieve the desired ranking, or that the first and second
marks are very different from each other, some additional information is
conveyed, but very little and it's subject to various interpretations.
>To me, this suggests that a reform of the marking system should do one of
>two things:
>1) junk ordinals completely, each skater gets marked on the 6 point scale
>(and allowing the same mark to be awarded more than once), add up the
>points, highest total wins, highest marks in presentation serve as
>tiebreaker.
If I understand correctly what you're proposing, this is essentially what
is done in pro competitions. But they only have 4-6 skaters to compare to
each other at a time. With more skaters it becomes more complicated --
either you allow ties all over the place, or institute some kind of
tiebreaking system. And in any case, the scores would still not have any
more specific meaning than they do now.
If skater A performs well and receives 5.3s, and skater B performs better
and receives 5.4s, what do you do with C who skates a little better than A
and a little worse than B? You have to decide she's exactly the same as A
or B on at least one of the marks, even if you don't think she was
*exactly* the same.
If the intention is to give skaters more information than just their
ordinal placements and whatever additional information unusual marks might
convey, why not have the judges give more than two marks, for each element
or type of element, or for each criterion that are now listed as a), b),
c), etc. under the first and second mark? This would give more
information and cut down on the likelihood of ties. It would also make a
lot more work for the judges and accountants, but maybe someone could try
it out and see if the extra work is worth the extra information.
>2) junk the 6-point scale and just have the judges award ordinals. Highest
>number of ordinals wins.
This *is* essentially what the ordinal system does, except it's not the
highest (or rather, lowest, don't you mean?) total of ordinals, but the
greatest majority for a place that wins. The advantage of relying on
majorities is that the judges who are out of line with the rest of the
panel have NO effect on a skater's placement until the third or fourth
tiebreaker. If you just use total ordinals of all the judges all along,
the out-of-line judges would have a significant effect right from the
beginning.
-Ellyn
Skatephile
>Skatephile (Skate...@aol.com) wrote:
>:
>: --Tiffany Stiegler's facial expression (astonishment and delight) after
>: she *barely* hung onto the landing of the throw triple salchow in their
>: enchanting long program (her back was to the ABC camera).
>
>Hmm,should a move that you're surprised to be able to finish really
>be in your competitive program?
OK then, how about surprised to be able to *save*? Happier now, Louis? ;-)
--Sylvia
Skate...@aol.com
Jay Gluck
>To me, this suggests that a reform of the marking system should do
one of
>two things:
>1) junk ordinals completely, each skater gets marked on the 6
point scale
>(and allowing the same mark to be awarded more than once), add up
the
>points, highest total wins, highest marks in presentation serve as
>tiebreaker.
>
>2) junk the 6-point scale and just have the judges award ordinals.
Highest
>number of ordinals wins.
>
>
I'm glad that someone has made my point more eloquently than I can.
I would have no problem with either of those options - either make
the scores mean something, or just post ordinals and forget the
scores.
Jay
Gerald Olchowy
Both 1) and 2) above mean that the most deviant biased judge gets
the most weight in deciding who wins...what a recipe for justice and
fairness.
--
Gerald
Jane Hunt
> Today, [Susan McDonald] says, most any proficient figure skater
> can excel in
> speedskater, if any are so inclined.
Speedskating is amazing for the stroking power that they get!
Figure skaters could try speedskating to pick up stroking
technique. (Go watch a short-track speedskating race: listen
to the blades, especially in the corners; and watch the
speed they pick up by pushing correctly.)
I can't watch figure skating _without_ comparing their
stroking technique to speedskaters now (it is only one of
the many aspects of skating that go into a good
performance).
Alexei Yagudin is a prime example of a skater who gets
incredible power and speed from simple stroking.
Jane H.
Fiona McQuarrie
Distribution:
Ellyn Kestnbaum (ekes...@students.wisc.edu) wrote:
: I don't see this as a serious problem. The primary purpose of the marks
: in competition are as place holders for ordinals. To some degree they
: also indicate a level of performance, but there is no exact correlation
: between a given level and the marks the skater receives.
[snippity snip]
If the primary purpose of marks is as place holders for ordinals, then why
bother with the marks at all? Just rank people 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
As I said, the rulebook lays out relatively clearly what level of mark is
to correspond with what level of performance. You're right that there
isn't an *exact* correlation, but there is a set standard, and there are
also prescribed deductions for errors and omissions. With all due respect
to Ellyn and other posters who've responded, no one has yet been able to
explain to me why, if there are rules that attach particular levels of
performance to particular marks (or, more accurately, ranges of marks),
the marking system simply can't add up those marks, given regardless of
where a skater ends up in the draw, and declare the person with the most
points the winner (and presentation total to act as the tiebreaker). Or
why there shouldn't be just ordinals (which is the way ISI does it, with
rankings on each element or criterion).
The problem with the current system is trying to make the marks serve two
purposes.
Cheers, Fiona
Roy Lee
Fiona McQuarrie wrote:
> <snip> As I said, the rulebook lays out relatively clearly what level
> of mark is
> to correspond with what level of performance. You're right that there
> isn't an *exact* correlation, but there is a set standard, and there
> are
> also prescribed deductions for errors and omissions. <snip>
I always thought this too - that's why I was surprised when I glanced at
the marks that were being given out at Junior Worlds last month. The
men's gold medallist got a row of 5.6s-5.8s and some of the others got
many marks in the 5-6 range. So are we saying that if we brought these
guys to Minneapolis, they would get the same range of marks and finish
that high in the standings?
Roy
Louis Epstein
Fiona McQuarrie (mcqu...@sfu.ca) wrote:
: Distribution:
: Ellyn Kestnbaum (ekes...@students.wisc.edu) wrote:
:
: : I don't see this as a serious problem. The primary purpose of the marks
: : in competition are as place holders for ordinals. To some degree they
: : also indicate a level of performance, but there is no exact correlation
: : between a given level and the marks the skater receives.
:
: [snippity snip]
:
: If the primary purpose of marks is as place holders for ordinals, then why
: bother with the marks at all? Just rank people 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
: As I said, the rulebook lays out relatively clearly what level of mark is
: to correspond with what level of performance. You're right that there
: isn't an *exact* correlation, but there is a set standard, and there are
: to Ellyn and other posters who've responded, no one has yet been able to
: explain to me why, if there are rules that attach particular levels of
: performance to particular marks (or, more accurately, ranges of marks),
: the marking system simply can't add up those marks, given regardless of
: where a skater ends up in the draw, and declare the person with the most
: points the winner (and presentation total to act as the tiebreaker). Or
: why there shouldn't be just ordinals (which is the way ISI does it, with
: rankings on each element or criterion).
:
: The problem with the current system is trying to make the marks serve two
: purposes.
But you NEED marks to come up with ordinals...otherwise,it's like taking
a pile of jumbled-up magazines and trying to put them in chronological
order without their having dates!!
And using ordinals is better than raw marks because it evenly weights
different judges' standards.
Jay Gluck
>1) junk ordinals completely, each skater gets marked on the 6
>|> point scale
>|> >(and allowing the same mark to be awarded more than once), add
up
>|> the
>|> >points, highest total wins, highest marks in presentation
serve as
>|> >tiebreaker.
>|> >
>|> >2) junk the 6-point scale and just have the judges award
ordinals.
>|> Highest
>|> >number of ordinals wins.
>|> >
>|> >
>|>
>|> I'm glad that someone has made my point more eloquently than I
can.
>|> I would have no problem with either of those options - either
make
>|> the scores mean something, or just post ordinals and forget the
>|> scores.
>|>
>
>Both 1) and 2) above mean that the most deviant biased judge gets
>the most weight in deciding who wins...what a recipe for justice
and
>fairness.
>
What do you mean? Option 2 would work exactly as the system works
right now - the only difference is that no numerical scores are
posted on the board after each skater, just ordinal numbers.
Jay
Jay Gluck
>
>But you NEED marks to come up with ordinals...otherwise,it's like
taking
>a pile of jumbled-up magazines and trying to put them in
chronological
>order without their having dates!!
>
>And using ordinals is better than raw marks because it evenly
weights
>different judges' standards.
How about this: Judges can use any marking scheme they want to rank
skaters (whether it be based on 6.0 or 600.0 if they want), but the
only number posted to the public is the ordinal. We can let the
computer figure those out quite easily, because no matter what
scale of marks each judge uses the most important thing is
relative ranking. But there is no point in posting scores that have
no absolute meaning.
Jay
PosterBoy
jgl...@interlog.com (Jay Gluck) writes: > >
> How about this: Judges can use any marking scheme they want to rank
> skaters (whether it be based on 6.0 or 600.0 if they want), but the
> only number posted to the public is the ordinal. We can let the
> computer figure those out quite easily, because no matter what
> scale of marks each judge uses the most important thing is
> relative ranking. But there is no point in posting scores that have
> no absolute meaning.
But, Jay, if you handled it this way, would you give an Ordinal
for EACH of Tech and Presentation? If not, and if you are not showing
Tech and Presentation marks, then the "public" is not aware of "why"
the judge has awarded the Ordinal. As in... Elvis, under current method,
might have 5.8, 5.6; Todd 5.5, 5.8. Your Ordinal, alone, would not
indicate the judge had felt that Elvis had done better at "his thing"
than Todd at his.
Also, it would take away one more portion of judging "accountability"
from the public, IMO.
Cheers.
Ellyn Kestnbaum
jgl...@interlog.com (Jay Gluck) wrote:
>How about this: Judges can use any marking scheme they want to rank
>skaters (whether it be based on 6.0 or 600.0 if they want), but the
>only number posted to the public is the ordinal. We can let the
OK. How do you post ordinals to the public?
Skater C skates and what is posted is where the judges have ranked her so
far:
1 1 2 3 1 1 3 2 1
So she's in first place of those three skaters.
Then more skaters skate and most of the judges rank most of them in front
of the first three skaters. In fact, if we're talking about a long
program in which nobody ends up placing lower than anyone who skated in an
earlier warmup group, you're never going to see any ordinals posted that
are lower than 6.
So how do you keep track of how skater C's ordinals by the end of the
competition have changed to:
22 22 19 22 21 20 21 21 19 ?
>computer figure those out quite easily, because no matter what
>scale of marks each judge uses the most important thing is
>relative ranking. But there is no point in posting scores that have
>no absolute meaning.
It gives you an easier way to keep track of who each judge has in front of
who, plus a little more information about the approximate standard of
performance. Why are either of those bad things? Just as long as you
understand that it's the ordinals at the end of the competition that
matter.
-Ellyn
Ellyn Kestnbaum
mcqu...@sfu.ca (Fiona McQuarrie) wrote:
>If the primary purpose of marks is as place holders for ordinals, then why
>bother with the marks at all? Just rank people 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
Why not use place holders, if it makes it easier to keep track?
>As I said, the rulebook lays out relatively clearly what level of mark is
>to correspond with what level of performance. You're right that there
>isn't an *exact* correlation, but there is a set standard, and there are
>also prescribed deductions for errors and omissions. With all due respect
>to Ellyn and other posters who've responded, no one has yet been able to
>explain to me why, if there are rules that attach particular levels of
>performance to particular marks (or, more accurately, ranges of marks),
>the marking system simply can't add up those marks, given regardless of
>where a skater ends up in the draw, and declare the person with the most
>points the winner (and presentation total to act as the tiebreaker). Or
1. Because the correlations are not exact. You would need a lot more than
two marks with 60 increments each to cover the entire range of skating
ability from beginners to world champions. If you did try to set limits
on exactly what the numbers mean within that range, in any given
competition, if the level of ability is similar among the skaters, you'd
end up using a very small range of numbers. Maybe you have 14 skaters in
an intermediate ladies final round at a U.S. regional competition and
their abilities would all be equal to at least 3.5 and not as good as 4.0,
few of them make serious mistakes on their double jumps or do anything
distinguishing like landing a clean double axel or triple jump -- if the
five best are similar enough that they all meet the same standard and
deserve the same scores and no higher, how do you determine which four
deserve to advance to sectionals?
2. What do you do if two skaters get exactly the same total in both marks?
What do you do if three or more skaters get exactly the same total? If
judges are not *trying* to rank the skaters but are simply trying to
compare them to an approximate standard, you will have multiple ties,
including for the top places.
>why there shouldn't be just ordinals (which is the way ISI does it, with
>rankings on each element or criterion).
ISI uses closed marking, doesn't it?, as do almost all USFSA competitions
below junior level. That doesn't mean the judges aren't using marks to
keep track for themselves -- the marks just aren't posted. Nor are the
ordinals posted until after the competition is over. This would be fine
at higher levels as well, except that traditionally marks (with their
implied ordinals that you have to figure out from them unless you have a
computer display, and that keep changing with each additional skater) have
been displayed for high-level competitions after each skater. If you're
willing to give up that information as the competition progresses, it
would be fine not to post marks and let judges use any system they like to
figure out their own ordinals. But do you really want to give up that
additional, albeit inexact, information?
>The problem with the current system is trying to make the marks serve two
>purposes.
It's *not* a problem unless you refuse to acknowledge that the primary
purpose is to rank the skaters, and any additional information about level
of performance is secondary.
-Ellyn
Gerald Olchowy
Wrong...the ordinals are not summed...the person who accumulates
five of nine judges votes is placed ahead. If you summed the
ordinals from nine judges as you suggest, a deviant judge could
mean that the decision of less than five judges could decide
the outcome, and a person who was preferred by the majority
of judges would lose.
--
Gerald
Gerald Olchowy
In article <6a6k7i$5ej$2...@news.interlog.com>, jgl...@interlog.com (Jay Gluck) writes:
|>
|> How about this: Judges can use any marking scheme they want to rank
|> skaters (whether it be based on 6.0 or 600.0 if they want), but the
|> only number posted to the public is the ordinal. We can let the
|> computer figure those out quite easily, because no matter what
|> scale of marks each judge uses the most important thing is
|> relative ranking. But there is no point in posting scores that have
|> no absolute meaning.
|>
It is only an INTERIM ordinal...the actual ordinal is not known
until all skaters have skated...which is why it is appropriate to
post both the marks and the INTERIM ordinal.
The marks are also required because of the tie-breaking system...
the technical mark in the short, and the presentation mark in the long.
--
Gerald
Louis Epstein
Fiona McQuarrie (mcqu...@sfu.ca) wrote:
: Louis Epstein (l...@put.com) wrote:
: (inadvertent snip about marks being needed to come up with ordinals)
:
: No you don't. You rank the skaters based on their overall performance in
: relation to each other. The person who was best ends up first. The person
: who was next best ends up second. And so on.
And how are those performances measured?With marks!!!
You determine ordinals by comparing marks.
Louis Epstein
Organization: Putnam Internet Services
Distribution:
Fiona McQuarrie (mcqu...@sfu.ca) wrote:
: Ellyn Kestnbaum (ekes...@students.wisc.edu) wrote:
: [very good arguments snipped]
:
: : It's *not* a problem unless you refuse to acknowledge that the primary
: : purpose is to rank the skaters, and any additional information about level
: : of performance is secondary.
:
: Ellyn, I'm not refusing to acknowledge it - the rules refuse to
: acknowledge it. As long as the rules set out standards about which levels
: of performance roughly correspond to which marks (and I fully agree with
: your point about how the marks can't possibly cover the range of
: performance), that creates an expectation that the marks somehow reflect
: the level of performance. If the purpose of the marks is just to rank the
: skaters, then the rules shouldn't be set up in a way that "pretends" the
: level of performance relates to the marks.
No,you should do your best to use the system for both purposes.
Fiona McQuarrie
Louis Epstein (l...@put.com) wrote:
: And how are those performances measured?With marks!!!
: You determine ordinals by comparing marks.
Sure, and ranking someone 1, 2, 3, etc. is a mark. By rating someone 1 and
someone 2, you're measuring their performances and saying that the person
who got 1 had a better performance than the person who was rated 2.
Cheers, Fiona
Fiona McQuarrie
Louis Epstein (l...@put.com) wrote:
: : As long as the rules set out standards about which levels
: : of performance roughly correspond to which marks (and I fully agree with
: : your point about how the marks can't possibly cover the range of
: : performance), that creates an expectation that the marks somehow reflect
: : the level of performance. If the purpose of the marks is just to rank the
: : skaters, then the rules shouldn't be set up in a way that "pretends" the
: : level of performance relates to the marks.
: No,you should do your best to use the system for both purposes.
I can't disagree with this, but the way the system is set up this isn't
really working (IMHO).
Cheers, Fiona
Ellyn Kestnbaum
mcqu...@sfu.ca (Fiona McQuarrie) wrote:
>Ellyn Kestnbaum (ekes...@students.wisc.edu) wrote:
>[very good arguments snipped]
>
>: It's *not* a problem unless you refuse to acknowledge that the primary
>: purpose is to rank the skaters, and any additional information about level
>: of performance is secondary.
>
>Ellyn, I'm not refusing to acknowledge it - the rules refuse to
>of performance roughly correspond to which marks (and I fully agree with
>your point about how the marks can't possibly cover the range of
>performance), that creates an expectation that the marks somehow reflect
>the level of performance. If the purpose of the marks is just to rank the
>skaters, then the rules shouldn't be set up in a way that "pretends" the
>level of performance relates to the marks.
They don't pretend that the level of performance relates to the marks in a
very specific way in my (USFSA) rulebook. The only place where the
meanings of the numbers are specified is under "Marking of Figures" --
0=not skated, 1.0=very poor, 2.0=poor, 3,0=mediocre, 4.0=good, 5.0=very
good, 6.0=perfect and faultless -- although in practice the same meanings
are applied to other disciplines and we know that in freestyle 6.0 doesn't
always mean "perfect and faultless." We're also told there that decimals
are allowed to one place. But these meanings are fairly vague to begin
with, and adding a decimal place doesn't really clarify things very much
-- how exactly do we define the increment of one-tenth between "good" and
"very good," for instance?
Specific numbers are mentioned elsewhere in relation to deductions and to
passing standards for tests. But even with tests, the increments are not
specified. If the passing standard for a test is 3.0 and a skater
performs clearly better than what's expected at that level, does it matter
whether a judge gives her 3.1/3.1, 3.2/3.2, 3.1/3.3, or some other
combination of marks? Any such combination would indicate that she passes
the test and performed better than the minimum level necessary to do so.
Similarly, if she falls on every other element and stands around in
between looking as if she wishes someone would stop the test, does it
matter whether her marks are 2.7s or 2.0s or 1.0s? She knows she wasn't
even close to passing.
>I think also that marks are *supposed* to serve the purpose of giving
>feedback to the skaters on their performance. If you get deductions that
>are reflected in your mark, that's a signal that you need to improve or
>change something. So there again the marks serve the purpose of reflecting
>performance rather than ranking.
But we've seen how inexact they can be -- there are so many criteria
involved in each mark that just because someone gets higher presentation
than technical marks doesn't really tell us (or the skater) *what* the
difference is supposed to signify. Even in a short program, if a skater's
first mark is 0.3 lower than the second, does that mean she had exactly
0.3 worth of deductions? Did she have fewer deductions and her
presentation mark would have been higher than the required elements in any
case? Did she have more deductions (a required 0.4 off for a fall, for
instance, plus maybe another small one) and her presentation mark would
have been lower than the first one had she skated clean? Did the judge
decide to lower the presentation mark as well as the RE mark? If so, was
it because the errors were disruptive to the presentation of the program?
Or because two other skaters already had similar totals and the judge
needed to come up with the correct total, perhaps including tiebreaker, to
slot this skater in between them?
If the marks were really designed to give as much information as possible,
there would have to be more than two marks, I think.
-Ellyn
Jeff Goldsmith
Jay Gluck wrote:
> How about this: Judges can use any marking scheme they want to rank
> skaters (whether it be based on 6.0 or 600.0 if they want), but the
> only number posted to the public is the ordinal. We can let the
> computer figure those out quite easily, because no matter what
> scale of marks each judge uses the most important thing is
> relative ranking. But there is no point in posting scores that have
> no absolute meaning.
So what do you show when the skater is done performing?
After the first skater is done, the ordinals will be
1 1 1 1 1 1 ... not too helpful, I'm afraid.
--Jeff
--
# Calvin: It says here that "religion is the opiate of
# the masses." ...what do you suppose that means?
# Television: ...it means Karl Marx hadn't seen anything yet.
# --Watterson
# ---
# http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff
Louis Epstein
Fiona McQuarrie (mcqu...@sfu.ca) wrote:
You seem to think this can be done without measuring them and then
comparing the measurements.I differ strenuously.
Gerald Olchowy
In article <6a8m6t$c54$2...@morgoth.sfu.ca>, mcqu...@sfu.ca (Fiona McQuarrie) writes:
|>
|> I can't disagree with this, but the way the system is set up this isn't
|> really working (IMHO).
|>
You must still be a youngster if you don't remember the pre-ordinal-system
days when skaters were routinely screwed by one or two bad judges on a
panel.
Without the ordinal system, figure skating essentially becomes the WWF.
--
Gerald
Sandra Loosemore
golc...@nortel.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
> You must still be a youngster if you don't remember the pre-ordinal-system
> days when skaters were routinely screwed by one or two bad judges on a
> panel.
The ordinal system has been in use at least since the days when Dick Button
was competing.
Perhaps the thing you are thinking of is that, prior to 1981, the
ordinals used to be computed after adding the weighted marks from each
judge from all phases of the competition, instead of independently for
each competition phase. But this still didn't allow "one or two bad
judges" to skew the results. More typically, the results were skewed
by the fact that compulsory figures were judged using a wider range of
marks than the free skating.
-Sandra
Louis Epstein
Sandra Loosemore (san...@shore.net) wrote:
: golc...@nortel.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
:
: > You must still be a youngster if you don't remember the pre-ordinal-system
: > days when skaters were routinely screwed by one or two bad judges on a
: > panel.
:
: The ordinal system has been in use at least since the days when Dick Button
: was competing.
It was how Magda Julin won the 1920 Olys too...a majority for second,
despite no firsts,when nobody else had a majority for first OR second.
: Perhaps the thing you are thinking of is that, prior to 1981, the
Marie L. Hughes
----------
In article <EMzxH...@news2.new-york.net>, l...@put.com (Louis Epstein)
wrote:
>JM (j...@wavetech.net) wrote:
>: On Sat, 17 Jan 1998 21:14:28 GMT, l...@put.com (Louis Epstein) wrote:
>:
>: >Please explain a system that you can convince us doesn't "suck".
>:
>: Already have.
>
>I don't recall our being convinced.Try again.
Noooooooooo! Please don't! :)
Marie
----------------------------------------------
"I'm in favor of love as long as it doesn't happen when 'The Simpsons' is on
television. - Anita, age 6"
hug...@marie.org http://www.marie.org
marie_...@intuit.com http://www.quicken.com