Talk:ISU Judging System

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Need for sources[edit]

I have a problem with this statement: "Another problem is that the new system excessively constrains the content of skaters' programs and reduces creativity." An example, quote, source, or explanation would be nice. This is far from neutral and remains pure opinion as it is. --MuskMelon 21:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that much of the article lacks sources. --Fang Aili talk 03:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also needs some history info (COP was initially developed by the Canadians). Looking for sources...—Pelladon 23:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK?[edit]

Would one of you like to write something up for DYK? I'm going out of town for most of the weekend. --Fang Aili talk 03:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Plushenko-protocol.jpg[edit]

Image:Plushenko-protocol.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

changes to code of points?[edit]

there shoudl be a section on the changes made to COP and its evolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.142.117.145 (talk) 19:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear sentence on GOE[edit]

This sentence is unclear: The GOE value from the nine judges is then averaged by randomly selecting seven judges, discarding the high and low value, and averaging the remaining seven.

If seven out of nine judges are chosen at random, and the highest and lowest figures are discarded, then that only leaves only five judges' marks to be averaged, not seven as stated in the last word of the sentence.

Mandolamus (talk) 17:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rule 353(c) of the 2012 ISU rules suggests that the random elimination isn't done for a nine-judge panel: "The panel's Grade of Execution (GOE) is determined by calculating the trimmed mean of the numerical values of the Grades of Execution awarded by the maximum of nine (9) Judges." ("trimmed mean" being the mean after excluding the highest and lowest values) --Achurch (talk) 10:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to Ice Dancing Scoring Post-2010[edit]

I don't know enough about the changes to the Ice Dancing scoring procedures as connected with the switch from Compulsory Dance + Original Dance + Free Dance to Short Dance + Free Dance to change the section about scoring in Ice Dance, but the change was made for the 2010-2011 season and the 2014 Olympics will be contested under this new system. People may start coming to this page to learn more about how Ice Dancing is actually judged and not get the right information. Can someone better informed about the technical level of skating judging update this? Metheglyn (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on ISU Judging System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Component Factoring sexist?[edit]

I'm wondering why the component factors are greater for men than for women or pairs. I can't find any rationale for it, and I suspect it's just to make the men's scores look greater than the women's. Does anyone know the answer to this?Scottlape (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The idea behind factoring in the ladies', men's and pairs events is to make the PCS level with the technical score, hence granting equal importance to each. Since the perfect PCS is always 50, this number is factored to roughly equal what each discipline is capable of scoring in the technical score. For example, in the senior ladies short program, women today are capable of scoring around 40 in the technical score, so the program components are factored by 0.8, lowering the 50 down to a 40, leveling the importance of the technical score and the PCS. In the senior men's short program, men today are capable of scoring around 50 in the technical score, so the factor is set at 1.0, keeping the PCS at a maximum of 50. In the senior men's free skate, men today are capable of scoring around 100 in the technical score, so the program components are factored by 2.0, raising the 50 up to 100, and again leveling the technical score and the PCS, while women today are capable of scoring around 80 hence the factor of 1.6. See reference[1].
So, yes it is to do with relative capabilities of men and women, some might call it sexist, but IMHO it's more a matter of natural physicality. Rodney Baggins (talk) 07:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Men used to only do one or two quad jumps, but now they are doing triple axels and up to six quads in their programs so their PCS is being totally swamped by the technical score. Ideally, the PCS and technical scores should carry equal weighting but because the technical score is now a lot higher than the PCS you end up with the situation where a boring robotic skater with no performance skills still scores really well. However, most people think the best all-round skater should score the highest so the PCS has to be factored up to match the technical score.
Next year, the ISU are likely to reduce the value of some technical elements (mainly quads and the triple Axel), remove a jumping pass from the men and making the men's free program the same length as the ladies'. They're changing GOE to -5 to +5 where each GOE point counts for +/- 10% of the base value. In theory a perfectly executed +5 GOE jump will score more than a poor quad with a -5 GOE. There's some debate as to whether the reduction in program time will actually hinder the performance side of things as the skaters will have less time to fit the artistic skating in, even without the extra jumping pass. Some people think the time reduction is a bad idea. Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://iceskatingresources.org/ISUJudging.html

replaced the previous 6.0 system in 2004 ? NOT[edit]

In the 2004 Golden Spin of Zagreb held in November, the 6.0 system was still used. (source: official results). New system was used in (November) 2005 (official results) I see that new system was used in 03–04 and 04–05 Grand Prix of Figure Skating Final.

This need further explanation. Was the first season optional for some competitions? What was the first season new system was implemented (03–04 or 04–05)? 89.201.177.210 (talk) 11:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Olympics controversy and "saving points" in short program (2002,2010)[edit]

I believe it should be covered in the article. If was felt by a part of the figure skating community that Lysacek did not deserve the win, that the win was stolen from Plushenko by the judges. "Olympic champion [Lysacek] doesn't know how to do jump quad".
There are two things to consider. Were their programs judged by the book? Are difficult jumps (quad) given enough credit in this new rulebook when compared to less challenging transitions and such.
There is also a third problem which was mentioned by Plushenko at that time: "“I [Plushenko] did a great short program but didn’t get the marks I deserved. When I asked why they told me I was skating early and they had to retain top marks for the last group,” he said." this is similar to 2002 Olympics scandal: "“We’d seen this before. In 2002 Irina Slutskaya unfairly was placed second in the short program so that Sarah Hughes could get a better shot at winning the gold,” Alexei Vasilyev said." [1] [2] 89.201.177.210 (talk) 13:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

men v women differences in rulebook[edit]

There are banned elements that are the same for men and women singles competition. But there are also differences, one being " women are not allowed to do quads in the short program". There could be more. This is bad for female skaters who can do quads. I believe those differences should be covered in this article. [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Setenzatsu.2 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Section headings updated[edit]

I strongly recommend to use the official terminology and abbreviations introduced by the International Skating Union, both for the section headings as well as the prose content. The correct terms for judges' scores, which you find in every ISU result table and PDF document, are the following:

I created redirects for TES, PCS, and GOE, which are often linked in figure skating articles. If you want to link "TES" in an article, you can use [[Technical Element Score|TES]]. It navigates you directly to the respective section of this article.

Important note: Terms such as "technical score", "presentation score" or "artistic score" are all unofficial (even incorrect) and should NOT be used in encyclopedic articles.

Henni147 (talk) 17:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ISU_Judging_System&oldid=1214863557"