Skate scoring is F***ed up.

[mrisch[$]]

Now, let me start by saying that I a) thought Sarah Hughes skated the best program tonight and b) Michelle Kwan did not do so well.

That said,

Michelle Kwan wins the short, Hughes in 4th

Hughes is 1, Kwan is 2 in the long, but head to head, Kwan is still beating Hughes. Fair enough - after all, the short should mean something.

So, Slutskaya comes in, and beats Kwan. So shouldn't she then win Gold? After all, she did better than Hughes on the short as well, right?

The fact that Person C can move Person B ahead of Person A seems backward to me.

This, by the way, is a live demonstration of Arrow's impossibility theorem, which says that it is quite possible to have deadlock if people vote by ordered preferences. Yet somehow ice skating thinks it can escape this destiny.

[conradd]

I hope this explanation makes sense. Medal placement has more to do with the way the placements are weighted since the free program counts twice as much as the short program.

The factored scores after the short program were:

First - Michelle Kwan - .5
Second - Irena Slutskaya - 1.0
Fourth - Sarah Hughes - 2.0

The short program counted for 1/3 of the total score. The free program counts 2/3; in the case of a points tie, the ice skater with the lowest free program score wins.

The factored placements of the free program were:

First - Sarah Hughes - 1.0 (Total - 3.0)
Second - Irena Slutskaya - 2.0 (Total 3.0)
Third - Michelle Kwan - 3.0 (Total 3.5)

Although Sarah and Irena tied in total points, the 2/3 weighting of the free program gave Sarah the gold.

This is the way I understand it - anyone who has a better understanding is welcome to correct me.

Deb

[wivabef]

Deb!

I wish there were an icon for "we're not worthy! we're not worthy!"

That is the best way it has EVER been described.

Thanks!

[mrisch[$]]

Thanks for the explanation, and yes, this doesn't work for me. It means that Michelle Kwan could have beat the pants of competitors in the Short, and barely lost the long, and all of a sudden she is way down.

It also means that Slutskaya, who was 4th! on two cards doesn't have those low scores really count against her because she goe enough firsts. I think it is weak system - it led to the pairs controversy, and it doesn't have me convinced here either.

[frazzledspice]

I've given up trying to understand the judging process.

I would have liked to have seen Michelle Kwan take the gold, but I'd been rooting for Sara Hughes to take the silver. She was my sentimental favorite--an Irish Catholic girl from a large family on Long Island, so much like many of my best friends growing up.

In the articles I'd read about her, it said she was absolutely fearless and joyful on the ice, and that shone through.

To tell the truth, I felt that her second position in the final round hurt her scores, and that some of the judges gave her 5.7's and 5.8's to leave room to give better marks to Kwan or Slutskaya. Technically, she was a 6 last night.

[conradd]

Originally posted by mrisch
Thanks for the explanation, and yes, this doesn't work for me. It means that Michelle Kwan could have beat the pants of competitors in the Short, and barely lost the long, and all of a sudden she is way down.

It also means that Slutskaya, who was 4th! on two cards doesn't have those low scores really count against her because she goe enough firsts. I think it is weak system - it led to the pairs controversy, and it doesn't have me convinced here either.

Yep, I agree. The problem with ordinal rankings is that they are inherently based on subjective judgement, and prone to be affected by preconceived notions and outside agendas.

I think the fallout from this is going to be huge. However, if we go to a strictly computational formula, there are problems too. In the sport of college football, a computer model selected the participants in the Bowl Championship Series, leading to some very debatable results.

Deb

[theworm[$]]

Thanks for explaining all of this. I knew there must be some formula that would make it make sense, I just didn't know what it was!
I really wanted Michelle to take gold, but from my perspective Sarah was flawless and deserved it. I did think that Kwan skated better than Slutskaya, though, and was hoping she'd earn silver. Regardless - she should be proud.
If the judging is going to remain this subjective, I wish they would weight the score for taste in skating dresses. In my mind, this would have given all 3 American ladies a clear advantage!

[mrisch[$]]

Originally posted by theworm
I did think that Kwan skated better than Slutskaya, though, and was hoping she'd earn silver.

Ah, but there's the game. The Judges had to rat Slutskaya better OR ELSE HUGHES DOESN'T WIN GOLD! That's is the nutty outcome that this system gets.

[emeleel]

I didn't see any of the short programs, just haven't been interested in skating this year as I have been in previous Olympics. But I saw last night's performances. Wow! I was blown away by Hughes, she was magnificent. I was watching on this itty bitty B&W I keep back here by the computer, and even on that, I could see how excited she was and how more and more and more upbeat and carried away she was getting. She was adorable!

I'm not sure how I would have rated Kwan vs. Slutskya. Michelle only made a couple of mistakes, but they were biggies, especially that awful fall. Irena didn't make mistakes that were quite so spectacular, but I think she made more little mistakes, and that adds up, too.

I do feel badly for Michelle Kwan, though - that's got to hurt, to drop from 2nd at her previous Olympic effort to 3rd at her second. As one of the commentators said last night, she will be forever remembered for the "one that got away". (Unfortunately) Just seeing those closed doors where she was tucked away after her performance hurt me to look at, you know she was in there crying her heart out.