sorry duplicate post

lol....well maybe not that bad.

All I know is, I watched it, and you slip, you lose marks...a lot!)

A slip as in a fall gets you a -1 deduction. If your score was 10 it would be decimated (means 1 in 10 - isn't it originally from Roman legions who were punished by having one in ten of their men killed ? )

You can fall and still win if everything else is good enough. It's happened even under 6.0 scoring (Plushenko Worlds 2004) and definitely can happen under IJS scoring.

I think it's a bigger problem in Compulsories where you are doing the same steps, than in ODs and FDs where you can make up the points in skating skills, transitions, choreography etc

OK, then where does Gary's mark come from last week. Is it 5.0, or is it 3.0?

Who knows - there is no marking scheme for DOI and really no way of making one that makes sense when they are all doing things at completely different levels of skill both technically and presentationally.

To be honest I still haven't seen Gary's skate last week so can't even begin to try to explain it. Let's just say skating marking is always subjective to a high degree (and still is even under IJS). When you have non skating judges they can really only judge them subjectively anyway.

I guess Karen marked him based largely on skating skills which are good and Jason marked him based on the fact he didn't like the way he did it for whatever reason.

Dannellas's 5 4.0's on Sunday. Undermarked?

Nonsense. I've said nothing about it being quantifiable and nothing that implies, assumes, presupposes or anything else that it's quantifiable.


You can say whatever you want. Without knowing what the view from your window is, I can't say whether it's a reasonable use of the word to call it "sublime" or not; and of course people can exaggerate or use words metaphorically.

"Sublime" is not relative to the things around it. A bump in a road isn't sublime just because it's higher than the road.


Making it personal in that sort of way seems out of bounds to me, so I didn't think it merited a reply. But the idea that using different words than "sublime" would "diminish and demean" someone's achievements is odd to say the least.

How does 'If she's already "sublime", what's left for when she gets better?' (which is what I said in the first place) make me "so bothered"?

But I see the issue of Hayley's marks has now been raised on the Friday show. Jason is not doing her any favours with his comments and his 5.5.

Then there's the question of why other judges are giving her such high marks. Jason and Emma guest judge might be explained by the idea that they are "performance judges", but what about the others?


But if they "truly feel that way" only in the weakened sense of "awe", then it's only that weakened sense that isn't out of place. "Sublime" isn't defined to use that weakened sense, nor does a word (such as "sublime") that happens to have "awe-inspiring" in a dictionary definition automatically "track" any weakening of "awe".


"Sublime for their age" is fine, though even then I would wonder whether "sublime" is really the best word. But "sublime" doesn't mean "sublime for their age".

(Do people actually use "sublime" in such cases? Has the word become fashionable, for some reason?)

Re maybe Jason was awe-inspired -- Sure, perhaps he was. But since when do we have to say that anything a judge happens to feel, or any opinion a judge happens to express, must be reasonable rather than ridiculous? (The question was never whether Jason genuinely felt it was sublime or not.)

Who was it that queried Hayley's marks on the Friday show?

Re: the issue of what's left when someone gets better, I don't see the problem with "sublime" again. I actually think one can think something good enough to use the word sublime one week and still feel the same sense of "awe" (if that's what they were feeling) when watching again. The later routine might be better but it would also be expected to be as the celeb gets more experienced. It's reasonable to suppose that the feeling the panel member might get from watching the later routine could be the same even though the routine itself might be superior. It's not very imaginative but I'm not watching DOI expecting verbal gymnastics, Jason might think he's articulate and witty but there's a certain delusion there imo.

I didn't see the part where they introduced him. Maybe a journalist? I think he said something about his readers, and he seemed to think he needed to avoid saying anything negative about Hayley herself because his readers (?) would tear him apart.

He said something about her marks being so high and also that (re her fall) the judges didn't mark down for her mistakes in the way they did for others.

But what happens if the later routine is better for its week than the earlier one was for its? Even if you make "sublime" relative to the week (as you shouldn't ), there can still be a significant improvement even in that relative sense. So what language have you got left?

I am starting to wonder whether people accept that it's possible for a judge to give excessive praise or to leave themself nowhere to go with their language.

It certainly seemed to be widely accepted in the past, but now all of a sudden a lot of posts seem to be striving mightily against the idea, either by going relative or seeing it as a question of whether the judge genuinely felt something that would go with the word.

OK, thanks Veri.

Sharron is always overmarked - and she like the the girls spends most of her time being lifted by her pertner- so why do the judges overmark the girls for doing nothing in comparison to the guys who do more on th ice

No. you haven't any language left. But then that might happen even in the lofty stratospheres of olympic/professional skating. That you might think one routine "sublime" and then have to rethink pretty quickly and decide you're an idiot once you see another routine. That's the problem with language - it's emotive. That's possibly why "sublime" seems appropriate when one sees a certain routine even though it's one can see said routine is nothing like "sublime" when viewed dispassionately.

I absolutely do not think for a second that Hayley was overmarked last week...and I really wish people would just stop going on about it. She is obviously far ahead of the other performers...and don't blame HER for being lifted for too long..blame the choreography. And don't blame HER if you think she is overmarked...blame the judges. Why can't you just sit back, and enjoy the performance that she really loves giving...??

It seems to me that people are blaming the judges and the choreography.

Oh really, it seems to be that most are blaming Hayley and enjoying every minute of it

He also defended Emma's comment that the show would only start when the Doc left.

the journalist implied that she said this after the skate off - but she didn't. She said it when she gave her critique after the original skate.

Her comment was overly harsh - and the journalist clearly didn't know what he was talking about.

I agree with this - the judges can't be held to account in hindsight for every remark they make, that is just nitpicking. Why shouldn't they tell it how they feel it on the night, irrespective of what might happen next week?

Well it's obvious to me that he didn't know what he was talking about and I didn't even watch the programme

Hayley messes up the required element and gets 26.0..PMSL.
...and Danny gets 17 again, despite a variance of 1.5 in his scores.

Hayley did NOT mess up the required element. The required element was the opening and the ending, and her required element was LEAGUES ahead of everyone else's so far.

Hayley messed up a 3 turn, of which she had three in a row, and of which DAniella didn't even attempt one.

Sorry, I'm not really watching properly tonight, I'm a bit bored with it, thought that's what he said.

I thought Hayley's score last week was fully deserved but this weeks performance IMO wasn't a patch on last weeks and should have refelcted in her score.

I think Jason had it right with 4.5.