Originally Posted by Cornchips:
“I find Nicky's marking a bit random - but his comments usually fair.
I have no particular problem with the marks so long as the judges are consistent with themselves within each show - its irrelevant whether they give 3.5 or 4.5 so long as they do it consistently its not usually a problem (in Stirctly for example Craig tends to mark lower than the rest - but he marks low for everyone). Nicky's random marking imho messes up the scores which isn't helpful.
...”
But is Nicky's marking random or is the seeming randomness because he's focusing on skating (such things as speed over the ice which aren't always obvious to viewers) and using relative marking?
Even if he gives a mark that's very different from what the other judges give, or even very different from what he did himself some other week, that's ok so long as it makes sense compared to his other marks that night.
I don't think anyone's looked at his marks in enough detail to tell.
Originally Posted by lach doch mal:
“I think Robin sometimes can get it wrong as well, and being 0.5 off IMO is not a problem. Nicky can be erratic, but I agree with Veri that he at least is trying to mark relatively speaking (e.g. his remark to Karen when she questioned his 4 to Daniella a week ago, with "I gave Hayley a 5" meaning I can't give Daniella a 5.0 as well, because in his opinion she wasn't as good). I'm not saying he is always right.
...”
Originally Posted by NoahsAark:
“Nicky always marks consistently - in that he marks on skating skill alone and puts performers in order and therefore marks accordingly.
I think the week he really came unstuck with that approach is when he gave the first skater a fairly low mark (was it Hayley and perhaps a 4.0) ... and then after that no-one really came close to her ... so all marks after that seemed low and somewhat ridiculous.”
Yes, that's the sort of thing I mean. His marks might look odd but still make sense.