by Jacquelyn Thayer
Since its introduction under the International Judging System in 2004, the program component score (PCS) has in popular view functioned as a sort of equivalent to the previous system’s “second mark” — that score which weights the aesthetic qualities of performance, rather than difficulty and purity of technical content. This is something of an oversimplification, of course: the PCS total comes from a quantified assessment of five specific areas of a performance, each described in fairly thorough detail in publicly-available ISU communications and rooted fundamentally in technical ability — a poor skater should not, by ISU definitions, be able to achieve marks in the higher range even with unusual or inventive choreography.
But the ideal use of PCS does not necessarily pertain to its actual application, and most frequently it is considered vulnerable to the subjective whims of individual judges at best, and a tool for demonstrating and enforcing political motives at worst. Ice dance, among all disciplines, has been traditionally perceived as the ultimate victim in each case, given the lesser likelihood of significant and obvious technical error. Such accusations were lobbed, not without foundation, at the marks assigned under 6.0, but analysis of PCS is a more emergent practice. This article begins our own effort at a closer examination of the program component mark, focusing in largely on the 2013-14 season as both an Olympic year and one both closing out one generation of sport and laying groundwork for the future quad.
The Olympics and subsequent World Championships nicely encapsulated this phenomenon, while also serving as perhaps the most politically-oriented international events of the skating cycle. While the Olympics function as a celebration of national pride, Worlds is the event determining a nation’s spots at the same event in the year to come — two placements totaling 13 or lower grant a nation three spots; two totaling 28 or worse reduces a team to one. It’s to be expected, then, that scores assigned at both of these events may have a particular import over those granted at a November Grand Prix assignment, and while technical improvement and a degree of component growth as a team builds to the season’s peak are expected, not all such development, as demonstrated, has proven equal.
The Olympics
A significant correlation appears between national position and PCS growth from fall competitions to the Olympics — with a few caveats. Growth was minor — an average 1.57 percent– for North America’s top duos compared with a far greater 6.96 percent for Europe’s top teams (with European silver and Olympic bronze medalists Elena Ilinykh & Nikita Katsalapov classified as Russian #1; with Russian champions Ekaterina Bobrova & Dmitri Soloviev in that position, growth was still above 3 percent) and similar 6.79 with growth for Australia’s Danielle O’Brien & Gregory Merriman also included. However, the minimal North American growth can be attributed entirely to the unique positions of Meryl Davis & Charlie White and Tessa Virtue & Scott Moir, both already receiving scores that had nearly maxed out, with little room for further expansion from the Grand Prix series to Sochi. More striking, in a comparison of simply fall to Sochi, were the leaps for teams like Penny Coomes & Nicholas Buckland — 15.15 percent, highest for all couples — and 10.67 percent for Spain’s Sara Hurtado & Adria Diaz; those teams, however, saw their first growth at the European Championships (with Coomes & Buckland’s Sochi marks actually a decline from that event’s nearly 19 percent increase), with Sochi serving more as a continuation of a trend, as it also presented for Ilinkyh & Katsalapov, the top Russian team at that competition.
Similarly, the phenomenon experienced by national #3 teams is difficult to parse given the very small available sample size: only the U.S., Canada and Russia sent three dance teams to Sochi. However, while average growth for these teams was a mere 0.869 percent, the numbers become more intriguing when broken down further. Victoria Sinitsina & Ruslan Zhiganshin saw a 3.85 percent growth in their components; for Maia & Alex Shibutani and Alexandra Paul & Mitch Islam, however, that number actually declined by 0.62 percent, with the American team improving by a slight 1.04 percent but the Canadian couple taking a weightier 2.29 percent decrease, the most significant among all competitors.
For second-place national teams, of which Sochi featured six (four from European nations, two from North America), growth was limited from fall to the Games, an average 1.89 percent, with, in this case, North American couples receiving the benefit — an average 2.4 percent versus 1.64 for Europeans (with Bobrova & Soloviev considered Russian #2). A closer look indicates that the progression was even more specific: while Canadians Kaitlyn Weaver & Andrew Poje grew by only 0.57 percent, the U.S.’s Madison Chock & Evan Bates saw an increase of 4.24 percent, highest among all North American dancers in Sochi. Among Europeans, Pernelle Carron & Lloyd Jones of France had the strongest growth of 3.48 percent, but Italians Charlene Guignard & Marco Fabbri saw a decrease of 0.87 percent.
Worlds
With a number of high-ranking teams forgoing or withdrawing from the subsequent World Championships, an interesting twist on the Sochi phenomena seems to emerge in growth patterns. While national #1s saw a slightly lesser average percentage of growth from fall than at the Olympics — down to 4.6 percent — this rule did not hold fast among teams now at the top. Growth, too, was more evident for #2 and #3 teams (2.1 percent and 1.42 percent, respectively), more than a few of whom were here positioned to take on greater relevance in the eyes of judges in the absence of some veteran couples.
With both silver medalists Weaver & Poje and the fifth-place Chock & Bates serving as the leading couples of their respective nations here, PCS grew further from its Sochi increase, with the Canadians improving by 3.53 percent and the Americans by a lesser, but still significant given the previous event’s leap, 1.22 percent. Weaver & Poje’s progress after a seventh-place result in Sochi is also emblematic of another trend; with the Sochi gold and silver medalists absent, those teams immediately behind them there might, if a trend towards rewarding perceived leaders exists, be expected to grow their components. And in fact, Olympic bronze medalists Ilinykh & Katsalapov netted a small 0.3 percent over Sochi, an overall increase of 9.47 percent since the Grand Prix. That team, however, also removed themselves from contention courtesy of technical error, leaving the next few ranked teams to take up the mantle. Fifth-place Olympic finishers Bobrova & Soloviev did not compete, due to a late injury for Soloviev, but 2014 European champions Anna Cappellini & Luca Lanotte, who finished sixth in Sochi, saw their PCS improve by 4.52 percent over that event (7.27 percent overall). And after just missing the podium in Sochi, bronze medalist veterans Nathalie Pechalat & Fabian Bourzat saw an overall 3.7 percent rise, an additional one percent better than seen in Sochi.
North America, however, presented special cases at #2 and #3. Among U.S. teams, only Chock & Bates improved their marks over both the fall and their previous competition. The Shibutanis, however, though finishing sixth, saw their PCS decline by 1.13 percent from Sochi (down by 0.1 percent overall). But third-ranked Americans Alexandra Aldridge & Daniel Eaton faced an even steeper drop; despite a bronze medal at January’s Four Continents, the team’s PCS showed a 4.31 percent drop from the fall, continuing the 0.31 percent decrease actually seen at 4CC. In the Canadian ranks, meanwhile, Paul & Islam finally saw PCS growth, by 3.67 percent from the Sochi decline and up 1.3 percent overall. However, Four Continents silver medalists Piper Gilles & Paul Poirier, entering as Canadian #3, saw a steeper upward trajectory, with PCS rising by 7.14 percent from the fall — though this was a slight decrease from Four Continents, where the team’s PCS had increased by 7.24 percent.
One special case arose as a #3 team ascended to #2 rank in the total absence of a third team. Sinitsina & Zhiganshin, Russia’s only representatives besides Ilinykh & Katsalapov after Bobrova & Soloviev’s late withdrawal, saw their PCS improve by a significant 9.5 percent since Sochi, a total of 13.72 percent over the Grand Prix.
Curiously, other leading European teams with middling overall ranks in Sochi saw their PCS decline here, as placements too fell slightly, and, in fact, only those teams discussed above did see an improvement from their Sochi components.
Conclusion
Overall, PCS growth from fall competitions to the Olympics was an average 3.91 percent and 3.66 from fall to Worlds, suggesting a reasonably stable rate of growth. The details, however, suggest a far more disparate set of trends. These do not themselves suggest universals: some late-season increases came after injury-slowed Grand Prix events, while some late lower marks came in conjunction with performance errors. But phenomena such as the average 3.86 percent improvement at Worlds for those teams who found themselves promoted nationally in a leading team’s absence is one of a few patterns perhaps worth a little consideration.
As our series continues, we’ll next look at the more detailed breakdown of PCS allotment among teams — and across a judging panel.