My intial thought when I saw that air was FARRRRRRRRRRRRRRK - after another 10 replays I was even more blown away. Was I surprised though that a 10 had been given - not really after the single maneuver 10's given in the States last yr at two comps. But this was Bells - a down the line wave. So I did some digging.
On the 10 - all 5 judges gave him a 10
I also thought he was underscored on his 8.07 - especially when you looked at it side by side with Fannings 9.7. Kelly had a range from the judges of 7.5 to 8.2 - drop the top and bottom and average the rest = 8.07. Mick scored 9.70 with a range of 9.5 - 9.9. So all the judges thought that Micks wave was far supperior - and there was a smaller range between the judges. Now those judges are from all different walks of life and parts of the globe and in my opinion do a pretty good job. I do not think that they are biased towards one competitor over another or for certain sponsored surfers at certain events runs by certain big companies. No way - they are professionals. Given that the top and bottom scores are knocked out of the equation it leaves even less room for bias.
So it leaves me with only one conclusion and that is that the way in which the scores are obtained are different to what we believe that they should be - maybe the ASP have done a poor job at advising us of the judging criteria? A quick look at their website tells you that the new judging criteria was roled out in 2010 and it states
Judges analyze the following major elements when scoring waves:
Commitment and Degree of Difficulty
Innovative and Progressive Manoeuvres
Combination of Major Manoeuvres
Variety of Manoeuvres
Speed, Power and Flow
* It is important to note that the emphasis on certain elements is contingent upon the location and the conditions on the day, as well as changes of conditions during the day.
So if this is the criteria that the judges are using and it would seem that they were all pretty consistent with their scores then maybe the goof is with the criteria and its interpretation rather than the judges and scoring itself. As someone with more authority than me on this topic has noted - in Brazil they think Adriano was underscored, in the States Kelly was overscored and in Australia it was about right. So maybe the bias is not in the judges but the people viewing the contest - surely not
ps: I still think Slater was ripped!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Not particulary a Kelly fan and I like Mick, even worked at the curl in san clemente.
