When was the 6.0 system replaced?

IJS progressively replaced 6.0 from 2003 and was fully adopted for ISU competitions from the 2004-2005 season.

How many judges are there?

Between 5 (national level) and 9 (Worlds, Olympics). Plus the technical panel with 3 people.

Why discard extreme scores?

The trimmed mean limits the impact of a single judge over- or under-marking. With 9 judges the 2 highest and 2 lowest are dropped, the remaining 5 are averaged.

ISU judging system explained: IJS, technical panel, trimmed mean

Since 2004 figure skating uses the IJS (International Judging System), which replaced the iconic « 6.0 ». More complex but more precise, it combines two distinct panels that evaluate each program.

From 6.0 to IJS

Until 2004 skating used the 6.0 system: each judge gave two marks out of 6 (technical and artistic). Simple but highly subjective and vulnerable to judging collusion.

The 2002 Salt Lake City pairs scandal accelerated the reform. The IJS, more granular, breaks the score into many auditable components.

The two panels

IJS separates technical specialists from judges:

Technical panel

Three people: Technical Specialist (identifies elements live), Assistant Technical Specialist, and Technical Controller (validates decisions).

Their role: identify each element, determine its level (1-4 for spins/sequences), spot objective faults (under-rotation, edge calls on Lutz/Flip).

Judging panel

5 to 9 judges depending on competition. Each gives a GOE between -5 and +5 per element. For PCS, each judge marks three components (Composition, Presentation, Skating Skills) from 0.25 to 10.00.

Trimmed mean

To reduce extreme scores' influence, the system removes the two highest and two lowest marks (with 9 judges), then averages the rest. With 7 judges, one is removed from each side.

This mechanism makes collusion among a few judges ineffective: you'd need a majority of the panel to meaningfully move the score.

Anonymity (past) and transparency (current)

For over a decade individual judge marks were anonymized in public protocols, to shield judges from pressure. Since 2016-2017 ISU has re-introduced judge identification for transparency.