Kimmie Messiner article

Mathman · Jun 25, 2006

It seems to me that "transitions" (unlike choreography and interpretation) is a category that could be quantified pretty reliably. Maybe the idea of having separate judging panels for tech and program components will allow judges to give more critical attention to this area.

As I understand it, the ISU intends to experiment with the two panels concept at selected events this year.

chuckm · Jun 25, 2006

I believe it's only one event, MM. Not a reasonable trial, in my estimation.

Joesitz (RIP) · Jun 25, 2006

chuckm said:
The meaning is clear: a "Transition" begins at the exit of a technical element and ends with the entrance into the next technical element. Therefore, if a jump is landed so poorly that the skater either falls or noticeably fights for a landing, the bad landing is part of the transition. By the same token, if there are steps into the next element and the skater stumbles on the entrance into a jump, that also detracts from the quality of the transition.

I'm all for this definition in the scoring of Transitions. Chuckum, in your opinion, is it being followed by the judges for ALL skaters?

Joe

chuckm · Jun 25, 2006

Obviously, the judges aren't following the rule. Jeff Buttle has had some pretty disruptive FS performances, with the inevitable fall on the quad and the 50/50 success rate on the 3A, yet he gets the same high PCS scores for the FS that he gets for a clean SP.

Kimmie Messiner article

Mathman

chuckm

Joesitz (RIP)

chuckm

Similar threads

Connect with us