Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5
Results 61 to 69 of 69

Thread: ISU Congress- Decisions bring new rules

  1. #61
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,825
    Well, "qualitative" is not necessarily a bad word. It just means that we care about the "quality" as much as the "quantity." If a jump is underrotated, that's bad quality. (It's also lacking in "quantity -- only 1000 degrees of revolution instead of 1080.)

    I guess that's the rationale for downgrading (insufficient quantity) and giving a negative GOE (bad quality).

    To me, it is not easy to balance all this out. But I am not really complaining. This tension between quantity and qualitity, sport and art, first mark and second -- that, IMHO, is what makes figure skating unique among athletic endeavors.

    Unlike other sports, there is no "win ugly" in figure skating. (Just my opinion, of course.)
    Last edited by Mathman; 07-04-2008 at 06:29 PM.

  2. #62
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,964
    What is done (the names of the elements, including levels) is primarily quantitative. That's the base mark of the technical score.

    The grades of execution are primarily qualitative.

    Some kinds of errors or enhancements are either/or decisions (the skater fell or s/he didn't . . . although even there there are some near-falls that might or might not be counted as falls depending on how "fall" is defined) or are otherwise quantifiable (how many revolutions in that camel spin?).

    But most aspects of the GOEs are matters of degree. Was the jump higher or faster than it needed to be? If so, was it by enough to merit +1 by itself, or only if there was something else slightly good about the jump? If it was both very high and very fast, would those qualities alone be enough for +2?

    How fast was the spin? How close to perfect was the centering? How beautiful were the positions? Where does each judge draw the line between good enough to bump up the GOE by +1 each for any of those qualities by themselves or just good enough for two or three of them combined to add up to +1?

    Many errors are just yes or no, but if yes, by how much? That includes underrotation, which is decided by the technical panel according to an arbitrarily chosen cutoff of 90 degrees, but judges still have the leeway to mark down the element by -1, -2, or -3 just for underrotation depending on how severe it was, in each of their individual opinions. Same for edge changes on jump takeoffs.

    How badly did a spin travel? Where does each judge draw the line between an acceptably small deviation from perfect centering vs. mild, moderate, or severe traveling meriting reductions of -1, -2, or -3?

    How weak was the fly in a flying spin? How weak were the positions in a spin or spiral sequence? Enough to mark down? If so, by how much?

    How weak or how strong were the edges in a step sequence or spiral sequence? How well did it maintain flow or slow down?

    All those decisions are qualitative judgments of degrees of quality along a continuum. Deciding where the dividing line is between good and better, or bad and worse, enough to merit another plus or another minus, is going to vary between different individuals even with the best training even if they notice all the same details.

    How should an element with several significant positive qualities and one distinct error or weakness be handled? Do the good qualities and bad ones cancel each other out so that the GOE should be 0, or does one or the other prevail to nudge the final GOE toward the positive or the negative side?

    Some kinds of errors have specific reductions that must be taken. When those occur, especially the kind that requires -3 GOE, you'll see agreement among all the judges as to the negative GOE. When an element clearly meets the requirements with nothing special about it, you'll see straight 0s. When an element clearly but not extremely exceeds requirements, you may see straight +1s.

    -3 and 0 are probably the most commonly unanimous GOEs.

    But in other cases, you are going to see differences of opinion based on where different judges draw the line. Usually it will only be two adjacent GOEs. Sometimes a span of two points (e.g., mostly -2 with some -3 and some -1, or mostly 0 with some -1 and some +1) will occur and we can understand all those possibilities. If the span is wider than that, it's probably either because one judge didn't see something everyone else saw (or possibly did see something no one else did) or forgot a rule that applied to an unusual situation, or else there may have been a complicated combination of good qualities and errors that different judges might interpret or balance out in different ways. Those situations are the exception, however.

    (Here's an interesting case.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMqP7_wNS70
    The spiral sequence in this program received GOEs ranging from -3 to +1, and everything in between. Just looking at the protocol, it seems that something wacky must have been going on with that element.
    http://www.isufs.org/results/ec2008/..._SP_Scores.pdf
    Watch the program and see how you interpret it. How would you mark it, and why?)

  3. #63
    Ice Dancing and Johnny Fan MissIzzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    769
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    (Here's an interesting case.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMqP7_wNS70
    The spiral sequence in this program received GOEs ranging from -3 to +1, and everything in between. Just looking at the protocol, it seems that something wacky must have been going on with that element.
    http://www.isufs.org/results/ec2008/..._SP_Scores.pdf
    Watch the program and see how you interpret it. How would you mark it, and why?)
    Actually, I think the spiral sequences are like the side-by-side spins in pairs in that the judges grade on a curve a little, because most of the girls wobble a little bit. Though still, in this case, I think the fall should have pretty much given it -3s.

  4. #64
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,825
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    Here's an interesting case.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMqP7_wNS70

    The spiral sequence in this program received GOEs ranging from -3 to +1, and everything in between. Just looking at the protocol, it seems that something wacky must have been going on with that element.

    http://www.isufs.org/results/ec2008/..._SP_Scores.pdf

    Watch the program and see how you interpret it. How would you mark it, and why?
    I gave it a -1. I could also go along with the two judges who gave it a zero. (The average of the panel was -1.4).

    I thought she was on her way to maybe a +1. Nice positions, confident and fluid. The fall looked like one of those fluke things, like when you catch a rut or something. It did mean that she did not complete her last position, though. (Plus, I gave her an extra tenth for the black gloves! )

    I think -1 was enough of a deduction because she was going to get a full point deduction for the fall anyway.

  5. #65
    Custom Title Joesitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    20,185
    The quality of the program including the elements is the backbone of the PCS scores. How could it not be? It has been that way since the beginning of competitive skating. The elements as executed by their definitions are the Technical portion of competitive skating. The Founding Fathers of Figure Skating made the distinction for the sport to be different than others. If CoP has put value on the performance of an element, I believe it is way out of line.

    Any value put on whatever a competitor uses in the Tech should be judged qualitatively in the PCS. That's what the PCS is there for.

  6. #66
    Custom Title Joesitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    20,185
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    Well, "qualitative" is not necessarily a bad word. It just means that we care about the "quality" as much as the "quantity." If a jump is underrotated, that's bad quality. (It's also lacking in "quantity -- only 1000 degrees of revolution instead of 1080.)


    I guess that's the rationale for downgrading (insufficient quantity) and giving a negative GOE (bad quality).
    No one said it was. It's a very genuine word. But what about (insufficient quantity)? Does it cover a flutz or Lip and therefor they too should be downgraded? Making an error on the first part of any jump seems to me to be more than insufficent quantity. How can an element be judged that has no name? Yet the penalties are extreme in the former and given an average penalty in the latter.

    [QUOTEUnlike other sports, there is no "win ugly" in figure skating. (Just my opinion, of course.)[/QUOTE]
    And with all die hard fans of figure skating. :indiff:

  7. #67
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,825
    Quote Originally Posted by Joesitz View Post
    The quality of the program including the elements is the backbone of the PCS scores. How could it not be? It has been that way since the beginning of competitive skating. The elements as executed by their definitions are the Technical portion of competitive skating. The Founding Fathers of Figure Skating made the distinction for the sport to be different than others. If CoP has put value on the performance of an element, I believe it is way out of line.
    You make an interesting and solid point, Joe. But I don't think you can support it by appealing to the Founding Fathers.

    Under 6.0 judging I am quite sure that the judges gave higher technical scores to a skater whose technical elements were of superior quality, as well as higher presentation scores.

    I think the "backbone of the PCSs," that is, what distinguishes them from the TESs, is that they apply to the program as a whole, not to individual elements. That's why they are called "Program Components." There is "technique" as well as "quality" in both the technical elements and in the things that are judged in the program components.

    To me, "technique" means more than just "did the skater satisfy the definition of the element." The "T" in TES stands for "total," not "technical." By "definition," skaters receive a Total Element Score and a Program Components Score.
    Quote Originally Posted by Joesitz
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman
    Unlike other sports, there is no "win ugly" in figure skating. (Just my opinion, of course.)
    And with all die hard fans of figure skating. :indiff:
    I do not understand this comment, with the "indifferent" emoticon. Of course all die hard figure skating fans appreciate the beauty of the sport. Is that something we should apologize for?

    Different strokes for different folks. You say :indiff:, I say .
    Last edited by Mathman; 07-05-2008 at 10:10 AM.

  8. #68
    Custom Title Joesitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    20,185
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    You make an interesting and solid point, Joe. But I don't think you can support it by appealing to the Founding Fathers.
    I got carried away on the 4th of July, MM. But there is significant use of the differentiated scoring from the beginning than there is today with the CoP, imo.

    [QUOTE]Under 6.0 judging I am quite sure that the judges gave higher technical scores to a skater whose technical elements were of superior quality, as well as higher presentation scores.[/QUOTE[
    Discussing judges in general is an all together different topic especially since we are aware of recent events and even those events that one can search in the archives. Did anyone ever think that the Mother of Figure Sating, Sonia Henie, ever had judges cheating for her?

    I think the "backbone of the PCSs," that is, what distinguishes them from the TESs, is that they apply to the program as a whole, not to individual elements. That's why they are called "Program Components." There is "technique" as well as "quality" in both the technical elements and in the things that are judged in the program components.
    Indeed, the PCS is the sum of the total program. But in that case, does one really need PCS scores? we already have them in the GoEs. Let CoP change the whole of the traditional scoring and iliminate PCS. Yes? What's the point of making an issue of choreography when the skater doesn't create it? Since the Tech Scores are geared to elements, why not just add a few of the more realistic components to the Tech.

    [QUOTE]To me, "technique" means more than just "did the skater satisfy the definition of the element." The "T" in TES stands for "total," not "technical." By "definition," skaters receive a Total Element Score and a Program Components Score.I do not understand this comment, with the "indifferent" emoticon. Of course all die hard figure skating fans appreciate the beauty of the sport. Is that something we should apologize for? [/UNQUOTE]
    Technique Now that's a classification we don't hear of much when discussing figures skating, yet it is quite common to hear in other forms of dance.

    The technique of an element is the complete definition of the element. What kind of technique does a skater have who executes a Flutz? It is judged as a Lutz yet it does not conform to what a Lutz is. However, if we accept it, we must say the skater has bad technique. Should a skater with bad technique also suffer in the PCS? Oh, I suppose if we overlook the bad technique we can say that the skater managed the air turns and landed well. I should hope so. The skater will get many points regardless of the bad technique.

    Different strokes for different folks. You say :indiff:, I say .
    Remember, I am just discussing this. Not expecting any action by the ISU. Nothing I can do about it.

    You got love correctly. It is the opposite of indifference - not hate. So many people confuse love and hate. Hate can stand on its own, as Love does. Among other things, Indifference is apathy.

  9. #69
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,187
    It's always kind of amazing to me how subtle and nuanced the debates are on the topic of GOE and rule changes... and if push came to shove... one would imagine that those who are actually making these distinctions, probably still fall on the familiar crutches, more than on the most recent adjustment to a rule. Judges are only human after all...

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •