Is the Spiral Overrated?

Joesitz said:

Not in so many years. My point is that at the Senior level, it should not have more difficulty than that of a salchow. Not easy for students, definitely! but should not be a problem for seniors. I believe Seniors should be secure in their edgings. The flexible look of a spiral would be the same as one would experience in an acrobatic setting. It needs practice on and off the ice.

Maybe, I'm wrong in my expectations of a skater, but I feel I want to see perfect technique at the senior level.

Click to expand...

Perfect technique is tough to see in a competitive environment. If it was easy to achieve then we wouldn't see skaters fall ever and clean programs would be the norm. That isn't even the case in the winners of competitions.

"Perfect" is a tough standard to expect of anyone really. Looking at even the world level - i don't think anyone podium included is what i would call "perfect" in technique, let alone the lower half of the draw at worlds. And what about senior skaters who come lower than the number of slots that country has for worlds? They also skate at the semior level.

Ant

Everything is so hard in skating. I think it is nice that the skaters have one element that they can get a high level on without being too stressed out. Also, spirals take way more energy to do well later in a program than one might think. Too maintain speed and edges way in the program is hard. Also, some of those pull up positions dont let you breathe as deeply. Having said that, it is still easier to get level 4 on spirals than 4 on footwork. Thank goodness!!!!

Joesitz said:

4. What spiral has anyone seen that highlighted the character of the program?

Click to expand...

I would say that a well-choreographed spiral sequence can express the mood of the program a lot better than a jump or spin can.

But I agree with your main point. It would be more satisfying esthetically if a skater used a variety of edge moves throughout the program, instead of saying, OK, now I am going to do my level four spiral and try to get 3.4 points, and after that I am going to do my footwork sequence and get another 3.4 points.

Here are a couple of examples.

Michelle Kwan, East of Eden exhibition. For some reason Michelle's career-defining perrormance at the 1998 World Pro is not available at the moment on You Tube so I had to go with this one from the 1999 Japan Open. Still...

OK, she doubled her first jump, but still..

She could have more stretch and extension, her spins could be faster...

Still...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9XrU8n8Kzk

MK, Fields of Gold. Brief forward fan spiral at the beginning, spiral at 1:00, forward-backward spiral all the way in to the center at the end, moves in the field and edge work throughout. IMHO this is what figure skating should be like.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oywJebgYE_4

Caroline Zhang's spiral sequence in her new SP (La Bayedere) is awesome! She does her normal spirals, but it's choreographed in such a way that it really highlights the climax in the music. It's so exciting when she starts getting into her spiral, that you can't help start applauding as the music crescendos. I would be so sad to see the spirals go!

feraina said:

Caroline Zhang's spiral sequence in her new SP (La Bayedere) is awesome! She does her normal spirals, but it's choreographed in such a way that it really highlights the climax in the music. It's so exciting when she starts getting into her spiral, that you can't help start applauding as the music crescendos. I would be so sad to see the spirals go!

Click to expand...

Does she show them together with the music of "Kingdom of the Shades".? That's the beautiful piece in the ballet with the whole corps doing high free leg arabasques down a ramp. But having seen Bayadere at least 10 times, I got bored with it. However, it is the music for spirals definitely..

feraina said:

Caroline Zhang's spiral sequence in her new SP (La Bayedere) is awesome! She does her normal spirals, but it's choreographed in such a way that it really highlights the climax in the music. It's so exciting when she starts getting into her spiral, that you can't help start applauding as the music crescendos. I would be so sad to see the spirals go!

Click to expand...

Where can I watch it? did you see it at Goldenwest...or do they have these vids up on icenetwork?

Mathman said:

But I agree with your main point. It would be more satisfying esthetically if a skater used a variety of edge moves throughout the program, instead of saying, OK, now I am going to do my level four spiral and try to get 3.4 points, and after that I am going to do my footwork sequence and get another 3.4 points.

Here are a couple of examples.

Michelle Kwan, East of Eden exhibition. . . .

MK, Fields of Gold.

Click to expand...

Of course, these are exhibition programs, which could also be used in the pro-am/interpretive "competitions" that were popular in the late 90s as a way to show the top elite skaters on TV more often but weren't really part of the sport as sport.

There certainly was more flexibility in how skaters could construct their spiral sequences in the short program 1989-2003 and in long programs for the few years in the early 2000s when they were required, before there was any need to worry about levels and features.

There was also a lot more flexibility in how skaters could use spirals or other glide moves in long programs before ca. 2000 when spiral sequences became required in the ladies' LPs.

And therefore harder to compare for judging purposes. Competition rules are a tradeoff between standardization and individuality; right now the emphasis is more on the former. As it always was in school figures and in short program especially 1973-88.

For exhibition performances like the Kwan examples given above, skaters are just as free now to do whatever the heck they want as they were 10 or 50 years ago.

Is this the music Caroline is using to show off her spirals? This is the Paris Opera Ballet doing Bayadere's Kingdom of the Shades.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4wzCIWHHOc

gkelly said:

And therefore harder to compare for judging purposes. Competition rules are a tradeoff between standardization and individuality; right now the emphasis is more on the former. As it always was in school figures and in short program especially 1973-88.

Click to expand...

What I really wish is that the trade-off could be balanced in such a way as to make the sport more fan-friendly.

Other sports are constantly looking for ways to tweak the rules (the three-point shot in basketball, manipulating the strike zone in baseball) to make the game more interesting and enjoyable to the spectators, without harming the integrity of the competition.

In figure skating, I get the impression that that rules are made for the athletes, the coaches, the judges, and the officials of the ISU. That's fine, but someone is missing from the equation -- the audience.

And some thing is missing, too, IMHO. An adequate reward for just flat out skating better than anyone else, never mind the points. Hard to judge, I suppose.

Sorry, Joe, I can't tell you which part of La Bayadere Caroline's spiral music is from. I can just tell you that the whole program was upbeat and exciting, and I never felt like it was slow or uninteresting. Almost as soon as Caroline stopped skating, I was wishing that I could watch it again for calmer, more thorough analysis. So far I haven't found a video yet! Actually, I didn't see anyone taping in the audience either, so this doesn't bode well...

feraina. Although I much prefer Don Q, La Bayadere does have it's moments musically. Looking forward to seeing Caroline.

Back to topic: I'm not joking when I say that figure skating should drop the music and choreography. The Sport is in their Element (tricks). One need only to look to Diving to allow so many different dives (optional) with different base values and then judged for Tehnique.

In Figure Skating, the contestant could, for example, select, say, 3 spins, 5 jumps, and 2 sets of footwork (with or without music). Everything permissable according to the Rules would be Factored for presumed difficulty. They could be judged for Technique which is what GoEs are supposed to be doing.

Program skating could be the big exhibition.

What if we took Joe's idea for the elements and made that into the short program. For ex:a skater would do 2 solo jumps and a combo. they would be up to them. but for the base points, the skater would get what the CoP base level is GOE would be added in. Then, the skater would do 2 spins, again up to them. Then they would do 1 footwork sequence. This would all be done in a compulsory type program where skaters skate on the ice with out music or flashy costumes.

Then there would be the long program which would basically be the same.

As the last part of the competition for PCS ONLY would be an exhibition program. Skaters could do spirals, spread eagles, inas, charlottes, anything they please as long as it goes to the music.

Fields of Gold would be the perfect example. Also, for a less artistic skater, Evan's Ave Maria was spectacular.

Joesitz said:

The Sport is in their Element (tricks). One need only to look to Diving to allow so many different dives (optional) with different base values and then judged for Technique.

Click to expand...

But the trouble with that is, if we made figure skating more like diving, then figure skating would be more like diving -- no one would ever want to attend a competition or watch it on TV, or even on Icenetwork.

Mathman said:

In figure skating, I get the impression that that rules are made for the officials of the ISU.
And some thing is missing, too, IMHO. An adequate reward for just flat out skating better than anyone else, never mind the points. Hard to judge, I suppose.

Click to expand...

Again, I harp back to the Ladies LP earlier this year. The single best performance of the night not only didn't medal, the skater moved _down_ a slot in the ranking because of 'mistakes' that olympic gold medalists couldn't see in real time and did not detract from the overall look of the program at all. Meanwhile another skater moves up a notch with many visible errors that everybody watching could plainly see and did disrupt the program.

And I'm sure that particular result alienated some potential fans who may have seen it. The result wasn't objective, it was arbitrary (and I don't think the ISU understands the difference).

Mafke said:

Again, I harp back to the Ladies LP earlier this year. The single best performance of the night not only didn't medal, the skater moved _down_ a slot in the ranking because of 'mistakes' that olympic gold medalists couldn't see in real time and did not detract from the overall look of the program at all. Meanwhile another skater moves up a notch with many visible errors that everybody watching could plainly see and did disrupt the program.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure which skaters you're referring to here.

The single best ladies' long program performance of the night, according to the judges, was that of Yu-Na Kim, who moved up two notches from her short program placement.

Are you taking the opinion that Yukari Nakano had the best performance? I could certainly imagine that if the programs had been judged under the old system that some judges might have placed her higher than 4th and perhaps even 1st in the LP, but only if they gave her full credit for the 3A and 3F that were downgraded.

Which skater "moved up a notch with many visible errors that everybody watching could plainly see and did disrupt the program"? Asada, who was 2nd in both short and long programs to finish 1st overall? She only had one major visible error though.

If you're thinking of Kostner, she was 1st in the short program and 3rd in the long to finish 2nd overall, so depending how you define it she moved DOWN either 1 or 2 notches. Also the errors were for the most part small to moderate rather than major.

Or were you thinking of someone like Meissner, who placed higher overall than she did in either program because the skaters she beat were even more inconsistent (and for the most part not shown on TV in limited coverage)?

And superficially cleaner programs finishing behind programs with visible errors, or factored placements from earlier phases holding skaters who faltered in the long program up to higher overall placements than LP placements -- were also both common in the old system and undoubtedly perplexed if not alienated many fans.

At least now we can look at the protocols and see exactly how the numbers came out the way they did -- even if we don't agree with the results. In the old system, all we could do was agree or disagree and try to guess what the judges might have been thinking.

gkelly said:

I'm not sure which skaters you're referring to here.
...
At least now we can look at the protocols and see exactly how the numbers came out the way they did -- even if we don't agree with the results. In the old system, all we could do was agree or disagree and try to guess what the judges might have been thinking.

Click to expand...

Okay, in my white-hot partisan rage (still! after how many months???) I confused the placements, maximum regrets and apologies all around - I bow in the dust.

I was thinking of Nakano who was best of the night, with no question, during the performance many people thought she was gonna walk away with the title (which she should have!) and Kostner, who's fast and pleasant enough at times but I'd rather watch old Kira Ivanova videos on youtube than Kostner's stumblefest of an LP (really! I'm completely serious! Ivanova is a skater who's free skating deserves a major reevaluation but that's another rant).

In terms of underrotation let me be completely clear: Controlling the landing is far more important to my enjoyment than staying in the air for the required time. Underrotations of the kind that Nakano was hammered for don't bother me (or most audiences) at all as they hardly visible to the naked eye in real time and at least one OGM (Fleming) thought Nakano's 3ax was fully rotated. Massive underrotations (of the kind Sarah Hughes was occasionally guilty of) do bother me some and stumbles out of jumps bother me far more. That is all.

My point is that skating results need to have content validity* (protocals up on the web right away = double plus good!) and face validity** (Nakano falling from 3rd to 4th with most exciting LP of the night = double plus ungood!) In other words the current judging system has a fair amount of content validity and no face validity (by way of contrast 6.0 had more face validity than content validity).

* content validity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_validity
** face validity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_validity

gkelly said:

At least now we can look at the protocols and see exactly how the numbers came out the way they did -- even if we don't agree with the results.

Click to expand...

Yes, WE can. But the average viewer will not. He or she will just shrug and turn off the TV.

I for one never felt that figure skating suffered from fans disagreeing wtih the judges. "The umpire is blind, anyone can see that was a ball, not a strike!" -- it's the great American sports tradition.

When Tara Lipinski won the 1998 Olympics over Michelle Kwan, the reason why Tara won could not possibly have been any clearer -- she won because 6 judges liked her performance better than Michelle's and only 3 liked Michelle's better than Tara's. Six to three -- what's not to understand? I didn't like it, but there you are. Figure skating is a judged sport.

Under the new judging system I have no idea why Mao Asada won the World Championship -- the only way I can find out is to go to the ISU web site, click on the protocols, take out my calculator and go to work. Not many fans will care enough to do that -- instead, I think they will just tune out.

You have to send the paying customer home wanting more. More Irina Slutskaya at 2005 Worlds, more Liz Manley at 1988 Olympics, more Rudy Galindo at 1996 U.S. Nationals. (Yes, I know, Slutskaya's tour de force was under the New Judging System -- so there is still hope! )

My point is . . .

When school figures were part of the equation, there were many many many examples when the best freeskate of the final night, in the opinion of most fans AND JUDGES, did not win the title.

Fans who had actually followed all phases of the competition -- even sitting through the figures competition at the competition venue even if they couldn't see the details that the judges on the ice could see -- had a much better understanding of the final results than fans who just showed up for the final freeskate or who were limited to whatever the TV networks chose to show them at home.

Some potential fans undoubtedly turned off the TVs fed up with the sport when they didn't understand the result; others enjoyed the skating enough to start paying attention to more of the sport than the tiny tip of the iceberg shown on TV and learned to understand more about how the results were arrived at. They still might not always agree.

Eventually, the ISU took the figures out of competition, in large part probably because too many potential fans weren't making the jump to being real fans because of that discrepancy between freeskating results and overall results.

So let's look at the 1990s and early 2000s, no figures, ordinals and factored placements.

Sometimes the free skate that most fans and most judges agreed was best did not win because of short program placements. Anyone who really followed the standings as the event unfolded, especially if they had actually watched the short programs and understood how factored placement works, would understand why the results came out the way they did. Anyone who was sitting at home relying on TV commentators to explain it would be at a loss if said commentators didn't bother to do so or did a poor job of it.

A few examples where significant titles were lost in the short program:

Lu Chen, 1991 Junior Worlds
Alexei Urmanov, 1995 Europeans
Michelle Kwan, 1997 Worlds
Todd Eldredge, 1998 Worlds

Other results where factored placements may have confused viewers by giving the better medal to the skater with several blatant errors:
Nicole Bobek (4th in LP) over Michelle Kwan (3rd in LP) for bronze at 1995 Worlds
Michelle Kwan (3rd in LP) over Nicole Bobek (2nd in LP) for silver at 1997 US Nationals

And then there was the infamous place switching at the 1997 European men's event, that would take pages to explain exactly what happened to a fan (or ISU president, as the case might be ) not already well versed in how both ordinals and factored placments worked.

There's also the situation that mistakes that are obvious to fans aren't always as significant to judges as other technical weaknesses or as the artistic impression/presentation side of the performance.

Some examples of performances where a superficially cleaner program lost to one with more or more visible errors:
Petrenko vs. Wylie, 1992 Olympics
Baiul vs. Kerrigan, 1994 Olympics
Gordeeva/Grinkov vs. Mishkutionok/Dmitriev, 1994 Olympics

Eldredge vs. Weiss, 1998 US Nationals

Kwan vs. Hughes, 2000 and 2001 Skate America (IIRC)
Butyrskaya vs. Sokolova, 1998 Skate America
Slutskaya vs. Sokolova, 1998? Cup of Russia
etc. etc.

We won't even get into examples where the skaters have similar numbers of errors, or lack thereof, and the results come down to subtler details or to personal preference. Any individual fan or judge might feel strongly on one side or the other in controversial close contests, but when a similar number feel just as strongly for the other side, the results are obviously not indisputable. Disputing them is part of the fun.

Mathman said:

But the trouble with that is, if we made figure skating more like diving, then figure skating would be more like diving -- no one would ever want to attend a competition or watch it on TV, or even on Icenetwork.

Click to expand...

I am sure you are correct, but the argument is and always has been Sport or Showcase? If spectators want Sport then Diving is an example of what can be done. If they want showcase (super subjective) then the 6.0 system should be used. (Favoritism will run amok in any system.} IMO, it's two different contests.

Perhaps Skategirl45's suggestion of replacing the SP with a separate Technical Competition, could also be considered. I think allowing the skater to select 5 jumps with ISU factors would reveal more of the skater's technical prowess, and when properly judged as to technique, the results would show the greater the sportsperson. (spins and footwork should be included also.) The present system of the SP is for me, quite wishy washy. The winner of the LP should be given the Jackson Haines Medal for whatever year. Just a few thoughts.

gkelly said:

Eventually, the ISU took the figures out of competition, in large part probably because too many potential fans weren't making the jump to being real fans because of that discrepancy between freeskating results and overall results.
...
Some examples of performances where a superficially cleaner program lost to one with more or more visible errors:
Petrenko vs. Wylie, 1992 Olympics
Baiul vs. Kerrigan, 1994 Olympics
Gordeeva/Grinkov vs. Mishkutionok/Dmitriev, 1994 Olympics
...
Any individual fan or judge might feel strongly on one side or the other in controversial close contests, but when a similar number feel just as strongly for the other side, the results are obviously not indisputable. Disputing them is part of the fun.

Click to expand...

AFAICT the main reason the ISU dumped figures was that most member states didn't have the infrastructure for training or testing them and hoped/thought that if they were dumped then they would start being medal contenders.
The stuff about fans not understanding the results is revisionism by Bianchetti. The increase in the fan base began sometime after the 1984 olympics and was increasing steadily each year so that by 1992 FS was one of the most watched sports on TV.
Far from holding the popularity back, by 1988 figures were becoming better and better understood (so that in Sports Illustrated coverage of the1988 olympics, things were compared to school figures so that the reader could understand them!) what they needed was the kind of network coverage they got at Calgary at every major competition (not likely, but ....).

Petrenko over Wylie is understandable in overall jump content (though Wylie was my favorite eligible male skater at the time he really didn't earn gold).
Baiul over Kerrigan is not understandable by anyone looking at the skates (as opposed to expressive arms and faces).
G/G over D/M is a matter of preference for better overall tricks (D/M) or better overall pairs .... feeling.

Finally, no system is going to have the optimal result every time and there is a certain amount of individual preference (does a particular judge want better landings or longer air time in jumps?) And there is the question of "I enjoyed it more" vs "It should win". I like to think I can separate the two: I enjoyed Kwan's Nagano LP more than Lipinski's but I have no problem with Lipinski winning given the jump content and extra 'it' factor that she had that night.

But I stand by my assertion that CoP is not delivering good competitions with satisfying results enough of the time (though I'm very sympathetic with a number of ideas behind CoP). The only fully satisfying competition at Torino was the ladies. At 2008 worlds only mens seemed to really get the right podium (maybe paris but it was really boring).