Skating Skills in the PCS scores? Baffling?

Joesitz (RIP) · Sep 23, 2008

I was under the impression that Skating Skills were already covered in the Technical Scores, however, it was pointed out to me that for the Tech, only individual elements are scored for skating ability by their GoEs. Apparently Skating Skills in the PCS scores reflect the program as a whole.and just adding up the pluses in the Tech Score do not give a correct result.

Yet while at MidAtlantics a fan said she enquired about Skating Skills with an oficial she knew and was told that the score is based on difficulty. If a skater, for instance, lands an acceptable Quadruple Jump, a very well centered Spin Combination, and makes unusual footwork patterns, it is deemed the highest score for Skating Skills. Hard to argue that, imo., but isn't all that reflected in the Tech Scores?

It still baffles me, on just what Skating Skills are. To me it is mastering the basics but apparently there is more to it.

Any views on this seldom discussed item in the scoring page?

gkelly · Sep 23, 2008

Skating Skills has always been the first of the five Program Component Scores in the new judging system. If you had any impression otherwise, that must be a leftover from the 6.0 system.

Here are detailed descriptions of the program component criteria. Read the first page for descriptions of what goes into the Skating Skills score.
http://www.usfigureskating.org/content/JS08A-Programcompexplan.pdf

Here's an overview of the program components:
http://www.usfigureskating.org/content/JS08-progcompoverview.pdf

These documents were part of the original documentation for the new system published by the ISU in 2003. The way they're judged really hasn't changed in five years. The percentages given on the bottom of the JS08 chart aren't necessarily considered useful, though.

Mathman · Sep 23, 2008

GKelly, looking at the criteria in the first link, who would you say is a good example of someone who deserves high marks in this component? Mao Asada? Kurt Browning?

Joe raises an interesting point, though. It does seem like skaters who demonstrate good skating skills, while at the same time executing a technically challenging program, get uniformly higher scores than skaters presenting easier jumps and spins. Do you think this is just a consequence of the fact that the best skaters are the best skaters?

gkelly · Sep 23, 2008

Mathman said:
GKelly, looking at the criteria in the first link, who would you say is a good example of someone who deserves high marks in this component? Mao Asada? Kurt Browning?

Yes, I think they would both deserve high marks.

Or for a more direct comparison, I'd say that Browning and Viktor Petrenko, when they were competing against each other in the early 90s, would both deserve similarly high marks for different reasons -- Petrenko I think was especially good at flow and effortless glide, Browning at multidirectional skating.

It does seem like skaters who demonstrate good skating skills, while at the same time executing a technically challenging program, get uniformly higher scores than skaters presenting easier jumps and spins. Do you think this is just a consequence of the fact that the best skaters are the best skaters?

I think to a large degree it is. Some judges may consider the difficulty of the jumps and spins when marking Skating Skills, but those are not the primary criteria to be considered in that mark.

If you look at the scores for the men at 2008 Worlds, for instance, you won't find a direct correlation between skaters who landed acceptable quads vs. those who didn't and skaters who earned Skating Skills marks in the 7s and 8s vs. those with scores in the 5s and 6s.
http://www.isufs.org/results/wc2008/WC08_Men_FS_Scores.pdf

It's a pretty fair bet that you won't see anyone landing quads whose skating skills are only worth scores in the 3s -- it just takes a higher level of control as well as sheer power in the actual skating to be able to perform those jumps. It's also unlikely that a skater with skating skills worth only 2s would be able to land acceptable triples.

On the other hand, ice dancers who were never freestylers may have skating skills worth 7s or 8s and not be able to land even double jumps because they never trained them.

marc2000 · Sep 23, 2008

Skating skils are kind of like the base mark in the old scoring system. They reflect not necessarily the jumps and spins a skater does, but rather the quality, smoothness and flow of the overall skating.

For example, if you watch Michelle Kwan just skate with no jumps or spins, it looks like she was born to skate. She has strong edges, good flow, strong body carriage and is very smooth.

A skater like Surya Bonaly is a good jumper, but lacks the carriage, flow and steadiness in her basic skating moves.

Joesitz (RIP) · Sep 23, 2008

marc2000 said:
Skating skils are kind of like the base mark in the old scoring system. They reflect not necessarily the jumps and spins a skater does, but rather the quality, smoothness and flow of the overall skating.

For example, if you watch Michelle Kwan just skate with no jumps or spins, it looks like she was born to skate. She has strong edges, good flow, strong body carriage and is very smooth.

A skater like Surya Bonaly is a good jumper, but lacks the carriage, flow and steadiness in her basic skating moves.

I agree with you about Kwan. She was/is a Figure Skater - not a Ballerina, not a Dancer - not an Acrobat. A Figure Skater with skills beyond elements! But for judging the CoP, I think we have to go somewhere between the extremes of Kwan and Bonaly. If one doesn't consider the elements then we are in a very subjective mode here. For example: Buttle v. Joubert. One has to be subjective in giving one of them a higher score than the other. The breakdown from the ISU description do not remove the element of subjectivity in a program which was designed to eliminate such subjectivity. I'm not even speaking of any bias but incompetence. Judges do well with the GoEs but Skating Skills is not necessarily their thing if they get overwhelmed with Quads and Six Turns on a Spin Combo.

I look for musicality in a skater and that is tossed around in that bundle of descriptive nuances called Skating Skills, but when you think of it, if I were judging, I would give higher scores for that than an element except I can not do that in the Tech. But you will see in scoring that hgh level Tech in competitions gets into the SK. Difficult to leave out with the crowd roaring.

Smilenskate · Sep 23, 2008

I have been watching the implementation of this system from its birth and while I agree that with the senior international skaters judges are on target with the skating skills scores.... I do not always agree with the skating skill marks give to Juvenile or Interm. skaters. To me it seems that skating skills at the lower levels are awarded on jump difficulty and not true skating skills in terms of edge control, glide, stronge good cross overs, good body posture etc.. What I have observed is that young skaters that skate a million miles an hour into a jump are rewarded with higher scores even if they are bent over, flopping their arms and sholders and are out of control on their edges.

gkelly · Sep 23, 2008

Joesitz said:
One has to be subjective in giving one of them a higher score than the other. The breakdown from the ISU description do not remove the element of subjectivity in a program which was designed to eliminate such subjectivity.

It's impossible to eliminate subjectivity from the evaluation of qualitative aspects of the skating. At best, it's only possible to minimize and standardize it.

I look for musicality in a skater and that is tossed around in that bundle of descriptive nuances called Skating Skills,

No, musicality would be covered more under the Interpretation component, not Skating Skills. Read the descriptions of all the components in the links I gave earlier.

athlet · Sep 24, 2008

gkelly said:
It's impossible to eliminate subjectivity from the evaluation of qualitative aspects of the skating. At best, it's only possible to minimize and standardize it.

I agree that it is impossible to eliminate subjectivity. But, the real problem of PCS marks is not that they are sbujective, but that those marks aren't based on real performances of skaters. PCS marks including skating skills are heavily affected by non-skating factor such as warm-up group, starting order, name value of skater, etc.

This is an example:

Yan Liu attended 4CC in February 2007. In FS, she did a disasterous performance. She landed only one clean triple, a 3 loop and falled two times. Her spins also weren't good. Her TES mark was only 29.54.

After one year Yan Liu also attended 2008 4CC. At this time she had a relatively good free skating, no falls, 6 triples landed, and better spins. TES mark was 50.18, 20 points higher than 2007 performance.

The same skater, similar quality of skating, one good performace and one bad performance... What can we expect PCS marks including skating skill? Everybody can expect that 2008 performance got higher PCS than 2007 performance. But the real scores were:
2007 FS: 45.81 with 6.04 skating skills
2008 FS: 36.58 with 4.93 skating skills

Almost 10 points higher PCS for a disastrous performance? The truth is that Yan Liu was 5th place after SP in 2007 and was 16th place after SP in 2008. This is the MAJOR factor to determine PCS marks.

To me, current PCS marks are kind of random numbers little bit related to actual skating. Unless ISU reform PCS system, any analysis on PCS marks is meaningless. The most unbearable thing is that those random numbers affect standings of skaters a lot!

ManyCairns · Sep 24, 2008

athlet said:
I agree that it is impossible to eliminate subjectivity. But, the real problem of PCS marks is not that they are sbujective, but that those marks aren't based on real performances of skaters. PCS marks including skating skills are heavily affected by non-skating factor such as warm-up group, starting order, name value of skater, etc.

...

Almost 10 points higher PCS for a disastrous performance? The truth is that Yan Liu was 5th place after SP in 2007 and was 16th place after SP in 2008. This is the MAJOR factor to determine PCS marks.

To me, current PCS marks are kind of random numbers little bit related to actual skating. Unless ISU reform PCS system, any analysis on PCS marks is meaningless. The most unbearable thing is that those random numbers affect standings of skaters a lot!

Absolutely agree with these points very, very strongly! Also, as I love to point out, I think dividing the PCS into so many separate marks is essentially meaningless, because they tend to correlate strongly with one another. Statistically, that means that there might as well just be one "PCS" because all these individual marks fail to account for additional portions of variance in scores. In real world terms, what athlet pointed out plus what I'm saying means that not only are the scores not determined by the skills the skater is exhibiting on the ice at that moment (as athlet explained), they also don't meaningfully describe any relative strengths/weaknesses in the individual skater and skate, either.

Joesitz (RIP) · Sep 24, 2008

gkelly said:
It's impossible to eliminate subjectivity from the evaluation of qualitative aspects of the skating. At best, it's only possible to minimize and standardize it.

Obvious observation. I believe subjectivity can be eliminated by leaving out the PC scores in toto. I do not believe one has to be a judge to decide who is the best performer in a given contest.

No, musicality would be covered more under the Interpretation component, not Skating Skills. Read the descriptions of all the components in the links I gave earlier.

Are you jumping back to the Technical to exkplain skills? The name of the section is called Performance Component Score. The rules insist on using music, and to move to music, a skater requires skill. Some people move better to music than others. Look at Skate Dance.

gkelly · Sep 24, 2008

Joesitz said:
Are you jumping back to the Technical to exkplain skills? The name of the section is called Performance Component Score.

For the record, "PCS" stands for PROGRAM component scores.

Skating Skills
Transitions/Linking Footwork and Movements
Performance/Execution
Choreography/Composition
Interpretation.

These are all aspects of the performance that are evaluated globally for the program as a whole, apart from the individual elements that earn base marks and grades of execution in the technical score.

"Interpretation" is all about musicality.
"Skating Skills" is all about skating technique.

Different things are being evaluated in those two marks. They each have some areas of overlap with some of the other program components, but very little with each other.

Mathman · Sep 24, 2008

Joesitz said:
Are you jumping back to the Technical to exkplain skills? The name of the section is called Performance Component Score.

To continue with GKelly's explanation, yes, I think this is an aspect of the new judging system that causes confusion.

In the old judging system, there were two marks, the Technical and the Presentation.

That is not how the new judging system goes. The new system has TES and PCS. TES means Technical ELEMENT scores and PCS means PROGRAM component scores.

So the distinction is not between tech and presentation, like the old system. The distinction is between getting a fixed number of points for each element versus getting a combined score for a particular aspect of the whole program.

Now, on the Program Component side there is a further breakdown between "tech" and "presentation." In the "tech" category are Skating Skills and Transitions. Transitions are a "technical skill," but you don't get a fixed number of points every time you do a three turn between elements. Instead you get one score for all of the transitions in the whole program combined. That's the tech side of the PCSs.

On the "presentation" side of the PCS are the three components Performance/execution (how well did the skater execute the choreography, including precision and quality of movement), choreography/composition (the concept, vision and choeographic detail of the program), and Interpretation (the matching of movement to music).

So the breakdown between technical and presentation goes like this:

Technical: 70% of total:

1. The base scores of the elements.
2. The GOEs of the elements
3. The PCSs for Skating Skills and Transitions.

Presentation: 30% of total

The PCSs for Performance, Choreography and Interpretation.

I guess the idea is that the ISU wanted to put greater weight on the technical side of the equation, compared to the old system.

Joesitz (RIP) · Sep 24, 2008

gkelly said:
Skating Skills has always been the first of the five Program Component Scores in the new judging system. If you had any impression otherwise, that must be a leftover from the 6.0 system.

Here are detailed descriptions of the program component criteria. Read the first page for descriptions of what goes into the Skating Skills score.
http://www.usfigureskating.org/content/JS08A-Programcompexplan.pdf

This link is an excellent explanation of what the ISU expects the skaters to perform and the judges to evaluate.

The definition of Skating Skills, is the overall quality: edge control and flow over the ice surface demonatrated by a command of the skating vocabulary (edges, steps, turns, etc.) the clarity of technique, and the use of effortless power to accelerate and vary speed.

This definitiion concerns quality. It is not quantitative, therefore it is subjective. It's not just some subjectivity. It is the entire definition of Skating Skills.

The link goes on to mention the criteria for 7 sub headings with sub sub headings or each of the 7.

They are all very good points but there is nothing in this category which grades each of the sub headings. It's all in the judges minds and their take on what the quality is.

The next section concerns Transitions/Linking, Footwork/Movement. All very good points to bring out but again no quantitative scores.

And so on for 5 pages of what SkatingSkills are by definition and subheads to assist the judges in scoring them. There is no breakdown of any of the sub heads so, if a fan complains about the score in Skating Skills that his grade in being musical would be admonished by another fan saying that there are other factors the judges must consider to arrive at a final score. Easy way to justify this entire subjective section of the PCs Scoring System.

(btw, do you believe the judges go through all these criteria and sub heads to score a skater within minutes?)

Tinymavy15 · Sep 24, 2008

I thought skating skills was the power of the stroking, the speed and fluidity of the progressives, how comfortable the skater was on the ice etc.

Mathman · Sep 24, 2008

Joesitz said:
This definitiion concerns quality. It is not quantitative, therefore it is subjective. It's not just some subjectivity. It is the entire definition of Skating Skills....

They are all very good points but there is nothing in this category which grades each of the sub headings. It's all in the judges minds and their take on what the quality is.

So, are you saying that this is a good thing or a bad?

Of course the judges are there to offer their subjective opinions about the quality of the performance. That's their job. It is why we have judges in the first place.

Technical specialists, on the other hand, have a different job. They are supposed to decide, in some sort of quasi-objective fashion, whether a jump is more than three-quarters of a turn short, whether a skater held her spiral position for three seconds, whether her rump was lower than her knees in her sit spin, etc.

That sort of thing, in principle, can be determined objectively, but things like GOEs and Program Components can't. I don't consider this to be either good or bad, it's just the nature of figure skating.

ManyCairns · Sep 24, 2008

Joesitz said:
(btw, do you believe the judges go through all these criteria and sub heads to score a skater within minutes?)

I don't think they go through the basic HEADINGS/scores, much less all the subheadings. That's why I think having so many components to the PCS is meaningless. Just give out one score. That's essentially all that's happening anyway.

Jaana · Sep 25, 2008

I have felt quite many times that skating skills have been used by judges for a skater with a reputation to be held up in a programme where she/he did not do as well as might have been expected.

Joesitz (RIP) · Sep 25, 2008

Mathman said:
So, are you saying that this is a good thing or a bad?

Of course the judges are there to offer their subjective opinions about the quality of the performance. That's their job. It is why we have judges in the first place.

Technical specialists, on the other hand, have a different job. They are supposed to decide, in some sort of quasi-objective fashion, whether a jump is more than three-quarters of a turn short, whether a skater held her spiral position for three seconds, whether her rump was lower than her knees in her sit spin, etc.

That sort of thing, in principle, can be determined objectively, but things like GOEs and Program Components can't. I don't consider this to be either good or bad, it's just the nature of figure skating.

It's neither good or bad. It is de facto the 6.0 System. Who are these judges who know so much more about rhythm than the average fan? When they took piano lessons (if they did) should that have made them aware of Timing moreso than the average high school drummer? Judges know or should know the difference between a Lutz and a Flip, in fact they should be experts at that. They are not requjired to learn the differences between a concerto, a symphony, a tome poem and the Beattles. Like all fans they are enamored with good skating programs but they can not judge the whole but they can judge the sum of its parts if they know what they are all about. Otherwise, your opinion is as good as theirs, imo.

Unless they can explain all the subheads if they were scored individually, then they do not go beyond the 6.0 System and not in line with the aims of the CoP.

Tinymavy has the right idea. Just give them a grade for the basics.

Mathman · Sep 26, 2008

Joesitz said:
Who are these judges who know so much more about rhythm than the average fan? When they took piano lessons (if they did) should that have made them aware of Timing moreso than the average high school drummer?

Well, I think these questions are more about the Performance side of the scoring system -- the Performance, Choreography, and Interpretation component scores.

Since this thread is about the Skating Skills component, I would have to say that I think trained and experienced ISU judges are quite a bit better qualified than high school drummers and average fans in this area. To quote again from the ISU rules, I don't think the average fan is prepared to evaluate the extent to which a skater has demonstrated a "command of the skating vocabluary (edges, steps, turns, etc.)" or "ease of transfer of weight resulting in seemingly effortless acceleration."

I, for one, would find myself at a loss to decide which of two skaters showed greater "clarity of technique." Even in such categories as "flow over the ice," and "varied use of power," I think I would get a lot better at spotting these things if I went to all the training seminars, etc., that ISU judges must participate in every year.

Rallycairne said:
I don't think they go through the basic HEADINGS/scores, much less all the subheadings.

There's a lot of stuff to look for, to be sure. But I bet most of the judges DO know all the headings and sub-headings and try their darnedest to come up with a balanced and appropriate score for each of the components.

The idea of just giving out one combined component score -- I think it would be better to have two, like the old 6.0 system. One for Tech, comprising the current Skating Skills and Transitions, and one for Presentation, combining Performance/Execution, Choreography, and Interpretation.

Although...there is something to be said for keeping the Transitions mark separate. One of the criticisms of the 6.0 system was that it encouraged skaters to do programs that were just cross-over, cross-over, cross-over, triple jump, over and over. The separate Transitions mark gives an opportunity for a specific reward for more "in-betweens." (Just my opinion.)

Skating Skills in the PCS scores? Baffling?

Joesitz (RIP)

gkelly

Mathman

gkelly

marc2000

Joesitz (RIP)

Smilenskate

gkelly

athlet

ManyCairns

Joesitz (RIP)

gkelly

Mathman

Joesitz (RIP)

Tinymavy15

Sinnerman for the win

Mathman

ManyCairns

Jaana

Joesitz (RIP)

Mathman

Similar threads

Connect with us