Encouraging innovation and variety

gio said:

IMO COP fixes ex ante what should be done. With the 6.0 it was more an ex post fixation of the rules. What I want to say is that before there were the skaters who defined the trends and then ISU intervened to correct some "distortions" (Zayak rule - very debatable, because the Toe-Loop and Toe-Walley are two different jumps). Now with COP it is the ISU who defines what to do and what not to do and the skaters obviously follow the rules.

Click to expand...

As gio points out in the 2.0 bonus thread, a code-of-points judging system has a tendency to specify in advance what kinds of skills will be rewarded and skaters tend to follow rather than lead, whereas the old judging system tended to be more reactive to the variety of what skaters were doing.

I think there are a number of different areas where the rules for the current judging system could be adjusted to encourage more innovation and more variety. There are also areas where skaters could be more proactive in demonstrating innovation and variety under the current rules.

I'll use this thread to discuss several of those areas in separate posts. I'll start with senior-level singles disciplines. Maybe we'll talk about pairs and dance later.


Detailed posts to come on the following topics as I have time
Short program rules
Long program rules
Jumps
Spins
Step sequences
Spiral sequences
Other

Interesting topic.

Let's see how our various ideas can ameliorate COP.

I'll start with jumps in the free program.
-First of all limiting jumps passes is not a good thing in my opinion. They should limit triples, quand and double axels, but not jumps in general. The Zayak rule and the no more than 3 double axels per program rules are enough. In this way skaters could include double jumps, if the music dictates it. Or a split flip, a delayed axel, or a tuck axel. If the music allows a skaters can do a jump in a spiral sequence or in a step sequence.
-Second they should drop the 0.8 penality in jump sequences, or limiting jump combos to two (instead of three) and the third one should be a jump sequence.
Jump sequences are more varied than jump combos, so we could see interesting things such as 3A, half loop, 3F or easier sequences made of a triple and then double jumps that follow the music.
-Give points to skaters that can jump in both directions (Rohene Ward).
-More credit to 2-3 combos in contrast to 3-2 combos

I for one love the idea. I would like to see someone create a new jump. Is that possible? Has every edge been taken? I would like to see a combination I have never seen before. I was actually thinking about someone doing a 3 salchow into an immediate 3 flip. I wonder if someone could pull that off. Is the salchow too awkward of a landing to add the flip? Would the person need a half loop in between. I think it's possible.

It would also be nice if someoe created some new spirals. I feel everyone has just gotten comfortable doing the same spiral sequence. No onne tries anything new anymore. Maybe if they were rewarded people would try to be innovative.

OK, let's start with jumps in the free program. I agree with most of your observations/suggestions.

gio said:

-First of all limiting jumps passes is not a good thing in my opinion. They should limit triples, quand and double axels, but not jumps in general. The Zayak rule and the no more than 3 double axels per program rules are enough. In this way skaters could include double jumps, if the music dictates it. Or a split flip, a delayed axel, or a tuck axel. If the music allows a skaters can do a jump in a spiral sequence or in a step sequence.

Click to expand...

We're only talking about senior (and junior?) level here, right?

The restrictions would need to be different at lower levels, where triple jumps are rare or not allowed at all. But the federations make those rules -- the ISU only cares about junior and senior.

The problem with allowing unlimited single and double jumps in addition to the current allotment of triples and quads is that very often intended triples and quads turn into singles and doubles by mistake. I'm sure that the current restrictions on total number of jump passes are in place to discourage skaters from trying again and again every time they pop a jump until they finally manage to pull off a triple. But in the process the restrictions also limit other options.

Let's figure out how to encourage them instead.

First of all, I'd allow 8 instead of 7 jump passes for senior ladies. Some of them would just use the extra jump pass for a seventh triple that they can't fit in with the current restrictions, going back to the kind of jump layout that was common in the 1990s. But others (especially the best jumpers who can do triple-triples and the weaker ones who don't have five different kinds of triples) would use the extra slot for doubles and/or specialty singles.

The senior ladies' program could also be allowed to be a bit longer than 4:10. They could use the extra seconds for posing or resting sections if necessary.

Second, I'd add a new kind of element called "small-jump sequence" that would reward skaters for doing varied jumps of less than 2 revolutions. Here are my suggested rules and base marks for this kind of element:

A sequence of jumps of no more than 1.5 revolutions connected by no more than two steps or turns between each jump, covering at least half the length of the rink or at least half of a rink-width circle. 1.5 jumps may be axel-type jumps landed on back inside or back outside edge, or any backward-takeoff jumps landed facing forward with a toe assist and push to a forward edge.

Features
-split, stag, or double stag jump (flip, lutz, or loop/falling leaf takeoff, half revolution) with both legs at least parallel to the ice at the top of the jump
-split, stag, and/or double stag jumps (flip, lutz, or loop/falling leaf takeoff, half revolution) performed in both directions
-ring jump (flip or lutz takeoff, half or no rotation) in which one or both legs is bent up behind the body to foot above waist height and the head is arched backward
-full- or 1.5-revolution jump (any takeoff) with legs split at least 90 degrees at the top of the jump
-tuck/stag axel with one leg extended parallel to the ice at the top of the jump
-1- and/or 1.5-revolution jumps rotating in both directions
-at least three edge jumps (salchow, 1-foot salchow, loop, half-loop, walley, half-walley, toeless lutz, one-foot axel, inside axel) performed in immediate succession with no steps or turns in between
-forward-takeoff jump with one revolution landed on the same edge as the takeoff with no toe assist and a controlled forward-edge exit

Base values for Small Jump Sequence:
Level 1 1.6
Level 2 2.8
Level 3 3.4
Level 4 4.0

Click to expand...

So if you just do enough single or half jumps to cover enough ice, with no extra difficulty, you earn approximately the base value for three single jumps. If you add enough features, you'd earn a base mark comparable to another double axel or triple toe. And there are lots of different options for how to earn those features.

As far as I understand, skaters are allowed to do jumps in the middle of step sequences or spiral sequences, earn jump points for them, and use up a jumping pass in the process. But most skaters probably don't realize that it's allowed or don't believe that they can perform jumps inside a sequence that will be worth as many points (because of difficulty and/or quality) as ones performed on their own.

So how could this option be encouraged?
First of all, put it in writing where the skaters can see it how such combined elements are to be scored, so skaters know the option exists in the first place. And make it worth their while to put a double lutz, for example, in the middle of a sequence instead of a double axel on its own or a telegraphed triple lutz that will probably be downgraded and/or earn an edge call.
Write up guidelines to judges to reward successful inclusion of multirevolution jumps within spiral and step sequences, or on the entrances or exits of spins, with higher GOE for both elements as well as in the Transitions component. And/or include a specific bonus, perhaps 1.0, for doing so successfully. Or define the combination of a double jump with another element as a level feature for that other element.

It's still a risk, though, that if the skater falls or stumbles badly on the jump that could also lead to low negative GOE on the sequence as well as on the jump, or possibly to the sequence not being completed enough to count at all. At least there would be only one fall deduction per fall.

Skaters also already have the option of putting something like a split-flip or delayed axel at the end of their programs, after they've already filled all their allowed jump passes. No points after the jump slots are all filled, but also no penalty as far as I know and the potential for rewards in the program components.

Or if they can pull off those jumps with triple toe on the landing, they could already leagally use that as one of their jump combos, with not much lower base mark and if successful likely with higher GOE than they could earn for a triple toe-double toe or double toe-triple toe combo. But I'm sure it's very difficult to get from one of those delayed-rotation single jumps into a good triple toe, and the skaters who would be capable of it are also capable of using their jump combo allotment for elements with much higher base marks such as triple-triples.

-Second they should drop the 0.8 penality in jump sequences, or limiting jump combos to two (instead of three) and the third one should be a jump sequence.
Jump sequences are more varied than jump combos, so we could see interesting things such as 3A, half loop, 3F or easier sequences made of a triple and then double jumps that follow the music.
-Give points to skaters that can jump in both directions (Rohene Ward).
-More credit to 2-3 combos in contrast to 3-2 combos

Click to expand...

Agreed. I'd do something like multiply the base value of the second or third jump in a combination by 1.2 and the second or third in a jump sequence by 1.1. None of this 0.8 penalty for sequences. Specifically allow the skater to use the three-jump combo option in a jump sequence instead of a true combo.

The bonus for the second jump in a true combination would also encourage skaters to use combos like one-foot axel - triple salchow, since it would be worth more than triple salchow-double toe.

How to reward jumps in both directions?
It would be tricky to reward a skater just for doing one or more isolated jumps in the opposite direction from the rest of his or her jumps -- it would be too easy for the callers to fail to notice that the skater did that jump in the other direction. That's why every time I've seen a skater attempt jumps opposite direction jumps in a program in the old system they always put it in close proximity to a normal-direction jump to make sure the judges noticed.
Also, some skaters might just prefer to different kinds of jumps in different directions; e.g., Sonja Henie did her single lutz clockwise in the air but her other jumps and spins counterclockwise, from what I've seen. If she could only do all her jumps one direction each but the lutz just happened to be opposite from the others, there's no real reason to reward her for that quirk.

So there would have to be some rules to make sure that whoever is responsible for rewarding the opposite-direction jumps would be sure to notice and to make sure that skaters are rewarded for true ambidextrousness in jumping.

For example:
Give a bonus to the base mark (1.0? 1.0 for each full revolution of the opposite-direction jump?) for a jump combination or sequence that includes jumps in both directions
Give a (lower?) bonus to the base mark of any jump if the immediately preceding element was a jump of the same name, but not necessarily the same number of revolutions

Of course all these additional bonuses would need to be written into the software. And some of the skills these new rules anticipate might not actually show up in competition for years afterward. But if skaters know that they will be rewarded for them, and how much, some will start trying them in practice and a few will be successful enough to add them to their programs.

flying camel said:

I for one love the idea. I would like to see someone create a new jump. Is that possible? Has every edge been taken?

Click to expand...

I believe that jumps have been performed from every possible takeoff edge, with or without counterrotation, with and without toe assist where applicable, as half jumps. Especially back in the days when few if any skaters were doing doubles much less triples. Usually they would just show up as transitional moves or as small jumps within step sequences. Especially the ones that it's physically impossible, or next to impossible, to perform with one full revolution in the air much less two or three.

Some, such as walleys and inside axels, were reasonably common as single jumps but almost no one could do them as doubles and I've never seen them ever done as triples, so after triple jumps became the most important measure of jump difficulty they started to become less common. And since they earn no points in the new judging system but only count as transitions, inside axels, which were already rare, have probably gotten even less common. Walleys seem to show up as transitions approximately as often now as they did a decade ago.

I would like to see a combination I have never seen before. I was actually thinking about someone doing a 3 salchow into an immediate 3 flip. I wonder if someone could pull that off. Is the salchow too awkward of a landing to add the flip? Would the person need a half loop in between. I think it's possible.

Click to expand...

double axel or triple something - half loop - double or triple flip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvck6TI2iKo&feature=related @3:23
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfTvPYACA_c @1:17

or

double axel or triple something - half loop - double or triple salchow
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k48L9JTx_oE @1:39
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hsxdjv-NGTc @4:09
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIkltQThqIk @3:10

have been done.

It's not worth doing those kinds of sequences under the current scoring rules because of the 0.8 sequence multiplier -- if the second jump is a double rather than a triple, the whole sequence ends up being worth less than just the first jump on its own.

Change the multiplier to slightly reward the last jump in a sequence, or at least to give full value to both jumps, instead of penalizing the whole thing, and you'd start seeing a lot more of those kinds of sequences.

Putting a salchow or flip as the second jump in a combination, as opposed to sequence, requires landing the first jump on the back inside edge of the other foot. That's hard to control. Again, it has been done, but it was never very common and I've never heard of an example in which both jumps were triples.

One-foot axel - triple salchow @1:19
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyMozeKlkjc&feature=PlayList&p=D36E7FCADB1CD525&playnext=1&index=18

Here's a not-quite-successful attempt at one-foot triple salchow-double flip combination at 0:30 (in a short program no less!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqqcCAAoEp0

If being ambidextrous can earn you extra points by jumping or spinning in both directions, then how about showing a little bit love for back flip? sorry this is just too much the COP already complicated enough we really don't need more point accumulation rules.

Jumps and Spins in both directions should be considered l jump and 1 spin. There is nothing combo about them, and to consider them 2 separate jumps would be taking advantage of their difficulty.

However, they are not innovative. All dance forms do moves in both directions. but it would be in line with competitive sports.

gkelly said:

Second, I'd add a new kind of element called "small-jump sequence" that would reward skaters for doing varied jumps of less than 2 revolutions. Here are my suggested rules and base marks for this kind of element:


So if you just do enough single or half jumps to cover enough ice, with no extra difficulty, you earn approximately the base value for three single jumps. If you add enough features, you'd earn a base mark comparable to another double axel or triple toe. And there are lots of different options for how to earn those features.

As far as I understand, skaters are allowed to do jumps in the middle of step sequences or spiral sequences, earn jump points for them, and use up a jumping pass in the process. But most skaters probably don't realize that it's allowed or don't believe that they can perform jumps inside a sequence that will be worth as many points (because of difficulty and/or quality) as ones performed on their own.
So how could this option be encouraged?
First of all, put it in writing where the skaters can see it how such combined elements are to be scored, so skaters know the option exists in the first place. And make it worth their while to put a double lutz, for example, in the middle of a sequence instead of a double axel on its own or a telegraphed triple lutz that will probably be downgraded and/or earn an edge call.
Write up guidelines to judges to reward successful inclusion of multirevolution jumps within spiral and step sequences, or on the entrances or exits of spins, with higher GOE for both elements as well as in the Transitions component. And/or include a specific bonus, perhaps 1.0, for doing so successfully. Or define the combination of a double jump with another element as a level feature for that other element.

Click to expand...

Those are very good ideas! I like especially the small-jump sequence.

And I would be for not counting double jumps within spiral and step sequences. So they won't block a spot.

Another idea would be to make levels also for jumps.

For exemple
-3Lutz level1 = 6.0; level2 = 6.5; level3 = 7.2; level4 = 8.0
-2Lutz level1 = 1.9; level2 = 2.4; level3 = 3.1; level4 = 3.9

1 feature = level 2; 2 features = level3; 3 features = level 4

Features
-difficult position in the air (Tano position)
-difficult entry (footwork, move in the fields or other skating movements, small jumps)
-footwork, move in the fields or other skating movements, small jumps after landing the jump
-the jump done in both directions

In this way a double Lutz level4 would have the value of a level1 triple toe.

gio said:

And I would be for not counting double jumps within spiral and step sequences. So they won't block a spot.

Click to expand...

Huh?
Suppose you have a senior lady who can do two different triples -- salchow and toe loop. (And trust me, there are plenty of senior ladies who can't even reliably do that much successfully, and lots of juniors, not just the ladies. They're not likely to make it past the short program at an ISU championship, or even necessarily *to* an ISU championship. But check out the protocols for the lower half of the field at JGPs, senior B events, and even Four Continents.)

She could fill seven jump slots with two triple salchows and two triple toes (one of each with a double toe afterward) and three double axels.

OR she could choose to replace some of those difficult-for-her triples and double axels with easier double jumps. That might involve including double lutz, flip, and loop to demonstrate command of all six basic jump takeoffs. It also might include putting, say, a double toe loop in the middle of a step sequence.

So if she does a a long telegraphed setup into a double toe by mistake where she planned to do a triple, she gets 1.3 points for it. If she does a long simple setup into double flip she gets 1.7 points. But if she does a double toe in the middle of her steps she gets no points for it? Or the difference between, say, level 2 and level 3 on her step sequence if the jump counts as a feature?

If she does a long telegraphed setup trying to get up the nerve to attempt a triple lutz, which will probably be downgraded and not successfully landed but shows she's working on a harder triple, but then at the last minute she chickens out and does a decent double, she gets 1.9 points. If she does a few difficult steps preceding the double lutz, a good jump, and a few more moves on the exit, but not anywhere near enough to count as a step sequence, she gets 1.9 points for the lutz plus positive GOE plus extra credit in transitions.

But if she does half a serpentine step sequence, uses a double lutz to change direction at the change of lobe, and continues with another half circle or more to complete the serpentine, she gets no points for the double lutz? Or the same feature credit that she'd get for putting a double toe in the step sequence instead?

That doesn't seem to make much sense.

Another idea would be to make levels also for jumps.

For exemple
-3Lutz level1 = 6.0; level2 = 6.5; level3 = 7.2; level4 = 8.0
-2Lutz level1 = 1.9; level2 = 2.4; level3 = 3.1; level4 = 3.9

1 feature = level 2; 2 features = level3; 3 features = level 4

Features
-difficult position in the air (Tano position)
-difficult entry (footwork, move in the fields or other skating movements, small jumps)
-footwork, move in the fields or other skating movements, small jumps after landing the jump

Click to expand...

I guess the original idea was that the number of rotations in the jump, and the difficulty of each kind of takeoff, would be the equivalent of the "levels" in non-jump elements, and that these variations would be reflected in the GOE instead. I can see the variations listed above working as features adding to the basemark.

-the jump done in both directions

Click to expand...

OK, this I don't understand. I didn't understand this comment of Joesitz's either:

Jumps and Spins in both directions should be considered l jump and 1 spin. There is nothing combo about them, and to consider them 2 separate jumps would be taking advantage of their difficulty.

Click to expand...

If you do a jump in both directions, that means you've done it twice. You've done two jumps.

If you do double toe loop and then pick in again from the landing edge and do another double toe loop immediately afterward, it's a double toe-double toe combination. The base mark would be that of two double toes added together, and the combination would fill one of the jump combination slots.

If you do a double toe loop and then you do another double toe loop later in the program, maybe only a few steps later, maybe 3 1/2 minutes later, you've done two double toe loops. They would count as two separate jumps and would each earn the base mark for a double toe loop, each with its appropriate grade of execution. They would fill two jump boxes.

If you do a double toe loop, take a couple of steps, and then do another double toe but this time you jump in the opposite direction, you've done two double toes. They should should count as two separate jumps and each earn the base mark for a double toe loop, each with its appropriate grade of execution, and they should fill two jump boxes.

The only question would be how to reward the fact that one of them was done in the opposite direction.

Replace "double toe loop" with a more difficult jump, which would be even further higher in difficulty if done in the other direction, and you can see why it would be silly to count the two attempts as just one jump, with the only extra points compared to just doing the normal-direction jump on its own being the difference between level 2 vs. level 3 or level 3 vs. level 4. Surely that can't be what you mean.

gkelly said:

But if she does half a serpentine step sequence, uses a double lutz to change direction at the change of lobe, and continues with another half circle or more to complete the serpentine, she gets no points for the double lutz? Or the same feature credit that she'd get for putting a double toe in the step sequence instead?

Click to expand...

The problem is that we rarely see double jumps on purpose on high levels. That's a pity, cause I've always found double jumps beautiful. I know that top skaters do double jumps without major problems.
Including them withinh a step sequence or a spiral sequence could increase the marks for transitions and increase the +GOE of the element.
So IMO counting double jumps as transition could be a good idea.
But as you have said lower ranked skaters have difficulties to do even double jumps. But if they are not sure doing them alone, they won't include them within an already demanding step sequence. But for Mao, Yu Na, Zhang or Flatt doubles are a piece of cake.
If a double blocks a spot, Mao doesn't have any incentive to include one as a transition in her program. If it is allowed to do one in a step sequence, then she can do a say double loop. That would rise her +GOE and the mark for transitions. Plus she could still do the other triples.
I think they won't care if that double loop doesn't give them points directly. In fact that double loop would give them points (a +2GOE and higher marks for transitions)

If you do a jump in both directions, that means you've done it twice. You've done two jumps.

Click to expand...

But COP says that if you do a spin in both directions, it is counted as one spin. :scratch:

gio said:

But COP says that if you do a spin in both directions, it is counted as one spin. :scratch:

Click to expand...

All you have to do to change directions in a spin is to change feet. It still counts as one spin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAdIn-NFKhc&feature=PlayList&p=162AD03C3A65A13B&playnext=1&index=7
Change-foot upright spin @ 1:25

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXUVcqpEkyU
Change-foot combination spin at 4:25

You could also do two or more separate spins with steps in between, or at completely different points of the program, including one in the opposite direction from normal. That doesn't earn any extra points under IJS.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nAFWvAT46Y
Note that the layback @ 0:34 is done clockwise, whereas the jumps and the rest of the spins are counterclockwise.

Lots of single axels in this program, including four in alternating directions starting at 2:16:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpKNkVpDORs

Series of double axels both ways in this exhibition at 2:06:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAdIn-NFKhc

It's not physically possible to do a rotational jump that changes direction in the air. If you're going to jump in both directions, you have to go up in the air and rotate, come back down again, jump up again, and rotate the other way.

It is possible do a jump sequence or jump combination that consists of two or more separate jumps that rotate in opposite directions. It would be nice if there were some kind of official way to reward that. As I said earlier, most likely the rules would only reward a jump combination or sequence that rotates both ways within the same element. The two jumps might have different takeoffs and/or different numbers of revolutions, i.e., they wouldn't be the same kind of jump, but they would be part of the same element.

I think the last thing anyone needs in terms of encouraging creativity would be to allow more jumping passes. The interesting, unusual jumps are generally unlisted jumps anyway, so they can be done as connecting moves or even as part of a step sequence without using up a jump pass. These unlisted jumps include such jumps as walleys, half axels and one-and-a-half flips, and although they do not add to the technical score, they pump up the transitions and choreography scores.

Honestly, I think the biggest factors limiting creativity are: (1) the uncertainty of whether a position will count as a difficult variation in competition, (2) the difficulty of enforcing of the 2 point bonus for new moves, and (3) the difficulty of just trying to get the most possible points on all of the elements now that programs are so packed.

I think it was a great move for the ISU to remove one step or spiral sequence from the SP and LP in Juniors this year (and that will probably extend to Seniors soon), since it leaves more time in the program for interpretation and connecting moves.

BTW, I agree that it is ridiculous to give jump sequences only 80% of the value of the two highest valued jumps. Since jumps are more difficult in sequence than as solo jumps, they should get full credit. To differentiate between sequences and combinations, the second and third jumps in combination should get a 20% bonus.

Yawn. You're trying to fit a round peg into a square hole again. As long as you have a limitless point-based system, all the once-beautiful shapes of pegs will be conforming to that boring square hole. Figure skating should be judged, not calculated.

vlaurend said:

I think the last thing anyone needs in terms of encouraging creativity would be to allow more jumping passes. The interesting, unusual jumps are generally unlisted jumps anyway, so they can be done as connecting moves or even as part of a step sequence without using up a jump pass. These unlisted jumps include such jumps as walleys, half axels and one-and-a-half flips, and although they do not add to the technical score, they pump up the transitions and choreography scores.

Click to expand...

Good point!! we don't need more of the same. The unlisted jumps would enhance the programs as more sporty for those who can execute them. I'm not aware of the panels that list the difficult grades or levels for elements.

to use these unlisted jumps for connecting steps would definitely create a problem for some skaters. Can you imagine a 3sal into a 3half loop into a 3wally? Wow, not for the squeamish.

From what I understand the 'unlisted' jumps' can be used as connecting steps. They do not carry any mind blowing points so why do them? I've never read any reason why your listed jumps: walleys, half axels and one-and-a-half flips are made into second class elements. Does anyone?

Honestly, I think the biggest factors limiting creativity are: (1) the uncertainty of whether a position will count as a difficult variation in competition, (2) the difficulty of enforcing of the 2 point bonus for new moves, and (3) the difficulty of just trying to get the most possible points on all of the elements now that programs are so packed.

Click to expand...

I think when a coach is outlining a new program, he/she also counts safety as well as points. This will impede creativity somewhat if they overflow the contents. The CoP is a nitpicking method for scoring and planned programs are all pretty much the same. Creativity can barely exist if at all.

Joesitz said:

The CoP is a nitpicking method for scoring and planned programs are all pretty much the same. Creativity can barely exist if at all.

Click to expand...

I don't completely agree with that. There are skaters who have managed to incorporate the point-getting elements, features and levels while also being creative and entertaining and getting rewarded for that. Here are two that come to mind right away:
Daisuke Takahashi's Cyber Swan SP
Stephanie Rosenthal's 2006 US Nationals SP

vlaurend said:

I don't completely agree with that. There are skaters who have managed to incorporate the point-getting elements, features and levels while also being creative and entertaining and getting rewarded for that. Here are two that come to mind right away:
Daisuke Takahashi's Cyber Swan SP
Stephanie Rosenthal's 2006 US Nationals SP

Click to expand...

I'm just making a general statement. Some do get better mileage with the right choreographer, but that's just a handful of skaters. Most skaters for me are doing the same elements without innovation, using often played music in a program that one has been doing for years.

Of course, some elite skaters (the handful) come up with some variety of music in a given program, and a few of them can show the 'character of the music'.

The character of the music is embodied in the score by the composer. How many skaters have lived a life to capture that? The skater's choreographer could sit down with the skater and explain how he/she feels about the music.

I do think many skaters can superficially show the moods in a score particularly if there is a story from another source, but to innovate their own mood without such a story, is where one can appreciate a budding artform. JMO.

Otherwise they can carry on with ballet-like arms etc. but not for me.

Joesitz said:

I'm just making a general statement. Some do get better mileage with the right choreographer, but that's just a handful of skaters. Most skaters for me are doing the same elements without innovation, using often played music in a program that one has been doing for years.

Of course, some elite skaters (the handful) come up with some variety of music in a given program, and a few of them can show the 'character of the music'.

The character of the music is embodied in the score by the composer. How many skaters have lived a life to capture that? The skater's choreographer could sit down with the skater and explain how he/she feels about the music.

I do think many skaters can superficially show the moods in a score particularly if there is a story from another source, but to innovate their own mood without such a story, is where one can appreciate a budding artform. JMO.

Otherwise they can carry on with ballet-like arms etc. but not for me.

Click to expand...

But did we really see any more innovation and creativity from the average 6.0 skater than we see now from the average IJS skater? I recall lots of crossovers, basic spins and major focus on just landing the jumps.

vlaurend said:

But did we really see any more innovation and creativity from the average 6.0 skater than we see now from the average IJS skater? I recall lots of crossovers, basic spins and major focus on just landing the jumps.

Click to expand...

It's indeed rare that one saw in the 6.0 system also. I feel the young ladies do not have a feel for music and need to fake it by copying some accomplished ballerina or Senior skater. Some can not even fake it.

In her earlier years Kwan could draw the audience into the music of her program.

btw, I'm not against crossovers if they are used for the flow of the program. Weir is so good at that.