Scoring 102

The continuation of Scoring 101...

http://www.skatecanada.ca/en/news_views/news/2008_2009/scoring_102.cfm

Most of it is pretty basic, but it's still a great refresher in CoP!

skatingbc said:

The continuation of Scoring 101...

http://www.skatecanada.ca/en/news_views/news/2008_2009/scoring_102.cfm

Most of it is pretty basic, but it's still a great refresher in CoP!

Click to expand...

Again skatingbc, thank you. Very clear information, but nothing about Levels and how they are decided. I believe it is the job of the Tech Panel. No?

My BIG QUESTION (always): When an element if executed, let say a double axel where take-off, air turns, landing are all in accordance with the definition, what is the purpose of giving it more than the base value? It seems to me, that the skater did the jump properly, and only faulties should receive negative GoEs.

My other qualm is that the Levels are totally subjective and if the Tech Panel never skated, how well do they know the difficulty? I can't help but think, 'what's one man's prize is another man's poison'.

Joesitz said:

Again skatingbc, thank you. Very clear information, but nothing about Levels and how they are decided. I believe it is the job of the Tech Panel. No?

Click to expand...

Yes. Here is the documernt that spells out what features the tech panel is looking for in determining levels (scroll down to page 10.)

http://isu.sportcentric.net/db//files/serve.php?id=934

My BIG QUESTION (always): When an element if executed, let say a double axel where take-off, air turns, landing are all in accordance with the definition, what is the purpose of giving it more than the base value?

Click to expand...

I believe the purpose is that if someone does not do just an adequate entrance but rather an unusual and difficult one, if he not only does the air turns but also achieves great height and distance as well, and if the landing is not merely adequate to satisfy the defintion but also has superior flow, lands right on the beat of the music, and flows seemlessly into the next element while maintaining the charater of the choreography -- then that skater deserves an extra point or two of GOE, compared to the skater who just does the minimum.

My other qualm is that the Levels are totally subjective and if the Tech Panel never skated, how well do they know the difficulty?

Click to expand...

I don't think the levels are subjective at all. You get a higher level on your spin if you change position so many times, change from a back edge to a forward edge, etc. Either you do or you don't. There is no subjectivity at all.

GOE and program component scores are subjective, but not levels.

I think most of the technical specialists are former skaters. In any case, it is not the technical panel's job to decide how difficult anything is. They just have to decide, yes or no, did the skater hold her spiral position for so many seconds, did the pairs team complete the required number of revolutions in their pairs spin, etc.

Mathman said:

I believe the purpose is that if someone does not do just an adequate entrance but rather an unusual and difficult one, if he not only does the air turns but also achieves great height and distance as well, and if the landing is not merely adequate to satisfy the defintion but also has superior flow, lands right on the beat of the music, and flows seemlessly into the next element while maintaining the charater of the choreography -- then that skater deserves an extra point or two of GOE, compared to the skater who just does the minimum.

Click to expand...

I would agree with everything except the bit in bold above. That is something for the PCS not the GOE of the element which is about the execution and quality of the element itself as a technical matter.

Ant

antmanb said:

I would agree with everything except the bit in bold above. That is something for the PCS not the GOE of the element which is about the execution and quality of the element itself as a technical matter.

Click to expand...

My new IJS brain is still a work in progress. My old 6.0 brain had it down. Figure skating has two parts, technical and artistic (OK, "presentation.") So there are two scores, one for technique and one for artistry.

Now I am coming more and more to acclimate myself to the new division. It is not technical versus artistic. Rather, it is Individual Elements versus Whole Program.

Each of the TES and the PCS have both technical and artistic parts. In the TES, the technical part is the base score and the artistic part is the GOE. In PCS the technical part is SS and TR, and the artistic part is P/I, CH and INT. There are ambiguities and overlaps among all of these different categories of scores.

If this is the right way to look at it, then doing an element in a particularly "artistic way" -- for instance, using it to punctuate a musical highlight -- could be factored into the GOE for that element. (?)

Yes, this is double dipping, because use of big elements as part of the choreography also boosts the PCSs (across the board, in practice.) Still, I think the IJS allows and encourages this. (?)

Mathman said:

If this is the right way to look at it, then doing an element in a particularly "artistic way" -- for instance, using it to punctuate a musical highlight -- could be factored into the GOE for that element. (?)

Click to expand...

Maybe the judges do give marks for landing a jump on the beat of the music, or to, as you very nicely put it, punctuate a musical highlight, in that respect we are no wiser than we were under 6.0. However, the guidelines for positive GOE (from memory though so i might be wrong) does not include any commentary about highlighting musical punctuations, i thought it was simply - was it a more difficult entry (hard transitions into it or particularly short unexpected set up), was it superior in the air (higher, longer, arm in the arm), was it superior on the landing (fast, difficult transition immediately following the landing). All of thos point are regardless of the music playing when the element is performed.

Ant

Mathman said:

Yes. Here is the documernt that spells out what features the tech panel is looking for in determining levels (scroll down to page 10.)

http://isu.sportcentric.net/db//files/serve.php?id=934

Click to expand...

Thanks MM. I hope when I read them, that they will explain how one level is really more difficult than the next but it wouldn't matter. I suppose the Tech Specialists must follow the system without question.

(re: my big question)

I believe the purpose is that if someone does not do just an adequate entrance but rather an unusual and difficult one, if he not only does the air turns but also achieves great height and distance as well, and if the landing is not merely adequate to satisfy the defintion but also has superior flow, lands right on the beat of the music, and flows seemlessly into the next element while maintaining the charater of the choreography -- then that skater deserves an extra point or two of GOE, compared to the skater who just does the minimum.

Click to expand...

I presume there are no negative GoEs if adequacy is reached, and we will see this in the Protocols. yes? btw, since the GoEs are also scored individually on performance , wouldn't their sum total be also a measure of Skating Ability in the PC scores? (bare in mind, I'm thinking of Seniors who got to be Seniors because of basics and quads which are not a given in competition.)

I don't think the levels are subjective at all. You get a higher level on your spin if you change position so many times, change from a back edge to a forward edge, etc. Either you do or you don't. There is no subjectivity at all.

Click to expand...

I do understand that, although not particularly like it. It's that old 'how did they decide a change edge spin was so difficult?. It's not; it's rotating in the same directiion. (Just an example).

I think most of the technical specialists are former skaters. In any case, it is not the technical panel's job to decide how difficult anything is. They just have to decide, yes or no, did the skater hold her spiral position for so many seconds, did the pairs team complete the required number of revolutions in their pairs spin, etc.

Click to expand...

They should wear striped knickers with that brimmed cap, like proper referees do. I did know that the TSs hadve no business in grading elements but they do acknowlege them and tell the judges whether the element was adequate or not, and give Levels as to difficulty. Very powerful people and yet so little time to reach a consensus, but they do. Do the fans agree? hmmm.

Joesitz said:

I presume there are no negative GoEs if adequacy is reached, and we will see this in the Protocols. yes?

Click to expand...

Yes i think that's right - the judges simply give 0 for GOE is it is perfectly adequately executed.

Joesitz said:

btw, since the GoEs are also scored individually on performance , wouldn't their sum total be also a measure of Skating Ability in the PC scores?

Click to expand...

I think that's where MM is right in his post above. The GOEs grade the quality of the technical elements and therefore must logically be directly applicable to show the skating skills of the skater, however, i do not think that they do form any part of the PCS unless the judges look back over their scorecard after the performance and see the GOE they have given and use it to form the basis of the Skating Skills mark in the PCS they give.

Joesitz said:

(bare in mind, I'm thinking of Seniors who got to be Seniors because of basics and quads which are not a given in competition.)

Click to expand...

Well I think there is a certain level masic skating that one can expect from a senior skater. But that depends on the national testing structure of the country where the relevant skater is from. Quads certainly are not part of the "basics" and do not form the basis of any senior freestyle test i know of. I think the hardest jump required by most senior tests is a double lutz or at the very most a double axel.

Joesitz said:

I do understand that, although not particularly like it. It's that old 'how did they decide a change edge spin was so difficult?. It's not; it's rotating in the same directiion. (Just an example).

Click to expand...

I would agree and disagree. Doing a forward spin on an outside edge is extremely difficult. It's also (IMO) not pretty except on a camel spin. Doing a backspin on an inside edge is one of themany possible beginner mistakes on a backspin so i'm not sure why it is considered to be difficult.

Joesitz said:

They should wear striped knickers with that brimmed cap, like proper referees do. I did know that the TSs hadve no business in grading elements but they do acknowlege them and tell the judges whether the element was adequate or not, and give Levels as to difficulty. Very powerful people and yet so little time to reach a consensus, but they do. Do the fans agree? hmmm.

Click to expand...

I suppose it's like any real time call any referee or umpire has to make in sports. In tennis you have the umpire and line judges - just one example. Arguably the eyes of 9 or more judges are always going to reach a better conclusion than the eyes of just three people, however, the judging system requires so much detail from the judges that calling the elements and checking off all the features for things like step sequences woul dbe unmanageable - don't forget the tech panel splits up to look for different things in step sequences.

Sometimes they get it wrong and sometimes they get it right. What can you do? That's sport.

Ant

antmanb said:

Well I think there is a certain level masic skating that one can expect from a senior skater. But that depends on the national testing structure of the country where the relevant skater is from. Quads certainly are not part of the "basics" and do not form the basis of any senior freestyle test i know of. I think the hardest jump required by most senior tests is a double lutz or at the very most a double axel.

Click to expand...

The requirements in Canada for Senior level is at least a double axel plus a triple, or two triple jumps (I'm pretty sure they have to be two different triples).

http://www.skatinginbc.com/Groups/Technical/CompetitiveTestsCPC.pdf

All the info for Canadian Competitive skating tests

For junior level tests, a double axel or one triple is required.

antmanb said:

However, the guidelines for positive GOE (from memory though so i might be wrong) does not include any commentary about highlighting musical punctuations,

Click to expand...

The only elements for which music is mentioned in relation to positive GOEs for singles and pairs are step sequences.
http://isu.sportcentric.net/db//files/serve.php?id=981

That doesn't mean that judges never take the musical timing of other elements into account in awarding positive GOEs, but they're not explicitly instructed to do so.

Elements fitting the timing and/or character of the music are mentioned a lot more often in the ice dance guidelines:
http://isu.sportcentric.net/db//files/serve.php?id=1016
(bottom of pp. 26-30)

Joesitz said:

Thanks MM. I hope when I read them, that they will explain how one level is really more difficult than the next

Click to expand...

An element with a higher level is more difficult than a lower level element because it contains more features. You need two features to earn level 2, three to earn level 3, four to earn level 4.

Now, some of the features are more difficult than others. They all add difficulty to the basic element, but some are not that difficult to achieve, and so almost everyone does them. Some are very difficult and so nobody or almost nobody does them. They all count as just one feature, so naturally the skaters tend to gravitate toward the easier features.

I suppose the Tech Specialists must follow the system without question.

Click to expand...

Yup, that's their job.

btw, since the GoEs are also scored individually on performance , wouldn't their sum total be also a measure of Skating Ability in the PC scores?

Click to expand...

The Skating Skills component mostly measures skills that are more demonstrated between the elements than within the elements. And all the Skating Skills criteria relate to what the blades are doing on the ice.

Many aspects of jumps and spins, or pair lifts etc., relate to what the skaters are doing above the ice, with the rest of their bodies and/or in mid air.

So there is some overlap between skating ability and quality of the elements, but there are also areas where they don't overlap at all.

That's why the scores are separate.

antmanb said:

I think that's where MM is right in his post above. The GOEs grade the quality of the technical elements and therefore must logically be directly applicable to show the skating skills of the skater, however, i do not think that they do form any part of the PCS unless the judges look back over their scorecard after the performance and see the GOE they have given and use it to form the basis of the Skating Skills mark in the PCS they give.

Click to expand...

I've heard some judges comment that if the program has negative GOEs on almost all the elements, they might lower the Performance/Execution component because the execution was weak. On the other hand, if most of the elements had +1s and +2s (or better), that might be a reason to reward superior execution in the PE component.

I would agree and disagree. Doing a forward spin on an outside edge is extremely difficult. It's also (IMO) not pretty except on a camel spin. Doing a backspin on an inside edge is one of themany possible beginner mistakes on a backspin so i'm not sure why it is considered to be difficult.

Click to expand...

If the skater does a backspin on the forward inside edge because s/he is unable to spin on the back outside edge, s/he won't get credit for the feature. The feature is not for spinning on the forward edge, but for spinning on both edges (at least 2 revolutions on each in the same basic position). Therefore the skater has to demonstrate ability to spin on the "correct" edge and ability to control the change of edge, which is indeed more difficult than spinning on only one edge or the other, whichever might be easier for that skater.

In my personal experience trying it on the ice, the back upright spin is indeed the easiest position to change edge on, and back sit the second easiest. However, changing edge in these positions is still more difficult than just staying on the back outside edge.

As I said above, some features are easier to achieve than others. But even the easier ones are more difficult than not doing any feature. And if you do it inadequately, the tech panel won't give you credit for the feature and the judges may give negative GOE. Although the fans might still notice the attempt and bemoan the preponderance of bad edge changes, etc.

Joesitz said:

I do understand that, although not particularly like it. It's that old 'how did they decide a change edge spin was so difficult?. It's not; it's rotating in the same directiion. (Just an example).

Click to expand...

Changing edges on spins are indeed more difficult than staying on the same edge. Maintaining the speed, control and position is extremely challenging - speaking from my personal experience

I'll also add that I attempt a spin that includes both a change of edge and a change of direction. I'm much more consistent at executing the change of direction satisfactorily.

this is why I have a beef. The judges and Technical Specialist don't Follow those exact same rules with all the skaters. They apply it good /bad for whomever they want on top/ middle /bottom.
If the judges and Technical Specialist/Controller would apply those rules (the same) to every skater. The skating outcome would be different on some occasions.
On others it would be the same.

gkelly said:

I'll also add that I attempt a spin that includes both a change of edge and a change of direction. I'm much more consistent at executing the change of direction satisfactorily.

Click to expand...

I've had the exact opposite experience - I find the COE (on both back and forward spins) much easier than spinning in my non-rotational direction (not that the COE was easy, mind you, especially when it comes to maintenance of speed and centering). Perhaps it's because I have an old school coach who made me work on figure loops for about 10 minutes a day along with other figures to help with my MIF (back double threes, brackets, and counters so far as I am currently working on Novice).

gkelly said:

The only elements for which music is mentioned in relation to positive GOEs for singles and pairs are step sequences.

http://isu.sportcentric.net/db//files/serve.php?id=981

That doesn't mean that judges never take the musical timing of other elements into account in awarding positive GOEs, but they're not explicitly instructed to do so.

Click to expand...

This (1510) is a good document to have on hand.

I see that both step sequences and spirals list "highlights the character of the program" as a bullet for positive GOE. I don't see why spins and jumps can't also do that.

I suppose a 'Tano Lutz gets a jump bullet for "varied position in the air." But it could also "highlight the character of the program" if the program featured heroic martial music, while it would just be a distraction if done to "Meditation from Thais."

I assume that the location (in space and time) of highlight elements like jumps and spins factors into Choreography score on the PCS side.

My own experience from Rollers to Ice is quite different in easiness.

On Rollers one has to edge properly because those wheels just wont turn on the Flat. So there are 4 Camel spins as there are for many moves on Rollers. A forward outside camel, then a three turn produces a back inside camel. A forward inside camel, then a threee turn produces, you know it, a back outside camel.
When I switced to Ice, it all became so much easier with that lack of friction. One could spin like crazy on the flat and depending on how you entered the spin it was called a forward or a back spin. Edges seemed irrelevant.

For jumps, having removed those heavy mechanisms and wheels for the single blade, air turns were less difficult but for landings one had to put some time in learning how to land on that narrow blade. If you check out Tara Lipinky's general skating, you will see how she avoids true edges.

Back to gkelly's interesting remarks on Levels. Some are more difficult than others and many skaters avoid the difficult ones. I'll buy that, but does a Tech Spec have to call the level just because the skater changed edge albeit sloppylike? What would result a Level 4, Goe -2 get as compared to a level 2, GoE +2?

i love to skate If switching edges is difficult to maintain speed, why is it that so many skaters increase their speed when switching edges? Camel to sitspin to straight up spin all on different edges tends to increase in speed before taking a bow. No?

As for Skating Skills. yes, they cam be compared to much of what was aleady covered in the GoEs or should have been. What else do they cover if not the ability to do a Bielman Spin and a Quad both of which (I guess) are superior skating skills?
It's the one section of the PCs which I would like to know how it is judged from judges. The official description reads ambiguously at least to me.

Well, enough said. I'm off for Hollywood to see if any of those Movie Celebrities show up. Will they root for Mai or YuNa? or Carolina or Joannie? I'm going to see Joubert win and get pumped up for Vancouver. He's overdue.

Joesitz said:

Back to gkelly's interesting remarks on Levels. Some are more difficult than others and many skaters avoid the difficult ones. I'll buy that, but does a Tech Spec have to call the level just because the skater changed edge albeit sloppylike? What would result a Level 4, Goe -2 get as compared to a level 2, GoE +2?

Click to expand...

If you go to the Scoring 102 page, and click Scoring Skate Bag, then click any of the Scale of Values links, you'll find charts with the base and all of the negative and positive GOE scores. For the most part, it seems that it is better to do a lower level element well than do a higher level element poorly.

Joesitz said:

i love to skate If switching edges is difficult to maintain speed, why is it that so many skaters increase their speed when switching edges? Camel to sitspin to straight up spin all on different edges tends to increase in speed before taking a bow. No?

Click to expand...

No, a camel-sit-upright combination spin is all on the same edge. If a forward spin, they are on a back inside, if in a back spin, a back outside edge. The COE spin is exactly that - the skater actually flips the edge over to the forward inside or forward outside depending on the spin in the same position they were just in. The reason the speed increases going from a camel to a sit and then an upright is purely physics - less resistance to the rotation because the area exposed is smaller.

A COE spin is inherently going to be slower than the standard edge spin because in order to flip that edge over you have to be further back on your blade than the standard sweet spot and your spinning revs make "dinner plates" or "saucers" as opposed to little circles.

Mathman said:

My new IJS brain is still a work in progress. My old 6.0 brain had it down. Figure skating has two parts, technical and artistic (OK, "presentation.") So there are two scores, one for technique and one for artistry.

Now I am coming more and more to acclimate myself to the new division. It is not technical versus artistic. Rather, it is Individual Elements versus Whole Program.

Each of the TES and the PCS have both technical and artistic parts. In the TES, the technical part is the base score and the artistic part is the GOE. In PCS the technical part is SS and TR, and the artistic part is P/I, CH and INT. There are ambiguities and overlaps among all of these different categories of scores.

If this is the right way to look at it, then doing an element in a particularly "artistic way" -- for instance, using it to punctuate a musical highlight -- could be factored into the GOE for that element. (?)

Yes, this is double dipping, because use of big elements as part of the choreography also boosts the PCSs (across the board, in practice.) Still, I think the IJS allows and encourages this. (?)

Click to expand...

Kudos MM, I agree with your view on TES and PSC, and you explained your view so well.