Of course I can give allowances to some things mattering MORE than the audience cares about, such as complete rotation, but in those cases the underrotation really needs to be spelled out so the audience knows immediately the what and the why behind the deductions.
Last edited by Particle Man; 04-16-2009 at 08:36 PM.
After watching the entire skate, I think the audience and the judges know exactly who is the winner and in most cases who are second and third. One doesn't need a list of do's and dont's. However, when the contest is really hot, as is was for the Men in Gothenborg, then I appreciate the CoP.
The PC scores are well covered in the Tech's GoEs, imo, and only an overall score of showing talent and beauty should be considered
Audiences get confused when they see an obvious winner not win. CoP enthusiasts understand what happened. Then there are the blokes like me who wonder what makes these judges know so much more than ardent fans,
I contend that the winner of a CoP competition may not be a great skater, but one who obeys what has to be done.
Is it just me or should after this several skaters get +2 on nearly every jump (let's say - Johnny, e.g.).3) varied position in the air / delay in rotation
4) good height and distance
5) good extension on landing / creative exit
6) good flow from entry to exit including jump combinations / sequences
7) effortless throughout
I really don't think the judges can consider all these points at once. A Joubert and a Chan will always get more +2s for a rather average jump than Obscure Skater No.43 for an excellent jump.
Hehh? What exactly do they mean?1.2. [...] In throw jumps it includes turning of the Man on the ice before throwing the Lady in the air.
Too complicated for this avid fan.
I agree with the poster(s) who said the frequent changes, in the guise of simplification, have the opposite affect becuase it's impossible for judges, not to mention coaches, choreographers and skaters themselves, to comprehend and absorb them from one season to the next.
This is the only sport I know of that changes rules more frequently than skaters change edges!
They changed something which had been blatantly and obviously wrong, that people had been complaining about for years. How anyone has an issue with that is truly beyond me.
I think it's hilarious that skating switched to a point-earning system but lay out virtually very little criteria, if none, on how PCs are scored. The TES and the GOEs are one thing because you're told exactly what you need to do to get higher marks, whether judges follow them or not is a different story. Most get crazed by PCs.
If you botched your program, yes, your performance portion should take the blow but your skating skills shouldn't (that is if you had good-great skating skills to begin with).
If anything, judges should keep a copy on pdf open and use CRTL+F to quick search when it doubt. *shrug*
Last edited by dorispulaski; 04-17-2009 at 03:32 PM.
There were always some changes to the rules after each ISU Congress, but since a lot of details weren't spelled out in the old system, there weren't as many details officially changed.
http://www.isu.org/vsite/vfile/page/...-0-file,00.pdfI think it's hilarious that skating switched to a point-earning system but lay out virtually very little criteria, if none, on how PCs are scored.
There's a lot more criteria and explanations than were spelled out for the second mark in the old system. There is still plenty of room for judges to use their own discretion and disagree with each other, though.
I don't think the scoring computer systems allow for any other software to be available. And the rules don't allow them to bring any form of electronic communication onto the judging stand.If anything, judges should keep a copy on pdf open and use CRTL+F to quick search when it doubt. *shrug*
See p. 44
At least at some competitions judges can take printouts of documents like the GOE guidelines onto the judging stand. They can't bring any previously prepared notes about the skaters or scores.
Well, programs can be friendly in different ways -- there would need to be several different examples.
Or just take examples of past programs and add comments to point out what aspects should and shouldn't be penalized. Which I believe is done to some degree in judging schools/seminars, but not all trainers or all schools use the same examples.
Of course they would need to use retired skaters to avoid introducing bias toward the skaters used as examples. Recently retired high-level skaters if they're going to ask them to skate something now to demonstrate specific skills or whole programs that require being in near-peak training.
Unfortunately, time just ran out to experiment and be adventurous. With the biellman once per program, ladies gotta come up with new spiral/spin positions.
Last edited by DarkestMoon; 04-17-2009 at 01:52 PM. Reason: spelling mistake
And do the same for spiral sequences. And for relevant pair and dance elements.
I would say step sequences but right now the rules are such that all singles skaters need to meet the same requirements to earn level 4, and very few manage to do so. Sure, there are different approaches one can take toward choreographing the sequences within those requirements, but it would be hard to come up with several examples of level 4 sequences that look and feel different and that the demonstrator(s) can learn and demonstrate adequately.
Also you could give several examples of level 2 or level 3 step sequences that take completely different choreographic approaches and point out how they can even outscore level 4 sequences if the GOE is high enough.
Either way, that would take a lot more choreography and practice time then just getting skaters who already have unique spin or spiral skills to show how they can be incorporated into a spiral sequence to earn levels.
You're thinking of this mainly as an educational tool for skaters (and coaches and choreographers)? It certainly could be useful for inspiring more variety and creativity in meeting the level requirements.
(I still think the step sequence requirements need to be modified if variety is a goal the ISU wants to promote.)
Yes, I think so. Ask a technical specialist to be sure. Is this a sitspin on one foot, or with a change of foot between the two positions?If I understood correctly, one could do two positions: sit spin and catch-sit with a twist: hold both positions for 8 revolutions, stay centered and gain speed. Difficult to do but should acquire at least a level 3, no?
I'm not sure what you mean by "time just ran out."Unfortunately, time just ran out to experiment and be adventurous. With the biellman once per program, ladies gotta come up with new spiral/spin positions.