Page 1 of 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 204

Thread: Proposed CoP Changes for Singles

  1. #1
    Skating is art, if you let it be. Blades of Passion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Hollywood, CA
    Posts
    4,016

    Proposed CoP Changes for Singles

    I have taken it upon myself to go through and fix everything that I currently see wrong with the judging system as it stands. I’ve separated it into two posts; this first post is specifically about jumps and the second post is about everything else.

    Jump combinations should be receiving a bonus; a 3A + 3T is harder than a 3A and 3T by themselves. However, giving jumps even more points than they get right now would be imbalanced. In order to create a system where combinations can be given their rightful due, the individual value of jumps as they are now needs to be decreased.

    VALUES FOR JUMPS:

    4Lutz - 12.2 (-2.2, +1.1 for GOE)
    4Flip - 11.8 (-2.1, +1.1 for GOE)
    4Loop - 11.4 (-2.0, +1.1 for GOE)
    4Sal - 10.0 (-1.8, +1.1 for GOE)
    4Toe - 9.4 (-1.7, +1.1 for GOE)

    3Axel - 7.8 (-1.5, +1.1 for GOE)
    3Lutz - 5.6 (-1.3, +1 for GOE)
    3Flip - 5.2 (-1.2, +1 for GOE)
    3Loop - 4.8 (-1.2, +1 for GOE)
    3Sal - 3.8 (-1.0, +.9 for GOE)
    3Toe - 3.4 (-9, +.9 for GOE)

    2Axel - 2.8 (-.8, -.8, -.7, +.8 for GOE)
    2Lutz - 2.0 (-.5, -.5, -.4, +.6 for GOE)
    2Flip - 1.8 (-.5 -.4, -.4, +.6 for GOE)
    2Loop - 1.6 (-.4, +.6 for GOE)
    2Sal - 1.2 (.-3, +.6 for GOE)
    2Toe - 1.1 (-.3, -.3, -2, +.6 for GOE)

    1Axel - .9 (-.2, +.5 for GOE)
    1Lutz - .4 (-.1, +.2 for GOE)
    1Flip - .3 (-.1, +.2 for GOE)
    1Loop - .3 (-.1, +.2 for GOE)
    1Sal - .2 (-.1, +.2 for GOE)
    1Toe - .2 (-.1, +.2 for GOE)

    *Another change is the increased impact of negative GOE on (most) jumps and a reduction of the penalty for falling to .5 (which wasn't stated above). Is it really much worse when someone falls as compared to someone who double-foots a jump, falls out of the landing, and puts both hands down onto the ice (ie. -3 GOE)?

    *The Toeloop and Salchow jumps have been further spaced away from the Loop, Flip, and Lutz in terms of value. The current values for these jumps are spaced in an even manner, but this does not accurately reflect the difficulty of the jumps. The Toeloop and Salchow are “easier” jumps and the Loop, Flip, and Lutz are “difficult” jumps. The Loop jump in particular is now worth a notably greater amount than it used to be in comparison to the Toeloop and Salchow.

    *The Double Axel has also been made less valuable in comparison to the Triple jumps. Other than being an accurate reflection of that jump's difficulty in comparison to the Triple jumps, this change is important because (as you will later read) there should be more freedom in the Long Programs in terms of what elements skaters can execute. A Double Axel is currently more worthwhile than any spin (and most footwork/spiral sequences). If given the choice between being able to do Double Axel and a non-jump element, skaters need incentive to do which one fits the program and their own capabilities best.

    BONUSES FOR COMBINATIONS and SEQUENCES:

    *First Jump - receives no bonus if the second jump is a single, 5% bonus if it’s a double, 10% bonus if it’s a triple, 15% bonus if it’s a 3Axel or Quad.

    *Second Jump - receives a 10% bonus if the first jump was less than a Triple, 15% bonus if the first jump was a Triple, 20% bonus if the first jump was a 3Axel or Quad.

    *Third Jump - automatically receives a 10% bonus. If it is a single jump there is no additional no bonus. If it is a Double the entire combination receives a 5% bonus. If it is a Triple the entire combination receives a 10% bonus. If it is a 3Axel or Quad (when cows fly...) the entire combination receives a 15% bonus.

    In a three jump combination, the third jump must be of a different type than the second jump and/or have a different arm position in the air. If this requirement is not met, the bonuses incurred by doing the third jump will be cut in half.

    *If a jump combination uses a half-loop to connect jumps, the half-loop shall not count as one of the jumps in the combination in terms of determining if the jumping passing should be scored as a two-jump combination or a three-jump combination (and in terms of which combination slot it uses up). The bonus for these types of combinations will be ONE-HALF of the normal bonus for combinations.

    *For jump sequences (defined by a maximum of 3 steps and/or hops between jumps), the sequence shall receive a penalty of 5%.

    VALUES FOR UNDERROTATED JUMPS:

    4Lutz - 7.6 (-1.5, +1 for GOE)
    4Flip - 7.2 (-1.4, +1 for GOE)
    4Loop - 6.8 (-1.4, +1 for GOE)
    4Sal - 6.0 (-1.3, +1 for GOE)
    4Toe - 5.6 (-1.3, +1 for GOE)

    3Axel - 4.8 (-1.2, +1 for GOE)
    3Lutz - 3.3 (-.9, -.9, -.8, +.9 for GOE)
    3Flip - 3.1 (-.8, +.8 for GOE)
    3Loop - 2.9 (-.8, +.8 for GOE)
    3Sal - 2.4 (-.7, +.7 for GOE)
    3Toe - 2.2 (-.6, +.7 for GOE)

    2Axle - 1.8 (-.5, -.4, -.4, +.6 for GOE)
    2Lutz - 1.0 (-.2, +.4 for GOE)
    2Flip - .9 (-.2, +.4 for GOE)
    2Loop - .8 (-.2, +.4 for GOE)
    2Sal - .6 (-.2, -.1, -.1, +.3 for GOE)
    2Toe - .6 (-.2, -.1, -.1, +.3 for GOE)

    1Axel - .4 (-.1, +.2 for GOE)
    (all other underrotated single jumps are worth nothing)

    It is important that underrotated jumps are not simply downgraded a full level. An underrotated Quad is not a Triple. An underrotated Triple is not a double. These jumps should have their own values.

    For all jumps, ONE-HALF turn of pre-rotation and ONE-QUARTER turn of underrotation is allowed before the jump is considered an Underrotated jump. If a skater pre-rotates more than one-half turn, then the landing must also go further past the quarter-turn mark. 2.25 rotations in the air is the minimum amount of rotation required for a Triple jump. Less than that will cause the jump to be called as underrotated. A skater must obtain at least 2 rotations total in the air for the jump to be considered an underrotated Triple. If this amount is not achieved, the jump shall be called as a double.

    If a skater pre-rotates less than one-half turn, but comes up more than one-quarter turn short on the landing, leeway shall be given when deciding how to call the jump. If there is no pre-rotation at all (as such is the case for some Lutz and Flip jumps), then the landing shall be allowed an extra 1/4 turn of leeway. If there is only 1/4 turn of pre-rotation, the landing shall be allowed an extra 1/8 turn of leeway.

    FLUTZES AND LIPS:

    *For a Lutz jump that takes off from a slight inside edge, the jump shall received a penalty of 10%. For a Lutz jump that takes off from a very obvious inside edge, the jump shall received a penalty of 20%.

    *For a Flip jump that takes off from a very obvious outside edge, the jump shall receive a penalty of 10%.

    *The GOE values are modified by the same amount in each case.

    OTHER MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES RELATED TO JUMPS:

    *A single-footed Axel (an Axel that takes off and lands on the same foot) shall be worth 60% greater base value (the GOE values also shift by 60%, if applicable). This applies only to a Single Axel - not a Double Axel or Triple Axel. The purpose of this change is to allow the combination of a single-footed Axel into a Salchow or Flip jump to be worth enough for skaters to have incentive to perform it. A single-footed Axel into a Triple Salchow is of greater difficulty than the more standard Triple Salchow-Double Toeloop combination.

    *If a skater does not perform a repeat Triple jump in combination, that jump will no longer be additionally penalized. The fact that the skater left out the combination, thereby using up one of their slots for a combination without getting the benefit of it, is enough of a penalty.

    *If a skater performs too many jumps in combination, the extra jumps will simply be discounted (in whichever manner best benefits the skater’s score) instead of the entire jumping pass being discounted. There is no reason that a perfectly good jump should be worth 0 points just because a skater accidently added a double toeloop onto the end of it.

    Similarly, if a skater breaks the Zayak rule and performs the same Triple jump more than twice in their program, the extra Triple(s) shall be downgraded to a Double rather than completely discounted. A Double Axel being performed more than 3 times in a program shall also be downgraded to a Single Axel.
    Last edited by Blades of Passion; 03-30-2010 at 04:26 PM.

  2. #2
    Skating is art, if you let it be. Blades of Passion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Hollywood, CA
    Posts
    4,016
    ASSIGNING GRADES OF EXECUTION:

    *Judges can give “half” of a GOE value to any element. In other words: -2.5, -1.5, -.5, .5, 1.5, 2.5 are now GOE values which can be assigned to an element.

    *For jump combinations and sequences, judges should take both jumps into consideration. Falling on the second jump does not necessarily mean the combination should automatically receive -3 GOE. For example, if skater performs a Triple Lutz/Double Toe combination and executes the Lutz very well but then falls on the Double Toe, a -1 GOE would be appropriate. Falling on a Double Toeloop would normally incur a total point loss of .8 with the -3 GOE it would receive (in addition to the .5 penalty for falling). Since the combination is using the GOE value of the Lutz, a -3 GOE is not appropriate as that would cause a point loss of 3.3.

    CHANGES TO SPINS: (the 4 point values listed for each type of spin reflect the 4 levels of difficulty)

    *Spin in one position and no change of foot* - 1.5, 1.9, 2.3, 2.7 (-.5, +1 for GOE for all levels)

    *Flying spin with no change of foot or position* ; * Change of foot spin with no change of position* - 1.8, 2.2, 2.6, 3.0 (-.5, +1 for GOE for all levels)

    For all of the types of spins listed so far, these are the base values for an upright spin. Add .1 to each base value for a Sit Spin, .2 for a Camel Spin, and .3 for a Layback Spin.

    *Combination spin with no change of foot* - 2.1, 2.5, 2.9, 3.3 (-.5, +1 for GOE for all levels)

    *Combination spin with change of foot* - 2.5, 2.9, 3.3, 3.7 (-.5, +1 for GOE for all levels)

    The negative GOE values for most spins has been increased to more harshly punish spins that gain levels by adding difficult positions which are not attractive. The +GOE for all spins has been increased to +1, adding to the idea that a simpler well-performed spin is to be favored over a complex spin that looks tacky or is only performed adequately.

    *Scratch Spins* - Currently the rules say that spinning for 8 revolutions in a scratch spin does not count as a feature for an extra level because a spin must be held in the same position for 8 revolutions for it to count. This should be changed. For scratch spins, rotation that is achieved while increasing speed (and while performing other variations that can count for a level increase, such as a difficult arm position or a headless position) should still count towards the 8 revolutions needed.

    FOOTWORK SEQUENCES:

    *New values for Footwork sequences: 2.5, 2.9, 3.3, 4.1. The GOE values for each level are -.5, +1.

    Footwork sequences at all levels should have a +1 GOE bonus. A level 2 footwork sequence that is really fast and well-done should be worth more than an average level 3 footwork sequence (that's never how it works out with the current rules).

    Additionally, doing a footwork sequence that is ALL toepick work or performed ENTIRELY on one foot should be able to replace the mandatory requirement of using a variety (complexity for Level 4) of different turns and steps.

    SPIRAL SEQUENCES:

    *New values for Spiral sequences: 2.4, 2.8, 3.2, 3.6. The GOE values for each level are -.5, +1.

    *Like footwork sequences, Spiral sequences should have a +1 GOE value for each level. So much of the difficulty of Spiral sequences is tied to flexibility and holding the blade and body position beautifully. Those qualities are not covered in the Level of a Spiral. Doing a Level 2 Spiral with excellent quality is harder than doing an average Level 4 Spiral. As such, it should be worth more.

    *A Charlotte position should count for a level when it is performed on the flat of the blade. All other difficult positions must still be performed on an inside or outside edge to receive credit.

    *Currently, all difficult variations (or unsupported changes of free leg position or skating direction, while maintain the Spiral position) must be held for 3 seconds in order to count for a level. This requirement should only be 2 seconds. By the time the skater achieves the difficult position, holding for 3 seconds is unnecessary. A 2 second hold is enough to create an impact and display command of the move. Holding longer than that can be reflected in the +GOE values.

    *Spirals on both feet, inside and outside, forward and backward, are currently required to achieve level 3 and level 4. Instead, this should only be a requirement for a level 4 Spiral.

    SHORT PROGRAM CHANGES:

    *No mandatory -3 GOE penalty for jump elements that are popped or for when there are no steps/movements preceding the solo Triple of the program. GOE grades should reflect only the quality of the elements. Instead, a half-point deduction shall be imposed on the former and a full-point deduction shall be imposed on the latter.

    If GOE grades, especially a mandatory -3 GOE, are used to penalize these mistakes, then we will see cases of a skater nearly falling on a Double jump (for example) that was supposed to be their solo Triple jump and still receiving the same score for it as another skater who also did a Double jump but landed it cleanly.

    *Doing a jump sequence instead of a jump combination shall result in a 40% penalty to the second jump of that sequence (in addition to the 10% normally imposed on jumps done in sequence), instead of discounting it altogether and tacking on a -3 GOE to the first jump. If someone falls out of the first jump of their combination or takes a step, turning it into a sequence, they should still get some credit for that second jump.

    *Only one level 4 element is allowed and one element MUST be level 1. If a skater performs more than is asked for (none of their elements are level 1 and/or they have multiple level 4 elements), the elements will be downgraded to the appropriate level. This change is to encourage greater diversity in programs. We don’t need to see every single spin and spiral attempting to be level 4. It almost never benefits the actual program.

    *If the first three technical elements of a skater’s Short Program are all jumps, they shall be deducted half a point.

    *A jump element that includes a Triple or Quad will receive a 5% bonus if it is placed in the program such that it is at least the 5th required element of the program.

    LONG PROGRAM CHANGES:

    *Just as in the Short Program, only one level 4 element is allowed and one element MUST be level 1. If a skater performs more than is asked for (ie - none of their elements are level 1, they have multiple level 4 elements, etc), the elements will be downgraded to the appropriate level. This change is to encourage greater diversity in programs. We don’t need to see every single spin and spiral attempting to be level 4. It almost never benefits the actual program.

    *The required elements for the Long Program shall be modified to allow for the following:

    MEN - 7 jumping passes, 3 spins, and 1 footwork sequence are required. After that, any two elements may be performed (ONE spiral sequence is allowed among these extra two elements).

    WOMEN - 6 jumping passes, 3 spins, and 1 footwork sequence or spiral sequence are required. After that, any two elements may be performed (a total of 3 spiral sequences or footwork sequences is not allowed, however. The skater may choose to perform 2 spiral sequences and 1 footwork sequence, or 2 footwork sequences and 1 spiral sequence).

    This will allow for more variety within the Long Programs, letting skaters set themselves apart from each other a little more and have greater control over what elements they can include in their programs to best interpret the music.

    *For male skaters that complete at least one of each Triple jump with an adequate score (greater than the equivalent of -1 GOE, taking not only GOE but also Flutzes/Lips and underrotating into consideration) and have GOE better than -1 on ALL technical elements (and no falls in the performance), a 1 point bonus will be awarded to their score (Quads count as a Triple of the same type). To receive this bonus point, the skater also must NOT execute a jumping pass that consists solely of a single rotation toeloop, salchow, loop, flip, or lutz (ie. - you can not pop these jumps into singles as a jumping pass and still receive the bonus).

    For female skaters, they must complete 5 different Triple jumps and a double axel to receive the bonus point (if a Triple Axel is performed a double axel is not required, however). All other requirements are the same as for the Men.

    *Jumps executed in the final Quarter of the program shall receive a 20% bonus. The last jump element of a program, if placed in the final Tenth of the program, shall receive a 30% bonus if it includes a Triple (or Quad) jump and a 25% bonus if it does not include a Triple (or Quad) jump.

    The reasoning is that jumps executed this late in a program are more difficult than if the skater had performed them right at the beginning of the half-way point of the program (where the normal 10% bonus kicks in).

    *Currently, a skater is allowed to do one 3-jump combination and two other 2-jump combinations in the Long Program. This is a bit overkill. We don’t need to see this many jumps in combination. Instead, skaters should be allowed to do one 3-jump combination and one 2-jump combination, or three 2-jump combinations.

    *A maximum of 2 Double Axels are allowed for Women and 3 for Men.
    Last edited by Blades of Passion; 03-30-2010 at 04:27 PM.

  3. #3
    Skating is art, if you let it be. Blades of Passion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Hollywood, CA
    Posts
    4,016
    To quickly summarize this essay, the most important changes we need to see with CoP are:

    1. Fixing the way in which underrotated jumps are scored. Judging at competitions becomes ridiculous when downgrades happen.

    2. Limiting the levels for which skaters receive points in Spins, Footwork, and Spirals. These elements do NOT need to constantly be Level 4. It almost never benefits the program.

    3. Allowing for more variety in the Long Program.

    There are some things I have left out of the second post that I will add in later as we discuss them (such as why judges' scores should not be anonymous).
    Last edited by Blades of Passion; 12-04-2009 at 05:17 PM.

  4. #4
    Skating is art, if you let it be. Blades of Passion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Hollywood, CA
    Posts
    4,016
    +GOE for each mark on a Triple Toe is .9, so a Triple Toe with +3 GOE would be worth 3.6 + 2.7 = 6.3

    A Quad Toe with +3 GOE would be worth 9.4 + 3.3 = 12.7

  5. #5
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,348
    About the proposal for half-point gradations to GOE, I like that idea.

    Studies have very consistently shown that the largest number of discrete categories that human brains can deal with is 7. When the CoP first came out it seemed just right that the GOEs would be assigned from -3 to +3 -- 7 different grades.

    However, the judges did not really know what was expected of them, GOE-wise, so every year the ISU had to provide more and more explicit guidelines. Now there is a clear demarcation for negative GOEs. In fact, the criteria are so explicit that maybe this should not fall under the judges' purview at all. Two years ago, if I remember correctly, they put out a similar list of "bullets" as to what judges should be considering for positive GOEs as well.

    So now, it is pretty straightforward to determine when the rules for negative GOEs apply. A separate 7-grade scale for negative GOEs and for positive GOEs makes sense.

    In fact, I am not really sure that we need "bullets" for positive GOEs. Figure skating judges should be able to tell the differentce between a well-porformed element and a very well-performed element without the ISU rule book holding their hands.
    Last edited by Mathman; 12-04-2009 at 08:08 PM.

  6. #6
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,896
    Interesting thoughts. I like many of your suggestions; I'm mainly going to comment on the areas where I have issues, in a couple of separate posts.

    I don't really like the title of the thread, "Every Change CoP Needs." It sounds like a demand rather than a proposal or an invitation to discussion. I'd rather see an identification of problems with the current status quo (which we may or may not agree with) and then your suggstions for how to change them.

    Posters here, or an actual ISU task force if they want to improve the system, could first agree on what problems need fixing and then brainstorm solutions.

    You've thought through the point values very thoroughly. In many cases your changes make the scoring much more complicated, but in ways that seem to reflect the complex relative values of the elements. You might get people to agree to whole sections of them as is. For other sections, there might be practical or theoretical objections that would require tweaks or alternative solutions.


    The only real issues I have with your proposals for handling jumps are these:

    SHORT PROGRAM CHANGES:

    *No mandatory -3 GOE penalty for jump elements that are popped or for when there is no footwork preceding the solo jump of the program. GOE grades should reflect only the quality of the elements. Instead, a half-point deduction shall be imposed on the former and a full-point deduction shall be imposed on the latter.
    I don't understand the reasoning behind this.
    If a triple jump is required and the skater does an excellent single or double jump instead, the score can be the base mark for the single or double, plus up to +3 GOE, and then only 0.5 deduction? Yes, the skater does take a hit in the base mark. But with double jumps, s/he can make up a lot of that difference in GOE and avoid the risk of attempting a triple. If you want to reward senior ladies to do double jumps, or single axels, on purpose in the SP, why not just change the requirements so that triples and double axels are no longer required elements?

    Also, for no footwork preceding the solo jump, that can often be subjective. Where do you draw the line between "no required steps/movement preceding jump," which is currently a -3 reduction from whatever the GOE would be otherwise, vs. "Break between preceding steps/movements and jump/only one step/movement preceding jump," which only requires a -1 to -2 reduction and doesn't require negative GOE? There's already room for judges to draw the line in different places whether there was enough of a break to require the reduction or not, and if so whether -1 or -2. Is that decision still up to the judges?
    What if a skater does a few moves on one half of the ice, glides forward on one or both feet through the center to the other end, and then does a three turn into a toe loop or flip? Or then does a back crossover or two and glides backward before taking off for a lutz or loop? Was that just a break between the preceding moves and the jump, or were they two completely separate sections of the program? Who gets to determine that the "no preceding moves" deduction applies, instead of or in addition to(?) the GOE reduction for the break before the jump?

    Also, remember that the requirement is not specifically for "footwork" -- it's "connecting steps or other free skating movements," so your rule about the penalty should be worded accordingly.

    If there are literally no preceding moves at all, you do want to penalize it more than if there was just a break, right? So the penalty should be larger than or in addition to the GOE reduction for a break.

  7. #7
    can't come down to Earth prettykeys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,801
    I apologize since I don't have anything useful to add to this thread because I can't complain about any of the changes. Most seem like reasonably good improvements. The TES modifications are much more complex than what we have under CoP (which is, for the most part, a little too simply additive and factored), but I could actually see it being put into a simple little piece of software with a friendly user GUI. You know...have a box where you can drag-and-drop various jumps while specifying their placement in a program (for the bonuses given for whether they are done later) and GoE.

    *ahem* so if any programmer is out there and wants to do a pet project over the holidays, feel free to make one and share.

    Also, I am expecting some sort of modification of the PCS aspect later on? That could certainly be improved, as well. A number of us discussed whether all the parameters currently used in PCS are necessary, or whether some of them could be combined, etc.

    In addition, I wonder if there should be a change in the way PCS's are weighted or factored vs. TES. For instance, I don't like the independent factoring of the PCS (e.g. 0.8 for ladies' SP and 1.0 for men's SP)--I know they did it so that TES and PCS would be more or less given similar weights between the fields, but I feel that within the Ladies' or Men's fields, two programs with different levels of technical difficulty should also have correspondingly different PCS scores even if say, the Skating Skills are the same, the quality of Interpretation is the same, etc. Or would that be shifting too much power into the Technical aspect of skating, since we can have beautiful programs that aren't as strong technically?

    An example of this latter concept would be to factor and add: (TES x 0.7) + (PCS x 0.3) or something like that (however you want the weighting to go.)

  8. #8
    Skating is art, if you let it be. Blades of Passion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Hollywood, CA
    Posts
    4,016
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    I don't understand the reasoning behind this.
    If a triple jump is required and the skater does an excellent single or double jump instead, the score can be the base mark for the single or double, plus up to +3 GOE, and then only 0.5 deduction? Yes, the skater does take a hit in the base mark. But with double jumps, s/he can make up a lot of that difference in GOE and avoid the risk of attempting a triple. If you want to reward senior ladies to do double jumps, or single axels, on purpose in the SP, why not just change the requirements so that triples and double axels are no longer required elements?
    The point of this change was so that were would be a differentiation in score between (for example) a clean Double Flip and a Double Flip that a skater nearly falls on.

    Currently, in the Short Program, doing a Double Flip instead of a Triple Flip automatically merits -3 GOE. This leads to inaccuracy because the landing doesn't mean anything at that point (other than not falling). A clean Double should be worth more than a flawed Double.

    The change wouldn't make Single Axels and Double jumps more appealing for the SP at all. If a skater doesn't feel comfortable enough to do a Double Axel then, let's be honest, they aren't going to be getting some massive +GOE score for a Single Axel. Even if they were able to get +3 GOE on a Single Axel, it would still be worth a whole point less (after the deduction) than a Double Axel with a +0 GOE.

    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    Also, for no footwork preceding the solo jump, that can often be subjective. Where do you draw the line between "no required steps/movement preceding jump," which is currently a -3 reduction from whatever the GOE would be otherwise, vs. "Break between preceding steps/movements and jump/only one step/movement preceding jump," which only requires a -1 to -2 reduction and doesn't require negative GOE? There's already room for judges to draw the line in different places whether there was enough of a break to require the reduction or not, and if so whether -1 or -2. Is that decision still up to the judges?

    Also, remember that the requirement is not specifically for "footwork" -- it's "connecting steps or other free skating movements," so your rule about the penalty should be worded accordingly.

    If there are literally no preceding moves at all, you do want to penalize it more than if there was just a break, right? So the penalty should be larger than or in addition to the GOE reduction for a break.
    Everything you talk about is covered in the "Transitions" component score. As long as we are keeping that around, there is no need for a specific deduction for inadequate footwork/movement (I did go ahead and reword that, btw) before the solo Triple of the SP...other than a half-point deduction for if the skater simply has no preceding movements at all.

    Punishing with -GOE is bad because, as in the case of doing a Double Flip instead of a Triple Flip, it leads to scoring inaccuracy. If a skater performs a Triple Flip with no preceding footwork/movement and nearly falls on it, they currently receive the same score as a skater who performs a Triple Flip with no preceding footwork/movement and executes it cleanly.

  9. #9
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    791
    Wow, Blades of Passion, I would say that you are rather aptly named...


    I'll have a good read of what you present here, and make some of my own comments/counter-proposals (me being just another fan...), as this is a topic I've been thinking about recently, as I find, sadly, that I'm losing my patience with this sport...

    Eager to give my $.02

  10. #10
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,348
    Quote Originally Posted by prettykeys View Post
    An example of this latter concept would be to factor and add: (TES x 0.7) + (PCS x 0.3) or something like that (however you want the weighting to go.)
    Well, that's basically what they have now. For the ladies' short program, for instance, it is (TES x 1.00/1.80) + (PCS x .8/1.80).

    If you wanted greater weight on the technical side and less on the presentation side, the IJS already has that feature, too. In an ideally well-balanced program the split will be 70% technical (elements plus SS and TR) versus 30% presentation (P/E, Ch/C, and INT).

  11. #11
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,896
    Thanks for explaining your reasoning.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    The change wouldn't make Single Axels and Double jumps more appealing for the SP at all. If a skater doesn't feel comfortable enough to do a Double Axel then, let's be honest, they aren't going to be getting some massive +GOE score for a Single Axel.

    Even if they were able to get +3 GOE on a Single Axel, it would still be worth a whole point less (after the deduction) than a Double Axel with a +0 GOE.
    But what if they need to telegraph their double axel attempts badly to have reasonable hope of clean landings, or often (let's say 40% of the time) their double axel attempts are downgraded, and/or they often fall fall out of the landings. For those skaters, the risk of lower GOE+lower transitions score, single axel base mark + negative GOE, or -2/-3 GOE and possible fall deduction might make it worth their while to plan a good single axel that can probably get better than +1 GOE and also help instead of hurt the Transitions, Performance/Execution, and Choreography components.

    Same for double jumps instead of triples.

    That's not necessarily a bad thing, from the point of view of clean and interestingly choreographed programs. But it is a change in the philosophy of the short program, which has served as a sort of minimum standard of jump content required to compete at that level.

    It won't affect the international medal contenders, who can (usually) do the difficult jumps and do them well. It might, however, affect which ladies make it to Nationals in countries like the US or Japan, or who just makes or misses the cut for the long program at Euros or 4Cs or even Worlds. And it will change the training strategy of skaters hoping to make those cuts.

    If we do want to reward good singles axels and doubles more than cheated or failed double axels and triples in the short program, then go ahead and say so and change the SP requirements.

    Everything you talk about is covered in the "Transitions" component score. As long as we are keeping that around, there is no need for a specific deduction for inadequate footwork/movement (I did go ahead and reword that, btw) before the solo Triple of the SP...other than a half-point deduction for if the skater simply has no preceding movements at all.

    Punishing with -GOE is bad because, as in the case of doing a Double Flip instead of a Triple Flip, it leads to scoring inaccuracy. If a skater performs a Triple Flip with no preceding footwork/movement and nearly falls on it, they currently receive the same score as a skater who performs a Triple Flip with no preceding footwork/movement and executes it cleanly.
    It's pretty rare for there to be no attempt at any steps or skating movements between the previous element and the solo jump. The skaters and coaches/choreographers know they're supposed to be there.

    However, the skater might not be capable of consistently landing the jump without a longer, more telegraphed setup. It's pretty common for there to be a break between the preceding movements and the solo jump. Yes, that can be reflected in Transitions. It would also be reflected in the GOE either way.

    The required element is a triple jump immediately preceded by steps or other skating moves. If the skater has to stop performing preceding moves to set up the jump, then for the purpose of that required element the skater hasn't met the requirement and the approach phase of the jump is inadequate and should require a reduction in the GOE.

    The final GOE does not have to be -3. If there's just a break worthy of -1 or -2 for that SP requirement, but the jump itself is worthy of +2 by long program standards, then the final GOE could be 0 or +1.

    If there are zero preceding moves and the reduction is supposed to be -3 and the final GOE negative, again, if the jump is gorgeous and worthy of +2 in a long program, the final GOE can be as high as -1.

    +2 is unlikely and +3 is impossible if the jump was telegraphed, though, regardless of the rest of the quality.

    The most common reason for a solo jump with zero preceding steps/movements (except at junior level where the solo jump is specified) is that it was intended as the combination. The skater is unable to execute the second jump for some reason or other, and then later adds a second jump after the intended solo jump. Some skaters/coaches plan for that eventuality and put some preceding moves before the combo as well as before the solo jump, so there won't be an additional penalty for switching which one gets a double toe on the end.

  12. #12
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    791
    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    Currently, in the Short Program, doing a Double Flip instead of a Triple Flip automatically merits -3 GOE. This leads to inaccuracy because the landing doesn't mean anything at that point (other than not falling). A clean Double should be worth more than a flawed Double.

    The change wouldn't make Single Axels and Double jumps more appealing for the SP at all. If a skater doesn't feel comfortable enough to do a Double Axel then, let's be honest, they aren't going to be getting some massive +GOE score for a Single Axel. Even if they were able to get +3 GOE on a Single Axel, it would still be worth a whole point less (after the deduction) than a Double Axel with a +0 GOE.
    But the point here was to interpret the original rule of REQUIRED elements in a SP (though it can be debatable whether we want/need to keep that concept, but I would vote yes). As such, you either meet a requirement, or you do not. If a requirement is not met, in principle it does not matter how good your "almost attempt" was. So it makes sense to not reward a well-executed double (or a single axel) to be just a little bit (a mere point or something) off of a competent triple or slightly fumbled triple, which was at least meeting the stated requirement. The point is that a requirement was not met, the penalty is intended to be severe.

    That said, I do see some merit in your idea of still grading a fluid double jump - though it does not meet the requirement - differently than a badly stumbled double jump. So how about, as a compromise, if a double (or single) is performed where triple was required, it gets graded on its own merit except can receive only a maximum of 0 (or perhaps -1) GOE, and down to -3 GOE if performed poorly. Or, it gets graded as completely normal on its own merit up to +3 GOE, but then have a mandatory -1 or -2 deduction apply to the overall score for missing a required element. I personally would favour the former of these 2 options, with a-1 GOE maximum.

    This way, the skater in question is taking an automatic hit in the lower base value, and so cannot benefit in a significant way from avoiding the risk involved in going for the actual required triple, yet also gets minimal credit for at least doing a flowing competent jump keeping the integrity of the performance intact, versus another who badly stumbles through the same mistake. And accidental pops, (which in most cases don't have much visibly wrong except that we were expecting to see a triple) cannot benefit from sympathetic, or even reputation-based +GOEs to soften the blow of missing a requirement, as they well might if a specific penaltly is not called for.

    One miniscule suggestion out of probably many to come....

  13. #13
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,896
    1. Fixing the way in which underrotated jumps are scored. Judging at competitions becomes ridiculous when downgrades happen.

    2. Limiting the levels for which skaters receive points in Spins, Footwork, and Spirals. These elements do NOT need to constantly be Level 4. It almost never benefits the program.

    3. Allowing for more variety in the Long Program.
    I'm on board with 1 and 3 and your suggestions for addressing those problems.

    I don't like point 2, though, specifically your limit of one level 4 element per program and requirement for one level 1 element. I think your intention is to see more simple elements done well and fewer complicated elements done poorly. I don't think that limiting the number of higher-level elements is the best way to achieve that goal, for several reasons:

    *Your adjustments to the GOE values already gives an incentive for skaters to choose to perform lower-level elements with superior quality. It's the skaters with the best quality-related skills already who will make the best use of that incentive and show beautiful simpler elements. But at least the less skilled skaters will have a reason to choose to work on quality and not to to push the difficulty too far. Make it worth their while to leave out that final Biellmann position or edge change in the spin, which often ends up dropping a +1 element over to -1. But for the skaters best at these moves who are already averaging +2s on several level 3 and 4 elements, why not let them go for level 4 on more?

    *Less skilled skaters who don't perform their intended features consistently well enough to always get credit for what they attempt are still going to attempt four features in most of the elements. That's their best chance of getting one of them actually called as level 4.

    *Some elements, by their very nature, are going to be level 2 automatically even in their simplest form. E.g., Flying sitspin: difficult fly and at least 8 revolutions in position, which is required in the short program. Back camel to back sit to back scratch: backward entry and all three positions on one foot. Any spiral sequence with a change of edge and a full split position. You wouldn't claim that those elements didn't benefit the programs when performed before 2003.

    *It's already pretty easy for most senior ladies to achieve level 4 on their spiral sequences, in most cases without significant effects on quality. The main objection is that we're tired of everyone doing the same few features in every spiral sequence. The skaters who have beautiful positions are still going to have beautiful positions whether they design their sequences to earn level 1 or level 4. The skaters with mediocre positions or edges are still going to have mediocre positions or edges regardless of intended level. They're not going to significantly improve their GOEs just by choosing to leave out some of the features we're tired of seeing. In fact, it's the skaters with the less-attractive but adequate catch-foot and "hydrant" positions who are more likely to choose the spiral sequence as their level 4 element just because that's the element they're most likely to get called as intended.

    *Step sequences are the hardest elements to earn level 4 on, and even level 2 can be hard to achieve for many skaters. So I expect that most skaters would choose a step sequence as their designated level 1 element.


    If the goals of your level limits are to promote quality and variety, I think they can be achieved in other ways.

    The increased GOE values will encourage quality.

    Adding more possible feature to achieve higher levels will encourage both quality and variety. Variety, obviously, because there will be a wider variety of features to choose from. Quality because skaters will more likely be able to choose features that showcase their strengths rather than necessarily the same ones everyone else is doing.

    Also, adding more options for types of elements in the long program (as in your point 3) will improve the variety of long program layouts that we see and the variety of types of elements/features chosen by each individual skater across the two programs.

    *Spin in one position and no change of foot*
    *Flying spin with no change of foot or position* ; * Change of foot spin with no change of position*
    What about flying spin with change of foot but no change of position?

    *Combination spin with no change of foot*
    *Combination spin with change of foot*
    What about flying combination spin with and without change of foot?
    (The official scale of values has sometimes left this out as well)

    *Scratch Spins* - Currently the rules say that spinning for 8 revolutions in a scratch spin does not count as a feature for an extra level because a spin must be held in the same position for 8 revolutions for it to count. This should be changed. For scratch spins, rotation that is achieved while increasing speed (and while performing other variations that can count for a level increase, such as a difficult arm position or a headless position) should still count towards the 8 revolutions needed.
    I disagree. It's inherent within the nature of a scratch spin that the speed will increase at least slightly as the arms and free leg are pulled in, and 8 revolutions total while doing so is easily achievable by skaters at quite low overall skill levels. An average pre-preliminary or certainly preliminary competitor in the US, who might not be able to hold a camel spin for 3 revolutions or a layback spin at all, could achieve that feature.

    But I do think it's a good idea to add ways to gain features in this spin.

    You could define a feature as significant acceleration, but that would be subjectively up to the technical panel and we don't really want to make these features more subjective.

    You could require more than 8 revolutions to achieve the feature in a solo scratch spin -- maybe 12 or 16 from the beginning of the acceleration to the end of the spin or the point where it begins to decelerate, whichever comes first. Of course, for a spin that's very fast the tech panel would have to watch it in slow motion to count all those revolutions.

    Maybe 8+ revolutions, better 12+, while accelerating would be an appropriate feature for a simple upright position in a combination spin.

    Another appropriate feature for a solo scratch spin could be holding the free leg extended to the side (raised to at least 45 degrees) or in forward or side attitude position for 8 revolutions before pulling in to accelerate.

    Additionally, doing a footwork sequence that is ALL toepick work or performed ENTIRELY on one foot should be able to replace the mandatory requirement of using a variety (complexity for Level 4) of different turns and steps.
    I don't think we want a full-rink step sequence performed entirely on the the toepicks. That isn't really skating.
    But I agree that one-foot skating should be rewarded and that it shouldn't be necessary to require variety of both steps and turns for levels 2 and 3, or even necessarily for level 4.

    I'd propose adding more potential features so skaters have more options to achieve higher level sequences if they execute them well enough to count. Instead of the current 4 features, all of which must be present for level 4, how about something like:
    1) At least 4 (5 for level 4) different types of one-foot turns, all executed at least once in both directions
    2) At least 4 different types of steps
    3) At least half [or 3/4, or all] of the ice covered entirely on one foot, with a minimum number of turns or types of turns in each direction
    4) Rotations in both directions [defined as total number of full revolutions in each direction, or fraction of the ice surface covered rotating in each direction?]
    5) Moderate/full upper body movement
    6) Quick changes of direction executed with turns and steps
    7) Quick changes between edges and toe (or heel) steps
    8) Difficult use of small jumps [details to be defined]

    SPIRAL SEQUENCES:
    I'm OK with your suggestions. Except maybe including the Charlotte on the flat. Skaters who can do that can use it as a transition.

    I'd also like to add some more features:

    *One-foot turn (three, bracket, counter, or rocker) between positions with the free leg lowered below hip level just long enough to execute the turn and then returned to spiral position
    *Choctaw between spiral positions with free leg lowered just long enough to execute the change of foot and then the new free leg returned to spiral position

    Also, only the first three spiral positions can count as position-based features and can count toward fulfilling the change of foot, edge, and direction requirements. However, a third transition into a fourth position can count as the last feature in the sequence.

    MEN - 7 jumping passes, 3 spins, and 1 footwork sequence are required. After that, any two elements may be performed (ONE spiral sequence is allowed among these extra two elements).

    WOMEN - 6 jumping passes, 3 spins, and 1 footwork sequence or spiral sequence are required. After that, any two elements may be performed (a total of 3 spiral sequences or footwork sequences is not allowed, however. The skater may choose to perform 2 spiral sequences and 1 footwork sequence, or 2 footwork sequences and 1 spiral sequence).
    I like this approach in general. But can the "any two elements" added both be jump passes? I'm not sure we'd want the men to be doing 9 jump passes, 3 spins, and 1 step sequence. Really only needed if they can do quads but can't do 3-3 combos.

    I'd also like to add some more possible types of elements that can be used in long programs.

    I'd rather say something like:

    13 elements maximum

    5-8 jump passes (may include a small-jump sequence that doesn't count against the number of combos/sequences; same limits on combos, repeats, etc., as currently exist)

    3-5 spins (must have different codes, and as is now the case certain features can only be credited once or twice per program)

    1-2 step sequences

    0-1 each of spiral sequence, field moves sequence, school figure variation

  14. #14
    Skating is art, if you let it be. Blades of Passion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Hollywood, CA
    Posts
    4,016
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    If we do want to reward good singles axels and doubles more than cheated or failed double axels and triples in the short program, then go ahead and say so and change the SP requirements.
    It's not a reward, though...that's why there is a .5 penalty.

    The judges know what the requirements are. If the skater does less than the requirement, it isn't going to earn them a big favor in the judges' eyes when it comes to giving +GOE.

    I highly doubt skaters would plan something that would incur a penalty. Currently, skaters can choose to use props and/or lyrics in their performances and only receive a 1 point deduction. The judges know it isn't right, though. If a skater decides to perform with a samurai sword, they are going to be losing more than just the 1 point deduction.

    In any case, the idea of capping off the +GOE at 0, in addition to the .5 penalty, would be fine too.

  15. #15
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    791
    About GOE's

    In some ways I like the idea of having half-point gradations as the OP suggests, but then again - and given the speed at which the judges need to make their decisions during a performance if they are to be actually watching it - I tend to think that simpler is maybe better. That is for those who actually have experience trying to judge these things to say, though.


    But here is what I would definitely propose, in how GOE is handed out.

    Having the range for GOE be from -4 to +2 on jumps, and the inverse, -2 to +4 on spins and footwork.

    I know others have proposed similar (or even a range -5 to +1) in other threads on COP.. i haven't jumped into those discussions in the past... In the spirit of this thread, I'll just spell out my thoughts on this. This is intended as a rough guide of course; I don't have the patience right now to wade through all the bullet points, nor the expertise to spell out every aspect o a successful or failed element, but you all understand...

    So in unscientific language, something like this, for jumps:

    +2 outstading in every way
    +1 generally excellent
    0 not outstandinlg but fully competent
    -1 fine, with one small thing to nitpick on
    -2 small step out, wobbly landing, etc.
    -3 2-foot, big stumble out
    -4 2 hands down or fall (fall carries extra penalty)


    I think getting +2's on jumps should become more of a rare thing. There are so many of them scattered over 2 programs. If the jumps are consistently good, there are still many bonus points to be had. It is good to acknowledge quality with extra points, but not to the extent of giving someone with mostly excellent, wow-factor jumps (and who might be granted a little extra generostiy due to good reputation) enough of an advantage that they have a free pass to completely blow another element or 2, and come out still far ahead of another the skater who competently nails everything, if less spectacularly. If skater A is executing superior jumps with great flow, they are likely also being appropriately awarded in skating skills PCS, anyway, and they are probably already gaining a lot of points by doing a good job on more difficult jumps, which are the biggest point-getters. Huge GOEs on jumps to me is a bit of overkill.
    Since there would now be 4 negative grades of execution, each grade could perhaps be weighted slightly less.


    Doing the reverse to spins and footwork, might be another way to encourage skaters to go for higher quality elements of a lower level (thus more pleasing to watch)... if +4 GOE is the new maximum, then suddenly judges are more willing to hand out +2's and +3's when merited, and of course should be properly encouraged to do so for simple but aesthetically pleasing moves, musicality, speed and flow and excitement at the expense of complexity, etc. and to abstain from doing so for something complex but without particular aesthetic or musical or performance value, or slow and laboured, etc.

    then we have:

    0 for competent but bland, or mostly good but with some problem
    -1 lack of demonstrated mastery/competence in the move
    -2 for big problem

    A fall would be just -2 GOE, but along with the extra mandatory fall deduction, this would still be heavily felt if competitors are getting +2s and +3's on theirs. For a fall in footwork, i don't feel -3 GOE is necessary anyway, as the skater is still presumably demonstrating some competence in the rest of the footwork, or else losing levels and getting the extra fall deduction and presumably a PCS hit on top of things, anyway.
    Last edited by amateur; 12-05-2009 at 12:51 AM.

Page 1 of 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •