Proposed CoP Changes for Singles

gkelly · Dec 7, 2009

My proposition is basically just a kind of Zayak limitation in terms of levels.

The equivalent of a Zayak limitation would be limiting the number of times the same feature can be used in the same program. Some such limitations already have been added.

It isn't really restrictive though because skaters CAN choose to continue doing whatever levels they please on every element they please.

Suppose we require a single jump in the long program and limit the number of triple axels and quads (men) or triple-triple combos (ladies) to maximum of one. If a skater does not perform a single jump, the last jump pass will be scored with the base mark of a single. If a male skater performs two triple axels or two quads or one of each, then the second such jump will be scored as a double axel or a triple of the same takeoff. If a female skater performs two triple-triple combinations or a triple axel and a triple-triple, then the axel or the last jump of the combination will be scored as a double even if it wasn't downgraded.

By your same logic isn't really restrictive because skaters CAN choose to continue doing as many revolutions as they please on whatever jumps they please.

If the added difficulty of extra revolutions adds to the program, then they will be rewarded for it in terms of the GOE and certain PCS marks.

If the added revolutions don't add to the program, then they shouldn't have been doing it in the first place.

This isn't a valid comparison, though.

Single jumps are not difficult and they never benefit a program...except for perhaps a delayed single axel that highlights a couple beats of music perfectly.

They are difficult if performed with difficult air positions, such as a delayed axel. Other examples I had in mind were tuck axel, tuck loop, split-flip or split-lutz, etc. They could also be performed with arm variations, other leg or full-body variations in the air, more difficult entries and exits than we see for doubles and triples, etc. Certainly the skaters who take this element seriously can earn +3 on those jumps and use them to enhance the program.

If we allowed single-single combinations or sequences to fill this requirement, we could also add a provision to give extra credit for jumping in both directions.

However, if you think single jumps with these kinds of enhancements are still too easy for senior-level competitors, then how about changing the requirement to a solo double jump other than double axel?

I'm not seriously proposing that we require this. (Instead, I'd like to offer the option of a "small-jump sequence" with levels 1-4 that would give credit for demonstrating several different skills using half, single, and 1.5 jumps. And to give a bonus for combos/sequences in both directions that might use double instead of single jumps.)

But to me, the logic is the same. Competitive skating is a sport, and the athletes are going to strategize their athletic content to maximize points. Some will choose to max out the points on jumps, some on spins, some on PCS, depending on their strengths. You want to take away point-earning opportunities from the best spinners/average jumpers who are in fact capable of level 4 spins that are both difficult athletic feats and beautiful enhancements to the program. But you don't want to take away any jump point opportunities from the best jumpers/average spinners who enhance the program with their beautiful jumps or encourage the weaker jumpers to plan at least one simpler jump that they should be able to execute attractively, in time with the music, and woven into the choreography.

Why do you want to treat jumps differently than spins? Is it because you think of jumps primarily as athletic feats and spins primarily as aesthetic elements?

Level 1 spins, spirals, and footwork that are performed brilliantly (+2, +3 GOE) are difficult, and often unique, however.

Yes, but how many skaters performed them brilliantly under the old system? For the most part, most of these elements were pleasant and unoffensive at best. The brilliant ones were the exceptions, regardless of difficulty level.

You've obviously put a lot of thought into your proposals. I have also thought through some systematic changes that I would like to see; some are the same as or compatible with yours, and some are opposed. I probably have more areas of agreement with your goals than with the unstated but inferrable goals of the current well-balanced program rules, for example.

I've talked to some coaches who have their own ideas of what rule changes they'd like to see. Other posters here also have some interesting suggestions.

We're not all going to agree on every solution. If an overhaul of the judging system is in order, it would be best accomplished by soliciting input from a variety of knowledgeable stakeholders, coaches probably most of all, and conceptualized in such a way as to apply fairly to all levels of competitors, not just those who get on TV.

That's why I think it's important to determine first what goals we want to accomplish with new rules and then brainstorm possible solutions. If there isn't agreement on the goals, then the solutions will be at cross purposes.

kate · Dec 7, 2009

Blades of Passion said:
We don't see as many 3Axel-3Toe combinations these days because there currently isn't much of an incentive to go for it.

Yes there is. Skaters can then do another solo triple axel and another solo triple toe, or use a triple toe in combo. Doing a 3T+3T takes up both of their triple toes. It may not be an obvious, mathematical incentive, but it's there.

Blades of Passion said:
If a skater two-foots a jump and falls out of the landing and puts both of their hands down on the ice and loses all speed after falling out of the landing

First, very rarely do all of these things happen simultaneously. Second, usually if they do, most judges would give that -2 or -3 GOE. And yes, a fall is still worse. It's still easier to fall.

Blades of Passion said:
Two regular double toeloops is definitely more annoying than two regular double loops, though. It never looks better (often times worse) then if the skater had simply done one double toeloop.

But this isn't what matters. This is a sport, and should be treated as such. Though artistry has a component, is the TES, difficulty is what should be considered, and how well that difficulty is executed.

Blades of Passion said:
The +GOE for footwork sequences of all levels should be +1 for each mark.

I still don't understand your wording. Are you capping GOE at +1?

Blades of Passion said:
It wouldn't be unfair; skaters wouldn't have to do a level 1 spin.

No one is going to do a L4 spin if it's going to be discounted to a L1. It's riskier and takes significantly more energy. You really need to try doing a junior program (especially before they took out the spirals!) -- senior isn't quite as packed -- and then see how you feel about skaters choosing to do L4 spins when they wouldn't get any extra points.

Blades of Passion said:
The current system of everyone feeling like they NEED to get maximum levels on everything hinders the skating and the programs.

Honestly, I don't think it does. I think it encourages skaters to work harder in areas they're not naturally good at, it allows non-natural jumpers to succeed in other areas, and it gives skating a great -- comepetitive -- metric for evaluation. Skating is a sport, and mandatory caps on levels take that away.

Blades of Passion said:
But skaters who are bad in a certain area shouldn't be trying to do something they simply can't do.

Watch some of the lower levels. Not everyone tries L4 spins, because the GOE loss isn't worth it. At the senior international level the competitors are able to preform them well enough. Skaters and coaches do make decision about what they should and shouldn't try. It is in fact very strategic, and many don't try things they'll do poorly, even if you don't see that. The triple axel analogy doesn't hold up at all.

Blades of Passion said:
No it's not. The computer would automatically calculate it. It doesn't take a computer any additional time.

It wouldn't calculate your new allowed cheats (which would be much harder to determine)

Blades of Passion said:
That Layback was level 4 without a Beillmann position and I would have given it a +3 GOE.

That layback would not have gotten +3GOE, so this would be non-issue. +3GOE on spins is incredibly rare.

Blades of Passion said:
ISU in fact limited doing a change-of-edge in spins so that it can only count once now for a level.

This isn't true. On combo spins it can count twice, but it needs to be on different feet and in different positions.

Blades of Passion said:
Level 1 spins, spirals, and footwork that are performed brilliantly (+2, +3 GOE) are difficult, and often unique, however.

Honestly, a L1 spin is not difficult for most senior level skaters that have had a coach that teaches them good basics. You don't see it on tv because they're trying to do other things in those spins, but their basics spins are good. Footwork maybe isn't the same case, because freestyle don't work on it, but footwork's difficulty really is held in how hard the steps are -- just like jumps, so I think the comparison does hold true there too. And spirals, for a large part, are a reflection of how naturally flexible a skater is.

gkelly said:
I'm not seriously proposing that we require this. (Instead, I'd like to offer the option of a "small-jump sequence" with levels 1-4 that would give credit for demonstrating several different skills using half, single, and 1.5 jumps.

I'm not sure how this would work, but this would be incredibly fun!

Joesitz (RIP) · Dec 7, 2009

Strategize or not, the skating programs by and large have the same content with rules that jeopardize the flow of the program. The skaters have substituted careful preparations when executing an element to avoid minus GoEs? Has that not hindered the beauty of the program? Can that be called 'artistry'?

The main ingredient in figure skating is it's remarkable flow over the icy dance floor.

It needs to bring back, the Free Skate with music for its 'artistry' , and take a more sporting approach for testing the 'tricks' to a revitalized SP.

As boring as school figures were, they did indeed test the basics. That's sport!

gkelly · Dec 7, 2009

kate said:
But this isn't what matters. This is a sport, and should be treated as such. Though artistry has a component, is the TES, difficulty is what should be considered, and how well that difficulty is executed.

Exactly.

Great posts, kate. Thanks for sharing your experience actually doing this stuff.

I still don't understand your wording. Are you capping GOE at +1?

I think the intended meaning is that even for level 1 elements, the numerical value of each GOE + would be 1.0 rather than 0.5. Is that correct, BoP?

That layback would not have gotten +3GOE, so this would be non-issue. +3GOE on spins is incredibly rare.

Oh, I think it would have gotten some +3s from some judges. Surely no less than +2.

I'm not sure how this would work, but this would be incredibly fun!

Here's the proposal for a Small Jumps Sequence element that I posted in an earlier thread. I'm editing it just slightly here:

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 position in a single jump, including 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
-forward-takeoff jump with one revolution landed on the same edge as the takeoff with no toe assist and a controlled forward-edge exit
-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

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

Now, the last feature as currently written is one that I can easily fulfill as a preliminary/adult bronze-level skater, with something like salchow (or loop)-half loop-salchow sequence. I just wouldn't cover enough ice for that to count as the whole element. So that shouldn't really be worth a feature.

Maybe to require a bit more difficulty and show more skill, I should reword it as "at least three edge jumps (salchow, 1-foot salchow, loop, half-loop, walley, half-walley, toeless lutz, one-foot axel, inside axel) from at least three different takeoff edges performed in immediate succession with no steps or turns in between"

That would require that at least one of the jumps has to be harder than a single loop or single salchow (landing on either foot), or would have to rotate in the other direction.

Blades of Passion · Dec 7, 2009

kate said:
Yes there is. Skaters can then do another solo triple axel and another solo triple toe, or use a triple toe in combo. Doing a 3T+3T takes up both of their triple toes. It may not be an obvious, mathematical incentive, but it's there.

Even regardless of that possibility, the 3Axel-3Toe itself should be worth more. It shouldn't matter what happens in the remainder of the program. If one skater does a 3Axel-3Toe and a solo 3Toe, but then pops the remainder of their jumps in their program, it should be worth more than a skater who does a solo 3Axel and a 3Toe-3Toe combination (and then fails to execute any other jumps properly as well).

That is not the best example, however. Here's the real problem - in the current judging system there is really no incentive to do a 3Axel-3Toe instead of a 3Axel-2Toe.

For example, look at this jump layout (used by Jeffrey Buttle in 2008):

3Axel-2Toe
3Flip-3Toe
3Axel
------
3Lutz-2Toe-2Loop
3Loop
3Sal
2Axel
3Lutz

If he had done a 3Axel-3Toe instead of the 3Axel-2Toe, and then done a 3Flip-2Toe instead of a 3Flip-3Toe, he wouldn't have received any extra points.

The former is more difficult but CoP currently does not reward it.

Here is another example - Daisuke Takahashi's jump layout in 2008:

4Toe-2Toe
4Toe
3Axel
--------
3Axel-2Toe-2Loop
3Flip-3Toe
3Loop
3Sal
3Lutz

If Takahashi had done his Triple Toe in combination with a Quad or a 3Axel, it wouldn't have been worth any more points.

Think of the cases where skaters only plan one Quad as well. What's the point of doing it in combination? You can just add the Triple Toeloop onto an easier jump and get the same amount of points.

There is definitely something wrong with that. Quad-Triple and 3Axel-Triple combinations have become a staple of Men's skating, but under CoP they are often not worth anything extra.

kate said:
And yes, a fall is still worse.

How much worse do you really think it is, though? If a skater has an absolutely horrible landing (steps out of the landing awkwardly, puts both hands down on the ice, grinds to a halt...Sasha Cohen's 3Flip at Olympics is the perfect example) but doesn't actually fall, the negative impact on the program and that technical element is pretty much the same.

Negative GOE marks should be higher than they are now. Yes the fall is still worse, that's why there would still be an extra half point deduction, but other big mistakes should be penalized appropriately.

kate said:
But this isn't what matters. This is a sport, and should be treated as such. Though artistry has a component, is the TES, difficulty is what should be considered, and how well that difficulty is executed.

This isn't necessarily the case. That is why the Zayak rule was invented.

Sure, it would be incredibly difficult if a skater performed 8 Quadruple Toeloops in their program...but that is too repetitive. There has to be a limit.

This is also why there is a limit to the number of jumps that can be done in combination. A Triple jump followed by 10 (fully rotated) Double Loops done in combination would be difficult, but that's not what we want to see in the Sport. That's not what we want to judge.

Imagine a sport where the goal was to eat as many hot dogs as possible while hanging upside down from one leg, while balancing a 50 pound weight with your free leg and holding a 100 pound weight with your free arm. It would be incredibly difficult to do such a thing...but who would ever want to?

Difficulty for the sake of difficulty is not always rewarding.

kate said:
No one is going to do a L4 spin if it's going to be discounted to a L1. It's riskier and takes significantly more energy.

The skater would received higher GOE (which is significant, since GOE for spins should be double what it is now) and possibly higher marks on some PCS. If the skater can do it well, then it is certainly worth it.

kate said:
That layback would not have gotten +3GOE, so this would be non-issue. +3GOE on spins is incredibly rare.

It certainly would have (perhaps not from every single judge, although it would deserve +3 across the board). That layback from Natalie Krieg is one of the best ever performed.

kate said:
This isn't true. On combo spins it can count twice, but it needs to be on different feet and in different positions.

No, look at the most recent rules:

http://isu.sportcentric.net/db//files/serve.php?id=1427

Page 5.

Changing edge only counts once as a feature, no matter how many times in a spin the skater does it.

This is exactly how it should be. We don't need to see such a thing in a spin more than once. Sometimes once is even too much...changing edge in a sit spin rarely looks better than simply holding the sit spin position.

kate said:
Honestly, I don't think it does. I think it encourages skaters to work harder in areas they're not naturally good at, it allows non-natural jumpers to succeed in other areas, and it gives skating a great -- comepetitive -- metric for evaluation. Skating is a sport, and mandatory caps on levels take that away.

Spins and other non-jump elements would be more rewarded under the rules I propose, not less.

There are already mandatory caps on Levels. Level 4 is the cap. You need four features in an element for it to be level 4. If you include more than four features, the spin is still level 4.

Again, as I said in an earlier post....if a skater did a change of foot combination spin with a change-of-edge and difficult variation in every position, it would still only be called as level 4....even though it would have about ten "features" (six more than are required to obtain level 4).

Should we be mad that such a spin doesn't get enough credit?

No, I don't think so. What would be the point of including all of those difficulties into the spin?

kate said:
Watch some of the lower levels.

The judging system should not cater to the lower levels at. What I propose here is for skating at the Olympic level...the skating that people actually want to see and pay to see.

If there are some changes that might need to be put in place for better competition at the Novice level and such, then the system could have modifications set in place for those competitions.

kate said:
It wouldn't calculate your new allowed cheats (which would be much harder to determine)

I'm not sure what this means. Do you mean downgraded jumps? As soon as the tech specialist calls the element, it would go in the computer and the value would be calculated.

kate said:
Honestly, a L1 spin is not difficult for most senior level skaters that have had a coach that teaches them good basics.

The spin itself is not difficult, but doing it brilliantly is.

How many Ladies are capable of doing a classic Layback spin (the free leg held perfectly parallel to the ice) with excellent speed and centering?

Very few. It's a level 1 element but doing it well is difficult and should be rewarded.

____________________________________________

As a point of reference for what I've been talking about in regards to Levels on elements, please pick any program under CoP from a lady (and link it via Youtube) that had all Level 4 spins and a Level 4 Spiral.

I maintain the stance that having maximum levels on all of these elements has never best benefited a program.

I'll actually provide some examples of my own...here are the top 2 finishers in the Ladies SP at 2006 Olympics:

Sasha Cohen - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELFerA2QZX8

The change of edge in her Flying Sit spin slowed the spin down. Would have been better without it.

The catch-foot in the final Spiral position was absolutely useless; a waste of time.

The Beillmann position in the Layback caused the spin to slightly travel (and wasn't an amazing position for her anyway).

Irina Slutskaya - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSlFufwQRjc

The change-of-edge in the Spiral was completely wobbly (which was always the case for Irina in this element). Her final position, doing an unsupported change of the free leg position to gain an extra level, slowed down the Spiral and was simply ugly.

This section of the program would have looked better if she had done a simpler Spiral...3 clean spiral positions (one of the positions being a catch-foot to add some flair would be fine) with speed and no jerky change of edge would have looked better (and interpreted the pulse-pounding throb of the music better as well).

SASHA and IRINA, two of the most talented ladies ever when it comes it these elements, and even still a program with all Level 4 elements does not benefit them.

SHIZUKA ARAKAWA from this competition doesn't fare any better. Several of her spin positions hampered the overall effect rather than adding to it.

gkelly · Dec 7, 2009

Blades of Passion said:
This isn't necessarily the case. That is why the Zayak rule was invented.

Sure, it would be incredibly difficult if a skater performed 8 Quadruple Toeloops in their program...but that is too repetitive. There has to be a limit.

I'm pretty sure the point of the Zayak rule is to prevent the skater from racking up points by executing the same skill over and over again, not to prevent the skater from executing high difficulty over and over again.

At the time, officials didn't want to see a skater rack up wins by executing eight triples of three different kinds including five triple toes. But there was and is certainly no objection to skaters winning by executing eight triples of six different kinds.

It would be perfectly legal under the rule as it now stands for a skater to do eight quads in a program, as long as they use six different takeoffs.

The judging system should not cater to the lower levels at. What I propose here is for skating at the Olympic level...the skating that people actually want to see and pay to see.

Ah, this is the problem. You're trying to tailor the rules to appeal to you as a paying spectator and to others who share your taste and priorities.

I believe that the rules for technical need to be designed primarily around fairness to the athletes and the specifics of the technique.

How many Ladies are capable of doing a classic Layback spin (the free leg held perfectly parallel to the ice) with excellent speed and centering?

Very few. It's a level 1 element but doing it well is difficult and should be rewarded.

It could easily be made level 2 without interfering with your aesthetic enjoyment and thus be rewarded in both base mark and GOE.

E.g., add a feature for laybacks in which something like "unsupported attitude position with the knee turned out at or above hip height and the head arched below shoulder level" counts as a difficult variation.

Or make 16 revs in the same position count as two features.

Add both, and an excellent simple attitude layback that would now be called level 1 could be scored as level 3, with good GOE.

Blades of Passion · Dec 7, 2009

I edited my last post to include something extra. I'll respond to other things you've said in previous posts in a bit.

Here is the thesis of what I am saying: programs never look the best with maximum levels of difficulty in every single non-jump element.

I challenge everyone to try and find me a CoP program where I can't point out at least one non-jump element that would have better benefited the program had it been a lower level.

gkelly said:
I'm pretty sure the point of the Zayak rule is to prevent the skater from racking up points by executing the same skill over and over again, not to prevent the skater from executing high difficulty over and over again.

Yes, that's true. But it is an example of limitations that benefit the Sport. It is not the only limitation needed.

gkelly said:
Ah, this is the problem. You're trying to tailor the rules to appeal to you as a paying spectator and to others who share your taste and priorities.

I believe that the rules for technical need to be designed primarily around fairness to the athletes and the specifics of the technique.

The rules I propose are designed around fairness. Completely.

gkelly said:
It could easily be made level 2 without interfering with your aesthetic enjoyment and thus be rewarded in both base mark and GOE.

E.g., add a feature for laybacks in which something like "unsupported attitude position with the knee turned out at or above hip height and the head arched below shoulder level" counts as a difficult variation.

It would still be Level 1. You need two "features" for an element to be Level 2.

Which is another area where the current judging system doesn't necessarily give base value points for every little thing either. If a skater does a regular Camel spin with no added difficulty, it is Level 1. If they had a change-of-edge or a Donut position it is still Level 1.

gkelly · Dec 7, 2009

Blades of Passion said:
I challenge everyone to try and find me a CoP program where I can't point out at least one non-jump element that would have better benefited the program had it been a lower level.

That will be your opinion. Some of us with different taste might disagree.

The rules I propose are designed around fairness. Completely.

But it seems like you're only taking into account the skill sets of the skaters you see on TV. The sport also has to be fair to the skaters who are still trying to reach that level.

It would still be Level 1. You need two "features" for an element to be Level 2.

Which is another area where the current judging system doesn't necessarily give base value points for every little thing either. If a skater does a regular Camel spin with no added difficulty, it is Level 1. If they had a change-of-edge or a Donut position it is still Level 1.

I'm assuming that these spins would have the 8 revs in position feature as well. After all, 8 are required in the SP and not much more than the 6 expected in the LP. A spin that's going to earn +2 or +3 GOE is going to be fast enough to easily achieve more than that.

Blades of Passion · Dec 7, 2009

gkelly said:
Suppose we require a single jump in the long program and limit the number of triple axels and quads (men) or triple-triple combos (ladies) to maximum of one. If a skater does not perform a single jump, the last jump pass will be scored with the base mark of a single. If a male skater performs two triple axels or two quads or one of each, then the second such jump will be scored as a double axel or a triple of the same takeoff. If a female skater performs two triple-triple combinations or a triple axel and a triple-triple, then the axel or the last jump of the combination will be scored as a double even if it wasn't downgraded.

By your same logic isn't really restrictive because skaters CAN choose to continue doing as many revolutions as they please on whatever jumps they please.

This comparison isn't compatible.

The difference in points between a Level 1 spin and a Level 4 spin in my rule proposal is 1.2 (and in the current system the difference is between 1.2 to 1.5, depending on the spin).

The different in points (in base value alone) between a Double Axel and a Triple Axel in my proposal is 4.8 (4.7 in the current system).

There is a massive deviation between the two things.

For spins, the points should be gained more from GOE than base value. Two separate level 4 spins can look completely different from each other. Whereas two separate Triple Axels are always going to look fairly similar and only vary in terms of how big they were and how good the flow-out was.

The term "Triple Axel" means something concrete. We know exactly what to expect. The term "Level 4 Spin" doesn't have any exact expectation, other than we can expect 4 (or more) difficult features in that spin.

gkelly said:
You want to take away point-earning opportunities from the best spinners/average jumpers who are in fact capable of level 4 spins that are both difficult athletic feats and beautiful enhancements to the program.

This is not true. Completely opposite, in fact.

Again, my rule proposal doesn't limit skaters who are capable of doing complex moves. Brilliant spins and other technical elements will be rewarded more than they are are now.

Currently, a Level 4 spin with +0 GOE (a completely ordinary spin) is worth 3.5 points. A level 4 spin with +3 GOE (one of the best spins ever) is worth 5 points.

That is only a difference of 1.5. Not very much, considering the massive different in quality between the two elements.

Under my system, the amazing spin would be worth 3 points more...twice as much.

With my rule proposal, skaters would get credit for Level 3 spins instead of level 4 spins, if they performed more than one Level 4 spin. Under the current rules a skater has three spins in their program (and remember, for the LP in my rule proposal a great spinner could actually include five spins if they wanted to). If two of those three spins were Level 3 instead of Level 4, the skater would be losing one point at most.

That amount is negligible. In return for losing one point in base value, the great spinner would be gaining more than that in +GOE marks in comparison to what they would currently earn. My system benefits great spinners (and skaters who are great at other non-jump elements).

gkelly said:
Level 1 spins, spirals, and footwork that are performed brilliantly (+2, +3 GOE) are difficult, and often unique

Click to expand...

Yes, but how many skaters performed them brilliantly under the old system? For the most part, most of these elements were pleasant and unoffensive at best.

I'd rather have pleasant and unoffensive than ugly.

A Spiral Sequence with average extension and no difficult positions (Level 1, +0 GOE) that doesn't break the flow of a program is better than a Level 4 Spiral Sequence which absolutely stops the program dead while the skater is trying to perform the element.

And, for the skaters who CAN do more "simple" spins, spirals, and footwork with amazing quality, they should be rewarded for it.

gkelly said:
We're not all going to agree on every solution.

That's why I think it's important to determine first what goals we want to accomplish with new rules and then brainstorm possible solutions. If there isn't agreement on the goals, then the solutions will be at cross purposes.

This is true.

The essay I wrote is a lot to digest. It's understandable that not everything would make sense. Such as what I just wrote in this post...it was my goal to improve the amount of credit great spins receive but you felt I was trying to do the opposite!

Blades of Passion · Dec 7, 2009

gkelly said:
Blades of Passion said:

I challenge everyone to try and find me a CoP program where I can't point out at least one non-jump element that would have better benefited the program had it been a lower level.

Click to expand...

That will be your opinion. Some of us with different taste might disagree.

Opinions must be shared to spread. *shrug*

Please by all means pick any program as an example and show me why you thought every element worked best as level 4. Even if we eventually disagree, we will have a better understanding of each other.

gkelly said:
But it seems like you're only taking into account the skill sets of the skaters you see on TV. The sport also has to be fair to the skaters who are still trying to reach that level.

My system wouldn't make it unfair to those skaters...

Anything that was found to be unfair could be modified for the lower level competition, though. There doesn't need to be a single rule set for every level of competition.

My essay here focuses on the level of competition that is most important.

gkelly said:
I'm assuming that these spins would have the 8 revs in position feature as well. After all, 8 are required in the SP and not much more than the 6 expected in the LP. A spin that's going to earn +2 or +3 GOE is going to be fast enough to easily achieve more than that.

For the SP because it is required, yes, but in the LP that is not the case.

A layback spin without tons of speed and less than 8 revolutions might be the best way to interpret the music at that moment. It could get +1 or +1.5 GOE if the position is great. The layback Sarah Hughes did in her 2002 LP comes to mind.

kate · Dec 7, 2009

Blades of Passion said:
Please by all means pick any program as an example and show me why you thought every element worked best as level 4. Even if we eventually disagree, we will have a better understanding of each other.

I don't have time to get to each individual point (though you are right on the rule change -- I've only ever used one COE, so I didn't realize they change the rules recently) but I will respond to this. I think the difference between us, and the reason we will probably not agree, is that you are looking at skating from the point of view of a spectator. The problem is that this is a sport, and regulations need to be centered around encouraging athleticism. The core issue isn't how "well the element worked", it's how challenging it is. The challenge is a mix of its difficulty (level) and how well it is executed (GOE). You're right that it is hard to execute spins well, but it's harder to execute a L4 spin well than a L1 spin well, and doing so shows more athleticism. Since this is a sport, first and foremost, what matters is this -- how well the element is preformed and how challenging it is, not how pretty is is to look at (though this does matter, since it includes how well it is preformed). I'm not going to look for places where a L4 element was better than a L1 because it doesn't matter. L1 elements simply aren't as challenging.

gkelly · Dec 7, 2009

Blades of Passion said:
Please by all means pick any program as an example and show me why you thought every element worked best as level 4. Even if we eventually disagree, we will have a better understanding of each other.

OK, here's one of my favorite performances. It's not perfect, but most of the areas where it could have been better are in the jumps.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lo-r3t_T0HY

Four spins were still allowed in the LP. Three of the spins here are level 4, the flying spin is level 3, and both step sequences are level 3.

To meet your requirements, one of the level 4 spins would have to be changed to level 1 and another to level 3. Or two to level 3 and one of the step sequences to level 1.

Let's leave the final spin as level 4, because that was also the spin that the judges liked best and it is one of the highest-scoring spins in the history of IJS. With larger values for the +GOEs, it would score even higher.

In order to get full credit for it under your rules, he would have to deliberately leave out features from the earlier spins; otherwise the first level 4 spin would be counted as level 4 and the later ones would have their scores reduced even if they're better.

So which of the CCoSp (element 6) and CSSp (element 13) do you think it would improve the program to remove features from? Which features do you think should be removed?

My system wouldn't make it unfair to those skaters...

Anything that was found to be unfair could be modified for the lower level competition, though. There doesn't need to be a single rule set for every level of competition.

My essay here focuses on the level of competition that is most important.

I'm not just talking about novice and below skaters.

I'm also talking about senior-level skaters who compete in the same events as the stars, who are fighting with each other to make the cut for the long program at ISU championships, to earn an Olympic berth for their country, to medal at senior B internationals, to qualify to compete at national championships in the US or Canada or Japan.

A layback spin without tons of speed and less than 8 revolutions might be the best way to interpret the music at that moment. It could get +1 or +1.5 GOE if the position is great. The layback Sarah Hughes did in her 2002 LP comes to mind.

So if she thinks she could earn better GOE and better PCS by doing a level 1 spin at that point, she has the choice to elect to do a a level 1 spin.

If we define that attitude position as a difficult variation feature and give a higher base mark for one feature than for none, she'd get a bump in base value with the spin just as she actually performed it. She also has the choice to spin a little faster (for 8 revs in the layback) and/or lean a little further sideways on the second position (for the backward-to-sideways feature) to earn another feature or two without significantly changing the spin or losing GOE points; in fact she'd more likely gain a little. But that's her and her coach's and choreographer's choice to make based on her own skill set and the demands of this particular piece of music.

Edited to add:

If skaters are allowed to do 4-5 spins in their LP (instead of another jump or step sequence), then not only the excellent spinners but also those who just have decent consistent spins and/or limited or inconsistent jumps might well choose to do another spin or two. And if there are limits on the number of times that any feature can get credit in the program, then if those who have a limited repertoire of spin skills will portion them out across the spins to maximize their points. For one skater that might mean one level 1, one level 4, and one or more at level 3. For another skater that might mean all level 2.

Also, of course, if they think they are likely to get +GOE on a level 1 spin and likely to get minuses for spins with more features, they would be wise to choose level 1.

But the skater who has a wide variety of high-level spinning skills might be able to execute three level 4 spins and one level 3 without repeating features or compromising quality/GOE.

Let them strategize according to their own skill sets.

Blades of Passion · Dec 7, 2009

kate said:
I think the difference between us, and the reason we will probably not agree, is that you are looking at skating from the point of view of a spectator.

Without spectators there is no sport.

That aside, I am looking at it as both. I was a skater and understand the difficulty involved in all aspects of (singles) skating. If I was only looking at it as a spectator, I wouldn't care about nearly as many aspects of skating as I do.

At this past World Championships I sat right next to Patrick Chan's mom and guided her through all of the scoring details and all of the skating elements she didn't understand. There are many things regular spectators don't understand which are important to judge in skating but certainly, most of all, what skating comes down to is "How good does it look"? (the answer will vary depending on your knowledge of skating and personal opinion, of course, but it is the core question)

Difficult elements are usually rewarded because they are impressive. You can tell a Triple jump is more difficult than a Double jump just by looking at it. The visual of the Triple jump is more awe-inspiring.

kate said:
The problem is that this is a sport, and regulations need to be centered around encouraging athleticism. The core issue isn't how "well the element worked", it's how challenging it is. The challenge is a mix of its difficulty (level) and how well it is executed (GOE).

Going by this argument, there should be no music in figure skating.

The things you list are not the only challenge present. Delivering a program and performance that is emotionally moving is a challenge.

kate said:
You're right that it is hard to execute spins well, but it's harder to execute a L4 spin well than a L1 spin well, and doing so shows more athleticism. Since this is a sport, first and foremost, what matters is this -- how well the element is preformed and how challenging it is, not how pretty is is to look at (though this does matter, since it includes how well it is preformed).

Certainly it's harder to do a Level 4 spin with the same amount of quality as a Level 1 spin and I never said otherwise. Skaters would still be able to do level 4 elements (and get full credit in base value for one of them). There just needs to be a cap on the base value.

There are already caps in place for difficulty, in terms of how elements are scored in base value, and you haven't responded to that point. Do you think "Level 10" spins should be allowed? After all, it is possible to incorporate ten "difficult features" into a spin.

Also, creating beauty in a performance (and through technical elements in skating) is important. You yourself even just admitted to it.

kate said:
I'm not going to look for places where a L4 element was worse than a L1 because it doesn't matter. L1 elements simply aren't as challenging.

This is untrue.

If you tell a skater "go do a Level 1 spin that would be good enough to receive +2 GOE", they will find it harder than if you told them "go do a Level 4 spin". Some skaters aren't even capable of doing a spin good enough to receive +2 GOE.

The most difficult aspect of spinning is maintaining centering, good speed, and an attractive position at the same time.

Blades of Passion · Dec 7, 2009

gkelly said:
OK, here's one of my favorite performances. It's not perfect, but most of the areas where it could have been better are in the jumps.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lo-r3t_T0HY

Four spins were still allowed in the LP. Three of the spins here are level 4, the flying spin is level 3, and both step sequences are level 3.

To meet your requirements, one of the level 4 spins would have to be changed to level 1 and another to level 3. Or two to level 3 and one of the step sequences to level 1.

Nothing would "have to be changed". I'm not sure why you keep saying that. Skaters would still be allowed to do ALL level 4 elements in their programs, if they wanted to.

gkelly said:
In order to get full credit for it under your rules, he would have to deliberately leave out features from the earlier spins; otherwise the first level 4 spin would be counted as level 4 and the later ones would have their scores reduced even if they're better.

This is where the confusion seems to be coming from.

The GOE levels for spins of all levels would be the same and the increments in base value between Levels for ALL spins would be a the same.

His later spins wouldn't "have their scores reduced"; they would receive exactly the same GOE grades and his total base value would be the same, regardless of exactly which spin he decided to do as Level 4. And, because Lambiel is such a great spinner, he would receive more points for his spins under my system than he does under the current CoP.

gkelly said:
So which of the CCoSp (element 6) and CSSp (element 13) do you think it would improve the program to remove features from? Which features do you think should be removed?

The change-of-edge he does in both spins slows them down.

They would have been better quality spins if he didn't have to do the change-of-edge in order to pointlessly make them a level higher.

gkelly said:
I'm not just talking about novice and below skaters.

I'm also talking about senior-level skaters who compete in the same events as the stars, who are fighting with each other to make the cut for the long program at ISU championships, to earn an Olympic berth for their country, to medal at senior B internationals, to qualify to compete at national championships in the US or Canada or Japan.

I don't see how my system hurts any of those skaters? If anything it helps them because more freedom is allowed.

gkelly said:
If skaters are allowed to do 4-5 spins in their LP (instead of another jump or step sequence), then not only the excellent spinners but also those who just have decent consistent spins and/or limited or inconsistent jumps might well choose to do another spin or two. And if there are limits on the number of times that any feature can get credit in the program, then if those who have a limited repertoire of spin skills will portion them out across the spins to maximize their points. For one skater that might mean one level 1, one level 4, and one or more at level 3. For another skater that might mean all level 2.

Also, of course, if they think they are likely to get +GOE on a level 1 spin and likely to get minuses for spins with more features, they would be wise to choose level 1.

But the skater who has a wide variety of high-level spinning skills might be able to execute three level 4 spins and one level 3 without repeating features or compromising quality/GOE.

Let them strategize according to their own skill sets.

The skater who has a wide variety of high-level spinning skills could still execute three level 4 spins if they wanted to. They would receive a Level 3 base value for two of them, which is only a point loss of .8. That loss in base value would more than be made up for in the GOE values. If they get a +1 on those two spins, then they are already further ahead in my system than what the current CoP would award.

gkelly · Dec 7, 2009

Blades of Passion said:
Without spectators there is no sport.

Absolutely false.:banging:

Without paying spectators, there's an amateur sport funded purely by the participants themselves, or by national Olympic committees. But it will still exist for the athletes. That's the case for most Olympic sports, especially between Olympic years. How many spectators are there for curling or luge or biathlon?

If a competition is held is in the forest and no one comes to watch except a few family members, does it not exist?

Skating has benefitted from the fact that it's entertaining for fans to watch especially at the highest levels even if they don't skate themselves or understand the technique, and it translates well to TV. Therefore it can attract more media income than most Olympic sports and at times, since the relaxation of the amateurism rules, has been able to allow its stars to fund their competitive careers through competition prize money and appearance fees for skating shows.

But below the elite levels it's an amateur sport that exists for the participants. The ones who stay in it because they dream of fame and stardom might quit, or never start in the first place, if those opportunities didn't exist. But there will still be kids and adults who sign up for skating lessons because they just want to skate backward or be able to skate on frozen ponds or at birthday parties without falling down all the time or want to play hockey, etc. And then they get seduced by the feeling of gliding and the challenge of mastering that next skill, a new jump or spin or step, so they keep skating, maybe add more lessons, more practice time. And after they have a decent repertoire of skills, many decide to measure their skills and show off for friends and family by taking tests and entering competitions. And some love it enough and are talented or competitive enough to make training and competing to win a priority and get to quite high skill levels.

Skating competitions will still exist as long as there are skaters willing to devote time and money to entering them. Spectators are a plus, paying spectators and media coverage even moreso, they aren't the reason most skaters start skating or competing in the first place or continue doing so as the time and money demands increase.

This is where the confusion seems to be coming from.

The GOE levels for spins of all levels would be the same and the increments in base value between Levels for ALL spins would be a the same.

OK, that helps.

They would have been better quality spins if he didn't have to do the change-of-edge in order to pointlessly make them a level higher.

But would they have been better enough to earn higher GOEs from most of the judges?

I don't see how my system hurts any of those skaters? If anything it helps them because more freedom is allowed.

The skater who has a wide variety of high-level spinning skills could still execute three level 4 spins if they wanted to. They would receive a Level 3 base value for two of them, which is only a point loss of .8.

And then you'd also score one of his level 3 step sequences as level 1, so that would be another 0.8 loss.

That loss in base value would more than be made up for in the GOE values. If they get a +1 on those two spins, then they are already further ahead in my system than what the current CoP would award.

They're further ahead under your system than under the current rules.

What I'm proposing is to take the best of your changes that encourage quality over difficulty, add some additional changes of my own that will do the same thing, and still allow skaters to get full credit for the highest level elements they are able to execute well.

Skaters who excel at non-jump elements would come out further ahead under my proposal than under yours.

I'm not defending the status quo; I'm arguing in favor of the combination of rule changes that I think will best reward excellence in those areas.

kate · Dec 7, 2009

Blades of Passion said:
The things you list are not the only challenge present. Delivering a program and performance that is emotionally moving is a challenge..

Yes, and that's what the PCS is for. I was addressing everything in the TES.

Blades of Passion said:
Certainly it's harder to do a Level 4 spin with the same amount of quality as a Level 1 spin and I never said otherwise. Skaters would still be able to do level 4 elements (and get full credit in base value for one of them). There just needs to be a cap on the base value.

But you'd be preventing them from executing as many difficult spins as they could. The main reason there is a cap on spin levels now is because there is a cap on spin points -- L4 is the highest you can get because you shouldn't be able to get a limitless amount of points on spins (which is fair). Someone decided it takes four features to get a L4. Your proposition is a totally different kind of limit, preventing skaters from preforming what they can do. Also, I'd have to go back and count, but I'm pretty sure you can't incorporate 10 features into a spin -- difficult positions are capped at 2, COE is capped at 1, all three positions is 1, back entry is 1 (and can only be used once), difficult transition is 1, and 8 revolutions is capped at 2. That gets me to 8, and that's for combo spins, which by far have the most variations.

Blades of Passion said:
If you tell a skater "go do a Level 1 spin that would be good enough to receive +2 GOE", they will find it harder than if you told them "go do a Level 4 spin".

These aren't parallel comparisons. A parallel comparison would be a L1 spin with +2 GOE to a L4 spin with +2 GOE. The L4 spin is significantly harder.

Blades of Passion said:
Nothing would "have to be changed". I'm not sure why you keep saying that. Skaters would still be allowed to do ALL level 4 elements in their programs, if they wanted to.

Actually, in addition to the reason I've already mentioned, there's another reason skaters will automatically do L1 spins. Different spins have different base values, so your hardest spins should be the highest levels (to get the most points). If one of these is last, and you do all L4 before, the last spin would be the L1. This results in fewer points. So skaters will deliberately do their lowest scoring spin as a L1 to ensure that the others count as L4.

Blades of Passion said:
I'm not sure what this means. Do you mean downgraded jumps? As soon as the tech specialist calls the element, it would go in the computer and the value would be calculated..

Your system allows a 3/4 cheat before downgrading a jump. The computer doesn't make this call -- the technical specialist does, and it's even more complicated than the current system. It already takes a long time and results in a lot of controversy when jumps of reviewed or downgraded (or not), and this only adds to that.

Blades of Passion said:
Sure, it would be incredibly difficult if a skater performed 8 Quadruple Toeloops in their program...but that is too repetitive. There has to be a limit..

No it wouldn't. 4T is hard, but many skaters are good at one particular thing. Heck, when I was ten and first skating juvenile, I had a clean double lutz double loop in my program and no double toe because I still couldn't land it!

Blades of Passion · Dec 7, 2009

gkelly said:
Absolutely false.:banging:

Without paying spectators, there's an amateur sport funded purely by the participants themselves, or by national Olympic committees. But it will still exist for the athletes. That's the case for most Olympic sports, especially between Olympic years. How many spectators are there for curling or luge or biathlon?

If a competition is held is in the forest and no one comes to watch except a few family members, does it not exist?

Family members are spectators! Judges are also spectators.

It was more of a philosophical question. I was wrong in using the term sport, however. I should have said "performance". Figure Skating is very different from other sports in that it is a performance art as well. A performance without an audience is...not not-existent, but certainly inconsequential.

gkelly said:
Skating competitions will still exist as long as there are skaters willing to devote time and money to entering them.

Certainly. If this is what anyone wants the sport to become, though, there is a fundamental difference in values.

I see figure skating as an amazing combination of sport and art. If we don't value and weigh the art of this sport, then we are not talking about the same thing.

gkelly said:
But would they have been better enough to earn higher GOEs from most of the judges?

Completely fair judging can not be assured but they almost surely would have been better. Stephane performs the exact same spins in exhibition as he does in competition, with the exception of never using a change-of-edge feature in exhibition. As a result, his spins tend to be faster in exhibition.

gkelly said:
And then you'd also score one of his level 3 step sequences as level 1, so that would be another 0.8 loss.

No, because Step Sequences should also receive greater GOE than the currently do. A level 3 step sequence currently only receives +.5 GOE for each mark, whereas I believe they should receive +1.0 GOE for each mark.

gkelly said:
What I'm proposing is to take the best of your changes that encourage quality over difficulty, add some additional changes of my own that will do the same thing, and still allow skaters to get full credit for the highest level elements they are able to execute well.

You haven't proven to me that there is value in skaters trying to execute the highest level on every single element, though. I've yet to see a program where this was beneficial.

In actuality, I don't think it's possible for such a skater to exist. There isn't a human who is capable of delivering astonishing quality in every kind of complex spin imaginable AND in Spiral Sequences AND in Footwork Sequences.

Nobody in the World is the best at everything.

gkelly said:
Skaters who excel at non-jump elements would come out further ahead under my proposal than under yours.

Well, again, I don't think this is true because I have yet to see a program where a skater has done such a thing.

If it were true, though, they would only be ahead by fractions of a point...and at the cost of programs from every other skater being hindered (as they are now) by skaters feeling like they need to attempt the maximum level on every type of spin and step sequence.

Michelle Kwan as we know her would not have existed under such a system. Look at Michelle's performance at 2005 Nationals in the SP, a competition held under 6.0, and then look at her performance at 2005 Worlds in the SP, a competition held under CoP.

Her program at Nationals was an inspiring, emotional masterpiece.

At Worlds, she tried to add more "difficulty" and it broke the exquisite flow of the program and certainly did not reach the same transcendent heights.

________________________

We are really just arguing semantics and tiny details at this point, though. We both agree that non-jump elements at all Levels should be worth more via +GOE and that poor positions in these elements should be punished more harshly. Does this sound about right?

Joesitz (RIP) · Dec 7, 2009

Mathman said:
To me, that is the whole ball of wax right there. No judging system can eliminate opinions. If it could, it wouldn'tg) be judging. So the CoP is doomed before it begins.

You are correct for the plus GoEs that is one reason, I would eliminate them from scoring, however the minus GoEs can be quantified beause the skater did not reach the level of a Base Value, and should be penalized. Skaters who add something innovative after earning the Base Value, should be scored in the PC scoring where opinions rule the whole CoP system.

After all the hullabaloo about CoP scoring as not being based on opinions, we are now talking about it's impossible not to opine in a judged sport. But can't we at least leave the opinions out of the Technical? That would be more sporty

Blades of Passion · Dec 7, 2009

kate said:
Yes, and that's what the PCS is for. I was addressing everything in the TES.

Yes, but TES influences PCS.

If skaters are forced to include ugly elements in their programs, it influences PCS. Every single movement a skater makes is choreography.

If a skater does an ugly spin, it detracts from the choreography.

I feel we should promote good looking elements.

kate said:
But you'd be preventing them from executing as many difficult spins as they could. The main reason there is a cap on spin levels now is because there is a cap on spin points -- L4 is the highest you can get because you shouldn't be able to get a limitless amount of points on spins (which is fair). Someone decided it takes four features to get a L4. Your proposition is a totally different kind of limit, preventing skaters from preforming what they can do.

This is not true. I'd not be preventing skaters from executing as many difficult spins as they could, not at all. There would be no penalty for skaters doing such a thing.

Let's make it clear, though - the caps in the current system are NO different than what I am proposing. Had level 5 spins been given credit in the past and, then the rules changed so that only level 4 spins were allowed, it would be no different than the new rules I have suggested.

You seem to think that Level 4 is fine. Why not Level 5? Aren't the skaters who are capable of doing Level 5 spins being "limited"?

The continued revisions of CoP have continued to impose more "limitations" that have improved the elements we see in competition.

Spiral Sequences used to require a whole extra position. Everyone said "God, this is awful...skaters are spending so much time doing ugly spirals". Since then, Spirals have been changed so that only 3 spiral positions are encouraged. As a result, things look a little better (although still very problematic).

The same thing goes for changes-of-edge in spins.

CoP is placing limits on skaters already and continuing to change its rules in order to see more attractive programs. The rules I suggest simply move that process forward much better. ISU has made changes extremely slowly.

kate said:
Also, I'd have to go back and count, but I'm pretty sure you can't incorporate 10 features into a spin -- difficult positions are capped at 2, COE is capped at 1, all three positions is 1, back entry is 1 (and can only be used once), difficult transition is 1, and 8 revolutions is capped at 2. That gets me to 8, and that's for combo spins, which by far have the most variations.

Yes, but see, this is just yet another example of limitations CoP imposes.

A skater COULD do a difficult variation in every single position and change-of-edge in every single position. But, under the rules, it wouldn't be worth any extra points. (which is fine...who needs to see that kind of spin?)

kate said:
These aren't parallel comparisons. A parallel comparison would be a L1 spin with +2 GOE to a L4 spin with +2 GOE. The L4 spin is significantly harder.

No skater has ever performed all Level 4 elements in a program and been worthy of +2 GOE on all of them. In fact, no skater has ever gotten Level 4 on every single element in their program, period!

The most a skater has ever gotten credit for is:

Level 4
Level 4
Level 4
Level 4
Level 3

Under my system, the maximum in base value (and, remember, we are only talking about base value here) a skater would receive for 5 non-jump elements is:

Level 4
Level 3
Level 3
Level 3
Level 1

The eventual difference in base value is only 2 points and a skater who is great at these kinds of elements would more than make up for that in the GOE marks. If a skater received an average of +1 on each element, they would break even with what the current CoP would award them. More than a +1 average for GOE and they start to gain points.

kate said:
Actually, in addition to the reason I've already mentioned, there's another reason skaters will automatically do L1 spins. Different spins have different base values, so your hardest spins should be the highest levels (to get the most points).

The increments of point difference between levels for all Spins is the same. Not sure what you are saying here.

I specifically planned the system so that spins (and spiral sequences and footwork sequences) have the same increments of point difference between levels in order to ensure that no single figure skating element would be ghettoized and almost always performed as the lowest level element in programs.

kate said:
The computer doesn't make this call -- the technical specialist does, and it's even more complicated than the current system. It already takes a long time and results in a lot of controversy when jumps of reviewed or downgraded (or not), and this only adds to that.

This doesn't make sense. A jump being downgraded or not would follow the same process. I have simply defined what rotation is in my rules. The current CoP rules do not define rotation in jumps.

The fact that human error exists is simply further reason to given downgraded jumps their own values, so that there are less extreme results when questionable calls are made.

kate said:
Blades of Passion said:

Sure, it would be incredibly difficult if a skater performed 8 Quadruple Toeloops in their program...but that is too repetitive. There has to be a limit.

Click to expand...

No it wouldn't. 4T is hard, but many skaters are good at one particular thing

If you don't think 8 Quads in a program would be incredibly difficult, I'm not sure that you have ever attempted one.

No skater is so good with a Quad that they could land 8 in a program with any amount of consistency. At least not with the current technology of skating boots.

gkelly · Dec 8, 2009

Blades of Passion said:
Certainly. If this is what anyone wants the sport to become, though, there is a fundamental difference in values.

Skating as sport has always existed primarily for the competitors.

Some but not all of those competitors love performing for audiences. Some love to express themselves artistically through their competitive performances. Some are primarily jocks who are mainly interested in pushing themselves to outdo their competitors athletically. Others are very shy, which is why they gravitate toward a highly technical individual sport -- when school figures were a big part of the sport, this type of skater could be quite successful.

Various changes in the sport over the decades have led to fluctuations in the relative importance of technical content and execution vs. performance aspects. The recent change in the judging system, and some problems that both you and I can agree on about how it was implemented, have led to an emphasis on quantity over quality. I think we agree that it would benefit the sport to increase the incentives to prioritize quality. I just disagree that limiting the number of features allowed in each nonjump element even further is a necessary step toward achieving that.

Various changes outside the sport (e.g., international politics, television and internet technology) have also affected the level of interest in skating from the media and the general public. Most of that interest is only focused on the elite tip of the iceberg, though. Without all the athletes who are still working their way up toward that level or who will never be able to reach elite levels, there would be no elite skating.

I see figure skating as an amazing combination of sport and art. If we don't value and weigh the art of this sport, then we are not talking about the same thing.

I think skating competition is a technical sport that has artistic components. Which can be rewarded in the program component scores, which may also benefit from some revision.

I think that skating is also a medium that can be used for artistic expression at a much higher level than is possible in the context of competitive sport. That's what professional skating shows should be for.

Stephane performs the exact same spins in exhibition as he does in competition, with the exception of never using a change-of-edge feature in exhibition. As a result, his spins tend to be faster in exhibition.

A valid point. But also, in exhibition he doesn't have to do as many or difficult jumps after the earlier spins, so he doesn't have to conserve as much energy or protect himself from dizziness while performing them. There's a reason why the last spin in the program I linked was both the most difficult and the most successful. That's pretty common among the good spinners.

No, because Step Sequences should also receive greater GOE than the currently do. A level 3 step sequence currently only receives +.5 GOE for each mark, whereas I believe they should receive +1.0 GOE for each mark.

See, again, you're comparing marks under your system vs. marks under the current rules.

I'm comparing marks under your system complete with level restrictions vs. marks under your scale of values but without the level restrictions. That's the compromise I want to see!

You haven't proven to me that there is value in skaters trying to execute the highest level on every single element, though. I've yet to see a program where this was beneficial.

You mean beneficial to your aesthetic enjoyment?
The athletic value would be challenging themselves, setting the bar for their opponents, pushing the limits of the sport. Higher faster stronger. That's sport.

They don't have try to execute the highest level on every single element. But out of five or six nonjump elements in a program, it can certainly be beneficial to include three or four level 4 elements. You won't even give credit for two.

In actuality, I don't think it's possible for such a skater to exist. There isn't a human who is capable of delivering astonishing quality in every kind of complex spin imaginable AND in Spiral Sequences AND in Footwork Sequences.

Nobody in the World is the best at everything.

Maybe what they're worst at would be jumps.

Do we really want the sport to be dominated by excellent jumpers with mediocre everything else at the expense of excellent everything elsers who are mediocre at jumps?

That was already often the case under 6.0.

Even with the removal of one spin from the senior LPs last year, there are still 3 spins per program, which is more than the number of step sequences (even for men) or spiral sequences. With the more flexible well-balanced program rules that you and I both want, good spinners could choose to do four spins again or even five. It's certainly possible that a skater whose biggest talent is in spins could do three or four level 4 spins with lots of +2s.

If it were true, though, they would only be ahead by fractions of a point...and at the cost of programs from every other skater being hindered (as they are now) by skaters feeling like they need to attempt the maximum level on every type of spin and step sequence.

They feel the need because the current scale of values generally assures them more points if they get credit for another feature than if they can pry a few more plus GOEs out of the judges. With your proposed changes to the scale of values, they will have more reason to choose to perform lower level elements until they feel that they are performing them as well as they're able and only then to add additional features.

I wish that the scale of values had been structured that way from the start, and judges had been encouraged to be generous with +2s when warranted from the start. If that had been the case, I think we'd have seen a different culture develop regarding the strategies of pursuing levels vs. GOEs.

Michelle Kwan as we know her would not have existed under such a system. Look at Michelle's performance at 2005 Nationals in the SP, a competition held under 6.0, and then look at her performance at 2005 Worlds in the SP, a competition held under CoP.

That doesn't really tell us anything. Kwan only competed in one IJS competition because by that point in her career she was trying to protect her body from injuries by competing less, and the US was late to adopt the new system in domestic events. So her learning curve was a year and a half behind her competitors who had competed on the Grand Prix in fall 2003, at Grand Prix and/or Euros/4Cs earlier in the 2004-05 season, or domestically in countries that had adopted the new system before the US did.

If the new system had been introduced in 1994 instead of 2004, she would have grown up with it and she would have found many ways to make it work for her at her athletic and artistic peaks.

We are really just arguing semantics and tiny details at this point, though. We both agree that non-jump elements at all Levels should be worth more via +GOE and that poor positions in these elements should be punished more harshly. Does this sound about right?

Yes about the first part of that statement.
I wouldn't say that "poor positions" should be punished more harshly, especially since I suspect that there are many positions that you find ugly and I find acceptable.
I would say that beautiful positions should be rewarded more highly.

Proposed CoP Changes for Singles

gkelly

kate

Joesitz (RIP)

gkelly

Blades of Passion

Skating is Art, if you let it be

gkelly

Blades of Passion

Skating is Art, if you let it be

gkelly

Blades of Passion

Skating is Art, if you let it be

Blades of Passion

Skating is Art, if you let it be

kate

gkelly

Blades of Passion

Skating is Art, if you let it be

Blades of Passion

Skating is Art, if you let it be

gkelly

kate

Blades of Passion

Skating is Art, if you let it be

Joesitz (RIP)

Blades of Passion

Skating is Art, if you let it be

gkelly

Similar threads

Connect with us