Page 4 of 14 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 204

Thread: Proposed CoP Changes for Singles

  1. #46
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,801
    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    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.
    Last edited by gkelly; 12-07-2009 at 04:10 PM.

  2. #47
    Skating is art, if you let it be. Blades of Passion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Hollywood, CA
    Posts
    3,968
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    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.

  3. #48
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,801
    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    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.

  4. #49
    Skating is art, if you let it be. Blades of Passion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Hollywood, CA
    Posts
    3,968
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    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).

    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    Level 1 spins, spirals, and footwork that are performed brilliantly (+2, +3 GOE) are difficult, and often unique
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    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!

  5. #50
    Skating is art, if you let it be. Blades of Passion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Hollywood, CA
    Posts
    3,968
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    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.

  6. #51
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    412
    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    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.

  7. #52
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,801
    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    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.
    Last edited by gkelly; 12-07-2009 at 06:56 PM.

  8. #53
    Skating is art, if you let it be. Blades of Passion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Hollywood, CA
    Posts
    3,968
    Quote Originally Posted by kate View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by kate View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by kate View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by kate View Post
    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.

  9. #54
    Skating is art, if you let it be. Blades of Passion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Hollywood, CA
    Posts
    3,968
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    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.

  10. #55
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,801
    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion
    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.

  11. #56
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    412
    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    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!

  12. #57
    Skating is art, if you let it be. Blades of Passion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Hollywood, CA
    Posts
    3,968
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    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?

  13. #58
    Custom Title Joesitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    20,185
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    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

  14. #59
    Skating is art, if you let it be. Blades of Passion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Hollywood, CA
    Posts
    3,968
    Quote Originally Posted by kate View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by kate View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by kate View Post
    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?)

    Quote Originally Posted by kate View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by kate View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by kate View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by kate View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    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
    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.

  15. #60
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,801
    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    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.

Page 4 of 14 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 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
  •