Page 5 of 14 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 204

Thread: Proposed CoP Changes for Singles

  1. #61
    Skating is art, if you let it be. Blades of Passion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Hollywood, CA
    Posts
    4,011
    Quote Originally Posted by Joesitz View Post
    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
    This is interesting but I think there has to be +GOE. If there wasn't, then the quality of elements wouldn't be as important. A very large Triple Lutz should score higher than a small Triple Lutz.

    You're suggesting that big jumps should be awarded in the PCS, but big jumps do not necessarily reflect great skating skills or performance or interpretation...

    Opinions on the tech has to be part of it. Other sports that are related to jumping have it as well. Diving and Skiing Aerials both require judges to have an opinion on the landing, and of course there is Gymnastics...

  2. #62
    Skating is art, if you let it be. Blades of Passion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Hollywood, CA
    Posts
    4,011
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    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!

    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.
    I would be fine with that if it was a benefit to skating performances. I've just never seen that being the case. All of the added difficulty doesn't add any extra excitement. Level 3 elements are a good balance between having extra difficulty and still allowing the skater to perform the element brilliantly.

    I believe that allowing for a little less complexity in these elements would give skaters more time to do some actual skating. Under 6.0 there were flying spins that were held for very few revolutions and Spirals with just one position, not three. They were used to quickly highlight a part of the music and then the skater would continue on their way.

    These days, everyone spends so much time getting into positions that often add nothing to the music or performance.

    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    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.
    Continuing with that I just said about skaters spending so much time getting into useless positions, I think adding difficulty for the sake of it is not necessarily more difficult in terms of the entire performance.

    If you are spending more time doing technical elements, it means you are spending less time actually skating.

    Giving an interesting performance and creating emotion on the ice is difficult. Being able to bring out the full character of the music while just stroking around and doing other movements, and selling those movements to make them believable, requires skill as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    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?
    Certainly not. Again, though, I don't think the "everything elsers" benefit from doing every spin and spiral with as much complexity as possible.

    They benefit from doing those moves with amazing quality and delivering memorable performances.

    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    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.
    It's not about the learning curve...there are moves CoP "requires" for you to get the best score. The movements she had to incorporate lowered the quality of her program.

    Had CoP, in its current form, existed during Kwan's day I don't think she would have ever hit the artistic peaks that she did.

    I am sure she would have been a great skater and competitor, but we wouldn't have seen the same amount of beauty and creativity.

    The thought of Kwan ruining her sublime change-of-edge Spiral by adding a catch-foot position to the second half of it in order to "gain a higher level" (which she would have had to) is disgusting.

  3. #63
    Banned janetfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    6,889
    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    Had CoP, in its current form, existed during Kwan's day I don't think she would have ever hit the artistic peaks that she did.

    I am sure she would have been a great skater and competitor, but we wouldn't have seen the same amount of beauty and creativity.

    The thought of Kwan ruining her sublime change-of-edge Spiral by adding a catch-foot position to the second half of it in order to "gain a higher level" (which she would have had to) is disgusting.
    ITA and think CoP has made spirals predictable and boring.

    I don't see how it would have been possible for Michelle to have had so many beautiful programs under CoP because her concept of skating would not have been about creating a piece of performance art - it would have been about scoring more points than the other girls, particularly Tara, Irina and Lulu.

    To me that will always be the inherent flaw in CoP. Performing for points goes against the spirit of what people who work in the Arts are taught.

    Thinking of beautiful paintings comes to mind. Can anyone imagine an art festival under CoP? Would each landscape have to show three different variations of the sky to earn the most points?

    Would happy or very bright paintings that jump out at the eye be scored more highly than a more subtle and reflective work?

    Would a very large canvas in a handsome frame receive higher pcs than a smaller painting in a simple frame?

    The thought of judging paintings or any form of art the way CoP does will always feel wrong to me. It emphasizes quantity over quality and forces skaters to perform too many elements in a similar manner. This will always lead to a loss of originality and for me Speedy's decision to move skating away from Art and to embrace it's athletic aspect was a foolish mistake.

    I don't think Michelle's body of work would have been as memorable under Cop but think she still would have won many titles. I just don't think many of us would have loved her skating as much as we did or remember so many of her programs today.
    Last edited by janetfan; 12-08-2009 at 07:58 AM.

  4. #64
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    412
    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    Yes, but TES influences PCS.
    Ideally, it shouldn't though. Unless falls, etc. detract from the execution of the performance, the PCS should be its own independent mark.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    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"?
    L4 is the point cap -- it was devised as a cap on points, not on difficulty, and four features happens to be the number you need to get those points (and to prove this point, for some, it's not actually really four anymore -- for flying sit, a traditional flying sit is an automatic feature, a layback gets an automatic feature, etc.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    The continued revisions of CoP have continued to impose more "limitations" that have improved the elements we see in competition.
    These are small limitations on what is considered difficult, ex. no longer giving credit for COE spirals that take forever to change. You're proposing a major revision that prevents skaters from preforming to the best of their ability (difficulty level).

    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    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?)
    Again, though, this wouldn't be difficult, which is one of the reasons for the restrictions -- there have been restrictions on both of these since the very beginning (positions have always been capped at 2 I believe, maybe 3 for the first year, and COE at 2). A lot of flexible skaters can easily do a variation of position on each basic position, and could get a L4 without doing any "other" features. Same goes for those that are good at COEs -- with the exception of one (forward sit, which for some reason is difficult for some people), once most skaters get one COE consistent, they get them all. This is sort of like a Zayak rule for spins. It prevents skaters from loading up on one thing that they happen to be good at. This isn't at all the same as the restriction you're proposing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    In fact, no skater has ever gotten Level 4 on every single element in their program, period!
    Again, not a valid comparison. Most skaters don't get a L4 on step sequences (in fact, it's a big deal when a skater gets a L4 step sequence -- it happens only a handful of times a season). Most even novice (US) national level skaters can get L4 on all their spins (though not consistent for the lower levels), with the exception the years that flying camel and camel are required for junior mens and ladies short program, as well as some women and layback spins (and none of these skaters will put those spins in their longs, then). Many skaters can get L4 on these, as well. Take step sequence out of the mix, and look at skaters over time (since skaters screw up and things don't get called sometimes -- if you want them to do simpler elements you need to look at what their elements get called at their best to see if they consistent don't get all L4). You'll find that most international, and even the vast majority of national competitors get L4 on their spins.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    The current CoP rules do not define rotation in jumps.
    First, yes it does. Downgraded if more than 1/4 rotation under-rotated. Also, my comment makes perfect sense. Try being a technical specialist reviewing jumps. Now, instead of only looking for that 1/4 rotation, you need to look for 3/4. In addition, since skaters have a 3/4 margin of error, more skaters are going to try under-rotated jumps, so there's going to be a lot more to review. There's already a time crunch, and jumps are only reviewed under slo-mo if they look under-rotated in regular time, but it's awfully hard to see that much during the regular program.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    f you don't think 8 Quads in a program would be incredibly difficult, I'm not sure that you have ever attempted one.
    Well, I'm posting under a female screen name, so given the tiny number of women who've attempted quads, I'd say this is a pretty safe bet. I never said it wouldn't be difficult -- it would -- but it wouldn't be more difficult than a balanced program, endurance aside. Since the quad is still a "new" jump, let's use a less extreme example, which will make my point better. Take a national junior man or JGP man who doesn't yet have a solid triple axel but whose other triples are great and incredibly consistent. To someone with super-consistent triples, a triple lutz is really no more difficult than a triple sal or triple toe. Thus, a program full of triple lutzes, and only triple lutzes, is no more difficult than a well-balanced program, in addition to getting more points. It's actually a lot easier. It enables said junior man to only concentrate on lutzes, not only in practice (which saves a lot of time!) but mentally in his program. To make the point even clearer, what if this man was one of the rare skaters who got a lutz before he got other triples? His lutz would be consistent, and his others would not. To him, a program full of triple lutzes would then be much easier than a balanced program.

    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    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.
    This. Edge changes can be done quickly (though honestly, I don't see why it's such a big deal if a spin slows down a little to do one -- I think some edge changes done well are interesting features), and Lambiel can absolutely do them quickly. He takes them out in exhibitions because most people don't realize that they're difficult, and that saves a lot of energy, which makes it easier to do other positions/save speed for later on.

    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    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.
    Well said.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    I would be fine with that if it was a benefit to skating performances.
    I don't know how many times I need to say that this isn't about what benefits performance. That's what PCS and GOE are for. I suspect we'll never agree on this, since you seem to be coming at this from the point of view of a spectator (I honestly don't know any skaters currently skating under COP/IJS who would favor such major limits on what they could do).

    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    I believe that allowing for a little less complexity in these elements would give skaters more time to do some actual skating.
    I agree that we need more time, though. I'd love to see major revisions made to step sequence requirements (though I'd have no idea how to keep them short while still rewarding difficulty) or take out another element, but then, with the latter, it seems like we're taking out more and more elements each year. Senior is less of a problem than junior though -- junior is packed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    Giving an interesting performance and creating emotion on the ice is difficult. Being able to bring out the full character of the music while just stroking around and doing other movements, and selling those movements to make them believable, requires skill as well.
    Yes, and as I've already mentioned, these skills are marked under PCS.

  5. #65
    Medalist
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    I have taken it upon myself to go through and fix everything that I currently see wrong with the judging system as it stands (as it relates to Singles skating; I am not an expert in Pairs and therefore will not comment on exactly how the elements in pairs skating should be graded). I’ve separated it into two posts - this first post is specifically about jumps and the second post is about everything else.

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

    VALUES FOR JUMPS:

    4Lutz - 12.1 (-2.2, +1.1 for GOE)
    4Flip - 11.6 (-2.1, +1.1 for GOE)
    4Loop - 11.2 (-2.0, +1.1 for GOE)
    4Sal - 9.9 (-1.8, +1.1 for GOE)
    4Toe - 9.4 (-1.7, +1.1 for GOE)

    3Axel - 7.8 (-1.5, +1.1 for GOE)
    3Lutz - 5.6 (-1.3, +1 for GOE)
    3Flip - 5.2 (-1.2, +1 for GOE)
    3Loop - 4.9 (-1.2, +1 for GOE)
    3Sal - 4.0 (-1.1, +.9 for GOE)
    3Toe - 3.6 (-1, +.9 for GOE)

    2Axel - 3.0 (-.8, +.8 for GOE)
    2Lutz - 2.0 (-.5, -.5, -.4, +.6 for GOE)
    2Flip - 1.8 (-.5 -.4, -.4, +.6 for GOE)
    2Loop - 1.7 (-.4, +.6 for GOE)
    2Sal - 1.3 (.-3, +.6 for GOE)
    2Toe - 1.2 (-.3, -.3, -2, +.6 for GOE)

    1Axel - 1.0 (-.2, +.5 for GOE)
    1Lutz - .4 (-.1, +.2 for GOE)
    1Flip - .3 (-.1, +.2 for GOE)
    1Loop - .3 (-.1, +.2 for GOE)
    1Sal - .2 (-.1, +.2 for GOE)
    1Toe - .2 (-.1, +.2 for GOE)

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

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

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

    BONUSES FOR COMBINATIONS and SEQUENCES:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    VALUES FOR UNDERROTATED JUMPS:

    4Lutz - 7.4 (-1.5, +1 for GOE)
    4Flip - 7.0 (-1.4, +1 for GOE)
    4Loop - 6.7 (-1.4, +1 for GOE)
    4Sal - 6.0 (-1.3, +1 for GOE)
    4Toe - 5.6 (-1.3, +1 for GOE)

    3Axel - 4.9 (-1.2, +1 for GOE)
    3Lutz - 3.4 (-1, +.9 for GOE)
    3Flip - 3.1 (-.9, +.8 for GOE)
    3Loop - 2.9 (-.8, +.8 for GOE)
    3Sal - 2.4 (-.7, +.7 for GOE)
    3Toe - 2.2 (-.6, +.7 for GOE)

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

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

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

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

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

    FLUTZES AND LIPS:

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

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

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

    OTHER MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES RELATED TO JUMPS:

    *A single-footed Axel (an Axel that takes off and lands on the same foot) shall be worth 50% greater base value (the GOE values also shift by 50%, if applicable). This applies only to a Single Axel - not a Double Axel or Triple Axel. The purpose of this change is to allow the combination of a single-footed Axel into a Salchow or Flip jump to be worth enough for skaters to have incentive to perform it. A single-footed Axel into a Triple Salchow is of greater difficulty than the more standard Triple Salchow-Double Toeloop combination.

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

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

    Similarly, if a skater breaks the Zayak rule and performs the same Triple jump more than twice in their program, the extra Triple(s) shall be downgraded to a Double rather than completely discounted. A Double Axel being performed more than 3 times in a program shall also be downgraded to a Single Axel.

    I don't know if I entirely agree with everything you've put forth here, but the effort in this undertaking is really impressive. Having said that, I couldn't agree more with you on the value of combination jumps. I had been formulating a thread on that subject alone for the past couple weeks but it looks like you beat me to it. I'll take this chance now to state my opinion on that matter.

    In the new system's inception several years ago, I remember a lot of talk about how important triple-triple combinations would become, particularly for the ladies, because of the newly quantified point value of such elements. I remember a lot of commentators and critics mentioning that Michelle Kwan would have to include one to stay afloat. Regardless of the reasoning behind any of these statements I always thought the new system lessened the incentive for trying triple-triple combinations, outside of the obvious risks of falls and under-rotations.

    The ladies free skate, as I understand it, includes seven jumping passes, one of which must be an Axel jump. Since most ladies do not attempt the triple Axel, that leaves only 6 passes for the remaining triple jumps (though we've seen the relatively recent discovery of the double Axel-triple toe combination as a way to get around this). Without the previously mentioned combination, or a triple-triple, the most triples a skater could produce in her program is 6. The only benefit currently to tacking a triple toe onto the end of some jump somewhere in the program is the advantage of being able to include 7 triples total in the program. There is no specific benefit or bonus for such jumps themselves, as was perceived to be the case in the old system. For example, two skaters each complete 7 triples in a program, but the skater who includes two triple-triples will likely win the technical score (let's ignore that there was formerly no restriction on the number of jumping passes). This shouldn't be. As Blades of Passion rightly points out, a triple Lutz-triple toe is more difficult than a triple Lutz and a triple toe completed separately, and yet under CoP they are scored with equal value.

    This should also extend to cover the scoring of jump sequences, which are absurdly given less value than if those jumps were completed separately.

    In regards to changing values of jumps to accommodate additional bonuses, that doesn't seem quite right either. I think I'd rather see adjustments to the PC scores which have their own set of problems. Same goes for unequal point intervals on the values of specific jumps and the scoring of under-rotated jumps. I think half of CoP's problems is that it is continuously trying to become more specific, more technical, more objective, and this has been ruining the sport. Making it even more so is only going to complicate things further. There is a generally agreed upon scale of difficulty for triple jumps, which is usually in the ascending order of toe loop, Salchow, loop, flip, Lutz, Axel. Speculating on how much more difficult one jump is than the previous is just too tricky and usually specific to every skater: Angela Nikodinov, Kristi Yamaguchi, and Anne Patrice McDonough all struggled greatly with the triple Salchow; we often see many novice and junior skaters accomplish triple Salchow, triple toe, and triple Lutz before adding flip and loop to their repertoires. And who will be sitting there measuring every degree of rotation to ensure that each of 7 or 8 passes and as many as 12 jumps all meet the requisite 810 degrees? This really can't accurately be measured without the use of some high tech equipment, some of which needs to be on the skater. I agree that currently the system, and the judges who execute the rules of it, seem to think a triple jump literally means 1080 degrees of rotation in the air. And even all flips and Lutzes have some pre-rotation. I've said again and again that a good jump is subjective within reasonable limits. I think a lot of people rightly have taken issue with fairness in the judging which I agree is suspect at times. And so the result is that Yu Na Kim gets her triple-triple combination downgraded at the GPF, because, if they downgrade for some they need to do it fairly for all. Never mind taking a look at what should really constitute an under-rotated jump and how it should be scored. This is so backwards. There needs to be some limit to the standards that the judging system sets.

  6. #66
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    521
    Quote Originally Posted by kate View Post
    Well, I'm posting under a female screen name, so given the tiny number of women who've attempted quads, I'd say this is a pretty safe bet. I never said it wouldn't be difficult -- it would -- but it wouldn't be more difficult than a balanced program, endurance aside. Since the quad is still a "new" jump, let's use a less extreme example, which will make my point better. Take a national junior man or JGP man who doesn't yet have a solid triple axel but whose other triples are great and incredibly consistent. To someone with super-consistent triples, a triple lutz is really no more difficult than a triple sal or triple toe. Thus, a program full of triple lutzes, and only triple lutzes, is no more difficult than a well-balanced program, in addition to getting more points. It's actually a lot easier. It enables said junior man to only concentrate on lutzes, not only in practice (which saves a lot of time!) but mentally in his program. To make the point even clearer, what if this man was one of the rare skaters who got a lutz before he got other triples? His lutz would be consistent, and his others would not. To him, a program full of triple lutzes would then be much easier than a balanced program.
    I think you are forgetting, or overlooking, the amount of energy exerted performing 8 Quads in a program. I'm assuming that performing a program full of Quads (even if it was 8 4Ts) would use an enormous amount of energy, much more than a program full of triples. I think that should be taken into account. There is no doubt that Evgeny Plushenko can do 4T and 4S. So why doesn't he do a program with 4 quads (4T, 4T combo, 4S, 4S combo)? My guess would be that his physical conditioning is a problem, even though he was in great shape at his peak.

    Not that I know for sure, just an educated guess. I've never done a quad myself, obviously.

  7. #67
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,893
    Quote Originally Posted by jeff goldblum View Post
    This should also extend to cover the scoring of jump sequences, which are absurdly given less value than if those jumps were completed separately.
    This is especially the case for sequences with a high-value jump (triple flip or higher) followed by a double salchow or double toe loop. The 20% of the first jump's value that is lost to the sequence multiplier is larger than the 80% of the second jump's value that is added by doing it in sequence.

    The first jump would have been worth more on its own than the two jumps are worth together.

    Or if it's one of the skater's repeated jumps that needs to be in combination or sequence (and would lose 20% of its value anyway if performed solo), it would be more valuable just to put a single toe loop on the landing.

    For high-level jumpers who are doing sequences with two triples or one triple and a double axel, there is a net gain in points.

    For lower-level competitors who are doing only double jumps anyway, the 20% loss on the harder jump is less than the 80% gain on the easier one, so there is a net gain.

    But for skaters who can't pull off a triple (or double axel) at the end of a sequence, there is a net point loss to doing a triple in sequence with an easier double jump. And probably not much if any credit in PCS from the judges from taking a less common option.

  8. #68
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    521
    I agree with BoP about jump combination scoring. It definitely needs to be changed. I don't agree about sequences though. I don't think there should be any penalty for doing jumps in sequence. I think sequences should be scored just as combos are now, with full base value awarded. Maybe the rules regarding sequences should be changed as well, to allow for a turn between the two jumps, which could possibly lead to some more interesting jumping passes.

  9. #69
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,277
    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    .

    The thought of Kwan ruining her sublime change-of-edge Spiral by adding a catch-foot position to the second half of it in order to "gain a higher level" (which she would have had to) is disgusting.
    Amen.

  10. #70
    Skating is art, if you let it be. Blades of Passion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Hollywood, CA
    Posts
    4,011
    Quote Originally Posted by kate View Post
    L4 is the point cap -- it was devised as a cap on points, not on difficulty, and four features happens to be the number you need to get those points (and to prove this point, for some, it's not actually really four anymore -- for flying sit, a traditional flying sit is an automatic feature, a layback gets an automatic feature, etc.)
    Yes, L4 is the point cap. It is an arbitrary point cap that was put in place.

    L5 could have been the point cap and many skaters are capable of doing what would be the equivalent of L5 elements.

    Quote Originally Posted by kate View Post
    These are small limitations on what is considered difficult, ex. no longer giving credit for COE spirals that take forever to change. You're proposing a major revision that prevents skaters from preforming to the best of their ability (difficulty level).
    Skaters are already "prevented" from performing as much difficulty as they could. You have to recognize this point or else there won't be much point in discussing.

    My revision doesn't prevent them from performing to the best of their ability. The opposite, in fact, since there would be more freedom to perform whatever fits the music best. They can execute absolutely any spin or spiral or footwork that they want to. I have simply changed the cap on the number of points in base value you can get from non-jump elements and greatly increased the cap on the GOE scores they can receive.

    The end result is that these moves would be more worthwhile and also more interesting.

    Quote Originally Posted by kate View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    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?)
    Again, though, this wouldn't be difficult, which is one of the reasons for the restrictions
    No, it would certainly be difficult. You are mistaken if you think otherwise.

    The cap is there because there is only so much you should be putting into a single element.

    Quote Originally Posted by kate View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    no skater has ever gotten Level 4 on every single element in their program
    Again, not a valid comparison. Most skaters don't get a L4 on step sequences (in fact, it's a big deal when a skater gets a L4 step sequence -- it happens only a handful of times a season). Most even novice (US) national level skaters can get L4 on all their spins (though not consistent for the lower levels), with the exception the years that flying camel and camel are required for junior mens and ladies short program, as well as some women and layback spins (and none of these skaters will put those spins in their longs, then). Many skaters can get L4 on these, as well. Take step sequence out of the mix, and look at skaters over time (since skaters screw up and things don't get called sometimes -- if you want them to do simpler elements you need to look at what their elements get called at their best to see if they consistent don't get all L4). You'll find that most international, and even the vast majority of national competitors get L4 on their spins.
    The comparison is very valid. I'm not going to "take step sequences out of the mix"; they are part of the non-jump elements skaters perform. What sense would that make?

    You are saying I want to limit skaters from doing as much difficulty as they are able to when nobody has achieved all Level 4 in a program in the first place.

    However, let us look at a VERY important thing you just said - "Even novice (US) national level skaters can get L4 on all their spins"

    Exactly. Getting Level 4 in a spin is not that difficult. Executing a spin brilliantly IS difficult, though.

    The system I propose would be about who can execute their spins and spirals the best (while still maintaining a good amount of difficulty), instead of who can incorporate as many positions as possible in these moves.

    If you don't think this is beneficial to skating as a whole, and for the competitors themselves, I'm not sure what to say. Again, like you yourself just said - EVERYONE can do Level 4 spins and spirals.

    The quality with which they are done and how well they are placed in the program to interpret the music are what is most important.

    Quote Originally Posted by kate View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    The current CoP rules do not define rotation in jumps.
    First, yes it does. Downgraded if more than 1/4 rotation under-rotated.
    That is not a definition of rotation. 1/4 turn under-rotated from what?

    The rules do not specify where a jump starts.

    Quote Originally Posted by kate View Post
    Try being a technical specialist reviewing jumps. Now, instead of only looking for that 1/4 rotation, you need to look for 3/4. In addition, since skaters have a 3/4 margin of error, more skaters are going to try under-rotated jumps, so there's going to be a lot more to review.
    More skaters are not going to try underrotated jumps. That aside, there seems to be some confusion about rotation. 3/4 margin of error is not given. This is why the rules need to specify what rotation actually is.

    Every jump pre-rotates up to half a turn on the ice before actually leaving the ice. 1/4 turn leeway is allowed on the landing, meaning that a Triple jump is really 2.25 rotations in the air at minimum.

    I've reviewed way too many jumps rinkside and in video. It becomes tedious. That is the mechanics of how jumps work, however.

    If a Triple pre-rotates more than 1/2 turn on the takeoff, it should have to land that much further past the 1/4 turn landing mark to be considered a complete Triple.

    Likewise, if a jump pre-rotates less, that should be taken into consideration as well.

    This is needed to provide absolute fairness to all competitors. You should appreciate that!

    Quote Originally Posted by kate View Post
    Well, I'm posting under a female screen name, so given the tiny number of women who've attempted quads, I'd say this is a pretty safe bet. I never said it wouldn't be difficult -- it would -- but it wouldn't be more difficult than a balanced program, endurance aside. Since the quad is still a "new" jump, let's use a less extreme example, which will make my point better. Take a national junior man or JGP man who doesn't yet have a solid triple axel but whose other triples are great and incredibly consistent.
    A program with every single jumping pass (8) being a Quad would be more difficult for anyone than a program with one Quad and 7 Triples.

    You can't use the example of someone doing every jumping pass as a Lutz because that is a completely different (extremely easier) scenario.

    All of your opinions here seem to be informed by Junior level skating....

    Quote Originally Posted by kate View Post
    This. Edge changes can be done quickly (though honestly, I don't see why it's such a big deal if a spin slows down a little to do one -- I think some edge changes done well are interesting features), and Lambiel can absolutely do them quickly. He takes them out in exhibitions because most people don't realize that they're difficult
    Edge changes in spins most frequently look the best in Camel spins because it actually creates an appealing looking body movement on the ice.

    He takes them out in exhibition because they are useless. Slowing a spin down to incorporate the change-of-edge in the sit spin takes away from the quality of the spin. He only does them in competition because they gain points. In the current system, going for a higher level and not being able to execute the element as well gets you more points. This is a problem.

    It should be noted that doing a change-of-edge doesn't really make the spin more difficult if the skater is slowing down to do it. Maintaining speed and centering is where the difficulty in spinning comes. Anyone can add positions by significantly decreasing speed and/or losing centering to accomplish it.

    The brilliance in Lambiel's spins is that the difficult positions he CAN do well don't cause the spin to lose speed or (usually) centering when he does them.

    Quote Originally Posted by kate View Post
    I don't know how many times I need to say that this isn't about what benefits performance. That's what PCS and GOE are for. I suspect we'll never agree on this, since you seem to be coming at this from the point of view of a spectator (I honestly don't know any skaters currently skating under COP/IJS who would favor such major limits on what they could do).
    If a skater doesn't think that what they are doing on the ice should benefit their performance, they will never be a memorable Figure Skater.

    Many top-level skaters have denounced the current judging system. Do not flippantly state no competitor would be in favor of the changes I am proposing when, in fact, skaters DO want to see these changes.

    Yes, PCS are there to reflect the performance and the program. The point you're not seeing is that the current rules limit the possibility of creating amazing programs.

    I would suggest looking at performances of Lu Chen and Michelle Kwan from the past and comparing them to CoP performances. There is a clear difference in how well those ladies interpreted music compared to the skaters of today.

    Many of their programs would simply not work today. Incidentally, most Ladies' programs under CoP don't work either (certainly not as well as they could).

    The ability to create a CoP program that can fully interpret the music is much narrower. Skaters should not be so limited in their artistry.

  11. #71
    Skating is art, if you let it be. Blades of Passion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Hollywood, CA
    Posts
    4,011
    Thanks for your input, jeff goldblum!

    Quote Originally Posted by skatingbc View Post
    I agree with BoP about jump combination scoring. It definitely needs to be changed. I don't agree about sequences though. I don't think there should be any penalty for doing jumps in sequence. I think sequences should be scored just as combos are now, with full base value awarded. Maybe the rules regarding sequences should be changed as well, to allow for a turn between the two jumps, which could possibly lead to some more interesting jumping passes.
    Sequences are tricky.

    I was considering giving them no penalty at all, but the one thing I kept thinking about was sequences where skaters immediately follow a Triple jump with a Double Axel.

    We have to be careful not to make that move worth too much or else we will see everyone attempting Triples into Double Axels, rather than actual combinations.

    I think the 5% penalty is fair. It's better than the current 20% penalty.

    Remember too that in my rule proposal I don't credit something like a Triple Toe/half-loop/Triple Salchow as a sequence. Those kinds of combinations receive higher credit (whereas in the current system they are simply given as much value as a sequence).

  12. #72
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    521
    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    Thanks for your input, jeff goldblum!



    Sequences are tricky.

    I was considering giving them no penalty at all, but the one thing I kept thinking about was sequences where skaters immediately follow a Triple jump with a Double Axel.

    We have to be careful not to make that move worth too much or else we will see everyone attempting Triples into Double Axels, rather than actual combinations.

    I think the 5% penalty is fair. It's better than the current 20% penalty.

    Remember too that in my rule proposal I don't credit something like a Triple Toe/half-loop/Triple Salchow as a sequence. Those kinds of combinations receive higher credit (whereas in the current system they are simply given as much value as a sequence).
    I definitely agree that the 3T/half loop/3S sequence should not be termed a sequence. I could live with a 5% penalty. That penalty would still make it worthwhile for a skater to attempt a triple-triple sequence over a triple-double combo (I think?).

    I wish there could be more variety in spiral sequences. Could the rules be changed to allow for more ina bauer, spread eagles, turns in a spiral position? Maybe a spiral/step sequence hybrid could work and be more interesting.

    Agree about spins too. It is much more difficult to hold one position for ~8-10 revs, than to change every 2-3 revs. I wish there was some way to do away with Biellman's. They make me cringe.

  13. #73
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,893
    Quote Originally Posted by skatingbc View Post
    I wish there could be more variety in spiral sequences. Could the rules be changed to allow for more ina bauer, spread eagles, turns in a spiral position? Maybe a spiral/step sequence hybrid could work and be more interesting.
    There could be a "field moves sequence" that includes spread eagles, Ina Bauers, hydroblades/shoot-the-ducks, etc. as well as spirals. At least for the long program. Then there could be features for those moves as well and there would be lots of choices for earning level 4 -- all the sequences would not look the same.

    There is already a feature for turns in spiral position ("change of direction" feature) but it's much too hard to achieve if it's necessary to hold both the preceding edge and the following edge for 3 seconds.

    Because only the first three positions count and there has to be a change of foot, then under the current rules it's only legal to do a turn in spiral position OR a change of edge. Change of edge is much easier, so almost everyone chooses to do that.

    There are a couple of possible tweaks to the rules that could encourage skaters to try that feature. Make it one of a handful of extra-difficult features that count double. Or reduce the amount of time the exit edge has to be held for it to count. Or, as I mentioned in post 15 of this thread, allow the transition into a fourth position to count as a feature even though the fourth position itself does not, so that skaters have the option to include two transition features in their sequences.

    Also in post 15 I suggested two other features that could add variety to spiral sequences:

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

    *Choctaw between spiral positions with free leg lowered just long enough to execute the change of foot and then the new free leg returned to spiral position
    I think these are comparable in difficulty to the change of edge. And they are more relevant to evaluation of skating skills than the difficult position features.

    Of course, like other features, there would be tecnical panel guidelines about how well they have to be executed to get credit.

    I want to see these features added for the spiral sequence so that we'd see more variety in the spiral sequences, which could still be required in the ladies' short program.

    And I'd like to see Field Moves Sequence added as another kind of element that both men and women can choose to use in the long program instead of a spiral sequence or another step sequence. That would give more variety to the way long programs are laid out.

    I wouldn't make Field Moves Sequence a mandatory element, though. Not everyone's hips are built in such a way as to allow spread eagle and Ina Bauer positions. And of the folks who can't do those moves, some won't be able to do adequate shoot-the-ducks either. So they'd just end up doing spiral sequences anyway.


    Agree about spins too. It is much more difficult to hold one position for ~8-10 revs, than to change every 2-3 revs.
    And holding a position for 8+ revolutions is now a feature. Changing every 2-3 revs is not a feature in itself. In many cases changing that quickly will cause the attempted features not to get credit.

    Not all level 4 spins have to be busy or frenetic.

    And many level 1 or pre-IJS combination spins are/were busy and rushed looking. Just not in ways that earn points. Sometimes in ways that fit the music, if it's quick and busy. More often rushing through positions would lose points one way or another.

  14. #74
    On the Ice
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    33
    These proposed changes would make the scoring system more byzantine than the American tax code. I propose that the judges simply give out ordinal rankings to the skaters to SIMPLIFY everything. If Akiko skates first, she automatically ranks first. If Mao skates next and the judge likes her better, she becomes the new "1" and Akiko becomes "2". If Yuna skates third and the judge deems her better than Akiko, but not better than Mao, Yuna becomes "2", etc., etc. At the end of the night, the lady with the lowest total wins.

    Fire the technical specialist and let the judges make their own calls. Do away with ALL requirements and let the ladies fill their skating time the best they see fit. They'll figure out eventually that a program filled with double jumps and crossovers isn't going to rank high.

    NO MORE inexplicable GOE scores and levels and what not that have made the sport more inaccessible than Fort Knox.

  15. #75
    Custom Title Joesitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    20,185
    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion;43s.9016
    This is interesting but I think there has to be +GOE. If there wasn't, then the quality of elements wouldn't be as important. A very large Triple Lutz should score higher than a small Triple Lutz.

    You're suggesting that big jumps should be awarded in the PCS, but big jumps do not necessarily reflect great skating skills or performance uor interpretation...

    Opinions on the tech has to be part of it. Other sports that are related to jumping have it as well. Diving and Skiing Aerials both require judges to have an opinion on the landing, and of course there is Gymnastics...
    We'll agree to disagree. I'm not suggesting any such thing Big jumps-little jumps should be judged in the Tech. There is an entrance and a flow out of every jumps besides the take-off, air rotations,and landings. Not just the big ones. All facets should be covered in the base valued score. Tanos and Double Tanos should be judged as innovation or interpretation in PC scores. Skating Skills, btw, are covered in the PCs.

    Other sports have one scoring mark. That incudes everything and are not comparable to the 2 part system of FS scoring. I would approve of a one scoring mark in fs, but the young fans would object to losing one presumed artistic(?) program.

    The elements are designed by definition, and should be judged on that basis. Did the skater fulfil the definition? If not, poor technique should be discounted in the scoring which includes entry , take-off, air rotations, and landing with flow out. There is no reward for any of the parts of an element. Clean skating is expected to earn the base value.

    So when the LP is before us, every thing, all the 'artistry' and interpretation should be judged on the opinion basis. How could it not.

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