Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 74

Thread: It's Time to Change the Short Program

  1. #46
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    27,087
    ^ Gosh, that post was so well-written it seems stupid to try to add or subtract anything more on the subject.

    But I still have a question about the main thesis and how it relates to the topic of this thread.

    The point is, the skaters, the coaches, the judges, the people who make the rules have always cared about those details. They've always cared about which edge a skater was on, how well controlled and how deep the edges are, how the skater gains speed, what kinds of turns they execute and whether they execute them both forward and backward, clockwise and counterclockwise, on the right foot and left foot. That's what the sport is all about. Those skills are necessary before a skater can execute complicated choreography or perform triple jumps. The scoring will always measure those skills, regardless of whether fans are interested or not...

    The ISU can't compromise the focus on technique to please audiences who are interested more in musical expression or flashy tricks than in technique. Skating as a competitive sport is always primarily about technique, technical quality, and technical content of all sorts.
    Here is my question. After skaters at various levels -- including especially youngsters in beginners programs and adult or recreational enthusiasts -- master these techniques, the next step in the sport is to enter contests to see whether they can do it better than others can. They want to win a prize and to show off to onlookers the skills they have acquired.

    Would the competitors like to do this by having separate jumping contests, spinning contests, and footwork/moves-in-the-field contests? Or would they rather have contests where they are called upon to demonstrate that not only can they do turns on the correct edge, but furthermore that they can them to the beat of the music, accompanied by by appropriate choreographic flourishes and musical self-expression?

    Maybe both?

  2. #47
    Custom Title hurrah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    ^ Gosh, that post was so well-written it seems stupid to try to add or subtract anything more on the subject.

    But I still have a question about the main thesis and how it relates to the topic of this thread.



    Here is my question. After skaters at various levels -- including especially youngsters in beginners programs and adult or recreational enthusiasts -- master these techniques, the next step in the sport is to enter contests to see whether they can do it better than others can. They want to win a prize and to show off to onlookers the skills they have acquired.

    Would the competitors like to do this by having separate jumping contests, spinning contests, and footwork/moves-in-the-field contests? Or would they rather have contests where they are called upon to demonstrate that not only can they do turns on the correct edge, but furthermore that they can them to the beat of the music, accompanied by by appropriate choreographic flourishes and musical self-expression?

    Maybe both?
    I thought there was a general consensus that being able to judge the technical qualities of a skater in marriage with artistry was better. However, the whole problem was that when the technical elements are done in different programs, it can be quite dificult to judge the skater's actual technical capability. That was why there was a suggestion to have separate contests so that e.g., a skater's beguiling smile or an expression of intensity wouldn't mar the technical judgement.

    I really like my own idea of the skaters having to choose from two ISU-commissioned SPs every season. There could be some leeway for the skaters to vary choreography, musical version and costume so that it's not exactly the same. However, if there is a certain step or spin that a skater can't do and she/he has to replace it with an easier step or spin, then that already says that the skater is technically less skillful than the other skater who can do the step/spin, so that would make the judgement of technical aspects more objective. And once the technique aspect is thus quadroned off, then the judges would be more free to judge skaters according to whether they like a certain skater's smile or hand movements.

    I also like this idea because as I said earlier, it would enable a repertoire of programs to develop in the world of figure skating, making it more like ballet/orchestral music in terms of the historicity that these artistic forms have.

    It would also make the role of the choreographer more important in figure skating, thus making the option of becoming a figure skating choreographer more viable career option to skaters who have retired from competitive skating. Since the pro-circuit it lagging, making figure skating choreographer a more serious career option might revive figure skating. It would also probably improve the general quality of programs because then, choregraphers would take their jobs more seriously.

  3. #48
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,579
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    Would the competitors like to do this by having separate jumping contests, spinning contests, and footwork/moves-in-the-field contests? Or would they rather have contests where they are called upon to demonstrate that not only can they do turns on the correct edge, but furthermore that they can them to the beat of the music, accompanied by by appropriate choreographic flourishes and musical self-expression?

    Maybe both?
    I think different skaters would have different opinions on that. Witness the conflicting opinions among ice dancers whether removing CDs from ice dance competition would be a good thing or a bad thing.

    At club competitions in the US where these kinds of events are offered, very few skaters at levels that include short programs (intermediate through senior) ever enter them; their focus is usually on the two phases of the event they will need in qualifying competitions. If they were instead of short programs and were part of the qualifying competition structure, obviously they would get a lot more entries.

    At lower levels (juvenile, and nonqualifying levels) that don't have short programs, the numbers of skaters who enter elements or artistic competitions are still lower than for the freestyle program, but the percentage is a bit higher than at the levels with short programs.
    (Also, the most serious juveniles will often "skate up" to enter the short program only at the intermediate level.)

    Often skaters who enter spin events or artistic events are not the best jumpers at their levels and don't have much hope to medal in the freeskating but are above average for their level in spinning or interpretation and welcome the chance to show off and earn medals for what they do best.

    I think the long program would always require all those skills to be demonstrated in the same program together. (I'd like to see the well-balanced program requirements tweaked to give skaters more flexibility of exactly how many of each kind of technical element they include, as long as they include "enough" of each. But that's a topic for a different thread.)

    Should the first phase of competition also be all different kinds of technical and presentation skills combined into one program, the only difference being that it's shorter with fewer jumps and a few more restrictions?

    Or would it make sense to separate out the different kinds of skills? The advantages would be the possibility to give separate placements for each and to allow skaters to push the envelope (e.g., 3A+4T combination that Plushenko was playing with in practice a few months ago) in ways that they wouldn't dare, because it uses up too much energy, during a full program. Or for skaters who aren't already on the cutting edge, it would give them a chance to try out jumps (or spins) that are pushing their limits without having to skate a whole program afterward (or before, in the case of difficult dizzying spins).

    One disadvantage would be the cost of extra ice time.

    Would too many fans and the skaters prefer the combined SP to these separate competitions? If so, that would be another disadvantage.

  4. #49
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,579
    Quote Originally Posted by hurrah View Post
    I really like my own idea of the skaters having to choose from two ISU-commissioned SPs every season. There could be some leeway for the skaters to vary choreography, musical version and costume so that it's not exactly the same. However, if there is a certain step or spin that a skater can't do and she/he has to replace it with an easier step or spin, then that already says that the skater is technically less skillful than the other skater who can do the step/spin, so that would make the judgement of technical aspects more objective. And once the technique aspect is thus quadroned off, then the judges would be more free to judge skaters according to whether they like a certain skater's smile or hand movements.
    So how do you envision this program? What kinds of elements would it include? What kind of changes would a skater be allowed to make without penalty (e.g., skating the whole program in mirror image)? Which would be areas where different choices are allowed? And which would be requirements subject to penalty if omitted, replaced, or performed below standard?

    Would moves like spread eagles or Biellmann spins, that rely just as much on body type as on flexible muscles and skating skill, ever be required or allowed as variations?

  5. #50
    Custom Title hurrah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,138
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    So how do you envision this program? What kinds of elements would it include? What kind of changes would a skater be allowed to make without penalty (e.g., skating the whole program in mirror image)? Which would be areas where different choices are allowed? And which would be requirements subject to penalty if omitted, replaced, or performed below standard?

    Would moves like spread eagles or Biellmann spins, that rely just as much on body type as on flexible muscles and skating skill, ever be required or allowed as variations?
    Well, I'm not a skater, but I just think it's an interesting idea because of the effects that you could expect once you set a situation where a figure skating version of George Ballantine could be allowed to exist.

    Regarding the content of the SP, I don't see how it would be different from the SP as it exists now. Three jump passes, one an axel jump (could be any number of revolution), one a combo jump (could be any combo jump) and one single jump of any revolution. However, there cannot be an axel jump in the combo or single, and they cannot repeat jump type in the combo or single jump, so the jumper has to do at least four types of jumps. Regarding spins and spirals, it could be that the choreographer could come up with two or three versions of varying difficulty (some would include biellmann, others would not) that the skater can choose from. Same with steps in and out of jumps and transitions (some would have spread eagles and other equally difficult moves, like walleys, others would not)

    So even before the actual performance occurs, judges know which skater is potentially technically superior by the choice that the skater has made, thus making the jugement of technique that much more objective.

    The music would probably have to be pretty generic, a fairly familiar classic music, but then, the skater would be free to put in as much facial expression and finger tip flairs and head tossing as he/she pleases without them being accused of being too forward. In other words, edge movement would be choregraphed, but upper body movements and face would be left free to be changed/interpreted by the skater.

    Maybe the step sequence part could be left fairly undefined, so skaters would be allowed to come up with their own step sequence? I would do that.

    Regarding fees, each skater would equally pay a portion to whichever choreographer has been chosen. I don't know how much choreographers are paid for a piece, but say it's now 50 dollars per SP. Under this system, each skater pays 20 dollars to the choreographer. It would be cheaper for the skater but far more lucrative for the choreographer because say it's 20 skaters that are paying, then it's 400 dollars the choreographer earns. For LP, the pieces would continue to be individually different, and the price would not change from what it is now. However, the choregrapher would still be motivated to create a good piece, because SP choreographers would be selected out of their LP work.

    Furthermore, you should always commission two choreographers every season so that there are two pieces that the skater can choose from, and two programs for the viewers to enjoy. It would be a way for figure skating fans and commentators to talk about which commissioned piece is better, thus creating a way in which the choreographer takes center stage in discussion.

    As I said earlier, musical version and costumes would be left up to the skater to add further variation.
    Last edited by hurrah; 04-04-2010 at 09:38 AM.

  6. #51
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,579
    Quote Originally Posted by hurrah View Post
    Well, I'm not a skater, and I just think it's an interesting idea because of the effects that you could expect once you set a situation where a figure skating version of George Ballantine could be allowed to exist.
    Interesting to contemplate from the point of view of developing an artistic tradition common to all skaters competing that year, but I'm not sure what it gains from a competitive point of view.

    Regarding the content of the SP, I don't see how it would be different from the SP as it exists now. Three jump passes, one an axel jump (could be any number of revolution), one a combo jump (could be any combo jump) and one single jump of any revolution. However, there cannot be an axel jump in the combo or single, and they cannot repeat jump type in the combo or single jump, so the jumper has to do at least four types of jumps.
    Is this at the discretion of the choreographer or of each individual skater?
    Remember that approaches to jumps are very much part of the choreography and that different jumps by their nature require different approaches. Salchows and loops (and axels) can often be approached by the same path with a difference only in the very last one or two turns/steps before the takeoff; toe loops and flips can similarly often be approached by the same path with only one or two steps changing; lutzes usually require an approach that is unlike that used for any other jump. So if you allow skaters to do whatever jump they want as the first jump in the combination, you have to allow them to make significant changes to the choreography to set up the jump that they chose.

    Regarding spins and spirals, it could be that the choreographer could come up with two or three versions of varying difficulty (some would include biellmann and spread eagles, others would not) that the skater can choose from. Same with steps in and out of jumps and transitions.

    <snip>

    The music would probably have to be pretty generic, a fairly familiar classic music, but then, the skater would be free to put in as much facial expression and finger tip flairs and head tossing as he/she pleases without them being accused of being too forward. In other words, edge movement would be choregraphed, but upper body movements and face would be left free to be changed/interpreted by the skater.

    Maybe the step sequence part could be left fairly undefined, so skaters would be allowed to come up with their own step sequence? I would do that.
    Once you make spread eagles, steps in and out of jumps, and other transitions optional, as well as which jumps are performed, which positions the skater hits during spins and spirals, which steps are performed in the step sequence, and how the skater expresses the music with upper body movement, you're basically making the whole program optional except for the choice of music and the order of the elements. So what's the point?

    Regarding fees, each skater would equally pay a portion to whichever choreographer has been chosen. I don't know how much choreographers are paid for a piece, but say it's now 50 dollars per SP. Under this system, each skater pays 20 dollars to the choreographer. It would be cheaper for the skater but far more lucrative for the choreographer because say it's 20 skaters that are paying, then it's 400 dollars the choreographer earns.
    This doesn't make sense if you want all senior ladies in the world to be using the same one or two short programs that year.

    Currently, the most expensive choreographers charge >$10,000 to put together a program. That may include travel costs, or not if the skater has to travel to the choreographer to learn it.

    The least expensive choreography would be the skater making all the decisions him- or herself, or having the coach put the program together during regular lesson time, without hiring an outside choreographer.

    The best choreography is usually made by the choreographer working directly with the skater who is to perform it, for many hours, teaching skills one-on-one where needed and adapting the choreography to meet the skater's strengths and use the skater's input and personality.

    That wouldn't work if the choreographer has to make a program that would work for a thousand senior ladies at a variety of skill levels, who live and train in Russia and Australia and Japan and France and the US etc. etc. The choreographer can't spend time with all of them, so for the sake of fairness should spend time with none of them. And the skaters can't pay the choreographer directly.

    What would make more sense would be for the ISU to hire a choreographer to create that year's program and pay an appropriate fee for the choreographer's time and creativity. Once the choreography is set, there would need to be written and video documentation of what is required to be performed. For the sake of fairness, no current competitor should be the demonstrator in the video. If the choreographer can't demonstrate the whole program him- or herself, then hire a young pro skater (performer or coach) who can. Thus there would be additional costs to the ISU to produce and distribute the video and written materials, in addition to the costs of commissioning the choreography itself.

    Then those thousand senior ladies around the world might each have to pay, say $20 to receive a DVD of the choreography. That still wouldn't cover all of the ISU's costs. But why not just make the materials available for free on the ISU website? That would be fairer to the skaters but more costly for the ISU.

  7. #52
    Custom Title hurrah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,138
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    Interesting to contemplate from the point of view of developing an artistic tradition common to all skaters competing that year, but I'm not sure what it gains from a competitive point of view.
    Well, what I'm saying is that if you make the skaters do approximately similar programs and actually compare their performances, many of the accusations that FS suffers from, that it isn't a sport, that it's too subjective could be addressed.

    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    Is this at the discretion of the choreographer or of each individual skater?
    Remember that approaches to jumps are very much part of the choreography and that different jumps by their nature require different approaches. Salchows and loops (and axels) can often be approached by the same path with a difference only in the very last one or two turns/steps before the takeoff; toe loops and flips can similarly often be approached by the same path with only one or two steps changing; lutzes usually require an approach that is unlike that used for any other jump. So if you allow skaters to do whatever jump they want as the first jump in the combination, you have to allow them to make significant changes to the choreography to set up the jump that they chose.
    Okay, in that case, the jumps have to be specified by the choreographer. However, since there will be two choregraphed pieces, one of the pieces will have to be a lutz combo, the other will have to be a flip combo. Revolutions can be left up to the skater to decide, so if a skater can't do a 3-3 or even a 3-2, he/she can do 2-2. The single jump also will have to be different between programs, but no choice within the program. However, the revolution can be left up to the skater to decide.

    This should not be such a problem under the current system because you can get pretty good points for doing a good double jump rather than doing a mediocre triple jump.
    Last edited by hurrah; 04-04-2010 at 10:26 AM.

  8. #53
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    27,087
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly
    Or would it make sense to separate out the different kinds of skills? The advantages would be the possibility to give separate placements for each and to allow skaters to push the envelope (e.g., 3A+4T combination that Plushenko was playing with in practice a few months ago) in ways that they wouldn't dare, because it uses up too much energy, during a full program. Or for skaters who aren't already on the cutting edge, it would give them a chance to try out jumps (or spins) that are pushing their limits without having to skate a whole program afterward (or before, in the case of difficult dizzying spins)., in the case of difficult dizzying spins).
    I am thinking about analogies in other sports.

    In baseball, a second baseman might train a thousand repetitions of his swivel on a double play ball. He may be the best in the business at this individual skill.

    At a baseball game, however, there is not a preliminary "double-play swivel" contest between the opposing second basemen. Instead, this skill comes into play as opportunity presents in the course of the game. Every once in a while a great swivel might tip the balance of a close game, and in any case this skill contributes to the overall effectiveness of the team.

    If a ballplayer could execute the worlds greatest swivel in isolation, but then is too worn out and dizzy to take his turn at bat -- like Plushenko pushing the envelope with a 3A+4T in practice -- I am not sure what place that has in a baseball game.

    I see this more as a fun thing for children in club competitions, in the vein of, "I can do more revolutions in my scratch spin before falling over than you can!"

  9. #54
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    27,087
    Quote Originally Posted by hurrah
    So even before the actual performance occurs, judges know which skater is potentially technically superior by the choice that the skater has made, thus making the jugement of technique that much more objective.
    I think that is already the case. Kim Yu-na does a triple Lutz+triple toe. Mao Asada does a triple Axel.

    Now we get to the next level. All the skaters do 3Lz+2T, 3F, 2A, or 3F+2T, 3Lz, 2A. 16.8 points.

    Then we get to the next level of talent, for skaters who can't do all those Lutzes and flips.

    The same is more or less true of the other elements. We know who has a level four flying combo spin and who doesn't, etc.

    The music would probably have to be pretty generic, a fairly familiar classic music, but then, the skater would be free to put in as much facial expression and finger tip flairs and head tossing as he/she pleases...
    Um...is this really what we want? A succession of programs to a generic tune distinguished one from the other only by making faces and tossing our heads?

  10. #55
    Custom Title hurrah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    I think that is already the case. Kim Yu-na does a triple Lutz+triple toe. Mao Asada does a triple Axel.

    Now we get to the next level. All the skaters do 3Lz+2T, 3F, 2A, or 3F+2T, 3Lz, 2A. 16.8 points.

    Then we get to the next level of talent, for skaters who can't do all those Lutzes and flips.

    The same is more or less true of the other elements. We know who has a level four flying combo spin and who doesn't, etc.



    Um...is this really what we want? A succession of programs to a generic tune distinguished one from the other only by making faces and tossing our heads?
    What I personally wish is that the SP become freer, that there are minimum requirements but no maximum requirements that impede skaters from demonstrating their technical best.

    However, since there seemed to be this argument to see the SP as a test of basic skills, I was pointing out that if the SP was actually going to fulfill this, something like what GKelly was suggesting or what I was suggesting was actually needed.

    I wouldn't actually mind if the skaters were made to skate to the same exact program. I often read these posts going on about how a skater has great skating skills, speed, deep edges, artistry, and how one doesn't, and I honestly can't tell if the claim is legit or not. I think if they were made to skate to the same program, these claims would have some basis for validation.

  11. #56
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    27,087
    That is actually quite a cool idea, now that I understand it better.

    So it would go something like this? At the beginning of the season the ISU would hire an impartial team of choreographers to come up with two choreographic templates, one to Swan Lake and one to Carmen. The basic shape of the program would be set, together with the placement of the elements. Maybe there would be one edge jump in combination (3Lz+3T down to 2T+2T for seniors), one edge jump (loop if you have it, otherwise Salchow), and one Axel. Similarly for the types of spins and for the steps and turns in the footwork

    Maybe you could do a spread eagle OR an Ina Bauer, and a split jump OR a Charlotte.

    There would be no marks for choreography, interpretation, or transitions, but there would be a score for skating skills and performance/execution as well as base values and GOEs for elements.

    Over the years you build up a library of these programs, which could be repeated, rotated and modified as need be. We could compare the Carmen #5 programs of skaters from different seasons and different eras, and children could study and emulate the Great Performances.

    Cool!

  12. #57
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,235
    Quote Originally Posted by Spun Silver View Post
    Unbelievably boring after the first two or three skaters. No one would watch. Bad idea.

    Anyway, I don't understand the concept of artistry separated from technique. The whole point is to demonstrate artistry while executing a high order of tech difficulty, no? Artistry w/o tech difficulty = show skating and I can't see giving prizes for that. (Which is better, Shae Lynn making love to a chair or Plushy Sex Bomb?)

    I don't even think the first two or three skaters would be interesting. I wouldn't even tune in. It removes everything that I watch figure skating for. Sorry, but this idea gets a big thumbs down for me. They might be able to pick up a few new fans (though I doubt many), however they would likely lose the majority of the current fans, like myself.

    That is actually quite a cool idea, now that I understand it better.

    So it would go something like this? At the beginning of the season the ISU would hire an impartial team of choreographers to come up with two choreographic templates, one to Swan Lake and one to Carmen. The basic shape of the program would be set, together with the placement of the elements. Maybe there would be one edge jump in combination (3Lz+3T down to 2T+2T for seniors), one edge jump (loop if you have it, otherwise Salchow), and one Axel. Similarly for the types of spins and for the steps and turns in the footwork

    Maybe you could do a spread eagle OR an Ina Bauer, and a split jump OR a Charlotte.

    There would be no marks for choreography, interpretation, or transitions, but there would be a score for skating skills and performance/execution as well as base values and GOEs for elements.

    Over the years you build up a library of these programs, which could be repeated, rotated and modified as need be. We could compare the Carmen #5 programs of skaters from different seasons and different eras, and children could study and emulate the Great Performances.
    Except, isn't this basically the compulsory dance applied to all of figure skating. And isn't the CD on its way out because it's too boring for television?
    Last edited by rain; 04-04-2010 at 12:02 PM.

  13. #58
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,579
    Quote Originally Posted by hurrah View Post
    The music would probably have to be pretty generic, a fairly familiar classic music, but then, the skater would be free to put in as much facial expression and finger tip flairs and head tossing as he/she pleases without them being accused of being too forward.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    Um...is this really what we want? A succession of programs to a generic tune distinguished one from the other only by making faces and tossing our heads?
    Other questions about how this repertoire SP might work:

    Is it still judged under the current judging system, with points in the base mark for the difficulty of the jumps and the number of "features" executed in each spin, step sequence, and spiral sequence, as determined by a technical panel, with judges giving grades of execution for each element and scores for five different program components? Or do you want judges to go back to giving one general Required Elements score and one general Presentation score according to their own understanding and weighting of the criteria? Or to come up with a completely new system for judging this new kind of SP?

    I'll propose that we judge under IJS, only leave out the "Choreography" and "Transitions" component.

    Let's say we take this classic short program and tweak the choreography to fit the current scoring system and standards. The lyrical waltz style should be within the range of any aspiring senior lady, although few will execute it as well as Yamaguchi, and senior skaters should also be expected to be able to execute these transitional moves. There aren't opportunities for skaters to show off their unique transition skills like spread eagle or back counter into double axel or reverse walley into triple lutz or hydroblading into a spin -- they'd have to save those for the long program.

    I don't think it would make sense to have a second program with a different music style and a different set of jump setups allowed in the same year. That would make as much sense as giving each ice dance couple a choice of which of that year's compulsory dances to perform at each competition. (Nor do I think there should be two completely different programs choreographed for the same year and alternated from one competition to the next like CDs. Freestyle skaters shouldn't have to train two different SPs each year.) The next year might be a tango with a choice of flip or toe loop combination and solo loop or salchow, and the year after that a blues with a choice of salchow or loop combo and solo lutz.

    All edges and steps must be executed as specified, with exceptions as specified below, or the whole program can be flipped to mirror image for clockwise jumpers. Expressive movements of the arms, torso, and free leg are optional but should reflect the character of the waltz. The moves don't have to happen at the exact time points as in the demonstration, but they should make equally as good sense with the phrasing of the music or face penalty in the Interpretation component.

    The jump combo can be lutz-toe loop or lutz-loop, and either jump can be double or triple. There should be a bonus to the base mark for executing a triple as the second jump (regardless of whether the first jump is double or triple). I think it's reasonable to ask all senior ladies to show they can execute a lutz takeoff from an outside edge. If they can do most other triples except triple lutz, then show us double lutz-triple toe here.

    The solo jump can be flip, toe loop, or salchow or loop (should be possible with minor change of the last step) and can be double or triple. The steps up to the back three turn must be executed as choreographed; after that the skater gets a maximum of one turn (three turn, mohawk, etc.; skater's choice) and one change of foot before or after the turn to set up the jump. The arm overhead is optional and would push up the GOE, all else being equal. Pause between the last turn and the jump, or between the next to last turn and the last one, would push the GOE down.

    The layback entrance must be as choreographed. The variations within the layback are optional, so the spin can end up as level 1, 2, 3, or 4. (Yamaguchi's could have been level 2 if she'd held the opening sideways position for 3 revolutions.)

    Modify the spiral sequence so that it meets the minimum requirements for an IJS spiral sequence. I'd suggest left forward inside-to-outside change of edge and a long right back outside edge, which would be level 2 if the edge change is executed satisfactorily and the back spiral held for 6 seconds. Skaters are free to add difficult position variations to bump it up to level 3 or 4.

    Modify the step sequence to include enough different turns and steps in both directions to qualify as level 2 (maybe allow skaters to add more upper body movement to try to earn level 3). This would probably require more time to execute.

    The short program time limit is now 10 seconds longer (2:50 vs. 2:40) than it was in 1992, so an additional 10 seconds of music should be added somewhere. Let Sandra Bezic and a music specialist determine what phrase to insert and where. (If this standard program proposal were to come into effect, more likely the standard program would be choreographed from scratch rather than adapted from an old classic.)

    After the last required step of the step sequence, the skater a maximum of 3 edges, which may include up to 1 turn and 2 changes of foot, to set up the combo spin. This is to give an option of starting with either the forward or the backspin part of the combo (backspin entrance is a feature). Positions and edge variations within the spin are also optional and can contribute to the level. (Yamaguchi could get credit for the forward edge on the camel if she held the back inside edge another revolution before changing edge; I'm not sure whether the back upright variation at the end would be considered difficult, but if it would this would potentially be a level 2 spin.) The choice and timing of the variations and position changes can contribute to the Interpretation component, positively or negatively as applicable.

    The exit from the spin would have to be somewhat optional to allow for exiting a forward spin as the second half of the combo. Maybe the requirement would be up to 2 small steps or turns followed by a pirouette on the toe into the back crossovers.

    The back three turn out of the double axel landing would be a required part of the element. If the skater can't execute it because of a bad landing, that could be an additional -1 off the GOE or could be reflected under the Skating Skills component. If the GOE is already at -3 anyway, judges might take the omission into account under Performance/Execution.

    Flying camel is mandatory in this program. Variations, including arabian/butterfly entry, are allowed to earn levels. The illusion is not required because it doesn't add a level, but it is allowed and can add to the GOE and Interpretation component.


    Is that more or less what you had in mind?

  14. #59
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    27,087
    ^ I do like the idea of a choice between two different songs. The basic framework of the choreography could still be the same. But one choice of music might favor an ethereal angel or a delicate pixie, while a skater with a more robust style might come off like a bull in a China shop.

    I think the situation of the Compulsory Dance for ice dancers is different, because in ice dance it is appropriate to expect every pair to be able to do a waltz, a tango, a jitterbug, etc. This is part of the skill set being judged in ice dance, but not so much in singles skating.

  15. #60
    Custom Title Joesitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    20,185
    The beat goes on!!. it would be oh so simple, if the naysayers would just admit that although the original intent to establish the SP as a Technical contest, we fans want to make it the same scoring as the LP with no special regard to the Technical.

    The discussion now seems to be centered around actually changing the modus operandi of the SP to include other facets of the skaters' programs but not geared to the Technical. That has to affect the LP Two songs which are already in existence without the Technical importance - one in the SP and one in the LP. No?

    I think the situation of the Compulsory Dance for ice dancers is different, because in ice dance it is appropriate to expect every pair to be able to do a waltz, a tango, a jitterbug, etc. This is part of the skill set being judged in ice dance, but not so much in singles skating
    And for Senior Singles their Technical is not that important, There is no expectation that there will be, e.g., Moves-in-Field or triple jumps.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 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
  •