I used to love the COP

[emma]

...
That's the debate that keeps going back and forth. There needs to be a way to balance out both sides, which is why the rules keep getting tweaked one way and then the other. But whatever rules are in place, there will always sometimes be occasions when decisions come down to clean program vs. difficult program. The jump content might cancel out between the two programs and other elements or components may be the deciding factors.

As long as the contest is being billed as skating contest and not just a jumping contest (or a staying vertical contest), I'm happy with Skating Skills being a deciding factor.

...

I am not overly worried about this scenario. When two programs are not-very-good, but not-very-good in different ways, then no outcome is particularly satisfying. That's life.

Personally, I would give the nod to the Laura Lepisto easy clean program. But the big jumper, even if the rules were changed to zero on the falls, could still win by landing his other hard jumps. Quad (fall), 3A (fall) 3 Lz (OK), 3 F (OK) would still score higher than 3S, 2A, 2Lz, 2 Lo.

This is where my head totally implodes. The difficulty in ranking (or awarding points and thus declaring 1st to least best programs) a hard program with mistakes versus a good but easy program is something that I understand to be a real issue, but can't figure out "what to do with." I, too, feel that two not very good programs, even if not very good in different ways, are simply not very good. But it is figuring out how to put one of the not good above the other that troubles me (and yes, there could be a numerical tie, but then there will be criteria to break that tie); and then more, how to put a crazy difficult program with lot's of "plus points" and lot's of mistakes in this mix too. Perhaps this scenario is rare; but as it applies to Chan now, it means that unless he starts landing his jumps cleanly, we will continue to see the dilemma and ponder what to tdo (and we have seen versions of this before too, so it is not just one skater or the exception to an otherwise problem free rule).

So, I think I "hear" mathman saying, fall on jumps should be 0 for the element. But, I suspect gkelly will point out there is more to the jump than then landing AND in so doing, we will end up with easier jump content winning over more difficult. So, I think my question to gkelly is (but to all as well), is there an obvious out? Is there a way to not have a 3 fall short program no matter how spectacular the rest of the content ends up on the podium? Or do you (all readers) feel that nothing should limit the possibilities of who wins...or...?

If this is unclear, I will just say that I think Chan to be a spectacular crazy good - excellent even - skater - his stroking and edgework, I feel, are among the best of the best if not the best of those out there today. But, it was really hard as a fan to watch those 3 falls in the sp and see him on the podium; that he was ontop just didn't feel right. And, I'm trying NOT to just 'react' but understand...So, thanks for any insight.

[bekalc]

But, I suspect gkelly will point out there is more to the jump than then landing AND in so doing, we will end up with easier jump content winning over more difficult. So, I think my question to gkelly is (but to all as well), is there an obvious out? Is there a way to not have a 3 fall short program no matter how spectacular the rest of the content ends up on the podium? Or do you (all readers) feel that nothing should limit the possibilities of who wins...or...?

But the whole "more to the jump than the landing is ridiculous" If you fall on a jump its a failed jump. Falling means there's far more wrong than just the landing, something was wrong with the takeoff. This is figure skating not figure falling. And really its being able to LAND the jump on the blade correctly that makes jumping part of skating.

And gkelly a fall is disruptive to the program, multiple falls especially. I can leave with a skater with a great program like Daisuke's at the Olympics getting on the podium with one fall when the rest was skated so well and it was a fall on a quad. But I cannot live with seeing messy messy programs multiple falls multiple stumbles getting rewarded in this system. I don't think a fall is as bad as it is in gymnastics, but a fall is still pretty bad, and 3 falls in one short program, is frankly worse for me than one fall in gymnastics on beam.

And I disagree that it means conservative programs will win out. More conservative programs can lose out, if the scoring system makes sure that it heavily rewards triples. I don't think triples in ladies is rewarded enough with Lepisto's bronze. And also one fall on a quad from a man, and a multitude of other triples can still score very highly. It is about the total program and skating but to argue that elements are just tricks and so it doesn't matter that Patrick Chan fell 3 times, in the short we should just all ignore that and not be bothered at all that he was within 3 points of Rippon to be ridiculous. Why even have the elements then, if one person falling on the elements and another person not falling doesn't matter.

And to bring up the quad thing. Well I will say if all Patrick had done was fall on the quad in the short program, well than I'd have had no issues with Chan being within 3 points and maybe even ahead of Rippon in the short. But we aren't talking about just ONE element. We are talking about 3 falls, and a well executed program from Rippon. We are talking about one guy landing a 3axel and another guy not landing one.

[Joesitz]

There are posters who have full faith and trust in the CoP and they will defend it to the hilt. I believe many in the ISU feel the same way.

The Take-Off of a jump must be exact, otherwise the attempted jump has no name.

The Rotations of a jump will name the double, triple, etc, but in the cases of Lutz and Walley they should show counterrotation.

The Landings of a jump must be in accord with the completed rotations.

Anything else is not acceptable for the definitions of the jump element. Falls are serious errors not just because there is an infraction of the definition, but also because it interupts the Flow of the program.

Even one Fall has many errors to it. IMO, the Jump was not successful and should not have any base value.

Partial Credits are, imo, out of place in the scheme of definitions, and they should be restudied for justification or abolished.

I believe the purpose of the competition is to result in a Winner, a runner-up, and an additional podium finisher. The purpose of a competition is NOT to name the greatest skater of the era, but to name the best skater that Day/Night.

[Joesitz]

You're contradicting yourself.

Blade to ice does means school figure terms and air turn to ice means jump landings.

But there are differences. Some skaters get to the top 10 with adequate-senior-level skating skills and lots of clean/difficult jumps. Others who make it to top 10 have quite good skating skills, and a very tiny handful have excellent skating skills.

That's possible. Nobody does a 3Turn like Kwan or Hanyu,s but it's my opinion as much as Skating Skills is much about opinions. However, you are correct when one thinks about skaters below the Top Ten.

If it's appropriate to distinguish between inadequate and adequate basic skating, then why not between adequate and excellent?

If Skating Skills are about basics then yea. One judged told me if a skater can do a Quad, he has excellent Skating Skills. I am not sure if the topic is only about basics. Tricks require good skating skills too.

Why do you think "skating skills" is an unfortunate name for, well, skating skills? What would you call it instead? Something like Stroking and Edgework?

The topic heading:Skating Skills means what? Basics only? Tricks only? Costumes? Musical Timing? etc, what? I think when it becomes clear, a better heading would be easier to define what is meant

[gkelly]

The topic heading:Skating Skills means what? Basics only? Tricks only? Costumes? Musical Timing? etc, what? I think when it becomes clear, a better heading would be easier to define what is meant

For purposes of the current scoring system, Skating Skills means Basics Only. Think of it that way, and accept that those basics are the most important part of the competition, jumps only second, and it will all make more sense.


As for the idea that falls multiple falls are disruptive and need to be punished more severely . . .

How about if instead of a 1.0 deduction for each fall, the deduction is made progressive, so the first fall in a program takes only a 1.0 deduction, the second fall gets a 2.0 deduction, the third gets 3.0, and so forth? Would that solve the problem?

There would still occasionally be times when skaters with multiple falls win medals, even gold ones, especially when everyone else makes mistakes too. But a program with 3 falls would lose 6 points instead of 3, along with the -GOEs on the elements.

Chan would still have won Skate Canada (on a tiebreaker!) if all the other scoring had been the same. He still would have been 4th in the short. But the scores would have been a lot closer and the penalties more obvious.

On other occasions, that kind of fall punishment would result in different results.

[prettykeys]

I enjoy looking at the gray square that is JoeSitz's avatar.

[emma]

I like the sound of what gkelly is suggesting - each sucessive fall a larger deduction. Is there any serious consideration of this? I know that it wouldn't impact this season, of course, but just wondering if those more connected and involved are discussing this as a possibility.

[Spun Silver]

I enjoy looking at the gray square that is JoeSitz's avatar.

Yes, it's a little like a Rothko!

[Mathman]

As for the idea that falls multiple falls are disruptive and need to be punished more severely . . .

How about if instead of a 1.0 deduction for each fall, the deduction is made progressive, so the first fall in a program takes only a 1.0 deduction, the second fall gets a 2.0 deduction, the third gets 3.0, and so forth? Would that solve the problem?

I think that is micro-managing too much. Some "second falls" disrupt the flow of the program more than other "second falls" do.

No system of laws, however lengthy and detailed, can anticipate everything that might possibly happen. I think it is better to let the judges judge. Sometimes a single fall can totally destroy the mood of a program (like if someone is doing Ave Maria and trying to look like an angel -- then all of a sudden the angel is sliding across the ice on her butt with arms and legs in an ungainly tangle.). Other times a skater might pop up with a "Fall? What fall? I didn't see any fall?"

The judges should take this into account in P/E, CH and INT.

[emma]

^ I surrendor or give up, or whatever (especially since I too fine the P/E and CH scores hard to figure out).

[Mathman]

^ Me, too.

But about the Skating Skills component, on that one for once I do think that the ISU rules are pretty clear as to what they are talking about:

“Balance and rhythmic knee action and precision of foot placement..

“Flow and effortless glide.

“Cleanness and sureness of deep edges, steps and turns

“Power/energy and acceleration.

“Mastery of multi-directional skating.

“Mastery of one-foot skating.

(I’m not 100% sure on the “rhythmic knee action,” but I think I understand the rest to some extent.)

[bigsisjiejie]

I would keep it simple and penalize each fall identically, probably with a -3.0 each right off the score. I have always thought the -1.0 per fall deduction was ridiculously lenient, -GOE's notwithstanding. My main issues are with the PCS side of the equation, lots and lots of mischief going on there with holding up/reputation scoring of certain skaters.

[bekalc]

GKelly, may I point to you that Chan was awarded 20 points for the elements he FELL on. 20 points! and that's what ticks me off the most. Just adding a one point penalty doesn't cover it.

I'm afraid I'm moving more and more to the concept of you fall its a failed element no credit. If you shave off 20 points to Chan's score than Chan ends up in third but just barely, and I think that's a fair result considering overall how Patrick skated.

My only issue with no points is if your going to punish a fall that much, than you also have to punish other jump errors like stumbling too. For example I think one point deduction for a fall, but there should be a no credit for when two hands end up on the ice as well. No credit if its a significant uncontrolled, And only half credit for slight two foots, or hand downs.

This is fair. Somebody who is signficantly better than everyone else, and only has one major error, can still win a competition. But a person who has multiple errors on the elements and is messy is out.

[Tonichelle]

the problem is, I think in the ISU mind anyway, is if they penelize the falls on jumps too greatly the sport will move backwards in the field. In other words, no quads or difficult triples, which brings us 25 years back in the history of the sport. There's that fine line and I think that's why they're constantly tweaking the scores, they're trying to come as close as possible to it.

[bekalc]

the problem is, I think in the ISU mind anyway, is if they penelize the falls on jumps too greatly the sport will move backwards in the field. In other words, no quads or difficult triples, which brings us 25 years back in the history of the sport. There's that fine line and I think that's why they're constantly tweaking the scores, they're trying to come as close as possible to it.

Under 6.0 the sport was progressing a lot further technically than it was under IJS in terms of jumps and harsh penalties for falls in the short didn't stop the men going for quads? Why because they knew the other men were doing it, and they were guaranteed to lose out if they didn't go for the quad.

If the ISU made it so that landing a quad gave a skater a SIGNIFICANT REWARD. And some men started landing them because it guaranteed them significant reward than we'd see more and more men going for quads.