Performance/Execution mark. Should it be changed?

gkelly said:

How would you compare the Performance/Execution of these two performances?

How would you compare the Choreography?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zy2cfZPa_j8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pv9mpppvLEg

Click to expand...

We have a 6.0 program and a CoP program. One is an LP and the other an SP.
I look for different qualities in an SP and LP. Maybe that is outdated but sometimes old habits die hard.

Vanessa's LP looks world class to me and although she stumbled on the flips and didn't look clean enough to win - the P/E was OK. She held my interest throughout the program. I don't like the way she telegraphs her jumps which only accentuates the problems on the jumps that were not clean.
I liked the choreo and thought it had an originality to it.
One look is not enough - and that is just my impression from watching once.

The other skater - for me made major errors in an SP. In my way of thinking her P/E is not so good. I give her credit for trying to hold it together and she did not quit and actually skated the steps and ending much better than in the beginning.

My thoughts after one viewing about the choreo - her splats took me out of whatever she was trying to present out there.
As I write this I can barely remember her choreo because of the disruptions.
I don't think I would have givn her a good score for PE - maybe a little better for the choreo, but in general a lower placement but not so low I would I get noticed and risk losing the perks of being an ISU judge. Hmmmm......

doubleflutz said:

I really don't understand people who don't "get" the P/E mark.

Click to expand...

Here is the problem. I, a casual fan who likes to watch skating more than he likes reading the rule book, already know what the word "execution" means. It means, carrying out your plan, putting your ideas into practice, that sort of thing. When a discipline for specialists comes along and usurps an ordinary English word and puts it to more precise use within that discipline, this creates miscommunication between the in-crowd and the -- ugh, yuck -- outsiders.

Now I am informed that "execution" doesn't mean "execution" after all. It means being "physically committed, sincere in emotion, and equal in comprehension of the music and in execution of all movement."

Passing over the use of the word execution to explain what execution means, I once thought I knew what "equal" means, but now I see that I don't.

I have no quarrel with judging the things that are judged within this component. In fact, the language of the ISU rule book is kind of cool. I just think it would be helpful to the fans if a different word could be chosen to head this category of skills.

To janetfan,

If you don't mind the double post, I just thought of the perfect piece of evidence to convince you that the ISU is not just about making money and entertaining audiences: the CoP itself. The CoP does not make figure skating programs more entertaining, nor does it bring in any money. Yet, here we are.

Now I will try to convince you that the ISU does not always make decisions that move in the direction of "less figures, more TV." The person who spearheaded the demise of figures in favor of more beautiful free skating was Sonia Bianchetti. After this movement achieved success, she ran against Ottavio Cinquanta for ISU president. Cinquanta's supporters, by manipulating the election rules, elected the current ISU president, a speed skater, and Bianchetti was shortly kicked out of the ISU altogether.

The CoP is Cinquanta's baby. With the CoP the pendulum is, perhaps, swinging back in the direction of more tech, less show. Maybe even in the direction of putting greater emphasis on "skating skills." (Wheter this is a good thing or a bad is another question, of course.)

Mathman said:

Here is the problem. I, a casual fan who likes to watch skating more than he likes reading the rule book, already know what the word "execution" means. It means, carrying out your plan, putting your ideas into practice, that sort of thing. When a discipline for specialists comes along and usurps an ordinary English word and puts it to more precise use within that discipline, this creates miscommunication between the in-crowd and the -- ugh, yuck -- outsiders.

Now I am informed that "execution" doesn't mean "execution" after all. It means being "physically committed, sincere in emotion, and equal in comprehension of the music and in execution of all movement."

Passing over the use of the word execution to explain what execution means, I once thought I knew what "equal" means, but now I see that I don't.

I have no quarrel with judging the things that are judged within this component. In fact, the language of the ISU rule book is kind of cool. I just think it would be helpful to the fans if a different word could be chosen to head this category of skills.

Click to expand...

gkelly touches on another oddity in post #19:

"To sum up, I'd break it down into Form and Projection/Charisma. It's perfectly possible to be great at either one of the above and bad at the other -- they're not directly related at all, so it can get confusing when they're subsumed into the same number."
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _


I agree it certainly could be confusing - not to mention misleading and illogical.

What if a skater as you suggest skated with great form but was in a bad mood and showed no projection or charisma.

How would you score them for P/E?

Would it be right in the middle? Sorry, the only thing I could think of and admit that seems a silly way to try and score somebody.

BTW, an example of this could be Mirai's LP from SC last season. She and Frank were supposedly disagreeing, Mirai was upset,,,,,,and she came out and skated a decent LP technically, but showed very little emotion.

Any way to find out how the judges scored her pcs from that event, particularly her P/E?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKOHx2g8mTI

janetfan said:

"To sum up, I'd break it down into Form and Projection/Charisma. It's perfectly possible to be great at either one of the above and bad at the other -- they're not directly related at all, so it can get confusing when they're subsumed into the same number."

I agree it certainly could be misleading not to mention confusing and illogical.

Click to expand...

I do have to admit, though, that I am coming to understand these things better as a result of these discussions. Would it be too far off to say that Skating Skills means what you do below the ankles, and the "execution," or "form" part -- all the little things that your coach is constantly harping on you about, as Doubleflutz puts it -- is the "above the ankles" part?

Mathman said:

I do have to admit, though, that I am coming to understand these things better as a result of these discussions. Would it be too far off to say that Skating Skills means what you do below the ankles, and the "execution," or "form" part -- all the little things that your coach is constantly harping on you about, as Doubleflutz puts it -- is the "above the ankles" part?

Click to expand...

I don't know - am still trying to get some of this straight. The quote in your post attributed to me is mostly written by gkelly - who I quoted.......

I agree these discussions can be helpful. You seem to be on the right track - but haven't we been through alot of this in discussions about Sasha and Michelle? Sasha from the boots up vs Michelle from the boots down. etc....

Nobody ever had better PE than Sasha if we are counting form and posture, positions, pointed toes, along with charisma and projection......or did Michelle :think: - but her edges don't count in PE right - coz they are part of SS.

I mention Sasha because it feels like the CoP's pcs were as well suited for her as they are ill-suited for Rachael.

A Performance without a theme is more difficult than one with a theme. How many thematic Carmens, Toscas, Swan Queens show originality in these opera and ballet pieces? It is not difficult to fake them with a little hip shaking, facial sorrow, fear of destruction. None of it is original and the only skater I actually enjoyed watching interpretations from outside stories was from Ilia Klimkin when he was choreographed by his original choreographer.

Original themes based on concertos, rhapsodies, etudes, and even symphonies are more difficult to perform without stories to back them.
I, maybe the only one, like to be taken to another level than the expected. Virtue/Moir do exactly that.

How is all this judged? I would say solely by opinions. It just ain't quatifiable.

Execution relates more to Sport where all the Technical becomes Technique. Plushenoko's high level jumps; Czisny's incredible spins; Kwan's body language - all are quantifiable.

gkelly said:

I'm going to describe three programs...

So how should these three skaters compare in their PE scores?

Click to expand...

First, I think these you-be-the-judge challenges are utterly beyond the judging competence of anyone except a trained figure skating judge. (I know, I know, someone is going to come on line and say, "You ignoramous, I just explained all the bullets to you; weren't you paying attention? )

In fact, I marvel at the judges' expertise if in fact they can keep all of this straight and come up with a proper P&E score in an objective and repeatable way.

You (gkelly) have already done all the work by your written description. I, for instance, might not notice on my own whether Sadie successfully expr4ssed "not only details of the musical rhythm but also the character's emotional journey through nuanced upper body gestures." (I like that description, though, so sight unseen I'll vote for Sadie.)

Based on my evolving understanding of the P&E category, I guess I would say that Louann has the best P and Jessica has the best E.

Would those differences be reflected if the three components of PE, CH, and IN were all collapsed into one score? Or would they all average out to the same number?

Click to expand...

I guess now I might consider following Joesitz' distinction in the post above and do it like this. Put E in with SS and TR (25% of total), and put P in with CH and INT (25% of the total).

Which of these skaters would you most want to see qualify for national or international competition at the junior level and why?

Click to expand...

Jessica. If she can land her loop she will blow the other two out of the water.

Which would you most want to see skate an exhibition program in a show?

Click to expand...

Now you've got me wanting to see Louann's program. Who is Leroy Anderson? Would this be anything like Stephanie Rosenthal's hip hop program a few years back?

Which scores, if any, should be based on entertainment value?

Click to expand...

The P part of P&E.

Edited to add. Mathman, you ignoramus! Not only are you a know-nothing judge, but you don't even know how the spell ignoramus.

Mathman said:

Now you've got me wanting to see Louann's program. Who is Leroy Anderson?

Click to expand...

http://leroyanderson.com/

Example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2LJ1i7222c

Would this be anything like Stephanie Rosenthal's hip hop program a few years back?

Click to expand...

Not the same musical style, but yeah, I was thinking if I were going to grow these imaginary skaters up a couple of years and a couple of skill levels, Rosenthal would be the closest example of Louann as I described her.

The reason for 5 components is to make the sport less subjectivity when given criteria to base the marks. If you start putting this component with that component, it is a step backwards to what the problem with 6.0 was: picking and choosing what you want to give the mark which represented the PLACMENT, and most of the times the marks were not reflecting what was achived on the ice. ALL CRITERIA IS TO BE considred when giving a mark for a component. Not only the criteria, but HOW that criteria is used throughout ALL parts of a program through the structure of the way the music is cut and the choreographed ideas. Most times it is related to time as well. Most programs, long, are ABA, that is the first idea tempo, a contrast usually slower, then faster again. Hopefully the music is of the quality to let movement with the possiblity of reflecting that music. The choice of music IS vital to the whole, as without music that has variety and complexity with a mix of many ideas, then it is so hard to find movement that reflects the music, as there is little in the music to be able to do this.
P/E IS about the execution of ALL parts of the program within the written criteria. For example within the technical parts is the execution as such to have good carriage throughout the element, as well as clairty of the movement AND clairity of the execution of the movement itself. If there is a fall OF COURSE it stops the CONTINUITY of the program, it is broken at this point, as you break a piece of glass. BUT THEN the judge must look at the end at HOW MUCH WAS DONE WELL FIRST, then how the errors affected the rest of the performance as this IS an flaw in the execution of movement. As the exit is on the ice, not with good carriage, off the music, getting the carriage back, etc. HOW MUCH TIME this takes should be reflected in the error. How bad the fall is always, while subjective, influences the whole. Time wise, how much was doing well in all parts, and then how much is lost when making ANY error, even stepping out (carriage, execution loss, clairty loss, etc.) can cause a lose of marks as it influences the errors in the program. JUMPS AND SPINS are apart of a program, they are integrated into the whole, and all is connected via movement (transitions) to make a performance come alive. Thus the better performances keep the drive going, the intensity, the clairty of all parts, the variety and contrast of the movement, and of course the committment to show emotionality if necessary, the intellectual ideas of the structure by that movement for the performance. EXECUTION is about the criteria, not the interpretation, as that is about one word, the FEELING of the program from the skater's movement to reflect that music according to the criteria of that component. P/E is about the DELIVERY of what the criteria is saying, and ALL CRITERIA IS TO BE considered, not just what you want to be considered.
THIS is not easy, and if all of the writers of this site were to judge, they would see the difficulty. But having said that we judges have chosen to do this activity from our backgrounds and some have very different background in the arts, etc. If we were all educated the same, we would be coming from the same beginning point. The ISU does do schools by the top educated judges, choreographers, etc. to understand EACH criteria. But the change to all this criteria and judging ALL parts of the art of a program takes time and PRACTICE> Remember, maybe another generation will really show the differences at times between components, but many are still think of placing but trying so hard to make a difference. It will TAKE time, and there are some differences. Maybe not fast enough for most of you, but it takes time to believe what you have to say with your marks is justfied by your knowledge.
Watering down the component to fit within each other is not the answer in my opinion, as anything, it is education on how. You all say different things about the components, as you have never been to the schools which show HOW to look at each criteria and each component separately. OF COURSE as in ALL art, there is overlapping of ideas, but one can still separate out interpretation from P/E which to most people is about the criteria, PROJECTION. SHowing movement that reflects the details of the music, the tempo changes, the style changes, etc. is NOT P/E, this is interpretation. How you execution all the movement is what a performance is all about, that is, the DELIVERY of that criteria via the movement. THE WORD MOVEMENT is the key to ALL the components. I judge by watching each movement before an element, then I see how that movement is placed into the design of the choreography, and its criteria; then I see HOW that movement is interpreted to the details of the music, how that skaters shows me the feeling to that criteria via that movement; then I see how the movement, element, all is executed and delivered to me the watcher; then are the skating skills according to the criteria of the quality to allow the skater to do the movement at a level that makes fluid movement from movement to movement, element to element. I take each movement, make little marks, that show each of these components. Try it, I think you will be surprised as to how your thinking changes when taking a movement before an element and of course after, and use all the components to related to the movement. Thanks for reading. joe inman

Mr. Inman - thank you very much for explaining how P/E should be judged as there seems to be a variety of opinion.

ps forgive all the spelling and some grammar errors, as I did not reread the words and thoughts, as I was just writing as though I were speaking. Next time I will change the erros. THanks, joe inman

Ah, I knew I recognized your name. I still don't like what you did to Evgeni, especially the particular "timing" of it, and of course he was just exaggerating when he said he & Joubert didn't have any transitions. They've always had had transitions, just not enough of them, that I agree on. But to say he didn't have any whatsoever is a total exaggeration. And that's what I take issue with. He's still the greatest male jumper that ever lived, and because of his narrow loss at the Olympics by 1 pt. the rules have been changed to allow more points for quads. Btw, I'm not here to quibble over Evan's win, what's done is done, and imho he had a better program than Evgeni, that's where Zhenya went wrong. I just didn't like what I considered the dirty trick/tactic you played on Zhenya by sending out all 60 of those emails to the judges.

Hmmm, I also recall reading that you are the one that gave the decisive vote to Sarah Hughes at the 2002 Olympics. Thank you, she deserved it, she was like a fairy/sprite out there on the ice, my all-time favorite Olympic performance by anyone, man or woman.

ps: I think I read also that you're the one that gave Michelle Kwan all 6.0's for her 1998 US Nationals performance. I agree.

Nadine said:

I still don't like what you did to Evgeni, especially the particular "timing" of it, and of course he was just exaggerating when he said he & Joubert didn't have any transitions.

Click to expand...

That's unfair of you. Neither Joe Inman nor anybody else "did" anything to Plushenko. Evgeni and what he did (or didn't do) was responsible for his own fate. Eventually, he needs to "man up" to it and so do his fans.

JudgeJoe, thanks a million for contributing the perspective of an actual practicing judge.

Joesk8judg said:

This is not easy.

Click to expand...

I will go you one better. IMHO it is not just hard, it is impossible. I do not think that the human brain has the capacity to keep a running total of 36 program component "bullets" in his head over a four-minute program, constantly weaving an objective, reliable, consistent, repeatable five-part tapestry.

Is the skater showing "sincere emotion" or an upset stomach? Oops, I forgot to time the exact percentage of time that he turned in the opposite direction. Did the skater's originality of purpose and design outweigh her relative lack of ease of movement from the center of the body? And don't forget to take time out to grade the GOE for each element as it occurs.

(As an aside: Do skaters in competition ever show "sincere" emotion, as opposed to acting? Except, of course, "Yay! I landed my triple loop," or "Oh, bleep -- here we go again -- just shoot me now.")

Figure skating has judges, not scorekeepers. Judges judge, they do not tally or measure. I think the goal that has been advertised for the IJS is quite unattainable.

Nor should we apologize for this. At the end of the day the judges must render judgment as to which skater performed best. If the lattice provided by the details of the IJS is useful to the judges in carrying out their responsibilities, then more power to it. The IJS separates the tangle of performance, choreography and interpretation into three categories in which the judges must simultaneously juggle seven bullets each. If that produces better results than juggling 21 bullets in a single category -- well, in that case I guess we are on the right track.

Mathman said:

The IJS separates the tangle of performance, choreography and interpretation into three categories in which the judges must simultaneously juggle seven bullets each. If that produces better results than juggling 21 bullets in a single category -- well, in that case I guess we are on the right track.

Click to expand...

I think it does. For one thing, suppose each judge only manages to account for a total of, say, 9 bullet points out of those 21. Separating them into three scores will increase the likelihood of some of them representing each of the three different larger areas as opposed to one of those areas being left out completely.

Say you have only 7 bullet points:

a) harmonious composition of the program as a whole and its conformity with the music chosen;
b) variation of speed;
c) utilization of the ice surface;
d) easy movement and sureness in time to the music;
e) carriage and style;
f) originality;
g) expression of the character of the music;

Of those, I'd say that a, c, and f (and maybe a little bit of g) belong to Choreography, e belongs to Performance/Execution, d and g belong to Interpretation, and I'm not sure about b (listed under Skating Skills in IJS -- topic for the Speed thread instead?).

It's not very clear what all of those short phrases actually mean. I think what the additional bullet points in the IJS Program Component bullet points do to a large degree is expand on the former Presentation bullet points. And then the detailed Program Component Explanations expand on some of those bullet points still further. And some of the bullet points, especially those under Transitions, don't have official expansions/explanations. So in order to know what they really mean one would have to go through hands-on judge training and talk to enough judges to get a consensus of how they're using the bullet points rather than just studying a document.

But we're still two steps closer to sharing an understanding of what judges are looking at, or to judges sharing the same understanding, than when the only documentation was that list of 7 criteria with no written explanations.

(I'm leaving out the unison/shared responsibility/equal mastery bullets that apply only to pair and dance teams.)

When there were only 7 criteria listed, ideally every judge would understand all the implications of each of those 7 short phrases and apply them all to every performance to come up with one carefully thought out number.

But in practice they would most likely put most of their emphasis on 2 or 3 of those criteria -- whichever were their own favorites or pet peeves, or whichever a specific skater happened to be most obviously good or bad at.

If those 7 criteria are grouped into 3 separate components and judges have to give a mark for each of the components, they're a lot less likely to consistently ignore the same one. Instead, they may ignore the same subtle subpoint of one of those criteria, but at least they'll be addressing part of it instead of none.

And when the judges mostly agree that a skater was notably better at choreography than interpretation, or vice versa, for example, that gives the skater valuable information about where there's most room for improvement -- information that rarely gets past the judge's head onto written notes, much less all the way to the skater, when all the bullets are lumped into a single number.

^ That is an interesting point. However, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. If all of these bullets amounted to a hill of beans, we would see that some skaters had strong Presentation, but weak Interpretation, or whatever.

Just for fun I checked out the men’s long program at Skate America. If we give out “second mark ordinals” by Performance/Execution scores, the result is:

Takahashi
Oda
Rippon (tied)
Armin M (tied)
Murakami
Sawyer
-------------------------------
Schultheiss (tied)
KVDP (tied)
Carriere
Ten
Song
Pfeiffer

If we rank skaters by the seven bullets of Choreography/Composition we obtain:

Takahashi
Oda
Rippon
Armin M
Murkami
Sawyer
---------------------------
Carriere
Schultheiss
Ten
KVDP
Song
Pfeiffer

And if we go by Interpreatation, it comes out

Takahaski
Oda
Rippon
Armin M
Murakami (tied)
Sawyer (tied)
----------------------------
Schultheiss
Carriere
Ten (tied)
KVDP (tied)
Song
Pfeiffer

So we went through all this just to decide that Schultheiss edged Carriere for seventh place by 0.04 points in Interpretation, but lost by 0.03 points in P/E? (BTW, the difference between 0.04 and 0.03 is a rounding error.)

Another test is to take each skater separately and compared the three marks. The average difference between the higest and the lowest of the three marks is 0.18 – less than the gradation of possible scores, 0.25.

Would the outcome of the competition have been any different if these three scores had been combined into one? If not, who are we trying to kid with our bullets and our criteria and our 50 pages of guidelines? An experienced and competent judge would have come up with the exact same result just by sitting back and saying , I liked this guy OK, that guy not so much.

I have to agree with Mathman that to me "execution means execution" I get that there are a ton of factors that can go into the Performance/execution mark. And I also don't think one major error should necessarily equal a horrid Performance/execution mark if everything else is of a better quality. I don't have a problem with Chan's short program win in Russia.

But I'm sorry when we start seeing multiple major errors-and then 8s! for performance and execution, I cry foul. Its pretty clear that the top skaters PCS are similar no matter how well they skate, and that suggests that 50% of the score is essentially predetermined.:disapp: If the rules are such that messy skates aren't suppose to be docked in PCS, than the rules need to be ammended so they are.

I don't care how good of a skater someone is, and how good of a performer they are, a program with 3 falls, is not a well executed program. This sport needs to have a balance between the ridiculousness, of so and so skater fell once, and so everything else they did just doesn't matter even if it was of better quality. And the idea that because someone has amazing basics/transitions/choregraphy, it doesn't matter if they are only doing double jumps, or falling 3 times in their program.

Mathman said:

Just for fun I checked out the men’s long program at Skate America.

Click to expand...

I'll repost my opinion of that since it got buried in the other spot of the forum:

Shawn Sawyer's LP has the best choreography of the season thus far. Such a creative program. The way he does a 3Loop literally out of nowhere, from almost a standstill, is fantastic. His spiral and cantilever are brilliant highlights. He has more versatile spin positions than any other male out there today and those spins are incorporated into the program very well. The "choreography footwork sequence" actually works with the choreography and makes great time across the ice. The program builds throughout and has a VIEWPOINT.

I think he should have been ranked 2nd in the LP (with Oda 1st, because of being ahead by a mile on the jumps...his 3Sal being worth 0 points was ridiculous). Shawn's 3Axel did not deserve to be downgraded and, IMO, he should have received the highest overall PCS of the night. I find it absurd that such an inventive program and energetic performance without any major breaks in flow can receive a 66 for PCS and then Takahashi receives a personal best of 85 for his jumbled effort and Oda receives 79 for a rather monotone performance/program.

The performances:

Shawn Sawyer

Daisuke Takahashi

Nobunari Oda

Shawn's choreography is clearly the most creative out of these programs, very interpretative of the music, and performed with energy and dedication to character.

It's nice to have the breakdown between different PCS marks (except for Transitions, which should be done away with as a component mark because it's already part of "Skating Skills" and "Choreography" and jumps already get +GOE for including transitions as well) but, like Mathman says, it really doesn't achieve anything. The judges do NOT use these marks correctly. They judge more on reputation/momentum than an actual assessment of the quality and art of what the skater actually achieved on the ice.

I've noticed that judges seem to be separating skaters more on the PCS so far this year, which is at least a step in the right direction, but it's meaningless if the scores aren't given for the actual performances (and they aren't really separating the individual PCS marks that much either - it's more of a blanket score). Takahashi did NOT deserve anywhere near an 85 for that program/performance. This is coming from someone who thought he deserved to win the Olympics.

Mr. Inman, I have already copied your treastise on the PE discussion, and I will read it a few more times to let is soak in. Great infor, btw.

On Interpretation - I was watching a reality show "American Idol" the other night, and I listened to a young man sing a pop tune which I thought was done very well. However, the judges all panned him. My friend who was watching the same show said the judges expect the contestants to bring the song to a higher level. My first reading of your paper seems similar to the criteria of American Idol - bring it to a higher level.

How many Carmen's do we have to sit through before someone can interpret it at a higher level? I say drop the story behind Carmen, and use the music to make a personal interpretation. I think it's an age factor and lack of living outside the framework of figure skating that prevents anything really new and different in figure skating. We watch only for the next convoluted spin and an extra air rotation for the jumps.

I find the breakdown of the Component Scores badly thought out. Too much activity for the mind to grasp, and for the Music part it is hidden in Interpretation which also includes several other tidbits. It all boils down to beautiful musical skating for me.

I can't write any more for the moment, I'm hungry. I just got back from watching Rikard Strauss' Opera - Intermezzo.