CoP footwork and slow music

MM - I didn't see that NBC program about the clip of Sasha and the Tech Panel. It's nice to know that the calls are made by much of the panel members and not just the Caller himself. Although, Sasha had a notorious Flutz. This must have been one that she made good.

Your points on the Bullets in the PC scores are noted. I intend to make an issue of the bullets soon.

I think I am more frequently bothered by laborious, slower-than-tempo footwork being matched with faster music. However, now we have the choreographic step sequence, so I think we'll be seeing less mismatched footwork.

Joesitz said:

Although, Sasha had a notorious Flutz. This must have been one that she made good.

Click to expand...

It looked questionable to me in real time, but they only showed the side view. They didn't show us the slo-motion review that the tech panel saw.

it's funny how everybody commented on Rachael's fast footwork in the rather slow East of Eden, when it was 100 times better than seeing skaters labor through footwork like a snail as the music flies ahead. Mostly the pairs have the problem, but many of the singles skates, especially the ladies have trouble doing all the required turns and steps at a lively pace. Ashley Wagner's strightline step to Malaguena comes to mind. see 3:35 here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dszUURzhWh4

prettykeys said:

I think I am more frequently bothered by laborious, slower-than-tempo footwork being matched with faster music. However, now we have the choreographic step sequence, so I think we'll be seeing less mismatched footwork.

Click to expand...

Not unusual. There are two schools of thought on how the steps are perceived according to the timing and mood of the music. Some fans are happy with the more distinctive movments with the music; other fans enjoy the wild arms with attempted brio steps. If the judges know the difference, then their scores should be reflected by both performances without preference.

I think I may be the only person in the world who wants a return to the slow system, where the footwork isn't one long element in the long program. I'd rather the ISU revise the footwork requirement to the following, so skaters have the option:

1. Straight line
2. Circular
3. Serpentine
4. "Spread throughout the program"

Some music requires that footwork be isolated to a certain part of the music, whereas some pieces make it so that the footwork should be spread out through the program in smaller pieces.

A step sequence has always been required in the short program since its inception in 1972-73. Until 1988, the shape of the step sequence was specified each year.

In long programs, the well-balanced program guidelines recommending a discrete step sequence started in the mid-1990s. In the early 2000s, a long-program step sequence was already specifically required for several years before the new judging system came in.

If a sequence is going to earn points, it has to have a defined beginning and end.

Steps and other moves spread throughout the program count as Transitions or "connecting moves" or "in-betweens" or whatever you want to call them, as has always been the case. Now there's a specific score devoted to them.

For competitive programs, there needs to be a structure so that all skaters competing against each other have equal opportunities to earn points, with some choices as to which elements to use in order to do so. Steps "spread throughout the program" as an alternative to a discrete step sequence is not a comparable playing field. Would the skater who chose the "spread throughout" option give up one element slot in hopes of earning a higher Transitions score?

According to 2000-2004 well-balanced program rules under 6.0, would the skater who didn't include the required step sequence be willing to take a deduction for the lacking element in hopes of making up the difference with a higher Presentation score?

For competitive programs, the choice of program content and the choice of music are always subordinate to the requirements to include technical content comparable to one's competitors. The best choreographers and the best skaters are able to showcase that technical content in a way that is also artistically satisfying, but primarily skating competition is about technical sport, with artistic impact only a small part of what the skaters are competing about.

For show programs (or professional competitions or artistic competitions), artistic integrity including relationship of the footwork to the music can be the most important thing and the technical content of the program can be subordinated to the demands of the music and the artistic vision. If the music calls for zero elements that would be recognized and scored under the competitive scoring system (e.g., no rotational jumps, no spins over 3 revolutions, no full-rink step sequences), that would be a valid choice for an artistic program. Could be a brilliant program.

But in sport competition, it would be a stupid choice. In sport competition, the music and choreography need to serve the athletic and technical demands.

My proposal, which I'm only musing about as part of an ongoing armchair discussion:

Eliminate the first step sequence in the men's FS entirely (the one that actually gets level calls). Instead, substitute a choreographic spiral sequence element, just like the women have, although I would adjust the requirement that the spirals be on one foot (men do better spread eagles due to anatomy, just as women do better flexibility spirals). Really, I want to see men do spirals too. To me, they're beautiful, are easier to choreograph to go with the sweep of the music, and demonstrate skating ability and artistry just fine without having to shoehorn in endless complexity.

Substitute the choreographed step sequence instead of the one with level calls for women's FS, too. Fair is fair!

So basically, in the FS, there will be no more step sequence with levels and all those convoluted requirements under my proposal. There will just be one choreographed step sequence with the same basic score.

Then, there will be an entirely new element in the technical elements called Steps and Turns. It will have levels and features somewhat like the old step sequence (or the step sequence in the SP). So for instance, if a skater executes 5 different kinds of turns and 3 different kinds of steps at least once in each direction throughout the FS (steps and turns executed during the choreographed step sequence do not count), he'll be eligible for a level 4 S&T if he fulfills some other level features, too. The panel of judges gives this new element a GOE just the same.

Yes, the new Steps and Turns element will overlap somewhat with the Transition score in PCS. But then technical elements already overlap with PCS in other ways (choreography overlaps with step sequence GOE's, the GOE requirement that jumps match the music overlap with interpretation, etc). This will have the added effect of making transitions in the FS a bit more defined and mandatory.

Tinymavy15 said:

it's funny how everybody commented on Rachael's fast footwork in the rather slow East of Eden, when it was 100 times better than seeing skaters labor through footwork like a snail as the music flies ahead. Mostly the pairs have the problem, but many of the singles skates, especially the ladies have trouble doing all the required turns and steps at a lively pace. Ashley Wagner's strightline step to Malaguena comes to mind. see 3:35 here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dszUURzhWh4

Click to expand...

Oi... :confused2:

Serious Business said:

My proposal, which I'm only musing about as part of an ongoing armchair discussion:

Eliminate the first step sequence in the men's FS entirely (the one that actually gets level calls). Instead, substitute a choreographic spiral sequence element, just like the women have, although I would adjust the requirement that the spirals be on one foot (men do better spread eagles due to anatomy, just as women do better flexibility spirals).

Click to expand...

And in the last years of 6.0, men were required to do a "field moves sequence" rather than a second step sequence in the long program.

So basically, in the FS, there will be no more step sequence with levels and all those convoluted requirements under my proposal. There will just be one choreographed step sequence with the same basic score.

Click to expand...

That could work. The short program can be the place for step sequences with levels based on difficulty.

Or tweak the definitions of the features, the base marks for each level, and the values of the GOEs, so that skaters can make a strategic choice whether to aim for higher levels or higher GOE . . . or other ways of rewarding higher difficulty vs. quality.

E.g., let the tech panel just identify yes or no for the step sequence and give the judges more than 3 pluses to reward difficulty as they see it as well as quality. The judges will be less consistent/precise at identifying specific turns while also watching for quality, each with their own two eyes instead of the six-eyed three-brained tech panel. But they'll also be less picky and able to reward unique areas of difficulty or intersections of difficulty + quality that don't neatly fit the level rules.

If the tech panel determines "yes" -- that step sequence did meet the definition of a step sequence, then it defaults to -1 or -2 GOE. To get 0 or higher the skater will have to earn a pluses from the judges. The bullet points for the pluses can include everything that's already in the positive GOE guidelines and also things like "variety of steps and turns" "difficulty of steps and turns" "turns in both directions" "quick reversals of direction" "extended sequence on one foot" "expressive use of upper body" etc., but leaving it up to each judge to determine whether the skater meets their own definitions for those points.

Between the difficulty bullets and the quality bullets it would common for the skaters who are already getting +2s and +3s for level 3 and 4 to get +2s and +3s on the defaults-negative choreo sequence.

Then, there will be an entirely new element in the technical elements called Steps and Turns. It will have levels and features somewhat like the old step sequence (or the step sequence in the SP). So for instance, if a skater executes 5 different kinds of turns and 3 different kinds of steps at least once in each direction throughout the FS (steps and turns executed during the choreographed step sequence do not count), he'll be eligible for a level 4 S&T if he fulfills some other level features, too. The panel of judges gives this new element a GOE just the same.

Click to expand...

That would be really hard to keep track of. It's one thing for the tech panel to say "here's the step sequence -- start counting now" and count until the skater gets to the other end of the ice or closes the circle. If necessary, they can also go back and review just that element.

It would be much more difficult to keep track of steps and turns sprinkled throughout the program with any accuracy, and it wouldn't be possible to review without watching the whole program again just counting the steps and turns, which would seriously prolong the wait for scores in those cases. Definitely expect the members of the same panel to disagree with each other but not have time to review, and for different panels to disagree with each other from one competition to the next, depending which turns or steps they happen to miss or which ones the skater executed less clearly each time.

Do normal entries into elements (threes and mohawks into jumps, including the bad-direction mohawk, cross step that many skaters use into lutzes; choctaw from back crossovers into forward spin) count toward the total for that kind of step or turn?

Then what happens if, e.g., the tech panel decides that a skater's intended three turn into a flip never got onto an inside edge and they give an edge call for the "lip"? Do they also give the skater credit for executing a rocker there?

I do think that variety and difficulty of the steps and turns between the elements should be rewarded, as well as within the step seqeunces. But if they're going to be quantified, it's much easier to do so during a discrete steps-and-turns element with a defined start and stop.


For myself, I'd rather say either that

*the short program should have more strictly defined technical requirements that are precisely defined and rewarded for difficulty and correctness, but the free program only gives difficulty points for jumps and maybe spins and then leaves the rest of the scoring up to judges' individual evaluations of the content, quality, and artistry

or

*define several different types of non-jump, non-spin elements complete with levels and let each skater choose whichever two best suit their music, program concept, and skills

The choice for long programs could be any two of the following:
-straight-line step sequence
-circular step sequence
-serpentine step sequence
-figure eight step sequence (i.e., two connected circles or serpentines)
(all of the above have to adhere more strictly to their nominal patterns, the base values for the different patterns increase in the order listed above, and there are more than four possible features so skaters get to pick and choose which ones to use for higher levels)
-spiral/spiral sequence
-field move/field move sequence
(both of the above can earn a high level with only one position or edge if it's held long enough and has enough other features, or they can use three or four different positions/edges to earn features)
-school figures variation
-small-jumps sequence (if it doesn't fill a jump slot instead)

Surely from the above options skaters can find two point-earning elements that will showcase their individual strengths and fit their chosen music better than the current requirements of everyone doing one step sequence for levels and one choreo step or spiral sequence

I would also make more possible features for the various elements, especially step sequences, so that there would be a variety of choices in how to earn level 4. Choose what you think works best for you, and then at each competition we'll see whether you get full credit and +GOE for your execution. But you won't have to make the same choices as a different skater. Or the same choices you made last year when you were using very different music.