Judging the "Old-Fashioned" Way

[gkelly]

I think that is great feedback! The skater should work on increased height in his jumps, improve his speed with especial attention to effortless acceleration, work on spin positions and centering, and try to develop an individual musical style.

I do not see how attaching decimal numbers to those suggestions would be of especial use to the skater.

It's true that both forms of feedback can be as contradictory as the examples mskater93 provided. So neither form has the advantage there.

One advantage to sitting down and talking with judges afterward is that you can get very explicit qualitative feedback and you can ask follow-up questions.

One disadvantage is that it's very time consuming and labor intensive for the judges. Can you imagine if they had to give a five-minute critique to every skater in every event? That would take longer than the events themselves, especially if multiple judges critique each skater. So that kind of feedback is rare, has to be solicited specifically, and sometimes involves extra expense (higher entry fees for competitions that offer critiques; traveling to skate for and meet with a specific judge for individual critique or more likely paying for the judge to travel to where the skater is). In most competitions there's no mechanism set up to get detailed direct feedback from judges because there just isn't enough time.

Also, judges aren't allowed to talk to skater A about how they judged skater B. So those kinds of critiques don't give any comparative information the way actual scores do.

Protocols will show where skater B earned more points. If skater A looks at the protocols and looks at the videos and sees that the judges scored B higher on this element or that component, she may be able to see for herself how B was better. In many cases under IJS, the answer is in the base marks for the calls made by the technical panel, not the judges. E.g., if B gets credit for two double axels and A gets downgrades on both her attempts, that might be the answer right there.

If the areas where B was better are not apparent to A and her coach even after studying the protocols and videos, there's no official mechanism under any judging system to tell her "B skated faster and jumped higher and spun faster and had a better balance of clockwise and counterclockwise skating, so those areas trumped the areas were A was better." If A is unable to see the difference in speed and jump height if that was the deciding factor, for example, or is unable to see the difference in jump rotation if that was the difference, then she will remain bewildered either way.

The protocols just show the numbers, not the thought processes -- if a skater really wants to know what a judge was thinking, she still needs to find the judge and ask. And with anonymous judging in international events, it isn't possible to identify which judges gave which marks so you wouldn't know who to ask about what.

[Ladskater]

Lest we forget. The name of the sport is FIGURE skating. I think it should be changed to Program Skating. No?

Joe, I agree. The term Figure Skating is sort of lost on the sport now. Yes, I remember spending hours tracing figures over and over (feeling frustrated). As someone pointed out Trixi Schuba won several world titles on the strength of her figures. It's true, I saw her once demo her command of the blade. Her tracings were perfect. The goal of the skater was to lay the figure down perfectly with no wobbles or flats (skating on the flat of the blade). Trixi's tracings were awesome - her edges flawless. Her circles were the precise size and her tracings were one on top of the other. Judges actually got down on their hands and knees to measure and inspect the skaters tracings in those days. I doubt they would want to do that today. Unfortunately, the art of tracing figures was lost on the general public who rarely saw this part of the competition and found it boring and difficult to understand the marking system. Many great free skaters lost to skaters - like Trixi - who were just so good at tracing figures, but lacked artistically at free skating. I have often thought perhaps the term "figure" skating should be changed to just Free Skating. However, perhaps, historically the term at least connects skating as we know it today to the great legacy that was once true figure skating.

[Joesitz]

That was my little attempt at asking, why do posters keep saying they don't the CoP and address their remarks to me of all people? I don't like the CoP either.

By the way, here is a little history of the sport of barrell jumping that I found.

http://www.hickoksports.com/history/barreljumping.shtml

Thanks for the link. Tell me what is the value difference between an extra rotation on a jump, and jumping with an extra barrel?

[Joesitz]

I think that is great feedback! The skater should work on increased height in his jumps, improve his speed with especial attention to effortless acceleration, work on spin positions and centering, and try to develop an individual musical style.

I do not see how attaching decimal numbers to those suggestions would be of especial use to the skater.

Did you ever join a Track Team? Beyond the 'dashes' the coach had me train for broad and high jump competitions, because as he said, I have natural spring in my legs. Not everyone is born equal. One can only improve his natural talent.

[Joesitz]

Joe, I agree. The term Figure Skating is sort of lost on the sport now. Yes, I remember spending hours tracing figures over and over (feeling frustrated). As someone pointed out Trixi Schuba won several world titles on the strength of her figures. It's true, I saw her once demo her command of the blade. Her tracings were perfect. The goal of the skater was to lay the figure down perfectly with no wobbles or flats (skating on the flat of the blade). Trixi's tracings were awesome - her edges flawless. Her circles were the precise size and her tracings were one on top of the other. Judges actually got down on their hands and knees to measure and inspect the skaters tracings in those days. I doubt they would want to do that today. Unfortunately, the art of tracing figures was lost on the general public who rarely saw this part of the competition and found it boring and difficult to understand the marking system. Many great free skaters lost to skaters - like Trixi - who were just so good at tracing figures, but lacked artistically at free skating. I have often thought perhaps the term "figure" skating should be changed to just Free Skating. However, perhaps, historically the term at least connects skating as we know it today to the great legacy that was once true figure skating.

Nicely put Ladskater. Barbara Ann Scott's figures were exceptional too. I wonder who would have been the champion between she and Trixie.

There really have been no changes in the contents of figure skating, but the ISU has changed the mechanics of running a competition. We have to live with that.

[janetfan]

Thanks for the link. Tell me what is the value difference between an extra rotation on a jump, and jumping with an extra barrel?

You can find that on page 913 of the CoB (Code of Barrels) manual.

[Mathman]

Imagine that you have been hired as part of a consulting group charged with the task of improving the position of international figure skating in the global market...

Well, this is a huge blockbuster of a post, but I will dip my oar in with a few generic impressions.

First, if I were hired by someone (as opposed to giving free advice over the Internet ), the person that hired me would already have answered the big questions that you raise, and my job would be to come up with a specific strategy.

Second, the way the commission is posed seems to me to push the discussion toward the first point of view, rather than #2 or #3.

"Improving one's position in the global market" means money. In comparison, I think that if we want to champion the Olympic ideal or to honor history and tradition, our tack should be rather "What profiteth a man if he gain the whole world but lose his soul." (If not, indeed, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get to heaven." )

Olympic sports do not make big money, so "higher, faster, stronger" is out, along with waxing nostalgic about the purity of Peggy Fleming's edges. That leaves strategy #1: Find out what the buying public wants and supply it.

Unfortunately, there is a pretty good chance that what the public wants is not figure skating. At this point people usually counter with, "Oh yeah? What about Asia?"

OK, what about Asia? Koreans love Yu-na Kim, not figure skating. China had a marvelous ladies champion in Lu Chen and three dominant pairs teams ,but skating is not big in China. Japan had a boom decade in the twenty-aughts, like the United States did in the 1990s. Is it over? We will have to wait and see. In the other 50-odd countries of Asia the sport hardly exists.

If the pessimists prove right, then we should make a virtue of necessity and fall back to positions #2 and #3, heads high, poor but proud.

[gkelly]

Well, yeah, that's pretty much my point.

A lot of posters here and elsewhere seem to be decrying the current state of figure skating as an entertainment product for fans' enjoyments and believe that it would be better off if the scoring system

Of course, what we really have in real life is a mixture of all three, especially 1) and 3).

The ISU does have to fund its activities and can do more (and provide more product to fans) if it can sell that product to media outlets that are willing to pay big bucks. And so they, and USFS and other national federations, do sometimes make decisions that compromise the pure integrity of the sport or that are not in the best interests of the athletes as a group in order to produce a product that's more attractive to TV networks. For example, rigging the skate order to put the top-ranked skaters at the end, and putting a break between the nontelevised and televised portions of an event so they can show final groups of two different disciplines in one live broadcast; reducing the number of participants in the GP while allowing/encouraging the top skaters with the most audience drawing power to enter more than two events. Not to mention past failed experiments such as two long programs and head-to-head competition at the GP Final ~10 years ago.

Personally, although I understand the reasoning behind those decisions, I don't have to like them. Sometimes you just have to give in and give the guys with the checkbook what they want.

But for changes that do benefit the athletes or the integrity of the sport as such (IMO), I'm more likely to approve even if they don't help and maybe hurt popularity with fans.

[mskater93]

I think that is great feedback! The skater should work on increased height in his jumps, improve his speed with especial attention to effortless acceleration, work on spin positions and centering, and try to develop an individual musical style.

I do not see how attaching decimal numbers to those suggestions would be of especial use to the skater.

What I was trying to convey is that getting a critique/feedback can be contradictory, one judge LIKES the style, speed, and flow, not the jumps but the spins were great in his/her opinion, the second judge thinks the skater looks labored, the choreography contrived, the jumps seem small and the spins just OK, the third judge thinks the spins are a liability, the style is generic and the jumps were completed OK. So, whose feedback do you value as your priority for what to work on in the next month before Regionals in that case or do you just walk away confused?
The advantage to protocols is that without a critique, you can see what the judges and tech panel "liked" or "didn't like" because you didn't get the level you thought, it got a "<" or "<<" or the majority of judges gave the element a negative GOE or that PCS category a lower score than all the others. It pinpoints areas for improvement and makes it easier to prioritize if there are just a few things that are poorly scored. The skater can also look across their score from a tech standpoint from competition to competition to see if they are "improving" on a troubled element or if they are just plain old inconsistent.

[janetfan]

But for changes that do benefit the athletes or the integrity of the sport as such (IMO), I'm more likely to approve even if they don't help and maybe hurt popularity with fans.

Can you cite examples of "integrity" in figure skating?

Please start at the top with Cinquanta and feel free to work your way down the ladder to include various federation bosses.

It's easy enough to take the high road but I think you are skating over dangeroulsy thin ice.
Feel free to use bungee cords if it helps

[gkelly]

I'm not talking about the moral integrity of individuals.

I'm talking about the sport as a sport. If its fundamental basis is the control of blades curving on ice, then I believe the rules should be designed to reward those skills above all others, with next priority to other skills that derive from and depend on the ability to control the blades on ice. So I applaud any scoring or format innovations that make it harder for politics, personal emotions, irrelevant skills, etc., to sway the results and disapprove of any that make that easier. I'll take each development on its own terms.

Of course, sometimes it takes a while for unintended consequences of rule changes to become apparent. And often we don't know what the intentions of the rulemakers were to begin with.

[janetfan]

I'm not talking about the moral integrity of individuals.

I'm talking about the sport as a sport. If its fundamental basis is the control of blades curving on ice, then I believe the rules should be designed to reward those skills above all others, with next priority to other skills that derive from and depend on the ability to control the blades on ice. So I applaud any scoring or format innovations that make it harder for politics, personal emotions, irrelevant skills, etc., to sway the results and disapprove of any that make that easier. I'll take each development on its own terms.

Of course, sometimes it takes a while for unintended consequences of rule changes to become apparent. And often we don't know what the intentions of the rulemakers were to begin with.

I am always impressed and appreciative of your posts even when I disagree with them.

It's nice to talk aout the "purity" of skating but wasn't that thrown in the crapper after 1990 when figures were discontinued.

Do you think level four CoP footwork which richly rewards wild arm flapping and herky-jerky torso bending comes close to matching the "purity" of school figures as a demonstration of blade control?

Are you asking me to believe CoP Olympic champion Evan Lysacek demonstrates the same blade skill we saw from John Curry, Toller Cranston, Peggy Fleming and many other great skaters from the past

Where does this "purity" you ask for exist within the CoP?
If you think more careful measuring of completed revolutions in the AIR is the same thing then I am speechless.

If you believe 8 revolutions on a spin that typically murders the music interpretation makes a spin more "pure" I am stunned by your logic.

If you believe rotating in the air three times and then falling and getting partial credit has any relationship to the origins of figure skating I must simply give up. :sheesh:

A bunch of unethical, money grubbing cads run ISU. Some have little or NO idea about what used to be considered very fine figure skating.

I seriously doubt that as long as figure skating is run by a former second rate speed skater the sport will move in the right direction.

As to purity, I guess that means wild arm flapping, posing and karate kicks demonstrate the best tradition of blades on ice in the grand tradition of figure skating.

[gkelly]

I am always impressed and appreciative of your posts even when I disagree with them.

Thanks.

Let's try to get on the same page even if we ultimately disagree on what should be most important. I think it seems to you that I'm defending the status quo in all areas and it seems to me that you are attacking the status quo in all areas. Surely we can find more nuanced arguments addressing specific points without resorting to scattershot insults.

It's nice to talk aout the "purity" of skating but wasn't that thrown in the crapper after 1990 when figures were discontinued.

Not entirely. There have certainly been competitions in the last 21 years that were won primarily on the basis of skating skills, not jumps or "artistry."

My answer to all your questions below, as snidely worded, is "Of course not." I could come up with equally snide examples to argue against 6.0, or more examples against IJS, but what's the point? Why not take the issues seriously and look at them in detail?

Do you think level four CoP footwork which richly rewards wild arm flapping and herky-jerky torso bending comes close to matching the "purity" of school figures as a demonstration of blade control?

Let's focus on this one.

We could look at pure skating between the elements as well, but just to stick to step sequences...

Under 6.0, how step sequences were judged really depended a lot on the individual judges.
Probably some judges put a lot of weight on the edges, speed, difficulty and variety of turns including turns in both directions, etc., of the step sequences and used them to distinguish skaters just as much as they used the jumps. Probably other judges just valued one step sequence was pretty much worth the same as the next as long as it met the requirements of covering the pattern, unless it stood out as exceptionally strong or weak in some way. Maybe some paid a lot of attention to the artistic aspects of the steps and less to the technical aspects.

And with more skaters reaching senior level by the end of the 1990s without ever having competed school figures, the technical content of the step sequences had declined considerably from what

In the interests of consistency and of encouraging the skills that were being lost, IJS brought new rules for step sequences that gave higher scores for more difficult content. There have been tweaks almost every year in the rules for what earns a higher level.

I don't think they've gotten the balance quite right yet.

Instead of just complaining about whatever we like least about the current state of step sequences, or the pre-IJS state of step sequences, how about figuring out how to use the system to encourage the values we want to see rewarded and discourage those that are detrimental.

I have my own ideas about what should be rewarded more, or what should be less rewarded or less de facto required, and about how to rewrite the step sequence rules to encourage what I value more.

For one thing, I'd like to see the GOE values changed so that improving the quality and musicality can be more valuable than increasing the difficulty.

Also changes to what's required and what's optional to earn higher levels.

But I don't think that going back to an anything-goes situation is going to improve the skating quality of the step sequences.

[Mathman]

Thanks for the link. Tell me what is the value difference between an extra rotation on a jump, and jumping with an extra barrel?

Well, barrel-jumping is a real sport. The difference between jumping 15 barrels and jumping 14 is that 15 wins and 14 loses.

Maybe a better comparison would be decathlon. A competitor gets 850 points for running the 100 meters in 11.05 seconds, 908 points for putting the shot 16.92 meters, and 760 point for pole vaulting 4.5 meters.

Put a little music with that and voila!

By the way, in researching this post I found this incredible website where you can enter your times and distances in each event and it computes your points for you.

http://www.usatf.org/statistics/calc...EventsScoring/

[silverpond]

I once saw Trixi Schuba skate an exhibition with her school figures. Her tracings were amazing. The figures were perfectly laid on top of each other, sort of like the old-fashioned Palmer penmanship.
Her free skating was at a much lower level, both technically and artistically; however, she had amassed such a huge lead with the figures that she won the two World titles and Olympic gold medal. She won fairly and squarely with the scoring rules of that time.

Peggy Fleming also was a brilliant school figures skater, and she combined that with a beautiful, lyrical balletic style. She was the complete package.

IMHO, the endless hours of practicing the school figures enabled the skaters to develop good balance, carriage, and line. You had to be skate clean, precise figures to score well, and the judges also scored the skaters for their carriage and speed in tracing the figures.

Admittedly, this was not a spectator sport, and that probably contributed to the demise of the school figures.

In my view, "figure skating" is the right name. It combines the historical beginnings of the sport, and it's nice to remember history.