The combination spin

Like everything, the combination spin has changed with the introduction of the COP. A lot of skaters are now using spins they normally reserved for solo spins (the Y spin, for example). Some skaters used to use the combination spin as a "recap" of the spins they had done in the program (almost an--OK, here's another look at what I just did).

Do you feel that combination spins have moved in a positive or negative direction?

I feel that the innovative positions and the speed have helped move combination spins in a positive direction, personally. However, I feel that in the past, skaters had a "progression" with the combination spin that went with the music. They also maintained their speed. Now, when skaters change feet, they almost always seem to be coming out of a forward sit spin into a back camel or a back sit spin. When they enter into a back camel, they lose any speed they had before.

And some combination spins, while jawdropping in flexibility, I feel don't really add much to the music (and I think, in a way, detracts because it's almost like a-- oh, look what I can do! rather than a nice, challenging move that was harmonious with the program): http://youtu.be/0Jr0SYXseqQ

At 3:26, Courtney performs a Hamill Doughnut Camel into a pancake sit. Amazing flexibility, but I don't think it fits The Red Poppy...

I thought it fit Red Poppy ... it was fast and exciting and had a clever change in position.

Spins pre-COP were horrid. No one paid attention to them because jumps were paramount. (Same goes for step sequences). Spins were slow, had one position, and skaters only held them for 3 revolutions.

What, you aren't wild about the Courtney spin anywhere she cares to place it?!?

I love it. I just think the scratch spin at the end is a bit abbreviated and without much impact.

The donut spin is really trademarked by Hamill (figuratively)?

I have trouble with any criticism that certain elements don't go with the music in a program. To me that's the norm in figure skating. The music is usually an irrelevant sound track that could be changed and almost every program has many moments where the choreography and music are at odds, IMO. I really don't know what you mean in this case.

One great change in the combo spin is that we are seeing fewer glacially protracted spins as skaters try to reach the required revolution count. I don't follow COP rule changes - was there one about this?

Jumps were definitely not the be-all, end-all of the 6.0 system. Midori Ito would've won far more competitions (and deservedly so). Or someone like Tim Goebel would've won more competitions (less deservingly so). Spins, like everything else, were considered by judges under 6.0 before they rendered a ranking. It's just not explicitly specified how much weight is given to spins unlike in the CoP. This may mean the weight given to spins were inconsistent. But skaters and coaches still got direct feedback from judges, and anybody with subpar spins is going to get an earful.

The greatest spinner the sport has ever seen (by which I mean recorded on video for posterity) is Lucinda Ruh, who competed under 6.0. Stephane Lambiel, her worthy successor when it comes to spinning, was raised under 6.0. And it should be noted that Lambiel actually got lower levels on his spins when the CoP first started out, because he failed to satisfy some of its byzantine level requirements. The same is true of the other great spinner competing nowadays. Alissa Czisny used to only get a level 3 on her layback to Biellmann spin because she failed to satisfy the level requirement that the speed of the spin increase significantly (Alissa starts out blazing fast and never lets up, clearly her own fault).

And therein lies the problem with spins under the CoP: as with many other elements, the CoP ties too much of its points to complexity rather than quality. It's all about cramming in changes of position and edges. A lot of the times, doing those things don't indicate someone is a better spinner, don't improve the aesthetics of a performance and don't challenge skaters. For instance, the ubiquitous haircutter variation on the layback spin is something every female skater who aren't going for a Biellmann does. At the higher levels of competition, it's pretty much a perfunctory gesture that any female skater, regardless of her flexibility or spinning abilities, can do. And yet it contributes to raising spin levels, thus the points, and thus they all do it. The same is true of the donut spin for men's skating as a level-raising feature in camel spins. Although for a lot of those skaters, it's really more of a bent paperclip than a donut.

But it's not all bad. It is a very good thing that skaters can now see exactly how much their spins are worth. And it is a good thing that fundamental parts of a spin's quality (such as centering, control, speed) are listed in the guidelines for spin GOEs. This should, theoretically, lead to much better spins all around.

Unfortunately, judges have a tendency to be stingy with the GOEs for lower level skaters, or skaters who skate earlier in a competition. On the other hand, tech panels (from what I've seen) tend to be very even-handed in making level calls. This creates a playing field in which satisfying level requirements is a much more certain guarantee of higher points than improving spin quality. So for the future, in order to have better spins, I believe the CoP should reduce the emphasis on variations and complexities for levels (in fact, why have 4 levels for spins?), while judges need to be whipped into shape (perhaps literally) when it comes to scoring fairly.

"Bent paperclip" - wonderful phrase and you are so right. One of my pet peeves is the way even the best skaters pass through the bent paperclip position on their way to the donut. I think extra points should go to the ones who go straight to Donut without passing Bent Paperclip.

According to IJS's Scale Of Values, point differences between levels for spins are between 0.3 and 0.5. Positive GOE are worth 0.5, 1.0 and 1.5 while the negative GOE are -0.3, -0.6 and -0.9. So the reward for good execution is higher than penalty for poor execution. However, any negative GOE takes away all or most of the advantage of a higher level whereas even a +1 GOE will make up for a lower level spin.

All in all, it's not really a wise strategy to do a higher level spin poorly.

Change of foot combo spins almost as a rule always look horrible and take up too much time now. I would much prefer a brief spin well done and not all these requirments for levels.

Spun Silver said:

I have trouble with any criticism that certain elements don't go with the music in a program. To me that's the norm in figure skating. The music is usually an irrelevant sound track

Click to expand...

:scowl: :sheesh: :disapp:

People often blame ugly performances and executions on COP but what it does is show up
the differences between the good and the bad skating or executions of elements. It therefore challenges skaters to improve by being demanding and unforgiving.

Briefer and simpler spins can more easily be designed to fit the music and/or the theme of the program. So I think that even under 6.0 the more artistically effective spins tended to be those that weren't trying to fit requirements to be complex, such as the short program combination spin.

There are, of course, always exceptions.

It might be interesting to look at some men's short programs from ca. 1992. At that time it seems that the requirements were one combination spin same as today (exactly one change of foot, at least two changes of position and all three basic positions must be included), one flying spin same as today, and another combination spin with at least two changes of foot (and only two basic positions?).

Here are some of the best male spinners of that era. How do they compare, technically and aesthetically, to the best spinners of 2011?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfEF_0GeDwc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rOqkEWpqQ0

Serious Business said:

The greatest spinner the sport has ever seen (by which I mean recorded on video for posterity) is Lucinda Ruh, who competed under 6.0.

Click to expand...

I don't think we can mention Lucinda Ruh without also mentioning Nathalie Krieg, who established the standard that Ruh maintained.

SkateFiguring said:

According to IJS's Scale Of Values, point differences between levels for spins are between 0.3 and 0.5. Positive GOE are worth 0.5, 1.0 and 1.5 while the negative GOE are -0.3, -0.6 and -0.9. So the reward for good execution is higher than penalty for poor execution. However, any negative GOE takes away all or most of the advantage of a higher level whereas even a +1 GOE will make up for a lower level spin.

Click to expand...

The difference in base value between the highest and lowest level of a spin range from 1 at the lowest to 1.5, with most spins varying it up at 1.2 between levels 1 and 4. Racking up a +1.5 in GOE, however, would require almost all of the judging panel to give that element +3. Even Alissa Czisny only gets a +1.5 in GOE for her layback spin consistently, her change of foot and position spin (her sit spin) only gets around a +1.3 (rather inexplicably if you ask me as it is a wonder). Racking up spin levels is a more direct path to gaining points than attempting to increase GOE. I already explained the basic reasons why in my last post, but to go into more depth:

GOEs and level calls are rendered by two totally different systems. GOEs come from trimmed mean of a big panel of judges. Level calls come from a 3 person tech panel, well really one person if there are no objections or calls for reviews.

What this means in practice is that the tech panel will confidently, consistently and fairly (most of the time anyway) call out the level of a spin.

On the other hand, GOEs are an average. For many elements, most judges just sit on their hands and give it no GOE either way. This is especially true (at least from the protocols I've read) in junior levels, or skaters skating earlier in a large competition, or skaters who aren't well established. And every one of those 0s add up and get averaged in to dilute the final GOE. Then there's the befuddling fact that judges don't seem to have a solid grasp on GOE requirements at all. If you just look at the protocols for the recent ladies short program at Skate America, for instance, you'll find all kinds of inconsistent GOEs across the panel. Marchei got two -1, two +1 a -2 and four 0's for her last spin. Joshi got two +1 and one -1 for her level 3 layback spin.

So any skater/coaches/choreographers will look at protocols reflecting their work, and see on the one hand a clear guide for how to improve scores by racking up spin levels, and on the other hand something much more ambiguous on how to improve scores via spin GOEs. Guess which one they go for?

Of course, if you read the CoP rules itself, it shouldn't be ambiguous. It clearly spells out how many qualities a skater needs to achieve to get a certain amount of + bullets. If the CoP was actually practiced as written, then yes it would be possible for skaters to bank on a higher quality low level spin to gain points over a shoddy attempt at a higher level spin. But again, judges need whipping.

^^^ You're comparing the lowest and the highest levels. I was referring to the difference in values between two closest levels, which vary only between 0.3 and 0.5 points, easily compensated with a +1 GOE whereas a -1 GOE also takes away the added value of being graded a level up. Doing something too difficult could possibly receive worse than -1 GOE. The risk/reward consideration does not favor doing a high level spin poorly.

SkateFiguring said:

^^^ You're comparing the lowest and the highest levels. I was referring to the difference in values between two closest levels, which vary only between 0.3 and 0.5 points, easily compensated with a +1 GOE whereas a -1 GOE also takes away the added value of being graded a level up. Doing something too difficult could possibly receive worse than -1 GOE. The risk/reward consideration does not favor doing a high level spin poorly.

Click to expand...

It's not possible to get -1 GOE on a spin. The most is -.9. A skater would have to make multiple and/or severe mistakes on a spin for most judges to ding them with three minuses, resulting in -.9. Lesser mistakes and imperfections will get them around a 0 GOE. It's not much of a risk in practice with most judges afraid to rock that GOE boat much.

If what you're saying is true, and I wish it were, we would see more high level skaters do simpler spins well rather than do hard spins awkwardly, but we don't. At a certain level of competition all the skaters go for the levels, regardless of their seeming limits.

Serious Business said:

It's not possible to get -1 GOE on a spin. The most is -.9. A skater would have to make multiple and/or severe mistakes on a spin for most judges to ding them with three minuses, resulting in -.9. Lesser mistakes and imperfections will get them around a 0 GOE. It's not much of a risk in practice with most judges afraid to rock that GOE boat much.

Click to expand...

I pointed out upthread that positive GOE values are much higher than negative GOE for spins, thus making a well done spin worth more then a poorly done higher leveled one.

If what you're saying is true, and I wish it were, we would see more high level skaters do simpler spins well rather than do hard spins awkwardly, but we don't. At a certain level of competition all the skaters go for the levels, regardless of their seeming limits.

Click to expand...

It's not just about spins but there is a IMO mistaken rush to do harder elements without mastering the easier ones, ergo all the URS, edge calls, slow contorted spins, etc. It seems such mentality is particularly common in the US. I don't know where it originates, from the skaters, their parents, coaches, or the federation.

I love spins - way more then jumps, though I have to admit I don't know what exactly defines a combination spin. Change of position, change of edge, change of foot, change of the basic spin your spin is based on?

I like that CoP gives spins a defined value and skaters are paying more attention to them. I do sometimes feel they are overly complex, and in someways the best spinners are the most guilty of this, cause they can . I miss Angela Nikodinov's layback - the position was beautiful, the centering was great, maybe she moved her leg some, moved her arms - it created a moment for me that I don't get in most of today's spins. Maybe a choreo spin is in order - where the level is held down and skaters have to make points on GOE. Right now I assume skaters can potentially get level 4 on all their spins.

SkateFiguring- I agree that skaters seem to rush to the hard stuff before mastering the easier stuff. Just my impression

I don't know of any examples of a competitive skater who consistently does a low level spin well, so I can't say definitively how a judge would mark it. Maybe they would give it decent +GOE, SkateFiguring. I wish some skater or other would try this strategy.

Meanwhile, the ISU could revise the rules for spins like they did for footwork: make one of the spins in the FS free of level calls, just like they do for the choreographed footwork/spiral sequence.

Or, in my wilder imaginings, lower the number of allowed jumps by 1 in the FS for singles and allow an additional choreographed element that could be a spin/footwork/spiral.