Why the Short Program?

I'm wondering why the short program still exists? I enjoy them - more skating to watch, I'd miss them if they were gone! But most casual fans don't see them, and then they don't really understand why skater x won even though skater y had more points in the free skate.

I believe SP were once more controlled on the tech side so judges in were looking at apple and apple instead of apples and oranges. Now I'd say the SP and FS are measuring mostly the same skills, the only difference being length.

Without a SP competitions would be cheaper to run, average fans would see the whole competition and maybe LP would be cleaner (less tired skaters)

I think it's just a historical thing. It's always been done that way. That's the way it's gotta be.

For the same reason, gymnastics has all those non-important qualifying events. Why not scrap all of them and have one event? It would save a lot of time.

For me, having one program would be a bit anticlimactic. When a skater does surprising well in a SP, for example, it does build excitement and interest until the LP. Also, it can help get the jitters out at a competition instead of having to go right out and do a LP packed with tricks.

From the ISU perspective, it may be about the money (i.e. selling tickets to two events rather than one). And I think brightphoton is right that it is a historical thing; IIRC all events had 3 portions (dance: 3 dances, skating: figures, SP, LP). With the elimination of figures, skating events were left with two events.

Hey, the skaters fly all that way to the venue. They should get more than a four-minute chance (or thereabouts) to show what they're made of.

The short program hasn't been around forever. It was established in about 1973 to give a better advantage to wonderful free skaters who were spotty in school figures. It was almost custom-made for Janet Lynn. I like it because it shows other strengths than the ones in the long program, and because it gives me two chances to watch a skater I enjoy. Gymnastics fans get to watch a bunch of programs by each gymnast: four or six individual events depending on their gender for the team championship, those events again for the all-around individual championship, and then the specific apparatus championships.

On that topic, it seems unfair to me that a gymnast can get two, three, even six or seven medals at one Olympics but that it all comes down to one medal for skaters. I think we should establish medals for the short program, and that they should be given retroactively. Let's hear it for Brian Orser and Michelle Kwan, Olympic gold medalists!

drivingmissdaisy said:

For me, having one program would be a bit anticlimactic. When a skater does surprising well in a SP, for example, it does build excitement and interest until the LP. Also, it can help get the jitters out at a competition instead of having to go right out and do a LP packed with tricks.

From the ISU perspective, it may be about the money (i.e. selling tickets to two events rather than one). And I think brightphoton is right that it is a historical thing; IIRC all events had 3 portions (dance: 3 dances, skating: figures, SP, LP). With the elimination of figures, skating events were left with two events.

Click to expand...

Actually the short program is a relatively new concept. It was introduced in the 1970s in singles after people were upset that figures played such a heavy role in keeping skaters down, especially skaters who were great at the free skate, which many felt was the true reflection of a well-packaged skater.

The short program was not a perfect solution -- figures still kept skaters down -- that's why Midori Ito was fifth at the 1988 Olympics despite placing fourth and third in the SP and LP respectively. (She was 10th in figures).

Thanks for the info. I had no idea the short program was so recent. I'm contented with the format as it stands but I do think it adds to the confusion of casual TV viewers - though it helps that NBC routinely shows a few of the top shorts before the free skates.

I'm sort of surprised that when figures were eliminated that more defined tech content wasn't added to the SP - kind of like the way in ice dancing the short dance has elements of both compulseries and the original dance.

Interesting comparison with gymnastics. For women, if they do all four events in the team comp it probably is only about 4 mins of actual performing, and if you are there only to do vault, less the 30 seconds. Many don't get then to all around or event finals.

Olympia said:

I think we should establish medals for the short program, and that they should be given retroactively. Let's hear it for Brian Orser and Michelle Kwan, Olympic gold medalists!

Click to expand...

Katarina may not like that! She doesn't want anything to do with a bronze in figures in 84 and 88. Then again, Liz would make a good Olympic champion, and Nancy, Michelle, and Sasha would be happy to have gold.

This would be more expensive and therefore not likely to be considered, but I would like to see the short program replaced by element competitions, each with its own medal. And then the skaters who get the highest combined placement in those earlier events would advance to a well-balanced freeskate final round that earns the most prestigious medal.

^^

Element competitions like - spins, jumps, footwork & MIF?

I like it! Gold medal spinners Alissa, Lucinda & Stephane

I would prefer to keep the short program and eliminate the long.

No, really, Math? No "Song of the Black Swan"? No "Bolero"? No [fill in your favorite skates of all time here]? I'm not sure I could go along with that. I'm not even sure you could!

Olympia said:

No, really, Math? No "Song of the Black Swan"? No "Bolero"? No [fill in your favorite skates of all time here]? I'm not sure I could go along with that. I'm not even sure you could!

Click to expand...

i prefer the short program. too much time wasted for jump set up in the long programs. i mean, if it's a skater whose SKATING i enjoy. i don't just mean a skater whose skating skills is first class but who can't reliably land a 2a as a single skater (gordeeva), even for very good jumpers like MK, mao, i want to see choreography and interpretation of music, not jump set ups.

YMMV


ETA. have just 1 program. it'd be better. then everybody's in the running and nobody has won the competition in the short so that the 2nd half (long program) leaves me wondering, isn't there a better game on

Only 3 or 4 different kinds of jumps per skater? No jump sequences? No flying combination spins or combo spins with 0 or 2+ changes of foot?

What I like about short programs is that IMHO they have the right balance between structure and freedom. I com[pare them to sonnets. Everything has to fit into the prescribed meter, but within those parameters, look at all originality, variety, and beauty the form promises.

Plus, as skfan mentions, I think there is a nice balance between jumps, other elements, and pure skating. Also short programs are, by and large, better choreographed.

Not to mention their most sublime virtue -- they're short.

Long programs seem more like marathons of endurance. Too many jumps, mostly ill-placed musically.

gkelly said:

Only 3 or 4 different kinds of jumps per skater? No jump sequences? No flying combination spins or combo spins with 0 or 2+ changes of foot?

Click to expand...

Maybe each competition could feature two short programs, to give the skaters a chance to show a variety of skills. The two would be expected to show contrasting styles, tempos, etc.

Mathman said:

Maybe each competition could feature two short programs, to give the skaters a chance to show a variety of skills. The two would be expected to show contrasting styles, tempos, etc.

Click to expand...

I could live with that. As long as we're fantasizing, how should we divide up the requirements?

ivy said:

I'm wondering why the short program still exists? I enjoy them - more skating to watch, I'd miss them if they were gone! But most casual fans don't see them, and then they don't really understand why skater x won even though skater y had more points in the free skate.

I believe SP were once more controlled on the tech side so judges in were looking at apple and apple instead of apples and oranges. Now I'd say the SP and FS are measuring mostly the same skills, the only difference being length.

Without a SP competitions would be cheaper to run, average fans would see the whole competition and maybe LP would be cleaner (less tired skaters)

Click to expand...

I don't see what's so hard to understand about the fact that there are two segments to the competition, the points are added up, and so winning the second one doesn't guarantee the highest point total. There are plenty of things casual viewers don't get about the sport, but that shouldn't be one of them.

I rather like having one segment with a more limited number of elements that gives more room for choreography, etc.

On the topic of element competitions, they tried a jump competition for top skaters before, but it never caught on.

gkelly said:

I could live with that. As long as we're fantasizing, how should we divide up the requirements?

Click to expand...

Could we just keep the requirements pretty much the same as they are now? Three jumping passes, two spins, one or two spirals, one or two footworks? The scoring would be set up in such a way as to "expect" the skaters to do three different jumps in each of the two programs. Not necessarily, but strongly favored in the scoring system.

Or -- one of the programs might give extra rewards to the "small jump sequence" , split jumps, weird wally+bunny hop combinations, and also to moves in the field like ina bauers, spread eagles, Charlottes, etc.

In fact, the more I think about it, the two programs could be called the short technical program and the short free program.

Olympia said:

On that topic, it seems unfair to me that a gymnast can get two, three, even six or seven medals at one Olympics but that it all comes down to one medal for skaters. I think we should establish medals for the short program, and that they should be given retroactively. Let's hear it for Brian Orser and Michelle Kwan, Olympic gold medalists!

Click to expand...

They do give out medals for the short program at Worlds. It's smaller than the overall championship medal but they do give them.

Mathman said:

Could we just keep the requirements pretty much the same as they are now? Three jumping passes, two spins, one or two spirals, one or two footworks? The scoring would be set up in such a way as to "expect" the skaters to do three different jumps in each of the two programs. Not necessarily, but strongly favored in the scoring system.

Click to expand...

So both programs would have the same requirements (as the current short program) but skaters would be expected to show different skills in each?

Just for fun, I came up with a couple of options.

Least restrictive:
Every skater gets 14 elements to spread across two 3-minute programs:
6-8 jump passes (may include one small-jump sequence with levels)
3-5 spins
1-2 step sequences
1-2 miscellaneous (spiral sequence, field moves sequence, school figures variation)

Basically the limits and requirements are the same as in the current long program, with a few extra elements allowed, and they can be spread across the two programs any way the skater chooses. The tech panel would keep track of what was done in the first program and consider those slots already filled so skaters would have to show different skills in the second program.

The most unbalanced approach would be to put all the jumps and spins in one program and include only the sequences and uncaptured pure skating in the other program. That would be allowed and could be a valid strategy if planned intelligently with the music and choreography for each program. Most skaters would probably opt for 4 jumps, 2 spins, and 1 sequence in each program or differ from that by only 1 element.

Most restrictive:
Both programs would be technical programs, and shorter than the current long program, with required elements that would force every skater to show a good balance of technical skills expected of senior-level skaters. Maybe the rules specify which elements must go in program 1 and which in program 2, or maybe the skater just has a list of required elements that must be spread across the two programs in a template like 4 jumps, 2 spins, 1 sequence per program but the exact distribution is the skater's choice.

*Solo axel jump (double or triple)
*Solo lutz (double, triple, or quad)
*Solo salchow or loop jump immediately preceded by steps or other connecting moves (double, triple, or quad)
*Solo toe loop or flip jump immediately preceded by steps or other connecting moves (double, triple, or quad)
*Any other solo jump not one of the above
*Jump combination consisting of any two jumps of 2 or more revolutions
*Another jump combination of any two or three jumps, at least one of which must be triple
*Sequence of 3 or more jumps of no more than 2 revolutions each, or may include one double axel or one triple not already executed, with no more than one step or turn between jumps, level features to be determined
(Zayak rule applies to repeated triples and quads)

*Forward camel or layback spin, no change of foot, no catch-foot positions but other features allowed
*Spin with all 3 basic positions (may fly, may change feet)
*Spin with backward entry (may change feet and/or position)
*Spin with flying entry (may change feet and/or position)
(no 2 spins may have the same code)

*Step sequence, which must meet the requirements for “simple variety of steps and turns” (if not, the tech panel will flag it and judges must give negative GOE; if yes and there’s also at least one other feature, then it will earn a higher level)

*Field Moves sequence which must include at least 1 spiral with the free leg at hip height or above; may include other spirals and/or choice of spread eagle, Ina Bauer, shoot-the-duck/hydroblading positions; features to be determined

Or -- one of the programs might give extra rewards to the "small jump sequence" , split jumps, weird wally+bunny hop combinations, and also to moves in the field like ina bauers, spread eagles, Charlottes, etc.

In fact, the more I think about it, the two programs could be called the short technical program and the short free program.

Click to expand...

So maybe the short technical program (STP) would be similar to the SP in the 1980s, or to the current junior SP, with specified elements that rotate each year.

And the short free program (SFP) could be ~3 minutes, maximum 8 or maybe 9 elements, which could be exactly the same elements as in the tech program plus an extra, or completely different elements, or some repeats and some new. The Scale of Values would list all the possible elements that gain points, SFP rules would put caps of maybe 5 jump elements, 3 jump combos, 2 repeated jumps, 3 spins (each with different codes), but otherwise the skater could mix and match at will.

That wouldn't allow any way to penalize skaters for repeating the exact same content in both programs or reward them for showing variety across programs, though.

And if you want variety between programs in music and choreo style, how would that be enforced or encouraged?

Dragonlady said:

They do give out medals for the short program at Worlds. It's smaller than the overall championship medal but they do give them.

Click to expand...

you must be kidding! i never evr saw a medal ceremony for the short program! I actually learned something new today that should be obviously known to skate fans of years! This is amazing! Why only at worlds? Figureskating needs a total overhaul. You ubers need to tell whoever that the whole thing should be scrapped and this board of fans/skaters/scoring experts could come up with the best system for the sport. maybe GS could have a competition called The new improved IJS and start with beginners through seniors. Overhaul everything. I could never begin to do it but clearly there are people who could. The skaters and the sport and the artistry must be evaluated, but it should be simplified so the fans get the whole thing without consulting manuals.

It could be called the GS Project and begun immediately after Worlds, or the last ISU event of 2012. There seem to be a lot of learned folks here with time to devote. Perhaps we could submit names for the committee or just take position papers from individual posters. Then people could comment in sections. Someone needs to save the sport and why not GS? Do-able and interesting and exciting! Imagine a polished piece being presented to the ISU by the GS owner. All the bitching, all the ideas channeled into constructive action.

Why not? As MK used to say....too crazy?