If you could change one thing about Figure Skating, what would it be?

[gkelly]

Thanks for the welcome, and thanks gkelly for explaining! I thought if the layback was fast enough and in flawless position throughout (which is probably pretty difficult to do), it might could get a high level, but I see that more features are necessary.

The way the system is set up,
Levels are based on adding extra difficulty -- always based on the number of features performed.

Grades of execution are based on quality.

So you're right that skaters can earn more points by spinning faster and with more attractive positions, but those extra points would come from the GOE, not from a higher level.

I'm confused about forward and backward laybacks.

A forward spin is one that rotates toward the leg on the ice. E.g., for a skater who rotates counterclockwise (toward the left), as most skaters do, a forward spin is on the left foot.

A backward spin rotates away from the leg on the ice. For a counterclockwise skater, that would be on the right foot, spinning to the left.

In general backspins tend to be more difficult, and especially in the layback position.

Almost all laybacks you've ever seen have been forward spins. This is especially true in the required short program layback, which doesn't allow a change of foot.

Occasionally skaters go into a laid-back position on the backspin foot as part of a combination spin.

Here's a rare attempt at a backward layback (layback position in a backspin to earn the "backward entry" feature as well as the change between sideways and layback feature.


If you happen to know ballet terminology, forward spin = en dedans/inside pirouette; backspin = en dehors/outside pirouette.

[eyria]

Thanks for this technical explanation, gkelly. Very enlightening.

[mskater93]

Also, "clear increase of speed" as a feature has been rarely rewarded, so you can probably cross that off the list...

[Jo1]

Cinquanta!!!!!

[gkelly]

Cinquanta!!!!!

What would you change him to?

[drivingmissdaisy]

In regards to spins, I'd like to the judges use the full range of GOE to reward great spins and punish poorly executed ones. It is rare for skaters to get -GOE on spins, so the great spinners IMO are not rewarded enough relative to poor spinners.

[gkelly]

In regards to spins, I'd like to the judges use the full range of GOE to reward great spins and punish poorly executed ones. It is rare for skaters to get -GOE on spins, so the great spinners IMO are not rewarded enough relative to poor spinners.

How do you handle spins that meet the minimum requirements for that kind of spin in terms of position and number of revolutions, and don't travel noticeably, but don't have any noticeable strong points? To me, that's an adequate spin, deserving of 0 GOE.

Then, what about spins that have several good qualities (bullet points), such as speed, number of revolutions, some good positions, centering in part, but then have one section that travels or one weak position or awkward change, etc.? Those will be a balance between pluses and minuses -- the minuses might take an otherwise +2 spin down to +1, or +1 down to 0. Of course if the spin was just adequate to begin with and then got worse (or started with a problem and then recovered to adequate), that would probably be -1.

And if there's a major error, even if some parts of the spin are good, then it should end up negative.

It's easy to focus on the negatives and ignore the good parts of a spin. Especially if you're used to watching good-to-great skaters. Look at the protocols for the bottom-finishing skaters at JGP, senior B, Four Continents, etc., let alone US regionals, and you'll see a lot more minuses for spins.

But I agree, there does need to be some way of making sure that the spins that are excellent throughout are rewarded above those that are good with flaws as well as distinguishing good-with-flaws from mediocre with flaws or outright bad.

[drivingmissdaisy]

Then, what about spins that have several good qualities (bullet points), such as speed, number of revolutions, some good positions, centering in part, but then have one section that travels or one weak position or awkward change, etc.? Those will be a balance between pluses and minuses -- the minuses might take an otherwise +2 spin down to +1, or +1 down to 0. Of course if the spin was just adequate to begin with and then got worse (or started with a problem and then recovered to adequate), that would probably be -1.

What I'd like to see is having a good benchmark for a +3, like a good Czisny spin. She is usually well-centered, has attractive positions, is fast, and maintains speed throughout the spin. I think it would be fair to take off 1-2 points of GOE (from +3) based on the degree that each of those characteristics are lacking.

[gkelly]

What I'd like to see is having a good benchmark for a +3, like a good Czisny spin. She is usually well-centered, has attractive positions, is fast, and maintains speed throughout the spin. I think it would be fair to take off 1-2 points of GOE (from +3) based on the degree that each of those characteristics are lacking.

In practice, that's pretty much what we get. It's pretty rare to see +3s on any element, especially from the whole judging panel, although it probably happens more often on spins than on other kinds of elements.

Those spins that have received all/mostly +3s can be used as examples for judges -- should the ISU put out a training video with examples? (And make it available to the skaters and other interested observers as well?)

But I don't know that it makes much sense to look at all spins in terms of the ultimate perfection and then think only in terms of subtraction. Most spins won't come close to perfection, so it makes more sense to look at where they were better (or worse) than adequate, with 0 rather than +3 as the benchmark.

What I do wonder is whether it would be officially acceptable to say that just doing something well (extra revolutions, centering, attractive positions) is worth one bullet point, but if it's OMG out of this world with drop-dead gorgeous positions throughout or 4-5 times as many revolutions as required a judge can award the same bullet point twice and end up, e.g., with +3 just for doing three things really really well rather than needing to do six things well.