Was Suzuki twice a victim of underscoring and pageantry in PCS?

[Mathman]

However, what I love is to watch programs that are choreographed to use edges, steps, turns, and highlight moves in a coherent whole, with the jumps woven in as highlights within the fabric of the program rather than set off as isolated elements.

To me, this describes Suzuki's performance.

Re-watching, only the last triple Lo+2T had perhaps too long and straight a straight set-up. The highlight elements perfectly complemented the choreography. A bird -- specifically, a sandpiper (a kulik in Russian ) -- dancing along the sea shore, then popping up in the air now and then, as sandpipers do.

The Eurosport guys commented on the pure technique of her jump entries in a favorable way, and I agree.

For the rest of the performance, I cannot name each of the steps and turns she did, but her feet were always moving. I thought she did fine overall in the transitions department.

This is not to deny that Mao Asada is among the all-time greats at putting her mastery of skating skills to the service of the music and choreography. But this performance -- not her best.

[christinaskater]

I am happy for Akiko and Ashley! If this trend continues they will both possibly score 130's in their FS or even higher.

Ashley has the command of a champion which is her edge. You can just see that confidence pour out of her. She is so well-trained (mentally and physically).

Akiko is starting to get consistent. If she puts on 2 clean programs she will absolutely kill it as well.

[Bartek]

IMHO there should not be any points given for transitions that make you miss the jump. First things first.

1. A few turns leading directly into a 2Lo, not 3Lo.
2. No transitions on the entry to 2A+3T-- she landed it!

4. Long and simple entry into 2fLz, not 3Lz.
5. Just one turn into 1S, not 3S.

"7. difficult entrance with steps and very short set-up into 3F+2Lo+2Lo(tano arm), simple exit." -- Um, am I watching th wrong performance? I saw only a 2F, np combo, no Tano.

So my question is, what is the point of all these transitions into jumps if you don't follow through by doing the jump? Why would the CoP take it into its curious head to reward such a thing?



That you for that compilation. I intended to comment at the time, but the thread moved on before I got to it.

I actually like Suzuki's classic textbook jump entries. I do not think it adds anything of value to the program to twitch back and forth a few times before jumping -- especially if the twitching makes you miss the jump.

I think it is a flaw in the CoP to award irrelevant ornamentation over solid technique.

Wasn't it clear that I was talking about Asada's planned FS for this year, not the particular performance of it at NHK? I was comparing both program's structure, not the actual performance.

The fact is that Mao's program is a lot more difficult. I do think it adds to the program to twitch back and forth a few times before jumping simply because it makes your jumps more difficult to land. Just go on the ice rink and see. Try to land a flip like Akiko with long preparation and than like Mao with those mohawks.

There should be points given for transitions even if they make you miss the jumps. Your transitions score should be higher if you have them in your program regardless of your success with the jumps.

[Bartek]

I think you should read shine's post above as his/her take on Mao's transitions is more correct (mostly mohawks and three turns that any low level skater can do...)

Not really. Mao does spirals, spread eagles, ina bauers apart from those mohawks and three-turns. And again, just go to the ice rink and try to land a flip like Akiko and like Mao. You'll see the outcome. Even though Mao does "only" mohawks and three-turns beofre her flip it's still more difficult than Akiko's long straight entrences.

[Mathman]

Wasn't it clear that I was talking about Asada's planned FS for this year, not the particular performance of it at NHK? I was comparing both program's structure, not the actual performance.

Gosh, I don't agree with this point of view at all. What you plan to do doesn't mean a thing. It's what you do. You can't give someone a high score just because she planned to do something.

I do think it adds to the program to twitch back and forth a few times before jumping simply because it makes your jumps more difficult to land. Just go on the ice rink and see.

I did! I twitched like crazy. Missed all my jumps. Where's my gold medal?

There should be points given for transitions even if they make you miss the jumps.

I guess we will have to disagree about this. If a baseball player struck out while standing on his head, he still struck out.

[ImaginaryPogue]

For someone determined to celebrate figure skating's differences from other sports, you sure use a lot of sports analogies that don't make sense to me.

[gkelly]

Gosh, I don't agree with this point of view at all. What you plan to do doesn't mean a thing. It's what you do. You can't give someone a high score just because she planned to do something.

Very true.

But she did the steps leading into the jump. Therefore, she should get more credit for those steps than if she had just skating forward in a straight line. The whole program is being judged, not just the jumps.

I did! I twitched like crazy. Missed all my jumps. Where's my gold medal?

See, if you consider steps and turns and everything else between the jumps to be mere "twitching" you're missing the point of what a skating program is about. Why bother to skate a program at all if all that matters is landing jumps? Why not just have an event where skaters have 4 minutes to complete the hardest combination of 7 jumps and 3 spins with no points for anything but those jumps and spins?

If the point is the skating, then what happens with the blade on the ice, on edges, should be at least as what happens while both blades are in the air.

[shine]

Not really. Mao does spirals, spread eagles, ina bauers apart from those mohawks and three-turns. And again, just go to the ice rink and try to land a flip like Akiko and like Mao. You'll see the outcome. Even though Mao does "only" mohawks and three-turns beofre her flip it's still more difficult than Akiko's long straight entrences.

A couple of spirals and spread eagles don't automatically make a program full of transitions. Suzuki also had a great spiral on a very deep outside edge by the way. You are trying to make it sound like Asada's program was so much more difficult than Suzuki's when it's simply not. Do you know that a 3 turn into a flip is a very standard flip entry that they teach you at the can-skate level? Can you please stop preaching to everybody that Asada's FS is oh so much more difficult because 2 of her jumps had the mohwak entry? Sure, having a mohawk is more difficult than having no mohwak in the absolutely sense, and it makes a difference when you are just learning to skate. But for THEIR level, it's such a relatively rudimentary step that wouldn't make the judges go "Wow, that's such an amazing transition, I better give her an 8.5 for TR and +2 GOE for that jump!"

[Mathman]

For someone determined to celebrate figure skating's differences from other sports, you sure use a lot of sports analogies that don't make sense to me.

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson.

I construct logical arguments for a living. Figure skating is my refuge from consistency and logic.

Anyway... ... when I say figure skating is different from other sports I mean that besides accomplishing feats of derring-do as in all sports, in figure skating you are supposed to look pretty while you are doing it. (Here "looking pretty" means presenting well-constructed choreography, conveying the emotional content of the music, etc., etc.)

Figure skating is like other sports in that you get points for stuff like scoring goals. If you have a difficult approach to your shot but miss the goal -- nope.

In figure skating as in all endeavors, making something difficult for no other purpose than to make it difficult is not praiseworthy. (All IMHO of course.)

[Mathman]

But she did the steps leading into the jump. Therefore, she should get more credit for those steps than if she had just skating forward in a straight line. The whole program is being judged, not just the jumps.

She should get credit for the steps, but she should not get double credit, once in the GOE for the element and again in the transitions component, for the same steps. That's where I think the scoring system is wrong -- they give a reward twice for the same thing. It seems like one or the other but not both would be more fair.

At the least, if you are going to reward difficult jump entries in the transitions component score anyway, and if you miss the jump, then I do not see the merit in giving a double reward for making the entry to an element so hard that you can't do it at all.

See, if you consider steps and turns and everything else between the jumps to be mere "twitching" you're missing the point of what a skating program is about.

Skating between the jumps, yes, yes!

My complaint is that a lot of what counts as incorporating steps and turns as part of the jump entry is often in fact little more than a couple of twitches. Maybe I don't have a good enough eye. To me this seems especially true in the required solo triple in the short program. I also have a problem with the "immediately" part. A lot of these jumps have turns and steps -- and then a long straight entry edge. I think this should be counted as transitions in program components, but not also as GOE bullets if they are too far in advance of the actual takeoff.

[gkelly]

She should get credit for the steps, but she should not get double credit, once in the GOE for the element and again in the transitions component, for the same steps. That's where I think the scoring system is wrong -- they give a reward twice for the same thing. It seems like one or the other but not both would be more fair.
At the least, if you are going to reward difficult jump entries in the transitions component score anyway, and if you miss the jump, then I do not see the merit in giving a double reward for making the entry to an element so hard that you can't do it at all.
...
My complaint is that a lot of what counts as incorporating steps and turns as part of the jump entry is often in fact little more than a couple of twitches. Maybe I don't have a good enough eye. To me this seems especially true in the required solo triple in the short program. I also have a problem with the "immediately" part. A lot of these jumps have turns and steps -- and then a long straight entry edge. I think this should be counted as transitions in program components, but not also as GOE bullets if they are too far in advance of the actual takeoff.

Speaking for myself, as general principles...

I think that the “Transitions” score covers everything in the program that is not itself an element. The “difficulty” criterion would include not only the difficulty of the steps or other moves themselves but also how they add to the difficulty of the element they lead into (or out of) -- which would be “not much” if there’s a long enough pause for the skater to readjust balance and timing before initiating the element. The “intricacy” criterion would include how closely steps etc. are linked to the elements and how closely elements are linked to each other. So mere quantity doesn’t guarantee a high Transitions score if there are gaps between the transitional moves and the elements.

Then there are also the variety and quality criteria. Of course, it’s easier to have variety when there is more quantity, but it’s no guarantee.

If the quality of the element suffers, the quality of the transition may also suffer -- which would often be more true on an transition exiting a move than entering one.

Also, some transition moves (whether directly connected to elements or not) enhance the Choreography of the program and should also be rewarded in that component. Others are just thrown in to add difficulty so they wouldn’t help the Choreography component; some might even detract from the unity, seamlessness, coherence, phrasing, etc., of the program, in which case they could have a negative effect on that component.

As for the GOE, difficult entry (or exit) is just one bullet point toward positive GOE. Two bullet points are required for each plus. So a difficult entry on its own doesn’t guarantee a plus, and an error that requires negative GOE would often cancel out the benefits of the difficult entry.

Doubling an intended triple jump in a freeskate and landing it successfully is not “missing” the element. If it’s a successful double, it would be judged as such, and the GOE would be whatever it deserves as a successful double based on the quality of the jump -- with difficult entry or exit if applicable -- and the base value and the value of the positive GOE if any will be significantly lower than for a triple.

In a short program if a jump is required to be triple then doubling or singling it requires -3 GOE, so there’s no GOE benefit to be had from a difficult entry.

For the solo jump in the short program, if there’s a notable pause between the preceding moves and the jump, the judges are supposed to reduce the GOE from what would be for that jump on its own, as executed, in a different (e.g., long program) context. Skaters put steps before the SP solo jump because they’re required and have been since the 1970s because steps before a jump is a skill the ISU has long wanted to reward. If they don’t do it on that one element where it’s required, they lose points. On other elements, they open the opportunity to gain points.

A failed jump will always lose points. In some cases good qualities about the jump, including a difficult entry, may mitigate the amount of points lost.

So sometimes transition moves before a jump will add to both the Transitions component and possibly other components and to the GOE for the jump. Other times they will help the PCS but will be able to do nothing for a failed jump that had too much else wrong with it. Still other times it will add to the GOE but contribute little to the PCS. And occasionally (the same simple transitions repeated too often in the program with weak quality and/or resulting in a failed element) they will contribute nothing positive at all. That’s why I think it makes sense to allow transitions that contribute positively to the performance in more than one way to be rewarded in more than one way.

And the same for elements, which can be rewarded in GOE for several different kinds of positive qualities, up to +3, and can also be rewarded in PCS if they contribute to various criteria of the various components.

Now, if you want to choose a specific jump from a specific performance, with transitions, we could analyze what’s good and bad about it as a jump and also how it fits into the program as a whole.

[mskater93]

Not really. Mao does spirals, spread eagles, ina bauers apart from those mohawks and three-turns. And again, just go to the ice rink and try to land a flip like Akiko and like Mao. You'll see the outcome. Even though Mao does "only" mohawks and three-turns beofre her flip it's still more difficult than Akiko's long straight entrences.

I am nowhere near the elite level, but I have SIMILAR choreography and transitions to Mao in a program full of singles and a couple doubles. I don't find her transitions mind blowing or particularly difficult.

[Mathman]

Now, if you want to choose a specific jump from a specific performance, with transitions, we could analyze what’s good and bad about it as a jump and also how it fits into the program as a whole.

Here is one of the finest programs ever skated.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRqY2Q2WUl8

1. 1:52. A non-rotational jump into a forward spiral into a triple jump.

2. 2:44. Hydroplane into a triple Axel.

3. 3:48. Forward spiral into a triple Lutz (fall).

They should have waved the fall penalty. The fall was like the little mole on Marilyn Monroe's cheek. The imperfection without which the perfection would not be perfect.

If y'all judges don't send this man to the Olympics I am personally going to come down there and beat you about the head and shoulders.

[Bluebonnet]

Here is one of the finest programs ever skated.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRqY2Q2WUl8

I wish he had competed in a different year. Compared him with the US National Champion Ryan Bradley, Matt Savoie was definitely a superior skater! But he was just unlucky. Though I can't say it was one of the finest programs ever. Matt was so slow and didn't have much ice coverage. To confess, what I remembered about this Matt Savoie was his ugly costume color, overwhelmingly took my memory from his skating.

[mary01]

I am nowhere near the elite level, but I have SIMILAR choreography and transitions to Mao in a program full of singles and a couple doubles. I don't find her transitions mind blowing or particularly difficult.

lol i would love to see your SIMILAR choreography, by the way did i ever mention i have similar choreography too daisuke too