Results 1 to 15 of 23

Thread: Hypothetical "6.0" competition

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,964

    Hypothetical "6.0" competition

    I'd like to put together a group of programs for comparison in a hypothetical 6.0 competition -- you decide how you think they should be ranked -- for purposes of discussing what we each value or think should be valued in deciding competitions. The examples would be chosen to display some clear contrasts in strengths and weaknesses; therefore there will be no examples that contain the full package of high technical level, high artistic level, and clean inspired performance.

    There's no right answer -- I'm just curious about what we think should matter most. And if we reach a consensus, then what would be the best approach to scoring to encourage skaters to develop those strengths and judges to reward them?

    Let me know if you think you would be interested in participating.

    There are a few different ways I could set this up -- let me know what you think would work best:

    1) I make up the skaters and their programs and give verbal descriptions of the overall qualities throughout the program along with details about the jumps.

    2) I choose videos real, known skaters from the past, but I mix up the sources of the programs across different eras or other contexts.

    3) I select videos of real but not well-known skaters, e.g., from the ISU JGP channel (which would mean current competitors).


    Which discipline(s) would you be most interested in looking at?

  2. #2
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,825
    I think #3 would be the most interesting. We already have our prejudices about the programs of famous skaters of the past.

    Either men or ladies.

  3. #3
    At the rink. Again. mskater93's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,234
    #3 would be the best

  4. #4
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,964
    I agree that we'll get the best results from watching real performances by unfamiliar skaters.

    I'm a little leery about discussing the weaknesses of currently competing teenagers in a public forum. Should I go back to choose videos from more obscure competitions several years back, so at least the skaters would all be adults by now?

  5. #5
    skating philosopher Mrs. P's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The land of Agent Dale Cooper
    Posts
    9,685
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    I agree that we'll get the best results from watching real performances by unfamiliar skaters.

    I'm a little leery about discussing the weaknesses of currently competing teenagers in a public forum. Should I go back to choose videos from more obscure competitions several years back, so at least the skaters would all be adults by now?
    We could always just refer to them by number (and just hyperlink the program to those numbers).

  6. #6
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,964
    OK, that could work.

  7. #7
    Keeper of the Kweens OGM. MK's Winter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    884
    I will try to participate as well. Very creative idea!

  8. #8
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,964
    OK, here are two warmup groups worth of ladies’ freeskates taken from several different 2011 JGP events. Because they were not all skating against each other in front of the same panels of officials, there is no right answer as to how they “should” each rank against each other. Since the names are on the videos, if you're curious you can always go find the protocols from the respective events and check how these performances each scored under IJS.

    I’ve chosen these particular programs to avoid skaters who have already attracted a lot of attention among fans, to avoid skaters who don’t really look ready for junior competition, and to show some clear contrasts between skaters and within individual skaters’ skills.

    I recommend choosing either Group 1 or Group 2 to judge, although you’re welcome to do both if you want to challenge yourself.

    Please do not read other posters’ rankings or explanations before you have come up with your own.

    Remember this is first and foremost a skating contest. Jumps count, performance counts, and so does the content and quality of what each skater is doing with her blades on the ice throughout the program. And any other skills you think are important.

    How do you weigh each skater’s strengths and weaknesses against each other?

    What are the considerations that you would take into account, or think that judges should take into account, in ranking the programs by 6.0-based ordinals? What aspects do you think should be given significant weight in a score-based judging system such as the current IJS -- whether you think they now receive sufficient weight or not?

    Feel free to use the IJS scoring tools as guides or to ignore them and rely on your understanding of how freeskates were judged under 6.0.

    Please discuss. Have fun.

    Group 1
    Skater 1
    Skater 2
    Skater 3
    Skater 4
    Skater 5
    Skater 6
    * * * * *
    Group 2
    Skater 7
    Skater 8
    Skater 9
    Skater 10
    Skater 11
    Skater 12
    Last edited by gkelly; 11-30-2012 at 12:52 AM.

  9. #9
    Custom Title FSGMT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    3,027
    But, sorry, do we have to write the marks we would give or just explain how we would judge them?

  10. #10
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,964
    I'd like to know your rankings and your reasoning. If it helps to give scores out of 6.0, by all means include them.

    It's more of a floating scale than IJS is, since the actual scores don't contribute to the result. But in general junior scores could range anywhere from, say, mid 3s to mid 5s out of 6.

    Oh, and if you think a specific skater is much better in technical ability than in presentation, or vice versa, feel free to give very different scores for the two marks, although historically judges rarely actually did so.
    Last edited by gkelly; 11-30-2012 at 12:53 PM.

  11. #11
    Rinkside
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    2
    Okay so I watched all the skaters and judged them after each other.
    I have grown up in skating knowing the IJS more than the 6.0 system so this was hard for me.
    I had a tie in points. But gave the higher placement to the skater with the higher Presentation score because I had a feeling that is what was done on the 6.0 system.

    Skater 1 - Kerry -- Tech: 4.5 PS: 4.3 - 8.8 -- 10th

    Skater 2 - Swang -- Tech: 4.6 PS: 4.1 - 8.7 -- 11th

    Skater 3 - Milevskia -- Tech: 3.9 PS: 4.0 - 7.9 -- 12th

    Skater 4 - Papp -- Tech: 5.4 PS: 4.8 - 10.2 -- 5th

    Skater 5 - Kim -- Tech: 4.8 PS: 5.1 - 9.9 -- 6th

    Skater 6 - Taljegard -- Tech: 4.9 PS: 4.7 - 9.6 -- 8th

    Skater 7 - Linamae -- Tech: 5.6 PS: 5.2 - 10.8 -- 4th

    Skater 8 - Stavitskaia -- Tech: 5.7 PS: 5.4 - 11.1 -- 2nd

    Skater 9 - Purich -- Tech: 4.8 PS: 4.6 - 9.4 -- 9th

    Skater 10 - Ventard -- Tech: 4.5 PS: 5.1 - 9.6 -- 7th

    Skater 11 - Park -- Tech: 5.8 PS: 5.5 - 11.3 -- 1st

    Skater 12 - Shershack -- Tech: 5.4 PS: 5.5 - 10.9 -- 3rd

    Feel free to ask me for my reasoning

  12. #12
    Custom Title FSGMT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    3,027
    First of all, I don't know how the middle/low-level skaters were scored under 6.0, so I don't know if my marks would be correct or not.
    So, here are my marks with explanation and my ranking:
    Skater 1: T.M. 4.3 She tried just one triple (3Lo) but she almost fell in it, so I didn't consider it as valid, but she landed two clean 2As and other seven doubles, but she made some mistakes in them; her spins were good. A.I. 4.4 There was almost on interpretation, but I liked the choreography, her lines and her postyre and she had average SS. So the total for this skater was 8.7
    Skater 2: T.M. 4.2 She didn't try any triple or 2A, but I liked her cleaness and her spins, all of her double jumps were good, she has good technique and wonderful positions in her spins. A.I. 4.5 I loved her choreography, her SS, her flow on the ice and the way she listened to the music, the whole program looked better artistically than Skater 1's, she looked relaxed and happy to skate. She has to improve her edges, though. Her total is 8.7
    Skater 3: T.M. 4.3 I gave her this mark because of the two 3Ts and the wonderful LSp and FCSp, she tried a 3Lz but fell and made many major mistakes in the other jumps. A.I. 4.3 Her artsitic mark was the lowest of this "competition" because of her emotionless program, she looked scared and faltering on the ice, like if she was just focusing on the elements; the only positive thing have been her edges, she used them really well! Her total is 8.6
    Skater 4: T.M. 4.7 I really liked the height and the positions she had in her jumps (like the tano 2Lo), she landed 5 triples making no major mistakes and, without being very flexible, she was able to centre and control her spins very well. A.I. 4.5 The choreography was generic, almost no interpretation, but she had very good speed and posture! So, her total was 9.2
    Skater 5: T.M. 4.4 She tried the difficultest program here (she attempted 7 triples!), but she fell four times, the only decent jumps were a 3Lz and a 3T+2T+2Lo combo and, like many of teh others, she had very good spins. A.I. 4.7 I really liked this program: great interpretation, great use of the edges and of the blades, a lot of transitions between the elements, good choreography, I just didn't like her posture (she has really improved, this year!). Her total 9.1
    Skater 6: T.M. 4.4 She landed just two valid triples, making a minor mistake in her second 3S, and her 3T was <; she landed two good 2As and five clean doubles, her final CCoSp was fantastic! A.I. 4.4 Average speed, not a lot of transitions, nothing special in the choreography but good energy and good placements for the elements, they really followed the music! Her total 8.8
    So, my ranking would have been:
    1) Skater 4
    2) Skater 5
    3) Skater 6
    4) Skater 1-Skater 2
    6) Skater 3

  13. #13
    Custom Title FSGMT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    3,027
    I checked the IJS scores and this would have been the ranking comparing the scores:
    1) Skater 4
    2) Skater 5
    3) Skater 6
    4) Skater 1
    5) Skater 2
    6) Skater 3
    So, my judging has been quite good!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •