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 01:53 PM.
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
Thanks, Skate21. I would love to read what you have to say about your thought processes.
Let's try not to make the comments personal about these kids. Maybe refer to them by number or by nationality (RUS1/RUS2 and KOR1/KOR2 as applicable)?
Yes, the second mark was the tiebreaker for freeskates as of 1988-89. (Always the first mark for short programs.)
This is interesting, gkelly. I cannot participate since I do not know about markings. But I am also interested to learn about other's thought processes in a logical and factual way. I hope to gain some knowledge out of this exercise from the more knowledgeable posters.
Skater 6 - Tech 5.6, Pres 5.7
Skater 2 - Tech 5.5, Pres 5.6
Skater 1 - Tech 5.3, Pres 5.5
Skater 4 - Tech 5.8, Pres 5.1
Skater 3 - Tech 5.4, Pres 5.4
Skater 5 - Tech 5.3, Pres 5.3
I gave these marks after one viewing of each program, then re-watched so I could take more accurate notes about why I gave them.
I've been a casual fan since I was a kid watching Kristi Yamaguchi, am not a skater, and have precious little technical knowledge. Used Skater 1 as a benchmark for the other marks; no idea what sort of marks (tech especially) these would have actually merited in 6.0.
Skater 1: Nice dress! I like the music too. The speed is slow, and many of the jumps look sloppy. I think I see only one triple. Don't like the position the first sit spin or the position after the donut spin. Some interesting choreography, though.
Skater 2: Again, nice dress and nice music. Again, seems a bit slow, but she has a gentle quality that I like. The music suits her. I don't see any triples, but the doubles look mostly clean. The speed picks up a little in the SS which I like. Nice Biellmann.
Skate 3: ICK on the costume. The music is okay. A popped jump and a fall-not a good beginning-though the speed is vastly better than skaters 1 and 2. Very fast, centered spins, and WHOA flexibility. She looks tired towards the end. And...no combos? Did I miss one?
Skater 4: Ick on the dress, bleh on the music. Decent speed, easily the best jumps so far (though from the way her free leg swings around, maybe some are URed?) Choreography is dull. She seems to be skating straight through the music, not projecting at all. You can see the difference for me in the technical and presentation scores.
Skater 5: Pretty dress, meh music. Better speed than skaters 1 and 2, and the last two spins quite good. Tiny jumps. FOUR falls, hards ones, sitting down w/legs twisted so probably URed? One quite good combo, but does that + speed + spins make up for 4 falls? Weird how the opposite qualities still wound up with the same tech score as skater 1. Presentation would have been higher, but...4 falls.
Skater 6: Meh on the costume, but it seems to fit the music, which I like. Very good speed, gives an impression of strength and confidence. I feel like she's going to land everything before she attempts her first jump. (And she does!) I forget to count the triples. She seems to really feel and express the choreography, which again conveys strength and confidence and suits the music. I quite enjoy the step sequence. Of all the skaters in Group 1, this is the one I'd most like to watch again.
I'll probably do Group 2 separately tomorrow. This was fun!
Last edited by Wilhelmina; 12-01-2012 at 02:09 AM.
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
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!
May I suggest using IJS to score each skater? Perhaps somebody can find out the protocols/points for each element. We as judges just give + or - and presentation marks.