Hypothetical "6.0" competition | Golden Skate

Hypothetical "6.0" competition

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
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?
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
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.
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
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?
 

Mrs. P

Uno, Dos, twizzle!
Record Breaker
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
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).
 

dorispulaski

Wicked Yankee Girl
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Country
United-States
How about picking from the 2011-2012 season JGP rather than the 2012-2013 season on ISUJGP2011 channel?

If we use this season, I can't play, because I watched almost all of those programs :slink:

Last year, I didn't, so I could play.
 

emma

Record Breaker
Joined
Oct 28, 2004
I can't promise to play along, but will read - this is an interesting topic and really useful for thinking about scoring as well as fan reaction for those of us who react on boards like this.
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
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:

FSGMT

Record Breaker
Joined
Sep 10, 2012
But, sorry, do we have to write the marks we would give or just explain how we would judge them?
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
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:

Skate21

Spectator
Joined
Nov 30, 2012
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
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
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.)
 

spikydurian

Medalist
Joined
Jan 15, 2012
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.
 

Wilhelmina

On the Ice
Joined
Mar 5, 2012
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:
Top