I think Osmond may kick Kim's butt. Osmond is amazing skater
I think Osmond may kick Kim's butt. Osmond is amazing skater
Keep to the topic of skating, not each other. If you have concern about another poster or feel someone has gone against the guidelines, report it to the mods. We encourage all posters and opinions. Let's keep it friendly for everyone. This is not a skater specific site.
True, I mostly agree. The question is how do you measure whether the said "extra" contribute a lot or a little to the criteria of the TR component? Hence, I think a simple rule of thumb to go by is that if the free skating move or steps in question satisfy both the GOE and TR criteria re: creative / difficult / unexpected or intricate, then the contribution is considered major, otherwise, no. Another factor is judges are laser focus on GOE, and tend to prioritize their time on deciding what to assign on GOE. It would be efficient in solving two questions with one thought process. This also creates a consistent standard such that Skater #1 cannot come back and complain that he/she did the exact same thing as skater #15 but somehow, you failed to give him credit while rewarding the person who skated later. Of course, this may result in lower than average GOE vs. the panel's average but you will gain a high degree of consistency, which is also very important and most importantly, fair to the skaters since everyone is subject to the same rigorous standard.But I thought we were mainly talking about the transitions component more than the GOEs, so even if the GOE is not raised (even if it's -3 because of flaws in later phases of the element), doing a single skating move before or after a might contribute a lot or a little to the Transitions component, depending on what the move was, how well it was performed, and how closely it was linked to the element.
Specifically, one spiral or spread eagle leading directly into a jump could be considered as adding difficulty IF it affects the balance and alignment required for the takeoff of the jump. Same with, e.g., a single backward counter or three turn into an axel jump. And it would also contribute to the intricacy of the transitions: a skating move, especially one that covers a lot of ice, immediately linked to an element.
That's precisely why I don't feel in this specific case re: Yu Na's Triple Flip in her National LP should get any GOE bullet for unusual / difficult entry given that they did not demonstrate anything that would differentiate that particular set up from that a good novice or junior skater.I've seen many many skaters from juvenile level and up break up their long diagonal lutz approaches with a couple of little choctaws on indeterminate edges. I'm not impressed, because the quality is often weak and the exit edge of the last choctaw is not directly connected to the lutz takeoff -- there's usually a flat held for some distance and then the takeoff may not be off an outside edge at all. At higher levels, the edges might at least be identifiable, but not notable or strong.
Yes, I agree this particular entry done by Urmanov is both impressive and difficult. Your example is interesting in that such execution may indeed be penalized under the stringent SP rules although as we have seen it again and again, including today's Men SP at the Europeans, some judges simply don't reinforce this requirement very well. It's no surprise getting some of those judges to understand how to judge Transitions properly required some major effort on the part of ISU over the last few years, even before Mr. Inman's famous revelation just prior to the Vancouver Olympics. In light of this, I think establishing a simple and enforceable consistency is even more critical to the integrity of the judging system. And one way to ensure it will be simple is an uniformization of the standard in the area regarding transitions for both the GOE and the TR component. It may sound overly strict to not award a skater a bullet point for doing what Urmanov did in your video clip during a Free Skate but it would be consistent and simple to reinforce because you know if there is not at least 2 items you can check off, then you don't give it a bullet point and consider that contribution to the TR component to be minor. Doing so would ensure that in the SP, you know you have to apply a deduction in the GOE but in the FS, you don't apply a deduction but simply not counting it as a bullet - almost like the old 6.0 system where the SP has mandatory deduction while LP doesn't for the exact same deficiency. Then aggregate the total results to one level up - you can say if 75% of the elements have met the creative/unexpected entry/exit requirement, then their equivalent counterparts within the TR component would have been considered "exceeding expectations". If less than 75% but more than 50% of the elements have met the same requirements, then it would be mapped as "fully satisfied". Naturally, you can adjust the TR component with other things skaters have done not in conjunction with preceding or immediately after their elements, but at least you will already have a solid basis to begin with. Remember, time is very short so a judge has to be able to standardize his/her thought process such that he/she can deal with unique circumstances of each skater efficiently as opposed to getting stuck on little things and not knowing how to quantify or evaluate something he/she has not seen before.But if it's performed in such a way as to demonstrate a strong check and control of a clear running edge held all the way to the point of takeoff, then yes, I am impressed.
(That example, BTW, is from a short program solo jump and thus would have to be penalized under today's short program rules that specify more than one step or skating move preceding the jump. But in a long program, I would consider a strong choctaw like that to constitute a difficult and unexpected lutz entry compared with a standard unenhanced back outside edge.)
I like your challenge but I think I already know what the answer is, which is wallylutz splashing on ice - not a good sight.If I remember, next time I go to the rink I'll see if I can do a waltz jump out of a forward edge held for several seconds. I challenge you to do the same and report back whether you find it equally easy as a standard waltz jump/axel approach.
Never heard anything to this effect about Caroline (Zhang?) or Mirai since both of them were struggling just trying to make the Vancouver Olympic team.
Last edited by wallylutz; 01-25-2013 at 01:56 AM. Reason: typos
It doesn't matter what wallylutz's feelings about Osmond are. ISU judges will determine the outcome of Worlds, not wallylutz.
ISU judges tend to give higher PCS scores to reigning and former World and Olympic champions than they will to newcomers on the Senior scene. Just this morning, Carolina Kostner at Euros landed exactly the same jumps as Osmond did at SC, only Carolina fell after landing the 3/3. Carolina got 64.19 with 8s in her PCS scores, while a clean Osmond at SC got 60.45 with all 6s.
I'm not sure how to avoid this because so much of what is being judged is qualitative or otherwise based on perceptions of gradually increasing qualities, not on discrete quantifiable or either/or categories. Essentially what the judges are doing is taking a continuous analog phenomenon and doing their best to digitize it into scores.
Basically, what the technical panel does is black and white (except for the notorious "gray areas"), and that usually accounts for approximately half the score, so already that's a much greater standardization than what we had under 6.0.
For what the judges do, the GOE guidelines, especially the negative ones which are similar to the short program deduction guidelines under 6.0, give a standard framework for applying GOEs. But only some errors are either/or. For errors that can occur along a range of severity, the judges have some flexibility to decide whether, e.g., it was bad enough to deserve a -2 reduction or only -1. This was also true with the 6.0 deductions. This is appropriate and fair because not all instances of the same kind of error are equal.
Similarly, the positive bullet points give guidelines on what to reward and how many areas need to be rewarded to achieve +1, +2, or +3. "Good" can be defined, but ultimately the perception of most of these qualities is subjective. Each judge needs to decide for him/herself whether a good quality was good enough to deserve the bullet point. And in borderline cases, e.g., if there are three clear very strong positive bullet points, whether three very-good points should be equal to four just-plain-good ones and deserve +2, or whether another pretty-good quality can be found to add up to four bullet points to justify a +2.
Each judge needs to be consistent in their own application of how they apply the penalties and the rewards. That's what trial judging and experience moving up the judging ranks are for. Some judges will naturally tend more to focus on the negatives and some more on the positives (e.g., does a fast beautifully positioned spin that travels a couple feet across the ice deserve a plus or a minus or balance out to 0)? Some will be generous and give the skaters the benefit of the doubt whenever there's a borderline situation; others will be stingy and give the more severe penalties in doubtful cases but withhold the pluses whenever they have any doubt. We can't get every judge in the world to see and think exactly alike. The important thing is that they are each consistent in their own application of the written criteria and that they are applying the same criteria.
The program components are more subjective in the sense that they deal primarily with qualitative and not quantitative criteria. More specific guidelines and documentation thereof would be welcome, but ultimately each judge needs to determine independently where each component falls on a scale of 0-10, compared to all the other performances that judge has seen over years of judging, and specifically being consistent with the other performances in the same event today.
But it's not just either/or. Some major contributions are more major than others, and some minor contributions are more minor than others. It's a continuum. And the "variety" criterion can only be assessed across the whole component, not one transition at a time.True, I mostly agree. The question is how do you measure whether the said "extra" contribute a lot or a little to the criteria of the TR component? Hence, I think a simple rule of thumb to go by is that if the free skating move or steps in question satisfy both the GOE and TR criteria re: creative / difficult / unexpected or intricate, then the contribution is considered major, otherwise, no.
I'm not sure that's true. For the majority of elements, the judge sees the element and knows right away exactly what GOE it deserves. For a few they may have to take a few seconds to decide, and they might change their minds from the beginning of the element to the end. Occasionally they might need to consult the written rules after the program before finalizing their marks to determine, e.g., how much an unusual error is supposed to be penalized, or whether two positive areas fall under the same bullet point or two separate points. But for 90% of the elements, I would guess, it takes two seconds during the program to input the GOE. And there are only 7-13 elements per program. Less than a minute of program time is spent figuring out the GOEs. The rest of the time the judges can be thinking about components.Another factor is judges are laser focus on GOE, and tend to prioritize their time on deciding what to assign on GOE.
Step sequences take maybe 20-40 seconds, and the judge probably has a good idea of the expected GOE within the first 5 seconds, subject to alteration if the skater later stumbles or falls or significantly gains or loses strength. That's a lot of time during the element itself in which to contemplate how the element contribute to the skating skills, choreography, interpretation, etc. Same for some spins.
But the standard is not and does not need to be "only numerous steps or skating moves before an element can contribute to the creative/difficult entry GOE bullet point."It would be efficient in solving two questions with one thought process. This also creates a consistent standard such that Skater #1 cannot come back and complain that he/she did the exact same thing as skater #15 but somehow, you failed to give him credit while rewarding the person who skated later. Of course, this may result in lower than average GOE vs. the panel's average but you will gain a high degree of consistency, which is also very important and most importantly, fair to the skaters since everyone is subject to the same rigorous standard.
Each judge needs to be consistent between skater #1 and skater #15 in the same competition. They get that consistency by judging thousands of performances before they get to the top judging ranks. But if they make one decision for skater #1 and then when they see skater #15 doing the exact same thing and realizing that it deserves a different GOE, they should stick to whatever they did for skater #1, to stay consistent within this competition between skaters who are being directly compared.
Still, "doing the same thing" doesn't necessarily mean doing it exactly as well. Maybe skater #1 does an Ina Bauer directly into an axel with arm overhead. But the axel is small and slow with a wobbly landing edge. The judge can think -1 for the jump itself, +1 for the entry and air position variation, and enter a final GOE of 0. Skater #15 does an Ina Bauer directly into an axel with arm overhead. The jump is big and fast with good flow on the landing. That's 4 or 5 bullet points right there, so the judge gives it +2. Skater #1 can complain that she and skater #15 both did the same extra things on the jump so they should get the same GOE, but skater #15 had a much stronger jump and that's why she got two more points worth of GOE.
As for how it affects the program components, that largely comes down to quality as well, which is explictly one of the Transitions criteria. A higher quality Ina Bauer would add more to the Transitions component than a lower quality one. A Bauer that covers more ice with a stronger curved pattern and/or that is more specifically phrased to the music would add more to the Choreography component than a Bauer that's just stuck in there for a couple of feet. So it would be inappropriate to write guidelines that state "Ina Bauer directly into single axel always adds 0.25 to the Transitions component and Ina Bauer directly into double axel always adds 0.5." That's not fair to the skater who does it better.
If you're judging and you consistently don't raise the GOE for that kind of entry from a senior skater (even if you do, consistently, at lower levels), then you'd be doing your job correctly. If another judge consistently does reward it for all senior skaters, or for all senior skaters who do it above a certain threshold of quality, then she is also doing her job correctly. As long as you're each consistent.That's precisely why I don't feel in this specific case re: Yu Na's Triple Flip in her National LP should get any GOE bullet for unusual / difficult entry given that they did not demonstrate anything that would differentiate that particular set up from that a good novice or junior skater.
Again, the rules for the GOE on the jump out of steps in the short program are not and do not need to be the same as the rules for how steps preceding jumps contribute to the Transitions component in the free program or the other short program jumps. If the same rules apply to all jumps, then there's no need to have a specific short program element that requires more.Yes, I agree this particular entry done by Urmanov is both impressive and difficult. Your example is interesting in that such execution may indeed be penalized under the stringent SP rules although as we have seen it again and again, including today's Men SP at the Europeans, some judges simply don't reinforce this requirement very well. It's no surprise getting some of those judges to understand how to judge Transitions properly required some major effort on the part of ISU over the last few years, even before Mr. Inman's famous revelation just prior to the Vancouver Olympics.
Last edited by gkelly; 01-25-2013 at 01:38 PM.
I've never thought that Osmond is a delicate skater enough to get the PCS as much as Kim gets - setting aside the 'controversy' over Kim's score.
SERIOUSLY, does she deserve PCS scores of 37-8 in SP and 66-68 for her FS?
My answer : Nope.
neither does ashley wagner, or agnes, or mirai
kaetlyn could and should beat them at f/c and worlds,
she could medal at worlds beat yu-na remains to be seen.
she is a good skater,
The ISU specifically lists a skating move like an Ina Bauer as counting as a transition, and mentions that an Ina Bauer directly into a jump as "more valuable", but that doesn't discount the TR contribution of the standalone Ina Bauer to little (how long is it being held? is it accompanied by a layback or any arm movements?) while the Ina Bauer difficult entry counts as a lot, just that one is more valuable than the other--all else being equal (the examples that the ISU used were both layback Ina Bauers). In any case, without arguing about exactly how much the difference should be between the two different uses of the same free skating move, one would expect Yu-Na Kim to receive additional credit towards TR for the fact that her spread eagle and Ina Bauer were directly into her jumps and fulfilled that bullet for positive GOE. However, the OP clearly counted these moves in terms of quantity alone and specifically did not factor in added difficulty or give them additional weight as "major" contributions towards TR.
I encourage anyone who's interested in the subject of transitions to check out the ISU transitions videos themselves.
Nobody argued as such. Your original argument was, "What steps?" As if there was nothing there at all. In fact, there are top skaters who don't have anything comparable to what Yu-Na did at all. Considering part of the OP's argument was that what Yu-Na is doing is not enough at this level, it's appropriate to look at what other skaters at this level are doing, i.e. please look specifically at what Carolina Kostner is doing preceding her flips.That's precisely why I don't feel in this specific case re: Yu Na's Triple Flip in her National LP should get any GOE bullet for unusual / difficult entry given that they did not demonstrate anything that would differentiate that particular set up from that a good novice or junior skater.
Carolina Kostner, 2012 Worlds FS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOf6-8lT9t0&feature=plpp
Alena Leonova, 2012 Worlds FS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gFZCXJBQHk&feature=plpp
Akiko Suzuki, 2012 Worlds FS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=plpp&v=6wbfnwEVj9I
Miki Ando, 2011 Worlds FS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZD_AtQv9ub4
I'm curious if anyone considers Yu-Na's transitions as less or even equal to the transitions of the skaters above, who were on the podiums at the last two world championships. I maintain that they are not less or equal, they are superior, taking into account all criteria for the TR component, therefore I find the argument that what Yu-Na is doing is not enough at this level where "more is expected" to be invalid. The same applies whether you compare her current program to the current FS of Kostner, Suzuki, and Leonova this season.
There is definitely reason to commend Osmond on her transitions, all the more for the above reason. But, to suggest that YuNa is falling short of expectations at the elite level (in transitions and in other PC's)...well then why are the above (+Miki Ando) getting decent PCS and landing on podiums..?
4CC is in Japan, so I don't think Kaetlyn will have the home ice advantage she had at SC. And there will be no Canadian judge on the ladies panel at Worlds.