Osmond vs. Kim in PCS, a huge gap?

[Mathman]

Heh. Yu-Na has far more difficult transitions attached to her jumps than that--including a creative exit for her 3S, a spread eagle done directly after the 3F (yes...done on an inside edge). I'd call what she does after her 3Lz a creative exit. Her 2A is done shortly after the footwork sequence and is followed by a toepick hop--another creative exit. However, she does not have any transitions preceding her 3F (she lifts her skate up at one moment, but no, I would not call that a step) or her solo 3Lz, or her opening 3Lz/3T. These are just the transitions that are attached to jumps, not even the standalone transitions, which do count towards the overall TR score.

Creative exits, yay! Especially a long flowing exit edge. Monkey business before a jump, especially when it makes you fall down -- no, that is not so praiseworthy, to me.

It's just me. I like pure, textbook jumps. After the jump and in between jumps, great, bring on the transitions.

[Mathman]

If Yuna's TR score was accurate, it would still be a 147 program; still the best program under COP by a mile. Don't forget COP rewards SS like fast skating and use of edges as much as transitions, so just because a skater twizzles about the ice doesn't mean their program is COP-friendly if it's lacking in other areas.

I am not saying her transitions score was inaccurate. I just liked her jump entries as they were.

IMHO one reason that all of Yu-na's jumps were excellent and got positive GOE was because she didn't confuse the issue by doing a lot of hops, skips, and twiddles going in. This gave her frim control of the entry edge.

[Mathman]

Mathman, I think you are reading tea leaf. You are seeing connections and causations where none exists.

To me, it is just common sense. Your jump is more likely to be successful if you prepare properly than if you are wiggling about.

Skaters like Kwan, Plushenko, and Kim prepared their jumps properly. They rarely fell, double-footed, under-rotated, saved a landing by stepping out or hand down, etc.

But I agree that there is a question of putting the horse before the cart. One way of defing good skating is this. "Good skating" is what good skaters do. If you want to know what consititues good skating, watch Kwan, Plushenko, and Kim.

The other way is to appoint a committee to come up with a list. "Good skating" means choose one bullet point from coulmn three and two bullet points from column four.

[Icey]

Is it because she competed only once under CoP, at the very end of her career when she was hampered by chronic hip injury?

I always felt she resisted COP in much the same way Weir did. Even at her test skate the judges were telling her things to do to COP her spins.

[Icey]

Here's Mirai (2010 U.S. Nationals).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rJX0_QqCTE

Imo Mirai's Carmen is superb. In comparison, Kaetlyn's is good. Oh, I would like to see Mirai skate like that again with abandon (almost recklessness ) and confidence.

[jatale]

Yes, this is a wonderful performance by Mirai. Thanks for the link Mathman!

[gkelly]

Some thoughts on my understandings of the Transitions rules:

I agree with this, too. The CoP may like busy for the sake of busy, but I don't.

I don't think it likes busy for the sake of busy.

The criteria for the Transitions component are variety, difficulty, quality, and intricacy. Nowhere is "quantity" listed as a criterion.

It is easier to get variety if you throw in a lot of different moves, but often quality is better demonstrated with a single move that covers more ice, holding an edge or a position for more time.

If you hold the quality constant, then more transitional moves is probably worth more than fewer. But any given skater might lose quality in the attempt to do too much too quickly. And the skaters with higher skill can So the best skaters will often incorporate their transitional moves judiciously in ways that highlight the quality of each rather than the sheer quantity.

If Yuna's TR score was accurate, it would still be a 147 program; still the best program under COP by a mile. Don't forget COP rewards SS like fast skating and use of edges as much as transitions, so just because a skater twizzles about the ice doesn't mean their program is COP-friendly if it's lacking in other areas.

Very good point.

Which makes me wonder if the Transitions score ever takes into account penalties for excessive amounts of transitions.

There's no explicit penalty for too much (or not enough) transitional moves. If the effect of too many meaningless steps is to make the choreography appear cluttered and less effective, less connected to the music, then the large number of steps would probably have more of a negative effect on the Choreography score than on the Transitions score. It might have a negative effect on Transitions if the quality suffered as a result.

Creative exits, yay! Especially a long flowing exit edge. Monkey business before a jump, especially when it makes you fall down -- no, that is not so praiseworthy, to me.

A long flowing exit edge in a standard landing position is not exactly creative, but it would be high quality and boost the GOE for that jump, and perhaps the Skating Skills component and the "clarity of movement" criterion under Performance/Execution. Variations of the arm, free leg, body position while holding that long flowing edge could be considered creative, as could edge changes, turns, etc., continuing that flow directly from the landing edge without any additional pushes.

Creative exit and long flowing edge are both considered under the same positive GOE bullet point. Either could occur on its own without the other. I'd hope that if both occur together that bullet point could be counted twice or counted more strongly to guarantee an additional + to the GOE.

But "creativity" is part of Choreography anyway, not Transitions.

Still, I wouldn't consider an excellent standard landing position on an excellent back outside edge to be anything more than an excellent standard landing -- I'd think the place to reward it is elsewhere than the Transitions score.

Obviously, landing a jump -- especially landing it well -- is worth more than falling on the jump, as would be reflected both in the GOE and in the fall deduction. So it's probably an unwise choice to put difficult moves before a jump if they decrease the likelihood of landing it successfully.

But if we're comparing two successful jumps with equal-quality landings, I would expect the one with a more difficult or less-telegraphed entry to be worth more, all else being equal, both in the +GOE and in the Transitions score.

Same for comparing two unsuccessful jumps with the same errors. Both might end up getting -3 GOE and both might get fall deductions, but the one with the more difficult or less telegraphed entry would have a more positive effect on the Transitions score.

You are correct in your identification of Choctaw. However, at this level if only a single type of turn is performed and nothing else accompanies it, then it is not deemed as sufficient to meet the requirement of connecting steps - otherwise, it simply becomes too easy. Put it this way, a skater can accidentally perform a Choctaw by simply entering a spin from back inside edge into forward outside edge - should that count as transition as well into the said spin and therefore merit extra bullet points?

It's just a standard entry into a spin and shouldn't add anything, IMO. But I wouldn't consider it accidental -- just not added difficulty. If the back inside edge is held for a really long time, telegraphing the choctaw (step forward) onto the outside edge to begin the spin, then it would be a negative in my view.

The rules are in fact quite stringent with regard to what satisfies as connecting steps and or comparable free skating moves in that even a single spread eagle or spiral is considered insufficient and therefore, cannot be considered as a difficult entry for the purpose of GOE (albeit, in practice during FS, that depends on how lenient the individual judge is).

Where do the GOE rules say that? The "Break between required steps/movements & jump/only one step/movement preceding jump" GOE reduction of -1 to -2 applies to the short program jump out of steps only. The rules for positive GOEs on jump elements just give "unexpected / creative / difficult entry" as a positive bullet point, with no mention of the number of skating moves involved in said unexpected/creative/difficult entry.

As I posted in the Quantity vs. Quality thread, I think that just holding a long forward outside edge for half the ice surface and then jumping up directly into a double axel would qualify as unexpected, creative, and difficult and that doesn't even involve any "recognizable skating movements" except high quality to an edge that even beginners should be able to hold for a couple of feet.

I'm not sure how whether that kind of axel entry would add to the Transitions component, but because the jump is unexpected I don't think it would count as telegraphing and subtract from the intricacy. I would certainly expect it to be rewarded in the GOE (assuming the jump is successful, per Mathman).

If a skater who went from a jump straight into a step sequence, then there is no linking footwork or movement to speak of and therefore, one cannot evaluate something that was not performed.

I think it counts toward intricacy. There isn't any explication of the "intricacy" criterion in the written IJS documentation, and it's been a while since I watched the component videos so I don't remember if there was more detailed discussion there. My understanding of that criterion would include seamlessly moving (transitioning) from one element to another without intervening neutral strokes.

E.g., when I take notes about a program, if a skater goes directly from one element to another with no extra strokes in between I would write

StSq
(
2A


or

CCSp
(
3S

etc. and would expect the transition from one element to another to be rewarded for intricacy even though there's no extra "in-between" move that adds content.

[ImaginaryPogue]

I was sort of thinking this in particular with Kaetlyn's Carmen program. I remember when Mirai got lots of criticism when she did her FS to Carmen in 2010 because she was too juniorish or not mature enough for Carmen. Yet when Kaetlyn does a similar program with that same perk, people argue that she's a great performer. For the record, I think there's room for perky and bullish Carmens too.

Are people arguing she's a great performer because of her LP? Her short program is getting a lot more credit in that department and her long is universally thought to be lesser. I'd also arguing that the great performer aspect comes from comparing her to the field in Canada, where great performers weren't all that common. Sorta like how Flatt was consistent compared to Czisny/Nagasu, but if you compared her to Kwan/Hughes/etc, she doesn't quite measure up.

[Mrs. P]

Are people arguing she's a great performer because of her LP? Her short program is getting a lot more credit in that department and her long is universally thought to be lesser. I'd also arguing that the great performer aspect comes from comparing her to the field in Canada, where great performers weren't all that common. Sorta like how Flatt was consistent compared to Czisny/Nagasu, but if you compared her to Kwan/Hughes/etc, she doesn't quite measure up.

I guess what I mean is that I feel that Kaetlyn's Carmen FS isn't getting the same criticism as Mirai's Carmen from 2010 and rather there has been more focus on the fact she's a great performer (in general) and that she has lots of transitions.

And I agree she stands out given the weak Canadian field history (though it seems to be turning a corner with the new crop of juniors).

However, does that mean she'll win Worlds or medal and beat a number of front runners including the reigning gold and silver medalists? I don't know. But the way some people are talking round here, you would think that was a forgone conclusion.

[jaylee]

I think it counts toward intricacy. There isn't any explication of the "intricacy" criterion in the written IJS documentation, and it's been a while since I watched the component videos so I don't remember if there was more detailed discussion there. My understanding of that criterion would include seamlessly moving (transitioning) from one element to another without intervening neutral strokes.

The ISU component video defines intricacy as this: "When the technical elements become part of the whole and appear woven into the transitions, which follow each other seamlessly, then transitions become intricate." This is said in the video that I linked before: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...GtSK9hCw#t=14s

During the narration, the clip shows the last 30 seconds of Yu-Na's Miss Saigon FS from the 2007 GPF, from the Ina Bauer to the double axel to the final combination spin in its entirety. There is no in-between the double axel and the final combination spin. If placing two technical elements--the jump and the spin--closely like that matters not at all in the discussion of transitions and intricacy, then I would expect them to have only shown the Ina Bauer to the double axel.

[ImaginaryPogue]

I guess what I mean is that I feel that Kaetlyn's Carmen FS isn't getting the same criticism as Mirai's Carmen from 2010 and rather there has been more focus on the fact she's a great performer (in general) and that she has lots of transitions.

And I agree she stands out given the weak Canadian field history (though it seems to be turning a corner with the new crop of juniors).

However, does that mean she'll win Worlds or medal and beat a number of front runners including the reigning gold and silver medalists? I don't know. But the way some people are talking round here, you would think that was a forgone conclusion.

a) The transitions thing stands out a lot, but I'd argue that she really is world class. If transitions were the only thing scored (and scored correctly), she would be a contender for gold. Just like how Chan's skating skills tended to dominant discussion, or Takahashi's performance quality. I believe the focus on performing comes from the fact that she is considered a great performer, relative to the history. Mirai's Carmen doesn't stand out as a notable American Lady LP. I'd argue that Osmond's Carmen does stand out as a notable Canadian Lady LP.

b) Ignoring the overhype, basically, Osmond medals if she's exceptionally clean and everyone else is exceptionally.... NOT. But only if the competition makes the specific type of point-losing errors (popping jumps, combination errors, downgrades) that make up for the PCS gap she'll have to overcome.

c) But gold medalists have poor competitions sometimes - Asada's a two time World champion, and she hasn't made the top five since she last won Worlds (and Osmond's score at Nebelhorn beats Asada score at the 2012 Worlds). The reigning silver medalist is Alena Leonova. Carolina Kostner won silver in 2008 (who was beaten by senior debutante.... Alena Leonova). But it would take four of six skaters (Kim, Kostner, Asada, Suzuki, Wagner, and Korpi) having poor skates for her to make the podium. Anyone rooting for an event like that must hate figure skating, frankly. I'll be honest, if it's an awesome competition and she skates well but doesn't make the top ten (ie, no two spots), I think I'd be okay with it (provided that China and France do have two spots - I really want to see Zijun Li/Kexin Xhang and Yretha Silethe/Mae Berenice Maete at Sochi) - it's not as if I really want to see Daleman/Chartrand etc at the Olympics, you know?

c) That said, if she does somehow earn the silver medal (or yegads, Gold) and gets Canada three spots, I will laugh so hard.

[Mathman]

I always felt she resisted COP in much the same way Weir did. Even at her test skate the judges were telling her things to do to COP her spins.

Spins requiring flexibility and changes of positions hurt Michelle's back and she had to stop working on them. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.

[Olympia]

Yes, of all the great skaters she was the least flexible to begin with. She still tops my list, but even I will have to concede that her Ina Bauer, even at age fifteen, was almost vertical. Not to worry, though. She had other magical powers. If I need to see a magnificent Ina Bauer, I watch Shizuka, and for hypnotically gorgeous spins, I have Lucinda Ruh and Alissa Czisny. For sheer splendor and magic, it's Michelle all the way, bendy back or not.

[Mathman]

Creative exit and long flowing edge are both considered under the same positive GOE bullet point. Either could occur on its own without the other. I'd hope that if both occur together that bullet point could be counted twice or counted more strongly to guarantee an additional + to the GOE.

That is SO COOL Why don't skaters do that any more? Is it that they can't, or is it because they have other fish to fry, CoP-wise?

As I posted in the Quantity vs. Quality thread, I think that just holding a long forward outside edge for half the ice surface and then jumping up directly into a double axel would qualify as unexpected, creative, and difficult and that doesn't even involve any "recognizable skating movements" except high quality to an edge that even beginners should be able to hold for a couple of feet.

For sheer splendor and magic, it's Michelle all the way, bendy back or not.

OK, I can't help myself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxjA5J76QBk

Edited to add...and to tie this post together, at the three minute mark she does one of those extended flowing edge thingies like Elvis.

[Krislite]

Your understanding of how things work at ISU events and championships is not correct. Marks for skaters are anything but consistent, especially when comparing scores given to X skater at the very beginning of the season vs. the end of the season (aka. World Championship). Even in Ice Dance, the discipline where marks tend to be the most consistent of all disciplines, significant movement can occur within a span of months. In Singles, that can change even quicker and the marks or ranking drastically change as well. For example, in the 1996-97 season, Michelle Kwan was the most dominant female skater as the reigning World Champion. That remained true through the Champion Series, GP Series' predecessor. Tara Lipinski was only 15th at Worlds in the previous year and during CS Series, finished as low as 3rd at Trophée Lalique (now Trophée Eric Bompard) and 2nd at Skate Canada. Suffice to say, the early season Presentation marks that Lipinski got were nothing to write home about. Michelle continued to dominate - until all of sudden, Michelle fell apart at the FS of U.S. Nationals and surprisingly lost to Lipinski. Tara went on to win the World Championship that year, becoming the youngest female ever to win such honor. It's interesting to note that by the time of Lausanne Worlds, Lipinski's Presentation marks have risen to a point that even though Michelle Kwan did not fall apart in her FS and actually won that portion of the competition, Tara's marks have shot upward so much in both SP and LP that Michelle simply couldn't catch up even after winning the FS.

History aside, when you think about it, skaters do improve and/or adjust their programs and become more comfortable as they gain mileage - why should the marks be fairly consistent between beginning and the end of the season? That makes no sense. Plus, you were taking marks from the Nebelhorn Trophy - an event in which she was virtually an unknown and compare it to Kim's marks at an a minor event where she was the only skater of note in which she made a sensational appearance after almost 2 years with her celebrity status - that kind of comparison is flawed on so many levels. Typically, skaters with celebrity status who make a comeback tend to skip most international events until their goal, let that be the Olympics or Worlds. Why? They know they are at an disadvantage vs. those skaters who are constantly competing. So by making their debut at the desired event, they were hoping that judges wouldn't have enough time to get used to their routines and overlook any flaws they may have. Although this was not what Kim was doing, her marks at her 1st event after an absence of almost 2 years where none of the other skaters present could possibly challenge her even if she fell 4 times and start making back flips will benefit significantly from the celebrity status that she has. It is not to say the judges would intentionally overmark her - simply that judges are human and they too would be excited and feel honored to be able to attend an event where Kim chose to debut after almost 2 years away.

Like I explained above, that is simply not true. There are many factors that could potentially explain lower marks at the beginning of the season, especially for a rookie who is in her 1st season as a senior. More specifically, if that rookie skater turned some heads during the season, e.g. beating some big shots en route to winning his/her Nationals and other International events of note, the marks will be anything but consistent between the early season and the end of season. A lot of it just human nature and of course, the playing field will be a little more leveled in terms of reputation influence. Say Gracie Gold wins the U.S. Championship this weekend, expect her PCS marks to get boost as well at her next International event, let that be the 4CC or Worlds even though she only finished 8th at Skate Canada. If you were to use her Skate Canada PCS to try to box her in, you'd make a serious error.

I still don't see how these suggest in any way that Kaetlyn could realistically close the PCS gap with Yuna. Last year Kostner had a fantastic season and at Worlds she averaged in the low 8's for PCS--the highest all year. The previous season Miki Ando likewise had a fantastic season and built up momentum, and her PCS peaked at around 8 at Worlds. These were veterans who had built up a reputation over many years--Miki was herself a previous World Champion.

If these veteran heavy weights could not touch Yuna's PCS ceiling of 9 in their very best season, how can an utter neophyte--even of Kaetlyn's caliber--get that high? And your example of Tara Lipinski does not quite work. Yuna to Kaetlyn is not Michelle to Tara. Kaetlyn's jumps and combinations are hardly superior to Yuna. She Flutzes, does no combo harder than a 3T/3T and likewise cannot do the loop. Tara was a jumping bean who truly out-jumped Michelle. The same cannot be said of Kaetlyn. The most you can argue is that her choreography and transitions are superior, but these alone cannot close the PCS gap especially when reputation is taken into account.

The only way Kaetlyn could close the gap is if Yuna's PCS took a precipitous drop and Kaetlyn's PCS shot up by an average of 1 per component. Comparing Yuna's clean Les Miserables free program to her previous free skates do not suggest any considerable regression in any of the program components, certainly not in transitions or skating skills or performance. Choreography and interpreation are arguable, but I doubt enough for judges to mark her way down compared to what they used to give her. Yuna would have to make several major mistakes for her PCS to drop well below her typical range (mid to upper 8).

Let me ask you this question, at the elite senior level, what do you think are the judges' expectation re: connecting steps and moves in the field? Was she skating at a junior event or was that a senior event? Sure, there was "something" but that "something" is so beneath the expectation at this level that it is simply not sufficient. A quasi-spiral is not a spiral and therefore, is not a Move in the Field. I am sure you have listened to TV coverage where commentators would be identifying the different steps and moves going to some elements - well, that's exactly what judges do too in competition - they do so mentally. Here you have a reigning Olympic Champion who showed up and 8 of her 10 jump and spin elements were not preceded by any identifiable move in the field or connecting steps - what am I supposed to say? That it's great because it's Yu Na skating? Yet, if an X skater whom you never heard of, showed up and do the same thing, are we supposed to give her an 8.0 as well for TR? Now, I read jaylee's reply, I will get to that shortly but I want to finish here by asking you a question : Do you feel Yu Na's overall transitions, linking footwork & movements in her Nationals LP are on par with what she is capable of, say during the 2010 Olympic season?

Since when were components measured against each individual skater's potential? Isn't it supposed to be a kind of distribution, where 5 is "average" for a senior lady? That is at least what the ISU guides suggest. If so, then the right comparison is not what Yuna herself is potentially capable of, but what senior ladies these days are actually doing with respect to transitions. Considering the dearth of complex, intricate or difficult transitions even among the top ladies, giving Yuna 6.5 or less for transitions in her free program is hardly just. How many of them even attempt both the Lutz and the Flip and do any kind of preceding moves to these jumps?