Figure skating is dying, and judges can't prop it up | Page 7 | Golden Skate

Figure skating is dying, and judges can't prop it up

fairly4

Medalist
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
maybe it isnt the win but by how much. Would people complain if patrick chan just beat out denns tens score by .5 tenths of a point say a 273.88 dennis tens 273.85 it would say patrick dkated eewell in the short not so great in long. Asley at nationals asley geys a 184.75tl gracies 185070.
How about starting each program from zero working way to their high score not high score doenwm sine public not.told what high score they are usung. Each year dtart fresh on scores dont use last years or olympics unless beat their high score ever.
Also undet 6.0s without the figures you had to skate fairly clean in both to ein or medal since graded about equal but counted different. Under 6.0 reqiured things haf to do, didnt you were screwed and unlikely to come back from . You had to hopr the top dkaters madr mistake and uou skated perfect.
Under 6.0 you had to finish basically in top 3 to medal in dhort and long to have a shot.
 

Robeye

Final Flight
Joined
Feb 16, 2010
Why? Are we talking about a competition in aesthetics or a competition in skating technique?

In fact, skating competition is both, but the aesthetic considerations are there more as 1) evidence of technical control and 2) extra enhancements to increase enjoyment -- for the skaters as well as the spectators -- if they happen to be so inclined.

So purely aesthetic considerations completely unrelated to technique are only a small portion of each component, although an increasingly larger proportion moving down the list from Skating Skills to Interpretation.

Aesthetic considerations that are related to technique are the bulk of the PCS and can also play some part in the GOEs.

Obviously glaring mistakes are technical failures as well as aesthetic failures. But how much, and how, should they be penalized in a competition that is primarily athletic and technical? The answer would clearly be different in a contest that was primarily focused on artistic impact -- which is not what ISU-style competition is about.



I'm not arguing that proportion of time disrupted is or should be the sole or primary determinant of the PCS.

What I am arguing is looking at the proportion of time that each criterion is fulfilled (as opposed to disrupted) was originally built into the guidelines that the judges use to determine PCS. It's not as if everyone starts at 6.0 (old system) or 10.0 and loses points for errors. Skaters need to build up the PCS points in the first place. Any time spent making mistakes will usually take away from positive qualities they could have been displaying during that time. But how much does it take away, compared to how many positive qualities demonstrated in the vast majority of the program?



It doesn't need to be persuasive in the artistic sense because competitive figure skating is not an art contest. Approaching the sport as if it were primarily an aesthetic competition is a fundamental theoretical fallacy.



Any guideline for scoring aesthetic impact to some degree should make an effort to correspond to a notion of aesthetic effect to approximately the same degree.

But if the purpose of the guideline is to score mastery of skills --- including but not limited to or even dominated by the aesthetic effect of those skills -- then the negative effects of brief disruptions would not be as significant as if the purpose of the guideline were solely to measure aesthetic effect.

I think it probably would be a good idea to revise the guidelines to explicitly encourage judges to reflect errors with lower PCS marks. But I don't think it would be a good idea to determine a priori that a performance with one or two falls could never deserve scores in the 9s or 8s.

Here's a performance with one fall (at 1:49-1:53 -- i.e., the recovery wasn't even all that quick). Judges at the time agreed it was either the best or second-best freeskate of the night, and the Artistic Impression scores ranged from 5.8 to 6.0.

If judged under IJS, what kind of program component scores do you think this performance would deserve?
-I agree with you that the majority of the scoring in a figure skating competition is primarily athletic and technical, at least two-thirds of it by my estimation (TES, plus SS and TR, at minimum). In fact, I have said precisely the same thing myself, in a number of recent posts in various threads. My comments with regard to the artistic have to do with with the balance of the PCS components, which are largely a competition in aesthetics, in my view, and which constitute roughly 30% of the total score. And more specifically, the comments were about the effect that falls should have on PCS. That's what Mathman was referring to, and it's something that I've been commenting about very specifically and at length in various threads on this forum.

-Here is where I have an issue with your line of argument: on the one hand, you seem to be arguing that I view a figure skating competition as purely an art contest; I trust that the above demonstrates that this is untrue.

On the other hand, your statement that "competitive figure skating is not an art contest" is also clearly not wholly true, insofar as you yourself recognize that it plays a significant role in PCS, and in PE, CH and IN, in particular. Art is not simply airy-fairy, unquantifiable stuff. There is always a "craft" (technical) component to art, but it only makes sense to measure in the context of more comprehensive aesthetic principles. The very concepts of "Performance", "Interpretation", and "Choreography" have no real meaning without an underlying aesthetic framework, whether the ISU chooses (for whatever reasons) to recognize that or not.

This sense that figure skating, for a variety of reasons in its quirky history, has yoked both athleticism and aesthetics together toward an explicitly competitive purpose is the wellspring of modern competitive figure skating. When Janet Lynn wowed crowds and ushered in the age of the primacy of the free skate (and started to push out the importance of the more purely technical figures), it was not because audiences were saying: "Wow! How difficult!". IMO, it was because they were saying: "Wow! How beautiful! Why should that not count more than a few millimeters of wobble on [the more overtly technical] figures?"

-So, having cleared away any misconstructions and/or straw men, the specific question that Mathman addressed, and which I was specifically responding to, was: why should falls have an impact on certain (PE, IN, CH) components of PCS, and in what manner? Forgive me, but I must strongly disagree with you: this question is fundamentally aesthetic, at bottom. The efforts made to codify the relevant PCS guidelines in "technical" language (for more efficient application, or as a fig leaf, or perhaps both) does not make the concept itself "technical". To say otherwise is, IMO, to confuse means and ends.

-I will have to respond to your example later, after I've had a chance to watch it.^^
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Here's a performance with one fall (at 1:49-1:53 -- i.e., the recovery wasn't even all that quick). Judges at the time agreed it was either the best or second-best freeskate of the night, and the Artistic Impression scores ranged from 5.8 to 6.0.

She got extra points for the geese flying by. :)

If a pianist were playing a Bach fugue, and kept hitting B-sharp...

I hope there is a musicologist on the board -- we must have some, right? -- who will chime in on why you can't play B sharp on a tempered piano but you can play it on a violin. ;)
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
How about starting each program from zero working way to their high score not high score doenwm sine public not.told what high score they are usung.

That is how it works. Obviously for the technical elements score. Less obviously for program components. But the judges watch what the skaters do and determine how that stacks up against their standards for 5.0 or 7.0 or 9.0, etc., in each component. They don't start with a score before the skater starts skating.
(They probably do have some idea of what to expect from skaters they have seen before. But there's always the possibility of being disappointed or pleasantly surprised.)

On the other hand, your statement that "competitive figure skating is not an art contest" is also clearly not wholly true, insofar as you yourself recognize that it plays a significant role in PCS, and in PE, CH and IN, in particular. Art is not simply airy-fairy, unquantifiable stuff. There is always a "craft" (technical) component to art, but it only makes sense to measure in the context of more comprehensive aesthetic principles. The very concepts of "Performance", "Interpretation", and "Choreography" have no real meaning without an underlying aesthetic framework, whether the ISU chooses (for whatever reasons) to recognize that or not.
As the criteria for these components are currently written, some are focused more on craft and some more on the impression produced. They certainly could be rewritten to be less vague, or to be equally vague but with more explicit emphasis on overall impression.

But I still think that the overall impression of the same performance is going to be different for viewers who care a lot about how the skater uses the blades on the ice to accomplish the various "artistic" criteria vs. other viewers who have comparatively little interest in what happens below the waist (free leg positions excluded) and next to none in what happens below the foot.

This sense that figure skating, for a variety of reasons in its quirky history, has yoked both athleticism and aesthetics together toward an explicitly competitive purpose is the wellspring of modern competitive figure skating. When Janet Lynn wowed crowds and ushered in the age of the primacy of the free skate (and started to push out the importance of the more purely technical figures), it was not because audiences were saying: "Wow! How difficult!". IMO, it was because they were saying: "Wow! How beautiful! Why should that not count more than a few millimeters of wobble on [the more overtly technical] figures?"

Interesting that you should choose that example without having looked at my link. ;)

-So, having cleared away any misconstructions and/or straw men, the specific question that Mathman addressed, and which I was specifically responding to, was: why should falls have an impact on certain (PE, IN, CH) components of PCS, and in what manner?

A valid question, and one that could be productive for us to discuss in detail. Maybe you and I, and maybe Mathman as well, could come to a meeting of the minds. Whether the ISU would pay any attention to our conclusions is another question.

But I would start with the question "How should Performance/Execution, Choreography, and Interpretation be evaluated on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is a scared beginner clinging to the boards and 10 is one of the best skaters ever at those particular criteria on a good day, and how should visible errors factor into that evaluation?"

I'm not sure what conclusions we would reach. But I do know that I wouldn't want to go into the process already having predetermined that each single fall should cancel out at least 10% of a very good skater's very good qualities.

(And if so, should a single fall also cancel out 30% or more of a bad skater's good qualities?)
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
But I would start with the question "How should Performance/Execution, Choreography, and Interpretation be evaluated on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is a scared beginner clinging to the boards and 10 is one of the best skaters ever at those particular criteria on a good day, and how should visible errors factor into that evaluation?"

This is question that always puzzles my will in these debates and makes me rather bear the ills we have than fly to others that we know not of. if we tinker with the way we score the best of the best, what about the other 99.99 per cent of stake-holders?

This video was posted in the "When they were cuter" thread. Why isn't this a 10 in Choreography and a 10 in Interpretation? Or should it be a 9.75 because of the little bobble on the"footwork?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Y8jTrUBELg
 

Robeye

Final Flight
Joined
Feb 16, 2010
Interesting that you should choose that example without having looked at my link. ;)
What the hey! :laugh: I swear to you that I did not click on the link until just now! Great minds and all that...;)


A valid question, and one that could be productive for us to discuss in detail. Maybe you and I, and maybe Mathman as well, could come to a meeting of the minds. Whether the ISU would pay any attention to our conclusions is another question.

But I would start with the question "How should Performance/Execution, Choreography, and Interpretation be evaluated on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is a scared beginner clinging to the boards and 10 is one of the best skaters ever at those particular criteria on a good day, and how should visible errors factor into that evaluation?"

I'm not sure what conclusions we would reach. But I do know that I wouldn't want to go into the process already having predetermined that each single fall should cancel out at least 10% of a very good skater's very good qualities.

(And if so, should a single fall also cancel out 30% or more of a bad skater's good qualities?)
This is an interesting example. The primary conundrum in this particular case, it seems to me, is that, on the one hand, we are assuming that it's a good thing that all skaters, be they ever so mighty or so humble, are scored on the same scale, while on the other hand, we recognize that the differences in capability/quality starts to go almost logarithmic as we progress from the rank beginner to the Olympic hopefuls.

The problem, of course, is that when we try to accommodate both conditions, we run afoul of the limits to evaluative precision at the lower end of the scale. How does one distinguish between a beginner who clutches the boards, from one who wobbles for a second and then clutches the boards?
Although there is a material difference relative to each other, can they be differentiated even by a fraction of a point on a scale of 10?

One possibility: real beginners are evaluated on a separate scale applicable only to that defined group, which therefore provides sufficient range to make distinctions among them. When these skaters are adjudged capable of some minimum score when performing well, the normal, universal PCS scale becomes the evaluation standard. Similarly, the deduction for a fall might also be factored depending on level (beginner, novice, junior, senior, as a possible example), to minimize cases where the deductions are impractically large in comparison to the positive points earned. These are just initial thoughts. Please feel free to critique or suggest a better method.
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
The problem, of course, is that when we try to accommodate both conditions, we run afoul of the limits to evaluative precision at the lower end of the scale. How does one distinguish between a beginner who clutches the boards, from one who wobbles for a second and then clutches the boards?
Although there is a material difference relative to each other, can they be differentiated even by a fraction of a point on a scale of 10?

Well, if they're still clutching the boards, they're not figure skating yet and they're not entering competitions.

You don't often see scores in the 0s even at the lowest levels of competition.

In the US, the lowest levels of competition that use IJS are Juvenile, and Adult Gold. Occasionally some club competitions do offer a modified version for lower levels. Other countries do.

As an adult bronze skater, I would welcome that kind of detailed feedback, which would be more meaningful information about what the judges thought about what I actually did on the ice. I would expect my PCS to be mostly in the 1s and would gratified if I could ever earn 2s -- that would be a motivating goal for me to aim for, regardless of where I would replace compared to the other skaters in the group.

As a judge I know has pointed out, the higher the average scores being used at a given skill level, the more variance there is likely to be between the best and worst skaters in the group. I think this is true both in the range of numbers available and also in actual variance in skills between the skaters in the same competition.

The way the judging community has developed the standards, with 5.0 for each component defined as "average," it seems that scores in the 5.0 range correspond approximately with what I would consider "acceptable for senior level." Skaters below senior level do earn 5s, 6s, sometimes 7s for top juniors, but those are the exceptional skaters at those levels.

That leaves a lot of room at the upper end of the scale to distinguish between above-average, good, very good, and outstanding/exceptional/once-in-a-generation.

Would it be better to flatten out those distinctions at the upper level, so that, e.g., "average senior" (someone who doesn't look out of their depth at an event like Europeans or Four Continents, even if they don't have the jumps to qualify for the freeskate) would be represented average scores closer to 7 instead than 5?

If you look at a competition where there is a wide range of ability between the best and worst entrants, you will see spreads of 4 or more points between the top and bottom of the field. Aside from ISU championships (where the weakest skaters are now excluded by TES minimums, although they can get in even with PCS in the 3s and 4s if they can execute the elements), the places you're most likely to see such wide ranges are JGP and senior B events. In the US, senior ladies events and intermediate qualifying rounds at regionals probably tend to have the widest spread. At these levels, the weakest skaters having a bad day might get scores in the 1s for their worst components, but 2s, 3s, and 4s predominate.

At prejuvenile or adult silver and below, if IJS were used 1s and 2s would be par for the course.

Similarly, the deduction for a fall might also be factored depending on level (beginner, novice, junior, senior, as a possible example), to minimize cases where the deductions are impractically large in comparison to the positive points earned.

I absolutely agree that the fall deductions should be scaled to the number of points available at that level. Which means that, just as senior men have a larger factor than ladies for their PCS, there should also be a larger factor for fall deductions. Possibly the deduction should be larger in long programs than short programs. Certainly I think it should be smaller for novices than for seniors, and smaller for juveniles than for novices.

In case you're not familiar with the developmental levels, in the US the competition levels from top to bottom are as follows:
Senior
Junior
Novice
Intermediate
Juvenile
Pre-Juvenile
Preliminary
Pre-Preliminary
No Test

Below that are various beginner levels that participate in group lessons or very beginning private lessons first learning basic stroking skills (Basic 1-8 levels in the US Basic Skills curriculum) and eventually (Freestyle 1-6 levels in Basic Skills) single jumps and basic spins. These are the skill levels that would correspond to IJS scores lower than 1, but for the reasons you identify that scale would not be used at those levels.

I.e., the majority of "figure skaters" in the US fit into several different skill levels between beginners and "novice" level. Just using jumps as a reference point, most no-test competitors attempt single jumps up to lutz (axels aren't allowed) but usually lack clear edges and flow. Most novice competitors are fairly comfortable with doubles up to lutz and may be attempting double axels and/or one or more triples. It takes years to work through those skill levels. Novice level is a significant accomplishment.

Other countries use different names, may not use as many divisions, and may separate out lower levels more on the basis of age than tests passed.

See ISU communication 1760 for ISU recommendations for "basic" and "advanced" novices, which would be comparable but not identical to the juvenile through novice levels in the US.
 

jenaj

Record Breaker
Joined
Aug 17, 2003
Country
United-States
But if the purpose of the guideline is to score mastery of skills --- including but not limited to or even dominated by the aesthetic effect of those skills -- then the negative effects of brief disruptions would not be as significant as if the purpose of the guideline were solely to measure aesthetic effect.



Here's a performance with one fall (at 1:49-1:53 -- i.e., the recovery wasn't even all that quick). Judges at the time agreed it was either the best or second-best freeskate of the night, and the Artistic Impression scores ranged from 5.8 to 6.0.

If judged under IJS, what kind of program component scores do you think this performance would deserve?

Skating skills-10
Transitions-10
Interpretation-10
Performance/Execution-9.75
Choreography-10
 

jaylee

Medalist
Joined
Feb 21, 2010
Here's a performance with one fall (at 1:49-1:53 -- i.e., the recovery wasn't even all that quick). Judges at the time agreed it was either the best or second-best freeskate of the night, and the Artistic Impression scores ranged from 5.8 to 6.0.

If judged under IJS, what kind of program component scores do you think this performance would deserve?

:scratch: It's hard to judge the video of that particular performance with all the birds flying around...;)
 

Poodlepal

On the Ice
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
I don't get the ducks, geese and swans, but since I once pursued a career in ornithology, I won't complain.:)

She is better than most of the people I see today. Notice how she skates exactly along to the music, does her tricks to the music, yet nothing is heavy or depressing. If someone today skated like that, I wouldn't mind them falling.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
The way the judging community has developed the standards, with 5.0 for each component defined as "average," it seems that scores in the 5.0 range correspond approximately with what I would consider "acceptable for senior level." Skaters below senior level do earn 5s, 6s, sometimes 7s for top juniors, but those are the exceptional skaters at those levels.

That leaves a lot of room at the upper end of the scale to distinguish between above-average, good, very good, and outstanding/exceptional/once-in-a-generation.

Would it be better to flatten out those distinctions at the upper level, so that, e.g., "average senior" (someone who doesn't look out of their depth at an event like Europeans or Four Continents, even if they don't have the jumps to qualify for the freeskate) would be represented average scores closer to 7 instead than 5?

In the video that I posted above the competitor is 6 years old and a future national champion and world competitor.For her technical elements she did a waltz jump + waltz jump sequence (+1 GOE) and a spiral sequence with a catch-foot position on each leg (not much amplitude). So under the IJS she gets a few hundredths of a point in TES. For transitions she did some careful forward crossovers, with snowplow stop. Skating skills -- hey, she's six.

Now we come to the bullets for P&E, CH, and INT.

Choreography.

Purpose: Idea, concept, vision, mood. Check, check, check, check. Her program was a cartoony march. Every movement served the concept, vision, and mood.

Unity: every step, movement, and element is motivated by the music. As well, all its parts, big or small, seem necessary to the whole, and there is an underlying vision or symbolic meaning that threads together the entire composition. Check. Much better in this regard than many senior programs at the championship level, where it is not clear that the program has a concept.

Interpretation: Expression of the music’s style, character, and rhythm. Maintaining the character and style of the music throughout the entire program by use of body and skating techniques to depict a mood, style, shape, or thematic idea as motivated by the structure of the music.

Check.

P&E. Physical, emotional, and intellectual involvement

In all skating disciplines each skater must be physically committed, sincere in emotion, and equal in comprehension of the music and in execution of all movement.

OK, I don't know what that means.

Projection. The skater radiates energy resulting in an invisible connection with the audience.

She could have thrown caution to the winds a bit more, but I (representing the audience) was in her corner.

It seems to me that the judges must be looking for something else besides what they wrote in the bullets, or they would have to give that performance a 5.
 

Robeye

Final Flight
Joined
Feb 16, 2010
In the video that I posted above the competitor is 6 years old and a future national champion and world competitor.For her technical elements she did a waltz jump + waltz jump sequence (+1 GOE) and a spiral sequence with a catch-foot position on each leg (not much amplitude). So under the IJS she gets a few hundredths of a point in TES. For transitions she did some careful forward crossovers, with snowplow stop. Skating skills -- hey, she's six.

Now we come to the bullets for P&E, CH, and INT.

Choreography.

Purpose: Idea, concept, vision, mood. Check, check, check, check. Her program was a cartoony march. Every movement served the concept, vision, and mood.

Unity: every step, movement, and element is motivated by the music. As well, all its parts, big or small, seem necessary to the whole, and there is an underlying vision or symbolic meaning that threads together the entire composition. Check. Much better in this regard than many senior programs at the championship level, where it is not clear that the program has a concept.

Interpretation: Expression of the music’s style, character, and rhythm. Maintaining the character and style of the music throughout the entire program by use of body and skating techniques to depict a mood, style, shape, or thematic idea as motivated by the structure of the music.

Check.

P&E. Physical, emotional, and intellectual involvement

In all skating disciplines each skater must be physically committed, sincere in emotion, and equal in comprehension of the music and in execution of all movement.

OK, I don't know what that means.

Projection. The skater radiates energy resulting in an invisible connection with the audience.

She could have thrown caution to the winds a bit more, but I (representing the audience) was in her corner.

It seems to me that the judges must be looking for something else besides what they wrote in the bullets, or they would have to give that performance a 5.
I can't decide whether I'm feeling relieved or disappointed that you are not an ISU judge. :p
 

clairecloutier

Final Flight
Joined
Aug 27, 2003
Getting back to a different side of this topic, I think there are any number of problems facing our sport right now, but certainly one is ticket prices IMO.

I live in the Boston area, so I just looked at tickets for the synchronized skating Worlds, which are happening in Boston this week. I don't know much yet about synchronized skating, but I was thinking of going just to support the sport and see some nice skating. Also, I thought I might bring my young daughters, so they could see what synchonized skating is like.

I checked online, hoping to find upper-row seats for $25 or so. But it appears you can only buy all-event tickets, which are $77. So to buy tickets for my daughters & myself and pay for parking would be a $250 investment. That is more than I can really justify spending.

I wish skating ticket prices were more reasonable. Taking your kids to competitions and shows is a great way to introduce them to skating. But it's getting to the point where only families that are quite well-off can even think about spending that kind of money. Meantime, there are lots of kids who aren't going to get the opportunity to see these events. It hurts the potential to build and maintain a bigger fan base, in my opinion.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
I can't decide whether I'm feeling relieved or disappointed that you are not an ISU judge. :p

The question I am trying to understand is this. When it comes to judging the artistic components, the judges must be doing something other than reading the explanations of scoring in the official rule book. Yu-na Kim gets a 9.5 in choreography. Why? Because she is a very good skater. The theme, vision, etc., of her program is "Yu-na Kim skating." She went with Les Miz as her vehicle, but I do not see anything about liberte and fraternite in the transitions into her 3Lz+3T combo.

The program of a 6-year-old child, on the other hand, does have a unifying theme that binds the program together in a harmonious blah blah blah. She should get X number of CoP bullets.

In fact, however, Kim gets a 9.5 because, well, she is a really, really, really good skater, and that's the kind of mark that you give to really, really, really good skaters. So where does the CoP come in?

We keep whittling away at this square peg hoping to make it fit.
 

Robeye

Final Flight
Joined
Feb 16, 2010
The question I am trying to understand is this. When it comes to judging the artistic components, the judges must be doing something other than reading the explanations of scoring in the official rule book. Yu-na Kim gets a 9.5 in choreography. Why? Because she is a very good skater. The theme, vision, etc., of her program is "Yu-na Kim skating." She went with Les Miz as her vehicle, but I do not see anything about liberte and fraternite in the transitions into her 3Lz+3T combo.

The program of a 6-year-old child, on the other hand, does have a unifying theme that binds the program together in a harmonious blah blah blah. She should get X number of CoP bullets.

In fact, however, Kim gets a 9.5 because, well, she is a really, really, really good skater, and that's the kind of mark that you give to really, really, really good skaters. So where does the CoP come in?

We keep whittling away at this square peg hoping to make it fit.
I was just pulling your tail a little bit, but I apologize if it came off as dismissive. I do not feel that way about your comments, at all. You raise, I believe, an issue that is quite profound. Let's take a look at the case of Miray :)biggrin:).

You make the case that her performance checks off all of the necessary bullets, and therefore this performance should be scored just as highly as Yuna's Les Miz. I will argue the other side of the brief. Tough, I know, but someone's got to do it ;). As a good advocate, I will do so through a series of objections:

-Objection #1: The bullets, as written, are undoubtedly true, but not comprehensive. As I mentioned in an an earlier post, the PCS guidelines implicitly assume and rely upon an aesthetic framework, without which the explicitly written explanations that you reference cannot possibly result in sensible outcomes.

If we are to believe Harold Bloom, the most important question that a critic addresses is actually the same as that for sports: greater than, less than, or equal to? IMO, although it is not explicitly stated in the bullets, this principle undergirds all aspects of the artistic components of PCS. It is not enough, in other words, that there is a consonance of music and performance. The reason that crayon drawings from the local kindergarten are not generally displayed in major museums, nor a grade-school writer of limericks chosen as Poet Laureate, is the same reason that li'l Miray is not getting a 9.5 in her components. None of these things, as a rule, display that which we believe to be aesthetically interesting and valuable: sureness and mastery of technique; complexity; nuance; individuated style and perspective; breadth, depth and power, both expressive and cognitive.

Now, it may be your point that these things are not explicitly explained in the bullet points. But I do think they are very much implied (all the talk of parts and wholes), and can be demonstrated to be practically and operationally present, as they should be. It is for this reason that a monotone naivete is not rewarded in PCS, as appropriate to the music as it may be. Should all this be made more explicit? I would vote in favor.

-Objection #2: Does this 6-year old skater really check off the boxes? I'm not so sure. The reason I say so is that almost all of the concepts and bullets you cite contain a critical idea: intentionality. Purpose, idea, concept, vision, motivation, symbolic meaning, interpretation, expression, involvement. What all of these key words share is intention. It is here that the youngster's program falls down.

First, there is the question of physical intention. Granted, the music is cartoony and stilted, which matches, at least approximately, the movements of the skater. But that is the point: is the skater intentionally moving this way to express the characteristics of the music? It is, I believe, more accurate to say that whoever supervised this program picked music which generally matched the skater's natural range and rhythm of movement. Compare this cartooniness with that of real professionals, such as Harold Lloyd, Charlie Chaplin, The Three Stooges, or even Bugs Bunny. When called upon to be cartoony or stilted, they can be, but in the most intentionally precise and graceful way imaginable. They are, one might even say, the Platonic forms of cartoony marches. The former is merely the struggles of a prodigious but real-life toddler. The latter is art.

Second, and somewhat related to the above, is the question of intellectual and emotional intention. In other words, apart from the question of whether the skater was deliberately and precisely moving a certain way (e.g. the micro-choreography), there is the issue of whether the six-year old intended that these movements express something highly specific that they meant for the audience to recognize. This is also aesthetically crucial. It is the reason that unintended silly accidents captured on video only make us latter-day Jackasses with limited half-lives on Youtube, while the exquisitely deliberate idiocies of Moe, Larry and Curly will, I am convinced, continue to outlive all of us, and our progeny.

Some concluding thoughts: All of this is not to say that figure skating programs, or art in general, must be full of seriousness and doom and gloom in order to be great. But adult simplicity and enthusiasm is different from childish artlessness. In my experience, one of the rarest traits is the ability to do exactly as one intends. In a performance activity such as skating, the trick is to be able to do this, and make people like it.
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
In addition to Robeye's points, I want to address some more of Mathman's questions.

Choreography.

Purpose: Idea, concept, vision, mood. Check, check, check, check. Her program was a cartoony march. Every movement served the concept, vision, and mood.

Unity: every step, movement, and element is motivated by the music. As well, all its parts, big or small, seem necessary to the whole, and there is an underlying vision or symbolic meaning that threads together the entire composition. Check. Much better in this regard than many senior programs at the championship level, where it is not clear that the program has a concept.

These are some of the bullet points for Choreography. The program met them.

To what degree this program met these criteria is another question. How much depth was there to what the choreography asked the skater to do (its purpose), and how well did she succeed?

E.g., a march is one of the easiest rhythms to keep time to -- and therefore a good choice for a young beginner. In this case the choreography acknowledged the eight-measure phrases of the music and the skater mostly executed the movements within those phrases. During the forward stroking and crossovers it asked her to take evenly timed strokes on each downbeat, with no need for subtle rise and fall in the knees. The quality of the movement was appropriate to that (very simplistic) purpose, requiring a low level of skating skill, but the actual timing of the strokes did not perfectly match the beats of the music. The skater was marching, but not quite on the beat. So that slight falling short of the purpose in the execution would affect the Interpretation more than the Choreography.

The other Choreography bullet points are

*Proportion (equal weight of all parts)
The elements of this program were well balanced against each other in the context of this skill level. Compared to programs at higher skill levels, however, the magnitude of the program as a whole was minimal in the amount of time and space that it filled and lacking in other parts (types of skills) that would be expected at those higher levels.

*Utilization of personal and public space.
The skater did a pretty good job of filling a space the size of her own body -- she wasn't hunched or curled in on herself, she wasn't tentative in her use of arms and free leg, she didn't look down much. But neither did she look up and out at the spectators or extend fully to the limits of her body's proportions and send energy past the ends of her arms and leg and up through her head. She did OK on this criterion, especially for this level, but didn't excel.

*Pattern and ice coverage.
Here is where the program layout is very typical of its skill level and severely lacking compared to what we see at higher levels. It started out toward one end of the ice with some backward marching and then forward stroking down the center of the rink. After that there were crossover circles around that end of the ice and some other moves that mostly occurred in that same third of the length, near the middle of the width. Aside from those circles at the end, the skater never got near the boards. Her travel patterns were only straight lines, a circle in each direction, and a few other small counterclockwise curves. There was never any depth of edge or weaving between clockwise and counterclockwise patterns, let alone with any surprise change of direction. On a scale of 0-10, the patterning of this program was somewhere around a 1 -- which is expected at that skill level. I bet most of her competitors used similar patterns.

*Phrasing and Form (Movement and parts are structured to match the phrasing of the music)
Yes, they were. The phrasing of the music was very obvious and simple, and the movement was structured to match that.
The detailed explanation of the bullet point refers to a movement phrase "flow[ing] easily and naturally into the next movement phrase." "Flowing easily and naturally" are not words that characterize this particular performance. The movements and especially the stroking were stiff and isolated. To a degree that is appropriate because of the march theme -- but as Robeye points out, the theme was undoubtedly chosen by a wise coach/choreographer to fit the movements that the skater was capable of.

*Originality of purpose, movement, and design
I'd say that there was some originality in the commitment to a coherent theme and in some of the specific movements such as the little dance poses at the end of the ice and the arm movements in the attitude/spirals. But nothing especially unique -- and as mentioned, the program layout (stroke down the center, place the crossovers on the hockey circles at the end) is probably seen from most programs at this level.

Interpretation: Expression of the music’s style, character, and rhythm. Maintaining the character and style of the music throughout the entire program by use of body and skating techniques to depict a mood, style, shape, or thematic idea as motivated by the structure of the music.

Let's look at the detailed criteria.

*Effortless movement in time to the music.
Ability to translate music through sureness of rhythm, tempo, effective movement, and effortless flow over the ice surface by: rhythmic continuity, awareness of all tempo/rhythm changes in a variety of ways

This performance was not characterized by sureness or effortless flow or any tempo/rhythm changes.

*Expression of the music's style, character, and rhythm.
Yes, on a macro scale. And sometimes the movements did match the rhythm on a beat-to-beat level as well. Other times they were off the beat -- in a style that by its nature calls for precision.

*Use of finesse to reflect the nuances of the music.
There weren't many nuances to begin with. Not much opportunity to meet this criterion.

P&E. Physical, emotional, and intellectual involvement

In all skating disciplines each skater must be physically committed, sincere in emotion, and equal in comprehension of the music and in execution of all movement.

OK, I don't know what that means.

Projection. The skater radiates energy resulting in an invisible connection with the audience.

She could have thrown caution to the winds a bit more, but I (representing the audience) was in her corner.

So, she was OK, basically adequate on that criterion.

What about the other Performance/Execution bullet points?

*Carriage
Carriage is a trained inner strength of the body that makes possible ease of movement from the center of the body. Alignment is the fluid change from one movement to the next.[that's not how I personally would define "alignment," but let's go with it]

Well, pretty good for this level. She did stand up straight and did not significantly break at the waist on her forward stroking. But I wouldn't say there was much trained inner strength, ease of movement, or fluidity.

*Clarity of movement
Again, pretty good for this level, (understandably) nowhere near what we'd expect at novice-junior-senior levels.

*Variety and contrast
Not much

It seems to me that the judges must be looking for something else besides what they wrote in the bullets, or they would have to give that performance a 5.

Of course that program wasn't scored under IJS, so we don't know what the judges would have given if it had been.

I suspect that, if it had been scored on all 5 program components, that it would have scored highest on Choreography, for the strengths that you point out, and would have scored higher than most other performances at that skill level.

But in the greater scheme of things, there were significant weaknesses in this performance compared to what we see at more advanced levels. That's only to be expected. But just because a beginner program is surprisingly strong in some criteria doesn't mean that everything else would be ignored.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
OK, so what I am getting is something like this. Yes, it is possible to have a continuously ordered scale for measuring excellence in performance art that can accommodate a huge range of talent, all they way from the idiot who fell off the garage roof in a home video (0) to a giant boulder falling on Wile E. Coyote's head (10). Applied to figure skating, the scoring of the three artistic components takes a creditable shot at doing this in a way that produces outcomes (who won, who lost?) that matches our intuition and common sense.

Off topic: In the category of "hat's off to the judges," I went (as a spectator!) to a ballroom dancespoprt competition this morning. (My friend, not quite a beginner, got 6th in a division with more than 6 competitors! :rock: ) Anyway, in some of the dances there were like 10 or so couples on the floor at the same time, possibly involved in two or more separate competitions. The judges were expected to keep it all straight.

Talk about an expensive sport. The ladies' gowns can cost thousands and you can't wear the same one over again, unless you go to a different city where no one has seen you before. :)

I want to comment on the last two posts in detail (thank you!), but for now here is a quickie. I tried to find a march-themed program by an elite skater to compare Mirai's to. I couldn't find it on You Tube, but Michael Weiss did a U.S. Civil War soldier for his LP a few years back. Here is a description of the intent of the choreography (from Weiss' web site; my comments in square brackets).

The young man, working in the fields, hears the drums off in the distance. He is moved as he has never been moved before…from deep within there is a calling. As the soldiers approach, he makes a decision, he must go with them! (Music: The Drums of War)

[Insert triple Axel here.]

His steps are filled with much bravado as they march through town after town. He is swept up by his own confidence as they pass by the young ladies blowing kisses and the old men saluting. “Bring them on!” he yells. [Not clear whether this means the kisses and salutes, or the enemy.] (Music: When Johnny Comes Marching Home – [although he is going to war, not marching home at the moment.])

The reality of war hits hard. The dead and dying surround him by day, and the screams of boys just like him [no sound effects provided], from both sides of the shooting, haunt him at night. Very quickly there is a new understanding of what he is doing here [a sitspin], a new sense of purpose,…new priorities. (Music: Amazing Grace)

Yes, Johnny comes marching home. [Triple Lutz, triple toe] With the freedom of his countrymen secure, and a new respect for what that means, he is very different from the young man who heard the drums while in the field. Heading home he dreams of his family and the life he will build…approaching the dirt road to his farm [represented by the judges’ row], he is greeted by a group of children, one of whom runs ahead proclaiming, “He’s home! He’s home! The patriot is home!” [Cue the Zamboni.]

(Music: Battle Hymn of the Republic. [OK, I can’t make fun of a song that features that all-time cool lyric, “He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored!”])

Take that, baby Mirai! :)
 
Last edited:
Top