Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 LastLast
Results 121 to 135 of 138

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

  1. #121
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,052
    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.

  2. #122
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    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.^^

  3. #123
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    27,968
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Robeye View Post
    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.

  4. #124
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,753
    Quote Originally Posted by fairly4 View Post
    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.)

    [QUOTE=Robeye;732483]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. [quote]

    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?)

  5. #125
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    She got extra points for the geese flying by.



    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.
    http://www.basicmusictheory.com/b-sharp-major-scale


  6. #126
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    27,968
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    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

  7. #127
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    Interesting that you should choose that example without having looked at my link.
    What the hey! 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.

  8. #128
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,753
    Quote Originally Posted by Robeye View Post
    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.

  9. #129
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,224
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post

    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

  10. #130
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    825
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    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?
    It's hard to judge the video of that particular performance with all the birds flying around...

  11. #131
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    409
    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.

  12. #132
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    27,968
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    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.

  13. #133
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    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.

  14. #134
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Greater Boston, MA
    Posts
    782
    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.

  15. #135
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    27,968
    Quote Originally Posted by Robeye View Post
    I can't decide whether I'm feeling relieved or disappointed that you are not an ISU judge.
    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.

Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •