Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 77

Thread: It's Time For 6.0 To Return

  1. #46
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    143
    Quote Originally Posted by Dragonlady View Post
    I have no interest in a return to 6.0 or the awful programs produced under this system in the years leading up to the SLC scandal. The basic skating is so much better under the new system. Skaters are now doing proper spins again, and footwork is no longer a lost art. It had reached a point where no one did anything well, except jump.
    ITA , spins were particularly awful from alot of skaters, now most people are quite decent at the least in terms of spinning, basic skating skills have also improved tenfold.
    For example can you imagine someone with Surya Bonalys skating skills getting on any senior podiums today!!?

  2. #47
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    348
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    So maybe choose one 4-year period under 6.0 for comparison with one 4-year period under IJS.
    Well, if we're going to play this game Would you consider the 2002-2006 quad to be 6.0 or IJS?

  3. #48
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Great Britain
    Posts
    233
    I really dislike the 6.0 system, and way prefer IJS. Yes, it has its flaws but so did the 6.0. I think the IJS system just needs to be edited slightly, opposed to completely reverting back to a system which has just as many if not more flaws!

  4. #49
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,869
    Quote Originally Posted by zschultz1986 View Post
    Well, if we're going to play this game Would you consider the 2002-2006 quad to be 6.0 or IJS?
    That would be a poor quad to choose for comparative purposes because it's a transitional period.

    But since most of the top skaters at the time at had trained under 6.0 and were still getting used to IJS at best, it would probably be more accurate to count it under 6.0 for artistic purposes.

  5. #50
    Custom Title Cherryy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    258
    Well, no, I like the idea of this system, it has many advantages. For me the most important ones are
    1. You can be on podium after screwing up a short program, so you can move up as much as 7 places or so.
    2. Spins. They just got miles better.
    3. You can clearly see why some skaters were propped up and finished high and why some were lowballed. In 6.0 some would have no idea why certain skater got 5.5 for technical merit with excellent jumps or sth.
    4. You can compare performances from different competitions (well, at least theoretically)
    5. You cannot cheat. Underrotations and wrong edges were never seen in 6.0 era.

    And as somebody pointed out nicely - it's easier to change IJS and make needed adjustments, so that when you see there are too little quads you change their BV and here you go.

  6. #51
    Custom Title FSGMT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    2,836
    Quote Originally Posted by Cherryy View Post
    2. Spins. They just got miles better.
    3. You can clearly see why some skaters were propped up and finished high and why some were lowballed. In 6.0 some would have no idea why certain skater got 5.5 for technical merit with excellent jumps or sth.

  7. #52
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    348
    Quote Originally Posted by Cherryy View Post
    Well, no, I like the idea of this system, it has many advantages. For me the most important ones are
    1. You can be on podium after screwing up a short program, so you can move up as much as 7 places or so.
    2. Spins. They just got miles better.
    3. You can clearly see why some skaters were propped up and finished high and why some were lowballed. In 6.0 some would have no idea why certain skater got 5.5 for technical merit with excellent jumps or sth.
    4. You can compare performances from different competitions (well, at least theoretically)
    5. You cannot cheat. Underrotations and wrong edges were never seen in 6.0 era.

    And as somebody pointed out nicely - it's easier to change IJS and make needed adjustments, so that when you see there are too little quads you change their BV and here you go.
    Again

    1. That has nothing to do with the system. That was the fact that judges wouldn't have the courage to place someone in the second to last flight at the top if they had a great skate and the top contenders bombed. Honestly, I hate this first argument, because you're trying to pin "no movement from Short to Long" on the system, when it was the judges. You could do the same under 6.0, though it was rare. Bad judging is bad judging, no matter what system you're in.

    2. I agree that it made people focus on spins.... but better? Really? I've made this point in this thread before, so I'll spare you all again.

    3. The argument I think you're trying to articulate is that fact the IJS quantifies things better. That I'll agree with. However, "voodoo judging" still happens.

    4. You can compare performances easily under 6.0. Your argument (I think) is the same as #3, the quantifying of elements. However, PCS and GoE are extremely subjective: just as objective as 6.0.

    5. Honestly? I could care less about slight under-rotations, but I understand why IJS has been beneficial in this respect. You want to say the IJS rewards risk taking, and then go in with a fine tooth comb and ding everything for under-rotations. I get the wrong edges parts. It has made everyone (mostly) adjust their lutz tech. However, I think, sometimes, the edge and rotation counting gets in the way of the judges actually seeing what is out their on the ice. BTW, this is also an area where cheating can occur and where technical callers need to be consistent across the board, or else the integrity of the position is severely undermined. Also, it's kind of taken the fun out of watching the sport, a bit. Now instead of taking in the performance, I'm trying to look at if they pre-rotated on the ice or finished the jump during the landing or if they flipped over to an inside edge on their lutz...

  8. #53
    Skating is art, if you let it be. Blades of Passion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Hollywood, CA
    Posts
    4,006
    Spins have NOT become better under CoP. They've become more "difficult". Difficult doesn't mean better.

    Kwan, Cohen, Hughes, Slutsakaya...they all had very pleasing spins in 6.0 that went better with the music and choreography than most spins do these days.

    A lot of the other skaters may not have been as good at those elements, but under CoP the less-attuned spinners attempt spins which are SO ungainly that it majorly detracts from programs. I'd rather see simple, short, "lackluster" spins over grotesque, disconnected, difficult spins.

  9. #54
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,869
    Quote Originally Posted by Cherryy View Post
    Well, no, I like the idea of this system, it has many advantages. For me the most important ones are
    1. You can be on podium after screwing up a short program, so you can move up as much as 7 places or so.
    2. Spins. They just got miles better.
    3. You can clearly see why some skaters were propped up and finished high and why some were lowballed. In 6.0 some would have no idea why certain skater got 5.5 for technical merit with excellent jumps or sth.
    4. You can compare performances from different competitions (well, at least theoretically)
    5. You cannot cheat. Underrotations and wrong edges were never seen in 6.0 era.
    Quote Originally Posted by zschultz1986 View Post
    1. That has nothing to do with the system. That was the fact that judges wouldn't have the courage to place someone in the second to last flight at the top if they had a great skate and the top contenders bombed. Honestly, I hate this first argument, because you're trying to pin "no movement from Short to Long" on the system, when it was the judges. You could do the same under 6.0, though it was rare. Bad judging is bad judging, no matter what system you're in.
    There are two separate issues here.

    One is that skate order and which long program group a skater was in did have at least an unconscious effect on judges' willingness to score an early performance high enough to hold up against the final-group skaters, and they did tend to overscore poor performances in the final group relative to comparable performances in an earlier group. This happens with both judging systems. I'm not sure it's ever the judges' conscious intent to hold down earlier skaters, but since the psychological effect of expectations is real, it doesn't really matter to the skaters effected whether the judges did it on purpose or not.

    The other issue is that with factored placements, how far a skater who placed low in the short and much higher in the long depended not only on who s/he beat in the long and by how much, but also on what order those other skaters finished in relative to each other.

    Suppose you're 6th in the short program and win the free skate. How far can you move up -- what color medal do you get, if any? Well, if your name is Alexei Urmanov, it could be bronze (1991 Lalique), silver (1995 Europeans), or gold (the infamous 1997 Europeans). The difference is not in your placements, but in the long program placements of the five skaters who beat you in the short. You didn't control your own destiny.

    With IJS, if you win the freeskate from 6th place, then your medal if any could also be any color, but it depends entirely on whether you can beat each skater ahead of you by more than they beat you in the short. It makes no difference what order they finish in relative to each other.

    2. I agree that it made people focus on spins.... but better? Really? I've made this point in this thread before, so I'll spare you all again.
    On average, spins today are faster with more revolutions and better positions than a decade or more ago. Obviously there were some exceptions in the past, and there were some good simple, often relatively brief, spins in the past. But there were also a lot of mediocre and bad simple spins in the past.

    The skill level now is higher. It's common for skaters to have many revolutions of fast centered spin in reasonably good positions and then to transition to another variation with a more labored position, that slows down, etc. So if you're a glass half-empty kind of person, you'll see the mistake and think the whole spin is bad. If you're a glass half-full person, you'll see all the good stuff that the skater did during that spin as outweighing the mistake. YMMV.

    Now instead of taking in the performance, I'm trying to look at if they pre-rotated on the ice or finished the jump during the landing or if they flipped over to an inside edge on their lutz...
    Because you're more knowledgeable now, for better or for worse. Some of us were looking for edge and rotation problems in the 6.0 era as well, and so were the judges. But the TV commentators rarely mentioned these problems and the average viewer had no idea they mattered.

  10. #55
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,253
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    ... or gold (the infamous 1997 Europeans).
    I have never understood what was supposed to be so infamous about this competition. It was unusual in that everyone who did well in the short program messed up big time in the long. The placements were all over the place and no clear winner emerged.

    People complained about "flip-flops," but all that means is, don't count your chickens until everyone has skated. The ISU rushed to OBO instead of majority of ordinals, but the new system did not address any of the problems of the old and merely created an illusion that the ISU was "doing something about the crazy judging."

  11. #56
    Medalist
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    90
    Quote Originally Posted by aikon View Post
    Thanks Eisluaf!

    so we are dealing with people being afraid of doing wrong. Who is punishing them then? Sounds like a very unnatural situation to me. And given what I am reading about wrong judging they have to be afraid of their federations and the audience alike. Maybe even the ISU. Feels a bot like - whatever you do it is wrong. Gee, I would not want to be in this position.
    Oh, and how are they being put under pressure if it s not money?
    From what I've heard, USFS international and Olympic level judges are treated to first class international travel, 5 star hotel accommodations, lavish dinners, cocktail parties galore and the opportunity to give coaches informal feedback about their skaters' programs, presentation etc. It's glamorous and exciting. I've also heard that the judges are under a lot of pressure to "vote correctly" (ie for whomever the judges/federations informally decide they like beforehand) in order to move up in the judging ranks and also to be asked to judge future competitions.

  12. #57
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    143
    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    Spins have NOT become better under CoP. They've become more "difficult". Difficult doesn't mean better.

    Kwan, Cohen, Hughes, Slutsakaya...they all had very pleasing spins in 6.0 that went better with the music and choreography than most spins do these days.

    A lot of the other skaters may not have been as good at those elements, but under CoP the less-attuned spinners attempt spins which are SO ungainly that it majorly detracts from programs. I'd rather see simple, short, "lackluster" spins over grotesque, disconnected, difficult spins.

    A big difference I have seen since COP was introduced is that skaters actually work on spins alot more as a level 4 spin is worth alot of points and I think this is producing more high quality spinners, though I agree with you in that some people really should not be doing the spins they are trying(certain poorly positioned beillmann spins come to mind ) but I think skaters are overall better at spinning than they were pre COP

  13. #58
    Skating is art, if you let it be. Blades of Passion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Hollywood, CA
    Posts
    4,006
    Yes they are better at spinning, but at the cost of the programs themselves. In the same vein that we don't want skating to be a "top jump" competition, we don't want it to be a "top spin" competition either. When people spend time forcing themselves into bad positions, it pretty much kills the programs in those moments and takes away from other movements they could be doing. Even when the positions are good, they often have nothing to do with the music or any kind of cohesive choreographic idea for the program; the skater is putting the technical first (for a measly .3, .4, or .5 increase in base value) and the program and performance second.

    If judges actually scored the GOE of spins correctly and actually marked performance/choreography/interpretation correctly, then it wouldn't be as much of an issue. As it stands now, though, skaters would rather just put the effort into trying to get max levels because it's points they know are in the bank.

  14. #59
    Custom Title Cherryy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    258
    Quote Originally Posted by zschultz1986 View Post
    Again

    1. That has nothing to do with the system. That was the fact that judges wouldn't have the courage to place someone in the second to last flight at the top if they had a great skate and the top contenders bombed. Honestly, I hate this first argument, because you're trying to pin "no movement from Short to Long" on the system, when it was the judges. You could do the same under 6.0, though it was rare. Bad judging is bad judging, no matter what system you're in.

    2. I agree that it made people focus on spins.... but better? Really? I've made this point in this thread before, so I'll spare you all again.

    3. The argument I think you're trying to articulate is that fact the IJS quantifies things better. That I'll agree with. However, "voodoo judging" still happens.

    4. You can compare performances easily under 6.0. Your argument (I think) is the same as #3, the quantifying of elements. However, PCS and GoE are extremely subjective: just as objective as 6.0.

    5. Honestly? I could care less about slight under-rotations, but I understand why IJS has been beneficial in this respect. You want to say the IJS rewards risk taking, and then go in with a fine tooth comb and ding everything for under-rotations. I get the wrong edges parts. It has made everyone (mostly) adjust their lutz tech. However, I think, sometimes, the edge and rotation counting gets in the way of the judges actually seeing what is out their on the ice. BTW, this is also an area where cheating can occur and where technical callers need to be consistent across the board, or else the integrity of the position is severely undermined. Also, it's kind of taken the fun out of watching the sport, a bit. Now instead of taking in the performance, I'm trying to look at if they pre-rotated on the ice or finished the jump during the landing or if they flipped over to an inside edge on their lutz...
    1. Well, yes it does. Even if the judges had the courage to place a skater that was in the 2nd group after SP first in the free skate, that skater wouldn't be able to take gold if he was far behind in the short because the difference was counted in placement not in scores. Imagine a situation - lady X bombed in the SP and was 15th but skated 8 triple program in the long while all the other competitors fell at least 5 times but the order of all other skaters was the same. Lady X wouldn't even make it to podium because of ordinals. In IJS she would have such a huge lead in the freeskate she would be able to make up for the points lost in the SP. It's just hypothetical situation but I hope you get the point.

    2. Yes, in my opinion they're better. Sure you had Lucinda in 6.0 that will never be beaten but had she competed under IJS she could have been rewarded more for her spins. On average spins today are far better, there's actually bigger diversity in positions, more revolutions, better stretch and speed so yes, I dare to say spins are now better than they used to be in the past.

    3. Agreed.

    4. I meant to say that in 6.0 era a performance that got 5.8/5.8 could have been worse than another one in different competition that got 5.6/5.6. The skater can clearly see where does he need to pay more attention and see the progress/regress in his skating as the season goes but you may be right this point is similar to the 3rd one.

    5. Well yeah, this time I agree - I, personally, don't care about underrotations as long as they're not visible to the naked eye. However, figure skating as a sport should be trated like a sport, so these small mistakes should be taken into consideration while giving the mark and these mistakes were totally omitted then.


    To Blades of Passion - I think figure skating is far from being a top-spin competition so there's no need to worry about that. Jumps were and will always be the most important technical aspect. Maybe some skaters concentrate so much on spins that the program is slightly worse but performing a poor spin in a good program would also make the program worse and less exciting.

  15. #60
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,015
    Quote Originally Posted by Eislauf View Post
    From what I've heard, USFS international and Olympic level judges are treated to first class international travel, 5 star hotel accommodations, lavish dinners, cocktail parties galore and the opportunity to give coaches informal feedback about their skaters' programs, presentation etc. It's glamorous and exciting. I've also heard that the judges are under a lot of pressure to "vote correctly" (ie for whomever the judges/federations informally decide they like beforehand) in order to move up in the judging ranks and also to be asked to judge future competitions.
    Nowadays the ISU is not so generous. Judges not picked for a panel or when they are done with their particular assignment, they must leave the next day, no hanging around for any parties, if there are any. There is a judges' meeting which usually includes a dinner, but the days of fabulous parties are mostly over although small parties are usually held in hotel rooms. Media is often invited and I've been to a few.
    Since the judges are volunteers you can't really complain about putting them up in nice hotels, and pay for their food, which is usually a buffet. I recall one time in Russia the hotel was so bad the organiazing group had to move them to another hotel.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 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
  •