Unleveled & "Reduced Level" elements?

Since the advent of COP there have been so many complaints about ugly spins, ugly spirals, and ugly step sequences. I thought the introduction of a "choreographic sequence" was a good idea that was not carried far enough. What about applying this to other elements?

The idea I had was bringing back the 2009-2010 required elements in the SP - men would do 2 step sequences and ladies would have a spiral sequence. But they must choose 1 of the non-jump elements to be "reduced level"; in other words, there are two levels where the requirements are much more lax than the normal level 4 requirements. It would be graded in the TES with accompanying GOE. However, part of the PE category in PCS (say, 6 points?) is then devoted to deductions for slow speed, poor positions, bad/shallow edges, large deviation from a straight line/circle/serpentine, not fitting the music, etc. ON THE REDUCED-LEVEL ELEMENT.

For example, a lady who doesn't want to do a Biellmann spin can simply choose to have the layback be reduced-level and be graded on how well she does the simpler spin (a true layback, not haircutter-Biellmann). A man who doesn't want to do a full 2nd step sequence can have the 2nd sequence be reduced-level and do simpler steps instead of drawing circles and flailing all over the ice for 40 seconds.

And then the free skate should be made freer; skaters choose ONE element to be unleveled (merely satisfy the Lvl1 requirement) and ONE element to be reduced level, and the tech panel must be told which elements they are. The execution component is again partially devoted to deductions for ugliness and other unsavory features ON THE REDUCED-/UN- LEVELED ELEMENTS. What do you think?

EDIT: seems I forgot to mention my main point. Execution deductions would be solely for the easier elements.

It wouldn't work because it's subjective and they'd say "it looked just fine" even if the skater looked pained or in some hideous position (A frame, anyone?).
For me:
Do away with all levels for spins and steps.
Step sequences that get a level 3/4 look like the skater is meandering around the rink having a seizure/allergic reaction or swatting flies for the most part. Skaters were unsure about the choreographic sequences and so they were a bit, well, ho-hum, this year (like choreographic lifts were in dance until the skaters "got it" and now the choreographic lifts are as spectacular as the leveled lifts) but I suspect these are going to be highlights going forward. Give skaters a level 3 base line for step sequences and judges to deduct for lack of variety in the turns and steps of the program (or the tech panel marks it somehow that the overall GOE needs to be negative like the "e" call on Lutz/flip if there isn't more than three turns, mohawks and brackets for example).
Spins still would need to be of a different nature, but should get either a LB or a L3 depending on whether the minimum revolutions were met. For the CCoSp, if all three basic positions aren't used for at least 3 revs each and the minimum revs per foot, it becomes a LB and a L3 if the minimum revs are met. If the skater rocks out of the center (like Nagasu did at Nationals in the SP in her CCoSp) on the entry or landing of a fly spin for the other 2 spins, then it is a LB otherwise it gets the points for a L3 and judges can add or subtract GOE based on the speed and quality of the positions.

I wish there were no levels for the death spiral. I'm tired of ugly, contorted change-hand death spirals. But keep the cool entrances, please!

I'd like to see a choreographic jumps sequence in singles and pairs. Nothing harder than a double lutz allowed. Maybe a bonus for single skaters who complete all six jump types correctly in a program; if there is a triple the skater can't perform, they can do the double as part of the choreographic jump sequence.

You can use jumps in the choreographic sequence as the rule is currently written, including listed elements. Gracie's originally was full of inside Axels and walleys, a spiral and a bauer. I don't know if you want a "choreographic jump sequence" as skaters are already packing programs with the hardest elements they can conceivably complete and putting MORE elements in the program is just going to make it more packed...What would you get rid of in the program right now if you added your choreographic jump sequence?

mskater93 said:

What would you get rid of in the program right now if you added your choreographic jump sequence?

Click to expand...

I can't speak for SubRosa.

What I would propose is that skaters could choose to do a choreographic jump sequence that contains only no-rotation, half-, single, and 1.5-rotation jumps in place of the current choreo sequence and/or in place of one of the jump slots.

E.g., for singles skaters, you get a maximum of 13 or 14 elements for a 4:30 program and a maximum of 12 for a 4-minute program. Of those, say at least 6 but no more than 8 must be jumps, at least 3 but no more than 5 must be spins, and at least 1 but no more than 2 must be step sequences. It would be possible to fill the program with only those three kinds of elements by using the existing men's well-balanced program rules.

But there would also be other kinds of elements: small-jump sequence, spiral sequence, field moves sequence (for the latter two, a single sustained glide in position could fill the slot if it covered the whole length of the ice surface, or the whole width in a circle), school figures variation. If you fit all your triples into 6 or 7 jump passes and only do 1 step sequence, that gives you additional slots to include additional kinds of elements, or an extra spin or two (with the existing limits on repeating spin codes or features).

mskater93 said:

It wouldn't work because it's subjective and they'd say "it looked just fine" even if the skater looked pained or in some hideous position (A frame, anyone?).

Click to expand...

Whoops! I forgot the main part of my post - deductions for poor execution would only be for the reduced-level elements, and would be extremely strict. That way, there might be a balance between difficult but hideous elements and simplistic yet well-executed elements.

GoE can be tricky, since it's percieved as a arbitrary, but that seems to be an easy fix. Bump up the goe value for lower level non jump elements so +3 on a level 2 spin is worth more then +0 on a level 4 etc, ditto spiral and step sequences

ivy said:

GoE can be tricky, since it's percieved as a arbitrary, but that seems to be an easy fix. Bump up the goe value for lower level non jump elements so +3 on a level 2 spin is worth more then +0 on a level 4 etc, ditto spiral and step sequences

Click to expand...

That is already true. +3 for all those elements is equal to 1.5 points, and the difference between level 2 and level 4 base mark varies up to a maximum of 1.2 points.

But if you can already do, let's say, a level 2 element with +1 GOE, it will probably be easier to add two more features (even if it knocks your GOE back to 0) than to add four more positive GOE bullet points.

That's one reason why I think increasing the quality should be rewarded more -- because it's harder, at least once you get past +1. As well as the fact that it's more enjoyable to watch.

What we really need is to make sure that level 2 with +1 GOE is worth more than level 3 with 0 GOE (currently true for some spins but not all, and not for step sequences).


Here's another thought? What if instead of levels, the tech panel just awards difficulty features, up to a maximum of 4 per element. There could be standard features that each add 0.3 to the base value of the element, and extra-difficult features that add 0.5.

And then each positive GOE step could be 0.7, so it's always better to increase the quality enough to convince all the judges than to add one more feature.