Fixed base scores for elements | Golden Skate

Fixed base scores for elements

GF2445

Record Breaker
Joined
Feb 7, 2012
One of the biggest irks about the scoring system is about levels and doing everything to achieve these levels. I really like that over the last couple of seasons more elements instead of being given a level have a fixed base score and are only evaluated for execution. In singles, skaters have the choreographic step sequence and in dance they have the choreographed lift.

Should more elements have a fixed value in the future.

Maybe one of the spins in singles can have a fixed value. And in pairs there can be a fixed base value for a 'choreographed pair lift' and spins or the death spiral. For dance, maybe replace one of the step sequence for a 'choreographed' step sequence with some parts in dance hold and some not touching. Maybe in the future they can replace the 'choreographed lift' in ice dance with a creative element (it could be a dance lift, a dance spin, twizzles, hydroblading etc.) with a fixed base value for more variety.
 

FSGMT

Record Breaker
Joined
Sep 10, 2012
Yes, I think that spins and steps, in single skating, and death spirals, in pairs, should have a fixed base value (with strict requirements in order to receive, for example a minimum total number of revolutions to be performed in all the three basic positions for a CCoSp), but without the level features, and be judged only with the GOE, but with different requirements: for example, the variety and the difficulty of the positions in the spin should be one of the things to be considered in the GOE... But I think that things like this won't happen, because the level are the real innovation of this IJS...
 

CanadianSkaterGuy

Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
I think the levels are important because it mitigates the subjectivity of what a good spin or good footwork should or shouldn't be. I can picture a top skater doing an easier spin/footwork than a "lesser" skater with a harder/better executed spin but still getting higher bonus. You see it in the ChSp1 all the time... where a junior skater incorporates more difficulty into their ChSp1 but won't ever score as much or higher than a top skater who "performs better" even with an easier sequence. I'm okay with the ChSp1 and a bonus being added, because it mitigates ANOTHER minute-long footwork sequence. It's like the first sequence shows what the skater is technically capable of, and the second shows how well they can "perform".

At least levels force everyone to increase the difficulty of their elements... having a base value would be a bad idea because it essentially negates the benefit of trying intricate positions. Why risk a flying change of foot or an edge change, or even a Biellmann, if you can get high marks for a basic camel-sit-change-sit or a fast layback.
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Way back in the late 1990s, I tried to imagine what a points-for-elements scoring system for skating might look like.

I didn't anticipate the invention of the technical panel. I just imagined that judges could give deductions for errors on elements and could also give bonus points for extra difficulty OR for extra quality (or both).

Maybe make the GOEs range from -5 to +5.

In theory, I think it could work to move the responsibility to rewarding difficulty in these elements over to the judges. But it would make the rewards for difficulty more subjective and less consistent than they are now, and it would also make it harder to tell exactly what a skater is being rewarded for.

So I think that, given the system currently in place, it would probably be best to rejigger the scale of values such that it's always more valuable to raise the quality by by one GOE step than to raise the difficulty by one level, and to encourage judges to use the positive GOEs freely for well-performed simple elements.

Then it would become better strategy for skaters to choose, for example, to perfect level 2 elements instead of aiming to achieve level 4 at the expense of quality.
 

TontoK

Hot Tonto
Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Country
United-States
Another contributor mentioned it in another post... and I completely agree with the sentiment.

I'm ready to see some well executed classic layback spins from the ladies.

They have to do so many contortions, including the awful Biellmann spin, to gain levels. Most laybacks are a mess nowadays.

I want to see a terrific, fast, centered, beautiful layback spin make a comeback. Think Angela Nikodinov.

I wish they'd make that a SP requirement, since I believe a well-executed basic one would be quite difficult.
 

mskater93

Record Breaker
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
I am ALL FOR fixed value elements on spins and steps. Most leveled step sequences look like the skater is having a seizure at points as they zig-zag across the ice having little musical merit as the skater checks the boxes off for each type of turn and step they include. Give me the step sequence Yagudin performed in his Winter program or Michelle Kwan performed in her EoE program over some of the L3 and L4 step sequences which meander around the rink these days. Same for spins. Some positions which are awarded as features NO ONE should ever do (A frame spin, I mean YOU) and some look so painful and labored on some skaters (donut, Bielman, haircutter) it takes away the enjoyment of the program. Give all spins and steps a L4 fixed BV and change the point structure for GOE so that +3 means +3 and not 1.5 to encourage variety and award speed, centering, position quality and so on. It should be a yes or no proposition like the ChSt1 is - did you hit the position(s)? Yes/No, did you hold for the requisite number of revs for each position in the spin? Yes/No. It makes the spins an all or nothing proposition AND would encourage more quality spins.
 

TontoK

Hot Tonto
Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Country
United-States
At least levels force everyone to increase the difficulty of their elements... having a base value would be a bad idea because it essentially negates the benefit of trying intricate positions. Why risk a flying change of foot or an edge change, or even a Biellmann, if you can get high marks for a basic camel-sit-change-sit or a fast layback.

I may be getting things little confused (advanced age, you know) but I thought part of the plan with IJS was that simpler elements that are very well done could score higher than weakly done harder ones.

Angela N's classic basic layback is worth a dozen shoddy-looking (but admittedly difficult) layback-drop-the-leg-to-speed-up-lean-sideways-grab-the-foot-hoist-over-the-head Level 4 monstrosities displayed by virtually every senior lady.
 

CanadianSkaterGuy

Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
I may be getting things little confused (advanced age, you know) but I thought part of the plan with IJS was that simpler elements that are very well done could score higher than weakly done harder ones.

Angela N's classic basic layback is worth a dozen shoddy-looking (but admittedly difficult) layback-drop-the-leg-to-speed-up-lean-sideways-grab-the-foot-hoist-over-the-head Level 4 monstrosities displayed by virtually every senior lady.

This is the case though. An excellent level 2 or level 3 layback can certainly out score a poorly executed level 4 layback depending on GOE.
 

Moment

Final Flight
Joined
Jan 18, 2013
I really like rather simple, well-executed elements too. It is a shame those kinds of elements are rarely seen under the current rules. I can't say I completely disagree on the idea of leveled elements of IJS either, though. A double Axel / a triple toe loop jump can look very beautiful with beautiful technique and finesse, but people (me too) still want skaters land quads and triple Axels for more difficulty. And I do love level four step sequences by excellent skaters. Problems arise when some who don't have the blade control and ice coverage attempt such complicated footwork only to look extremely labored. Back in the 6.0, no rockers, counters or twizzles in the free skate at all, now it seems like we have too many of them.
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Assume that there will continue to be a score for each element, but that levels and features could be taken off the table completely.

What would be some good rules or guidelines to provide appropriate scoring of the following pre-IJS laybacks?

Dorothy Hamill

Dianne DeLeeuw (note that she did her jumps and all her other spins counterclockwise, but for some reason she chose to do her laybacks clockwise -- should that be reflected in the scoring somehow?)

Kristi Yamaguchi

Oksana Baiul

Nathalie Krieg

Tanya Street

Lucinda Ruh

Angela Nikodinov

Sarah Hughes

Irina Slutskaya

Sasha Cohen

Yukina Ota


Which do you enjoy most and why? Which do you think should score highest? Are your criteria for answering both questions identical?


Would some of the dissatisfaction with the current state of ladies' laybacks be mitigated if switching to a Biellmann position after at least 8 revolutions were no longer allowed in the short program?
 

CanadianSkaterGuy

Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Except GOE is not used correctly and it *almost* never happens.

So then why would having fixed values and applying a GOE scale to it be any more helpful? If anything that would increase the judges' ability to tailor elements' scores according to their whims. At least with Levels the judges' opinion are secondary to the putative difficulty of the element and not the other way around.
 

GF2445

Record Breaker
Joined
Feb 7, 2012
Thank you for all your opinions. keep them coming. Levels are a big achievement of this new system and for a lot if the elements it should remain but for selected elements such as spins, lifts and steps sequences an option for a creative or choreographic element which is excluded from levels should be given. some of the positions in the lifts spins or sequences look quite dangerous (can cause serious injury) and not very elegant.

I only became a fan of the sport in 2010 and looking back at pre-IJS program's I can see what the fuss is all about and see what things have been lost due to the points system
 

GF2445

Record Breaker
Joined
Feb 7, 2012
Thank you for all your opinions. keep them coming. Levels are a big achievement of this new system and for a lot if the elements it should remain but for selected elements such as spins, lifts and steps sequences an option for a creative or choreographic element which is excluded from levels should be given. some of the positions in the lifts spins or sequences look quite dangerous (can cause serious injury) and not very elegant.

I only became a fan of the sport in 2010 and looking back at pre-IJS program's I can see what the fuss is all about and see what things have been lost due to the points system

In saying that. It's too late to return back to it. The sport has already gone so far ahead since its implementation. Changes need to occur after Sochi. I was told that you can't win from your short program but you can lose it and 2013 Worlds in the men's category completely misses it. The short program is to set the tone for the free skate which is essentially a 'longer short program'.

Sandra Bezic made a wonderful comment about the judging and how it's over dissection of each element 'misses the forest throug the trees' and doesn't take enough into account about the moment that the skater creates in the program. From an audience's view, it is the moment and making a judgement about that moment that makes skating exciting, not the whole 'let's make points, points and more points' thing. Yes, you do need to have a program with technical difficulty to win but if you stuff it up in the moment, the errors has to count for something. Lets take 213 worlds, patrick had a difficult long program and he is the best mover around the ice in this current age but he didnt do it in the moment yet Denis, whose program was just as difficult but doesn't have the same component levels as patrick kept the moment and it was exciting and it should count for something more than he was rewarded.

that is what 6.0 makes extremely clear and this system not so clear to see. In saying that, when it comes to Yuna Kim, whether your talking points or 6.0, you know that the result is going to be fantastic.
 

mskater93

Record Breaker
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
So then why would having fixed values and applying a GOE scale to it be any more helpful? If anything that would increase the judges' ability to tailor elements' scores according to their whims. At least with Levels the judges' opinion are secondary to the putative difficulty of the element and not the other way around.
Because many skaters look like they are struggling to achieve levels in spins, some positions are down right UGLY and should never have been conceived of, and spins no longer match the musical phrasing of a program, people are doing whatever position for whatever timing required to satisfy the requirements of the spin and a lot of times, they no longer make sense in the program. As it is, most of the skaters at the top echelon of the sport are getting level 3's and 4's so it's really based upon the judges' discretion anyway.
 

CanadianSkaterGuy

Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Because many skaters look like they are struggling to achieve levels in spins, some positions are down right UGLY and should never have been conceived of, and spins no longer match the musical phrasing of a program, people are doing whatever position for whatever timing required to satisfy the requirements of the spin and a lot of times, they no longer make sense in the program. As it is, most of the skaters at the top echelon of the sport are getting level 3's and 4's so it's really based upon the judges' discretion anyway.

I meant this in reference to the comment that GOE isn't being used properly. Of course there are a lot of cases where GOE isn't being used properly but a fixed value with GOE would give the judges even more leeway.

The top skaters are getting level 3s and 4s because everyone has to in order to get those points. If it was a fixed level with just GOE, you can bet top skaters would reduce the difficulty of their other elements. Lower skaters would have to keep their difficulty in order to be on par with the top level skaters. A low-difficulty element performed by a top skater can score as much as a high-difficulty element from an "inferior" skater. Also, top skaters will be deducted far less severely than inferior skaters (we already see that with top skaters getting -1's and -2's when they fall; the same courtesy isn't extended to lesser skaters even if those skaters met all the other GOE requirements of the jump).
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
The top skaters are getting level 3s and 4s because everyone has to in order to get those points. If it was a fixed level with just GOE, you can bet top skaters would reduce the difficulty of their other elements. Lower skaters would have to keep their difficulty in order to be on par with the top level skaters. A low-difficulty element performed by a top skater can score as much as a high-difficulty element from an "inferior" skater.

Yes, this is true.

Suppose that there are no levels and that all rewards for both difficulty and quality are left up to the judges' GOEs.

Skaters who can perform simple elements with good quality will earn points that way. If they can earn the full range of positive GOE (currently +3) purely on quality, they won't need to add any difficulty.

Some skaters with good but not great quality will also add some extra difficulty so they can get extra points both ways and have a chance of +3 or at least +2.

Skaters who struggle with achieving enough quality to be rewarded (speed, positions, centering on spins; speed, edge quality, musical expression on steps) even when they keep the elements simple may strategize that even with unleveled elements they're more likely to increase GOE by doing clearly more than the bare minimum of difficulty. They wouldn't be guaranteed to be rewarded in the same way that they are guaranteed to earn levels if they execute the features, but they might consider it a better bet for earning points.

Also, top skaters will be deducted far less severely than inferior skaters (we already see that with top skaters getting -1's and -2's when they fall; the same courtesy isn't extended to lesser skaters even if those skaters met all the other GOE requirements of the jump).

It all depends on the quality of the jump. Even top skaters get -3 for most jumps with falls. But if there were enough good qualities in the rest of the element (e.g., difficult entry and/or air position, good speed, good height, and of course full rotation; and especially when there's an excellent first jump in a combo or sequence followed by a fall on the last jump), then -2 or -1 can be justified. And it doesn't have to be a top skater in the sense of being an all-around top skater with top skating skills as well as top-level jumps and spins and presentation -- a top jumper can earn -1 or -2 for a failed jump even with mediocre scores in other areas.

So, similarly, an excellent spinner who rarely wins medals because of mediocre basic skating and/or jumping could earn higher GOEs for simpler spins, or spins with errors in a small part of the spin, than a weaker spinner (who may actually be a stronger skater) doing harder spins or comparable difficulty without visible errors.
 

FSGMT

Record Breaker
Joined
Sep 10, 2012
Assume that there will continue to be a score for each element, but that levels and features could be taken off the table completely.

What would be some good rules or guidelines to provide appropriate scoring of the following pre-IJS laybacks?

Dorothy Hamill

Dianne DeLeeuw (note that she did her jumps and all her other spins counterclockwise, but for some reason she chose to do her laybacks clockwise -- should that be reflected in the scoring somehow?)

Kristi Yamaguchi

Oksana Baiul

Nathalie Krieg

Tanya Street

Lucinda Ruh

Angela Nikodinov

Sarah Hughes

Irina Slutskaya

Sasha Cohen

Yukina Ota


Which do you enjoy most and why? Which do you think should score highest? Are your criteria for answering both questions identical?


Would some of the dissatisfaction with the current state of ladies' laybacks be mitigated if switching to a Biellmann position after at least 8 revolutions were no longer allowed in the short program?
My guidelines would be:
-elegance of the position, judging how parallel to the ice your shoulders and your back are;
-ability to centre the spin quickly;
-high number of rotations in a good position;
-speed throughout the spin (possibly with an increase).
Basing on these, this would be my ranking:
1) Nathalie Krieg (not the best position, but the speed is absolutely outstanding!)
2) Dorothy Hamill
3) Yukina Ota
4) Dianne de Leeuw
5) Irina Slutskaya
6) Sasha Cohen
7) Kristi Yamaguchi
8) Lucinda Ruh
9) Sarah Hughes
10)Angela Nikodinov
11) Oksana Baiul
12) Tanya Street (not really a "layback")
 

CanadianSkaterGuy

Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
I agree with those criteria, and I would add leg position as well since many skaters tend to arch, but don't have the leg raised above the hip in an arabesque position (which is really hard to do if you lack hip flexibility).

I'm curious as to where Caroline Zhang would fall in that list: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQhf7WSUsGE Same with Nagasu, Czisny, and Lipnitskaia.

Also wondering where Daisuke's and Rohene Ward's would fall under those.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
I agree with those criteria, and I would add leg position as well since many skaters tend to arch, but don't have the leg raised above the hip in an arabesque position (which is really hard to do if you lack hip flexibility).

Wait. Above the hip? No, that's impossible. Once you get in the layback position the best you can achieve is straight out from the knee, right?

Trying to rank these (much less give cogent reasons fir my ranking) is reason number 3295 why I am not a figure skating judge. These are all wonderful. My favorite to watch was Kristi. Reason: she had the best music. Her clip was the only one that I watched all the way through the rest of the program, because I wanted to hear the rest of the song. And I'm glad I did, because of her double Axel at the end. :love:

I thought Dorothy Hamill was the best.

Krieg would be the hardest to score, for me. It's kind of funky, but that can be good or bad. Is she climbing a rope or boxing with God? Very cool, anyway.
 
Last edited:
Top