Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 53

Thread: Fixed base scores for elements

  1. #31
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,869
    Quote Originally Posted by CanadianSkaterGuy View Post
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uYKF00PC7o&t=2m28s (although I appreciate his originality in attempting this, there's practically no back flexibility... this LSp4 got more points than many other female skaters who actually achieve the layback position http://www.isuresults.com/results/gp..._FS_Scores.pdf... seems more like a well-executed upright spin)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eck09NPwYjk&t=6m10s (this is a much better layback and I would rank it higher than some of the women on that list... excellent back position, in general, not just for a guy!... a shame about the rest of the FS though... he was so talented)
    Thanks.

    Again we come back to the definition of what is a good layback, what is the point of this element?

    Why has this spin been required (for ladies) for so many decades? What value does it possess?

    My guess is that it's a combination of two reasons:
    1) Many women are able to achieve beautiful whole-body curves through back and free leg that enhance the aesthetic value of their programs, in ways that are considered traditionally feminine, and the ISU wanted to encourage all female skaters to develop that skill as much as possible.
    2) Aesthetics aside, the ability to center a spin with the upper body off axis is a marker of technical skill worth rewarding. Note that the SP requirement has long been "layback or sideways leaning spin" and has not dictated the minimum acceptable position in any more detail than that.

    From a purely aesthetic point of view, one could say that any attractive position should be rewarded, and any unattractive position should be avoided by skaters and penalized when executed.

    "Attractive" is often in the eyes of the beholder. There are certain basic principles of aesthetics that most eyes will agree with, such as the "classic" attitude position with deep back arch, but different skaters have different body types so they're not all going to be able to create the exact same shapes with their body. Some observers will dislike anything that deviates from the classic position in certain directions (leg too low, back not arched enough, back arched too much, free leg not bent, asymmetrical back position, etc.) while others will enjoy well-performed variations.

    From an acrobatic point of view, flexibility could be valued for its own sake. In general more flexibility tends to be associated with the ability to achieve greater aesthetic appeal, but sometimes extreme flexibility can look like contortion and turn off some viewers. Also rewarding certain positions just for being achieved will encourage skaters to attempt them whether they have enough flexibility to look good or not, so we see a lot of bare-minimum-acceptable, or failed, haircutters and Biellmanns by not-so-flexible skaters that may or may not give them an extra level but that detract from the aesthetic appeal.

    From a technical point of view, a "good" layback is one that achieves at least a minimum acceptable body position with good centering, good speed, many revolutions. Those would all be reflected in the GOE.

    Being able to achieve both the backward and sideways positions, being able to change edge while in the laid-back position, and being able to arch the upper body backward at all in a backspin all add to the difficulty, so they can be rewarded as features.

    Looking at these two male laybacks, I agree that Ward shows more flexibility and a more aesthetically appealing curved shape -- which some gender bigots might consider too "feminine" for a man but as far as I'm concerned it's a plus. The spin is well centered and it has about 10 revolutions, so well over the 6+ expected in a senior freeskate. But it is kind of slow. So under the current GOE guidelines I'd go with +1 but could understand +2.

    Takahashi's is faster with more revolutions, enough for extra credit on each but not up to the level of the top female laybackers; the position is not unattractive IMO but nothing special, and the centering is mostly good but there is a slight amount of travel. So again I would go with +1 but could understand +2.

    However, he did more than a basic layback here. What I'm most impressed with from a technical point of view is the edge change. That is sooo difficult in that position, and he made it look effortless on this occasion. He also had the change from sideways to backward. So that's two obvious features -- I'm guessing he also got credit for 8 revs in the same position and for acceleration? Even without those latter features, it was still a more difficult technical feat than Ward's, so a higher level and a similar GOE for different reasons seems appropriate to me.

    So if there were a fixed base mark for "layback" and no levels, I would want to reward Takahashi for the difficulty in that edge change in the GOE. Either way, I think that spin deserves a higher score than Ward's.

  2. #32
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,253
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    OK, try this one for Lucinda Ruh

    Hopefully the clip will actually start where I told it to.
    Quote Originally Posted by jenaj View Post
    I agree with the criteria, but I don't see how Lucinda Ruh wouldn't be called the best on that basis.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...Xa0-DEg#t=115s
    Would you deduct for low leg position?

    Michelle Kwan, not a great spinner and somewhat "flexibility challenged," experimented with various positions throughout her career and eventually came up with the "heart spin." Dick Button called it "a pretty position within the range of her capabilities."

    http://a.espncdn.com/media/oly/2005/...g_kwan_195.jpg

  3. #33
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    4,982
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    Looking at these two male laybacks, I agree that Ward shows more flexibility and a more aesthetically appealing curved shape -- which some gender bigots might consider too "feminine" for a man but as far as I'm concerned it's a plus. The spin is well centered and it has about 10 revolutions, so well over the 6+ expected in a senior freeskate. But it is kind of slow. So under the current GOE guidelines I'd go with +1 but could understand +2.

    Takahashi's is faster with more revolutions, enough for extra credit on each but not up to the level of the top female laybackers; the position is not unattractive IMO but nothing special, and the centering is mostly good but there is a slight amount of travel. So again I would go with +1 but could understand +2.

    However, he did more than a basic layback here. What I'm most impressed with from a technical point of view is the edge change. That is sooo difficult in that position, and he made it look effortless on this occasion. He also had the change from sideways to backward. So that's two obvious features -- I'm guessing he also got credit for 8 revs in the same position and for acceleration? Even without those latter features, it was still a more difficult technical feat than Ward's, so a higher level and a similar GOE for different reasons seems appropriate to me.

    So if there were a fixed base mark for "layback" and no levels, I would want to reward Takahashi for the difficulty in that edge change in the GOE. Either way, I think that spin deserves a higher score than Ward's.
    The difficulty in the edge change was reflected in the level 4 nature of the spin (edge change is an extra level; he sometimes misses it though and only gets LSp3). Since Takahashi was in a more upright position the edge change (IMO) wasn't super hard... certainly not close to as hard as an edge change in a camel position, or an edge change in a difficult layback position (like Phaneuf's change of edge in her haircutter LSp4). I would certainly give higher GOE to Ward for back position and presentation of the spin, but indeed Takahashi has faster rotations and would get greater difficulty even though it was more like a headless upright spin with his arms out (but it certainly is original and as you said not unattractive, just kinda meh).

  4. #34
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,253
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post

    Again we come back to the definition of what is a good layback, what is the point of this element?

    Why has this spin been required (for ladies) for so many decades? What value does it possess?

    My guess is that it's a combination of two reasons:

    1) Many women are able to achieve beautiful whole-body curves through back and free leg that enhance the aesthetic value of their programs, in ways that are considered traditionally feminine, and the ISU wanted to encourage all female skaters to develop that skill as much as possible.
    I like the compromise proposal to have some spins scored for levels and others scored for their esthetic appeal and musical and choreographic value (like the choreography spiral). A wonderful layback spin can just leap up and stab you in the heart. Especially if it is timed to music that says, "Are you ready? Are you ready? Are you ready -- here it is!" (If the music is more fierce at that point you can do a split jump instead with the same emotional appeal.) Changes of foot and direction do not add anything and some changes of position, like hair-cutter and Biellmann, detract.

    Then after you did your second mark "pretty spin" you could do your technical "everything nut the kitchen sink combination spin" for big points.

  5. #35
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    4,982
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    I like the compromise proposal to have some spins scored for levels and others scored for their esthetic appeal and musical and choreographic value (like the choreography spiral). A wonderful layback spin can just leap up and stab you in the heart. Especially if it is timed to music that says, "Are you ready? Are you ready? Are you ready -- here it is!" (If the music is more fierce at that point you can do a split jump instead with the same emotional appeal.) Changes of foot and direction do not add anything and some changes of position, like hair-cutter and Biellmann, detract.

    Then after you did your second mark "pretty spin" you could do your technical "everything nut the kitchen sink combination spin" for big points.
    I agree with this... it would give skaters an opportunity to perform a creative spin that goes with the music (like the ChSp1). It's tricky determining what spin that will be though... maybe a flying spin, a combo spin, and one "other" spin.

  6. #36
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,869
    Quote Originally Posted by CanadianSkaterGuy View Post
    The difficulty in the edge change was reflected in the level 4 nature of the spin (edge change is an extra level; he sometimes misses it though and only gets LSp3). Since Takahashi was in a more upright position the edge change (IMO) wasn't super hard... certainly not close to as hard as an edge change in a camel position, or an edge change in a difficult layback position (like Phaneuf's change of edge in her haircutter LSp4). I would certainly give higher GOE to Ward for back position and presentation of the spin, but indeed Takahashi has faster rotations and would get greater difficulty even though it was more like a headless upright spin with his arms out (but it certainly is original and as you said not unattractive, just kinda meh).
    IJS definition of layback and sideways leaning spin (from ISU Communication 1740):
    Definition of Layback or Sideways Leaning spins:
    Layback Spin is an upright spin in which head
    and shoulders are leaning backward with
    the back arched. The position of the free leg is optional.
    Sideways Leaning Spin is an upright spin in which head and shoulders are leaning sideways and
    the upper body is arched. The position of the free leg is optional.
    There isn't a definition of exactly how far the back and shoulders need to be arched or leaning in order for the spin to be considered a layback (or sideways leaning spin) as opposed to a headless upright spin, but I would understand the latter to be arched from the neck only, not including the back and shoulders. By that definition, Takahashi's spin is indeed a layback, just not an extremely arched one. I'd say the same about my own layback, which is my best spin.

    The ISU decided a couple of years ago that edge changes would no longer count as features in upright spins or in back sitspins. I agree that those are much easier; the only spins I can actually change edge in are back upright and back sit.

    Still, I would give props to a skater who could change edge in a headless upright spin, forward or backspin. Haven't seen anyone try, but if they did I would hope they would get the edge-change feature as well as the difficult position feature.

    Just thinking about what I would even consider attempting, not that I would expect to succeed, I would think that the next easiest spin in which to change edge would be back camel. As for forward spins, I'll leave it to those who have actually attempted both to tell us whether it's easier to change in camel or layback position, but just based on the fact that we've seen so many more change-edge camels than laybacks, and the reaction of my body to even thinking about attempting either, I would expect the layback to be more difficult.

    Obviously, as you note, in a difficult layback position it would be even harder than a simple layback position.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    I like the compromise proposal to have some spins scored for levels and others scored for their esthetic appeal and musical and choreographic value (like the choreography spiral). ...
    Then after you did your second mark "pretty spin" you could do your technical "everything nut the kitchen sink combination spin" for big points.
    The way the choreographic sequences currently work, the leveled sequences must be executed earlier in the program and the choreo sequences afterward. I'm sure if the proposal of some leveled-some choreo spins were introduced, the leveled ones would most likely have to go first.

    This is mainly for the convenience of the technical panel, so there's no question which was intended to fill which slot.

    Choreographically, it would be better if skaters could have the option to do the choreo elements and the leveled elements in whichever order they prefer, both in terms of when they're more likely to succeed and when it fits the music and the concept of the program better.

    But if the rules were something like "the spin/step sequence that gets credit for the most features earns the respective level, and the other element(s) of that type get only the fixed base mark and GOE" then there would be nothing to stop skaters from attempting as many features as they could in every spin (and step sequence) and hoping at least one will qualify for level 4. Which would defeat the purpose.

    So there has to be a better way to make sure skaters and tech panels are on the same page as to which elements are available for levels and which are not.

    I'd kind of prefer to rethink the difference between short and long program -- since there's not much difference between them these days aside from the length.

    Alternative one:
    Technical program has leveled elements measure how much difficulty each skater can execute
    Free program has choreo elements where each skater uses only those skills s/he does best or that best contribute to the aesthetic purpose

    Alternative two:
    Compulsory program has simple basic required elements without significant variations, to measure how well each skater can execute the basic skills; no reward for extra difficulty, which might not even be allowed
    Free program allows free choice of all available skills and element types, with rewards for added difficulty in spins and steps in the form of features and levels

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadianSkaterGuy View Post
    I agree with this... it would give skaters an opportunity to perform a creative spin that goes with the music (like the ChSp1). It's tricky determining what spin that will be though... maybe a flying spin, a combo spin, and one "other" spin.
    Yeah, if there are three spins allowed in the program, then probably there would be a requirement for a spin in one position, a spin with change of position, at least one of which must have a flying entry, and then a third spin (which would likely have to be third chronologically) entirely of the skater's choice. If there are at least 3 revolutions, it gets the fixed base mark, and then after that it would be scored entirely on GOE and in the applicable program components.

    If there were only 3 revolutions, the GOE would likely be negative.

  7. #37
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,253
    But a two or even one revolution spin can be a nice touch, even if it doesn't fill a spin box. I guess a skater has to be careful in twirling around that she doesn't accidentally get charged with a weak spin.

    I can see the point about the choreography spin having to be last. It would be too much burden on the tech panel otherwise. The element could be effective, even so. You could also do a blinding-fast 0 feature upright spin as the very last element, like pro skaters often do. A crowd-pleasing way to end a program on a TA-DA note without losing levels.

    About the short program, alternatives 1 and 2 are food for thought. I can't decide which would be better, even though they are direct opposites.

  8. #38
    Custom Title FSGMT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    2,836
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    OK, try this one for Lucinda Ruh

    Hopefully the clip will actually start where I told it to.
    So, judging this (and changing a couple of things) this is my ranking:
    1) Lucinda Ruh
    2) Nathalie Krieg
    3) Dorothy Hamill
    4) Yukina Ota
    5) Irina Slutskaya
    6) Dianne De Leeuw
    7) Sasha Cohen
    8) Kristi Yamaguchi
    9) Sarah Hughes
    10)Angela Nikodinov
    11) Oksana Baiul
    12) Tanya Street (not really a "layback")

    Quote Originally Posted by jenaj View Post
    I agree with the criteria, but I don't see how Lucinda Ruh wouldn't be called the best on that basis.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...Xa0-DEg#t=115s
    This specific spin has a low number of revolutions (compared to the other skaters that gkelly posted) and, even if the position is good, there is real speed only during the first 3/4 revolutions... (As you can see, I placed her 1st in the new ranking)

  9. #39
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,869
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    But a two or even one revolution spin can be a nice touch, even if it doesn't fill a spin box. I guess a skater has to be careful in twirling around that she doesn't accidentally get charged with a weak spin.
    That has always been true in IJS.

    Before the mid-90s when the ISU introduced suggested minimum revolutions for spins in the long program (and raised the required minimums in the short), you would sometimes see long program spins with only two or three revolutions. Even good skaters sometimes did that for flying spins where the emphasis was on the air position not the spin.

    But since the well-balanced long program rules came in, 6 revs for solo spins and 10 total for combo spins are expected in senior long programs. However, the definition of a spin is 3 revolutions. Less than that is just a highlight move. Which can be a problem at lower levels (which don't use IJS in the US), where getting 3 revolutions in a camel position at all can be a challenge. But that shouldn't be an issue at senior level.

    About the short program, alternatives 1 and 2 are food for thought. I can't decide which would be better, even though they are direct opposites.
    Well, if the short program is about specific, basic required elements that everyone should be able to do and we're just going to measure how well they each do each one, then the program can remain short and the format could be similar to what it was in the 1980s (and in junior SPs now), with different specific spins and jumps required each year.

    If the technical program is the place to show all the hardest technical content and the free program is for showcasing one's own best skills with more emphasis on aesthetic coherence, then I think the technical program would need to be a long program to require or reward a full variety of jumping skills, in addition to as many technical skills as possible in spins and steps.

    Quote Originally Posted by FSGMT View Post
    So, judging this (and changing a couple of things) this is my ranking:
    1) Lucinda Ruh
    2) Nathalie Krieg
    Just curious, why do you prefer Ruh to Krieg?
    I think they're comparable, so neither order would be incorrect. I just like Krieg better myself, for the speed and position.

    This specific spin has a low number of revolutions (compared to the other skaters that gkelly posted) and, even if the position is good, there is real speed only during the first 3/4 revolutions...
    Actually, there was a glitch in the link for the first Ruh example I posted -- it started in the middle of the spin, even though I gave the time stamp for the beginning of the element. If you back up the counter to before the start of the spin, you could see the whole thing. But it wasn't one of her best spins -- there was noticeable travel at the beginning -- so I just replaced the broken link with a better link to a better spin.

  10. #40
    At the rink. Again. mskater93's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,196
    I am not advocating a reduction in difficulty of everything, as I said, I don't want to go back to the craptacular spins of the 90s from most of the competitors.

    Everything would still receive a base value in my world and the minimum requirements for those base values for jump rotation, spins, and steps would be spelled out specifically for the technical operator (data entry/video) and judges. Perhaps this wasn't clear to begin with. BUT, I would remove the levels entirely but still have similar requirements for the spins to receive the base value (positions must be held for X revolutions for the spin to count for a solo spin, fly requirements, and combination spin position requirements such as all three positions must be attained AND a certain number of revolutions must be attained in each of those positions for it to count versus just paying lipservice to the spin and sort of doing 1.5 in the first position, spending a rev flowing to the next position then 1.5 in the next position - no, this would not count in my world) and would have similar requirements on step sequence that a certain percentage of the sequence must turn opposite to the rest of the sequence and a certain variety of turns/steps and direction must be attained. Difficulty of the spin or intracacy of the step sequence along with quality would be ascertained by the judges in GOE. GOE would need to be restructured and judges retrained in my scenario.

    If a skater's program all went in the same direction (including turns and steps) this should be hit in SS, TR, and CH (or whatever you choose to call them) as it doesn't show balance. This, again, should be the judges' discretion.

    As for spins which were over-graded/under-graded on GOE, I will need to go pick you out specific examples, but frankly I don't have time to do this until the weekend at earliest. I just know when I look at some protocols after some ecents, I say "really, they got a +2 for that? It wasn't THAT good, yeah they had beautiful jumps and steps, but their spins are pretty average for that level of skater" or I see a nice level 2 that doesn't get rewarded as much as I think it should for the quality of the position and speed of the spin.

    To me, there's just so much technical thrown in for point-gathering's sake that there are VERY few programs I go back and re-watch because you could put any music on in the background and it would look the same. Much of the NA casual viewing public has been lost for any number of reasons but until there's a lady contending every year and some programs actually have some "artistic" value to them like Kwan, Cohen, Kerrigan, et al, that casual viewer isn't coming back. Skating is NOT running, swimming, or high jump. It needs to cash in on what makes it unique and different from a sport you put a stop watch to while maintaining the athletic aspect of it. Does what I am advocating now make sense?

  11. #41
    Custom Title FSGMT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    2,836
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    Just curious, why do you prefer Ruh to Krieg?
    I think they're comparable, so neither order would be incorrect. I just like Krieg better myself, for the speed and position.
    Choosing was difficult, yes, but I preferred Ruh because of the elegance of the back position and the excellent arm movements that went with the music; Krieg's speed was certainly better, but for me her position was a bit inelegant and her arm movements looked a bit frantic actually... Let me say that they are almost tied, I would give +3 to both of them

    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    Actually, there was a glitch in the link for the first Ruh example I posted -- it started in the middle of the spin, even though I gave the time stamp for the beginning of the element. If you back up the counter to before the start of the spin, you could see the whole thing. But it wasn't one of her best spins -- there was noticeable travel at the beginning -- so I just replaced the broken link with a better link to a better spin.
    Oh, now I understand!

  12. #42
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,869
    Quote Originally Posted by mskater93 View Post
    I am not advocating a reduction in difficulty of everything, as I said, I don't want to go back to the craptacular spins of the 90s from most of the competitors.

    Everything would still receive a base value in my world and the minimum requirements for those base values for jump rotation, spins, and steps would be spelled out specifically for the technical operator (data entry/video) and judges. Perhaps this wasn't clear to begin with. BUT, I would remove the levels entirely but still have similar requirements for the spins to receive the base value (positions must be held for X revolutions for the spin to count for a solo spin, fly requirements, and combination spin position requirements such as all three positions must be attained AND a certain number of revolutions must be attained in each of those positions for it to count versus just paying lipservice to the spin and sort of doing 1.5 in the first position, spending a rev flowing to the next position then 1.5 in the next position - no, this would not count in my world) and would have similar requirements on step sequence that a certain percentage of the sequence must turn opposite to the rest of the sequence and a certain variety of turns/steps and direction must be attained.
    So you're not really advocating getting rid of the technical panel entirely, because someone needs to make the decision of whether the skater executed the element up to the minimum standards to earn the base mark or not. Including whether or not cheated jumps achieved enough rotation to count as, e.g., double or triple.

    Difficulty of the spin or intracacy of the step sequence along with quality would be ascertained by the judges in GOE. GOE would need to be restructured and judges retrained in my scenario.
    Yes, that could work, if judges each get to reward and penalize for both difficulty and quality in the GOE.

    There would indeed be a lot of retraining involved. And I would recommend using 5 instead of 3 grades of both positive and negative execution.

    It would make the rewards for difficulty more subjective than they are now and would lead to wider ranges between highest and lowest GOE for any given element (especially if a wider range of grades is available).

    But it would also be more flexible and allow judges to capture/skaters to get credit for some kinds of added difficulty that are driven more by each skater's unique strengths and/or the unique needs of a specific program, and not by everyone trying to tick the same standard boxes.

  13. #43
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    4,982
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    There would indeed be a lot of retraining involved. And I would recommend using 5 instead of 3 grades of both positive and negative execution.

    It would make the rewards for difficulty more subjective than they are now and would lead to wider ranges between highest and lowest GOE for any given element (especially if a wider range of grades is available).

    But it would also be more flexible and allow judges to capture/skaters to get credit for some kinds of added difficulty that are driven more by each skater's unique strengths and/or the unique needs of a specific program, and not by everyone trying to tick the same standard boxes.
    Unfortunately I think the subjectivity would trump the rewards for difficulty (as has been the case many a time in figure skating's history). I think the current system still allows for creativity and the problems aren't in the way footwork/spins are marked levels-wise so much as PCS and varying GOE.

    And to be honest, there's nothing saying that a skater shouldn't perform a simple level 2 well-executed spin. It's disadvantaging themselves points-wise (and not even by a whole lot), but it's not like their feet are being held over the fire. Footwork is a bit different since it actually contributes to PCS marks way more significantly than spins. I think the added levels and GOE on spins really confer no more than a few points extra in TES... sure it could make a difference, especially in close standings. But then it's up to the skater... it's like a skater who is unable to do a true lutz but goes for it... nobody's saying they have to, but sometimes they do anyways and take the small deduction for the flutz.

  14. #44
    At the rink. Again. mskater93's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,196
    Disagree there, entirely. A skater who does a "simpler" program (ie somewhat lower technical content or lower spin levels or level 1 or 2 steps) gets hit in PCS, even if their blade to ice skills are amazing in between the elements and the program is extremely well conceived, presented, and interpreted. This is what I (and many other skaters) often refer to as the "nearly clean difficult program bonus" in PCS where a skater puts out one of the harder programs and gets a big PCS score because they landed 2 3+3s for ladies or 3 4's and 2 3A's for men even though maybe they aren't really an "8" (and it works the same way at lower levels (Intermediates with multiple triples or Juveniles with 2As). It's like judges get caught up in the moment like any human being would and go wow, if skater X can do this difficulty, they must have put out a heck of a program to go with it. Skating IS a subjective sport. No matter how you try to quantify it and make it appear to be objective, it's NOT an objective sport. PERIOD. As it is, something has been lost by trying to add up the sum of parts with this sport and it needs to be fixed.

  15. #45
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    4,982
    Quote Originally Posted by mskater93 View Post
    Disagree there, entirely. A skater who does a "simpler" program (ie somewhat lower technical content or lower spin levels or level 1 or 2 steps) gets hit in PCS, even if their blade to ice skills are amazing in between the elements and the program is extremely well conceived, presented, and interpreted. This is what I (and many other skaters) often refer to as the "nearly clean difficult program bonus" in PCS where a skater puts out one of the harder programs and gets a big PCS score because they landed 2 3+3s for ladies or 3 4's and 2 3A's for men even though maybe they aren't really an "8" (and it works the same way at lower levels (Intermediates with multiple triples or Juveniles with 2As). It's like judges get caught up in the moment like any human being would and go wow, if skater X can do this difficulty, they must have put out a heck of a program to go with it. Skating IS a subjective sport. No matter how you try to quantify it and make it appear to be objective, it's NOT an objective sport. PERIOD. As it is, something has been lost by trying to add up the sum of parts with this sport and it needs to be fixed.
    I could name several examples where the PCS is still high in spite of easier technical content (Lysacek, Buttle, Kostner, Lepisto, come to mind).

    Skating is a subjective sport, but the objectivity of levels and points for more difficult jumps mitigates this subjectivity from having as much influence on the results as it already does.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 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
  •