- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
From the reading that I have done it seems like everyone is "assuming" that 3-3s and quads will be upgraded when the CoP is revised over the summer. I have read that the athletes and coaches are pretty much united in pushing for this.
I am also curious about what will happen with the "program components." Most of the criticism of the CoP has centered on the fact that judges do not seem to be willing (or able) to distinguish between such apparantly different categories as "skating skills" and "choreography," tending instead just to give blanket high or low marks across the board in these categories.
Choreography is especially tricky, it seems to me. For one thing, high marks in this category reward the skater's team and especially the choreographer, rather than the skater's performance. Also, it seems like there would be room for a wide difference of opinion in this category, that would be hard to codify by the ISU. Do you like a straightforward presentation of the elements (as in Michelle's Aranjuez and Tosca), or do you like lots of little curlicues and embellishments in between? In pairs, do you like classical lines and good unison (Sale and Pelletiere), or do you like innovative moves and complementary positions (Berezhnaya and Sikharudlidze). Do you want the skater to tell a story or to portray a character (Irina's Tosca), or should the "story" be "Here's the World Champion figure skater making mincemeat of her competition" (Michelle's Tosca).
I can't wait to see Michelle rack up the points in the CoP. The single most important consideration is, land all the jumps and let the GoE and the presentation marks fall where they may. If you do all the technical elements to perfection, it seems to me that you have also exhibited good "skating skills," etc. Conversely, if you fall or make other obvious mistakes, that certainly takes away from the impact and effectiveness of the choreography, and this should be reflected in the program components score.
So, bottom line, I think Michelle and her new coach know exactly what they need to do.
I wonder if Michelle will throw in a triple-triple at Worlds, just to get a head start?
Mathman
I am also curious about what will happen with the "program components." Most of the criticism of the CoP has centered on the fact that judges do not seem to be willing (or able) to distinguish between such apparantly different categories as "skating skills" and "choreography," tending instead just to give blanket high or low marks across the board in these categories.
Choreography is especially tricky, it seems to me. For one thing, high marks in this category reward the skater's team and especially the choreographer, rather than the skater's performance. Also, it seems like there would be room for a wide difference of opinion in this category, that would be hard to codify by the ISU. Do you like a straightforward presentation of the elements (as in Michelle's Aranjuez and Tosca), or do you like lots of little curlicues and embellishments in between? In pairs, do you like classical lines and good unison (Sale and Pelletiere), or do you like innovative moves and complementary positions (Berezhnaya and Sikharudlidze). Do you want the skater to tell a story or to portray a character (Irina's Tosca), or should the "story" be "Here's the World Champion figure skater making mincemeat of her competition" (Michelle's Tosca).
I can't wait to see Michelle rack up the points in the CoP. The single most important consideration is, land all the jumps and let the GoE and the presentation marks fall where they may. If you do all the technical elements to perfection, it seems to me that you have also exhibited good "skating skills," etc. Conversely, if you fall or make other obvious mistakes, that certainly takes away from the impact and effectiveness of the choreography, and this should be reflected in the program components score.
So, bottom line, I think Michelle and her new coach know exactly what they need to do.
I wonder if Michelle will throw in a triple-triple at Worlds, just to get a head start?
Mathman