Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 74

Thread: The Improvement Thread: Your Ideas

  1. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    764
    Quote Originally Posted by Mahanson34 View Post
    Johnny Weir and Tara Lipinski are the only commentators allowed from now on. They're informative, interesting, funny, fashionable, and fun to listen to...their commentary throughout the Olympics trumped anything that Scott Hamilton and friends were able to manage. IMO.

    are you tripping on quaaludes

  2. #17
    On the Ice
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by hyperinflation View Post
    are you tripping on quaaludes
    Ha ha, not at all! I used to love listening to Scott Hamilton, but in the last few years, I feel like his commentary has become tiresome (after all, how many ways can you say "Nailed it"?) So, for me, listening to Johnny and Tara was refreshing. Again, IMO.

  3. #18
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,016
    Quote Originally Posted by zamboni step View Post
    So firstly, we bring back the pre-2010-2011 season rotation policy which was ridiculously strict. Then we make it so the difficulty in spins is less important. And then we have judges from Iraq and Fiji come in who might have never seen an ice rink come in and judge. No offense but I disagree with these ideas, I agree spin positions that are aesthetically pleasing need to be rewarded over those that are not but not by ridding the world of most difficult variations. Rotation is too strictly punished as it is. And the ISU should select impartial judges itself, not leave the federation to tell them who they're picking. In other words the ISU needs to man/woman up and tell the federation they're in charge. Not Speedy though, Speedy needs to go home.

    New suggestion- Speedy takes a long nap and leaves FS alone.
    Gee, why not take every word of my post to the max? I never mentioned pre-2010-11 rotation policies and I don't even KNOW if there are judges from Iraq and Fiji. But I don't agree with you that rotation is too strictly punished. If you don't land the jump - you don't land the jump!!! You shouldn't be able to fall flat on your keester attempting a quad and only have 1 reduction point but get credit for the rotation.

    I was coming up with ideas - didn't say they were viable, but they were better than Speedy taking a long nap!!!

    Sheesh.

    And I do agree with Mahanson about Scott Hamilton. The moaning and the "awwws" and "he owns it" and "he nailed it" really have become hackneyed phrases. And his sidekick Sandra Bezic's "that's his (or hers) signature move!" I really don't feel either of them added much to the enjoyment or enlightenment. And don't even get me started on Peter Carruthers.

  4. #19
    Adiós Melon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    405
    Remove axel requirement for ladies/men in the SP

  5. #20
    Medalist
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by usethis2 View Post
    Umm.. I am not sure about that. Gymnastics scores are as nonsensical to casual viewers as skating's or diving's. Gymnastics are probably more exciting because there are more glorified/sexualized bodies and make-ups, prolonged performances and indoor atmosphere, and chances to see disasters, etc. Compared to diving and gymnastics, figure skating's score system is quite a bit more complex to casual viewers.
    That's why I said it was about my own personal experience as a casual fan. For me, a single dive on its own DOES hold the same amount of excitement as say, a single vaulting pass, beam routine, etc. (and yes people watch diving for its sexualized bodies too...) Of course that's not necessarily true of all fans...one is the marquee sport of the summer Olys and the other is not. But I used them as an example because for me, as a casual fan who doesn't understand (and really, doesn't care enough to want to put the effort into understand the details) of either diving or gymnastics scoring, seeing 10-point leads after 4 out of 6 rounds in diving feels discouraging, simply because 10 FEELS like a B I G number. Jordyn Wieber missing AA finals by "only" .233 points was a lot more dramatic than if she missed by 2.33 points (or let's take it to the extreme, what if she missed by 233 points?)
    It's all the same, but the media can sensationalize smaller point differentials better--i.e. "Gracie Gold less than a point away from Gold" is a much better headline than "Gracie Gold less than 10 points away from Gold"

  6. #21
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    936
    ^ Ah, I understand it now. That makes perfect sense.

  7. #22
    🌸🐱❄🐱❄🐱🌸 jennyanydots's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    226
    Agree with more Johnny Weir. Sorry but I can't stand Tara, and neither for ice dance ever again. Had to use the utmost restraint to not throw things during the Olympic ice dance commentary. Never want to hear the word "energy" coming out of Tara's mouth again. Also agree with limiting the number of second half bonus jumps. Otherwise the programs are so unbalanced. Rotation criteria for jumps are fine as they are. Problem is the consistency of calls. Maybe have a finer scale for awarding GOE to better differentiate outstanding elements, like a Lambiel spin versus a Chan spin. Although, will that give the judges more power the manipulate scores? Or how about a judging panel like Rhythmic gymnastics? Don't remember exactly how many judges there are but each one is assigned to evaluate only one aspect of the performance because it's so detailed. Like one judge for spins, one for jumps, one for step sequences, etc.

  8. #23
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    217
    Well, I've been reading carefully through the criteria of all the components, and I think I understand now why its so easy to inflate the pcs scores I will say all of this tentatively because I don't want to sound arrogant or anything. I love FS, and I'll be the first to admit I know very little beyond the basics, but I really really want to learn, so please don't hate me for any bold and uninformed opinions (and here they are ):

    So basically, my suggestions for improvement are to re-evaluate exactly what the components are (ie,defintions ), identify concrete criteria for each component (boundaries for each criteria = minimal overlap with criteria of other components), and most importantly, they need to create a new component to trap and contain the natural biases involved in the judging process (things such as taste in style, personality, music choice, and costumes -- this new component needs to function more like a bonus system, it needs to have a completely different way of being scored -- ie not a 10.0 scale -- and a vastly inferior factor compared to the rest of the components).

    I'm actually doing a revision myself right now, to hilight the things that don't make sense to me, and offer what I feel is a more intuitive, logial list of components and criteria. In the meantime, I'd like to pose 3 questions (especially for anyone with a dance background):

    1.) What do you think about the idea of "Choreography/Composition" as a single component vs. separating them into different components? (ie, flesh vs. bones)
    2.) How does your understanding of "Choreography" and "Interpretation" compare with the isu definitions? Do you sense redundancy, or do you feel they are distinct?
    3.) Does your understanding of "Composition" encompass things like "Transitions, Linking Footwork, and Movement", or do you see them as two distinct ideas?

    I'd love to hear any insights into the other components as well! It would also be fun if other people did their own re-write so we can compare the different perspectives

  9. #24
    Best comeback EVOR! zamboni step's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    599
    Quote Originally Posted by noskates View Post
    I was coming up with ideas - didn't say they were viable, but they were better than Speedy taking a long nap!!!
    You clearly don't know much about Speedy then. I was honestly asking if that's what you meant by what you said. I'm sorry if it seemed barbed but that's not how it was intended.

    Quote Originally Posted by Melon View Post
    Remove axel requirement for ladies/men in the SP
    You aren't even trying to be subtle.

  10. #25
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,789
    Quote Originally Posted by GF2445 View Post
    I think that they should display live:
    1. The technical panel's ranking of the skater's base value
    2. judge's ranking based on GOE
    The combination of the two, as a running total, has been displayed on many broadcasts this season. Not sure if it's being shown live in the arenas.

    Would it be helpful to split them apart element by element, and/or to separate GOEs from base values, during the performance? That would be more numbers to read while watching the skating at the same time. And the GOEs are likely to change slightly when the rest of judges input their marks for that element -- in some cases the base values will also change when the tech panel reviews the element after the program is over.

    If they did display scores element by element, then they could change the color or add a symbol of some sort to alert audiences when an element has been flagged for review.

    3. The ranking of the program components
    This can't be done in real time during the program because most judges don't input their PCS until the program is over. They could be shown during the Kiss and Cry announcement. Probably the averages for each of the five components (as was done when the IJS first started in 2003 Grand Prix), not 5 components x 9 judges = 45 separate numbers.

    With lyrics, it should be allowed as we have to accept that there is a younger generation who we need to appeal to BUT there should be strict conditions and guidelines and if a skater uses songs with lyrics poorly, there should be a deduction im components and a madatory music violation deduction.
    Guidelines for appropriate music seem reasonable. E.g., if there's a clearly defined rule against obscene lyrics, then there could be a deduction for violating that rule.

    But you can't have a mandatory deduction for "using the music poorly," because "poorly" is a matter of opinion. Some judges might think that a skater did a poor job, other judges might think it was acceptable but nothing special, and a few might think the skater used the music well -- maybe even if they don't personally like the music.

    Quote Originally Posted by jennyanydots View Post
    Maybe have a finer scale for awarding GOE to better differentiate outstanding elements, like a Lambiel spin versus a Chan spin.
    So individual judges would have more options than +1, +2, or +3 to reward good qualities?

    Or maybe more detailed guidelines. E.g., "Good speed" in a spin is not a specific enough bullet point -- "maintaining consistent speed throughout" and "accelerating" could be additional bullet points, and "losing speed" could be cause for reduction, so a spin with consistent good speed throughout could be rewarded more than one that starts very fast and then slows to only average.

    Same for centering.

    Guidelines/training as to what constitutes "good" positions, and means to reward spins with good and great positions throughout more than those with some good and some average or below-average.

    But there would still be differences in where each judge mentally draws the line between the high end of "acceptable" and the low end of "good."

    I.e., more guidelines and more flexibility in how to score might help judges do a better job of reflecting both the good and not-so-good aspects of the elements. But we're not going to see 100% agreement between judges. Nor penalty of any viewer's strongest pet peeve at the expense of other good qualities that viewer doesn't care about, or vice versa.

    Although, will that give the judges more power the manipulate scores?
    Any score that's based on a judgment of How good was it? (as opposed to just Yes/No) is going to allow for differences of opinion. Since so much of what good skating is about is rewarding qualitative aspects, the scoring will always need to rely on those kinds of judgments -- will always need to give judges the power to control their part of the scoring based on qualitative assessments.

    Ideally all those assessments are made completely honestly and with a high level of expertise. But because there aren't singular yes/no answers, judges who want to intentionally manipulate scores to try to produce specific results would also have that power.

    Quote Originally Posted by I♥Yuna View Post
    So basically, my suggestions for improvement are to re-evaluate exactly what the components are (ie,defintions ), identify concrete criteria for each component (boundaries for each criteria = minimal overlap with criteria of other components),
    A worthy aim

    and most importantly, they need to create a new component to trap and contain the natural biases involved in the judging process (things such as taste in style, personality, music choice, and costumes -- this new component needs to function more like a bonus system, it needs to have a completely different way of being scored -- ie not a 10.0 scale -- and a vastly inferior factor compared to the rest of the components).
    Can we let judges score this stuff, just to give them a place to vent their likes and dislikes, and then not count these personal biases in the final results at all? :D

    I'm actually doing a revision myself right now, to hilight the things that don't make sense to me, and offer what I feel is a more intuitive, logial list of components and criteria. In the meantime, I'd like to pose 3 questions (especially for anyone with a dance background):

    1.) What do you think about the idea of "Choreography/Composition" as a single component vs. separating them into different components? (ie, flesh vs. bones)
    2.) How does your understanding of "Choreography" and "Interpretation" compare with the isu definitions? Do you sense redundancy, or do you feel they are distinct?
    3.) Does your understanding of "Composition" encompass things like "Transitions, Linking Footwork, and Movement", or do you see them as two distinct ideas?
    I do feel there is some overlap among these components, and also Performance/Execution. It might be possible redefine which criteria apply to which score so that there's less overlap and clearer divisions between components. I welcome your suggestions.

    And then, if there end up being more or less than 5 separate components, or if some components universally seem more important than others, it would be time to rethink the factors that they are multiplied by.

  11. #26
    Rinkside
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    3
    Sorry to be off topic. I wanted someone to tell me if Carolina Kostner is allowed to have this jump layout:
    3Z
    2A 3T
    3F 3T
    3L
    3F
    3S
    3S 2T 2L
    Thanks

  12. #27
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,789
    Quote Originally Posted by franco1991 View Post
    Sorry to be off topic. I wanted someone to tell me if Carolina Kostner is allowed to have this jump layout:
    3Z
    2A 3T
    3F 3T
    3L
    3F
    3S
    3S 2T 2L
    That layout includes two 3T, two 3F, and two 3S.

    The Zayak rule only allows two different triples to be repeated.

    So one of those repeats would have to go. Probably change the solo 3S to another 2A.

  13. #28
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    4,147
    Quote Originally Posted by jennyanydots View Post
    Agree with more Johnny Weir. Sorry but I can't stand Tara, and neither for ice dance ever again. Had to use the utmost restraint to not throw things during the Olympic ice dance commentary. Never want to hear the word "energy" coming out of Tara's mouth again. Also agree with limiting the number of second half bonus jumps. Otherwise the programs are so unbalanced. Rotation criteria for jumps are fine as they are. Problem is the consistency of calls. Maybe have a finer scale for awarding GOE to better differentiate outstanding elements, like a Lambiel spin versus a Chan spin. Although, will that give the judges more power the manipulate scores? Or how about a judging panel like Rhythmic gymnastics? Don't remember exactly how many judges there are but each one is assigned to evaluate only one aspect of the performance because it's so detailed. Like one judge for spins, one for jumps, one for step sequences, etc.
    I thought Tara was promising early in the season but now having heard more of her I am not impressed. She seems to want to talk both directly and indirectly about herself almost as much as the current skaters, and that is the last thing anyone should be in the booth. Even the horror duo of Scott Hamilton and Sandra Bezic talk only about the skaters, not themselves (granted what could Sandra talk about as far as her skating history anyway, so for her there is no choice).

  14. #29
    Rinkside
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    3
    Thanks for the info gkelly.I think then Mao's 8 triple program will stay as a record for long time.

  15. #30
    Custard Title
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    988
    Quote Originally Posted by zamboni step View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Melon View Post
    Remove axel requirement for ladies/men in the SP
    You aren't even trying to be subtle.
    Melon, I agree. I think a good replacement rule would be to replace the axel requirement with a loop requirement.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 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
  •