The Improvement Thread: Your Ideas
- Thread starter Anna K.
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2013
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.
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 
hwell: 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
hwell: 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
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2013
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.You aren't even trying to be subtle.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I♥Yuna;888602 said:So basically, my suggestions for improvement are to re-evaluate exactly what the components are (ie,defintions
A worthy aim
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?
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.
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2014
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
3Z
2A 3T
3F 3T
3L
3F
3S
3S 2T 2L
Thanks
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.
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2010
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).
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2014
Thanks for the info gkelly.I think then Mao's 8 triple program will stay as a record for long time.
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2011
Melon, I agree. I think a good replacement rule would be to replace the axel requirement with a loop requirement.You aren't even trying to be subtle.
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2013
I think a good replacement rule would be to replace the axel requirement with a loop requirement.
I can just imagine the backlash!- Joined
- Sep 17, 2011
2014-18 Rule Changes, SP required elements:
A combination of a triple Loop and a double Loop, a double Loop and a triple Loop, or two triple Loops
A double or triple Loop out of steps
A triple or quadruple Loop
A layback spin in attitude position (unpointed foot or lack of turned-out leg gets automatic -3 GOE and a 1 point deduction)
A Biellmann spin
A flying spin with required donut position
A spiral sequence, fan spiral mandatory
A footwork sequence
That way, the Axel requirement is removed! Just as Melon wanted.
I actually thought removing Axel requirement would be a good idea...... 
Wouldn't that remove all that fight about should X skater be the only skater allowed to do 3A instead of 2A thing??
X skater can do 3A 3-3 and solo 3, while others can do 3-3, 3, 3 or something.... Technically, the one with 3A should win the TES anyways ( when only jumps are counted).
plus this would greatly increase competitiveness especially for the ladies since they can do up to 4 triples in SP. It would be their choice to do a double axle.
Wouldn't that remove all that fight about should X skater be the only skater allowed to do 3A instead of 2A thing??
X skater can do 3A 3-3 and solo 3, while others can do 3-3, 3, 3 or something.... Technically, the one with 3A should win the TES anyways ( when only jumps are counted).
plus this would greatly increase competitiveness especially for the ladies since they can do up to 4 triples in SP. It would be their choice to do a double axle.
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2011
Oh, you were serious.I actually thought removing Axel requirement would be a good idea......
Wouldn't that remove all that fight about should X skater be the only skater allowed to do 3A instead of 2A thing??
X skater can do 3A 3-3 and solo 3, while others can do 3-3, 3, 3 or something.... Technically, the one with 3A should win the TES anyways ( when only jumps are counted).
That could be an actual discussion - right now the ISU requires the Axel for both SP and FS, probably because its forward edge takeoff is so unique among jumps. The 2A/3A option does give a huge advantage to a skater with a 3A vs a skater with a 2A, but the 3A among women is already an unusual case. Is there any other jump that was still so rare even 25 years after being first ratified in competition?If the Axel is removed as a required jump in the SP (unlikely but in the case that it is), then I think all 4 jumps in the SP should be required to be different, or there should be a requirement of at least one edge jump and at least one toe jump.
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2013
I actually thought removing Axel requirement would be a good idea......
Wouldn't that remove all that fight about should X skater be the only skater allowed to do 3A instead of 2A thing??
X skater can do 3A 3-3 and solo 3, while others can do 3-3, 3, 3 or something.... Technically, the one with 3A should win the TES anyways ( when only jumps are counted).
plus this would greatly increase competitiveness especially for the ladies since they can do up to 4 triples in SP. It would be their choice to do a double axle.
You're only thinking of the top echelons of Senior Ladies here. What about the lower level Junior women? You'd be seeing a lot of 2Lz-2T, 2L out of steps, 2F (instead of 2A). It'd discourage skaters from working on a 2A, and the newer ladies are struggling with their 2A as it is. (All three of the World Junior Medalists have had their problems with their shaky axel technique).
2014-18 Rule Changes, SP required elements:
A combination of a triple Loop and a double Loop, a double Loop and a triple Loop, or two triple Loops
A double or triple Loop out of steps
A triple or quadruple Loop
A layback spin in attitude position (unpointed foot or lack of turned-out leg gets automatic -3 GOE and a 1 point deduction)
A Biellmann spin
A flying spin with required donut position
A spiral sequence, fan spiral mandatory
A footwork sequence
That way, the Axel requirement is removed! Just as Melon wanted.
Stop it! You're too much!
I don't know how judges differentiate Choreograph and Interpretation. They to me sound like one and the same in reality even if they can be separated in theory. P/E are already evaluated in GOE. Skating Skills are presented in step sequences. I would have two categories in PCS: Interpretation and Transitions. They overlap each other somewhat, but at least some quantification is possible with transitions. That leaves only one really subjective category (Interpretation).I♥Yuna;888602 said:
They could be separated more than they are. But there are a lot of parts of Choreography that don't relate to Interpretation at all.
http://static.isu.org/media/104183/program-component-explanations.pdf
Interpretation refers specifically to interpretation of the music.
Maybe rename Choreography as Program Construction? Maybe move the Phrasing and Form criterion to Interpretation instead, and rename that Musical Interpretation?
Yes, but they also apply to the whole program, not only to the elements. Are you suggesting not to score any aspect of presentation unrelated to the technical elements? To not score skating skills separately at all because the only place they should count is in the step sequence?
I think that all the criteria in the five program components should be evaluated for the whole program -- the skating between elements including transition moves as well as the elements themselves.
IMO some of the criteria are more important than others. Even some components may be more important than others. But if we here at Golden Skate, or experts on the ISU technical committees, were to try as a group to come up with a better grouping and better weighting of the criteria, I'm sure there would be disagreements as to what's most important.
As for combining all the criteria into only two component scores instead of five, that would be possible, with different factors than currently used, but I foresee more disadvantages than benefits to doing so.
3A definitely is the most difficult jump, and skaters who land it are highly rewarded for that. They can also take an advantage of Axel rule by adding another 3-3 in their program to boost their points. Aside from the base value of 3A, having a 3A in a SP (for ladies) is actually a huge advantage. Given what 3A can do in ladies program, I just thought it would be "fair" (not the exact word I'm looking for ,but close to it) that other ladies get a chance to do 4 triples in their SP. And I agree that if this were to happen (which I doubt) make a 3Lo or 3S a mandatory jump if a skater were to omit 2A in their SP.
Not really because removing the Axel requirement doesn't mean skaters are limited to just triples. They can land 2A if they wanted to. My opinion was to remove only the requirement since that would increase the BV in SP (up to 4 triples vs 3), and bring more competition to the field.
I'd think that Axel removing stuff was a joke but it turned out it's a reasonable discussion
That's great. I'm just a little disappointed that twizzles got forgotten
Similar threads
