Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 74

Thread: The Improvement Thread: Your Ideas

  1. #31
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    816
    Increase the value of the mark for originality and creativity of choreography, particularly in ice dance.

  2. #32
    Best comeback EVOR! zamboni step's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    703
    Quote Originally Posted by CarneAsada View Post
    I think a good replacement rule would be to replace the axel requirement with a loop requirement.
    I can just imagine the backlash!

  3. #33
    Custard Title
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,022
    Quote Originally Posted by zamboni step View Post
    I can just imagine the backlash!
    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.

  4. #34
    Adiós Melon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    536
    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.

  5. #35
    Custard Title
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,022
    Quote Originally Posted by Melon View Post
    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).
    Oh, you were serious. 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.

  6. #36
    Best comeback EVOR! zamboni step's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    703
    Quote Originally Posted by Melon View Post
    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).

    Quote Originally Posted by CarneAsada View Post
    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!

  7. #37
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    941
    Quote Originally Posted by I♥Yuna View Post
    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 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).

  8. #38
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,964
    Quote Originally Posted by usethis2 View Post
    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.
    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/p...planations.pdf

    •Purpose (idea, concept, vision)
    •Proportion (equal weight of parts)
    •Unity (purposeful threading)
    •Utilization of personal and public space
    •Pattern and ice coverage
    •Phrasing and form (movements and parts structured to match the
    phrasing of the music)
    •Originality of purpose, movement and design
    •Shared responsibility of achieving purpose (Pair Skating and Ice Dancing)
    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?

    P/E are already evaluated in GOE. Skating Skills are presented in step sequences.
    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.

  9. #39
    Adiós Melon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    536
    Oh, you were serious. 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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by zamboni step View Post
    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).
    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.

  10. #40
    Bored
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    345
    Quote Originally Posted by Melon View Post

    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

  11. #41
    Say no to horrendous costumes Meoima's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    North of the world
    Posts
    6,143
    Twizzles get more point please.
    Lengthy step sequences should be shorten please.
    Stop the anonymous scoring please.
    Falls get more deduction please.
    I think that is enough for the moment.

  12. #42
    Custard Title
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,022
    Make 3T-3T more worthless. Make solo 3T or 3T-anything only worth 3.7. Make it worth 4.1 when it is done as 2_-3T or 3_-3T. So now 3T-3T is worth 3.7 + 4.1 = 7.8 points.
    Make 3Lo combinations worth more. Make solo 3Lo only worth 4.9. Make it worth 5.8 when it is done as 2_-3Lo or 3_-3Lo. So 3Lz-3Lo, 3T is worth 6.0 + 5.8 + 3.7 = 15.5 points while 3Lz-3T, 3Lo is worth 6.0 + 4.1 + 4.9 = 15 points.
    Provide similar incentives for 3S and 3F. Make solo or initial 3S worth 4.0, compared to 4.4 on the back end of a combination. Make solo 3F worth 5.1 and backend 3F worth 6.0.
    I would attempt to find a way to reward 3Lz-3T, 3T vs 3T-3T, 3Lz but I don't want to think about individual bonuses or percent bonuses right now.
    Analogous value bonuses for double jumps. Maybe 2T 1.2 vs 1.4, 2S 1.3 vs 1.5, 2Lo 1.6 vs 1.9, 2F 1.7 vs 2.0
    Make 3Lz worth 6.2. Make 2A worth 3.0. Make 3A worth 9.0.

    Bring back spiral sequence in the SP for ladies. Bring back 2nd footwork sequence in the SP for men.

    And for the sake of the OP, twizzles. Make ice dance all twizzles. In singles, they will be worth 5 points and they will be the 9th element in the SP (if they do not include the twizzle sequence they must do a figures sequence, either paragraph loop or paragraph bracket). They must be done in all directions on all edges on each foot. Skaters with 3 feet must do them on the 3rd foot as well. In the LP they are optional but they will be the only kind of 14th/13th element that gets a score. That or figures. This is figure skating, so if skaters choose to disobey the twizzle rules, the figures will be used to punish them.

  13. #43
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,964
    I want to see three-footed skaters!

  14. #44
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    217
    *sigh* This is my first time looking at the GoE bullets:

    1) unexpected / creative / difficult entry
    2) clear recognizable steps/free skating movements immediately preceding element

    What are some examples of the differences between these two??

    Also, I officially have no idea what purpose the "T/L/F/M" component serves, AT ALL:

    Transitions/Linking Footwork & Movement

    Definition: The varied and/or intricate footwork, positions, movements, and holds that link all elements. In
    singles, pairs, and synchronize skating this also includes the entrances and exits of technical elements.

    Criteria:
    Variety
    Difficulty
    Intricacy
    Quality (including unison in Pair Skating and Ice Dancing)
    ^ Quality of steps, turns, etc (ie, footwork) is already addressed in SS. Quality as far as timing w/the music is a matter of P/E. Difficulty is supposed to be determined by the technical panel. And Variety and Intricacy may be a matter of Choreography, or then again, maybe it's the duty of the technical panel?? Lakernik quoted in an article:

    Quote Originally Posted by Nadya View Post
    What does technical panel evaluate? Complexity. What does judging panel evaluate? Quality.
    http://24.media.tumblr.com/69569239f...9bfio5_400.gif

    Continuing on:

    3) varied position in the air / delay in rotation
    has to do with the technical element and nothing else. Could be separated into two, since not everyone has both.

    4) good height and distance
    This should be separated into two bullets - not everyone can do both (if I remember correctly, Sasha used to get decent distance on the 2A, but virtually no height) Other than that b/c it has to do with the technical element and nothing else = TES

    5) good extension on landing / creative exit
    Extension yes. They should elaborate a little more (posture, too?) and can someone give me an example of creative exit? is it something to do with the blade, or just a decorative flourish of the arms/upper body??

    Another question has to do with how the element/jump is isolated from the rest of the choreography -- I was watching a yt video of Shen & Zhao attempting a quad throw and she almost had it but she lost the edge and fell. In the comments, someone was asking if it should have counted, and someone else came back and replied that there's a 2 second rule or something like that. Like if you fall within 2 seconds of landing, it counts as a fall, but if you fall after the 2 second mark, there is no deduction on the jump, and it's addrssed in the pcs instead.

    If that's true, then I think the same needs to apply to "creative exits" -- they should only count as part of the jump if they are done w/in the time frame that isolates the jump from the rest of the choreo - otherwise, it's just a matter of choreography. It would be the tech panel's job to identify jumps that have "creative exit" and communicate that to the judges.

    6) good flow from entry to exit including jump combinations / sequences


    7) effortless throughout


    8) element matched to the musical structure
    No If the element matches the musical structure, it's because it was purposely placed there (a matter of Composition). As-worded, this should really be scored in the Choreography/Composition component of pcs, not in GoE. Even if what they're talking about is the skater's ability to execute the choreographed jump in perfect timing with the music, this is a matter of Performance/Execution, not the degree of technical perfection of the jump/element.


    I would change the bullets to look something more like this:

    • good extension on the landing
    • good distance
    • good height
    • varied position in the air
    • delayed rotation
    • good flow from entry to exit
    • effortless



    and depending on how you define this, you could include:
    creative/difficult/unexpected entries and exits

    and I'd probably drop this one, if there's no real difference compared to the previous one:
    clear recognizable steps/free skating movements immediately preceding element


    Same number of bullets, no redundancy.

  15. #45
    Size 7 Knife Boots Sam-Skwantch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    At the Rink
    Posts
    3,964
    To answer your first question the differences between :
    1) unexpected / creative / difficult entry
    2) clear recognizable steps/free skating movements immediately preceding element

    1) addresses flow in and level of attack going into and 2) is the flow out and how smooth or quickly the skater returns to the program. I'm not sure it is fair to lump them into one bullet point as you have.

    I'll drive you crazy with Yulia talk, for that I'm sorry but she is my passion here and I know her programs best. She can get both of these on her wonky little 2a. Compared to the rest of the field she attacks the 2a quite fearlessly. Probably the quickest set up among all the girls...zero hesitation. In the SP she lands it and and immediately executes elements/transitions that can be perceived as flow and added difficulty. It's her biggest redeeming value on her weakest jump which I suspect has been molded to facilitate her 3t which often follows. No denying that she launches higher on the 3t than the 2a which is rare/special.

    I asked about it in the stupid questions thread and here is gkelly's response.

    Please help...stupid question here!! In Yulia's SP her second jump is a 2a. Please ignore the height or wonkiness of the 2a and please explain to me the two positions she does out of it. I think one is a butterfly but am not sure if I'm right. The other stupid question is does her two transitions out of the 2a count as flow out and constitute being directly into choreography which applies to the jumps GOE. I've included a video of what I believe to be the best representation of her SP and the time in question is from 1:10-1:18 leading into a flying spin.

    http://youtu.be/cMvU0sOYJKI
    And the response

    gkelly
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,541
    From the landing edge of the axel she does a back three turn into a choreographed body position, mohawk to a brief catch-foot spiral, some toe-assisted turns, and then the butterfly entrance into the flying spin.

    Yes, she has good flow on the landing edge of the axel. The moves afterward would be considered transitions -- adds some intricacy, judges would consider the quality and difficulty, and whether those moves add more variety to the other transition moves in the program. It would be up to each judge whether they think that turn and body position are connected enough to the axel itself to add to its GOE.

    Ditto with the toe turns, which are not themselves very difficult. The butterfly into the spin is part of the actual element, the fly to the flying spin, and would be considered by the tech panel as a feature.
    I guess the point I am trying to make is while many obsess over height alone there needs to be other factors when judging jumps. I don't want this sport to become a pole vaulting contest.

    You mentioned holding the landings a bit longer. It might look pretty to hold your leg out to some and it might be more interesting to others to see a more difficult transition immediately prior to or following a jump. I can't think of a fair way to balance out and award points based on either preference. I mean both have redeeming values in my eyes and maybe one less than the other to some. I guess that's why there will always be subjectivity involved. I for one can see a case for both and hope the judges would award scores based on execution and not nationality. ]
    Last edited by Sam-Skwantch; 03-23-2014 at 12:02 PM. Reason: Can vs Can't makes a big difference!

Page 3 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
  •