Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 31 to 41 of 41

Thread: Official agenda of the upcoming ISU Congress

  1. #31
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    429
    Interesting...

    Quote Originally Posted by FS.Addict View Post
    Besides the elimination of anonymous judging, there are also proposals to:
    1. change every free skate duration to 4 minutes (and 7 jumps instead of 8 for the men)
    2. change the PCs factors so they are the same for men and ladies
    3. allow only two repetitions of each double (including double axel)
    4. count ChSq even if executed before the StSq
    5. allow triple twist in junior pairs short program
    6. up the age limit for junior pairs and ice dance (21 instead of 20 for the men)
    7. EDIT : can't find the proposal anymore, i'm confused... maybe it didn't understand the right thing !
    8. count a triple that is repeated but not combined as a jump executed alone and just give 70% of the base value, instead of counting it as a sequence
    9. remove the choreographic sequence of the pairs free program
    10. give 30 seconds and not 60 seconds for the skater to take his starting position (but 60 seconds for the first skater of the flight)

    (These are the ones i remember and that i found more interesting ; i read it very quickly)


    I agree with 4, 5, and 6.... and am neutral on everything else.

  2. #32
    Yuzulia & Ruslena Team Alba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Milan
    Posts
    4,109
    change the PCs factors so they are the same for men and ladies
    I so do agree with this. I never uderstood why men would get higher PCS scores than women.

  3. #33
    Custom Title FSGMT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    2,965
    Quote Originally Posted by invisiblespiral View Post
    Interesting...





    I agree with 4, 5, and 6.... and am neutral on everything else.
    I don't really agree with allowing the triple twist in Junior Pairs SP, since there are SOME couples that are capable of wonderful twists (F/M, T/M and the Chinese ones come to my mind, for example), but most aren't, so we would see a lot of disastrous attempts that is some cases could also lead to serious injuries I think, because if it was allowed in the SP much more couples would begin to attempt it earlier, when they're not technically ready... And those terrible attempts would be aesthetically awful too!!

  4. #34
    Custom Title FSGMT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    2,965
    Quote Originally Posted by Alba View Post
    I so do agree with this. I never uderstood why men would get higher PCS scores than women.
    Maybe because their TES is higher, too?

  5. #35
    Missing D&G GF2445's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    1,711
    Yeah. The idea why the pcs are different is so that the technical and presentation scores in each discipline could be similar. It can get confusing to the audience if there was a great discrepency in points between the technical and presentation mark. That is why they factor the pcs

  6. #36
    Yuzulia & Ruslena Team Alba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Milan
    Posts
    4,109
    Quote Originally Posted by FSGMT View Post
    Maybe because their TES is higher, too?
    That's fine, but interpretation and other things doesn't have to be about TES does it?

  7. #37
    Custom Title FSGMT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    2,965
    Quote Originally Posted by Alba View Post
    That's fine, but interpretation and other things doesn't have to be about TES does it?
    Yes, but it would be strange have a 90 TES and a 70 PCS, wouldn't it? But I agree that having different factors implies that judging is relative and not absolute, which isn't exactly the basis on which IJS was created

  8. #38
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,663
    ^ Still, I think an even more important feature of the IJS is the concept of a "balanced program." In particular, the factoring maintains a balance between technical elements and the program as a whole.

    Without factoring, a skater might get, let's say, 45 "absolute" points in PCS. This would correspond to straight 9.0s across the board. Here is how that would work out for a men's and a ladies' short and long programs, without factoring.

    Men's SP: TES 45, PCS 45, Total 90. Program components comprise 50% of the total.

    Men's LP: TES 90, PCS 45, Total 135. Program components comprise 33% of the total.

    Ladies' SP: TES 36, PCS 45, Total 81. Program components comprise 56% of the total.

    Ladies' LP: TES 72, PCS 45, Total 117. Program components comprise 39% of the total.

    The factoring adjusts all of these "expected" ratios to 50%. This is kind of an overall expectation built into the system. Of course an individual skater might be stronger in technical elements than in presentations skills, or vice versa.

  9. #39
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    32
    Proposal to remove Figure skating in olympics...... since no matter what changes they made as long as people who leads skating is corrupt.... the sport itself is corrupt.....

  10. #40
    Yuzulia & Ruslena Team Alba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Milan
    Posts
    4,109
    Quote Originally Posted by FSGMT View Post
    Yes, but it would be strange have a 90 TES and a 70 PCS, wouldn't it?
    Might be strange but interpretation is interpretation, whether you are a woman or a man.

    But I agree that having different factors implies that judging is relative and not absolute, which isn't exactly the basis on which IJS was created
    Judging is de facto relative. As Sonia Bianchetti call it: Absolute judging: a utopian delusion.
    http://www.soniabianchetti.com/writings_delusion.html

  11. #41
    Custom Title FSGMT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    2,965
    Quote Originally Posted by Alba View Post
    Might be strange but interpretation is interpretation, whether you are a woman or a man.



    Judging is de facto relative. As Sonia Bianchetti call it: Absolute judging: a utopian delusion.
    http://www.soniabianchetti.com/writings_delusion.html
    I think that the explanation that Mathman gave is a bit more accurate and true than mine

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •