Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: GOE academy

  1. #1
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,856

    GOE academy

    Here's a thread for discussing grades of execution.

    For singles and pairs, you can download ISU Communication 1790 from the link at the bottom of the page here:
    http://www.isu.org/en/single-and-pai...d-pair-skating

    The bullet points for positive GOEs and the suggested reductions for negative GOEs are listed at the end of the document.

    I hope we could start out by reminding ourselves of what the rules/guidelines are and apply them to a few whole programs, discussing among ourselves what GOEs we think the elements deserve and why according to these rules, before comparing our thoughts to the official panels.

    Anyone care to choose a performance to start with?

  2. #2
    Hate fake smiles and horrendous costumes Meoima's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    North of the world
    Posts
    3,699
    Thank you for the thread, what about this one: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=REw4lqL3w9I

    Daisuke Takahashi's LP performance in Worlds 2012.

  3. #3
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,856
    Thanks. It's always fun to watch a good performance.

    Care to give your thoughts as well?

    We should also use this thread to look at some non-medal-worthy performances for contrast.

    The video isn't always clear enough to see just how clean the jump landings (or takeoffs) were, so I'll analyze as best I can without looking at the protocols, so as not to be influenced by the official judges, and then I'll go back and see if there were any tech panel calls that need to be reflected in the GOE.

    4T Snowy on the landing -- I couldn't tell if he brushed his free foot and/or underrotated. In the replay at the end of the video it did look at least 90 degrees short. Good flow going in but lost speed on the landing. The only positive bullet points I could give are Good height and distance (4) and Effortless throughout (7), so start at +1 positive and then reduce for the landing issues. I'll say 0 GOE if it was called as rotated, -1 if there was a < call.

    3A Beautiful jump; basic with high quality. Good height and distance (4); good extention on landing (5); Effortless throughout (7). That's only three bullet points; the guidelines suggest four for +2, but I think this jump was strong enough to round up. I'll go with +2.

    3S Same three bullet points, although less impressive especially the height and distance. Also unexpected/creative/difficult entry (1; not incredibly difficult, but certainly unexpected), clear recognizable steps preceding (2), and creative exit (5). Although it was really just a medium-sized jump, I think there's an argument to be made for +3 GOE here, ; +2 at the least.

    CCSp It was fine -- slight travel on the second foot, but not really enough to deduct for; I don't really see anything strong enough to award any positive bullet points for either. 0 GOE

    StSq Good energy and execution (1), Good clarity and precision (3), Good control and commitment (5), Effortless throughout (7), Enhances musical structure (8). That's 5 bullet points, and it was decent though not very strong on Deep clean edges (4) and Creativity and originality (6). I'll go for the +3

    FCCoSp Fairly good speed (1) and positions (5) in the forward sit and the back upright; those positions were also well centered, including centering the sit directly on the landing of the fly, so I'll award the Ability to center a spin quickly (2) bullet point as well. Balanced rotations in all positions (3). A case can also be made for Element matched to musical structure (8). The back camel did travel and lose speed a bit, which would make it hard to award the Good control throughout bullet (7), and that position also wasn't as strong. So I'm thinking borderline +2 or +3 for the positive bullet points, I'll round down to +2 because of the mediocrity of the camel portion.

    3A+3T Good height and distance on the axel, OK on the toe loop, lost some speed on each landing so the second landing curled around in a small circle, slight break forward on the first landing. But no actual errors that I could see. 0 GOE

    3F+2T Preceding steps (2), Good height and distance on the flip/adequate on the toe loop (4, maybe), Good flow from entry to exit (6), Effortless throughout (7) -- +2

    3Lo Some preceding steps (2) though not especially difficult or directly into the jump, landed on the toe and lost speed -- 0 GOE

    3Lz+2T+2Lo Like the other combinations, the first jump was big, the others just adequate. Good control throughout but not really good flow on those later landings. Some simple preceding steps. I might give him bullets 2, 4, and 7 but won't round up, for GOE +1.

    3F Immediately preceded by quick turns with no break in rhythm, so I'd give both bullets 1 and 2, as well as 4, 7, and 8 (matches musical structure). Borderline +2/+3.

    Checking the protocol, I see there was a < call, so that would take it down to no more than +1. On the official panel, most gave -1, two gave -2, and one (who must have missed the call or else gave enough bullets to start at +3) was an outlier with +2.

    ChSt I could see awarding all of the bullet points. The edges weren't especially deep but that doesn't apply to choreo sequences anyway, only leveled step sequences. +3

    CCoSp Speed/acceleration (1), centered quickly (2), balanced revolutions (3), more than required revolutions (4), good control (7), matched to musical structure (8). I can make a case for +3 here, although most of the areas were just good, not very good. I wasn't wowed by the spin, so going by gut feeling I might stick with +2.

  4. #4
    Size 7 Knife Boots Sam-Skwantch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    At the Rink
    Posts
    3,005
    I watched this skate after it was posted but didn't have time do any analysis. What stuck out to me was when he did steps from end to end of the entire rink. Was this the ChSt? The jumps didnt overwhelm me and especially the combos but the way the program was put together certainly did.

    I think rounding up on the 3a is the correct call but it leads me to a notion I stumbled upon yesterday. Do you think people/judges(I know their people too) weigh certain bullets heavier or less. Shouldn't they be equal? A lot of people talk primarily about height. Is there a way to prevent or embrace this and get it out into the open? It may help the casual and even dedicated fans in their own analysis.

    I think doing a 6.0 era skate using current judging would be fun too.

  5. #5
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,856
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam-Skwantch View Post
    I watched this skate after it was posted but didn't have time do any analysis. What stuck out to me was when he did steps from end to end of the entire rink. Was this the ChSt?
    The first (leveled) step sequence was circular; the second (choreo) was end to end, starting with some posing in place at the end of the ice. He also did steps as transitions, but those wouldn't stand out as going from end to end of the entire rink.

    I think rounding up on the 3a is the correct call but it leads me to a notion I stumbled upon yesterday. Do you think people/judges(I know their people too) weigh certain bullets heavier or less. Shouldn't they be equal?

    A lot of people talk primarily about height. Is there a way to prevent or embrace this and get it out into the open? It may help the casual and even dedicated fans in their own analysis.
    There's nothing in the documentation that says each bullet must weighted equally. Nor that any specific bullets should be weighted more heavily, or how to handle "good" vs. "outstanding" (which the original 2003 GOE guidelines did, but in a more confusing way). That seems to be left to the discretion of the judges. What the guidelines do emphasize is to consider the positive bullet points first and not just the reductions.

    I think doing a 6.0 era skate using current judging would be fun too.
    Sure, pick a program (or several) to look at. The levels don't really apply to years in which those rules weren't in effect, but evaluations of quality don't change much.
    Last edited by dorispulaski; 05-31-2014 at 02:05 PM. Reason: fix quote

Posting Permissions

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