Style Reversals in Programs

[Joesitz]

Sorry rGirl - What you are describing is a perfect way to maintain the status quo. Keep the QR as it is; the SP as it is; and the LP with all it's freedoms to exist. It was just a concept to see how skaters given identical circumstances compare with each other.

By permitting skaters to utilize their best tricks such as a quad, it will become a Technical Competition which I believe is already in existence in the SP. If we stack the routines with tricks favoring a few skaters, then the purpose of the comparison concept is gone.

With that in mind forget the Compulsory Skate which was to determine how skaters can <strong>perform</strong> to the same music and with the same content of program. It was just an idea. It isn't under consideration by the ISU. It would be nothing more than when one goes to a chorus audition.

No one has to protect what is already part of the establishment which I seem to be reading. So I believe the consensus is to drop any discussion on comparing skaters at equal odds.

Joe

[Ladskater]

Ptichka :

Charlie Chaplin was English! Hardly as "American as it gets."


Born: April 16, 1889
Walworth, London England


<img src="http://wso.williams.edu/~dgerstei/chaplin/KidPoster_thumb.gif" style="border:0;"/>

[Joesitz]

Sorry again rGirl - After a good nights sleep having watched yet another Swan Lake on TV (I am bored of that ballet!) I have reread your post and with a clear head, I believe we agree.

Joe

[berthes ghost]

"Charlie Chaplin was English! Hardly as "American as it gets.""

The movie "Chaplin" from which the music was taken is American, as were the actors.

The movie "The Kid" from which B&S took thier inspiration is American.

Yeah CC was born in the UK, and George Washington was born in the Brittish colonies, and Audrey Hepburn was Belgian, etc... I think you missed the forest for the trees.

[Ptichka]

Ladskater, you are of course right in that Chaplin was born in England (and, I beleive, died in Switzerland). However, culturally he is associated mainly with his role in cinema, and that was very American indeed. Also, I think his major influence was in the way the world saw America. Certainly, his own views were influenced by him not being born in this country; however I believe he is mainly am American.

I recall reading Chagall's memoires once. He wrote that he found equally uncomfortable being labeled a "French" and a "Russian". I honestly do not know what "label" Chaplin would have preferred.

[engrsktr]

the idea of the kind of compulsory program that you are all talking about is strange.

A compulsory program already exists - it's called the short program.
why have TWO technical programs and only one long program? it makes no sense. Especially for those fans of presentation vs. jumping.

it's just an example of too much nit-picking.... judges can see who has good edge control and who doesn't just through the skating alone. they don't need special choreography to compare move to move. a good skater with good basics and good edges will be obvious.
If you want to compare edge and body control, bring back figures.

a special program created to showcase certain skills for comparison will inevitably favor some skating styles over others....
the short program as it is lets the skaters showcase their best elements (in their minds) with room to skate the way they like to skate. this alone is enough to differentiate the skaters in a technical sense.

And not every skater at that level should be able to do a triple lutz... the triple lutz for the ladies is like the quad for the men.... the top skaters can do it and that's that. So I wouldn't knock a skater who can "only" go up through the triple flip.... a short program with a triple flip can be just as good as a program with a lutz.... it all depends on quality. that's why there is room to choose!
Every day there is something on this forum about not wanting to see a "splat fest"... well if you make certain moves mandatory, then that's what you will have.

I also see a lot of "jumping that much leads to injury" and "skaters get injured because they try 3/3's" and other comments of the sort in this forum....
a compulsory program to practice with 5 triples, along with a short program and a long program to practice - you talk about injuries! it would be safer to train a 3/3 than to put your body through all that every day!

The only thing in skating that can honestly be compared move for move is jumping and spinning - moves with standard positions and technique that do not vary from skater to skater. hence the short program
you cannot compare a set spiral sequence between two skaters that skate differently.... something like a spiral sequence is more than the sum of its parts.... it also has to do with the music and steps and the feeling the skater has toward the movement.
For example, skater A may have more power through the sequence with more speed and flow.... while skater B may have better body position and edging.... so skater A's sequence isn't better or worse than skater B's sequence.... just different. so the comparison would be voided and the sequences would cancel each other out.

[Ptichka]

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>For example, skater A may have more power through the sequence with more speed and flow.... while skater B may have better body position and edging.... so skater A's sequence isn't better or worse than skater B's sequence.... just different. so the comparison would be voided and the sequences would cancel each other out.[/quote]
Well, engrsktr, how do they think they do it in Dance?!
They break up each program into step sequences -- each sequence receives a certain values according to COP. The only "presentation type" things to consider there are: timing, interpretation, and, performance (elements). I don't see how singles and pairs is <em>that</em> different.

[engrsktr]

first of all, free skating is different than dance.... dance is an event that focuses around set patterns of dance... there are certain compulsory dances that have distinct styles and patterns to match.... that is a backbone of the whole point of dance....it very much matches the concepts of ballroom dance... and ballroom dance has specific patterns, etc.

Freeskating is just that - free. this is what SEPARATES it from dance! it is a different discipline and should be treated as such. singles skating exists so that one can deviate from patterns and all that.... that's the point.
if you start imposing these set pattern "free skates", you defeat the purpose of the skating in question.

[engrsktr]

And I forgot to say this in my last post:

the set pattern dances are like the jumps and spins in free skating.... and as I recall, we already have a short program that addresses these elements.... the only difference is that the elements don't have to be done in a set way as far as set up and placement...

[Joesitz]

engrsktr - This topic is a concept not an official document. The concept which some posters accept also admit it needs a lot of work. Since the Technical side of skating has been seen as an important aspect of fs, a special contest (the SP) was established to compare how well skaters execute these elements.

The Presentation side of skating has no such special contest. Like the Technical side it is simply put into the Free Skate.

The concept had a dual purpose of eliminating the QR of a full 4-1/2 minutes sometimes in the early morning to a special contest of the Presentation side of skating whereby the fans and judges can actually copare figure skaters doing a short routine to the same music.

Again, the details of such a contest need to be ironed out. However, it is only a concept of some posters at Golden Skate. It is not even a proposal of the ISU.

Joe

[engrsktr]

I fully realize that this is not something under consideration by the ISU or any other governing body of the sport....

I was expressing my opinion on why I think it's even a silly concept.

[EllynK]

Well, if the concept is to compare presentation skills, there's certainly no need for triple jumps.

[Joesitz]

EllynK - That's a point to ponder. When fine tuning how to rate the performance of a skater - if eliminating triples is a factor for this contest, the judges could concentrate on musicality, transitions, interpretation (there's more than one way to skate to Don Q) choreography, and maybe even the costumes.

While the Free Skate encompasses all these things together with the big tricks, the Short Program is very much not free. The tricks are <em>set</em> in the contest and the skaters <em>must</em> abide by the rules. With the addition of another SP for presentation, it will round out the competition.

<em>Btw, it didn't bother me to watch all those waltzes at the Worlds for the compulsory dance, so I would look forward to watching 25 Don Q's. I bet they would be all different!</em>

Joe

[rgirl181]

Yes, Joe, indeed we do agree on the idea of what a compulsory program should be (glad you were able to get through my admittedly clumsy prose on that one to the heart of the matter:D ). Just posting to emphasize that a CP for singles and pairs skaters is just an idea, but ideas are where events are born. Also wanted to emphasize that although the elements of such a CP need ironing out, it doesn't mean the idea isn't viable--differences of opinion notwithstanding. One argument brough up against a singles/pairs CP is that they are too different from ice dancing, that ice danding is built upon set patterns. IMO, so is singles in pairs skating. Basic steps--mohawks, choctaws, etc.; spins; jumps; and "moves in the field." All I'm proposing is that instead of having a Q round that consists of the skaters' LP, why not have a Q round that compares skaters as directly as possible? Someone mentioned that not all senior ladies could do 3Lutzes. I proposed that there could be an option to do a 2 or 3Lutz. Another argument was that no matter what you put into the compulsory program, some skaters are going to be favored over others. That's true, but that's true in skating anyway. Great spinners, eg Lucinda Ruh, who are not great jumpers can never reach the world elite levels; however, great jumpers who are not great spinners still can. Also, the CP would change every season and if I were running the CP aspect of the sport (I know, horrors!:lol: ), I'd try to make sure that different elements were emphasized every year. However, in doing a CP, IMO the point would be to construct a basic but suitably difficult program to compare skaters doing the same elements to the same music with a few options to account for ability on the most difficult jumps, different legal approaches certain jumps, and/or anatomical limitations.

For many years I compared many dancers doing the same choreography, which usually included tricks of some kind--multiple pirouettes (turns on one foot), split leaps, etc. I always found it extremely helpful to compare dancers based on a compulsory program, so to speak. Since everyone is doing the same thing, essentially, your mind is free to concentrate on the dancers' strengths and weaknesses. I found direct comparison the best way to seed dancers, that is, in general terms, who were the top three, the next strongest three, etc., which is what I think the Q round should be for--again, we're just talking ideas and nothing to do with anything the ISU has said. I just think that it you're going to have a Q round that it's purpose should be clear and different from the SP and the LP. I think the CP should show the skater's ability to do a set piece of skating choreography with good musicality; strong jumps, spins, and other skating basics; and skate the program cohesively. All the things in the COP would be what the judges would look for. When I said in my earlier post that Skater A might be especially good at holding positions while Skater B might be good at moving through positions, it does not necessarily mean that these qualities or any qualities cancel each other out. Once judge might prefer a skater who holds positions well whereas another judge might prefer a style where the movement is emphasized. My point was that there would still be room for different skaters' styles to be rewarded. Similarly in jumps, some judges might prefer a very clean jump even though it might not have great height whereas other judges might give the bonus to higher jumps.

Anyway, I think the purpose of the CP would be to compare skaters on the same choreography and evaluate the abilities to execute the tricks (jumps and spins) correctly; use sound skating techniques; be musical; and in general make the choreography their own. The purpose of the SP would be to emphasize the skater's technical abilities in the context of choreography and music chosen by the skater's coach, choreography, or the skater him/herself (or themselves in a pair). The LP would be the culmination of everything in figure skating--technical skills, presentation, musicality, the "total package" for lack of a better term. I think that well-designed CPs in singles and pairs would allow judges the opportunity to evaluate the skaters in a different way from the SP and LP and thus would add another dimension to judging, which I think ultimately improves the accuracy of judging.

A CP may not make much difference when you have a skater like Michelle this season who, as of Nationals, demonstrated an extraordinary combination of technical control and artistic freedom that IMO really dominated ladies skating. However, a CP might help judges along the way in determining final placements where you have four or five skaters who all skate at similar levels. Finally, I think that judging would be more accurate if three different methods of judging the skaters were used rather than two. The downside is that if a CP were used in every competition, it would add another day of competition and increase costs. Again (horrors!) if I were in charge, I would have to weigh the cost enefit ratio of adding a CP for all disciplines of skating. I think a CP would only be truly useful as a judging tool if it were used in all competitions so the skaters could get used to performing the CP, but I'd have to evaluate whether any added judging benefits were worth the costs.
Rgirl--who perhaps should have written this earlier when she wasn't so tired