Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 35

Thread: Score This: Midori Ito's Programs

  1. #1
    Medalist
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,959
    Country: Canada

    0 Not allowed!

    Score This: Midori Ito's Programs


    Go Ad-Free! Become a GS Supporter! Thank you
    Re-watched four Midori free skate programs from the past:

    - 1988 Olympics
    - 1989 Worlds
    - 1990 Worlds
    - 1992 Olympics

    I'm wondering, even if they were under the 6.0 system, her level of difficulty was so high that she could have easily done well in today's competitive environment based on the jumps alone. Unsure of the transitions though, as maybe stylistically it was different at the time.

    I recall someone posting a thread in the past on how to score these programs. As an off-season activity, can someone score these four programs and report back? if this has been done already let me know. I can see 140+ for a couple of these but my math + IJS scoring = frown-y face

  2. #2

  3. #3

    0 Not allowed!
    This is something I think about all the time (and I get really frustrated that there is no really good software that one can use to make fake scores using the proprietary ijs software..... We're forced to doing it manually using excel which is nuts).

    The jumps themselves are easy enough to determine scores for. What is much harder is the spins and footwork: I think some of the posters in this forum have pointed out that the spins of previous eras would be level 1 or "basic" and receive much lower values. (exceptions perhaps being things like biellmanns, which were much rarer back then.)

    The program components should technically be a hot mess, too. The true transitions mark (not that it's scored fairly today, cough maxim kovtun) for previous skaters would have to be like, 2-5 points. Lol

  4. #4
    Bona Fide Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    6,498

    0 Not allowed!
    Someone with Midori's talent would be able to do a level 3 spin (at least), so it's hard to gauge how well a skater would score under the new system with an old program.

  5. #5
    Bona Fide Member StitchMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    4,233

    0 Not allowed!
    Well. . . This would be an undertaking, but we could in theroy look at the other skaters, and come up with out own levels based on what was done and how often. I suspect we could still find some patterns, some clearly added difficulty, and find some way to draw lines for levels 1/2/3/4 for that year. If for some reason a lot of skaters were doing footwork on one foot, call that a level as one example, if a few cover significantly more ice, give that a higher level. That seems like it would be a better way to judge this really. I bet this forum could come up with an IJS for the post-figures era.

  6. #6
    On the Ice
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    198

    0 Not allowed!
    In one aspect she almost seemed to be a prophet, as she did difficult elements in the 2nd half of the program. For example her 1988 triple-triple and the 1992 Olympics 3A.

  7. #7
    Rinkside
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    88

    0 Not allowed!
    Judging by memory alone, I think Midori's 1988 Olympic SP and LP are a gold standard in ladies' skating. Movements set to the music, jawdropping jumps, good spins, fast feet, and (for me) incredible excitement/entertainment value. I know that she did not do a triple axel in either program, and I loved watching those from her, but every time I watch those two programs I feel like she was SO darn good, she executed SO well, and her content was light years ahead of the other '88 ladies.

    To keep this connected to the topic: I think Midori's programs in Calgary in '88 should have been scored- under 6.0 or IJS- multiple ladder steps above anyone else. Comparing them to more recent years on a point-by-point basis does not really interest me.

    After all these years, I've still got lots of Midori love!

  8. #8
    Skating is Art, if you let it be Blades of Passion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    5,902

    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by StitchMonkey View Post
    I bet this forum could come up with an IJS for the post-figures era.
    This works for any competition, since variable Long Program layouts are inherently included:

    http://www.goldenskate.com/forum/sho...ng-Ice-Skating

    You can just remove the jump combination bonuses if you want easier math (or assign your own bonus of a half-point or full point depending on difficulty). For casual judging you can also just assign levels to elements based upon your own decision, without specifically reading all of the rules, since quality is worth more points than levels.

    -----

    Using a conglomeration of the actual CoP rules from various eras, but with multiple "choreography sequences" allowed and counting the extra double jumps as choreography and the 2Axel+3Sal as a two-jump combination, here would be my score for Midori Ito's 1988 Olympic LP:

    LSp1, +1.5 GOE = 2.25
    3Lutz, +2.5 GOE = 7.75
    3Flip, +2.5 GOE = 7.25
    CCoSp2, +1 GOE = 3.5
    2Axel+3Sal, +2 GOE = 9.2
    ChSq, +1.5 GOE = 3.5
    (halfway bonus)
    3Loop, +2.5 GOE = 7.25
    FCSp1, +1 GOE = 2.5
    3Toe+3Toe +2.5 GOE = 10.55
    ChSq, +1 GOE = 3.0
    FSSp1, +1.5 GOE = 2.75
    3Sal, +1 GOE = 5.65
    2Axel +2.5 GOE = 4.88

    SS: 8.0 (builds and maintains speed well, shows some good edges, could have more control)
    TR: 8.5 (there are a lot of transitions actually! Great flow out of the jumps always helps here too)
    P/E: 8.75 (could have better posture, project a little more at times, but no doubt it was a confident and very lively performance)
    CH: 8.25 (a little simple, more extension would help, but most everything has a purpose; only the 2Loop after the flying sit feels out of place)
    IN: 8.25 (follows the music quite well, some moments could be bigger or more personal)

    Tech = 70.03
    PCS = 66.8

    TOTAL = 136.83

  9. #9
    Tripping on the Podium Spiral's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    582

    0 Not allowed!
    To be honest, I also don't see the point of trying to figure out how much the programs created under the previous judgment system would have scored under the new one. A competitive program is made to fit specific competition requirements, and the judging system is certainly a huge part of these requirements. I also don't understand the thinking I sense behind such calculations, as if the current judging system were some sort of true standard by which figure skating in general can be measured, as opposed to just a new system that has been changed so significantly over the years that some of the best programs under a previous version would not have won a medal under the current version. And there's no telling how the current version will be changed over the years, and even if the current judging system itself won't be replaced by something different in 10-15 years. In short, I don't see the relevance of any judging system other than to the competition in which it's going to be used.

    If the question is whether Midori Ito could have adapted to the current version of the current system, had she skated in a later era, I'm sure that of all the ladies she'd have had the easiest time of it. She had great jumps, wonderful footwork, mind-boggling stamina, difficult entries and beautiful artistry.

    In fact, it's a pity that she competed when she did and was bogged down by figures. And I'm still mad at those excuses of human beings in the press corps who hounded her in Albertville - if there'd been any justice in the world, none of them would have ever gotten an accreditation to anything again. It's also a pity that, as a result of their relentless pressure, I believe, she was so mentally exhausted by 1992 that she didn't stay for two more years and try again in Lillehammer.

    But I was glad to find links to her programs all in one place, re-watch them and feel the magic again.
    Last edited by Spiral; 06-10-2015 at 05:57 PM.

  10. #10
    Bona Fide Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    5,554

    0 Not allowed!
    There are two problems with scoring programs designed for one year's rules by the rules of a different year, especially if the rules you're using are more restrictive than the rules the program was actually skated under:

    1) Which elements count for full credit, which are ignored, which are penalized as extra or incorrect elements? This problem exists regardless of the scoring system: e.g., it would be just as big an issue if you were trying to judge 1988 or 1992 programs under 2002 rules or 2005 programs under 2015 rules.

    2) How do you determine levels base values for each of the elements that do count? The IJS scale of values has changed over the years, and so have the rules for determining levels on non-jump elements.

    You could just choose to use the current rules exactly as they currently would be implemented in a summer 2015 competition. (Some rules may change July 1, but usually the big changes are made during even years after ISU congresses, so I don't expect much change this year.) That would result in a lot of good elements getting zero credit, and a lot of good elements with some added difficulty would still end up as level B or level 1 because they don't include the right kinds of added difficulty in the right combinations to meet the current rules.

    Or you could make some compromises to adapt the current rules to the requirements of the year the program was skated. E.g., if the rules at the time required the short program solo jump out of steps to be double, then give full credit for the double even though it's currently required to be triple. Or if the freeskate rules at the time allowed unlimited number of spins, give full credit for all spins that qualify as at least level B, even though current rules allow only 3 spins with specific requirements.

    It wouldn't really work to take features from two different spins or from within and between step sequences and say that adds up to a level 2 (or 3 or 4) element. The best we could say is that the skater has shown the skills to be capable of including a level 2 or 3 or 4 element if they'd known what the rules were going to be X years in the future. But we can't really give them credit for something they didn't actually do in that program.

    What we can do is apply the GOE and PCS guidelines according to the current rules. That can give an idea of how multiple skaters from the same past event(s) might stack up against each other or against the current field in terms of quality. And if we got enough Golden Skate posters each with our own different preferences/biases, the group Golden Skate PCS and GOEs for a past event would probably be just about as valid as those of official IJS judges.

    But if you want to get a sense of how the programs would score overall, including base values, you have to make some hard decisions or compromises about which rules to follow exactly and which rules to bend, and how to bend them.

  11. #11
    Skating is Art, if you let it be Blades of Passion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    5,902

    0 Not allowed!
    LOL, it's not nearly so hard as you've just described. Every program has a certain number of elements and you just count the best ones, up to a certain limit. A good spin, a good jump, the maximum amount of jumps that are credited, a great performance, etc, have all existed under the same general standard for 25+ years now. Given that Long Programs should be flexible in the types of elements allowed, and much of this flexibility was in fact there before CoP, you'll find that most any performance from the past 25+ years fits neatly into the modified CoP system I wrote. Michelle Kwan and Tara Lipinski in their 1998 Olympic LP's have exactly the same amount of creditable elements, for example (Kwan has 2 extra jumping passes as compared to Tara, who has an extra jump combination and a footwork sequence to balance it). Lu Chen, Irena Slutsakya, and Maria Butyrskaya from that event all fit perfectly in with their LP's as well (Maria just failed to do a combination jump, which counted against her in 6.0 to begin with).

    Quote Originally Posted by Spiral View Post
    To be honest, I also don't see the point of trying to figure out how much the programs created under the previous judgment system would have scored under the new one.
    I think it's interesting, and necessary, to look at skating from the modern eras and use a kind of objective standard to look at which years/performances were most accomplished. When you see performances from recent years getting 9's for choreography and interpretation, and compare it to programs from the past with far more purpose of movement and attention to musicality, it really puts things into perspective.

    Even though programs are created for the exact ruleset they fall under, there is a general objective standard for ice skating that will always be out there. Maybe it's not a skater's fault for having to do an ugly spin to satisfy a level requirement, for example, but the fact of the matter is that such a thing is bad choreography...and likely bad interpretation, and probably bad performance if the skater disconnects to do the element, and possibly even bad transitioning since so many skaters do not finish off their spins now - instead of flowing out they just twist their bodies out. Those failures need to be marked as such. That is actually WHY we have seen so many lacking programs - because judges have generally not scored correctly, especially on performance/choreography/interpretation. Thus, skaters focus on getting the technical points, which now includes easily identifiable inbetween skating movements, no matter how mechanical the method may be.

    Even under the modern CoP, if you were to do a good Level 2 combination spin that goes with the music, you should still be getting more points for it than an average/tacky Level 4 combination spin. This is because, whilst you're gaining 1 point in base value from the harder spin, you should be losing out in the appropriate program component categories from the judges and the GOE should be lower. That's not what happens, though. So, now most skaters don't even understand what great performance, choreography, and interpretation is.

  12. #12
    Bona Fide Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    5,554

    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    A good spin, a good jump, the maximum amount of jumps that are credited, a great performance, etc, have all existed under the same general standard for 25+ years now. Given that Long Programs should be flexible in the types of elements allowed, and much of this flexibility was in fact there before CoP, you'll find that most any performance from the past 25+ years fits neatly into the modified CoP system I wrote.
    Sure -- that's you rewriting rules to accommodate the changing requirements over that period. It's not anything official, it's the Blades of Passion rules. I could come up with GKelly rules that also accommodate changing requirements but that aren't identical to yours. And someone else might say No, let's use the exact rules in place as of 2015 Worlds or as of July 1, 2015, etc., or any other specific point in time during the IJS era.

    So if a poster asks "How would this program score under IJS?" someone still needs to make a decision which rules to use.
    And whatever we choose, it's will still produce only an approximation of what a whole panel of trained judges might have come up with.

    I think it's interesting, and necessary, to look at skating from the modern eras and use a kind of objective standard to look at which years/performances were most accomplished. When you see performances from recent years getting 9's for choreography and interpretation, and compare it to programs from the past with far more purpose of movement and attention to musicality, it really puts things into perspective.
    I do think it's a more useful exercise to compare programs across eras on program components, trying to establish a consistent standard across all eras.

    Agreeing on the which technical rules to use is the tricky part. Once that's agreed, scoring the base values would be pretty straightforward.

    PCS are more subjective, just each individual's judgment, but if those judgments are based on consistent applications of principles, it doesn't make much difference what that year's rules were. We -- and judges -- should be able to look at programs from any decade and say that is in the "average" (5.0) or "good" (7.0) or "superior" (9.0) range. The more performances we've seen from various eras and various skill levels, the better we can consistently fit very different performances into the same scale.

    We should also be able to apply GOEs pretty consistently when it comes to quality, good and bad. The negative GOEs for rule violations are more variable depending on rule changes.


    Even under the modern CoP, if you were to do a good Level 2 combination spin that goes with the music, you should still be getting more points for it than an average/tacky Level 4 combination spin. This is because, whilst you're gaining 1 point in base value from the harder spin, you should be losing out in the appropriate program component categories from the judges and the GOE should be lower.
    Agreed. Although "tacky" is a very subjective judgment. Your pet peeve might not bother me at all, or vice versa.

    So, now most skaters don't even understand what great performance, choreography, and interpretation is.
    I would say "most skaters don't understand what great performance, choreography, and interpretation are" in any era. We remember the great performances from the past -- all the average and mediocre ones fade from memory if we even got to see them in the first place.

    It might be interesting to get Golden Skate posters to score PCS, and maybe GOEs, for most or all of a whole competition from the 1980s or 90s, including skaters outside the top 10, and also similar event from recent years. Sure, let's use Blades of Passion rules for determining what the tech panel should call -- we'd have to decide on some system and you've already devised one. What's more interesting to me is seeing how

    But relevant to this thread, yes, Midori would have earned much higher IJS base value in her 1988 programs than most of her competitors -- maybe not as much as the top skaters in recent years, but close enough with clean performances to be competitive.
    Last edited by gkelly; 06-11-2015 at 03:33 PM.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,721

    0 Not allowed!
    It's just something fun and interesting to do. But I'm all for a GS judging panel, for past and present programs. I think it would be very interesting and fun.

  14. #14
    Bona Fide Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    5,554

    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by MAXSwagg View Post
    It's just something fun and interesting to do. But I'm all for a GS judging panel, for past and present programs. I think it would be very interesting and fun.
    Those who think it's fun can join in. Those who aren't interested can ignore it. I'll start a new thread.

    How many programs should we include? We'll make sure Midori is among them. All programs from the same competition from her heyday? Or comparative between eras?

  15. #15
    Skating is Art, if you let it be Blades of Passion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    5,902

    0 Not allowed!

    Go Ad-Free! Become a GS Supporter! Thank you
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    Sure -- that's you rewriting rules to accommodate the changing requirements over that period.
    No it isn't? It's an objective standard of what was acceptable and desirable and possible before CoP, whilst adhering to the CoP scoring method. Things like difficult spins, difficult footwork, and great quality elements were always "worth" something in 6.0, it was just some unknown value floating around in the air that wasn't precisely tangible. What CoP scoring does is it places the generally accepted thoughts about difficulty and quality into precise form, so as to provide the most fairness and make sure the different elements are actually getting their due (which in turn should make skating more robust across the board). Well, that's what it should be doing, but the system has never yet been balanced and sensible.

    For example, everyone knows a 3Axel is more difficult than a 3Toe+3Toe, yet it was actually worth less in early CoP and is now still barely worth more. Everyone knows that doing a 3Axel+3Loop and a solo 3Toe is more difficult than doing a 3Axel+3Toe and a solo 3Loop, yet for these many years CoP has said otherwise. Everyone also knows that if you fall on a jump, you've essentially failed, and yet the system currently gives tons of points for it. Everyone knows better, yet everyone has remained a slave to a lie.

    So, I don't find it difficult to "agree" on the technical rules, because skaters really already know. It's a matter of accurately converting that to a number and a workable system, which is what I believe I've done.

    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    I would say "most skaters don't understand what great performance, choreography, and interpretation are" in any era.
    I kind of agree with you in terms of choreography/interpretation, although we can say that in the past skaters didn't intentionally go against the music so much, didn't intentionally do convoluted movements for no real reason, and paid more attention to presenting themselves.

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 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
  •