What are good 'skating skills'? Who should get high SS scores?

One serious question. Even though Janet Lynn is undoubtedly ahead of her time and thankfully evolve the sport in such amazing positive ways. Had Janet Lynn not skated for US but instead say somewhere like Latvia, do you think she could have impact the sport in such a massive way? Good for the Swiss and Italian judge.

For men, my current favs are Patrick, Jeremy Abbott (love his deep edges elegant height) and Daisuke (irreplaceable).

As for transitions scoring, I rather have programs that have transitions because it is choreographically and musically appropriate. Over abusive of transitions for transition scores sake certainly deserve negative transition score. Also not all transitions are the same, variety, creativity, intricacy, musicality, originality should matter more than the fact there are quantity.

Patrick Chan!!!!!! is the best skater I have ever seen Male or Female and I've seen a lot of skaters. I also love to watch Jeremey, Jason, Joshua. Angela Nikodinov was very fast, had beautiful posture, and when she skated well, she was beautiful.

os168 said:

One serious question. Even though Janet Lynn is undoubtedly ahead of her time and thankfully evolve the sport in such amazing positive ways. Had Janet Lynn not skated for US but instead say somewhere like Latvia, do you think she could have impact the sport in such a massive way? Good for the Swiss and Italian judge.

Click to expand...

By the time Janet Lynn was competing, Latvia hadn't announced independence from Soviet yet.

os168 said:

As for transitions scoring, I rather have programs that have transitions because it is choreographically and musically appropriate. Over abusive of transitions for transition scores sake certainly deserve negative transition score. Also not all transitions are the same, variety, creativity, intricacy, musicality, originality should matter more than the fact there are quantity.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't penalize someone in the Transitions score for including good transitions that might work better choreographically with different music. I'd reward them for their existence, for the quality, difficulty, intricacy, and variety, under the Transitions Score.

The choreographically and musically appropriate aspects can be rewarded or penalized, as applicable, in the Choreography score.


E.g., if a skater does a lot of strong triple jumps and complicated spins that have nothing to do with the music, they would be rewarded in TES and penalized in Choreography and Interpretation. I wouldn't penalize the GOEs on those elements just because they don't relate to the music. (However, if they do go with the music, there is a bullet point to reward them further in GOE.)

If a skater does a lot strong half-jumps or twizzles or spirals or choctaws that have nothing to do with the music, I think they should be rewarded in Transitions and penalized in Choreography and Interpretation.

os168 said:

One serious question. Even though Janet Lynn is undoubtedly ahead of her time and thankfully evolve the sport in such amazing positive ways. Had Janet Lynn not skated for US but instead say somewhere like Latvia, do you think she could have impact the sport in such a massive way? Good for the Swiss and Italian judge.

.

Click to expand...

I think she would have had the same impact. She was beloved by the Japanese and the French as well as the Americans. And as you noted, she received 6.0s from the Italian and Swiss judges. I believe the Swiss judge also gave her a 6.0 at the '72 Olympics, despite the fall on the flying sit spin. It is ironic that Janet is now one of the biggest proponents of school figures when her free skating was a major reason why figures became devalued (and eventually were eliminated).

jenaj said:

Better than all of those skaters.

Click to expand...

I think so too.

gkelly said:

I wouldn't penalize someone in the Transitions score for including good transitions that might work better choreographically with different music. I'd reward them for their existence, for the quality, difficulty, intricacy, and variety, under the Transitions Score.
The choreographically and musically appropriate aspects can be rewarded or penalized, as applicable, in the Choreography score.
....
If a skater does a lot strong half-jumps or twizzles or spirals or choctaws that have nothing to do with the music, I think they should be rewarded in Transitions and penalized in Choreography and Interpretation.

Click to expand...

All very good points. I only wish to see it can be realistically and thoughtfully applied in real life when the judges only got 10-15 seconds to spare at the end of the performance to weighing out everything. Afterall when I look at PCS protocals I am always puzzled and can't begin to understand http://www.isuresults.com/results/wc2015/wc2015_Ladies_FS_Scores.pdf

os168 said:

All very good points. I only wish to see it can be realistically and thoughtfully applied in real life when the judges only got 10-15 seconds to spare at the end of the performance to weighing out everything. Afterall when I look at PCS protocals I am always puzzled and can't begin to understand http://www.isuresults.com/results/wc2015/wc2015_Ladies_FS_Scores.pdf

Click to expand...

Considering that PCS aren't being evaluated individually anyway (they're almost always rather uniform across the board in all categories for any given skater) they should just eliminate the categories and give a single PCS score out of ten. Then that number can be factored accordingly. It'll also be more understandable for audiences. Having the separate categories for PCS is a nice idea, but since it isn't being used correctly anyway, they might as well simplify it.

ILoveFigures said:

For skating skills, the criteria about "balance, rhythmic knee action, and precision of foot placement" is the most important one. If a skater doesn't have good quality in these three aspects, then everything else will not look as effortless. These are more or less the foundations of all the other criteria in the skating skills component. A very good example of this criteria for me is Chock/Bates Short Dance from Worlds 2015.

Here is a good explanation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzcS_HlgLKQ&list=PL723B645BA5A421EF

Click to expand...

Thank you for the link, these are good explanations. Do you know if the ISU did videos like these for the rest of the component categories? Edit: NM, found the full set here

(Sidenote: Poor Surya. I've watched three videos so far and she's been used as the 'bad example' in all of them. :hopelessness: Tonya's in there, too.)

ILoveFigures said:

Here is a good explanation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzcS_HlgLKQ&list=PL723B645BA5A421EF

Click to expand...

Bahahahaha...the shade they threw at Surya at the end was priceless

andromache said:

Having the separate categories for PCS is a nice idea, but since it isn't being used correctly anyway, they might as well simplify it.

Click to expand...

I agree when PCS is a nice idea, in fact that was one of the reasons I initially like the idea of COP in the first place, only get disillusioned as the time goes by, knowing how it is suppose to work but are rarely applied correctly. Or the fact how much I value artistry but it is always the first victim to any sort of funny going ons.

Simplify it would make it easier to judge no different than the ordinal 6.0 system, but I am not sure if I agree with it. I think Judges should just make more effort to mark them correctly since PCS should be as important as TES. Just like each technical elements can be broken down into base values then with their GOEs, why can't PCS categories with some effort? Why not award a base value (e.g Choreography difficulty, interpretative difficulty etc) then add own GOES (positive and negative scoring depends on how the skater did on the day) too! It would seem to makes more sense. You may have theoretically the best skating skills and the best program, but if you don't bring it on the day, be ready to suffer the consequences. No 2 programs are equal either, some are easier to interpret and carry out choreography, some are more challenging, especially if it is out of the skater's comfort zone. Problem is the lack of accountability from anonymous judges mark, probably makes them complacent, especially if the highest and lowest mark are going to be removed anyway.

os168 said:

I think Judges should just make more effort to mark them correctly since PCS should be as important as TES. Just like each technical elements can be broken down into base values then with their GOEs, why can't PCS categories with some effort? Why not award a base value (e.g Choreography difficulty, interpretative difficulty etc) then add own GOES (positive and negative scoring depends on how the skater did on the day) too! It would seem to makes more sense.

Click to expand...

This is an interesting concept. Any thoughts about how it might work, specifically?

I'm not sure it would be possible to assign BVs to the PCS categories, and even if it were, we'd be faced with skaters doing very similar programs in order to maximize the BV in choreography, for example.

Ugh, it's just frustrating seeing the way the PCS scores are used rather than seeing them applied accurately. I doubt it would be difficult to assign a number in each category that actually reflected the skating, especially for the skaters who judges know to expect certain things from. Sure, Ashley Wagner gets a 6.5 in transitions, and then a 9 in interpretation. Liza gets a 6 or 7 in choreography but a 9.5 for performance/execution when she brings the personality. PCS are generally marked according to reputation, and it would at least be a step forward to mark the individual PCS categories based on reputation in those individual categories rather than giving skaters similar numbers in each category just to rank them how the judges want to rank them.

gkelly said:

This is an interesting concept. Any thoughts about how it might work, specifically?

Click to expand...

Idea working in progress, but assume we make PCS reward 50% on BV, 50% on execution.

Take Kostner's Bolero 1 for instance. The choreography although initially slow paced, rhythmically steady and appropriate, good musical buildup, great payoff at the end with 3S, great step sequence, although not the most intricate and complex interms of upper body movement or transitions. She aced all the movements, fulfilled the artistic objective of Bolero with originality and musicality. 9 out 10 for choreography, 9.5 out of 10 for execution. 18.5 out of 20, 9.25 over all.

Take Bolero 2 for instance, choreography has been simplified in the first half for jump consistency, but still has great step sequence and good musical build up towards the finale, 3S is taken out so doesn't have the big choreography payoff. Choreographically simpler and lower difficulty than version 1 therefore less fulfilling to the artistic objective of the music. Judges reward a base mark out of 8/10 (1 less due to the simplified factor and that made the choreography easier to perform and less effective with the music). If she happen to have flunked most of the the program with multiple falls and fell behind the music in parts therefore fail to execute the choreography as intended, then only award something like 4 out 10. This would give her a possible score of 12 out of 20 = 6 instead of 9.25 her previous best.

This makes the system less ordinal, and more performance related, and I'd argue makes the sport a bit fairer even if you don't have reputation or able to afford the best program. Similarly, people who spent the time and effort to developed a well thought out, complex, challenging, fully realised choreographic program even if they failed in execution (I am thinking of Jeremy Abbott mostly) can still get good reward for it. This will have a big effect on reputation scoring, as it is harder to rank the skater by relative differentials.

Having greater transitions in your choreography vs something like Bolero 2 , will mean you should get higher transition BV score, but having excessive transitions that made no sense to the music although can boost transition BV and execution, can hurt interpretative BV and execution scores too (like you said in the other thread). This method also gives people incentive to improve their interpretation even the program doesn't allow it. E.g Max Aaron may not be the best interpreter, best program, but at least it was clear to me he tried hard to improve through out the season and it showed in his subsequent performances, only wished he get rewarded more for his effort despite blacked marked reputation, this method he can see he is rewarded for his effort more than the current system. It will allow more flexibility and variability the skater to compete. Some people's choreography are made more complex as the season goes on, they should be rewarded with better choreography BV as well.

Patrick although have great SS (highest SS BV likely), but if he fail to show it on the day with multiple falls that disrupt his program, will have its own consequences etc.. While someone like Ashley or Mao who might have multiple UR, but if they are hardly visible and doesn't disrupt their performance, their PCS categories should remain high in execution, than if they had made falls, stumbles that disrupt the flow of the program.

The scale of values for PCS itself may need to be scrutinized more, for example why is it out of 10, why not in % or why not out of 20, 50, 100 etc. Afterall, at elite level top 20, there's really only something like 7.5 to 9.5 separate these categories. The difference between 2 points and 2 decimal places is enough to separate the best choreography vs poor lazy one? The best SS vs poorest one? It is not even worth 50% Of a 3toe? Ridiculous!

Meoima said:

I disagree. Crossover is a way to gain speed, a skater who uses too many crossovers before big jumps doesn't seem to have good ability to maintain speed like other skaters who use less crossovers before big jumps.

For example I'd tend to think that a skater who only has 2-3 crossovers before the quad (with good speed, like Patrick and Yuzuru) as having much better SS than skaters who use 4-5 crossovers before the quad.

Click to expand...

Exactly my thoughts. More crossovers means less circular. More straight lines than curve. Hence poor ice coverage.

andromache said:

I'm not sure it would be possible to assign BVs to the PCS categories, and even if it were, we'd be faced with skaters doing very similar programs in order to maximize the BV in choreography, for example.

Click to expand...

Yes, that would be a risk.

Ugh, it's just frustrating seeing the way the PCS scores are used rather than seeing them applied accurately.

I doubt it would be difficult to assign a number in each category that actually reflected the skating

Click to expand...

Define "accurately." That implies that there is a single correct score and that the further the judges are from the correct score the more inaccurate they are. Is that what you mean?

How does one know what the score should be to determine that the scores actually given are not accurate?

If it's not difficult to assign a score that actually reflects the skating, does that mean that every honest observer should agree on what that score should be? If we take a performance by a skater who doesn't have partisan fans, should all knowledgeable Golden Skate members be able to agree on exactly what score, or at least within 0.5 or 1.0, that performance deserves for each component?

os168 said:

Idea working in progress, but assume we make PCS reward 50% on BV, 50% on execution.

Take Kostner's Bolero 1 for instance. The choreography although initially slow paced, rhythmically steady and appropriate, good musical buildup, great payoff at the end with 3S, great step sequence, although not the most intricate and complex interms of upper body movement or transitions. She aced all the movements, fulfilled the artistic objective of Bolero with originality and musicality. 9 out 10 for choreography, 9.5 out of 10 for execution. 18.5 out of 20, 9.25 over all.

Click to expand...

So who comes up with those numbers? Each judge individually? You might think this performance deserves 9 for choreography and 9.5 for execution, but a different judge might be working on a lower scale, or might think that the execution was not notably better than the choreography?

Or is there some kind of tech panel for choreo base marks who have less-subjective guidelines to set the choreo base marks, and all the judges do is determine the execution score?

If there are such guidelines for coming up with base marks, whether applied a separate panel or by individual judges, what would they look like?

The scale of values for PCS itself may need to be scrutinized more, for example why is it out of 10, why not in % or why not out of 20, 50, 100 etc. Afterall, at elite level top 20, there's really only something like 7.5 to 9.5 separate these categories. The difference between 2 points and 2 decimal places is enough to separate the best choreography vs poor lazy one? The best SS vs poorest one? It is not even worth 50% Of a 3toe? Ridiculous!

Click to expand...

Don't forget that component scores are factored in free skates so that they're worth double the face value for men and 1.8 times for women.

So in a free skate a difference of 7.5 vs. 9.5 in one component, let's say skating skills, is worth approximately the full value of a 3T.

And there are 5 components.

So if one skater is averaging 7.5 on all components and another is averaging 9.5 on all, in a men's free skate, then the difference in total PCS is approximately the value of two quads.

In a short program, where PCS are not doubled, the difference would only be worth one quad, or two easier triples.

iceberg said:

Exactly my thoughts. More crossovers means less circular. More straight lines than curve. Hence poor ice coverage.

Click to expand...

Crossovers usually go in circular paths. Except with real beginners.

patrick <3

Firstly thanks for entertaining the hypothesis, I don't know all the answers but at least it is interesting to contemplate and refine ideas.

gkelly said:

So who comes up with those numbers? Each judge individually? You might think this performance deserves 9 for choreography and 9.5 for execution, but a different judge might be working on a lower scale, or might think that the execution was not notably better than the choreography?

Or is there some kind of tech panel for choreo base marks who have less-subjective guidelines to set the choreo base marks, and all the judges do is determine the execution score?

If there are such guidelines for coming up with base marks, whether applied a separate panel or by individual judges, what would they look like?

Click to expand...

In the ideal world at elite competitions (world, olympics, GPF) I had always hoped for separate panel of PCS specialist to improving judging standards (judges feel less pressured, and focus on their area of expertise), but there's the issue of financial viability we have discussed before. Then thought about the possibly divide the panel into 2 halves (4s and 5s), one half focus on PCS BV (by mean average), the other by PCS Execution value (By mean average, maybe consider top and bottom score by 50% as 4th mark (50+50%) to even out the odds), but then I thought actually things like BV can maybe decided beforehand depends on if the judges is familiar with the program. At GPF, Olympics, Worlds afterall, most judges would have been familiar with program construct, ambition, difficulty, quality, history of the choreography already of the top 20 (may be during practice sessions to check? Not sure...), then perhaps all 9 judges then can just focus on ability to execute these 4 areas, while BV takes care of itself?

Don't forget that component scores are factored in free skates so that they're worth double the face value for men and 1.8 times for women.
So in a free skate a difference of 7.5 vs. 9.5 in one component, let's say skating skills, is worth approximately the full value of a 3T.
And there are 5 components.
So if one skater is averaging 7.5 on all components and another is averaging 9.5 on all, in a men's free skate, then the difference in total PCS is approximately the value of two quads.
In a short program, where PCS are not doubled, the difference would only be worth one quad, or two easier triples.

Crossovers usually go in circular paths. Except with real beginners.

Click to expand...

Yes thanks for remind me, the factoring thing has always felt like funny mathematics to me. I know it is suppose to make PCS more or less equal to the tech score, but what it is really doing is just reinforce the PCS differentials and nothing more beyond that. Men get it twice, Women get it 1.8 times in the FS, it doesn't really say much about the quality of the skating components themselves. In any case it seems by awarding PCS cateogories out of 20, mathematically it works out factoring of 2.0 for the men already, so it need not change. So for women mark out 18 instead of 20 resolve any issues? Still seems funny and strange. So best SS/PE/TR/CH/IN vs worst in the ladies short = 1x 3T only, but in Men's FS = 2 quads. !

gkelly said:

Yes, that would be a risk.



Define "accurately." That implies that there is a single correct score and that the further the judges are from the correct score the more inaccurate they are. Is that what you mean?

How does one know what the score should be to determine that the scores actually given are not accurate?

If it's not difficult to assign a score that actually reflects the skating, does that mean that every honest observer should agree on what that score should be? If we take a performance by a skater who doesn't have partisan fans, should all knowledgeable Golden Skate members be able to agree on exactly what score, or at least within 0.5 or 1.0, that performance deserves for each component?

Click to expand...

I'm sort of throwing around the word "accurately" when I moreso accurately in the sense of each individual component actually evaluated separately, rather than just throwing a bunch of similar numbers for each category. Similar numbers in each category might indeed work for some skaters/performances, but certainly not all the way we see. Looking over the LP protocols from the top ten ladies at Worlds, the highest and lowest final component scores all had the range of less than one point away from another. For every skater, without exception (I believe). Scores from individual judges also tended to follow this pattern, through there were a few exceptions among the judges individually (like one judge gave Ashley a 7.75 in transitions but a 9 in P/E and interpretation. But individual judges giving scores outside of the one point range are the anomaly rather than the norm. Usually about one judge per skater, and usually the "anomaly" is caused by the transitions score.

Of course there is room for subjectivity, but I do think that the majority of Golden Skate posters would agree that, for many skaters, some PCS categories should be higher/lower than others with more of a difference than the scores currently reflect. Most skaters have strengths and weaknesses to their presentation/program/performance and the scores do not reflect that.

Meoima said:

My issue with PCS is that TR can either be included in either SS or CH. These components are so much overlapped. At the same time, IN can be included in PE. Personally I think there are too many categories in PCS. IMO, 3 categories are enough. Why not just SS, CH and PE?

Click to expand...

No way the TR can be included in SS. You have skaters with mediocre SS doing a lot of transitions and vice versa. If anything TR should go with the choreo. PE and IN can go together as well.

os168 said:

Take Kostner's Bolero 1 for instance. The choreography although initially slow paced, rhythmically steady and appropriate, good musical buildup, great payoff at the end with 3S, great step sequence, although not the most intricate and complex interms of upper body movement or transitions. She aced all the movements, fulfilled the artistic objective of Bolero with originality and musicality. 9 out 10 for choreography, 9.5 out of 10 for execution. 18.5 out of 20, 9.25 over all.

Click to expand...

That's very subjective though. You think that program deserves 9 out of 10 for choreography, I think it deserves 7 and I'm being generous. The only good thing about that program was the step sequence. The rest was telegraphing and shaking her belly. Now, her SP was the complete opposite. PCS can't work as GoE's for technical elements. They are much more complex to judge and PE, IN and to a certain degree the choreo, will always have the subjective elements in it.