CoP and Music

[janetfan]

Thanks Buttercup, I enjoyed your analysis and think your conclusions seem fair.

My only question would be that it is easier to see Brian's 4x3 is more difficult than any of Jeremy's jumps.

I still feel after watching the two SP's that Jeremy's choreo is not just more imaginative than Brian's but my key point is that it is more difficult. And his music interpretation seemed superior to me as well.

If it is more difficult then if I was judging I would have placed Jeremy first.

This is not an issue that I am arguing about to be stubborn, but more of an opportunity to learn and hear other opinions. Maybe Brian's choreo is just as difficult as Jeremys'

So thanks and I also appreciate that your name is much easier to spell than Kunstrijdster's.

 

[i love to skate]

Well, we seem to have moved away from the music question to other things. I'm not particularly interested in how the SP at NHK would have been judged under 6.0 because if it were 6.0, the programs would have been constructed differently.

Thanks Buttercup! It is so pointless to talk about how a program would have scored under 6.0 or what the results would have been. Programs would have a different look and because 6.0 was so subjective there is no way that a person can say that a program would have scored a 5.8 or 5.7.


An off topic note - what is with all the doom and gloom on the forum?? From reading some of the posts and topics it sounds like skating is a sport that is dying a horrible death and will soon vanish. Ex: the COP has ruined skating, there's no artistry, it's ruined Mao, the judges are corrupt, the skating sucks, the programs suck, and conspiracy theories are alive and well. Anyone else notice this or is it just me? It gives me a headache!

Sit back, watch the skating, and enjoy the ride to the Vancouver - at least that's what I'm going to do.

 

[Mathman]

I was thinking that the next natural progression for CoP might be to do away with music in the SP...

I would rather keep the music in the SP and eliminate it from the long. It seems to me that the LP and SP have switched places over the years. There continue to be many short programs that are choreographic gems, while the LPs have become more of a jump-a-thon.

...Feel free to shorten it to K

"Art jockey!"

 

[Tango_D_R]

Sit back, watch the skating, and enjoy the ride to the Vancouver - at least that's what I'm going to do.

Second that

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

I'm with you, Janetfan. I see no point in having two "artistry" programs. I am certain one will allow the judges to see who is the best performing skater. Why is it necessary to have two of them?

For the SP and without music, I would have the number of jumps required as dictated by the ISU For example, if the Rule says 5 jumps then the skater may make his own selection and have them judged in accordance with the CoP. The contestant will tell the Technical Adviser what jump he will execute. This is similar to the way Diving is judged and it works. As the scores begin to add up in public, a skater may change his original plans from a Triple Flip and instead make the last jump a Quad in order to stay afloat.

Similarly, Spins would be judged for the total score of Tech, and judged a la COP. GOEs will be important. This kind of judging will be a true picture of the Technical prowess of the skater, but also a very nerve wracking one. Underrotaions, Wrong Edge Takeoffs and Falls; poor landings and stumbles will also be much easier to see for the public as well as the judges.

Footwork, Spirals, etc., would be judged in the Long Program which will be skated to choreographed music of the skater's choice along with the jumps and spins chosen in the SP.

The Long Program to be judged as usual, however, non-element scores could be doubled in the PCS.

The above is just an outline of what can be furthe done to make use of the SP as something special for Technical, and Performancce rewarded in the LP.

Pro: Making full use of the ability of the skater in a Sportsman like manner.

Con: Possible drop in LIVE attendance for the new SP. Yet it doesn't stop hundreds of Golf Fans from following the players from hole to hole and good rating for Golf on TV without music.

 

[gkelly]

My proposal would be:

Jump contest (no music): Just let the skaters do the jumps in isolation and score them on difficulty and execution -- base mark and GOE. This would be a good opportunity for skaters to push the limits on jumps they wouldn't have the energy to try in a 4+-minute or even an almost 3-minute program.

Spin contest (no music): Again, opportunity to push the limits on difficulty, hold the spins as long as necessary to demonstrate technical prowess without worrying about getting dizzy for the rest of the program. Base marks and GOEs only.

Skating skills and interpretation program: This would be all about using skills other than rotational jumps and spins to expess the music. No jumps of more than 1.5 revs or spins of more than 3 revs allowed. There could be technical elements (e.g., choice of any two out of circular step sequence, end-to-end step sequence, spiral sequence, field moves sequence, small-jump sequence) that would earn base marks and GOEs, but most of the score would come from the components. Maybe no Transitions component -- let the difficulty be reflected in Skating Skills, intricacy and variety in Choreography, and quality in Performance/Execution.

I would expect different winners for each of the above events.

Then have a Well-Balanced Freeskate competition for all the well-rounded skaters. In larger events, only the skaters who placed respectably in two or three of the element events could qualify.

Ways to reward all the different kinds of excellence.

 

[i love to skate]

I think an important thing to remember for senior competitions is that they have to make money. Far fewer people are going to come and watch performances without music. How many people watched compulsory figures? It's probably a big reason why they got rid of them.

In lower level competitions there are events where you don't perform to music; such as compulsory elements, spin competitions, and team competitions. No one watches them there and the competitors don't take them seriously either. I can't see how they would be a success at the senior level.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Everyone has an opinion. In the interest of SPORT. I go with the Diving system.

In the interest of artistry, I ask, what and where is it?

In the interest of performance, I say it will be an opinion of the judges, and the fan of a particular skater.

 

[janetfan]

I don't think Janetfan was aiming at abolishing artistry and music in the short. He was rather afraid that this could be the case at some point in the future.

I'm with Mathman here, SPs are so much more interesting.

Regarding the original topic post I made, Joe and K are both right. I am worried that skating may be heading this way - and as Joe suggested why not do away with music all together for one of the two programs.

I see no point to having music interpretation and choreo being decided because one skater did a quad and the other didn't. Think about how ridiculous that is!!

I am not surprised Joe agrees with me because posts he made in the past are what made me think of this. :yes:

I actually like the diving analogy - particularly with the idea a skater could up the ante - or fall of the medal stand - by trying a harder jump based on their standing as the competition progresses. I do like to watch diving and think a jumping event might actually be better than it sounds at first thought.

I agree with mm about the SP's being better. The LP's are too much for most of today's skaters to pull off under current CoP , especially for the fairer sex.

I have no idea if Joe is a Joubert or Abbott fan but am curious to see if he will offer his thoughts on who he thought won the SP at NHK.

 

[seniorita]

I actually like the diving analogy - particularly with the idea a skater could up the ante - or fall of the medal stand - by trying a harder jump based on their standing as the competition progresses. I do like to watch diving and think a jumping event might actually be better than it sounds at first thought.

I also like the diving analogy, especially if skaters skated with their swimsuits in that new short kind of program.
Sorry this was my shallow moment a la medusa before I sleep.
Please dont turn fs into golf. I find sps more exciting than Lps anyway.

 

[janetfan]

Interestingly enough, there has been such a form of competition.
The successcor of Bofrost Cup when it lost its GP status. It consisted of a jump competition of several rounds followed by the LP on the next day.

Does anyone know how it was received at that time?

"Bofrost" I love the sound of that name.
It reminds me of a crisp, cold cocktail that would be fun to drink after a hard day's work.

Something like this, "Bartender, I'll have a Bofrost - in fact, make mine a double!!

 

[janetfan]

make mine a quadruple

Spoken like a true Tomas fan.

Trust me, as a Sasha fan I feel for you

 

[Mathman]

Interestingly enough, there has been such a form of competition. The successcor of Bofrost Cup when it lost its GP status. It consisted of a jump competition of several rounds followed by the LP on the next day.

Does anyone know how it was received at that time?

Was it held more than once? Here are the results of the 2004 contest.

http://www.usfigureskating.org/event_details.asp?id=25886

In ladies, Annie Bellemarie (Canda) edged Jane Bugaeva (USA) in the Element Competiton. Bugaeva won the free skating and overall.

In men's, Stefan Lindemann clobbered the competion by more than 10 points in Elements, then won the free also, ahead of Ben Ferreiro and Matt Savoie of the U.S. I don't know how well attended the event was. It did not attract the biggest names in the sport, who were busy with the Grand Prix.

"Bofrost" I love the sound of that name.
It reminds me of a crisp, cold cocktail that would be fun to drink after a hard day's work.

Actually, what Bofrost makes is frozen pizza's.

 

[janetfan]

Was it held more than once? Here are the results of the 2004 contest.

http://www.usfigureskating.org/event_details.asp?id=25886

In ladies, Annie Bellemarie (Canda) edgesd Jane Bugaeva (USA) in the Element Competiton. Bugaeva won the free skating and overall.

In men's, Stefan Lindemann clobbered the competion by more than 10 points in Elements, then won the free also, ahead of Ben Ferreiro and Matt Savoie of the U.S. I don't know how well attended the event was. It did not attract the biggest names inthe sport, who were busy with the Grand Prix.

"Bofrost" I love the sound of that name.
It reminds me of a crisp, cold cocktail that would be fun to drink after a hard day's work.

Actually, what Bofrost makes is frozen pizza's.

I love pizza but prefer to eat them hot.

 

[seniorita]

Since you are all off topic so i wont ruin the thread much, I can say that Joe I m happy you re back, I missed your posts

 

[janetfan]

The sport rewards a lot of different kinds of skills.

Not everybody is going to be able to excel at all those skills.

For those who excel at some of them, why not reward that excellence and also give appropriate credit for just average achievement in the other areas?

One skater may have great transitions and interpretation because A) that's where his biggest talents lie and B) he has chosen to work on those areas to maximize his talents. He also works on things like jumps, but he's never going to be one of the best in the world in that area. Should he stop working on the areas where he can be one of the best in the world to focus on the areas where he can't?

Another skater may have great jumps and great projection to the audience. Those are where his biggest talents lie and he has chosen to work on them to maximize his talents.

He also chooses music he feels comfortable interpreting and makes a good effort in that direction, along with token efforts at transitions. Even if he made those areas his top priority, he would never be the best in the world at those skills.

In the area of jumps, where it's possible to set records with jump content as ratified by the technical panels, regardless of the subjective evaluations of judges, this skater may aim at record-setting achievements and may sometime succeed. Which would be exciting for the skater and for everyone who follows the sport and is impressed when the technical bar is raised.
And then the skater has to live up to those achievements in future performances.

So why not let this skater push to excel in the areas where he can be best in the world, and do as well as he can in areas where he will only be average?

The only problem comes when judges don't make enough distinctions between the various components and give the latter skater higher scores for transitions or interpretation than the former skater who actually does those things better.

That just means that the judges need to work at doing a better job of judging each kind of skill independently.

If the judges do a good job, and if the point values of the various elements and components are calibrated appropriately, then both skaters have a chance to win on any given occasion. It just depends how far they manage to excel in their areas of strength and how well they can avoid costly weaknesses in the other areas, and the balances in their performances will change from one competition to the next.

I think the scale of values, the well-balanced program rules, and the judges' use of the PCS can still use a lot more fine-tuning.

But I would hate to see them adjusted in a direction that by design will always only reward one kind of skater.

I think I missed this post when you made it earlier today. I appreciate you addressing this topic and think your analysis is quite good.

It is interesting that you and many others seem to comfortably group skaters into two categories - the big jumpers and the "artistic" skaters.

I am sure that is not how any of you mean it - but it does seem to fit more comfortably today than it did maybe 10 years ago.

A couple of the Russian boys come to mind - skaters who had the big jumps and terrific artistic presentation.

Where would Toller Cranston fit in today's skating world? Would he be too exotic for the current system? Maybe it is not really a fair to use Toller, but people loved his skating even when he was falling down.

Will we see another Toller anytime soon? Maybe a female version of Toller? Or is the system too restrictive for such creativity. It is no secret how much Lambiel feels boxed in by CoP and he is great but quite tame compared to Toller. Maybe most are....

 

[Mathman]

...including the results...

http://www.eislauf-union.de/results/bofrost2003/index.htm

ETA: didn't know Verner was there, ouch without a single point in the jump competition.

Buit Tomas did get one fifth place vote (from the Czech judge ). Meanwhile Buttle got a first place vote not only from the Canadian judge but the Belgian judge as well -- conspiracy!

By the way, if anyone is curious about how the OBO scoring system went (what the ISU used before the CoP), click on Kunstrijster's link, then on (for instance) men's free skating results, and scroll down to Result System Matrix.

For some reason all the numbers are doubled from what I am used to, but anyway... If you read across where is says Buttle, it goes

4, blank, (8), (14). (14), (14), (14), 10, 68

The 4 in the first column means that Buttle beat the first place skater, Lindemann, on the cards of two judges (but lost overall, by a score of 5 to 2.)

The blank means he did not win or lose against the second place skater, himself.

The numbers in parentheses are the skaters that Buttle beat. The (8) means that 4 judges (out of 7) put him ahead of the third place skater, Smalun.

Buttle beat all the other competitors by a score of 7 judges to 0, head to head (OBO = "one by one"), so he picks up 14 judges points for each of those four wins.

Now Buttle's total number of wins (doubled) is 10. That is, head to head he lost once (to Lindemann) and won five times.

Whoever has the most wins, wins.

If it is a tie, then you go to the total number of judges. Buttle got a total (doubled) of 68 wins on the cards of all judges combined.

That's 6.0. (In the United States, however, they did not use OBO during the 6.0 era. They used the "majority of ordinals" method instead. This caused a certain amount of confusion in the U.S. media about how to interpret the placements in the 2002 Olympics.)

 

[Mathman]

My proposal would be:

Jump contest (no music)...

Spin contest (no music)...

Skating skills and interpretation program: This would be all about using skills other than rotational jumps and spins to expess the music. No jumps of more than 1.5 revs or spins of more than 3 revs allowed....

What this would would sacrifice, though, is the opportunity to use big jumps and amazing spins to punctuate musical highlights.

We wouldn't want to see a ballet with no lifts, then a separate lifting contest -- judged by how much poundage the man could hoist over his head.

 

[janetfan]

What this would would sacrifice, though, is the opportunity to use big jumps and amazing spins to punctuate musical highlights.

.

Sort of the point - what you just said is what many fans feel they are missing already.
Do the new spins effectively highlight the music - or just prove that a skater can change edges? I wish we could ask Stephane to comment on that. :yes:

 

[gkelly]

It is interesting that you and many others seem to comfortably group skaters into two categories - the big jumpers and the "artistic" skaters.

No, I used two examples because you had initially been talking about Abbott vs. Joubert at NHK in those terms. Although I was thinking that Plushenko would often fit the description of the second skater just as well.

But there can be a lot more than two kinds of skaters and a lot more than two different ways that skills can be mixed.

For example:

Skater A has big jumps, most of them solid but one problem takeoff that he often flubs or doubles. Average spins with decent but not special positions. Good carriage and pretty good extension. Brilliant choreography that tells a story and portrays a character, occasionally relying on posing and acting directly for the audience but mostly using skating skills in time with the music. Good charisma and audience connection. Very good expression of musical nuances. Complex, varied, intricate transitions and connecting skating throughout, with solid edges and difficult steps and turns as well as highlight moves.

Skater B is a solid technical skater with huge jumps and fast spins. The most difficult jump content in the field, delivered cleanly. Decent basic skating, pretty good connection to the music and the audience, not-so-great carriage and extension. Some originality in program style and transitional moves, but also a lot of slow skating and posing in place to execute the thematic choreography. Step sequences emphasize quickness at the expense of edges.

Skater C is fast and solid but a bit stiff. Good carriage and line but not much flexibility. High jumps, not quite as much distance in the air on the triple axel as the previous two, with good difficulty, but when a jump starts to go wrong he usually crashes hard. Pretty good use of edge work and gets all the obvious phrasing of the music. Weak spins.

Skater D is very refined with pure, effortless edges and excellent carriage and extension. Great use of musical nuances and transitions. Somewhat smaller jumps, with very clean edges, but a tendency to double out. Beautiful spin positions, good speed and centering. Exquisite introverted performance, connected to the music and the ice, not the audience.

Skater E is another fast skater with big jumps. Sloppy air positions, and sloppy spin positions (although some of them are innovative). Good speed through moderately step sequence that goes well with the music. A few creative highlight transitions that are either easy or rely more on athleticism than skating technique. Otherwise a lot of basic crossovers between the elements, with poor posture and not-great edge quality. Innovative program concepts that depict a character and tell a story. Great charisma and crowd connection.

B and C would both fall on the "athlete" side of an artist/athlete dichotomy, but their strengths and weaknesses are very different from each other's. A and D would be classified as artists, but again they have different artistic as well as different technical strengths. E is certainly athletic -- is he also artistic? Everything that D does so well, E is horrible at. But E is also quite good at some of the same artistic skills that make A great.

Lots of different pluses and minuses to balance even before taking into account which jumps they actually land or how many mistakes they make the day of each competition.

What this would would sacrifice, though, is the opportunity to use big jumps and amazing spins to punctuate musical highlights.

That opportunity would come in the Well-Balanced Program event, which would be the final round of a combined event or the most prestigious separate event.

In the Skating Skills/Interpretation program, "big" jumps like spit jumps or delayed axels would be options to punctuate musical highlights.

We wouldn't want to see a ballet with no lifts, then a separate lifting contest -- judged by how much poundage the man could hoist over his head.

Well, a ballet is not a sporting contest. If you want to see a ballet on ice, go to a show. Where each program can include exactly whatever spins or jumps or lifts etc. best fit the music and the theme of the program, with no worries about scores or rules. Some concepts, some musical choices, might call for eight triple toe loops in quick succession. Others might demand no jumps at all. Let the form dictate content.

If you want to see a competitive program that integrates all the different kinds of technical skills to music, with maybe a coherent artistic point to it as a bonus, that's what the Well-Balanced Program competition is for.