Making a World Record: Hanyu's Long Program

[Krunchii]

Seriously this World Record argument is so childish, people need to let it go. It's true that other publications that are not the ISU recognises it as a World Record and it's true that the ISU chooses not to recognise them but what is the big deal? Both sides know what they're referring to, which is Yuzuru's LP score at 2017 World Championships. Isn't there something better to discuss? Such as the content of the video?

 

[Interspectator]

A question for Skating Historians who I know lurk here, When were the moves in the field introduced? Things like Ina Bauers, Hydroblading, Spirals and such. -When was 'move in the field' coined?

 

[Sam-Skwantch]

A question for Skating Historians who I know lurk here, When were the moves in the field introduced? Things like Ina Bauers, Hydroblading, Spirals and such. -When was 'move in the field' coined?

I think someone told me once that it came about as an alternative to compulsory figures. They are like little skill drills in the same sense that figures were but drills that are instead used in programs. Moves in the field tests are always scary because there is A LOT of silence and IMO the rink seems humongous all of a sudden :scard7:

I'm no figure skating historian mind you :

 

[gkelly]

A question for Skating Historians who I know lurk here, When were the moves in the field introduced? Things like Ina Bauers, Hydroblading, Spirals and such. -When was 'move in the field' coined?

I don't know. I first hear the terms "field moves," "in the field," and "moves in the field" in the 1990s. I hadn't come across them as young teen skater in the 1970s who read the rulebook and Skating magazine that USFSA sent to members, but I can't say the terms were never used then by coaches or officials -- just that I never heard them.

I didn't keep up with skating at all in the late 70s through early 90s, so I couldn't tell you whether terms used in the mid-90s were brand new or had been around for years or decades before I came across them.

What was new in the mid-90s was the USFSA test stream that replaced school figures. The official name of these tests is Moves in the Field. The tests for each level include several different required exercises, most of which are designed to cover the whole ice surface (i.e., "the field") as opposed to on circles in the context of school figures.

So I think that meaning of "in the field" already existed when it was decided what to name the new testing structure.

For some of the exercises, the names of the moves explicitly draw that distinction between figures and in the field:

school figures brackets vs. brackets in the field

The Moves in the Field tests also include spiral patterns at some levels.


On the other hand, referring to freeskating moves like Ina Bauers, Hydroblading, Spirals and such, as "field moves" or "moves in the field" is probably meant to distinguish them from other kinds of elements like jumps and spins. They also take place "in the field" in the sense that they cover ice, in patterns of variable size and shape. Again, I first came across that usage in the mid-late 90s, especially with regard to the well-balanced program rules that were starting to be introduced then, and the fact that men were expected/more likely to do non-spiral gliding moves of this category whereas women had been required to do spirals in the short program since 1989 and would now be expected/required to include spirals in the freeskate as well.

http://www.iceskatingintnl.com/archive/rules/wellsngl.htm

The terms had probably been in use among coaches and/or officials well before then in at least some English-speaking skating communities, but I can't document when or where.

 

[LadyLou]

Why are we discussing again about the use of the expression "World record"? Everyone has been using those two-words-which-apparently-cannot-be-mentioned-anymore for years despite what ISU says.
If we want to split hairs, so be it. These are the facts: ISU doesn't call the "current highest score" a "world record". Fine. About this video: has anyone claimed the "world record" was "ISU recognized"? NO.
Instead one could claim that results such as "the highest score ever registered till now" are "officially" recognized (and rewarded) as Guinness World Records, plus it is a widespread expression both on tv commentaries and newspapers/blogs/whatever. Why? Because it catches people's interest, it is easily understood and to a certain extent it can indeed "summarize" a particular achievement.
So the whole argument about the inappropriate use of "world record" is pointless. Let's move on.

I want to renew my thanks to all people involved in the creation of the video and to all the interesting posts I've read in this thread, I feel I'm learning so much
Also I have a question.
Being myself involved in science in my daily life, I'm not that much comfortable with a scoring system which allows too much space to personal interpretation, even if I do reckon the system can't be entirely objective either.
So this is my question: if we agree that there is a certain extent of subjectiveness to the GOEs, which would be the "less subjective" bullets?
I would have thought maybe the "element matched to the musical structure" could be the most subjective one, but then a musical piece does have a definite structure so it should be quite objective if a certain element is matched or not? Usually we expect a jump to fall on a musical accent, a "strong" moment, yet some musical pieces have no such clear "highlights", or their structure is more complex and "nuanced". (I'm not sure if I am explaining myself, I'm not native english speaker so please forgive me). For example H&L overall feels more like an incessant flow, the rises and falls are there but they are often still "quiet", so maybe this is the reason why someone could feel that "it lacks that match", even if it actually does match.
Is this one of the reasons why there are a lot of war-horses in figure skating programs? Because their musical structure has "strong" highlights which can be easily recognized and matched to a certain element?
(I don't know if this is offtopic, if it is I am sorry. Maybe I should move this question in another thread?)

 

[xeyra]

Being myself involved in science in my daily life, I'm not that much comfortable with a scoring system which allows too much space to personal interpretation, even if I do reckon the system can't be entirely objective either.
So this is my question: if we agree that there is a certain extent of subjectiveness to the GOEs, which would be the "less subjective" bullets?
I would have thought maybe the "element matched to the musical structure" could be the most subjective one, but then a musical piece does have a definite structure so it should be quite objective if a certain element is matched or not? Usually we expect a jump to fall on a musical accent, a "strong" moment, yet some musical pieces have no such clear "highlights", or their structure is more complex and "nuanced". (I'm not sure if I am explaining myself, I'm not native english speaker so please forgive me). For example H&L overall feels more like an incessant flow, the rises and falls are there but they are often still "quiet", so maybe this is the reason why someone could feel that "it lacks that match", even if it actually does match.
Is this one of the reasons why there are a lot of war-horses in figure skating programs? Because their musical structure has "strong" highlights which can be easily recognized and matched to a certain element?
(I don't know if this is offtopic, if it is I am sorry. Maybe I should move this question in another thread?)

A good example is his 4T. It happens just as the music goes quiet and then he finishes his landing/starts moving again when the music goes back up. It is not a musical high as we're used to, but the jump falls into a nuanced highlight that I really like.

 

[gkelly]

So this is my question: if we agree that there is a certain extent of subjectiveness to the GOEs, which would be the "less subjective" bullets?

I would have thought maybe the "element matched to the musical structure" could be the most subjective one, but then a musical piece does have a definite structure so it should be quite objective if a certain element is matched or not? Usually we expect a jump to fall on a musical accent, a "strong" moment, yet some musical pieces have no such clear "highlights", or their structure is more complex and "nuanced". (I'm not sure if I am explaining myself, I'm not native english speaker so please forgive me). [/quote]

Yes, that all makes sense.

If the music is all subtle nuances, then the skater needs to show a lot of attention to those subtle details to get credit for the "matched to musical structure" GOE point as well as to earn high scores in Interpretation. Probably moving in synch with the underlying rhythmic pulse throughout, during simple stroking and steps in addition to placement of the jumps or other elements with beginnings or ends of phrases, building in intensity as the music builds, etc.

If the music has a lot of highlights and contrasts and obvious phrasing, then it's easier for the skater to show direct connection between the music and the movement.

I think judges like to see some variety within a program: One of the Performance component bullet points is "Variety and contrast of movements and energy." Choosing music that only contains subtle differences throughout makes it more challenging for skaters to show that contrast.

And some judges are going to be better at feeling/hearing the structure of music in general, or particular genres or styles of music, than other judges, depending on their own backgrounds. So there is a lot of room for subjectivity in the Interpretation component.

And maybe in whether they actively look for the "matched to the musical structure" GOE bullet point in jumps and spins (I would guess they all at least try to evaluate whether a step sequence matches the music).

But the skater has to give them something to find if they do look for it. Or make it so obvious even the least musical of judges can't help but see the connection.

For example H&L overall feels more like an incessant flow, the rises and falls are there but they are often still "quiet", so maybe this is the reason why someone could feel that "it lacks that match", even if it actually does match.

I don't know who or what you mean by H&L -- best not to use abbreviations without defining them first.

Is this one of the reasons why there are a lot of war-horses in figure skating programs? Because their musical structure has "strong" highlights which can be easily recognized and matched to a certain element?

Absolutely.

(I don't know if this is offtopic, if it is I am sorry. Maybe I should move this question in another thread?)

Do we want a general discussion of music in general (more PCS than GOE)? Or of the various GOE bullet points and how objective or subjective they are?

Or just point out places in this program where Hanyu did an especially good job, in your opinion, but some judges might not have agreed because there is room for disagreement?

 

[Mathman]

If we agree that there is a certain extent of subjectiveness to the GOEs, which would be the "less subjective" bullets?

I always thought that this criterion was especially difficult to quantify:

"The skater radiates energy resulting in an invisible connection with the audience."

Obviously if the audience is out of their seats shouting and cheering before the final pose, such a connection has been successfully established. But what if the audience is more subdued, weeping at the beauty of it all, or in silent contemplation and appreciation. The audience connection is supposed to be "invisible" and to be accomplished by "radiating energy."

I see what the ISU is trying to get at, but it all seems more subjective than most of the other criteria.

 

[Perfume]

In short, Hanyu chose some boring music for his free skate this season. It's too soft and there is no obvious highlight. That's why most people don't find it impressive and think it's empty even though it's packed with transitions and difficult moves.
He should just come back to warhorse music and it will be fine.

 

[LadyLou]

Do we want a general discussion of music in general (more PCS than GOE)? Or of the various GOE bullet points and how objective or subjective they are?

Or just point out places in this program where Hanyu did an especially good job, in your opinion, but some judges might not have agreed because there is room for disagreement?

Of course I have my favourites, but I’m interested in a more general discussion. My personal “mindset” is to search for “experimental data” and “objectivity” and “reproducibility” and honestly it doesn’t sit that well with me when there is too much freedom (which generates what we could call “dispersion of the data” and thus greater “variation” within a “sample”). But that is just how my mind works. So I am curious about the whole scoring thing, because my mind would feel more at “ease”,so to say, if there could be such reproducibility from different judges/panels. Maybe the most pregnant point should be variability between scores within a certain panel, and in this sense I think ISU Judging System addresses the subject in the right way for a “statistically significant” scoring using a panel with 9 judges and ignoring the highest and lowest scores. In my opinion this limits not only what may be a pre-existent bias but also subjectivity to a certain extent. I like it.:thumbsup:

I don't know who or what you mean by H&L -- best not to use abbreviations without defining them first.

Sorry if the use of abbreviation was confusing, I’m so used to it that I haven’t thought that other people may not understand me.hwell: My mistake. By the way I was referring to Hope and Legacy, being that the main reference in this thread. I have been ruminating my question for a while and I seized this opportunity. I didnt’t want to sound too off topic, so I gave that example, but in my opinion Jason Brown’s The Scent Of Love or Patrick Chan’s A Journey (the first half in particular) could be mentioned as well.

I always thought that this criterion was especially difficult to quantify:

"The skater radiates energy resulting in an invisible connection with the audience."

Obviously if the audience is out of their seats shouting and cheering before the final pose, such a connection has been successfully established. But what if the audience is more subdued, weeping at the beauty of it all, or in silent contemplation and appreciation. The audience connection is supposed to be "invisible" and to be accomplished by "radiating energy."

I see what the ISU is trying to get at, but it all seems more subjective than most of the other criteria.

The formulation itself sounds quite lyrical and vague Yet it can be strangely fitting when it comes to what makes figure skating different from other sports.
I guess the “radiating energy” can be assessed only live and it is indeed very subjective. I believe that in a live performance both personal expectation and the reaction of other people around you can play an important role. Maybe even external factors such as acustic and lighting? In exihibitions lights can be used to better highlight a certain performance.
I haven’t been so lucky as to watch figure skating live yet, and a lot of people tell me I miss so much (I’m so envious!!) so I can only assess what a program makes me feel through a screen. Funny enough, I’d say I am quite the emotive type, despite my scientific mindset. Maybe that’s why I enjoy figure skating more than other more “objective” sports.


By the way, if anyone wants to start a topic about this subject please do it. I’ve never started a topic myself and I’m pretty new to this community, I’d feel too embarrassed to do that myself. I am usually a pathologic lurker.:

 

[Interspectator]

There's been an update to the video, -so with the video maker's permission, I'm sharing it here. source: https://wherespacepooh.tumblr.com/post/160554106334/on-april-1-2017-yuzuru-hanyu-performed-a

...we have received a lot of positive feedback from fans all over the world, and by popular request, we would like to present this video as a token of thank you. Here is the same performance in slow-motion (0.6x) with footwork, transitions, and elements annotated – and a couple improvements made in the step sequence from suggestions we received – for all to savour and enjoy!

(For those in Japan, please watch on mii-san’s niconico channel: http://www.nicovideo.jp/watch/sm31195583. Thank you, mii-san!)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8_15XZ03-M
:thumbsup: