Problems with CoP and how to fix them

[Mathman]

I think we could keep the GOEs for special quality of individual elements, and fold the "Skating Skills" (meaning quality of edging, speed, ice coverage, etc.) and "Transitions" into "Performance/Execution."

To me, Skating Skills is a strange category because, as GKelly says, the whole shebang is Skating Skills. You could junk the whole CoP and give one score (an ordinal) -- whoever demonstrates the best "skating skills" wins.

I do like the idea of a +1 bonus for a skater doing all the six jumps with two or more revolutions.

But the main thing is, skater #1 might choose to do

3Lo+3Lo, 3F, 3Lz+2T+2T = 23 points;

skater #2 might do

Lz+3T, 3F+2Lo+2Lo, 3Lo, split jump = 23 points;

and skater #3 might do

3Lz+3Lo, 3F, 2A+3T = 23 points.

The skaters (and the judges and especially the audience) have a choice among three different and interesting programs. The winner is whoever performes her program the best.

 

[gkelly]

To me, Skating Skills is a strange category because, as GKelly says, the whole shebang is Skating Skills. You could junk the whole CoP and give one score (an ordinal) -- whoever demonstrates the best "skating skills" wins.

Well, back in the earliest days of the sport, that's pretty much how free programs were judged, before multirevolution jumps or complicated spins were a significant part of the technical content, and before music and the connection between the skating and the music became part of what was judged.

As figure skating has developed over the past hundred years, many of the technical elements have become a lot easier to quantify individually -- whether the current code of points breaks them down too finely or not accurately enough or leaves out some important distinctions is certainly open for debate.

But then you're still left with the basic quality (and difficulty) of skating technique and the quality of performance and potential for artistic expression, which aren't necessarily related.

So however we might finetune the current quantification of the technical elements, I do think it's extremely useful to separate the technical evaluation of the actual skating both from the elements and from the evaluation of the artistry or performance qualities.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

My suggestion is that we reject Joe's suggestion because it's unfair to skaters who do things well.

God forbid we integrate the skaters. All skaters are equal but letting the scores of the riff raff be equal to the skaters that do well should not cause problems for the skater who do well.

Aside from a prejudice, tell me If two skaters of the type who do things well, land a 3z to perfection (correct take off; correct number of air turns; correct landing; correct posture throughout) what then do we need plus GoEs? They did it all correctly!!! Give all such skaters (even the riff raff if they deserve it) the full base value. However, if the remainder of the contestants including the riff raff, did not do it all correctly, Minus GoEs shoudl come into play. Why should that be rejected?

No way can the PCS scores be quantified. They are subjective.

Joe

(more arithmetic, please.)

 

[GoldMedalist]

Aside from a prejudice, tell me If two skaters of the type who do things well, land a 3z to perfection (correct take off; correct number of air turns; correct landing; correct posture throughout) what then do we need plus GoEs?

You need plus GOE's because some jumps are higher or farther than others. Or include a difficult arm position - should a Brian Boitano Lutz not be seen as better than a regular Lutz?

 

[gkelly]

Aside from a prejudice, tell me If two skaters of the type who do things well, land a 3z to perfection (correct take off; correct number of air turns; correct landing; correct posture throughout) what then do we need plus GoEs? They did it all correctly!!! Give all such skaters (even the riff raff if they deserve it) the full base value.

I'm not talking about giving different scores to different kinds of skaters -- "those who do well" and "riff raff" to use your terms. I'm talking about different degrees of success in the elements -- giving more than full base value to elements that do more than meet the requirements.

Look at these three double axels. They're all successfully landed, so they all deserve to earn the base mark. I think at least one of them deserves extra points, at least one does not, and the other is in between. Maybe I'd rate them +2, +1, and 0, respectively, if I were being generous. And that has nothing to do with the reputation of the skater performing each of them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OTDikOHmtY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ykeTHfxc7A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lvEg0FTJvI

 

[Mathman]

Look at these three double axels. They're all successfully landed, so they all deserve to earn the base mark. I think at least one of them deserves extra points, at least one does not, and the other is in between. Maybe I'd rate them +2, +1, and 0, respectively, if I were being generous.

OK. I am going to test my judging skills, LOL.

1996 Dream of Desdemona. Meh. Did not get a clean take-off. She was kind of leaning or scrunched up or something.

Fine 3Lz+2T, though. No flutz.

2005 Spartacus. Pretty good. +1 if generous.

3Lz+2T. Excellent in all phases. +1 GOE.

2001 East of Eden. 2A. Be still my heart. Lots of air under her, light as a feather, she sold the landing with interesting arm and hand positions. +2.

3Lz+ 2T. Both take-off and landing were suspect. Take-off edge looked like it slipped off to the side. -1 GOE (could be -2 if the tech team calls a flutz).

(How'd I do? )

 

[antmanb]

OK. I am going to test my judging skills, LOL.

1996 Dream of Desdemona. Meh. Did not get a clean take-off. She was kind of leaning or scrunched up or something.

Fine 3Lz+2T, though. No flutz.

I spotted the truly clean lutz - the edge did not even flatten out - it was like the russian girls lutzes

2001 East of Eden. 2A. Be still my heart. Lots of air under her, light as a feather, she sold the landing with interesting arm and hand positions. +2.

3Lz+ 2T. Both take-off and landing were suspect. Take-off edge looked like it slipped off to the side. -1 GOE (could be -2 if the tech team calls a flutz).

(How'd I do? )

She did fluts the lutz - i think probably a -1 bad, but i think - i can't be sure but i think there is a touch down with the free leg on the landing which is what makes the toe look a little slow becuase it takes her longer to get her free leg back to pick in. I think overall the combo is a -2 probably.

Ant

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

in the Technical scoring, elements are judged and a base value is placed on them.

Since incomplete elements are acceptable (not by me) and in vogue, then penalties need to be assigned to the faulty elements. We agree (even I do once I get over the fact that the element was not executed.) So no problem.

But if Joubert and Plushenko do a quad successfully according to definition, why should we bother to see the protocols by the judges which will not agree anyway. IMO, all the fine tuning on those quads are geared to performance not the technical which was covered by the jump's definition.

(btw. I believe there is a definition for a layback spin which is simply to lay back while spinning. Nothing about the position of the free leg which of course can make for a prettier picture and should be given credit in performance.)

For those posters who can not accept change, I wouldn't worry. Nothing will happen to the present status of the GoEs.

Joe

 

[GoldMedalist]

She did fluts the lutz - i think probably a -1 bad, but i think - i can't be sure but i think there is a touch down with the free leg on the landing which is what makes the toe look a little slow becuase it takes her longer to get her free leg back to pick in. I think overall the combo is a -2 probably.

I don't think she flutzed...she just flatzes a lot (or keeps the outside edge extremely slight). But, definitely a quick touch down on the landing so -1 for that.

 

[antmanb]

(btw. I believe there is a definition for a layback spin which is simply to lay back while spinning. Nothing about the position of the free leg which of course can make for a prettier picture and should be given credit in performance.)

Joe

I can;t be sure but i believe the layback is defined as an attitude spin with a lay back - so the free leg position is set out and confirms that the layback is a variation of th eupright spin position.

Ant

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

I can;t be sure but i believe the layback is defined as an attitude spin with a lay back - so the free leg position is set out and confirms that the layback is a variation of th eupright spin position.

Ant

I thought so too until I looked it up back in 1994. The definition just said 'lay back'. It may have changed since then, I don't know. Few European Ladies do Attitude Lay Backs and they get full credit for the spin, I believe.

Joe

 

[antmanb]

I thought so too until I looked it up back in 1994. The definition just said 'lay back'. It may have changed since then, I don't know. Few European Ladies do Attitude Lay Backs and they get full credit for the spin, I believe.

Joe

The European ladies are not all that good at the layback - many bending the knee and keeping the free leg right net to the spinning leg and pointing the toe down at the ice...not pretty at all.

As to the definition - i'm not sure that the ISU rules defines anything as such. I think it was in the Petkevich book that i read about the layback being a lay back of the attitude spin. Did the pre COP rules define elements? Perhaps it was just Dick Button's endless complaints that led to the North American emphasis on the high attitude free leg position? One coach at my rink is teaching a friend of mine the layback and has had her work hard to get a a good attitude spin with a high legl position and is only just now going into the laying back part of it.

Ant

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

I would defintely agree with Petkevich and certainly have no qualms with Button's remarks about the layback going way back in time.

Joe

 

[missperfect]

CoP - Sequence Jumps and the 1/2 Loop

Something needs to be done to correct the deduction for sequence jumps. Evan Lysacek used to do the 3Lutz-1/2 loop- 3 flip jump. An extremely difficult sequence. It is the understanding that he no longer attempts this sequence because he would receive a deduction on the 3 flip, even though this jump sequence is much more difficutly than a lot of combo jumps. The system needs to be modified specifically for 1/2 loop jumps. this is not a "series of extra steps" or is it a jump turn out, but an extremely difficult combination. Maybe they should be just that - combination jumps if the 1/2 loop is included. Tara Lipinski did the
2A 1/2lo 3 Sal when she won the Olympics. You just don't see these anymore because the CoP has wiped them out.

 

[Mathman]

Thanks for joining us, missperfect. post often, post long! :agree:

 

[Mathman]

Evan Lysacek used to do the 3Lutz-1/2 loop- 3 flip jump. An extremely difficult sequence. It is the understanding that he no longer attempts this sequence because he would receive a deduction on the 3 flip, even though this jump sequence is much more difficutly than a lot of combo jumps.

It's even worse that that. He receives a 20% deduction on both the Lutz and the filp.

He could still make it work, though. By putting it in the second half he would get 10.12 points for the element -- more than for a quad!

 

[bekalc]

GM - We in Skateland have a conflicting view point on the GoEs and PCS's "Skating Ability" ok?

Now, I believe Skateland accepts as valid jumps, but flawed, with: dbl ft landings, improper take offs, falls, and other misdemeanors which prevent a jump by definition to be given the base value with minus GoE points. So what I am saying is that a skater can get partial credit for a faulty jump. (Personally, in most cases, I think the jump was not executed by definition, therefore, not valid) But no matter, it's legal according to official regulations. So the minus GoEs are therefore valid.

In the case of Plus GoEs, which I think whole heartedly should be covered in 'Skating Abiliy' (or get rid of Skating Ability) once the jump has been executed according to its definition it should get the entire Base Value. No problem. No need to give it any additional points in the Technical Score. The technical feat has been accompished. Now, how those 'perfect jumps' looked for the performance of the skater; should be shown in the PCS scores which is the proper area to judge the 'showmanship' of the skater.

The Thread Topic is looking for constructive ways to improve figure skating under the CoP - a food topic, btw. This would be my suggestion for having the officials compare the GoEs and the Skating Ability sectors.

Joe

I totally disagree with you. From what I gather PCS represent the overall quality of the program.... The general impression, musicality, skating skills. Let's take someone like Brian Joubert. Brian, quite frankly isn't the most exciting skater to watch, I think he's kind of blah myself. Although he has good skating skills. But his jumps are excellant, and his spins are good too. So, if he does an excellant gorgeous quad, doesn't he deserve to be awarded for it with an extra point, especially since he loses points if it's bad?

I think GOE is a great idea, because it encourages people to try what they do well, rather than the more difficult things they may not be able to do well.

As for triple lutzs, Yu-na's worlds long program aside. Yu-na has excellant technique on that jump and always gets extra points for it.

I also want to make a comment to the person who mentioned that hopefully Michelle Kwan will come back, and transition the Americans to the new era."

Sorry, but the new era in ladies' figure skating is already here and I quite like it. Yu-na Kim, Mao Asada are two incredible talents that are bringing this sport to new levels. (Along with Miki who keeps them honest). If Michelle Kwan were to come back, she'd find that the torch has already been past.

And also, I think that such a comment does disrespect to Meissner. Meissner isn't my favorite skater, but she is a world champion, and she works really hard. The only reason the USA has 3 spots this year is because Meissner placed fourth at worlds last year.

 

[blue dog]

You need plus GOE's because some jumps are higher or farther than others. Or include a difficult arm position - should a Brian Boitano Lutz not be seen as better than a regular Lutz?

I'm with OGM on this one. Some jumps do get more height based on the physics of the jump (lutz and axel), and some travel greater distances (mapes, axel, lutz). The loop, on the other hand, gets average height and distance. Sure, some skaters have more spring, or have more "hang time" as Hamilton once said of Yagudin (when he finished 5th in Nagano), but if we look to the sheer physics of the jump, some will be higher than others.

I think the +GOEs should only go to those skaters who fly above the average of the jump.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

I totally disagree with you. From what I gather PCS represent the overall quality of the program.... The general impression, musicality, skating skills. Let's take someone like Brian Joubert. Brian, quite frankly isn't the most exciting skater to watch, I think he's kind of blah myself. Although he has good skating skills. But his jumps are excellant, and his spins are good too. So, if he does an excellant gorgeous quad, doesn't he deserve to be awarded for it with an extra point, especially since he loses points if it's bad

Of coure, Brian and all skaters should be awarded for his Quad and so should Takahashi, Lambiel, Verner, and all those others that might hit one on that glorious night of championships. There are base values in the technical for that reason. If they did their Quad with their hand over their head, it should be relecected in Skating Skills.

If they missed their quad, I would give it a zilch with no partial credit.

Joe

 

[GoldMedalist]

There are base values in the technical for that reason. If they did their Quad with their hand over their head, it should be relecected in Skating Skills.

That makes no sense at all. How is it a skating skill to do a jump with your arm over your head?