SP and FS replaced by Technical and Artistic programs?

[lariko]

How are they rewarded? There is no point value assessed to them. A skater who did a classic layback or scratch spin instead of a pretzel spin would lose points. Transitions could be considered as part of composition and skating skills as part of performance/execution.

Equally, musicality can be combined with interpretation, because the skater’s contribution to interpretation is a reflection of their musicality. If skating skill is part of a performance, the je ne sais quoi doesn’t get graded.

 

[el henry]

They are rewarded plenty. Anything but the cheater’s 6 point system... and why skating skill and transitions are not valuable?

The 6 point system is no more a “cheater’s” system than IJS. Both can be manipulated

Just like a skater like Jason is not rewarded for “reputation”, but for all the difficult, intricate athletic skating skills he does so well. Transitions, skating skills, spins, height and ease of jumps, except for that revolution in the air, he does everything to a very high level of quality.

And in my opinion those skills are not rewarded enough. In your opinion, they are. In my opinion, people watch the sport of skating for those blade to ice skills. If I am understanding you correctly, in your opinion, they watch for other reasons.

These are our opinions. No one who holds a different opinion is discounting the value of the sport. We just hold different opinions

 

[lariko]

The 6 point system is no more a “cheater’s” system than IJS. Both can be manipulated

Just like a skater like Jason is not rewarded for “reputation”, but for all the difficult, intricate athletic skating skills he does so well. Transitions, skating skills, spins, height and ease of jumps, except for that revolution in the air, he does everything to a very high level of quality.

And in my opinion those skills are not rewarded enough. In your opinion, they are. In my opinion, people watch the sport of skating for those blade to ice skills. If I am understanding you correctly, in your opinion, they watch for other reasons.

These are our opinions. No one who holds a different opinion is discounting the value of the sport. We just hold different opinions

I was replying to the poster who suggested eliminating skating skill and transition points. Hence, eliminating point categories where Brown shines, potentially losing him up to 40 points.

All systems can be cheated, the difference is in how easily it can be done, and how blatant the cheating is to an onlooker.

The current system lands itself to mathematical analysis far easier—and with more sophisticated technology even more so, hence reducing the amount of potential manipulation. Hence, it has an advantage. By all means suggest something newer and better, but going back to old and flawed is the worst possible solution.

 

[Miller]

My understanding of the proposal is that the "artistic" program will still have jumps, probably more than the current short program, but less than the current freeskate or the new "technical" program.

Having a program with no jumps at all could be one way to go, but it does not appear that that is what the ISU currently has in mind.

We'll need to see the exact proposal before we can really figure out what we each like or don't like about it.

However I think we can have a really good stab at the proposals based on what we now know e.g. that the programs will have equal weight, and that the split is 40/60 in each. Also bearing in mind the current 'record' TES values.

For example the highest TES score for Ladies SPs is 49.48 by Alena Kostornaia at the GPF. If the SP is to be the basis of the Artistic program and you add an extra solo jump and sequence, or 2 new sequences then you're talking about a max of about 60 TES, and hence 90 PCS.

This in turn would lead to a max TES of 90 in the Technical program and 60 in PCS.

The current record TES for the LP is currently 100.20 by Alexandra Trusova, but if she or Anna Shcherbakova were to skate clean they could easily get a TES of close to 110 - Anna got 108 IIRC at Russian Nationals including a bit of a step out on her 4F (or course nationals have higher scoring but not that much).

Hence if the TES were to be limited to an aimed for max of 90, you'd probably be looking at losing a couple of jumping passes, plus also some sort of quad restriction, maybe 2 in total.

Similarly with men, the current TES highest score for the SP is 63.42 (Yazuru Hanyu, this year's 4CC). Hence adding a jump + sequence or 2 sequences might make the maximum possible about 72, for want of a nice convenient figure, and the PCS 108 (that's a lot), and then 108 TES/72 PCS in the Technical program.

Yet again this would tie in with the current record of 129.14 by Nathan Chen at last year's GPF, so removing a jumping pass, probably 2 and having some sort of quad restriction, maybe 4 max with one allowed to be repeated, would get the max possible down to about 108.

Of course I might be totally wrong, but the above does seem plausible.

 

[Mathman]

Thank you for posting this. It makes things a whole lot clearer.

The announcement did clarify that the proposal that will be presented to the ISU council will not be a very radical one. Giving the PCS 40% or 60% instead of the current 50% and 50% -- whatever -- that by itself won't affect competition results. Neither will having two medium-length programs instead of one program a little bit longer than the other -- no big deal one way or another.

In fact, so far there is nothing in what was announced that gives "artistic skating" any more relative weight compared to "big jumps skating" than is currently the case. As far as has been announced so far, a quad will still earn the same number of TES points as before, whether it is in the artistic program or in the technical program.

To me, the whole thing comes down to the list of required elements (the "well-balanced program" requirements) for each program. The ISU could go all in here, if they wanted to make a serious change. So far they are being tight-lipped about it, but reading between the lines it seems like they will not be advocating a major upheaval.

The main thing I see is that the Technical Program will be first, and the Artistic Program second.

That struck me as the main thing, too. The language of the announcement is specifically that the new Technical Program will replace the current SP while the new Artistic Program will replace the current LP. This seems backwards, because currently the SPs are in general more "artistic" while it is the LPs that are jump, jump, jump, jump, jump.

Maybe they want to have the Artistic Program as the grand finale because they expect it to have greater audiance appeal.

 

[lariko]

The announcement did clarify that the proposal that will be presented to the ISU council will not be a very radical one. Giving the PCS 40% or 60% instead of the current 50% and 50% -- whatever -- that by itself won't affect competition results. Neither will having two medium-length programs instead of one program a little bit longer than the other -- no big deal one way or another.

In fact, so far there is nothing in what was announced that gives "artistic skating" any more relative weight compared to "big jumps skating" than is currently the case. As far as has been announced so far, a quad will still earn the same number of TES points as before, whether it is in the artistic program or in the technical program.

To me, the whole thing comes down to the list of required elements (the "well-balanced program" requirements) for each program. The ISU could go all in here, if they wanted to make a serious change. So far they are being tight-lipped about it, but reading between the lines it seems like they will not be advocating a major upheaval.



That struck me as the main thing, too. The language of the announcement is specifically that the new Technical Program will replace the current SP while the new Artistic Program will replace the current LP. This seems backwards, because currently the SPs are in general more "artistic" while it is the LPs that are jump, jump, jump, jump, jump.

Maybe they want to have the Artistic Program as the grand finale because they expect it to have greater audiance appeal.

Whichever program comes second is the one that will always decide the outcome of the competition.

 

[jenaj]

I was replying to the poster who suggested eliminating skating skill and transition points. Hence, eliminating point categories where Brown shines, potentially losing him up to 40 points.

All systems can be cheated, the difference is in how easily it can be done, and how blatant the cheating is to an onlooker.

The current system lands itself to mathematical analysis far easier—and with more sophisticated technology even more so, hence reducing the amount of potential manipulation. Hence, it has an advantage. By all means suggest something newer and better, but going back to old and flawed is the worst possible solution.

He wouldn't lose 40 points because those categories wouldn't be in the calculation. Jason would still get high scores for PE, I and C. The final result would be factored to a score relative to the technical score. And narrowing the categories that way was just a thought. There are other ways artistry/presentation could be judged. I think a holistic score would work, too. Of course, maybe that would be too much like the "cheater 6" system.

 

[Supernovaimplosion]

That struck me as the main thing, too. The language of the announcement is specifically that the new Technical Program will replace the current SP while the new Artistic Program will replace the current LP. This seems backwards, because currently the SPs are in general more "artistic" while it is the LPs that are jump, jump, jump, jump, jump.

Maybe they want to have the Artistic Program as the grand finale because they expect it to have greater audiance appeal.

I think the short program was started as the technical program though. It used to be called the technical program,too, I believe. I think the original point of the short program was to compare skaters directly. This is why the restrictions are stricter in the short program. Even though Sasha can do quads, the short program is supposed to be a direct comparison between all the ladies' 3-3 or 3-2.
I mean, its kind of lost that purpose, because of course the big technical show is in the free program. I guess it depends on what they mean by "technical"

 

[lariko]

He wouldn't lose 40 points because those categories wouldn't be in the calculation. Jason would still get high scores for PE, I and C. The final result would be factored to a score relative to the technical score. And narrowing the categories that way was just a thought. There are other ways artistry/presentation could be judged. I think a holistic score would work, too. Of course, maybe that would be too much like the "cheater 6" system.

The more PCS categories there are, the more the skaters who can max them out do benefit, as Brown’s example demonstrate. Of the PCS categories some lend themselves to being measured quantifiably, when they are split out (for example composition can be a function of ice coverage as calculated from an ice map at least in part), skating skill and transition also are quantifiable. The two that are qualitative only, musicality and interpretation, imo should be kept separate.

 

[gkelly]

However I think we can have a really good stab at the proposals based on what we now know e.g. that the programs will have equal weight, and that the split is 40/60 in each.

The split between TES and PCS. Which will always have to be approximate as it is now.

Part of the current problem is that the PCS factors were based on the kind of technical content that was common ca. 2003. In recent years jump content has exploded so much that the good jumpers are earning much more in TES than in PCS, even if they also excel at PCS skills.

Which means that at the very least the PCS factors need to be reconsidered. But if the idea is to have one competition phase that is specifically designed to emphasize the kinds of skills that happen between technical elements, then the program requirements for that phase also need to be revised, perhaps significantly.

If the SP is to be the basis of the Artistic program

The ISU has not said that will be the case.

If they want it to be 3:30 in length, I assume they will decide how many jumping passes they want it to have, how many spin slots, how many step sequences (leveled or not) or other choreo-type elements, figure out likely maximum scores with that program structure, and assign PCS factors accordingly.

There's no need to start with the current short program as a template. They could look at something like the Medal Winners Open requirements (which do have the same number of elements as current short programs) or the Peggy Fleming trophy or various pro or pro-am formats from before the IJS era.

As far as I know they're still thinking about keeping the current five components, but if that number were to change then the actual factors would also need to change.

I don't know what's planned for the technical program, but keep in mind that the current junior ladies' freeskate is 3:30 and the only difference in content between that and the 4:00 senior programs is the choreo sequence, which presumably would not be included.

The more PCS categories there are, the more the skaters who can max them out do benefit,

Again, it depends on what the factors are. If there are 3 PCS categories each with a factor of 2.0 (maximum score 60), skaters who excel in PCS could earn more than if there are 5 categories each with a factor of 1.0 (maximum score 50).

Of the PCS categories some lend themselves to being measured quantifiably, when they are split out (for example composition can be a function of ice coverage as calculated from an ice map at least in part), skating skill and transition also are quantifiable.

In theory, individual criteria of these components could be measured or counted quantifiably. E.g., ice speed, ice coverage, numbers of turns in each direction, amount of time spent on one foot or in each direction, numbers of different kinds of transitional moves, etc.

But they would need to be split out.
And first someone needs to come up with practical and cost-effective methods for measuring these things in a variety of different rink configurations, availability of extra officials, etc.

Meanwhile some aspects of these components remain qualitative by nature. You're never going to measure objectively whether someone has "soft knees," but that is one of the defining qualities of good skating quality.

 

[Mathman]

Whichever program comes second is the one that will always decide the outcome of the competition.

That s not completely clear. Even under the current system it often happens that someone builds such a huge lead in the SP that he cannot be overtaken even if someone beats him in the LP. Under 6.0 it was sort of the negative version of that. A skater could flub so badly in the SP that there was no way they could win no matter what they did in the LP.

When (under either system) the last program was weighted twice as heavily as the first, then of course the last program carried twice as much weight (by definition ) With two programs carrying equal weight in the combined total, there is no a priori reason why it should be the second that determines the outcome of the competition (although possibly some psychological factors come into play).

 

[Supernovaimplosion]

Whichever program comes second is the one that will always decide the outcome of the competition.

I don't think that's true, neccesarily. Aliona has won many competitions this year due to her lead in the short program. If, hypothetically these programs have the same scoring potential, they'll decide equally.
That's another thing I'm confused about though. Because right now, the "artistic" side, PCS, has a limit, while the technical side has basically unlimited scoring potential.
If they keep that in this new system, then the technical program will be the most important thing. But how can you make artistic scoring unlimited?

 

[Mathman]

If they want it to be 3:30 in length, I assume they will decide how many jumping passes they want it to have, how many spin slots, how many step sequences (leveled or not) or other choreo-type elements, figure out likely maximum scores with that program structure, and assign PCS factors accordingly.

There's no need to start with the current short program as a template. They could look at something like the Medal Winners Open requirements (which do have the same number of elements as current short programs) or the Peggy Fleming trophy or various pro or pro-am formats from before the IJS era.

That is my expectation. The well-balance program requirements will be something like 4 jumping passes (one combo) in the artistic Program and 6 jumping passes (2 combos) in the technical program, with a longer list of non-jump elements in the artistic program to fill out the skater's card.

One idea I had -- I don't know if this would work or not -- would be to have some moves that have 0 base value, but still allow the skater to earn a point of two in GOE. So if you did an Ina Bauer or a spread eagle or a split jump, by itself that would not gain any TES points, but if it was of exceptional quality, timed to the music, effective as a choreographic embellishment, etc., it could earn +1 or +2 points.

There could also be a way (in the artistic program, on the TES side) to reward usual technical feats like a delayed single Axel or a double Walley, or a Lutz in the opposite direction.

 

[Mathman]

If they keep that in this new system, then the technical program will be the most important thing. But how can you make artistic scoring unlimited?

Even in the artistic program the big jumpers will still have the edge. If the jumps in the artistic program are limited to 4, say, and if Nathan Chen does 3 quads and a triple Axel, it will still be impossible for an "artistic" skater without the big jumps to out-point him even in the segment that is supposed to favor artistry.

The ISU could say no quads allowed in the artistic program, but I hope they don't. That would just be admitting that artistic skating is not a real sport, but jumping is.

 

[MintGreen]

Did it occur to anyone that how long the first segment of the competition could be if the program is changed to 3:30 in length? There are typically 30+ competitors in Euros and Worlds. Factoring in the +50 second program time and the corresponding scoring time, it would easily be one hour longer. Of course ISU can always raise the minimum TES but it will deprive the chances of some skaters of competing at major championships.

 

[Supernovaimplosion]

Even in the artistic program the big jumpers will still have the edge. If the jumps in the artistic program are limited to 4, say, and if Nathan Chen does 3 quads and a triple Axel, it will still be impossible for an "artistic" skater without the big jumps to out-point him even in the segment that is supposed to favor artistry.

The ISU could say no quads allowed in the artistic program, but I hope they don't. That would just be admitting that artistic skating is not a real sport, but jumping is.

Yeah, that's the problem. This system won't help artistic skaters.

 

[Elucidus]

In fact, so far there is nothing in what was announced that gives "artistic skating" any more relative weight compared to "big jumps skating" than is currently the case. As far as has been announced so far, a quad will still earn the same number of TES points as before, whether it is in the artistic program or in the technical program.

Considering that they refused RusFed proposal about allowing quads in SP for ladies and combining it with other Bianchetti words about more focus on artistic side of skating - it leads me to believe that they won't allow quads for ladies in Technical program. Moreover, higly liklely they will limit amount of quads in Artistic program too. Therefore, for ladies "artistic skating" indeed will have more weight - because big jumps can be done only with reduced TES factor - thus diminishing any possible advantage they can give you. Which in turn will put skaters like Trusova in disadvantage.

 

[gkelly]

One idea I had -- I don't know if this would work or not -- would be to have some moves that have 0 base value, but still allow the skater to earn a point of two in GOE. So if you did an Ina Bauer or a spread eagle or a split jump, by itself that would not gain any TES points, but if it was of exceptional quality, timed to the music, effective as a choreographic embellishment, etc., it could earn +1 or +2 points.

There could also be a way (in the artistic program, on the TES side) to reward usual technical feats like a delayed single Axel or a double Walley, or a Lutz in the opposite direction.

Make them choreo elements. If you execute certain moves to a certain level of recognizability to the point where they could be considered elements themselves and not just transitions between elements, the technical panel could identify them as such and then judges can give GOEs.

It's easy enough to say that a spiral or Ina Bauer held for at least X seconds meets the threshold to be called as a choreo element. For other types of elements, e.g., spectacular single or nonlisted jumps, the amount of time they take wouldn't be the defining factor, so there would need to be other kinds of definitions.

If dance can have a variety of different kinds of choreo elements, why not singles?

Even in the artistic program the big jumpers will still have the edge. If the jumps in the artistic program are limited to 4, say, and if Nathan Chen does 3 quads and a triple Axel, it will still be impossible for an "artistic" skater without the big jumps to out-point him even in the segment that is supposed to favor artistry.

The ISU could say no quads allowed in the artistic program, but I hope they don't. That would just be admitting that artistic skating is not a real sport, but jumping is.

Yeah, that's the problem. This system won't help artistic skaters.

If a skater can do three or four quads in an artistic and also fill the rest of the program with high-quality skating and transitional moves and spins and steps, all packaged purposefully and musically, then he would deserve to win this program.

The fewer jump passes would allow such a skater to spend more time on other elements and performance instead of trying to pack in as many jumps as in the technical program.

But if one skater excels at quads but can't do much else at an elite level, and another skater can't do quads but can excel at all triples and spins and steps and skating and performance, then there might be enough points available for those non-jump skills for the well-rounded artistic skater to earn more points in the artistic program than jumper-only even with 4 quads vs. 4 triples. It depends how the program requirements and PCS factors are set up.

They'll both be at a disadvantage compared to a skater who is highly artistic and a great jumper.

 

[Supernovaimplosion]

Considering that they refused RusFed proposal about allowing quads in SP for ladies and combining it with other Bianchetti words about more focus on artistic side of skating - it leads me to believe that they won't allow quads for ladies in Technical program. Moreover, higly liklely they will limit amount of quads in Artistic program too. Therefore, for ladies "artistic skating" indeed will have more weight - because big jumps can be done only with reduced TES factor - thus diminishing any possible advantage they can give you. Which in turn will put skaters like Trusova in disadvantage.

I doubt they'll ban quads in the technical program, because that's where the technical stuff will happen. How can it be a technical program if the highest technical achievement cannot be done in it?

 

[lpt]

I doubt they'll ban quads in the technical program, because that's where the technical stuff will happen. How can it be a technical program if the highest technical achievement cannot be done in it?

Of course they'll ban quads in the artistic program. That's the main point of whole thing. To make it possible for, say, Brown to beat Hanyu or Chen.