Thus ART is demonstrated in points - or is it?

[sorcerer]

Following is the "arty" aspect of the top Asian ladies' points they got in the ISU games during the last season.

Are the judges' points distributed similar to your impressions?
(To me it seems that Mao's and Yu-Na's points should be much closer...)

My personal view is that the choreographers of Mao and Yu-Na were quite skillful to take some artistic advantage of that charm God gives to adolescence. This year I think the two skaters will have to outgrow of that advantage.
Meanwhile Miki is aware of her homework in this area and working diligently with her coach. This betterment may be somewhat gradual.

All in mind, I realize that Fumie is still doing marvelous and artisanal work in this direction.

Here goes.

Choreography/Composition + Interpretation, points added
GP series total:
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANDO
short SA 7.05 + 7.05 TEB 7.05 + 7.15 GPF 7.35 + 7.30
free SA 6.80 + 6.90 TEB 6.65 + 6.45 GPF 6.90 + 6.80
Total(SP factored 0.8) 74.860

ASADA
short SA 7.30 + 7.45 NHK 7.35 + 7.40 GPF 7.50 + 7.60
free SA 6.75 + 6.45 NHK 7.55 + 7.50 GPF 7.05 + 7.10
Total(SP factored 0.8) 78.080

KIM
short SC 6.25 + 6.15 TEB 6.95 + 6.85 GPF 7.10 + 7.20
free SC 6.95 + 6.90 TEB 7.20 + 7.20 GPF 7.25 + 7.25
Total(SP factored 0.8) 75.150

SUGURI
short SC 7.05 + 6.85 NHK 7.20 + 7.15 GPF 7.10 + 6.95
free SC 6.95 + 6.90 NHK 7.55 + 7.40 GPF 7.00 + 7.05
Total(SP factored 0.8) 76.690

With the Worlds added:
--------------------------------------------
ANDO
short WLD 7.36 + 7.43
free WLD 7.43 + 7.36
Season total with SP factored 101.482

ASADA
short WLD 7.43 + 7.57
free WLD 7.82 + 8.18
Season total with SP factored 106.080

KIM
short WLD 7.61 + 7.75
free WLD 7.75 + 7.75
Season total with SP factored 102.938

 

[Mathman]

It is hard for me to make much sense of these numbers. For instance, Yu-na Kim at Worlds. In the short program she gave the all-time record setting performance in terms of overall score. In the long program she started strong but then her program disintegrated in the second half with two falls. Her scores for choreography/composition and interpretation were virtually identical.

Does this mean that the judges really are trying to block the technical aspect from their minds, and giving credit for what the choreography and interpretation might have been, without the technical errors?

Mao Asada, on the other hand, had outstanding choreography (IMHO) in her short program last year, while (IMHO) she was not able to do as much with the choreography and interpretation in her LP.

Yet at Worlds, she got higher scores in these PCS categories for the long than for the short. The short program was marred by a bad technical error, while the long was so chock full of high-powered tech that even with missing a point here and there she still blew the roof off the place.

 

[feraina]

These PCS points are a total mystery to me, and yet they count for half of the total score! For instance, I can see the speed, the flow, the edging, the nice positions, and the ease in Mao's skating. And I can also see the heart and the drama in Yu-na's skating. But how do these qualities actually get translate all that into these numbers? Or are they at all? Joannie got 50.39 for her LP at worlds, while Kimmie got 59.77. Really? Why? If Joannie had a few more points for PCS, she would've beaten both Yu-na and Kimmie, and ended up in 3rd instead of 5th.

We argue over minute details of the TCS, like exactly how much a flutz deduction should be, what should constitute a level 3 spin or level 4 spiral sequence, etc. These are all matters of a point or two, or even a fraction of a point. And yet on the PCS side the exact methodology behind the scoring seems completely hazy!

Do skaters/coaches get more feedback on their PCS than what we see in the detailed protocols? How do they know what to work on, or how to make up a program to utilize their strength and minimize their weaknesses?

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

So much of the PCS scores are thrown around with the proviso that 'art' is being judged. Art is in the mind of the beholder - some call it 'beauty'.

Now tell me exactly what is meant by Skating Skills in the PCS that isn't covered in the GoEs of the TCS or even in the Regulations for transitions into elements?

A rose by any other name, etc.

Joe

 

[silver.blades]

There are always ways to look at art objectivly as well as objectivly. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean that you can't appreciate the fact that it's good. Something like choreography isn't subjective if you know what you're talking about, interpretation's a bit more difficult to determin, but just because something is well choreographed dosn't mean that everyone will like it. Choreography is very technical and therefore can be judged objectivly. The problem with skating is: 1) the judges have too much to do and 2) the majority havn't studied choreography. Judging choreography should not involve much opinion, it should involve the assesment of the uses of elements and their composition. and choreography should have no connection to interpretation. Bad choreography done by an amzing skater don't chnage the fact that it was bad choreography and great choreography remains great choreography no matter how bad the skater is. Yes in minimizes the effect of the choreography, but the choreography itself remains excelent.

 

[Mathman]

...great choreography remains great choreography no matter how bad the skater is. Yes in minimizes the effect of the choreography, but the choreography itself remains excelent.

Very interesting post!

But on this last point, how should the judges translate this into a "choreography score" for the skater's performance? It is the skater that is being judged, not the choreographer.

What if a skater has great choreography on paper, but that great choreography calls for a dazzling pirouette at the climax of the music and instead the skater spends six seconds sitting on her behind with a dazed look on her face after a fall?

The choreography was intended to be wonderful, but what the skater delivered on the ice was not.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

There are always ways to look at art objectivly as well as objectivly. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean that you can't appreciate the fact that it's good. Something like choreography isn't subjective if you know what you're talking about, interpretation's a bit more difficult to determin, but just because something is well choreographed dosn't mean that everyone will like it. Choreography is very technical and therefore can be judged objectivly. The problem with skating is: 1) the judges have too much to do and 2) the majority havn't studied choreography. Judging choreography should not involve much opinion, it should involve the assesment of the uses of elements and their composition. and choreography should have no connection to interpretation. Bad choreography done by an amzing skater don't chnage the fact that it was bad choreography and great choreography remains great choreography no matter how bad the skater is. Yes in minimizes the effect of the choreography, but the choreography itself remains excelent.

I've never read a critique of choreography. I've only read that it is liked or disliked. Nothing constructive to make it measurable. Is the choreography for Peter Pan better or worse than the choreography for West Side Story? If so, why would you conclude that?

Can a skating fan actually talk about choreography in terms of its makeup in detail as they would about the elements in a program? Liking or disliking choreography, for me, is a subjective view by the viewer.

I would welcome some discourse on the details of good/bad choreography other than 'all the jumps were upfront'. IMO, skating choreographers have a tough time.

Joe

 

[sorcerer]

It is hard for me to make much sense of these numbers.

The exact numerals not much to me either, but the tendencies may mean something, and the act of marking still seems worthy to figure skating. At least these marks should be left going in order to encourage beauty in figure skating, no?

What I noticed is that the judges seem influenced by the amount of applauses and roars of the audience.

..Choreography is very technical and therefore can be judged objectivly.

If so, we don't need that choreo/compo points, aren't they already shown in the base value of TES?
It's very hard to believe that only the tech side of the choreo/compo is judged here. What were the ISU judge guidelines? I think I've lost the file in my PC...

 

[Kypma]

I'm sure I've already said this, but here I go again (sorry for repeating myself!):

Choreography can be defined (in my opinion) as the placement of jumps and spins in relation to each other and to the physical space (ie, the rink). Placing all the jumps in the same corner would be bad choreography, as would be front-loading a program. Good choreography would be well spaced elements (an alternation (sp?) of jumps and spins throughtout the program) placed at different places in the rink (one in the North-East corner, one in the center, one towards the judges' side, etc.). It is not subjective, but cannot go into the technical score, as it is part of the "presentation" of the sport. Choreography is a plus in figure skating; as it has been said, other sports don't plan their moves ahead of time (although some use tactics, which is a whole other thing).

Interpretation would be how the skater interprets the music. A Malagueña-like straight footwork sequence does not work in an adagio program, for example. It would also emcompass a skater's facial expressions, arm mouvements, and so forth. Interpretation is what brings the audience into a program, and yes, can be more subjective, although it's possible to see whether a program is well interpreted or not even if it does not suit one's taste.

As for the Performance/Execution mark... I'm not sure exactly what it's for. And what would following the phrasing of the music go into? Using a crescendo in the music to, for example, do footwork into a jump which would be on the summum of the phrase, is choreography (as the jump was well placed, at that precise moment), but also interpretation, as the skater uses the crescendo to created a 'wow' effect.

Anyways, I hopw this was clear enough. Remember, this is me humble opinion, so you can contradict me, just explain why. It makes the forum more fun and doesn't then give off the impression that if your ideas aren't the same as others', you get downgraded.

Kypma

Ps sorry for any possible typos or grammatical mistakes, I'm in no mood to proof-read!

 

[GoldMedalist]

For me:

Performance/Execution = the skater's speed, energy, and confidence

Choreography = how well the skater is moving in time with the music; the composition of the elements in the program

Interpretation = how well the skater's movements convey meaning; are they showing us their heart and soul?

 

[Mathman]

...Good choreography would be well spaced elements (an alternation (sp?) of jumps and spins throughtout the program) placed at different places in the rink (one in the North-East corner, one in the center, one towards the judges' side, etc.)...

In the new judging system cheorgraphers also have to take into account things like working in enough changes of position to get a level three spin instead of a level two, making sure there is a big point-getting jump sequence after the two minute mark to get the extra 10 per cent bonus, etc.

To me, all of that threatens to overwhelm what I regard to be the essense of the choreographers art. (As Sorcerer says, he ART of choreography.) The main purpose of choreography, IMHO, is to represent in motion and space what the music offers in tempos. rhythms, texture, and color expressed by a sequence of notes in time. This can be either a literal attempt to capture in dance the composer's intent (Lori Nichol's Lyra Angelica for MK), or an original -- even quirky -- reading (Emanuel Sandhu's Tick-tock).

The performer then executes the choreography. I guess that's "interpretation." I think it would be the choreographer's responsibility to make sure that the skater didn't do a "malaguena-like footwork sequence" to adagio music," and that sort of thing.

As for the "roar of the crowd," that is specifically listed as one of the criteria under "performance/execution." The guidelines say something like, "creates an invisible bond with the audience."

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

.
As for the "roar of the crowd," that is specifically listed as one of the criteria under "performance/execution." The guidelines say something like, "creates an invisible bond with the audience."

Hey MM, that's good thinking. When the standing ovations follow the program, something connected for the audience.

In Tokyo Worlds we had four standing ovations: Daisuke, Stephane, Thomas, and Kristoffer. That has to be a record.

There was no SO for Brian but he won anyway. Well, that 007 will always getcha.

Joe

 

[feraina]

As for the "roar of the crowd," that is specifically listed as one of the criteria under "performance/execution." The guidelines say something like, "creates an invisible bond with the audience."

That means the "home advantage" is codified into competitive figure skating?! That seems a bit unfair, doesn't it? Not only do the home skaters get a mental boost from the fan support, but when they cheer for her/him loudly, they get some extra points as well?

 

[capcomop]

That means the "home advantage" is codified into competitive figure skating?! That seems a bit unfair, doesn't it? Not only do the home skaters get a mental boost from the fan support, but when they cheer for her/him loudly, they get some extra points as well?

Or how about the skater who plays human Zamboni and the crowd cheers and cheers in a human need to support the underdog? That skater should get points for 'creating an invisible bond?"

 

[hockeyfan228]

I would argue that the stalker in Dortmund helped Kwan to create an invisible bond with parts of the audience that had been polite before.

 

[gsrossano]

For me:

Performance/Execution = the skater's speed, energy, and confidence

Choreography = how well the skater is moving in time with the music; the composition of the elements in the program

Interpretation = how well the skater's movements convey meaning; are they showing us their heart and soul?

I recognize many people react to the names of the PCs in terms of their personal understanding of those words in other contexts, but the reality is
in skating those words mean what their CRITERIA say they mean. Your definitions do not line up with the criteria.

It serves no constructive propose to say this PC means this to me and therefore I would give this mark. If one want to discuss whether one skater or another gets the "right" marks for a PC, the discussion should be about did they satisfy the criteria or not.

Along those lines, in a judges' school or in trial judging, when the judges are asked to justify their marks, they MUST do it in terms of how the skaters satisfied each of the criteria.

So the general question, for anyones favorite skater/performance should be does it meet the criteria for the PCs? Why or why not?

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Very interesting grossano. I would, however, like to see an analysis of the criteria. It is not specifically explained in the PCS.

Would a judge consider whether the choreography was done by a well known choreographer, and how much the skater put into it? Would the judge consider the whole choreographic piece which appealed to the judge (it is subjective) credited to the advantaged skater who happened to use an acknowledged good choreographer?

Joe

 

[gsrossano]

I would, however, like to see an analysis of the criteria. It is not specifically explained in the PCS.

So would I. I make no secret that I still have major issues with the criteria and how they are turned into numbers.

Would a judge consider whether the choreography was done by a well known choreographer, and how much the skater put into it? Would the judge consider the whole choreographic piece which appealed to the judge (it is subjective) credited to the advantaged skater who happened to use an acknowledged good choreographer?

Joe

I can't say what all/most/some judges do to come up with the Choreography mark. I know what I do, and I don't give any weight to who did the choreograph, or the reputation of the person executing the choreography. Actually, even for the elite skaters I only have the vaguest knowledge of which choreographer set which program. For the most part, don't know, don't care.

 

[GoldMedalist]

It serves no constructive propose to say this PC means this to me and therefore I would give this mark. If one want to discuss whether one skater or another gets the "right" marks for a PC, the discussion should be about did they satisfy the criteria or not.

Yes it does. In the end, it's the same as if a skater "satisfied the criteria" or not. Why? Because the level at which someone is "satisfied" by what a skater did is very subjective and someone can give whatever reason they want for if something satisfied them or not.

For example:

Along those lines, in a judges' school or in trial judging, when the judges are asked to justify their marks, they MUST do it in terms of how the skaters satisfied each of the criteria.

One of the criteria for the Interpretation mark is "maintaining the character and style of the music throughout the entire program....the total involvement of the body and being should express the intent of the music". WHAT is the intent of the music, though? It's whatever the judge says it is. There is no way to define that specifically. Therefore, a judge can point at ANYTHING a skater does and say "nope, that movement didn't express the intent of the music".

No matter how these terms are written, much of it comes down to an individual's feelings -- something which is defined by the person themself, not the rules.

 

[sorcerer]

To understand what gsrossano says I think we need to read the follows:
http://www.isu.org/vsite/vnavsite/page/directory/0,10853,4844-152055-169271-nav-list,00.html
http://www.isu.org/vsite/vfile/page/fileurl/0,11040,4844-152077-169293-64120-0-file,00.pdf
http://www.isu.org/vsite/vfile/page/fileurl/0,11040,4844-152086-169302-64121-0-file,00.pdf

I've re-downloaded these files, and they were not far from what I had memory of.

As to subjectivity:

"Choreography/Composition" is defined as "an intentional, developed, and/or original arrangement of all movements according to the principles of proportion, unity, space, pattern, structure, and phrasing".
It mentions idea, concept, vision, mood, the intentional and quality design of a program, the aesthetic pursuit of the composition, originality, etc.
And the keyword that appears twice is "underlying vision" which is close to what the greek word "poesis" implies IMO.

So in general, it seems safe to say that "Choreography/Composition" is after all SUPPOSED to deal with what we know as Art.

IMO to evaluate artistic achievements is neither entirely subjective nor securely objective, but would be a matter of collective subjectivity.
"Collective" may mean, at first hand, the panel of judges, but more preferably the entire figure skating world inclding fans.

BTW do the judges have enough time to do all this during each game?