Two Clean Programs

[Joesitz (RIP)]

I was thinking about this because so many posters are complaining about 2 clean programs. I actually could not think of anyone with 2 clean programs. I think Ashley did them in TEB.

Can anyonethink of a skater or team with 2 clean ones? And is the problem directly related to CoP?

Joe

 

[netnuts]

I was thinking about this because so many posters are complaining about 2 clean programs. I actually could not think of anyone with 2 clean programs. I think Ashley did them in TEB.

Can anyonethink of a skater or team with 2 clean ones? And is the problem directly related to CoP?

Joe

Zhang & Zhang, Pang & Tong at TEB... Can't recall any single skater has done that this season.

 

[Jaana]

I was thinking about this because so many posters are complaining about 2 clean programs.

Joe

Yes, there sure has been complaining... I think it´s natural that during GP and GPF skaters are not ready with their programmes / training, yet. Some countries have Nationals in December, and even then it is not the right time to peak, in my opinion. Some countries have Nationals in January and I would say that during an Olympic season skaters are of course more ready, but with Worlds in March it still is a bit early to have the peak of the season in January. The right timing is very important, in my opinion.

And is the problem directly related to CoP?

Joe

Not in my opinion.

 

[Mafke]

I was thinking about this because so many posters are complaining about 2 clean programs. I actually could not think of anyone with 2 clean programs. I think Ashley did them in TEB.
Can anyonethink of a skater or team with 2 clean ones? And is the problem directly related to CoP?

First define clean, not falling (or major ugliness like step outs hands down, double downgrades (turning a planned triple into a single - I don't think turning a planned triple into a double disqualifies a program as clean though if the skater does it more than twice it might).

As pointed out .... everywhere, the current format is not an SP with required elements and an LP that's a freeskate.
The current format is a shorter long program (SLP) where an elite skater needs to hit a couple of big jump trips (quads, triple axels, triple-triple) and get as high level possible on spins and footwork and a longer short program (LSP) where a skater has to tick off a long list of required elements (and hit even more big tricks).
The differences between the two anymore are essentially trivial like the difference between coke and pepsi (as opposed between coke and coffee or even 7-up vs pepsi).

So, with the pressure to pull of the big tricks over two programs (three or more quads for men, two or more triple triples for ladies) while also upping the density of required tricks and making them so that the skater gets no rest the result will be .... unclean programs. How many skaters went clean in both lp and sp at Turin? Calgary? Tokyo?

Partly this is because the skating establishment likes it that way. If the SP and LP test different things then you might have skaters buried after the SP with no chance to win or medal and for over 30 years the skating establishment has been refining the rules so the most telegenic (as opposed to overall best) lp skater wins. Fundamentally similar sp's and lp's mean you have some movement as some skaters are somewhat better in one or the other (Cohen and Sebestyen are better SP skaters Lysacek is a better LP skater) but we don't have Polly Puredge and her textbook technique that doesn't quite connect with the audience placing over fan favorite Felicia Flexiflats who cranks out the big tricks galore and doesn't hold any single edge for about two feet.

It also makes things easier for judges since fewer clean programs means fewer decisions about how to rank skaters (can you imagine the fuss if judges have to rank 24 clean sps? 18 clean lps? Few care where non-final-group skaters end up in the rankings if the podium (and immediate runners up) make sense.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Great post, Mafke. I particularly liked your remark about the SP becomig the SLP. Did you hear Paul Wylie say that there are no mandatory deductions in the SP anymore?

Skaters need to get a good lead in the present setup of the 'SLP' to protect their chances of winning. High level tricks are the way to go and high level tricks can bring high level mishaps, Lucky is the skater that gets through both similar programs.

I think all skaters who are lucky enough to skate 2 clean programs should get a special medal for that feat.

(Oh, to bring back a measure of judging technique rather than accumulating points for acrobatics.)

Joe

 

[Dodhiyel]

I was thinking about this because so many posters are complaining about 2 clean programs. I actually could not think of anyone with 2 clean programs. I think Ashley did them in TEB.

Can anyonethink of a skater or team with 2 clean ones? And is the problem directly related to CoP?

Joe

I think the answer is a flat yes, Joe. The problem is inevitably generated by CoP.

Thanks for bringing this up, Joe, and thanks, Mafke, for explaining why.

There are good things about CoP and bad things about CoP.

"(Oh, to bring back a measure of judging technique rather than accumulating points for acrobatics.)" I am so grateful you said that, Joe lol.

 

[doug_log]

didn't johnny go clean at his first grand prix?

 

[Snowgirl]

Yes, he did, and his second GP was clean as well aside from downgraded axel.

 

[gkelly]

Did you hear Paul Wylie say that there are no mandatory deductions in the SP anymore?

He's not quite correct about that.

The "deduction" function has been divided up between the technical panel, which assigns deductions for falls, incorrect length of program, illegal elements, etc., and the judges' (negative) grades of execution, which are referred to as "reductions."

Some mistakes are penalized exactly the same in the short program as in the long, and some are penalized more severely in the short program because the short program requirements are more specific.

For example:

I think Wylie made that comment in relation to Yuna Kim's triple flip-single toe combination? For a mistake like that, in the long program, there need be no reduction in the GOE -- 0, +1, or even +2 would be possible if both jumps were well performed. With a hand down on the first jump, -1 would be the most likely GOE.

In the short program, the combination is required to include either a triple jump and a double jump or two triple jumps. Triple and single doesn't meet the requirements. The GOE is required to be -3. (In fact one judge gave Kim -2 for that element at the GPF, but that was incorrect and it was thrown out anyway.)

In addition, as Wylie noted, the reduced GOE is taken off the base mark for the jump rotations actually performed, not from a base of the triple-triple we know she had planned or of the triple-double that would have been the default assumption in that kind of situation under the old system where base marks were set for whole programs instead of individual elements.

For a clean triple-triple, Kim got 11.5 points (all +2 GOEs) in the long program at the GPF. A triple-double with no pluses or minuses would be 6.8. Triple flip with hand down-single toe in a long program with good quality it could be over 6 points; with the hand down it would probably be 4.9. In the short program, with the hand down or even with good quality, the triple flip-single toe is worth only 2.9. So at least 2 of those points, or possibly more than 3 points, could be considered "deductions" specific to the short program.

Similarly with Kostner's single axel. In the long program that would be a perfectly legal jumping pass and could get full credit, with base or positive GOE depending on the quality of the axel, with the base mark for the single axel (0.8). In the short program, double axel is required, so the single starts with the base mark for a single axel and then gets -3 GOE reduction. A double axel base mark would be 3.5; a good single axel in a long program could be 1-point something; Kostner ended up earning a whopping 0.3 points for that element.

In both those examples, the loss of base mark for the single instead of the double or triple jump is a bigger penalty than the reduction in the GOE, but that reduction required for doing the "wrong" jump in the SP is not required in the LP.

Also, the short program spiral sequence requires three spiral positions held for at least 3 seconds and requires a change of foot. Long program requires only two positions and does not require the change of foot. (Almost all skaters who do spiral sequences do include the third position and change of foot in the long program because it's necessary to do so to have a chance of earning level 4, but the penalty for not doing so is much greater in the SP.)

For example, suppose the skater chooses to do a left forward outside layover spiral, change edge to left forward inside Biellmann spiral, and then a couple of strokes to right back outside Charlotte. That would be level 4 if performed correctly, and the GOE could be very positive if the edges and positions are good.

Now suppose that the skater is behind the music and ends up holding the final (backward, right foot) position for only 1.5 seconds so she can hit her next element on the correct beat as choreographed.

In a short program, that would mean that there were not three positions held for 3seconds and there was no position on the right foot held for 3 seconds. So regardless of how well she did the first two positions, the technical panel is going to call the sequence as level 1 and the judges are probably going to reduce the GOE by -2 from what it would have been otherwise.

In the long program, the sequence would still qualify for at least level 3 and could still get positive GOE.

 

[momjudi]

I'm sorry are we talking about two clean programs only in this year's grand prix or skaters who had two clean programs in one competition?

(example: Johnny at 2004 Nationals, clean short and clean long).

 

[Tinymavy15]

yes, clean programs are getting rarer and rarer. I remeber when it was who had the most diffulct stuff. now it's who has the difficult stuff and actually does it in competition. Ithink that the problem is that today's skaters are always trying to do the hard stuff.... somtimes at a bad cost. Skaters like buttle and Lyscak somtimes put in the quad even if they think they will fall... they still get a decent amount of points... as long as they get all the way around.

But Johnny did clean programs at both his GP events. I belive that both programs were clean in both events... 4 clean programs in all. I guess we are not talking about dance here... so. Yes, Ashley Wagner skated clean in Paris, zhang and Zhang were clean i think both times, pang and tong i think had a clean competiton... not sure about S&S.

 

[GoldMedalist]

Great post, Mafke. I particularly liked your remark about the SP becomig the SLP.

I don't think that's a bad thing. The one big deduction that still exists -- the mandatory -3 GOE for popped jumps in the SP -- should be changed to a minor half-point deduction. The SP deductions have always been ludicrous. All the SP needs to do is allow for different kinds of performances than the LP. Some pieces of music just can't be stretched out to 4+ minutes.

 

[Mafke]

The one big deduction that still exists -- the mandatory -3 GOE for popped jumps in the SP -- should be changed to a minor half-point deduction. The SP deductions have always been ludicrous. All the SP needs to do is allow for different kinds of performances than the LP. Some pieces of music just can't be stretched out to 4+ minutes.

Here's where we disagree, unless the SP is realistically testing a different skill set or aspect of skating than the LP there's really no reason for it to exist, from 1973 until the inception of COP it had a reason to exist (which did change over time). But since the inception of COP I really don't understand the point which impedes my enjoyment greatly.
As it is, having to do around seven minutes of athletic musical interpretation over two days for a single medal is absurd. (dance is even more absurd and really needs to lose one of the phases of competition, I'd most like to see the FD bite the dust as they've just been crap for years now but most likely the CD will take the hit.

 

[gio]

No reason to have a SP as it is now. They could add a fragment of the competition the day before the LP, where skaters must skate to particular kind of music to show their versatility. No triple or quad jumps allowed and a big emphasis on judging skating skills, interpretation, choreography, performance, originality in relation to the compulsory type of music choosed.
The type of music could be rotational (every year a kind of music), or even random for every competition.

If FS doesn't evolve, the decline will be bigger and bigger year after year. FS is stagnating IMO and it seriously needs innovation!!!

 

[Mathman]

I think the purpose of the short program is so that a big skating contest can be stretched over a three or four day period instead of just one. This way, we get to say, "oh boy, so-and-so is in the lead, but only 2 points ahead of such-and-such. I wonder what will happen tomorrow?"

Skating is a funny sport. The ladies LP at Worlds, for instance, takes half a day, but each skater performs for only 4 minutes. Think about it. You train all year round so you can skate for 4 minutes at Nationals and 4 minutes at worlds. That's your season, and the reason for your existence.

I agree with Gold Medalist. Why not let the skaters train two different programs -- say, a dramatic one to Tosca or Carmen and a lyrical one to Swan Lake or Romeo and Juliet. Half as boring for the skaters as if they just did one program, yes?

I do not see any reason why we would want or expect the short program to have a "purpose" -- it's just more skating.

I also agree with Gold Medalist that it is easier to find good music that holds the attention of the audience for 2 minutes 40 seconds than for four minutes. Maybe a better solution would be to do away with both the LP and the SP and replace them by two SLPs weighted equally in the scoring. :yes:

 

[Mafke]

I do not see any reason why we would want or expect the short program to have a "purpose" -- it's just more skating.

Well if you want more skating, I think there should be more medals.

One option:

compulsory skating (awful name, but ...): something like the current SP but with more restricted jump content and set levels for the spins and footwork (the exact elements required would differ, for example one year the combination has to include a loop and the jump out of steps has to be a flip, the next year the combination has to have a triple toe loop and the jump out of footwork has to be an edge jump). This can be done in a qualifying round and then a medal round.

free skating: more like the current LP but with less requirements, again a qualifying round and then a medal round.

many skaters would be able to enter both and have two chances at a medal instead of one.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

I do understand gkelly's post on the differences between the SP and the LP, but I do not see anything in them as so significant. They seem quite minor and a fan could overlook them. Now if the contestants had to skate to the same music with the same elemets, that I would consider significant, and it would be a good test for the best in technique and not the best in technical. The LP cries out for bigger and better elements. I believe the SP should be looking for techique as were the school figures,

Can you imagine Johnny and Stephane doing their thing to Malaguena?

Joe

 

[gkelly]

Actually, for singles I'd rather see a skating skills program, a jump program, and a spin program, with separate medals for each, and then a free program (with some limits and requirements, but freer than the current well-balanced program rules) that combines all the skills.

However, having four programs instead of two would not be as cost effective a use of time.

And I'm not sure how or whether it would make sense to divide the earlier rounds for pairs.

 

[Mathman]

Well if you want more skating, I think there should be more medals.

What I was thinking of is the opposite. Like a football game. There is the first half. Then there is the second half. Whoever scores the most points in both halves combined wins.

Is there a reason to allow, say, only fieldgoals in the first half and only touchdowns in the second? Or a required number of running and passing plays in one half or another? Or an exhibition of blocking and tackling technique?

I do not see any purpose in a "basic skills" contest. If you don't have basic skills, like jumping, spinning, etc., why are you out there?

 

[emma]

What I was thinking of is the opposite. Like a football game. There is the first half. Then there is the second half. Whoever scores the most points in both halves combined wins.

Is there a reason to allow, say, only fieldgoals in the first half and only touchdowns in the second? Or a required number of running and passing plays in one half or another? Or an exhibition of blocking and tackling technique?

I do not see any purpose in a "basic skills" contest. If you don't have basic skills, like jumping, spinning, etc., why are you out there?

When you put it like this - the football analogy, I say - you're right. Keep the two halves or perhaps even make them two halves (the short long program idea for both phases). But, I also like Joe's idea -- OR a short program where every year the tempo of the music is selected, the kinds of jumps, and, say, spin levels -- but everyone takes those rules and makes their own music selection and choreographs the SP accordingly (so, kind of like compulsary dance) and a LP.