How Much of the Whole Package is Included in CoP?

[Joesitz (RIP)]

It seems like it's fully covered and all there, but it does it have an overall affect.

If we take a hypothetical example of Michelle Kwan and Irina Slutskaya, at their best, as an example I would say Kwan exemplifies the Whole Package but would not win over Slutskaya's CoP ready programs. remember, I am saying these ladies at their best (no injuries, no illnesses)

I would make Kwan the winner as I prefer her style of presentation despite all the Bielman positions Irina gives. That is not putting down Irina. It's putting down all those points.

Michelle's overall affect is obvious whereas one has to nitpick every move of Irina. Am I correct, or do you have a different opinion?

Joe

 

[fairly4]

actually, with all things being equal. i am not so sure,michelle would win because irina improved in her overall package.
because michelle only skated once under the cop, irina would based on that one and only skate.
however, if michelle improved levels and etc. it would be a hard call.
it would be based on who you like more and who did what.

 

[Wrlmy]

Michelle Kwan at her best would be doing seven triples, lv4 spiral, and lv3 step sequence for all of which she would garner consistent positive GOEs. I'm clueless how her spins would fare (if she actually put her mind to levels). I don't remember Slutskaya landing triple axels or having lv4 footwork. I have no reason to believe she would necessarily beat Kwan.

 

[laceup]

Michelle Kwan at her best would be doing seven triples, lv4 spiral, and lv3 step sequence for all of which she would garner consistent positive GOEs. I'm clueless how her spins would fare (if she actually put her mind to levels). I don't remember Slutskaya landing triple axels or having lv4 footwork. I have no reason to believe she would necessarily beat Kwan.

:scratch: I don't remember Kwan landing triple axels either

Anyway, I think it would be a tough call. I would give Irina the jumps, spins and speed but I would give Michelle the spiral, footwork, edge quality and performance level - very tough call - I think Irina would win the first mark, Michelle would win the second. I guess Michelle would win the second by more than Irina would win the first so overall my guess would be Michelle.

 

[ManyCairns]

The More Things Change ...

the more they stay the same:

[QUOTE=laceup;288517
"I think Irina would win the first mark, Michelle would win the second. "


That remark just struck me as being so very, very like we all used to talk about 6.0, with the "first mark" and the "second mark." Not sure it means anything at all, just struck me as ironic in a thread about COP and the "complete package."
:think:

 

[Wrlmy]

:scratch: I don't remember Kwan landing triple axels either

Anyway, I think it would be a tough call. I would give Irina the jumps, spins and speed but I would give Michelle the spiral, footwork, edge quality and performance level - very tough call - I think Irina would win the first mark, Michelle would win the second. I guess Michelle would win the second by more than Irina would win the first so overall my guess would be Michelle.

That's why I said Irina would not necessarily beat Kwan. I didn't say Kwan would necessarily beat Slutskaya either. Thinking inside the mindset of CoP, both Kwan and Slutskaya would be landing seven triples, lv3 footwork, lv4 spiral (questionable for Slutskaya), and a few lv4 spins (questionable for Kwan). Assuming their programs are similar in overall difficulty, I have my own reasons to believe Kwan will be awarded higher GOEs, but that's JMO.

 

[indicatoto101]

I think IS would beat MK on the first mark based on her the spring of her jumps (even with akward landings she still gets +GOE) and fast spins. Kwan is better than Slutes on footwork and spirals but there's only one of each in a program whereas there are 7 jumping and 4 spinning passes. Their PCS would be close.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

This is not a thread about Kwan v. Slutskaya. It's about your opinion whether CoP covers the old Whole Package.

As far as I know, the CoP has meticulously tried to incorporate all the details that make up the old 'Whole Package' The question is Did they succeed??

But has the Whole Package really been defined? Flemming talked about it quite a bit but it seemed to me to be a catch-all phrase and undefinable. It was something you knew in your gut. It was hard to explain as the French might say 'it was somethig but je ne sais quoi'

As an example (and I will not mention comparisons because then the topic goes off to another direction) what does one see in a particular skater when all skaters have skated flawless routines that is special and one might conclude that the skater should win despite otthers with higher tech?

Joe

 

[mskater93]

I believe that IJS is a sum of parts, NOT a whole package.

 

[laceup]

Sorry if I helped take this thread off course ....

CoP certainly has its flaws, it's still a baby with tons and tons of growing to do, but, IMO, it is taking baby steps in the right direction for this sport.

 

[sillylionlove]

I personally don't think it does. I mean everyone is doing all these moves for the points and then throws in some artistry for some good measure. Many of the programs, at least to me, look the same. Everyone is doing the same moves to get the maximum amount of points and not really caring about much else.

 

[gkelly]

mean everyone is doing all these moves for the points and then throws in some artistry for some good measure. Many of the programs, at least to me, look the same.

Of course, that was largely the case in the old system as well, except in the last 10-20 years it was mainly jumps that they were doing for "points."

In either system, there would be exceptions that transcend the sport to achieve art as well, but they're always going to be exceptions.

 

[Wrlmy]

I, too, apologize. Just reading MK's name automatically brougt out my inner kwanfandom
I think CoP favors and promotes the whole package but in a less than ideal way. Nowadays, a single skater can win with less than 6 or 7 triples if she or he has very good spins, footwork, transition, etc thanks to celebration of well-roundedness. But, CoP specifies what count as good spins, footwork, etc to the point it seems like ISU is spoonfeeding the skaters with at least 70% of the entire program. Of course, excellent skaters manage to perform interesting programs nonetheless. But I have to say watching non-top10 skaters have certainly become much more boring than before.

 

[mskater93]

I personally don't think it does. I mean everyone is doing all these moves for the points and then throws in some artistry for some good measure. Many of the programs, at least to me, look the same. Everyone is doing the same moves to get the maximum amount of points and not really caring about much else.

Sounds like you agree with my sum of parts instead of holistic approach.

 

[Bennett]

I like TES. But I don't like the way they do not differentiates each criterion of 5 components and 5 components cluster together. How can't Yukina Ota and Jeff Buttle win the "interpretation"?

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

I like TES. But I don't like the way they do not differentiates each criterion of 5 components and 5 components cluster together. How can't Yukina Ota and Jeff Buttle win the "interpretation"?

Yukina Ota is a very special skater, but she will never podium against the Techsters of today. Ota will receive good performance scores but not the total they should be. The Techsters may get higher scores than deserve because of their flashy tricks. But that is CoP and in Sport it's probably the best way to handle it.

My suugestion, which I am sure the ISU is just waiting for would be to drop the PCS scores entirely because most of it is all ready covered in the Tech's GoEs and Levels. No need to consider them again. In its place let's have the judges' ratings (1 score each) on the Whole Package irregardless of the big tricks to be added to the grand total. At least we can say Yukina won the Whole Package.

Joe

 

[dogwood]

The "whole package" concept is a thing of the past. With the CoP the ISU went from a holistic scoring method to an analytical method. That means the sum of the parts determines the value of the whole. You could do what Joe suggests and get rid of the ridiculously redundant PCS's and that might help. But then you are mixing two completely different scoring models and that can be tricky. Here's what I posted on another forum awhile back, so if any of you think you might have read this before you aren't crazy:
Skating is a complicated sport; it combines the language of skating with the languages of music, choreography and sport. A daunting task. . .With the CoP the ISU created a system that predetermines what a good skating performance should be. But how can a skater properly interpret a piece of music using only level 3 or 4 elements? He can’t because music isn’t composed that way. How can a choreographer create a balanced program that juxtaposes the simple with the complex? He can’t because the CoP is anti-ethical to the tenants of good choreography. And how can a coach create confidence in a skater under this system? He can’t because in order to win you just need to rack up the most points; skating good, clean aesthetically pleasing programs where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts is irrelevant now.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

The "whole package" concept is a thing of the past. With the CoP the ISU went from a holistic scoring method to an analytical method. That means the sum of the parts determines the value of the whole. You could do what Joe suggests and get rid of the ridiculously redundant PCS's and that might help. But then you are mixing two completely different scoring models and that can be tricky. Here's what I posted on another forum awhile back, so if any of you think you might have read this before you aren't crazy:
Skating is a complicated sport; it combines the language of skating with the languages of music, choreography and sport. A daunting task. . .With the CoP the ISU created a system that predetermines what a good skating performance should be. But how can a skater properly interpret a piece of music using only level 3 or 4 elements? He can’t because music isn’t composed that way. How can a choreographer create a balanced program that juxtaposes the simple with the complex? He can’t because the CoP is anti-ethical to the tenants of good choreography. And how can a coach create confidence in a skater under this system? He can’t because in order to win you just need to rack up the most points; skating good, clean aesthetically pleasing programs where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts is irrelevant now.

Great Post​

Combining 'Artistry' with 'Tricks' just doesn't quite gel, and Tricks get the most points. The plus and minus GOEs take care of the individual artistry with the elements. No need to have components in another category to duplicate what has already been judged. If an artistry score must be included separately, then at least have it to satisfy what is meant by artistry and equal to the tecnical score.

Joe

 

[dogwood]

Combining 'Artistry' with 'Tricks' just doesn't quite gel, and Tricks get the most points. The plus and minus GOEs take care of the individual artistry with the elements. No need to have components in another category to duplicate what has already been judged. If an artistry score must be included separately, then at least have it to satisfy what is meant by artistry and equal to the tecnical score.
Joe

I completely agree! However, I’ve always been a bit uncomfortable with the term “tricks” being applied to things that are fundamental parts of skating. Jumping isn’t a trick when a skater with highly refined technique can perform a jump on a precise beat of music or on a crescendo, has good air positon and height, covers a great distance, enters and exits the jump with great speed, and finds and holds a perfect edge on the landing. When that happens it isn’t a trick; it is “art”. It’s counting the number of revolutions in the air that makes it into a trick for many. Have you ever seen a 4/3/3/ that was art? Probably not, because it can’t meet the requirement of the art of it. A ‘tano lutz is an artistic jump in every sense of the term, but if you tack on two more jumps at the end and have to muscle the final revolutions and have no flow or speed at the end (which is the case with almost all 3 jump combinations), then it is just a “trick”. If you want to give points for landing these jumps, because they are indeed difficult, that’s fine. But, the lack of aesthetics in these tricks must be reflected somewhere esle. This was a problem with the old system as well. It rewarded jumping but didn’t seem to distinguish between great jumping and merely “getting the job done.”

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

I think the jumps are well covered in the GoEs. In fact they judge the Flutz as well.

Also I think the term Tricks is quite correct. It's plain old Look Mom No Hands
! Doing Tricks in an artistic manner one will find in Cirque du Soleil. It's all about acrobatics. Beautifully done, though.

In figure skating it is rewarded for wrong edges, not getting enough rotations; bad posture, etc., and the aforementioned descriptions are not unusual. To do a trick properly it should be judged as it is in Diving against perfection with serious deductions. To be judged artistically, look at the tricks in Cirque du Soleil. That is serious artistic flexibility. (But I would rather watch a Dance Performance)

Joe