Is the Spiral Overrated?

[Mathman]

Perhaps Skategirl45's suggestion of replacing the SP with a separate Technical Competition, could also be considered. I think allowing the skater to select 5 jumps with ISU factors would reveal more of the skater's technical prowess, and when properly judged as to technique, the results would show the greater the sportsperson. (Spins and footwork should be included also.)

The present system of the SP is for me, quite wishy washy.

I like Skatergirl's idea, too, especially the part about the PCS-only part of the triad.

But I do like short programs. Wishy-washy or not, what is cool to me is that the choreographer has to work within a tightly restricted structure, yet is still expected to produce something af artistic substance. I look at it like a sonnet, as opposed to free verse. You have exactly so many lines of closely prescibed meter to work with. But many skaters are able to do at least a little bit of something with it, and once in a while you get a real gem!

In fact, truth be known, I like short programs better than long. Four or four-and-a-half minutes tests my attention span.

Not to mention, some choreographers use the short and long programs together as act one and act two, in contrasting moods. :Like what Michelle planned for the 2006 Olympics, but never got to perform. An SP to a fast and fantastical dance of the dead, followed by an introspective LP contemplating death's solemnity. That is the fun of skating, to me.

I am just afraid that if the ISU held a contest of technical skills only, no one would come except the parents of the competitors.

 

[Mafke]

In fact, truth be known, I like short programs better than long. Four or four-and-a-half minutes tests my attention span.

I hear ya.
At the height of my eurosport watching, I could watch SP's all day. I'd generally only really pay attention to the final group of LP's (sometimes just the medal contenders (and/or a few others I was interested in for some reason or other).
Not only that but I preferred the pre-1989 SP's. Short and sweet and to the point, I don't really think the spiral sequence (or second footwork for men) added enough value for the extra time they take up.

 

[Mathman]

The stuff about fans not understanding the results is revisionism by Bianchetti.

Really? Sig.ra B. is very, very good at it, then. In all of her writings not only does she claim that lack of fans' interest was the reason behind dropping figures, but also she accepts 100% of the credit for initiating the change and pushing it through the reluctant ISU hierarchy.

Baiul over Kerrigan is not understandable by anyone looking at the skates (as opposed to expressive arms and faces).

Although...I liked Oksana's performance better.

The only fully satisfying competition at Torino was the ladies.

I thought it was awful. The gold medalist was elegant but she watered down the planned technical content. The silver medalist fell twice. The bronze medalist gave the worst performance of her career.

Different strokes for different folks.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Mathman, Be honest. You like figure skating in any form with music and schmaltz, and to turn it into a Technical competition (I contend the SP is wishy washy) you would lose much of the schmaltz.

 

[Mathman]

You got my number, Joe.

 

[Mafke]

I thought it (ladies comp at Turin: mafke) was awful. The gold medalist was elegant but she watered down the planned technical content. The silver medalist fell twice. The bronze medalist gave the worst performance of her career.
Different strokes for different folks.

I agree that the final was not the greatest night of skating, but ... it was the only one of the four competitions where the winner wasn't a foregone conclusion going into the LP (I agree with the overall results going into the lp in the other disciplines but not the margins).

Not only that but the final standings Made Sense in terms of the SP and LP placements (Pairs podium was a joke, mens and dance not much better). Cohen's silver made sense in that her LP had maybe her best ever LP skating (after the awful first minute). You maybe could argue that Suguri should have placed higher but Slute had a big lead over her and .... she's Slute. And a podium with no controversy is going to be boring (yes, I'm complaining when the results aren't exactly what I want and when they are too, so sue me).

 

[gkelly]

What if we took Joe's idea for the elements and made that into the short program. For ex:a skater would do 2 solo jumps and a combo. they would be up to them. but for the base points, the skater would get what the CoP base level is GOE would be added in. Then, the skater would do 2 spins, again up to them. Then they would do 1 footwork sequence. This would all be done in a compulsory type program where skaters skate on the ice with out music or flashy costumes.

Then there would be the long program which would basically be the same.

As the last part of the competition for PCS ONLY would be an exhibition program. Skaters could do spirals, spread eagles, inas, charlottes, anything they please as long as it goes to the music.

I'm wondering how this would work. At, say, Worlds or Junior Worlds would each country get to send one skater (or two or three if the previous year's results earned them extra spots) who would all compete in the technical program and the long and the PCS program?

Would there be cuts after the tech program and more cuts after the long program? What if the most artistic skaters who would have had the best PCS programs never make the cut because they can't do the jumps?

How about at smaller events where there's no need to cut down the field?

Does the title of world champion go to the skater with the best results across all three phases?

Or how about, everyone skates a technical program, top 24 skate a free program, award medals for those two phases combined. Then top 5 (more or less) from each discipline are invited to perform an audience-friendly artistic or entertainment program with no restrictions on content, costumes, or props and with theatrical lighting, and no judges . . .

Oh, wait.

I'm going to start another thread . . .

 

[Mathman]

Oh, wait.

But I think skatergirl's proposal was more radical on both ends. The "technical program" would not be a program at all, it would be a succession of jumps, spins, and other elements. No music, choreography or linking elements. Just line everyone up to do a Lutz, then line them up to do a camel spin, etc. Maybe a big game of add-on, last man standing.

Then there would be an LP, where skaters would skate to music, yet try to work in as many jumps and other technical elements as possible, trying not to fall down, etc. This would be judged heavy on the tech, light on the PCSs.

Then they would do a PCSs only program, featuring choreography which incorporates moves in the field, gliding along on an edge (spirals), trying to pretend to be Juliet or Tosca -- all the things that there really isn't time for in a long program under the current rules. (Oh, wait...)

 

[gkelly]

Heh. I know.

If we're looking to develop all-around skaters at all levels, I'd put the jump competition, spin competition, and PCS/skating skills competition as three initial rounds each with their own medals. Skaters who entered all three and did reasonably well in all could then qualify for a final freeskate for an "all-around" title.

If we're looking for audience artistic pleasure, I don't want to see a jump-free performance by the jumping bean who finished 20th on the strength of said jumps. Or even the jumping bean who medaled on the strength of said jumps.

I want to see jump-free performances by artistic skaters who might never qualify for international events that are largely judged on difficulty of the jumps and other elements.

See my other thread.

 

[vlaurend]

I was thinking of Nakano who was best of the night, with no question, during the performance many people thought she was gonna walk away with the title (which she should have!) and Kostner, who's fast and pleasant enough at times but I'd rather watch old Kira Ivanova videos on youtube than Kostner's stumblefest of an LP (really! I'm completely serious! Ivanova is a skater who's free skating deserves a major reevaluation but that's another rant).

In terms of underrotation let me be completely clear: Controlling the landing is far more important to my enjoyment than staying in the air for the required time. Underrotations of the kind that Nakano was hammered for don't bother me (or most audiences) at all as they hardly visible to the naked eye in real time and at least one OGM (Fleming) thought Nakano's 3ax was fully rotated. Massive underrotations (of the kind Sarah Hughes was occasionally guilty of) do bother me some and stumbles out of jumps bother me far more. That is all.

But the point is not to make the audience happy (watch professional shows if that's what you want); it's to determine--in as fair and transparent a manner as possible--who is the best skater. In order to do that, you need to have definitions of what the various elements are, including a triple axel. If underrotated triples aren't downgraded, then you are basically punishing any skater who put in the work to master a legitimate triple jump. And where does that leeway end? 1/2 revolution cheated? 3/4 revolution cheated? Some casual fans can't tell the difference between a double and a triple, so does that mean they should be worth the same number of points as long as they look good?

 

[vlaurend]

For the record, those are 2007-2008 rules. There has been further tinkering.
http://www.usfigureskating.org/content/200809-S-levels.pdf

As of 2008-2009, the first feature (both feet, forward and backward, inside and outside edges) is mandatory for levels 3 and 4 but it doesn't count as a feature in itself; change of foot has long been a requirement in the short program anyway.

There's now a new feature: Holding spiral position (without any interruption) for 6 or more seconds.

Also, don't forget the new requirement for the change of edge feature. Now the skater will only get the feature if the change of edge is completed within 1 meter of ice. It is not easy to do, and also makes it much harder to control the spiral after the change of edge.

But ability to hold a deep edge, speed or anything else is not a requirement to atain a level 4. . . . I haven't got the scale of values to hand but can someone tell me what the base value for a level 4 spiral sequence is, and if it is the same as for all other level 4 footwork sequences?

Ant

Actually, the ability to hold a deep edge IS a requirement. Even if a spiral is traveling on a definite inside or outside curve, if the skater is not actually leaning on the edge of the blade for the entire 3 or 6 seconds (i.e., the skater goes onto the flat of the blade at any point), the skater will get no credit for the feature. This happened to me and also happened to a nationally ranked Junior skater I was comparing notes with recently.

As of the 2008-2009 season, level 3 and 4 footwork sequences are now worth more than level 3 and 4 spiral sequences.

 

[antmanb]

I look at it like a sonnet, as opposed to free verse. You have exactly so many lines of closely prescibed meter to work with. But many skaters are able to do at least a little bit of something with it, and once in a while you get a real gem!

Except that the LP is not really as "free" as free verse. Perhaps the SP coul dbe a haiku and the LP a sonnet?

Ant

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Heh. I know.

If we're looking to develop all-around skaters at all levels, I'd put the jump competition, spin competition, and PCS/skating skills competition as three initial rounds each with their own medals. Skaters who entered all three and did reasonably well in all could then qualify for a final freeskate for an "all-around" title.

If we're looking for audience artistic pleasure, I don't want to see a jump-free performance by the jumping bean who finished 20th on the strength of said jumps. Or even the jumping bean who medaled on the strength of said jumps.

I want to see jump-free performances by artistic skaters who might never qualify for international events that are largely judged on difficulty of the jumps and other elements.

See my other thread.

I am only looking to improve the workings of the sport for the sport itself, and not to please any fans. I think the discussions are ignoring that there are two separate contests going on in Figure Skating and not just one.

For the Technical score there are established elements in FS which can be judged according to the dictates of the Rules. No question about that. There is also a Performance score that relies heavily on the mindset of the judges. Questions of opinions will arise.

Both the Tech and the Performance can be interesting to spectators in their own way. That seems obvious. Fans of figure skating will be drawn to both of these contests. The Sport is the Sport and no need to satisfy the fans. How the fans view the Sport is irrelevent. However, there is always a need to improve the nature of a Sport.

My suggestion to have two separate contests remain - one for the Tech value of the sort which is judgeble and the other to be viewed and judged as a pagaent.

 

[Mafke]

But the point is not to make the audience happy (watch professional shows if that's what you want); it's to determine--in as fair and transparent a manner as possible--who is the best skater. In order to do that, you need to have definitions of what the various elements are, including a triple axel. If underrotated triples aren't downgraded, then you are basically punishing any skater who put in the work to master a legitimate triple jump. And where does that leeway end? 1/2 revolution cheated? 3/4 revolution cheated? Some casual fans can't tell the difference between a double and a triple, so does that mean they should be worth the same number of points as long as they look good?

Random numbered points:

1. If you don't make the audience happy, then no one's going to watch as you determine the best skater in a fair and transparent manner. If there's no need to make the audience happy there was no need to change from the old format of two days of figures that determined the champions and a free skate that doesn't count for much. The economic fact is that audience supported sports have to balance athletic purism and keeping the audience happy or they'll stop being audience supported. I don't see the current judging system making audiences happy.

2. I think underrotated jumps _should_ be punished and have never said otherwise, but the current double punishment (downgrade and mandatory bad GOE's) is too severe.

3. I'm all in favor of transparency and fairness, the current ISU judging system does not excel in either regard.

4. I think a slightly underrotated triple axel with a well controlled landing (like Nakano's) shows greater skating skills than a fully rotated triple axel with a two-footed landing or step out or fall. For me, skating skills are about when the skate is on the ice, not in the air. In a fair judging system, I think Nakano's 3ax should have gotten credit as a triple with some negative GOE for the underrotation (and leg wrap).

 

[gkelly]

1. If you don't make the audience happy, then no one's going to watch as you determine the best skater in a fair and transparent manner.

But what makes the audience happy?

Family and friends of the skaters, and the skaters themselves -- the vast majority of spectators at all but the highest level competitions -- are happy to see their skaters perform as well as they can. They're happy when their skaters place well and when they are placed fairly -- preferably both at once. And these people have invested much more time and money into the sport than any fan. If they're not happy with the sport, they'll drop out, and there will be a much smaller pool from which to develop elite skaters to entertain wider audiences.

When you think about changes in rules or changes in emphasis you would like to see at the highest level, do you care how they might apply to skaters at the lower levels who might or might not someday make it to your TV screen?
How would they affect the average novice skater at a regional competition in the US or Japan? At the national championships of Finland or France or Australia? Is making the audience happy more important than making the competition fair even when there's no paying audience?

Fans and other skaters who are technically minded may be happy scrutinizing all the technical details, small and large, and seeing all those technical aspects rewarded or punished appropriately; they may love to pore over the protocols. They might get excited by a new technical variation on a spin or spiral . . . or fascinated by an unusual error and wonder how the rules will handle it . . . even if performed by lower level skaters whose weaknesses in jumping or in posture and other aspects of presentation assure that those skaters will never reach the highest levels or never become fan favorites.

Fans of athleticism may be happy when the skaters with the biggest, hardest jumps, fastest skating, and fewest mistakes win. They might care less about edges or artistry. This might include sports fans whose interest in skating is only occasional and who think that ice dance has no place in the Olympics or calling itself a sport. They might bring beliefs from other sports that anyone who falls should automatically disqualified. Or they might believe that falling on a cutting-edge jump is more admirable and more worthy of reward than playing it safe.

Fans who look at skating as a form of performing art may be happy when they get to watch skaters who perform confidently and charismatically on the ice with good form, interesting choreography, and good expression of the music, and no visible mistakes. They may be happiest when these performances that offer the greatest aesthetic pleasure are rewarded over others with greater technical content.

Fans who enjoy rooting for the home team may be happiest when their country's skaters do well or when their rivals are punished. Or they may choose favorite skaters on some other basis and enjoy rooting for their favorites and against their nonfavorites and be happiest when the results agree with their preferences.

Fans can learn to enjoy great technique AND great athleticism AND great artistic sensibility. Skaters who embody all three at the highest level come along maybe once a generation. Meanwhile there are plenty of skaters who may be great at one or two aspects and weaker at the others. There's no reason why fans can't enjoy all those skaters for different reasons and be happy for all of them when they're rewarded for what they do well.

There is no system that will keep all fans and all skaters happy all the time.

A system designed primarily for entertaining a certain category of fans while ignoring the other categories will lose as many fans as it gains.

A system designed to make fans happy while ignoring the needs of the skaters to have their work judged fairly in all the aspects that they work so hard on will lose skaters. And then everyone loses.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Are We Looking for All-Round Skaters?

I am sure we are looking for the best skater in a given competition.

If an Archer hits a bulls eye. That's a skilled feat, and it could lead to a first place finish. His/her form was not considered.

Duel matches in boxing, tennis, jai alai can win a first place if the competitive skills are working. Has nothing to do with form.

Teams in such sports rely completely on teamwork.

Every Sport has skill involved and there is no need to watch for it musically.

However, there are some sports(?) which do involve music: Synchronized Swimming, Synchonized Skating, Children's Pagaents all of which do require a certain amount of skill. This seems to be the group that figure skating belongs but with a larger requirement for skill.

IMO, when a fan needs Sport, he/she will turn to sports which win the game without judgements necessarily. When a fan needs artistry he/she will turn to the amusements where sports are not involved.

 

[Mathman]

^ Yet somehow figure skating -- neither fish nor fowl -- manages to keep a precarious foot in each camp. Not only did my hero just do a triple Axel (7.8 points worth of technical mastery!!!!), but he did it right on the beat of the music and with a sweet stroke going in and a fluid edge coming out.

Plus, he did it all while dressed up like a thirteenth century troubadour!

(I'm off now to post on my favorite archery and jai alai forums. )

Family and friends of the skaters, and the skaters themselves -- the vast majority of spectators at all but the highest level competitions -- are happy to see their skaters perform as well as they can. They're happy when their skaters place well and when they are placed fairly -- preferably both at once. And these people have invested much more time and money into the sport than any fan...

Excellent point.

 

[vlaurend]

Random numbered points:

1. If you don't make the audience happy, then no one's going to watch as you determine the best skater in a fair and transparent manner. If there's no need to make the audience happy there was no need to change from the old format of two days of figures that determined the champions and a free skate that doesn't count for much. The economic fact is that audience supported sports have to balance athletic purism and keeping the audience happy or they'll stop being audience supported. I don't see the current judging system making audiences happy.

2. I think underrotated jumps _should_ be punished and have never said otherwise, but the current double punishment (downgrade and mandatory bad GOE's) is too severe.

3. I'm all in favor of transparency and fairness, the current ISU judging system does not excel in either regard.

4. I think a slightly underrotated triple axel with a well controlled landing (like Nakano's) shows greater skating skills than a fully rotated triple axel with a two-footed landing or step out or fall. For me, skating skills are about when the skate is on the ice, not in the air. In a fair judging system, I think Nakano's 3ax should have gotten credit as a triple with some negative GOE for the underrotation (and leg wrap).

I totally agree with you that the double punishment for under-rotated jumps is a major flaw in the current rules. I think any jump underrotated by more than 1/4 turn *should* be downgraded, but I don't think -GOE should be heaped on top of that unless the landing also had a stumble, step-out, 2-footing, hand down, etc. In the case of Yukari's 3A, I think it would have been fair to downgrade it to a 2A but with no negative GOE's (incidentally, she only has a leg wrap on her loop, flip and lutz, but a wrapped air position is not mentioned anywhere in the judges' GOE guidelines so technically they shouldn't be dinging her for it anyway).

As for making the audience happy, I think a major reason for punishing underrotations so harshly was to discourage skaters from attempting jumps that they could not land cleanly and consistently. At least in theory, that should be leading to fewer falls and more clean programs, which audiences do like.

Also, I think we need to look at the long-term effects starting at the lower levels of skating, not just national and world championship level. Historically, the #1 guarantee of a sport's popularity in a particular country seems to be the number of world and Olympic medals its athletes are winning in that sport. If skaters are allowed to get away with underrotated jumps at the Novice and Junior level (and don't forget, the ISU rules are for skaters at *all* levels), they will never bring home medals in international competition and the popularity of the sport will drop dramatically. There won't even be an audience to criticize the placements anymore.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

There seems to be a lot or concern about the happiness of fans being discussed here.

I believe that fans of any sport are more interested in the skills of the winner moreso than that of their 'favorite' winnning. But that's sport. Other contests may well require more than just a comparison of the candidates in skills. Poise, Grooming, musicianship, posture, etc. you know what I mean. How to Win an Annual Pageant.

Figure Skating, if it must continue on its CoP path should reconsider the meaning of the Short Program to be a more realistic analysis of the skaters' abilities towards its many required elements, and not just a few. We would then assume who has the best skills for that particular contest. Using music could continue if the fans demand it, but emphasis should be on skills.

Now for the 'artistic' side (I prefer to call it the Presentation) for the Long Program it would be a matter of how well these skills can be utilized in a program of music and choreography. While every move could be judged, emphasis should be on what we call the beauty of the Sport.

 

[Mathman]

Figure Skating, if it must continue on its CoP path should reconsider the meaning of the Short Program to be a more realistic analysis of the skaters' abilities towards its many required elements, and not just a few. We would then assume who has the best skills for that particular contest. Using music could continue if the fans demand it, but emphasis should be on skills.

Now for the 'artistic' side (I prefer to call it the Presentation) for the Long Program it would be a matter of how well these skills can be utilized in a program of music and choreography. While every move could be judged, emphasis should be on what we call the beauty of the Sport.

This is a great post, IMHO. The ISU would have to rethink the purpose of the short program and not just have it be a shorter long program.

And in turn, the long program would have a clearer purpose than just being a long short program.