Why do "full rotations" matter?
- Thread starter Anna K.
- Start date
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2010
Lots of valid, interesting, and compelling arguments. Thanks for bringing all that up. You've definitely made me think a bit about my previous comments and I acknowledge that there was some hyperbole because you are correct, seven is too low for Ilya. Anyway, I do still stand behind the general thrust of my message and the fact that PCS is an area that still needs figuring out- but I appreciate the effort you put into your response, and the way it made me think.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
Thanks, and yes, and I do understand your point the need to award skaters for hard earned skating skills and their ability to perform and execute programs and choreo outside the elements. That should all be rewarded to an extent. The problem is because they’re so subjective judges will invariably use PCS as a means of holding down certain skaters even if they do well and propping up popular skaters when they do poorly. In a weird way by there not being a huge PCS spread it “forces” skaters to not depend on a predetermined PCS advantage and actually land/execute their jumps and spins, achieve levels, etc. PCS should elevate a skater and give them an edge, and in rare cases like Brown can make up for the lack of tech content - but if a skater (even if normally a great/popular skater) is sloppy they shouldn’t be saved by generous composition and skating skills scores for what they could have potentially delivered versus what they actually delivered.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
Getting back to qs, under-rotations and downgrades, I sadly believe that our enthusiasm for ever-more accurate measuring devices, perhaps aided (somehow) by artificial intelligence, is setting us up for disappointment.
No matter how good we get at measuring the number of degrees that skaters rotate in the air, this will not increase fans' enjoyment of figure skating competitions. It will not increase the popularity of figure skating for the general public. It will neither attract nor repel new fans. It will not decrease complaints that skating is a pseuosport, that the judges are biased and corrupt, that the ISU sucks, that my skater is being picked on while yours is being unfairly advanced. It will not discourage Internetters from rushing to their keyboards after every competition to post screen captures proving that the tech panel's call was obviously wrong, as -- look right here! -- any fool can see.
Twenty years ago the implementation of the IJS was ballyhooed as addressing these problems. It didn't.
Well, we should keep on chipping away at it with diligence, but I do not foresee any technological silver bullet coming to our rescue.
No matter how good we get at measuring the number of degrees that skaters rotate in the air, this will not increase fans' enjoyment of figure skating competitions. It will not increase the popularity of figure skating for the general public. It will neither attract nor repel new fans. It will not decrease complaints that skating is a pseuosport, that the judges are biased and corrupt, that the ISU sucks, that my skater is being picked on while yours is being unfairly advanced. It will not discourage Internetters from rushing to their keyboards after every competition to post screen captures proving that the tech panel's call was obviously wrong, as -- look right here! -- any fool can see.
Twenty years ago the implementation of the IJS was ballyhooed as addressing these problems. It didn't.
Well, we should keep on chipping away at it with diligence, but I do not foresee any technological silver bullet coming to our rescue.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2016
Getting back to qs, under-rotations and downgrades, I sadly believe that our enthusiasm for ever-more accurate measuring devices, perhaps aided (somehow) by artificial intelligence, is setting us up for disappointment.
No matter how good we get at measuring the number of degrees that skaters rotate in the air, this will not increase fans' enjoyment of figure skating competitions. It will not increase the popularity of figure skating for the general public. It will neither attract nor repel new fans. It will not decrease complaints that skating is a pseuosport, that the judges are biased and corrupt, that the ISU sucks, that my skater is being picked on while yours is being unfairly advanced. It will not discourage Internetrers from rushing to their keyboards after every competition to post screen captures proving that the tech panel's call was obviously wrong, as -- look right here! --any fool can see.
Twenty years ago the implementation of the IJS was ballyhooed as addressing these problems. It didn't.
Well, we can keep on chopping away at it with diligence, but I do not foresee any technological silver bullet coming to our rescue.
AI measuring jump rotations might not help attract new fans, but it would definitely make me happy and that's enough for me.
It would be so cool to see how drastically this could change results of competitions. Suddenly someone who usually has no chance to podium could win a competition simply cuz they actually do the rotations in the air. Ofc it would have to be carefully balanced but in principle I'd love this to happen some day.
But would it be acceptable for the technical side of skating (including, perhaps, takeoff and landing edges of jumps) to count for more than the technical side of rotating in the air?
Since 8s and 9s only go to the best skaters, skaters who have good choreography but only OK skill levels are not going to be rewarded with those scores.
When it comes to skaters with comparable skill levels to each other, yes, the ones with better choreography will typically earn higher, sometimes significantly higher, Composition scores. To some extent, then, the skaters who have better resources (primarily, the ability to pay for hire top choreographers) will be able to buy better scores for that component. But they still need to deliver it, so various technical or performance weaknesses can undermine what the choreography was trying to achieve. Including disruptive errors (by top skaters as well) that subtract details from the choreography, e.g., when a skater is racing to catch up after a fall rather than executing the nuances that were supposed to fill the moments between the failed element and the next element.
Top skaters with great choreography might still earn scores in the (lower) 9s even with one fall, but just think what scores they might have earned for a similar performance if those few seconds had included well-performed choreography instead of recovery from the error.
That is no longer the case -- the rules have been changed since that incident, in large part to prevent this kind of situation.
The PCS guidelines now state "For all Components: *When there is only one error and this error minimally impacts the program, the maximum score of 9.50 is possible as noted above. Note: For the above to apply, the program as a whole is still deemed to be “Excellent”. **When there are 2 or more errors and these errors only minimally impact the program, the maximum score of 8.75 is possible."
It doesn't explicitly say how much further PCS reduction to apply in case of 5 falls, but the intent to lower the PCS is apparent. You might still see PCS in the 8s for such a program from a top skater, but as high as 8.75 would be unlikely.
In addition, there are now more punitive fall deductions for subsequent falls. The first two falls get -1 deduction each, the third and fourth get -2 deduction each, and the fifth would get -3 deduction. So a program with five falls would now get -9 subtracted from the total segment score, not just -5.
Agreed that PCS should be based on what the skater does that day, and not on what judges know they're capable of based on what they've done on better days in the past.
When you say you want to see "everyone dropping about 0.5-1.0 points to leave room for when skaters actually deliver" do you mean that the maximum score even for top skaters without errors should be about 9.0 and anything higher is reserved for when they "actually deliver"? How do you define actually delivering?
Sometimes (at all skill levels), a performance with one fall might involve better delivery overall than a performance with no falls, if the latter was a cautious performance in which the skater skated more slowly, ignored the music, ignored the audience, and/or left out choreography in order to focus on getting the elements done successfully.
Yes.
Almost all the criteria of the Skating Skills component are technical qualities.
Composition is a mix of technical and artistic qualities. For example, a skater with weaker skills will not be able to demonstrate as much multidimensional movement and use of space, or as complex a pattern and as much coverage of the ice surface, as a stronger skater, or likely as interesting and difficult connections between elements. Unity might also suffer if they need to drop out of the choreography to telegraph jumps or even spin entrances. (And pair and dance elements as well.)
A skater with a well-choreographed program for their skill level will have an advantage over other skaters at their level, when they deliver the choreography, but if their technical limitations get in the way of delivering it as well as a stronger skater could, they're not going to earn the same scores.
The Presentation component is less technical. Though of course a skater who is struggling technically (not necessarily in terms of visible errors, but also needing to focus on what they're doing technically in order to avoid errors) will have less energy to spare for expressing, projecting, timing movements to music, and showing variety and contrast of energy and movements.
Well, if they have high difficulty in their step sequence and the program includes a step sequence, then that's at least one element they'll get credit for so the TES wouldn't be 0. If they do a leveled step sequence in a junior free skate, which now includes a choreographic sequence, and it doesn't meet the requirements for a choreo sequence, then yes, they'd get no credit for that element either.
I think it's more likely that a skater would have no elements that count (aside from maybe the step sequence) in a short program because the requirements are stricter. Especially junior SPs. E.g., suppose the skater singles all their jumps (or does the wrong takeoff for the one double or triple jump they do execute in a junior short, after having done a 1-1 combination), does the wrong position in the flying spin and the same position in the solo spin, and fails to change feet in the combo spin. That could end up with almost no elements that earn any scores but the errors might not seem very disruptive to a viewer who doesn't know the rules.
Or, of course, an injured skater might leave out all the elements but still skate the rest of the program and perform that all well.
Well, the function could be considered to be a placeholder to hang the GOEs on. Of course in that case the base value could be 0.00 or close to it, and it's only possible to gain points by meeting certain criteria, not to lose points.
But do we want judges to have the discretion to distinguish between choreo sequences that meet the requirements with no enhancements to earn positive GOE, vs. those that meet the requirements to be recognized and called as a choreo sequence but are performed so badly that they should receive negative GOE, vs. those that are such lame attempts that they don't even meet the basic requirements to be called?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
This is the best sentence on this thread.AI measuring jump rotations might not help attract new fans, but it would definitely make me happy and that's enough for me.
I think you can get less than 3.00 with a negative GOE, though I don't have any examples.
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2023
Hana Yoshisa received negative GOE on her choreography sequence at Skate America, and scored 2.79 for that element.
Anthony Paradis at Skate Canada Challenge 2023-24. He fell during the choreo sequence and the negative GOE made the element 0.8 points.
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2019
Is this actually practiced? I was watching out for it, and I had never seen mounting deductions for falling 3rd time, and getting -4. I want to see it in a protocol, because they always just say -1 for fall. Also PCSs should penalize even one fall that is a catastrophic, out of control versus a fall that is a bounce-back to their feet. Save for being bad for tech it also changes the audience's perception even if it is just one, at least for me. I just can't be bothered about their interpretation of whatever music if I am worrying about them being able to walk after this.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
That kind of illustrates the dilemma. How much effort is this skater going to devote to working on this element and maybe salvaging that extra twenty-one hundredth of a point?
Paolo Borromeo's free skate at Asian Open should show what you're looking for with the deductions, protocols are here.
It shows how much he had deducted and how many falls he had in parantheses.
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2019
Omg, poor guy. But yes, thank you. It doesn't break it down, just gives total of deductions. I could imagine the judges were traumatized.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
I think the takeoff and landing should matter (a poor/pre-rotated takeoff should reduce GOE). But ultimately to scrutinize that for every jump for every skater would take way too much time (and without the assistance of technology).
Correct that a program with 5 falls would get -9 deduction. But the fact remains that the judges could STILL award a skater 8.75 on composition and skating skills and claim it "fits within the rules". Whereas a clean skater who's got great tech content but not the clout/country to back them may never get 8's.
When you say you want to see "everyone dropping about 0.5-1.0 points to leave room for when skaters actually deliver" do you mean that the maximum score even for top skaters without errors should be about 9.0 and anything higher is reserved for when they "actually deliver"? How do you define actually delivering?
I mean that 9.5 and 10 is reserved for only a FLAWLESS performance in every sense. The biggest problem with "Maximum PCS for each component is 9.50." is that a judge can give 9.5's across the board, but with the presumption that the program without the falls would have scored 10.00 for every component. This of course does not apply to even the best programs skated, as there is invariably a bobble here or an incorrect edge.
A skater with 2+ falls could get 8.75 for every component, and this would mean their program was a 10.00 for every component without the major errors. Judges are treating the PCS threshold as the maximum allowed to give, but not treating it 8.75 as the new 10.00 (i.e. all PCS scores should be 1.25 lower than what you'd normally give that program if not for those errors).
Let's put it this way - the Georgians had two serious errors (at minimum) - the fall on the 3S, and an aborted lift (I know an aborted lift isn't specifically defined as a serious error but it was a "mistake that results in a noticeable break in the delivery and flow of the program"). Which means instead of a 10.00 the MAX they could get was 8.75 (1.25 mandatory deduction, at minimum). So based on the PCS the Georgians were given you would assume that without the errors, the Georgians would have gotten 1.25 more than what each judge ulitmately gave them. The Georgians got 8.25-8.75. Logically speaking then, without the errors, this means that had they skated clean, it would have been suitable to award them 9.5-10.00 (including a 10.00 on SS) on every component. Which of course is unjustifiable if we are being actually critical of performances. https://www.isuresults.com/results/...------FNL-000100--_JudgesDetailsperSkater.pdf
So if a judge gives a skater a 9.5 PCS score on a program with one error, or an 8.75 PCS score for a program with multiple major errors, then we need to question them on whether they truly believe that skater, on a day when they are error-free, legitimately deserves maximums of 10.00's across the board.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
Thank you (and Ashley) so much for that observation. To me, that is just common sense. If you are turning on the ice as you land, then in the fraction of a second that it takes to get the full blade down and start bearing weight you will automatically rotate an extra 20, 30, 40 degrees past where you have to be for a satisfactory controlled run-out.
Figure Skating ias a human ebdeavor. The important thing is, how do figure skaters actually skate? not some theoretical abstract mathematical model based on rotating cylinders. That is why the emphasis on scientific measurement technology is not guaranteed to be useful and may even turn out to be misleading.
Was that taking the -1 for the fall into account? If it isn't, he actually got .8-1.0 =-.2 for the element. Except for the effect on his components (would skipping an choreo elements have more effect on those than a fall?), he would have had a better score by skipping the element altogether.
A negative net score is easy for pairs skaters to achieve on a SBS jump; one partner pops, the other falls. Between the small base, the straight -5 goes, and the fall deduction, it's easy to go negative overall.
Not to mention the skater.
Poor guy indeed. To add insult to injury, he also had a 1 point deduction for a time violation. Probably all that picking himself up made him late ending.
It wasn't taking the deduction into account. His TES may have been better if he'd skipped it, but I think his PCS would have suffered without it since composition would have to take into account a missing choreo sequence.
