I'm not sure what you mean by this. I don't think there is a description of a "technical program component score?"
If you read the descriptions of, for instance, "Skating Skills" it talks about skating
technique. "Edge control and flow over the ice demonstrated by a command of the skating vocabulary (edges, steps, turns, etc.), the clarity of technique, and the use of effortless power to accelerate and vary speed." Similarly for Transitions (rockers, counters, Mohawks, Choctaws, 3-turns, etc.) To me, this is part of the technical aspect of the sport, just like a camel spin is.
Under P/E, Choreography, and Interpretation, however, the description of what the judges are looking for starts out "Involvement of the skaters physically, emotionally and intellectually as they translate the intent of the music and choreography." To me, this is "performance," not "technique." It is more a matter of opinion than is the question of whether the skater did good counters and three turns (technique).
Anyways, even though each individual component was intended to be judged separately, this is obviously not happening. They are being used like the presentation score of the 6.0.
On another thread the point was made that the international judges mostly key the Program Component Scores to the Skating Skills component. That is, they give their mark for Skating Skills first, then the others fall in line.
In an experiment where they were asked to judge P/E, Choreo, and Interpretation first, the scores came out differently. So if you buy the idea that Skating Skills and Transitions are about technique and the other three are about artistry, then again it is the technical side of the things that is leading the way, with presentation trotting obediently behind.
By the way, it is interesting to me that Transitions is almost always the lowest of the five Program Component Scores -- I believe this is because it is the easiest to quantify (either you did some transitional elements or you didn't.)
Also, in my opinion the GOEs are clearly on the "technical" rather than the "presentation" side of the equation. For instance, negative GOEs on jumps are assigned for technical errors such as
Underrotation
Falls
Two-foot landings
Step out of landing
Wrong edge take-off, and
Touchdown with one or both hands
All of these things are "technical" and objective.
On the positive side, the criteria are
creative/difficult entry
recognizable steps into jump
varied air postition or delay in rotation
great height or distance
superior extension on landing
superior flow in and out
To get a +1 the jump must be error free and have 1 or 2 of these bullets, 3-4 bullets for +2, and 5-6 bullets for +3.
Although there is some judgement involved in deciding whether extention and flow is "superior" or not, still this is all about technique.
So I don't think we can really say that the IJS focuses more on presentation than on technique. It's just that there is more to good technical skating than just rotating jumps.
JMO.
.
. Maybe we should talk about, um, Evan Lysacek? I think his costume was better in the LP than earlier in the season, but his hair was weird.
Having seen very little of 4CC, I'm afraid I can't do much more than discuss Chan vs. everyone else, except maybe offer my opinions as to the skaters' costumes and styling. Can we do a 4CC edition of What not to wear?
