Men - Free Program

[jettasian]

^ Lambiel is the only recent skater that I would say actually tried to display different forms of dance in his routines.

But his jumps were never that good.

Lambiel I wish he had won the Olympics with a perfect performance. I thought he had the potential of becoming the "best skater ever".

Did you ask Stojko?

 

[skatinginbc]

There is no point for contest (regarding artistry)

Then there is no point for figure skating competitions where artistry is assessed with an interval scale.

as in life, elegance and sophistication are darn near impossible to fake. Patrick's skating and performance are just that, elegant and sophisticated.

His skating and choreography were indeed sophisticated, but his performance and presentation were not necessarily elegant. As you said, elegance is darn near impossible to fake, that's why Patrick's elegance sometimes came across as "dishonest" (I learn that expression from So You think you can dance). Don't get me wrong. I would have given him 9.25, which is very high. It is just not perfect yet.

Name me a skater who could skate these programs? And portray these emotions with such grand skating, not just acting, skills?...his artistry is unique

There is something wrong with that kind of logic. First of all, everyone is unique and therefore it is always true to claim that a person's artistry is unique and that there is no way one can duplicate the performance of another. Secondly, mixing skating skills with other components (e.g., presentation) is in direct violation of the spirit of IJS. "His artistry is excellent because his skating skill is excellent" is not convincing.

 

[skatinginbc]

Did you ask Stojko?

I'll call him if you give me his phone #.

 

[ImaginaryPogue]

But it is figure skating. Shouldn't that underpin everything in the first place?

 

[skatinginbc]

But it is figure skating. Shouldn't that underpin everything in the first place?

Yes, but not 100%. We are arguing whether one should receive perfect 10s or not in PE and IN.

 

[ImaginaryPogue]

Oh, that's easy. IMO, Chan didn't deserve tens for any PCS of this skate.

 

[Violet Bliss]

Yes, but not 100%. We are arguing whether one should receive perfect 10s or not in PE and IN.

I wasn't arguing about his PE and IN scores. I gave my contrary opinion on his artistry which is usually automatically denied as if it's an undebatable fact even his fans feel obliged to go along. As for scores, I feel with the judges and many commentators.

 

[wallylutz]

I'll call him if you give me his phone #.

He is actually pretty easy to find, especially these days because he coaches. He is also quite present these days at various events, especially competitions. Once, I remember at the Vancouver Olympics, I saw him walking on the streets of Vancouver talking on his cell phone. No one "mobbed" him, which wouldn't be the case 10 years ago.

 

[Violet Bliss]

Then there is no point for figure skating competitions where artistry is assessed with an interval scale.

How could you jump to "no point for competition" from my view on subjective artistry. "Artistry" comprises less than 30% of the total scores, especially less for programs with high TES values and there are guidelines for judges to go by, and they can score different skaters equally if they feel so.

His skating and choreography were indeed sophisticated, but his performance and presentation were not necessarily elegant. As you said, elegance is darn near impossible to fake, that's why Patrick's elegance sometimes came across as "dishonest" (I learn that expression from So You think you can dance). Don't get me wrong. I would have given him 9.25, which is very high. It is just not perfect yet.

That's exactly what I mean by subjective. It's your view and your score, which don't equal God given Truth.

There is something wrong with that kind of logic. First of all, everyone is unique and therefore it is always true to claim that a person's artistry is unique and that there is no way one can duplicate the performance of another.

You cut out the rest of my sentence - beyond the capacities of most. There are plenty of generic performances and a superior skater can skate most of the easier and simpler programs even if the expressions may be a little different, in most likelihood better than the inferior skaters who perform the programs. The inferior skaters OTOH wouldn't be able to demonstrate the same artistry if they have to skate a program of raised difficulty as they have to focus on staying up or struggling to do the moves in slow motion. Artistry despite extreme difficulty should be appreciated and rewarded with higher scores.

Secondly, mixing skating skills with other components (e.g., presentation) is in direct violation of the spirit of IJS. "His artistry is excellent because his skating skill is excellent" is not convincing.

This is like saying a pianist's better interpretation of a composition due to his superior skills doesn't count. Many factors contribute to good interpretation and performance of a figure skating program, including natural factors like body type, limbs, flexibility, even facial beauty or structure for expressions. Then there are innate or learned musicality, innate or learned rhythm as well as dance training, fitness, etc. but most importantly, skating skills, because it is figure skating. The artistry is to be demonstrated with skating skills. Else we could put a fine actor to stand on ice or a fine dancer in non-slip shoes to express emotions better than every skater.

 

[sunny0760]

His skating and choreography were indeed sophisticated, but his performance and presentation were not necessarily elegant. As you said, elegance is darn near impossible to fake, that's why Patrick's elegance sometimes came across as "dishonest" (I learn that expression from So You think you can dance). Don't get me wrong. I would have given him 9.25, which is very high. It is just not perfect yet.

Sorry, I just don't understand how Chan's performances can be described 'fake' or 'dishonest'. Some peolple may dislike his skating or his personality or both(as you see in this board and others and I know you are not one of them) but fake elegance? What do you see what I never see? I see honest atheleticism, pure quality skating which only can come from talent and long years' hard work.

As for PCS, my observation is 1) PCS for some skaters tend to be getting higher and higher each year, 2) PE is more or less influenced by clean skates. If you skate clean, your PE will go up, even though judges also care about your presentation ability or the reputation of your performing ability. 3) If top skaters make less mistakes than usual, in most cases, their PE and IN points are higher than their own SS/TR. Judges are more generous when they judge PE/IN. Therefore, we see many 9 or even 10 points in PE/IN. Especially, IN seems to be considered the most subjective so they can be the most generous about IN. 4) About CH, judges tend to give higher points to the programs with more choreography accompanied by speed and ice coverage, not exactly to the better program with regard to the artistic sense.

You seem to think Chan deserves higher points in SS/TR but not so much in PE/IN. OK. Many people would think so too. However, when I see Chan's protocols, I usually notice his IN is a little higher than his SS and of course, his TR which is always a little lower than his SS. If he skates clean or cleanish, his PE will go up.

Anyway, artistic, elegant, graceful are not my favorite words in FS because they are so subjective. FS should be accessed as a sports, whose beauty goes along with technique, strength and control. I somewhat understand why judges give more generous PE and IN in many cases. A skater's SS cannot be 100% perfect but IN includes something you cannot measure with numbers. Artistry cannot be measured...

However, I generally don't agree with 10s in PCS. Even if this is Nationals, this kind of judging can spread into internaional competitions. I wonder if some judges think 10s are equal to 6.0s? In the 6.0 era, they just decided 5.8 or 5.9 or 6.0 for top skaters. Now, 7.50, 7.75, 8.00, 8.25, 8.50, 8.75.... 10.00. 10.00 should be really, really rare.

For example, a skater skated really well so judges gave the heavenly skater three 10s last year but this year, the same skater improved even more. Should judges give him/her 10.25? Oh, they gave 14 year old Nadia Comaneci 10.00. Great. Chan certainly wowed me this time but I was not wowed by many 10s in his protocols.

 

[skatinginbc]

Mathman gave Chan 9.0 and I gave him 9.25 for his artistry. Those are high scores, Skatefiguring. Your posts came right after ours, so what exactly were you arguing about if it wasn't about the scores? Even if it was just a general impression of yours, most of the points you made could apply to Plueshenko's artistry or even Stojko's as well. "It's hard to do quads and perform at the same time, so I deserve high marks for artistry"---something Stojko might have said to himself. "It's hard to do all those difficult transitions and sell the program at the same time, so I deserve a high mark for presentation and interpretation."---It sounds like a copy of Stojko's logic.

A pianist's interpretation skills and technical skills are correlated positively but not perfectly. And the higher the level, the weaker the correlation. Some seasoned performers find Mozart's simple concertos challenging because there is no quick finger to hide the interpretation. I often wonder if there are no quick feet, can Patrick still create the so-called magic? Can he skate to Buttle's "easy" programs that oozed an unearthly feel? Or Lambiel's and Dai's elegant dance?

I think highly (9.25) of Chan's artistry, so it is redundant to tell me that his level is "beyond the capacities of most" and make a big argument about it. I'm talking about the best against the best, not the best against the vast average.

Honest atheleticism and pure quality skating do not always translate into honest performance (interpretation). They are correlated but not identical.

 

[Bluebonnet]

Mathman gave Chan 9.0 and I gave him 9.25 for his artistry.

What was that?

 

[skatinginbc]

That was just a rough term for his Performance and Interpretation scores at the National if you demand an essay on it.

 

[Violet Bliss]

I already stated that my post wasn't about particular scores, by judges or posters, but a general statement and reaction to a general perception and judgement on Chan's artistry, which is not a program component, but is always the last resort criticism of his skating. I usually don't respond to such criticism because it is subjective, which is why I usually stick to supportable facts and numbers to refute false claims and declarations, leaving out debatable issues even when they are false or highly exaggerated. I felt for once to voice my opinion too on this subjective perception.

As for judges, they have their criteria to go by, officially and personally. Some of them are experts in artistic fields. Obviously they view Chan's performances highly, whether in absolute or relative terms. They want to reward him, so a 10 may be something expected to be thrown out but help leave the overall score high, or, who knows, maybe they feel that relative to other skaters already scored, Chan's performance is worth 20 but they can only give out 10 max.

 

[skatinginbc]

I beg to differ. I think the general perception and judgement on Chan's artistry is that it is improving by leaps and bounds.

 

[Bluebonnet]

Well, but this logic leaves the men's filed just hopeless! Luckily, it's not true. A good deal of male skaters in the past and present could and can show the artistic performances and sophiticated presentations than that blah Aranjuez. I won't evet bother to start the list, it's quite long. 200 for doing what others could do years ago and even better is just embarrassing, like the whole inflation thing itself. It reminds me some soviet economy plan: they told us we must reach those numbers, so we will (forget the quality)!

That is simply not true!

If you extract those jumps out of his program and see only the jump content like how Stojko has done this time, yes, there is not much difference between his program and the programs years ago in Stojko era. But if you put all these jumps into a program as sophisticate as Patrick Chan's, no one has ever skated a clean program like that ever before.

I won't deny national bonus points from Canadian Nationals, as I won't deny any national bonuses from Japan Nationals, US Nationals, Russian Nationals, French Nationals, ... There is a reason why national scores won't be recorded as ISU record. Chan knows that. Everyone knows that. But NO ONE could deny that Chan has given over all the best skating ever under CoP scoring system. So the highest score ever is warranted reguardless whether it is over 300 or not.

 

[Mathman]

:thumbsup: I'm more generous. I would have given him 9.25. Choreography was not perfect either. "As a choreographer, I saw small details that need to be fixed,” said Lori Nichol.

I actually thought the choreography was outstanding. There did not seem to be any busy work just for the sake of being busy (or earning CoP points).

To me, the key to figure skating choreography is to weave the technical elements, especially the jumps, into the fabric of the full program. I thought Patrick/Lori did really well in this regard. The program held my interest throughout (very rare ).

[Judges] want to reward him, so a 10 may be something expected to be thrown out but help leave the overall score high...

I have always suspected it, looking at some of the protocols these days.

 

[Bluebonnet]

Patrick's CH is outstanding!!! I'd give him 10 for it!

 

[Mathman]

I'd add the solo quad and the 3A, and the 7th jump, Lutz?, and the 2A exit, all of these were gorgeous as well. So at world, I'm sure he will get many +GOE on these jumps, so I think he will probably get 290 to 295?

I think in general that judges should be more stingy with positive GOEs. A GOE of zero (absent mistakes) means that the jump was satisfactory in every respect. I believe that when the CoP first came out the instructions to judges were just something like, if the jump really blows you away, give it some positive GOE.

Now, though, the criteria seem to be pretty well defined. If you get six out of the following eight bullets, that is supposed to be a +3 GOE. The criteria do not require anything to be spectacular or amazing, just that the skater does this, that and the other.

Applying the bullets to Patricks solo 4T and 3A, I get something like this:

1) unexpected/creative/difficult entry. (Maybe; the entry was short, but not especially creative or unexpected)
2) clear recognizable steps/free skating movements immediately preceding element, (Sort of; not so sure about the immediately part)
3) varied position in the air / delay in rotation. (no)
4) good height and distance. (satisfactory, not exceptional.)
5) good extension on landing / creative exit (very good, not mind-blowingly good)
6) good flow from entry to exit including jump combinations / sequences. (yes)
7) effortless throughout. (yes)
8) element matched to musical structure. (pretty good)

So adding up the bullets, a generous judge might give him 7 out of 8 (+3GOE), and a stingier judge maybe only three for a +1. I guess that is why we have 9 judges (8 in this case).

 

[Violet Bliss]

Mathman, care to demonstrate with videos quads and 3As that that you deem better according to each bullet point? Will be much appreciated.