In addition to Robeye's points, I want to address some more of Mathman's questions.
Choreography.
Purpose: Idea, concept, vision, mood. Check, check, check, check. Her program was a cartoony march. Every movement served the concept, vision, and mood.
Unity: every step, movement, and element is motivated by the music. As well, all its parts, big or small, seem necessary to the whole, and there is an underlying vision or symbolic meaning that threads together the entire composition. Check. Much better in this regard than many senior programs at the championship level, where it is not clear that the program has a concept.
These are some of the bullet points for Choreography. The program met them.
To what degree this program met these criteria is another question. How much depth was there to what the choreography asked the skater to do (its purpose), and how well did she succeed?
E.g., a march is one of the easiest rhythms to keep time to -- and therefore a good choice for a young beginner. In this case the choreography acknowledged the eight-measure phrases of the music and the skater mostly executed the movements within those phrases. During the forward stroking and crossovers it asked her to take evenly timed strokes on each downbeat, with no need for subtle rise and fall in the knees. The quality of the movement was appropriate to that (very simplistic) purpose, requiring a low level of skating skill, but the actual timing of the strokes did not perfectly match the beats of the music. The skater was marching, but not quite on the beat. So that slight falling short of the purpose in the execution would affect the Interpretation more than the Choreography.
The other Choreography bullet points are
*Proportion (equal weight of all parts)
The elements of this program were well balanced against each other in the context of this skill level. Compared to programs at higher skill levels, however, the magnitude of the program as a whole was minimal in the amount of time and space that it filled and lacking in other parts (types of skills) that would be expected at those higher levels.
*Utilization of personal and public space.
The skater did a pretty good job of filling a space the size of her own body -- she wasn't hunched or curled in on herself, she wasn't tentative in her use of arms and free leg, she didn't look down much. But neither did she look up and out at the spectators or extend fully to the limits of her body's proportions and send energy past the ends of her arms and leg and up through her head. She did OK on this criterion, especially for this level, but didn't excel.
*Pattern and ice coverage.
Here is where the program layout is very typical of its skill level and severely lacking compared to what we see at higher levels. It started out toward one end of the ice with some backward marching and then forward stroking down the center of the rink. After that there were crossover circles around that end of the ice and some other moves that mostly occurred in that same third of the length, near the middle of the width. Aside from those circles at the end, the skater never got near the boards. Her travel patterns were only straight lines, a circle in each direction, and a few other small counterclockwise curves. There was never any depth of edge or weaving between clockwise and counterclockwise patterns, let alone with any surprise change of direction. On a scale of 0-10, the patterning of this program was somewhere around a 1 -- which is expected at that skill level. I bet most of her competitors used similar patterns.
*Phrasing and Form (Movement and parts are structured to match the phrasing of the music)
Yes, they were. The phrasing of the music was very obvious and simple, and the movement was structured to match that.
The detailed explanation of the bullet point refers to a movement phrase "flow[ing] easily and naturally into the next movement phrase." "Flowing easily and naturally" are not words that characterize this particular performance. The movements and especially the stroking were stiff and isolated. To a degree that is appropriate because of the march theme -- but as Robeye points out, the theme was undoubtedly chosen by a wise coach/choreographer to fit the movements that the skater was capable of.
*Originality of purpose, movement, and design
I'd say that there was some originality in the commitment to a coherent theme and in some of the specific movements such as the little dance poses at the end of the ice and the arm movements in the attitude/spirals. But nothing especially unique -- and as mentioned, the program layout (stroke down the center, place the crossovers on the hockey circles at the end) is probably seen from most programs at this level.
Interpretation: Expression of the music’s style, character, and rhythm. Maintaining the character and style of the music throughout the entire program by use of body and skating techniques to depict a mood, style, shape, or thematic idea as motivated by the structure of the music.
Let's look at the detailed criteria.
*Effortless movement in time to the music.
Ability to translate music through sureness of rhythm, tempo, effective movement, and effortless flow over the ice surface by: rhythmic continuity, awareness of all tempo/rhythm changes in a variety of ways
This performance was not characterized by sureness or effortless flow or any tempo/rhythm changes.
*Expression of the music's style, character, and rhythm.
Yes, on a macro scale. And sometimes the movements did match the rhythm on a beat-to-beat level as well. Other times they were off the beat -- in a style that by its nature calls for precision.
*Use of finesse to reflect the nuances of the music.
There weren't many nuances to begin with. Not much opportunity to meet this criterion.
P&E. Physical, emotional, and intellectual involvement
In all skating disciplines each skater must be physically committed, sincere in emotion, and equal in comprehension of the music and in execution of all movement.
OK, I don't know what that means.
Projection. The skater radiates energy resulting in an invisible connection with the audience.
She could have thrown caution to the winds a bit more, but I (representing the audience) was in her corner.
So, she was OK, basically adequate on that criterion.
What about the other Performance/Execution bullet points?
*Carriage
Carriage is a trained inner strength of the body that makes possible ease of movement from the center of the body. Alignment is the fluid change from one movement to the next.[that's not how I personally would define "alignment," but let's go with it]
Well, pretty good for this level. She did stand up straight and did not significantly break at the waist on her forward stroking. But I wouldn't say there was much trained inner strength, ease of movement, or fluidity.
*Clarity of movement
Again, pretty good for this level, (understandably) nowhere near what we'd expect at novice-junior-senior levels.
*Variety and contrast
Not much
It seems to me that the judges must be looking for something else besides what they wrote in the bullets, or they would have to give that performance a 5.
Of course that program wasn't scored under IJS, so we don't know what the judges would have given if it had been.
I suspect that, if it had been scored on all 5 program components, that it would have scored highest on Choreography, for the strengths that you point out, and would have scored higher than most other performances at that skill level.
But in the greater scheme of things, there were significant weaknesses in this performance compared to what we see at more advanced levels. That's only to be expected. But just because a beginner program is surprisingly strong in some criteria doesn't mean that everything else would be ignored.
I swear to you that I did not click on the link until just now! Great minds and all that...
) Anyway, in some of the dances there were like 10 or so couples on the floor at the same time, possibly involved in two or more separate competitions. The judges were expected to keep it all straight.
