Skaters who can dominate both in IJS and 6.0.

[Mathman]

Post script. OK, so I just watched Kim's Les Miz again for the hundredth time , and the question occurred to me again: what is the relation between the individual elements and the overall performance. Usually this debate takes the form of, if you fall on a jump should that adversely effect the program component scores.

But for this performance, did the skater really deserve all +2s and +3s for the layback spin and choreography spiral? The spiral fit the musical structure well but was otherwise unremarkable, while there was something a little unfinished, IMHO, in the layback. Maybe the judges were frustrated that they couldn't give her a +4 for her Lutzes, flip, and double Axel, so they made up for it here. :yes:

 

[Moment]

I thought the choreographic sequence was amazing. The emphasis was obviously not on a standard arabesque spiral, but rather a footwork sequence to match the musical drama. The skating moves were executed with clear deep edges and great flow throughout. I would give it at least a +2.

As for her layback, I hope she utilizes the acceleration feature more clearly and ... not do the haircutter.

 

[Mathman]

I thought the choreographic sequence was amazing. The emphasis was obviously not on a standard arabesque spiral, but rather a footwork sequence to match the musical drama. The skating moves were executed with clear deep edges and great flow throughout. I would give it at least a +2.

Oh..wait a sec. Help me to understand this better, please, OK? Does the choreography spiral sequence comprise everything she does from about 3:47 in this video to about 3:57? If so, yes, that's great!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVugFhHWmC0

 

[Krislite]

Oh..wait a sec. Help me to understand this better, please, OK? Does the choreography spiral sequence comprise everything she does from about 3:47 in this video to about 3:57? If so, yes, that's great!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVugFhHWmC0

It's 3:47 to 4:14--including all the steps/turns after the spiral and before the Ina Bauer.

 

[Mathman]

 

[gkelly]

But for this performance, did the skater really deserve all +2s and +3s for the layback spin and choreography spiral? The spiral fit the musical structure well but was otherwise unremarkable, while there was something a little unfinished, IMHO, in the layback. Maybe the judges were frustrated that they couldn't give her a +4 for her Lutzes, flip, and double Axel, so they made up for it here. :yes:

The bullet points for positive GOEs on spins are as follows:

1) Good speed or acceleration during the spin
2) Ability to center the spin quickly
3) Balanced rotations in all positions
4) Clearly more than required number of revolutions
5) Good position(s) (including height and air position in flying spins)
6) Creativity and originality
7) Good control throughout all phases
8) Element matched to the musical structure

I thought Kim's layback easily met criteria 1, 2, 4, 7, and 8.

The guidelines are to give +1 for two bullet points, +2 for four, and +3 for 6. So with five bullet points met, it's a choice between +2 or +3. For those judges who gave +3, maybe they felt that the quality of the positions and/or the balance between sideways, basic attitude with back arch, and haircutter, although not exceptional, were strong enough to qualify as "good" and tip the balance up from +2 to +3.

 

[jaylee]

I think you will find that any way you slice it, it is the judgments of the judges that determine who wins and loses.

In the 2013 world championship just concluded, if the only thing that counted was the objective point scores, Yuna's Les Miz would have been fourth. The base values for completed technical elements were

Asada 62.30
Gold 60.31
Li 60.60
Kim 58.22

So if Kim got fourth place in the "sport" part, why do we all agree that she totally tore up the field?

Kim didn't get fourth place in the "sport" part. Comparing base values without factoring in the GOE is wrong because it doesn't factor in either the mistakes (negative GOE) or the positive GOE (the positive qualities of the execution). It is not even the "objective point score" because it doesn't reflect the errors.

That's why Asada, Gold, and Li having a higher "base value" than Kim is meaningless in itself because each of them had mistakes that they were penalized for. Mao and Gold had several faulty landings. Li had the flutz deduction.

By focusing solely on who has the higher base value, then that means a skater who rotated but fell on every single triple jump (but with some difficult jumps, such as lutzes, or even triple axels) could end up with a higher base value than a skater who rotated and had a clean landing on every single jump (with some slightly easier jumps). That's because base value doesn't take the negative GOE into account.

And that is extremely bogus.

 

[Ven]

I completely agree with Jaylee.

 

[Mathman]

The distinction was between the part of the scoring that is cut and dried, in the same way that in hockey you either score a goal or you don't, and the part that is up to the judgment of the judges. Was Yuna's layback spin "well matched to the musical structure," as well as being "creative and original," and so deserving of higher GOE? Or does this require human judgment?

 

[Blades of Passion]

The bullet points for positive GOEs on spins are as follows:

1) Good speed or acceleration during the spin
2) Ability to center the spin quickly
3) Balanced rotations in all positions
4) Clearly more than required number of revolutions
5) Good position(s) (including height and air position in flying spins)
6) Creativity and originality
7) Good control throughout all phases
8) Element matched to the musical structure

I thought Kim's layback easily met criteria 1, 2, 4, 7, and 8.

The guidelines are to give +1 for two bullet points, +2 for four, and +3 for 6. So with five bullet points met, it's a choice between +2 or +3. For those judges who gave +3, maybe they felt that the quality of the positions and/or the balance between sideways, basic attitude with back arch, and haircutter, although not exceptional, were strong enough to qualify as "good" and tip the balance up from +2 to +3.

I don't at all agree the spin easily met the criteria for bullet points 4 and 7.

How did the spin have significantly more revolutions than required? She held the sideways position and regular position just a couple rotations more than necessary to get the levels and the haircutter was held for exactly the miminum.

As for good control throughout all phases, she slowed down on the haircutter and the edging as the spin ended wasn't the most secure.

 

[Ven]

The distinction was between the part of the scoring that is cut and dried, in the same way that in hockey you either score a goal or you don't, and the part that is up to the judgment of the judges.

But there are rules (or rather guidelines) for GOE, and the technical score includes these marks. To be technically accurate, you are right, the GOE is up to the judges, but you have to admit the base value + GOE system is much much better for technical scoring than 6.0 and the fairest system ever used for figure skating.

The GOE is necessary, obviously base score is not the only thing that matters, otherwise a skater could mess up all of their jumps and still win.

If skater A has a base score of 62 or 60 and messes up several elements, and another skater has a base value of 58 but performs elements of exquisite quality, who should win? CoP chooses the right winner.

 

[Mathman]

...you have to admit the base value + GOE system is much much better for technical scoring than 6.0 and the fairest system ever used for figure skating.

So far I have been able to resist making this admission. The reason why is because of the difference between measuring (quantity) and judging (quality). Quality cannot be measured. That's why we call it quality instead of quantity.

What we can do, in evaluating quality, is to compare two like objects to each other. This one is better than that. This is the essence of ordinal judging.

I have no quarrel with the IJS, however. I just think the argument that it is a more "objective" system than others does nor really bear scrutiny.

 

[gkelly]

How did the spin have significantly more revolutions than required? She held the sideways position and regular position just a couple rotations more than necessary to get the levels and the haircutter was held for exactly the miminum.

The minimum number of revolutions required in the senior freeskate for a spin in one position with no change of foot is 6. This spin had at least 16.

 

[Ven]

This is just a conjecture, but has anyone ever brought up the possibility that coaching might be part of the problem with IJS? Is it possible that most of the top level coaches and choreographers did not like the change, that they were too entrenched in the old system, and they either consciously or subconsciously resisted the change and failed to maximize the talent of their skaters within IJS?

It seems to me that if a coach or choreographer has disdain for the IJS, they might pass this on through their work and it could also carry over to the skater.

 

[jaylee]

The distinction was between the part of the scoring that is cut and dried, in the same way that in hockey you either score a goal or you don't, and the part that is up to the judgment of the judges. Was Yuna's layback spin "well matched to the musical structure," as well as being "creative and original," and so deserving of higher GOE? Or does this require human judgment?

Um, so scoring that doesn't take into account the penalty for falls, two-foots, turn-outs, and otherwise sloppy landings is more objective than scoring than takes into account the quality (positive or negative)? That means every skater who makes mistakes goes unpunished while skaters who execute elements with quality and make no mistakes get no advantage. That makes no sense.

 

[Mathman]

That means every skater who makes mistakes goes unpunished while skaters who execute elements with quality and make no mistakes get no advantage. That makes no sense.

I think that under 6.0 the skaters were quite severely punished for falls (especially) and for two-foots, turn outs, and otherwise sloppy landings. More so than under IJS.

I think that under 6.0 skaters who executed their elements with quality and made no mistakes were more greatly rewarded than under IJS. A clean program (no mistakes) was especially prized. Now, not so much.

 

[Mathman]

This is just a conjecture, but has anyone ever brought up the possibility that coaching might be part of the problem with IJS? Is it possible that most of the top level coaches and choreographers did not like the change, that they were too entrenched in the old system, and they either consciously or subconsciously resisted the change and failed to maximize the talent of their skaters within IJS?

It seems to me that if a coach or choreographer has disdain for the IJS, they might pass this on through their work and it could also carry over to the skater.

That's a good point. Certainly there have been many coaches who were not fans of the IJS. Probably not so much any more, though -- I think everyone is resigned to the new system (which, after all, isn't new any more).

But some coaches and choreographers are more savvy than others, even as some skaters are better able to take full advantage of point-getting potential. Patrick Chan, for instance, has won three straight world championships by finding every last hundredth of a point hiding under every CoP rock.

 

[Blades of Passion]

The minimum number of revolutions required in the senior freeskate for a spin in one position with no change of foot is 6. This spin had at least 16.

The minimum needed for a spin to even score is a different property. When a spin is getting higher levels because it is utilizing the "at least 8 revolutions in one position" feature, along with other features that required minimum rotations in other positions, the bar becomes set higher for what should be considered "significantly more revolution than required". Otherwise there would be no way to distinguish between the spin Yu-Na did and a spin that, for example, held out multiple positions for 8+ revolutions (Alissa Czisny and Caroline Zhang both do this in their laybacks).

 

[jaylee]

I think that under 6.0 the skaters were quite severely punished for falls (especially) and for two-foots, turn outs, and otherwise sloppy landings. More so than under IJS.

I think that under 6.0 skaters who executed their elements with quality and made no mistakes were more greatly rewarded than under IJS. A clean program (no mistakes) was especially prized. Now, not so much.

With all due respect, Mathman, you're changing the argument. Whether 6.0 or IJS punishes falls/mistakes more or less is not the issue that we were discussing.

You were comparing base values (which does not factor in any +/- GOE for errors or positive qualities of execution) and saying that it's an "objective" measure and arguing that three skaters had higher base values than Yu-Na as if that meant something.

You can't argue that so-and-so had the highest ranked base value and pretend that that is an objective measure of technical elements and that it means something significant when base value doesn't reflect the penalties for errors.

Two skaters who have the exact same jump layout and rotate the exact same jumps, but one falls on every single one, will have identical base values. What you're using as an "objective" measure means that falls and mistakes have zero penalty at all.

 

[gkelly]

The minimum needed for a spin to even score is a different property. When a spin is getting higher levels because it is utilizing the "at least 8 revolutions in one position" feature, along with other features that required minimum rotations in other positions, the bar becomes set higher for what should be considered "significantly more revolution than required".

The judges are not keeping track of what is required for higher levels. That's the tech panels' job. Most judges who aren't also controllers have not memorized what's required for each feature.

Judges are just judging what they see according to the guidelines for positive and negative GOE. The bullet point for spins says "Clearly more than required number of revolutions." It does not say "Clearly more than required number of revolutions for each feature" or "Clearly more than the expected number of revolutions for a level 4 spin."

Judges also see a lot of bad spins that do not clearly exceed or do not even meet the minimum requirements.

If you're only watching elite skaters, you're not getting a full picture of what to expect.