Analyzing Sotnikova and Kim's footwork in the FS

[Alba]

Height is way overrated in my books. The landing and how a jump is woven into a program should be of more significant impact on scoring to me.

Yep. Don't get me wrong, I love high jumps and when it's done well it's a WOW jump, with men it happens more often, but I don't like shaky and stiff landings. It gives me as a viewer a sense of insecurity. First of all I like the fluidity, the running edge jumps.
One of the most things I did appreciate about Yuna's jumps was not the height or the distance covered (that too) but the fluidity coming out from her jumps. That's what gives the idea or the sense of effortless, IMO.

 

[FSGMT]

3. Crossovers - some say Adelina had less crossovers but that's because she didn't cover enough ice. With the same amount of time given, she lack speed and covered less ice. (Look up the ice coverage comparisons)
http://youtu.be/Lf7V6DTHuhw this is a raw cam. Just look at her speed.

This is completely off-topic, but I would like to add my opinion here: I saw Adelina skating twice (in Zagreb 2013 and in Budapest this year), and I have to say that her ice coverage is GREAT! I clearly remember that in 2013 I didn't like her Aguilera FS at all, but I was really impressed by her ss and ice coverage, so much that immediatly after she skated (Kostner had already skated) I thought "Well, she's the only one here who comes close to Caro in terms of use of the rink" (SO MUCH better than Liza, who skated incredibly well there, for example). Since Caro is often compared to Yu-Na in SS, I would say that Adelina is not really far behind at all!

 

[JayW]

Yes, indeed -- and "finishing" the landing a la Michelle Kwan. I'll look for an example & post a clip if I find one.

EDIT: This is MK in her "Salome" program from 1996 Worlds. Watch the jump around 2:00 and the lovely landing position...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKmUW8wPB0s

Yes, the exit of MK's 2a is a beauty, same can be said for the Romanza!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1imuQWeIi4Q, around 1.57mins.

 

[Blades of Passion]

You have be to unbiased to get heard. Right now you have an agenda.

Everyone has an agenda. Mine is improving the sport. What's yours?

 

[jand0387]

Yes, although I haven't taken time to write it all down yet. It should have been called as Level 3. At this point, it kind of feels like I'd be wasting my own time to write it all down, although I will if people really want to see. I'd like to focus on trying to push for improving the sport going forward, rather than revisiting an ugly step sequence and yet another judging mistake that was made in Sochi.

Blades of passion, you were the only one brave enough to face skeptism and outcries in this Golden Skate community where there's always ugly spats between fans - and you shared your expertise. I truly appreciate your effort. Your work actually has great impact in the works of the people who are trying to better the sport of figure skating. There are people still waiting for your analysis. And please check out www.sochiscandal.com - your valuable work serves great purpose!

 

[Mathman]

And please check out www.sochiscandal.com - your valuable work serves great purpose!

I think there is one point on which there is a misunderstanding of ISU procedure on this web site. Quoting correspondence with Prof. Virgili on the subject of whether it is unusual for the same Russian judge to be chosen over and over for competitions at which Adelina Sotnikova participated, the text says:

According to ISU rules, the Organizing Committee should select one (and not more than one), from the official lists. So what matters here is the number N of Russian judges who are on the list.

For a random draw, the probability to select a special judge is just the ratio 1/N, in our case 1/10 (considering the 10 ISU judges). For more competitions, the probability to select always the same judge is the product of the probabilities (independent draws). For 5/5 competitions this probability is 1/100000. (1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 = 1/100000.) Clearly the fact that the same judge was always present in 5/5 competitions is incompatible with a random draw.

I am pretty sure that this is not at all the procedure for selecting judges for major competitions. What happens is that there is a draw among those member federations (countries, not individual judges) which have qualified judges and wish to participate. Since there are a lot of places to fill it is not a surprise that the major federations such as USA, Canada, and Russia get chosen to participate in most competitions. Then the federation puts forward the name of the judge that they want to send.

in the case of Mrs. Shekhovtseva, she is the favored judge of the Russian Federation (duh! ) and usually gets her pick of which events she wants to officiate at. Other countries, too, send their top judges to all the main events, and judges a little farther down the pecking order have to wait their turn and work their way up the ladder.

In any case, there is no "random draw" by a event's organizing committee from the full list of the 10 qualified Russian judges -- the organizing committee accepts the nominee of the federation. That is, the probability is 1/1, not 1/10, that the particular judge nominated is chosen.

 

[skatedreamer]

Yes, the exit of MK's 2a is a beauty, same can be said for the Romanza!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1imuQWeIi4Q, around 1.57mins.

Actually, I think the one in "Romanza" is even prettier. And that Ina Bauer at the beginning -- simply stunning. The incredible thing is that the US judge put her 2nd. Who'd'a thunk it?

Love the Eurosport commentary, too...thanks so much for the link!

 

[AC96]

And please check out www.sochiscandal.com - your valuable work serves great purpose!

I am absolutely a proponent that Sotnikova should have been bronze (possibly even 4th) in Sochi, but this sochiscandal website seems downright delusional to me. The person who created this website is making absurd assertions like how Yuna should have received 10s in PCS and 2.1 GOE on her 3-3 combinations without even demonstrating full knowledge of the criteria of giving GOE. The author calls Sotnikova's program construction "cowardly" (it might have been a bit tailored to COP but so are all programs nowadays), tries to dissect every single nuance of Kim's program to find some profound secondary meaning that doesn't exist, and uses other ridiculous language that I don't agree with at all. As I said, I think Yuna should have outscored Adelina handily, but this website only contributes to disseminating misinformation.

 

[jand0387]

I am absolutely a proponent that Sotnikova should have been bronze (possibly even 4th) in Sochi, but this sochiscandal website seems downright delusional to me. The person who created this website is making absurd assertions like how Yuna should have received 10s in PCS and 2.1 GOE on her 3-3 combinations without even demonstrating full knowledge of the criteria of giving GOE. The author calls Sotnikova's program construction "cowardly" (it might have been a bit tailored to COP but so are all programs nowadays), tries to dissect every single nuance of Kim's program to find some profound secondary meaning that doesn't exist, and uses other ridiculous language that I don't agree with at all. As I said, I think Yuna should have outscored Adelina handily, but this website only contributes to disseminating misinformation.

Right... But the author does work with the citeria there (for the PCS). And in case you haven't noticed, the author was comparing yuna's Les miserables vs Adios Nonino because they have the same elements. So you are saying judges were incompetent back in 2013 as well when they 'absurdly' gave out 1.9 GoEs to her jumps? how would you have scored it according to GoE guidelines? Since you seem to be the expert to point out the absurdity?

 

[Sam-Skwantch]

Right... But the auor does work with the citeria there (for the PCS). And in case you haven't noticed, the author was comparing yuna's Les miserables vs Adios Nonino because they have the same elements. So you are saying judges were incompetent back in 2013 as well when they 'absurdly' gave out 1.9 GoEs to her jumps? how would you have scored it according to GoE guidelines? Since you seem to be the expert to point out the absurdity?

Yuna 2013 Worlds > Yuna Sochi

Bad comparison IMO. Plus scores can't really be compared from event to the next. The composition of a field always impacts JUDGED events.


K
Re: Jump GOE guidelines in use during last season. Word for word.

To establish the starting GOE Judges must take into consideration the bullets for each element. It is at the discretion of each Judge to decide on the number of bullets for any upgrade, but general recommendations are as follows:

FOR + 1 : 2 bullets
FOR + 2 : 4 bullets
FOR + 3 : 6 or more bullets

You realize this means a judge has the freedom to award +3 GOE for a jump without establishing 6 bullets. It's just suggested that 6 bullets are achieved. It's not "cheating" to award GOE in this fashion. The judges are given certain freedom to judge. That is why we have 9 judges and drop the highest and lowest scores. Yuna did score two 10's from one judge in PCS which is extremely laughable to me. Fortunately that judge and his/her lowest PCS mark of 9.5 were tossed out. :yes: So no need to fret. Honestly part of me doesn't think it's that unlikely to believe that judge was giving out high scores like candy and maybe even awarded Adelina ridiculous numbers as well. Nothing wrong with exploring all options.

Re: step sequences

I have been tossing around in my head for days searching for a better way to score them. What confuses me here is the people who seem to be pushing for greater artistic freedom in skating really get caught up on the technical side of scoring especially the StSeq.

Could we not score a StSeq more like a choreographed sequence? I think the levels are way too important as is and takes from the artistic impact. Does anyone...especially non skaters...care how many choctaws or mohawks people do and in which direction they go? How is that artistic?

I'd rather establish a step sequence as a being around 4-5 pts and then just apply GOE and minor deductions. The artistic impact and visual image created on the ice should be more rewarded than the amount of steps and the direction they are going.

Yes I understand the point in the levels as they are, I just think they are overly focused on and not enough importance given the flow and concept behind it. Especially if we are going to break down scores based on turns and steps as a primary determining factor and blatantly ignoring judging freedom when it comes to GOE. The programs are busy enough as is so can't we allow for more artistic freedom and expression and actually award it?

Even if Adelina had been given the wrong level of StSeq I fail to see how that affects the GOE? They are judged separately are they not? Again the GOE bullets used to award are merely suggestions just as above. The judge can be moved by the flow and conviction of a StSeq and reward as they see fit.

Honestly when it comes to StSeq I am no expert and welcome corrections or suggestions. So does anyone else think that the focus of StSeq would be better if we freed the skaters to not be forced to tick boxes for levels and instead tap into the feel and flow of the steps and the music?

 

[FSGMT]

Re: step sequences

I have been tossing around in my head for days searching for a better way to score them. What confuses me here is the people who seem to be pushing for greater artistic freedom in skating really get caught up on the technical side of scoring especially the StSeq.

Could we not score a StSeq more like a choreographed sequence? I think the levels are way too important as is and takes from the artistic impact. Does anyone...especially non skaters...care how many choctaws or mohawks people do and in which direction they go? How is that artistic?

I'd rather establish a step sequence as a being around 4-5 pts and then just apply GOE and minor deductions. The artistic impact and visual image created on the ice should be more rewarded than the amount of steps and the direction it's going.

Yes I understand the point in the levels as they are, I just think they are overly focused on and not enough importance given the flow and concept behind it. Especially if we are going to break down scores based on turns and steps as a primary determining factor and blatantly ignoring judging freedom when it comes to GOE. The programs are busy enough as is so can't we allow for more artistic freedom and expression and actually award it?

Even if Adelina had been given the wrong level of StSeq I fail to see how that affects the GOE? They are judged separately are they not? Again the GOE bullets used to award are merely suggestions just as above. The judge can be moved by the flow and conviction of a StSeq and reward as they see fit.

Honestly when it comes to StSeq I am no expert and welcome corrections or suggestions. So does anyone else think that the focus of StSeq would be better if we freed the skaters to not be forced to tick boxes for levels and instead tap into the feel and flow of the steps and the music?

I absolutely agree! In roller skating, we have some "minimum requirements" for StSq (at least 3/4 of the rink surface covered, specific turns that have to be included...) and something like this could work for the ice skating, too: there should be a fixed BV (around 3 points) with some easy minimum requirements that have to be achieved in order to receive it, then a stronger GOE impact (maybe GOE +1=+1.00 points/+2=+2.00 points etc.) that evaluates flow, use of the arms, turns basic technique, interpretation, organic unity, relation to the music... And (I "use" one of the BoP's ideas) there should be a maximun time allowed, so that we don't see 1-minute step sequences that alone represent half of a whole SP! We should obviously go back to ChSp instead of ChSq (the difference between a StSq and a ChSq would become really difficult to understand)

 

[Sam-Skwantch]

Thanks...I just kind of let go of some thoughts I've been choking back. I agree on a time limit but it would be tricky to know exactly when to start the clock. The panel would have to know every program inside out and be waiting with a stop watch for the exact moment a step sequence begins. I'd hate to think about adding more replay when honestly I'd be fine if replay were used a lot less.

If we began to reward it as an artistic element and not a list of SS to perform then I don't think anyone would need to use more than 30 seconds to get a good score. I mean..the very way it is currently being scored is the most likely way to encourage long drawn out StSeq.

 

[kwanatic]

Yuna 2013 Worlds > Yuna Sochi

Bad comparison IMO. Plus scores can't really be compared from event to the next. The composition of a field always impacts JUDGED events.

Agreed. At worlds that year Yu-Na was the only one of the top 3 who skated well in the FS; everybody else had problems. In the case of only one person "showing up" on the night, it makes sense that the judges throw out higher scores as a reward.

That wasn't the case in Sochi. The top 3 all skated very well...that doesn't usually happen in the big competitions and that's where the scoring becomes a even more subjective. If everyone skated well it all comes down to who you liked better.

Honestly when it comes to StSeq I am no expert and welcome corrections or suggestions. So does anyone else think that the focus of StSeq would be better if we freed the skaters to not be forced to tick boxes for levels and instead tap into the feel and flow of the steps and the music?

I think this is a brilliant idea. :thumbsup:

I think there should be minimal requirements (like FSGMT said) in terms of what steps need to be included the rest should be left up to the skater. I think the result would be much more cohesive looking step sequences that highlight the music better, rather than a jumble of rockers/brackets/choctaws/mohawks/twizzles/etc.

I love the idea. I do think that would give the skaters more freedom to be creative. I was so happy when they nixed the whole spiral sequence level thing. Suddenly there was variety rather than everyone doing the same freakin' moves to get the highest level. I think doing away with the levels in the step sequence would have a similar impact.

 

[gkelly]

So what steps/turns should be required? How many for the minimum?

What I would be leery of is either setting the minimum content so low that every junior/senior-level skater should be able to achieve it and then giving no extra reward to those skaters who go above and beyond in technical content without sacrificing quality or choreography, or on the other hand setting the minimum content so high that many skaters end up getting no TES value for step sequences that do contain some difficulty and also shine in quality and choreographic impact.

One option might be to simplify the available levels for step sequences based only on the content of what the blades do on the ice. E.g.,
Level B (low base value): covers the whole ice surface using steps and turns of any sort for most of the pattern
Level 1 (medium base value, maybe sae as the current level 2): meets the current definition of "variety" of turns and steps, no other requirements
Level 2 (high base value, maybe same as the current level 4): meets the current definition of "complexity" of turns and steps, which will also automatically include turning in both directions; no other requirements

There could be a time limit or a restriction on pattern deviations/retrogressions so that the minimum content for the intended level would have to be achieved efficiently, without prolonged wandering around the ice adding more turns and steps just to get the level.

Another bullet point for positive GOE could be something like "Effective use of the whole body." That way skaters could add in whatever moves of the torso, head, free leg, as well as arms, best enhance the choreography of this particular sequence in this program to this music, without anyone having to count whether they have just the right number of each.

OR keep the four levels but define the features differently, with more options (including difficult use of small jumps, spirals, spread eagles, and other glides in position, etc.) so that skaters can mix and match from many different options to aim for levels 3 and 4.

 

[Sam-Skwantch]

StSeq's have little appeal to me. I think if we just upped the artistic value that could sway my opinion. CoP is already too focused on cramming programs full of content...can't we simply allow some portions to free up. Levels make sense for spins but I would prefer a StSeq to be scored similar to jumps. I just want to enjoy the flow of the steps more.

I'd rather see quality of turns and steps than quantity. Most all of the StSeq breakdowns I've seen here entirely lack in defining any artistic aspect of skating and focused intensely on the number of moves.

 

[gkelly]

Another option:

Let all step sequences be "choreo" yes-or-no elements, with -GOE for yes-but-too short/too simple and the options of +GOE for good variety/difficulty of technical content

And also write more specific guidelines for the Skating Skills program component, so that judges would be encouraged to reward skaters not only for One-foot skating and Multidirectional skating, but also for Varied/Difficult turns and steps -- throughout the program, not necessarily in the step sequences.

Maybe with some benchmarks along the lines that, for example, regardless of quality, a program must contain both backward and forward, clockwise and counterclockwise threes and mohawks and at least one other kind of turn or turning step in each direction to earn a Skating Skills score of 5, and additional kinds of turns and steps, from additional variety of entry edges, to be considered for SS of 6, 7, 8, or 9.

 

[Mathman]

On the subject of whether television viewers and the live audience enjoy seeing step sequences, I think it would be a big help if the camera would show the skaters feet. Even a replay on the jumbotron for the benefit of the live audience afterward would be cool. The commentators could do their part by identifying some of the elements. There could also be extra credit for out-of-the-ordinary steps like a Mazurka, or for weaving non-listed small jumps into the pattern.

There is no a priori reason why a short burst of steps and turns could not be just as exciting to see as a triple Salchow.

 

[LRK]

I just miss straight step sequences... the little pause before them, and then you knew something explosive and exciting would come.... With all the requirements now, and all the meandering all over the place, I'm more suprised that there are still great step sequences at all, rather than that there are so few of them.

 

[Ven]

It doesn't matter what the GOEs or levels are. The whole point of this thread is that the judges and especially the technical panel are not grading what the skaters actually do, they are just making up bogus numbers to validate predetermined results.

 

[Sam-Skwantch]

I just miss straight step sequences... the little pause before them, and then you knew something explosive and exciting would come.... With all the requirements now, and all the meandering all over the place, I'm more suprised that there are still great step sequences at all, rather than that there are so few of them.

Mao comes to mind