Transitions -- starting with Slutskaya's 2005 short program

Here's an analysis of the transitions in Irina Slutskaya's short program as skated at 2005 Europeans.

I have been much more impressed with the transitions in her short programs than her longs, at least the last two years. (Loved the transitions in her 1998 LP.)

Maybe later I'll post similar analyses of other skaters, or someone else can give it a try.

Meanwhile, feel free to discuss.


Slutskaya started out with a back inside loop (part of an intermediate figures move that is no longer required anywhere) leading directly into a back inside counter. She then stepped to quick-twisting back inside-forward inside rockers on each foot (i.e., in both directions), followed by a series of counterclockwise three turns including a left back inside one.

The lutz was approached from a left forward inside (LFI) (clockwise) mohawk.

After the lutz combination she performed a series of edges and turns that also included an LBI three.

Building up speed for a few steps including a back choctaw quickly followed by a forward choctaw, the penultimate turn into the flip was LBO three or rocker (hard to tell because the edges were shallow, but in any case the body was turning clockwise) with the exit edge held on one foot for about 2 seconds before the toe-assisted forward outside three into the jump.

From the flip landing, she uses quick turns on the toes or front of blade, a RFO (clockwise) three, and a LBI three from which she jumps straight up into the double axel without pushing forward from the opposite foot as in the usual axel entry.

The entry to the flying spin included a forward inside double three into a butterfly.

After the flying camel, she did a RFO (clockwise) three in getting to the end of the ice to start the step sequence.

So the total repertoire of turns between elements included threes, mohawks, choctaws, rockers, and counters (all the basic kinds of turns except brackets), as well as toe turns, which are not something that would ever be tested, and a loop, which would have been very important back in the days of figures. Backward turns were performed on both feet and edges, and in total there were about six turns with the body turning clockwise.

This is very interesting!!

Thank you for analyzing and posting all this detail. It goes beyond my technical knowledge of skating, but I'm always looking to learn more. I will be printing your notes, and watching the 2005 Euros SP skate as a matter of education.

I would certainly be interested in more of this type of thing if you have the time and are willing, or if others with your level of knowledge have time and willing going on.

How does this level of transition elements compare to other top skaters in their SP's from last year or this year in your opinion?

Thanks!!!!

DG

Edited to correct "LP" when this is clearly about "SP." Sentiments are all the same from my perspective!!

This is the short program from 2005 Euros. I don't think it was broadcast in the US -- I had downloaded the video that someone posted from a different broadcast. But you could watch her short program from a different competition. The transitions were pretty much the same even if the elements (e.g., 2nd jump in combination or positions in combo spin, and their general success) varied on occasion.

As I recall her short program this year is comparable in detail. More complicated steps between the flip and the axel, but maybe less variety in the opening moves before the elements.

Thanks so much for taking the time to do this, GKelly. There has so much discussion about program component scores, and especialy about Irina's program component scores, and especially about whether the judges are scrutinizing her transitions with an appropriately critical eye -- it is nice to finally get some actual facts to chew on.

More, more!

MM

Thanks gkelly. I am not one for saving tapes.

I did follow your description of Irina's 1998 transitions in her LP that year. I am certainly impressed with them. (a back inside loop into a counter would end up as a forward inside edge. Would it not? )

I just wonder if the judges found them worthy. She was not a top skater that year. That year was the Kwan/Lipinski year and, I do not remember either of them (particularly Lipinsky) with any transitions to speak of.

This season as well as past seasons, I find Russian skaters stressing everything by the rules and it all appears much too calculating for my tastes. However, under CoP, that's the way to go.

Joe

Just to clarify again -- the details in my first post in this thread are about Slutskaya's SP at 2005 Euros.


Here are comments about Arakawa's SP at 2005 Cup of China:

Starts with an unidentified hop (camera doesn't show her feet), followed by a side hop known as tap-toe (among other names )

Gets going with LFO three, change feet to RBO three, change feet to LFO three -- nice to see a backward turn on one foot in there

back crossovers broken up with a step forward and mohawk, two-foot glide and then lift free foot to glide just on LBO edge into lutz combo

After the jump combo, she steps forward to one forward crossover, then

*deep LFO edge to swing counter, step forward to RFO three
(this impressed me: nice edges, a difficult turn that rotates opposite to the entry edge, and then a simple but clockwise turn)

back crossover, step forward to LFO three with a little side kick to change edge, back crossover, step forward to LFO three, two more back crossovers, and then

*steps into flip were step from RBI to LFO three to mini-Ina Bauer, cross in front to RBI rocker-RFI choctaw (this rocker-choctaw combination, in both directions and two different contexts, is tested in the USFSA novice moves in the field, where the edges should be made clearer) , edge change on two feet, RBO mohawk or choctaw (i.e., step forward to LFO or LFI -- too shallow to tell), very brief two-foot glide, RFI mohawk into the flip

*2 stars (three turns with free foot kicking back on the forward edge and swinging around on the forward turn to touch the toe down to assist the turn from backward to forward) into the flying camel -- what the blades are doing here is pretty simple, but the upper body and free leg positions make it difficult

I also liked the way she transitioned into and out of the step sequence -- the entry and exit steps weren't as difficult as the ones within the actual sequence, but they kept moving and kept the step sequence connected to the rest of the program while also making it clear where the sequence began and ended

Really only two clockwise turns (one of them difficult and highlighted) outside the step sequence, and one backward one-foot turn. To get from backward to forward she usually steps onto the LFO from either RBO or RBI edge (i.e., back mohawk, which is pretty basic, or back choctaw, which is slightly less so)

Joesitz said:

(a back inside loop into a counter would end up as a forward inside edge. Would it not? )

Click to expand...

Yes.

Hi GKelly

Thanks for the additional time spent describing the transition details from Shiz's SP. I realize that these specific performances were from different comps in 2 different seasons. But since I do have both of them downloaded and can watch them "side by side" I have a question.

Looking at the performances you described side by side, which skater would you say "scored better" (with you as the judge) in the transition department?

Thanks in advance for your help with my continuing education!!

DG

Doggygirl said:

Looking at the performances you described side by side, which skater would you say "scored better" (with you as the judge) in the transition department?
DG

Click to expand...

Your post was directed to gkelly and I am just putting in my two cents here. (and much praise to gkelly for doing all that work)

Both ladies, to me, seemed to have made good use of showing their basic skills in figure skating. I don't think a judge can or should measure skater A as having one three turn more than skater B. I think, and if I were judging, that the skaters made use of showing me that they have transitions worthy of increasing the PCS scores by their intricacies and musicaltity. I would also consider if the transition leads to a big element and that element was successfully completed.

Oh, the more I think about CoP, the more I believe, it is a demanding task for any judge to grasp in such a short time to show scores.

Joe

Joesitz said:

Your post was directed to gkelly and I am just putting in my two cents here. (and much praise to gkelly for doing all that work)

Both ladies, to me, seemed to have made good use of showing their basic skills in figure skating. I don't think a judge can or should measure skater A as having one three turn more than skater B. I think, and if I were judging, that the skaters made use of showing me that they have transitions worthy of increasing the PCS scores by their intricacies and musicaltity. I would also consider if the transition leads to a big element and that element was successfully completed.

Oh, the more I think about CoP, the more I believe, it is a demanding task for any judge to grasp in such a short time to show scores.

Joe

Click to expand...

2 cents gratefully accepted!! I agree totally that it's not about counting the individual moves, but a broader and more general assessment of the quality and variety and difficulty overall of the moves wound into to the program as a whole. Gkelly, are we on the right track in your opinion as to how this is/should be evaluated? I'm still interested in which of this two programs you would rate more highly in transitions, and why.

And Joe, you already know that I share your opinion that it seems like a LOT for each judge to mark all the elements, and also assess the program as a whole in the PCS categories, hence our recommendation to split the panel.
Gkelly, since you obviously have deep knowledge of the sport technically, what is your opinion? Do you think a judge can effectively score each element AND effectively score the PCS categories? Just curious.

Thanks!!
DG

Doggygirl said:

2 cents gratefully accepted!! I agree totally that it's not about counting the individual moves, but a broader and more general assessment of the quality and variety and difficulty overall of the moves wound into to the program as a whole. Gkelly, are we on the right track in your opinion as to how this is/should be evaluated? I'm still interested in which of this two programs you would rate more highly in transitions, and why.

Click to expand...

The criteria for the Transitions/Linking Footwork and Movement component for singles are
*Variety
*Difficulty
*Intricacy
*Quality

In those particular two programs that I detailed, I'd say that Slutskaya had more variety, difficulty, and intricacy.

Arakawa may have had better quality -- she seems to be smoother across the ice with more lean to her edges, but she also seems to have less power -- these qualities would probably be more evident live and would also contribute to the Skating Skills and perhaps the Performance/Execution components.

Gkelly, since you obviously have deep knowledge of the sport technically, what is your opinion? Do you think a judge can effectively score each element AND effectively score the PCS categories? Just curious.

Click to expand...

When I practice trying to score programs with the new system, I find it much easier to give GOEs to the elements than to come up with appropriate numbers for all five components. So far, I just feel comfortable with assigning a general range for a skater's components and deciding which component(s) should be highest or lowest. I would need more training and experience to feel more confident in those evaluations. But if I didn't have to identify elements and could just push a button to reflect the GOE and devote my note-taking to the components, I don't think scoring the elements would detract too much from the component evaluations.

I don't think I've ever felt inspired to give a difference of more than maybe 1.50 between the highest and lowest PCS for the same performance, and that much only rarely, nor do I think it would ever be very common to separate the marks so drastically.

I also see that sometimes the mid-level (e.g., intermediate or novice) skaters have more complex transitions between their elements than the top seniors, in part because they're often doing mostly double jumps and the seniors are doing triples and quads. But the basic quality of the skating is not as high. So how do you reflect the difference between higher difficulty and lower quality vs. lower difficulty with higher quality in the TR marks for these skaters?