Hamilton Shares His Thoughts on Judging System | Page 7 | Golden Skate

Hamilton Shares His Thoughts on Judging System

antmanb

Record Breaker
Joined
Feb 5, 2004
Joesitz said:
Good point, Ant - Why is there a choice between a sit spin and a camel? They are entirely different. What if there was a choice of layback or scratch spins?

It's the choices that bother me in the SP, but that's me.

Joe

Honestly i don't know the history for why you have a choice. I think the rationale is that you have to do a flying spin and you have to do a combination spin, the ladies have to do a layback spin so what do you ask the men to do?

A change of foot spin makes sense but rather than get another combination spin force them to hold one position or the other and make it a free choice - sit or camel. I don't have too much of a problem with it but if they're going to have "required elements" then it would make more sense to require different elements each year - mandate that this year its a sit, next year its a camel, why not even throw the upright in to the mix and see how many men work on their laybacks?!

Actually the more i think about it the more i like the idea - they tell the juniors what kind of flying spin they want and what solo triple (or optional double) they want to see. I'd much prefer (especially given how how the LP and SP are practically the same) them to rotate through the upper triples for solo jumps annually in seniors too. I liked it when they had to perform a double loop and seeing how people would combine that, actually mandate a bit more and then we can directly compare each competitor like for like (ish!).

Ant
 

Mafke

Medalist
Joined
Mar 22, 2004
antmanb said:
Honestly i don't know the history for why you have a choice. I think the rationale is that you have to do a flying spin and you have to do a combination spin, the ladies have to do a layback spin so what do you ask the men to do?

A change of foot spin makes sense but rather than get another combination spin force them to hold one position or the other and make it a free choice - sit or camel. I don't have too much of a problem with it but if they're going to have "required elements" then it would make more sense to require different elements each year - mandate that this year its a sit, next year its a camel, why not even throw the upright in to the mix and see how many men work on their laybacks?!

Actually the more i think about it the more i like the idea - they tell the juniors what kind of flying spin they want and what solo triple (or optional double) they want to see. I'd much prefer (especially given how how the LP and SP are practically the same) them to rotate through the upper triples for solo jumps annually in seniors too. I liked it when they had to perform a double loop and seeing how people would combine that, actually mandate a bit more and then we can directly compare each competitor like for like (ish!).

Ant


I've always liked the idea of changing the required elements in the SP season by season. I like the idea of (say) requiring an edge jump out of footwork one year and a toe jump the next. I also like the idea of not being able to repeat the combo from the SP in the LP.
One way of actually making the SP different from the LP might be to limit jump difficulty (no quads for men, double out of footwork instead of triple for women). One of the bad things about all the triples that skaters do now is that their double jumps are often ugly (IMHO) until youtube I'd forgotten how nice a planned and really _well executed_ double can look.

I'm just about ready to get rid of the spiral sequence (and second step sequence for men) too. I am so sick of the current incarnation of a high scoring spiral sequence with its ugly gynecological positions that I'd happily never see one again.
 

antmanb

Record Breaker
Joined
Feb 5, 2004
Mafke said:
I've always liked the idea of changing the required elements in the SP season by season. I like the idea of (say) requiring an edge jump out of footwork one year and a toe jump the next. I also like the idea of not being able to repeat the combo from the SP in the LP.
One way of actually making the SP different from the LP might be to limit jump difficulty (no quads for men, double out of footwork instead of triple for women). One of the bad things about all the triples that skaters do now is that their double jumps are often ugly (IMHO) until youtube I'd forgotten how nice a planned and really _well executed_ double can look.

I'm just about ready to get rid of the spiral sequence (and second step sequence for men) too. I am so sick of the current incarnation of a high scoring spiral sequence with its ugly gynecological positions that I'd happily never see one again.

You have a really good point about the doubles. I love watching the UK ladies junior champion who i've never seen land a clean triple but she does often do beautiful programs with high popping slightly delayed floaty doubles and it really is something to watch - the running edges she gets into and out of those jumps are beaufitul often with more speed on the landing than she went in with.

Its a rare skater to could put down a full set of triples with beautiful; flow into and out of the jumps...and quads even less so.

How about mandating a 2/2 combination where the jumps have to be of equal height, a solo double jump mandated each year (either by name or type e.g. edge or toe) and a delayed axel (any variation, tuck delay at eh start or the end etc) that has to cover a certain amount of distance! Ok so i'm just dreaming!

Ant
 

Zuranthium

Match Penalty
Joined
Mar 30, 2006
antmanb said:
Its a rare skater to could put down a full set of triples with beautiful; flow into and out of the jumps...

So those people win the competitions because they are better. We shouldn't lower the standards just because some people have less talent in this area than others.
 

SeaniBu

Record Breaker
Joined
Mar 19, 2006
Zuranthium said:
So those people win the competitions because they are better. We shouldn't lower the standards just because some people have less talent in this area than others.

I wonder if it is on the theory that if the elements are more "even" then the judging of more even routines can be more "trustworthy." JAT:scratch:
 

Mafke

Medalist
Joined
Mar 22, 2004
Zuranthium said:
So those people win the competitions because they are better. We shouldn't lower the standards just because some people have less talent in this area than others.

Who wants to lower standards? I'd like to increase standards of execution. Grinding out triple after triple is not necessarily a sign of more talent or ability. Neither is the simple fact of jumping higher than other skaters (I overall like Slutskaya a lot, but her jumps are often ugly, too high and insufficient runout).

I think of figure skating most of all as neither sport nor art, but rather as a discipline. This means an element should be performed in a certain way (the right way). Adding an extra revolution shouldn't count for so much if the result is ugly (and in a seven triple program, almost always at least one of them is butt ugly).
 

hockeyfan228

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Mafke said:
Who wants to lower standards? I'd like to increase standards of execution. Grinding out triple after triple is not necessarily a sign of more talent or ability. Neither is the simple fact of jumping higher than other skaters (I overall like Slutskaya a lot, but her jumps are often ugly, too high and insufficient runout).

I think of figure skating most of all as neither sport nor art, but rather as a discipline. This means an element should be performed in a certain way (the right way). Adding an extra revolution shouldn't count for so much if the result is ugly (and in a seven triple program, almost always at least one of them is butt ugly).
ITA. The original intent of CoP was to reward brilliant execution of elements, regardless of difficulty, and to reduce the reward for substandard execution through GOE. The base value was mean to reward difficulty.
 

SeaniBu

Record Breaker
Joined
Mar 19, 2006
I think that skaters trying to "do one better" (not quoting anyone) can be taken a number of ways. "Do one better" of the same element or rase the bar by doing something beyond what the last one did.

Is it a "skate off" or a "who does it best?" I've always liked it because it encompasses so much of it all - from "dancing" on ice to brute strength in graceful elegance. I am sure someone could say that better than me.:yes:

"Even playing field" is one of those aspects that is common in sports, when you put two boxers in the ring they...I think you all might know what I am saying.
 

antmanb

Record Breaker
Joined
Feb 5, 2004
Zuranthium said:
So those people win the competitions because they are better. We shouldn't lower the standards just because some people have less talent in this area than others.

My suggestion was only for the short program - let them go mad in the LP trying triples and quads but in order to make the SP different than the LP (other than by actual time of program) i think it would actually show off skating skills by restricting the jumps and mandating certain spins...push the SP more towards a CD type affair where you are comparing the same skaters.

Ant
 
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
antmanb said:
My suggestion was only for the short program - let them go mad in the LP trying triples and quads but in order to make the SP different than the LP (other than by actual time of program) i think it would actually show off skating skills by restricting the jumps and mandating certain spins...push the SP more towards a CD type affair where you are comparing the same skaters.

Ant
Yes. Definitely keep the SP to its original intent - to test the skills of the elements (under fire). Otherwise all you have is a mini LP with lots of choices.

Some skaters execute a sit spin better than a camel. Test the skater on both and if not, select one for a particular year. (a skater will work on both to be prepared in any given year.) this is not unlike the selections in the Compulsory Dance. (some skaters waltz better than they blues.)

Then pick up on Hockeyfan's suggestion to judge on 'brilliant execution'.

Doing it satisfies the requirement. How it is done satisfies the GoEs.

Joe
 

antmanb

Record Breaker
Joined
Feb 5, 2004
Joesitz said:
Yes. Definitely keep the SP to its original intent - to test the skills of the elements (under fire). Otherwise all you have is a mini LP with lots of choices.

Some skaters execute a sit spin better than a camel. Test the skater on both and if not, select one for a particular year. (a skater will work on both to be prepared in any given year.) this is not unlike the selections in the Compulsory Dance. (some skaters waltz better than they blues.)

Then pick up on Hockeyfan's suggestion to judge on 'brilliant execution'.

Doing it satisfies the requirement. How it is done satisfies the GoEs.

Joe

I like that idea a lot and also i would mandate the type of step sequence and start off with serpentine which COP truly has caused the death of - who wants to waste time doing the longest most difficult step sequence when CoP doesn't recognise that it is harder than a straight or circular step sequence. Personally i'd ban more than four toe or heel jabs in the step sequences too so that we see more people skating flowing edgey footwork rather than stab the ice til it's dead step sequences (i'm looking at you Evgeni Pluschenko!).

Ant
 

Zuranthium

Match Penalty
Joined
Mar 30, 2006
antmanb said:
My suggestion was only for the short program - let them go mad in the LP trying triples and quads but in order to make the SP different than the LP (other than by actual time of program) i think it would actually show off skating skills by restricting the jumps and mandating certain spins...push the SP more towards a CD type affair where you are comparing the same skaters.

Ant

The only problem is that different requirements for the short program every season would throw off the the fairness of all-time scores. Each short program would have a different max point value every season. COP allows everyone to be even across time.

Plus, isn't everyone complaining about the skaters doing the same things?
 
Last edited:

antmanb

Record Breaker
Joined
Feb 5, 2004
Zuranthium said:
The only problem is that different requirements for the short program every season would throw off the the fairness of all-time scores. Each short program would have a different max point value every season. COP allows everyone to be even across time.

Plus, isn't everyone complaining about the skaters doing the same things?

I think the complaint about the skaters doing the same things is aimed at the LP which is supposed to be "free" and no longer is. The SP has in previous incarnations been the "technical program" and has had such things mandated - plus the precedent is set for this in the junior ranks.

I don't think the all-time scores are fair as they are - they are meaningless since a different panel of judges (like there is at every competition) would come up with a different score for the same program and add in the judges mark's that they throw away. Different elements mandated in the SP wouldn't make as big a difference as the throwing judges marks away. At any rate if the ISU were bothered abuot this particulalary they could use only best LPs as the seeding or whatever it is they're doign with those scores.

Ant
 

hockeyfan228

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Zuranthium said:
COP allows everyone to be even across time.
CoP allows everyone to be even across the same set of rules and values. It will never allow everyone to be even across time because of changes year-to-year, some of which so far have been: the scale of values are changed, new levels are added to elements, relative difficulty is re-adjusted, the rules are changed to give zero -- second (and third) jump in a combo where one jump violates the Zayak rule -- or less credit -- repeated jump not in combo treated as sequence and multiplied by .8 -- when they got full credit in the past, the number of elements is the free skate are changed, specific elements that were allowed are forbidden (ex: no jump repeats in pairs, like 3T/3T combo and 3T solo in the same program), level definitions are changed, giving different credit for the same element from year to year, deductions are re-defined (ex: until this year telegraph deduction was -1 to -3, depending on the length, but is limited to -1 in 2006-7).
 
Last edited:

hockeyfan228

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
antmanb said:
. At any rate if the ISU were bothered abuot this particulalary they could use only best LPs as the seeding or whatever it is they're doign with those scores.

Ant
The use the previous year's best scores from a defined set of competitions to determine who is guaranteed one spot (top 24) and who must be considered for any open spots after the host's discretionary three and guaranteed spots have been filled (top 75).
 

Zuranthium

Match Penalty
Joined
Mar 30, 2006
hockeyfan228 said:
CoP allows everyone to be even across the same set of rules and values. It will never allow everyone to be even across time because of changes year-to-year

Eventually it will be set, though. That seems to be the end goal.
 

hockeyfan228

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Zuranthium said:
Eventually it will be set, though. That seems to be the end goal.
I don't think so. I think it eventually might settle down to a gymnastics model, where major changes are done immediately after each Olympics, with tweaks in between.
 
Top