The Short, The Long, and the CoP

The CoP takes quite a bashing in some quarters, such as causing accidents, loss of artistry, and questions about the results arise when a skater was 2nd best in the SP and 2nd best in the LP yet wins the contest because of points, and not because he had the best skating.

I think the one factor we haven't discussed much was the 'Artistry' in figure skating which I prefer to call 'Presentation' because it's not easy for me to give up my old neanderthal ways.

If you look through the 5 major categories describing PC scores, you will find some mixture of 'artistry' listed. PC, as you know means Program Component score and not what I thought would be Presentation Scores as in the antiquated 6.0 system. That's CoPs way of levelling out the gamut of what a good presentation will be despite the fact that they already took on the individual elements in the Tech scores. So be it.

Back to Artistry. I noticed when watching 'on demands', that the SPs have more artistry than the LPs - not necessaarily a perfect skate, but a good chance for a clean elegant routine. It seemed to me that the SP allows the skater room enough to bring some artistry to the program more than the LP which is geared more to point getting, for example cluttering up the last 2minutes of an LP program with repeated elements, and foresaking what should be, maybe a sensational trick with a graceful ending. The LP loses out on complete artistry in most cases. JMO

Agree? and should Artistryt be equal to the Sport of Skating?

Joesitz said:

It seemed to me that the SP allows the skater room enough to bring some artistry to the program more than the LP which is geared more to point getting...

Agree?

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree 100%. Short programs are much more appealing than long programs. It was like this under ordinal judging, too.

One very important reason, IMHO: the short program is short. The long program is too long. We get bored after about the two minute mark.

...and should Artistry be equal to the Sport of Skating?

Click to expand...

I kind of agree that "artistry" is not the right word. But I do think that figure skating is half sport and half performing art. Under 6.0 judging, the balance, in principle, was 50-50. Under CoP it is 70% tech, (TES+Skating Skills+Transtitions), and 30% Performance (Presentation, Choreography and Interpretation), with GOEs playing kind of dual role.

I would be disappointed to see skating abandon the performance side of things and become a "real sport" like high-jumping or the 100 year dash. Not that there is anything wrong with those sports. Not at all. But figure skating has a unique hybrid niche and I would be sorry to see it disappear from the scene.

I also agree that artistry is not the right word. There were factors in the 6.0 system that couldn't be transferred to CoP.

Here's a good example from the 1993 Europeans in Helsinki. After all the big names make a mess of their SP, the last one to skate is the local boy who, although far from perfect, has the skate of his life and finishes 2nd. There's no way he would have finished that high under CoP, although many agree he totally deserved it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yXz10XZ1_M

pohatta said:

Here's a good example from the 1993 Europeans in Helsinki. After all the big names make a mess of their SP, the last one to skate is the local boy who, although far from perfect, has the skate of his life and finishes 2nd. There's no way he would have finished that high under CoP, although many agree he totally deserved it.

Click to expand...

I couldn't watch the video - it kept stopping - but I'm kind of confused as to how it was easier for an unknown skater to be rewarded under 6.0 than under CoP. Yes, unknowns often get screwed over with the PCS, but it always seemed to me that judging was much more reputation-based under the previous system (certainly in the dance). These days, if you do the elements, the TES will reflect it, and the PCS will generally be higher than for other skaters who are not considered the top contenders.

Joe, I agree that SPs tend to be more interesting. I think it might have something to do with the jump passes. LPs are not twice as long, but unless skaters screw up, there are more than twice as many jump passes, and this takes a lot out of the skaters, not to mention leaving them less energy for innovative moves or steps. A skater can probably get more cool things into an SP without exhausting him/herself in the process. The cookie cutter stuff is more likely to be left for the LP. Like Mathman, I also think it's easier to keep the audience interested when you work in smaller doses.

Yeah, I think lesser known skaters are more fairly judged on the tech mark these days. If you do the elements well you ARE going to get the points. Under 6.0, there was no justification for anything. Judges could just do whatever they wanted and skaters didn't really know how much their moves were worth. I remember Shizuka Arakawa doing a good 7-triple LP in 2002 and getting like 5.2 for the tech mark.

Joesitz said:

Back to Artistry. I noticed when watching 'on demands', that the SPs have more artistry than the LPs - not necessaarily a perfect skate, but a good chance for a clean elegant routine. It seemed to me that the SP allows the skater room enough to bring some artistry to the program more than the LP which is geared more to point getting, for example cluttering up the last 2minutes of an LP program with repeated elements, and foresaking what should be, maybe a sensational trick with a graceful ending. The LP loses out on complete artistry in most cases. JMO

Click to expand...

I'm still a student and I still use student analogies, so here we go. In my undergrad days (not that long ago really), whenever my composition professor said to write a paper in any form about anything, I would groan. However, if my professor gave us a topic or a specific form (ie. narrative, exposition, etc.) I still wasn't exactly happy, but it was more reassuring. Having a framework is more comforting than to come up with something from nothing. Yes, it seems counterintuitive that structure is confining, but somehow, having a sort of template or a definite starting point can lead to creative and original work (BTW, I always got better grades when there was a topic that the professor gave us)

The analogy probably fits best with the original dance more than with the SP, but the same still applies IMO.

cleopatra20042004 said:

Having a framework is more comforting than to come up with something from nothing. Yes, it seems counterintuitive that structure is confining, but somehow, having a sort of template or a definite starting point can lead to creative and original work (BTW, I always got better grades when there was a topic that the professor gave us)

Click to expand...

I completely agree with that analogy. A short program is like a sonnet. So-and-so many lines of such-and-such meter. The short program of Shakespeare, not the LP of T.S. Eliot.

Mathman said:

I would be disappointed to see skating abandon the performance side of things and become a "real sport" like high-jumping or the 100 year dash.

Click to expand...

Geez, that 100-year dash must be a tough one to promote! When virtually all of your athletes, audience, and officials must by nature die off and have to be replaced, it's gotta affect the ratings ! They should think about changing the name, too -- "dash" just doesn't seem to capture the effort required.

The short program with its required elements is better suited to CoP than the free skate. The free skate really should not be broken down into its components too much; that's why it has suffered the more, and is nowadays less appealing to sit through. In ye olde days™ , the long program was always the one the fans anticipated the most. I wish it at any rate were still marked 6.0.

The only way for to solve the problem of the freeskate not being "free" is to lower the number of maximum jumping passes and other than that, take out all the rules. I say no more than 5 jumping passes, no more than 6 triples. (for ladies) Of course doing 5 triple lutzes should not be allowed.
This would free up time for true skating, better choreography and connecting elements.
Also there has to be a way to make the LP worth more than the SP. If you place high in the LP it should mean something. Right now, the only main difference is that once in a lifetime occurrence when there was actually a tied score, LP trumped SP.

Thanks everyone for some interesting comments on this, so far.

lpohatta The skater in the video had charissma. That is so important, but difficult to maintain in the LP. Ryan Bradley had this for a while, but now he is too well known and his performances are expected.

Buttercup One could plan a knockout routine with the choreographer in the SP. Sasha Cohen could do a great SP but then falter in the LP in both 6.0 and CoP. It may be just too long for some skaters to do a clean LP.Mathman made a good point.

Cleopatra I'll never understand the scoring of Skate Dance. However, it does give the most rounded contest, with the basics, the required, and the free.

abaka I agree, the Free Skate should be reinstated and have the LP discarded. The skater can then skate at his own pace. It could well bring back a stronger appealing performance.

One other thing that irks me is when I see skaters doing 3 major jumps before they even to a spin no less transitions Just cross overs. That should be reflected in the choreography bullet and show up with a severe penalty in the overall score. JMO.

Hmmm...With the elimination of figures under the old 6.0 judging system the short program became the technical bench mark of the competition leaving the long program or Free Skate to be the deciding factor in the overall marks. As far as I know not much has changed in this aspect of figure skating even with the new judging system. The short program still contains more required elements and the long program allows the skater to really show their artistic side or presentation strengths. It does take training on the skaters part to learn how to pace themsleves through the long program so they don't "run out of gas" at the end of their program. In the case of skaters who skate a terrific short program and then falter on the long program may simply come down to a case of the nerves. Competitive skating is not easy and there is a lot of pressure.

There seems to be a lot of discussion here lately about the different aspects of competition and the judging system. Instead of trying to "reinvent the wheel" just enjoy figure skating for what it is - a thing of beauty.

Ladskater said:

The short program still contains more required elements and the long program allows the skater to really show their artistic side or presentation strengths.

Click to expand...

Oh, I don't agree at all.

The ladies short program has 8 required elements: 3 jumps, 3 spins, 1 step sequence and 1 spiral.

The long program had 12 requirements. 7 jumps, 3 spins, 1 step sequence and 1 spiral.

So in the long program you have to do more than twice as many jumps, in about a minute and a quarter extra time. Plus, there are all kinds of rules about how many changes of edges you have to do, how long you have to hold each position, etc., etc., etc. Artistry and presentation go out the window in the CoP long program.

Mathman said:

Oh, I don't agree at all.

The ladies short program has 8 required elements: 3 jumps, 3 spins, 1 step sequence and 1 spiral.

The long program had 12 requirements. 7 jumps, 3 spins, 1 step sequence and 1 spiral.

So in the long program you have to do more than twice as many jumps, in about a minute and a quarter extra time. Plus, there are all kinds of rules about how many changes of edges you have to do, how long you have to hold each position, etc., etc., etc. Artistry and presentation go out the window in the CoP long program.

Click to expand...

The last time I check the LP only have limits and no requierments. You can do one double, one L1 step sequence, and just skate. The judges won't pentalize you it just that skaters who do more earn more. If PCS were use correctly skaters in theory could give up points technically but stilI place well by gaining them in PCS.I argree with limiting the jump passes to six for both men and ladies. Two comboes. Can only repeat one triple for men.Ladies can repeat two triples.

The required elements in the long program, basically, are an axel-type jump and the three spins: a flying spin, a combination spin, and a spin in one position.

This gives slightly more leeway than in the short program versions of the same elements.

I.e., the axel-type jump can be any number of revolutions, doesn't have to be double for ladies and double or triple for men, and can land on either foot. So a one-foot axel-(double or triple) salchow combination would fill that requirement. Or any other special kind of single axel. Or a triple axel for ladies.

Other than some kind of axel, and within the allowed limits for repeating jumps and combinations, skaters can do whatever jumps they want in the long program and get full credit for whatever they do -- e.g., a good double will usually be worth more than a bad triple, it's allowed to repeat quads or do two different ones, etc. Jump sequences and three-jump combinations are allowed.

Unlike in the short program, the flying spin can change positions and can change feet. The combination spin can change feet more than once or not at all and can be entered with a fly and can include only two basic positions. The spin in one position can use any basic position and can change feet or not as many times as the skater chooses, and can be entered with a fly.

All the other allowed elements are just that -- allowed, not required.

However, the only penalty for not doing a required or listed element is lack of points that one could have earned by doing it. And doing too many of an allowed element (or a non-required element in a SP) fails to earn points and also fills a slot where another allowed element could have earned points. So in practice the elements are handled the same in both programs.

In the first few years of the 21st century before the IJS, the well-balanced long program rules required four spins (of any kind) and a step sequence or spiral sequence for ladies, and there would be deductions for omitting any of those elements. So in a sense the long program had more required elements de jure under the last years of the old system than under the new.

In the long program, the maximums become de facto requirements because choosing not to do elements just throws away opportunities to earn points because there aren't opportunities to make up the points by doing more of a different kind of element, or moves that don't fit the element definitions. Also many skaters try to maximize the base value of their elements, so the kinds of elements performed end up being very similar across the field at a given skill level.

That's why I keep arguing that the well-balanced program rules could and IMO should be more flexible to allow skaters more opportunity to mix and match which elements they include in their long programs to earn points.

enlight78 said:

The last time I check the LP only have limits and no requierments. You can do one double, one L1 step sequence, and just skate. The judges won't pentalize you it just that skaters who do more earn more. If PCS were use correctly skaters in theory could give up points technically but stilI place well by gaining them in PCS.I argree with limiting the jump passes to six for both men and ladies. Two comboes. Can only repeat one triple for men.Ladies can repeat two triples.

Click to expand...

I think MM's point is that in order to score in the same ballpark as everyone else, there are 12 elements that need to be executed in the LP - 7 jumps for ladies, 3 spins, 1 step sequence, and 1 spiral sequence. Why show up, do an Axel, three spins, spiral, and step sequence, and then fill it up with skating skills? It wouldn't make sense competitively to do that and they are at the competition to compete, right?

Just for the heck of it, imagine the following three sets of three spins:


Flying spin: Flying camel with layover position and donut position that accelerates and is held for >8 revolutions
FCSp4

Spin in one position: Layback with sideways-leaning, haircutter, and Biellmann positions and acceleration
LSp4

Combination spin: Back camel / back sit with pancake position / back Y spin - forward camel / broken leg / upright
CCoSp4

This set of spins would be legal in the senior ladies' SP, where the spin codes must be FCSp or FSSp, LSp, and CCoSp, the latter of which must include all three basic positions and one change of foot. It would also meet the long program spin requirements.

* * * * *

Flying spin: Butterfly flying camel with edge change / back sit / back Y
FCoSp4

Spin in one position: Back camel entered from back spiral with hand on ice - forward camel with catch-foot position - forward camel in the other direction with edge change
CCSp4

Combination spin: Forward camel held for 8 revolutions / twisted layback - back attitude spin with edge change / cross-foot upright
CCoSp4

The flying spin is a flying combination so it wouldn't be legal in any senior or junior singles short program. The first two parts of the change-foot camel spin would be legal in a men's short program (for juniors, the years when the change-foot spin is required to be camel rather than sitspin), but the second change of foot with the change of direction would have to be omitted so the spin would only be level 2 unless more features were added to the first two positions; it would never be allowed in a ladies' SP. The combination spin doesn't include a sit position so it wouldn't be legal in a SP.

* * * * *

Flying spin: Deathdrop to twisted sitspin held for 8 revolutions / back catch-foot camel / back scratch exiting with a double loop jump
FCoSp4

Spin in one position: Forward flying sit into curled-over/tucked-under position - back sit with hop in the middle and change of edge
FCSSp4

Combination spin: Back camel - jumpover to forward camel - arabian jumpover to back sit 8 revolutions/fast headless back scratchspin
CCoSp4

The flying spin is a combination. Also the combination of a jump element plus a spin element is not allowed in a short program, and solo double loop is not allowed in a senior short program, only once every three years in the junior short. The change-foot sitspin would be legal in a men's short program (junior only in the years when it's not required to be change-foot camel), never ladies' -- except for the flying entrance, so that's one fewer feature. The combination spin would not be SP-legal because of the two changes of foot.