Skaters/Judging experts on GS - Question

skatinginbc said:

A lazy method is simply dividing the current base mark by 10, so we have 1.8 (18.10/10) to 8.2 (81.54/10).

Click to expand...

Equoivalently, keep the base values the same and divide the E values by 10. So E values would be .1, .2, etc., instead of 1, 2, etc.

That way we could interpret an E value of .8, say, in the natural way. This skater got 80% of the maximum possible that can be earned for perfect execution of an element of this difficulty.

Mathman said:

Wait a minute, now I'm confused again. Don't you want o multiply DxE for each element individually, then add the products? (post 165.)

Click to expand...

This is my post #161

∑DxE, the sum of multiplication between difficulty and execution, is the formula used in diving for years and it hasn't caused an Olympic scandal yet.

Click to expand...

This is your post:

Is the formula ∑DxE, are you saying (∑D)xE, or ∑(DxE). In diving, each individual dive gets its own E score, right?

Click to expand...

This is my answer:

∑(DxE), right. But in skating, a program with various elements is performed as an integrated whole. There is no official break in between elements. And the elements are not totally independent of each other. Screwing up on one element may have an impact on the next (shortened spin due to time limit, popping a jump, etc.).

Click to expand...

∑(DxE) is what they use in diving.
In my skating judging proposal, ∑(Difficulty x Performance) = Element Difficulty x Element Performance + Skating Difficulty x Program Performance

If your question is about the Total Element Score, then my answer is: ∑D x ∑E.

skatinginbc said:

A lazy method is simply dividing the current base mark by 10, so we have 1.8 (18.10/10) to 8.2 (81.54/10). Ideally, we need to redesign the base marks so that they range from 1.0 (for the lowest level) to 9.0 (like Chan) and anything below or above is for the once-in-a-blue-moon occasion.

Click to expand...

With how many decimal places? How are they arrived at?
I really don't see the point of trying to design base marks for whole programs. If the scores range from 1.0 to 9.0 with one decimal place, that's 80 possible base scores to cover every possible combination of elements from whatever the lowest level of competition at which the system is used up to the top senior men. The widest variation will be in jump content. Looking at the individual actual jumps (counting each part of a combination separately), that could be a minimum of six single jumps up to a maximum of twelve jumps of which three are quads, seven are triples, and two are doubles . . . and someday maybe even more than that.

Also, how will the base marks be set for short programs, which all have four jumps (three jump elements)? Will the maximum allowed content be designated as 9.0 or 10.0 and everything scaled to that? Will the minimum content that meets the requirements be given a benchmark score? Or will there be specific points assigned to specific elements, as is currently the case, so that short programs typically have a maximum of about half the long program maximum?

Will 9.0 mean something different for women than for men? Or will women never exceed 8.0 and rarely 7.0?

My concern is that there will often be situations in which many skaters in the same event earn base marks that are identical or very close, so the base marks are not the deciding factor. That's not necessarily a bad thing -- if the content is comparable, let the execution decide. That was the original principle behind the short program in the first place.

But if many skaters in the same event do very different content and get the same base scores, it would be much more useful to show where they each got their points.

For instance,
Wayne Wing Yin CHUNG's 2012 Junior Preliminary Free Skate: Total Base Marks = 26.21, GOE = -2.47, Skating skills = (3.32 + 2.79)/2 = 3.06, Presentation = (3.00 + 3.21 + 3.00)/3 = 3.07, Total score = 54.38
Bernhard PAULI 2012 Junior Preliminary Free Skate: Total Base Marks = 28.99, GOE = -2.2, Skating Skills = (2.82 + 2.36)/2 = 2.59, Presentation = (2.82 + 2.89 + 2.79)/3 = 2.83, Total score = 54.15
Chung's estimated E score = 5 - 2.47/2 = 3.8, and total score under my system = (2.6 x 3.8 + 3.1 x 3.1) = 9.88 + 9.61 = 19.49
Pauli's estimated E score = 5 - 2.2/2 = 3.9, and total score under my system = (2.9 x 3.9 + 2.6 x 2.8) = 11.31 + 7.28 = 18.59
Their rankings are consistent under both systems.

Click to expand...

I didn't recognize the names, so I had to google to find out where you got these scores from. They seemed awfully high for preliminary level skaters.

Anyway, the calculations may make sense, but I'm not sure it makes more sense the current system. What is the problem with the current system, from the top skaters in the world down to even lower levels than bottom-ranked international junior competitors, that the change in calculations and presentation is supposed to solve?

The feedback is good but not mandatory. 6.0 did not give feedback about every element, and lacking feedback was not the main reason that a new judging system was pushed into existence. Nevertheless, detailed protocols are still available if we have to have them.

Click to expand...

My impression is that the detailed protocols are the most valuable aspect of the scoring system for the skaters, so yes, we do have to have them.

Just imagine the judging method remains roughly the same except that there is a total GOE score reported and used to calculate the total segment score.

Click to expand...

But why? For whom is it better to mush all the GOEs for each element from each judge into one number? It doesn't tell you anything about how that one number was arrived at, and you haven't convinced me that it gives a better result than scoring each element separately. Just as good, maybe, with somewhat different results in some close contests, as could be the case with any change in system or individuals under any system when the skaters are close in ability. But unless the results are demonstrably better than under the system, what's the value in making the change?

Sounds like he still skates to a "program" regardless how painful it is to watch. In that case, he won't receive a zero. Zero is reserved for blatant violations of the requirement--No program at all, in which jumps and spins and tracing of elaborate designs on the ice are all performed impromptu and separated by blatant breaks in between. If we want to reward those kind of skating skills, we might as well have a Special figures competition or a footwork competition or a jumping competition, WITHOUT music. If we like our current competition format, we are saying that it is essential for the skaters to integrate those individual elements or skills into a "program" (something prearranged in a meaningful way).

Click to expand...

OK.
Still, why multiply the two different kinds of whole program scores?
I'd like to run a bunch of test cases with different kinds of strengths and weaknesses at the same general skill level as well as across competition levels to see whether whether multiplying makes more sense than adding, or less.

Simply add them up. No element is performed ==> receiving zero. All elements (e.g, all 8 jumping passes) are performed ==> automatic 5 points. And then add the Total GOEs (a plus-and-minus system) to the 5 points. Skipping one element ==> deduct 0.5 point from the base value ==> 4.5 points...

Click to expand...

Huh? You're talking about the "E" score here? Why would you subtract points for skipping an element in a long program? It's not required to do the maximum allowed number of jumps. And would you be subtracting from the E score or the D score, which already loses the value of whatever element(s) could have filled the vacant slot(s)?

skatinginbc said:

This is my post #161
∑(DxE) is what they use in diving.
In my skating judging proposal, ∑(Difficulty x Performance) = Element Difficulty x Element Performance + Skating Difficulty x Program Performance

If your question is about the Total Element Score, then my answer is: ∑D x ∑E.

Click to expand...

I'm not really following the math. But I wouldn't use diving as a model on the assumption that calculaitons designed for scoring dives (which by their nature are inevitably performed as individual isolated elements) are better for scoring skating programs than calculations designed for scoring skating programs.


The fact is, if there's a clear difference in quality and/or difficulty between skaters, then almost all experts will agree on the results regardless of the scoring system.

If there are several skaters who are similar in technical and presentation ability, with small differences in the details, then the experts will have different opinions and the specific experts on the panels will make just as much difference as which scoring system is used. With the IJS, changes from year to year in the scale of values and in what counts as a level or how certain errors are penalized can mean that last year's programs scored under this year's rules could have different results. Ultimately there's no real right and wrong in those cases and the decisions will revolve around fine differences.

If you have skaters who have very different strengths and weaknesses, then larger principles about what to reward most highly or what to penalize most severely can change the trends both in results and in how skaters train and design their programs. That's why the people in charge of designing the scoring system and the rules need to research a good consensus on what the skating community wants to reward before inventing or improving the system. And then different factions within the community will continue to debate the balance over the years, and sometimes rules will change as a result.

Are you interested in looking at a bunch of programs with different strengths and figuring out what the skating community wants to reward and how to design the scoring to achieve that?

skatinginbc said:

∑(DxE) is what they use in diving.
In my skating judging proposal, ∑(Difficulty x Performance) = Element Difficulty x Element Performance + Skating Difficulty x Program Performance

If your question is about the Total Element Score, then my answer is: ∑D x ∑E.

Click to expand...

Oh, OK.

Hmmm. In that case I do not see what exactly we are measuring when we multiply these two numbers together.

Lets' take the case of only two elements, say a quad with underotation and fall, and a combination spin which is virtually perfect. We have

Total D times total E = [D(quad)+D(spin)] times [E(quad)+E(spin)]

= D(quad)E(quad) + D(quad)E(spin) +D(spin)E(quad) + D(spin)E(spin)

The first and last terms make sense (as in diving), but those two middle terms seem out of place. Why should we multiply the base value of the quad times the E value of the spin, and let that contribute to the total?

It would seem more natural to take the inner product (dot product) of the two vectors:

D = <D(quad), D(spin)> dot E = <E(quad), E(spin)> = D(quad)E(quad)+D(spin)E(spin).

skatinginbc said:

This is my question as a casual fan: Should quality value about 10% of the TES or should it value as much as the difficulty score? Of course, it is a question up to the skating experts to decide.

Click to expand...

To me, I could accept GOE a little more than 10% of the total TES. But I don't think GOE should be valued as much as BV, or even too close to BV, for the obvious reasons.

If that was the reason that you want to change the current scoring system, I don't think it's necessary to kill the chicken in order to get the egg. We could just increase GOE +/- swings a little bit, not too much to make it tip off, like several people have proposed in last a couple of years, it'll be ok. Or if you want straight forward method to punish multiple falls, make the deduction a little more than -1, such as -1.5 for the second fall and -2 for the third fall. The problem solved.

gkelly said:

the detailed protocols are the most valuable aspect of the scoring system for the skaters, so yes, we do have to have them.

Click to expand...

Mathman said:

Why should we multiply the base value of the quad times the E value of the spin, and let that contribute to the total?

Click to expand...

Hm, those arguments show that experts and skating fans alike naturally see each element as an independent unit and thus an analytical assessment providing feedback on each element is not only preferred but also necessary.
Logically we can accept D(jump) x E(jump) = D (Entrance + Rotation + Landing) x E(Entrance + Rotation + Landing) and thus D (Entrance) x E(Landing), but we have a problem with D(elements) x E(elements) = D (Spins + Jumps) x E(Spins + Jumps) and thus D (jump) x E(Spin). It tells us that we actually don't see all elements as an integrated whole. We can add those elements together to form a category but cannot multiple them as products of each other. So say bye-bye to my attempt of a holistic scoring approach.

Bluebonnet said:

To me, I could accept GOE a little more than 10% of the total TES. But I don't think GOE should be valued as much as BV, or even too close to BV, for the obvious reasons.

Click to expand...

What are those "obvious" reasons you were referring to if I may ask?
Here is a list of "Difficulty Percentage of final scores for selected artistic sports" (http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j...=AFQjCNEQ9AT8ysRs6trSkd28fZY2iPufJQ&cad=rja):
Rhythmic = 33% (Final Score Calculation ==> D+2E)
Acrobatic = 33% (D+2E)
Aerobic = 16-20% (D/2+2E)
Men Artistic Gymnastics = 42% (D+E)
Women Artistic Gymnastics = 37% (D+E)
Double Mini Trampoline = 20-25% (D+3E)
Tumbling = 20% (D+3E)
Synchronized Swimming = 50% (D+E)
How about figure skating? Say Difficulty or base marks constitutes 85% of TES (GOE 15%) ==> 42.5% of the Total Score. Say half of Transition and half of Skating Skills are about Difficulty ==> 1/5 of the program component score ==> 10% of the Total Score. So, with my conservative estimation, Difficulty constitutes at least 52.5% of the total score in figure skating, higher than every known artistic sport. Why is execution relatively unimportant in figure skating?

skatinginbc said:

Hm, those arguments show that experts and skating fans alike naturally see each element as an independent unit and thus an analytical assessment providing feedback on each element is not only preferred but also necessary.

Click to expand...

Yes. Skating as practiced in the post-World War II era, and certainly in the post-figures era, has relied on assessing the quantifiable difficulty as well as the quality of discrete elements (the Technical Merit score, and later in the short program the Required Elements score) along with more holistic ratings of

The difficulty and overall skill level of the skating content between the elements was really reflected in both scores, although at times it was only explicitly in the second mark.

However, the 6.0 scoring system was designed in an earlier era when there was only one freeskating program and the elements were not isolated from or more difficult than the connecting skating.

In ice dancing, that continued to be the case up to the end of the 6.0 era, even with the addition of some required elements to the free dance. Because the difficulty of the dance elements was less quantifiable.

This system continued to be used as the technical content became more quantifiable, which meant that every judge quantified the content in their own individual ways and the skaters never knew how much credit they were getting for what they were doing. And so there were controversies, whenever the judges gave more credit to different aspects of performance than the skaters or the public did.

(Not to mention political controversies between judging factions)

So there was holistic scoring under both marks for free programs, and the second mark for short programs, but it was essentially a black box in which each judge could do whatever they wanted to come up with the scores and then manipulate the numbers as needed to produce their intended rankings. I don't mean this in a dishonest sense -- just that they were not required to show their work, each used their own individual priorities to weight or ignore the different parts of the scoring, and were free to rely on educated gut feeling rather than analysis.

As long as the judges were honest and knowledgeable, it worked pretty well to produce meaningful rankings, but hiding the unstandardized technical analysis that each judge did to arrive at their technical base marks for each skater was not a point in its favor.

we actually don't see all elements as an integrated whole. We can add those elements together to form a category but cannot multiple them as products of each other. So say bye-bye to my attempt of a holistic scoring approach.

Click to expand...

The holistic parts of the IJS scoring are the program components.

skatinginbc said:

So say bye-bye to my attempt of a holistic scoring approach.

Click to expand...

I think we have said bye-bye as soon as we introduce the language ∑D for the total D score. This means that we assign base value (difficulty score) for each element separately, then for the total we add these together.

skatinginbc said:

What are those "obvious" reasons you were referring to if I may ask?

Click to expand...

It shouldn't finally kill the boundary-pushing aspect of figure skating, therefore, execution cannot take over, or even match difficulty. See how sensitive figure skating is: After a little adjustments on scoring for jumps and spins after 2007 Worlds, quad jump was diminished from their champions from 2008 to 2010. This is always a great example on what we should and shouldn't do.

skatinginbc said:

How about figure skating? Say Difficulty or base marks constitutes 85% of TES (GOE 15%) ==> 42.5% of the Total Score. Say half of Transition and half of Skating Skills are about Difficulty ==> 1/5 of the program component score ==> 10% of the Total Score. So, with my conservative estimation, Difficulty constitutes at least 52.5% of the total score in figure skating, higher than every known artistic sport. Why is execution relatively unimportant in figure skating?

Click to expand...

Every sport is different. Even from your list, D is ranging from 16-20% to 50% in different sports. I do not know what percentage is perfect for figure skating. And I don't think anyone knows it at this point. I think IJS is still looking for and not yet found the "perfect balance" in some aspects for this sport. But it's getting closer and closer each year. I don't think it's perfect now but it doesn't need a major surgery. A little adjustments in here and there are all it needs. Of course, as long as anyone is interested in, they can always come up with new "Judging Systems" for entertainment. That's what I think. JMO.

I think it is very difficult to maintain the distinction between holistic and element-wise, and also that it is difficult to maintain the distinction between comparative judging and norm-referenced judging.

At the 1988 Olympics, judged under 6.0, Brian Boitano won the first mark over Brian Orser in the long program, thus securing the gold medal. The reason why Boitano got the higher mark was because he did two triple Axels to Orser's one, other aspects of the program being equal.

Is this comparative or norm-referenced? Two is better than one.

When Michelle Kwan began her career she did 3L+2T, 3T, 2A in the short program. This was the gold standard in those days. Then Sasha and others came along and did 3Lz+2T, 3F, 2A. Michelle had to up the ante to stay competitive.

If Sasha gets 5.9 for doing 3Lz+2T, 3F, 2A, and Michelle gets 5.8 for doing 3Lz+2T, 3T, 2A, is this comparative judging (Sasha's layout was more difficult than Michelle's), or is this norm-referenced (a triple flip is more difficult than a triple toe)? Is this holistic (overall, Sasha's technical elements had the greater difficulty), or is it based on evaluating individual elements in isolation (3F>3T)?

Bluebonnet said:

It shouldn't finally kill the boundary-pushing aspect of figure skating, therefore, execution cannot take over, or even match difficulty.

Click to expand...

I think boundaries can be pushed in terms of execution and artistry, too. To me, this is what distinguishes figure skating from other sports.

IMHO the most wonderful moment in a performance is that pure, secure, flowing edge when a skater lands that difficult jump with perfection. If that aspect of skating were rewarded more by the scoring system, perhaps we would see it more.

Mathman said:

I think we have said bye-bye as soon as we introduce the language ∑D for the total D score.

Click to expand...

Mathman said:

If Sasha gets 5.9 for doing 3Lz+2T, 3F, 2A, and Michelle gets 5.8 for doing 3Lz+2T, 3T, 2A, is this comparative judging (Sasha's layout was more difficult than Michelle's), or is this norm-referenced (a triple flip is more difficult than a triple toe)? Is this holistic (overall, Sasha's technical elements had the greater difficulty), or is it based on evaluating individual elements in isolation (3F>3T)?

Click to expand...

I was hoping to keep one panel of judges watch and assess the overall execution of the elements as a whole. But now I realize my design of ∑(Parts x Whole) won't work. It is a logical paradox (or contradiction): If something should be seen as separate parts on one hand, they should not be seen as a whole on the other. As you pointed it out, individual elements were evaluated in isolation (3F>3T) even under the 6.0 system. People naturally see them as separate elements.
Too bad, I think ∑E is a good "clean skate index" or more accurately a good "execution index", which tells us objectively who has a good skate in terms of executing the planned elements well.

skatinginbc said:

Too bad, I think ∑E is a good "clean skate index" or more accurately a good "execution index", which tells us objectively who has a good skate in terms of executing the planned elements well.

Click to expand...

I think so, too!

I think the problem comes about when we multiply the two numbers, total D and total E If we simply added them, all would be well. When we multiply sums, the distributive law is our enemy, but in adding sums the commutative law is our friend.

There are a number of different judged sports that have different kind of content that is judged. Therefore they also probably require different methods of judging, and what works well for one might not work well for another. We can look elsewhere for inspiration, but ultimately it makes little sense to say method A works well for freestyle figure skating so therefore it must be better than method B used in diving or method C used in ice dancing, or vice versa.

My knowledge of sports other than figure skating is limited, so those who know more can correct my impressions where applicable.

*The sport consists of discrete elements performed in isolation, with athletes taking turns. In a large competition an athlete might perform the second element many minutes or even a few hours after the first. Everyone may perform the same moves, so difficulty remains constant and only execution determines the results, or the athletes may have some choice of which elements to perform and are rewarded for difficulty as well as execution
-school figures
-diving
-vaulting
-aerial skiing

*The sport consists of multiple discrete elements performed in sequence while remaining in contact with the medium or apparatus. It may or may not be necessary to remain in motion between elements, and some elements that test balance/strength may not involve movement while in progress, but only the difficulty and quality of the elements themselves and not the movements between the elements count toward the score.
-trampoline

*The sport consists of recognizable, quantifiable elements linked together into a program or routine in which the use of the medium/apparatus between elements and the transitions from one element to the next are part of the content being scored, along with the difficulty and quality of the elements -- there might be different proportions between the values of the elements and the values of the in-betweens depending on the sport or on the stage of technical development or rules for different phases of competition within a single sport
-most gymnastics apparatuses
-snowboarding

*The sport consists of recognizable, quantifiable elements linked together into a program or routine in which the use of the medium/apparatus between elements and the transitions from one element to the next are part of the content being scored, along with the difficulty and quality of the elements AND the holistic impression of the performance as a whole including such artistic extra-athletic qualities such as projection to an audience and expression of musical nuances while executing the technical content
-freestyle figure skating (quantifiable elements and in-between skating skills and overall performance impression are all important)
-freestyle roller skating (similar to ice but the in-between skating is less important than the elements)
-IJS-era ice dancing and synchronized skating
-synchronized swimming?
-rhythmic gymnastics
-women's floor exercise

*The sport consists of integrated programs or routines in which difficult skills in the use of medium/apparatus are displayed and evaluated throughout the performance and not separated into distinct elements; the difficulty, technical execution, and artistic impression are all evaluated for the program as a whole
-pre-IJS ice dancing
-pre-double jump freestyle figure skating

skatinginbc said:

Too bad, I think ∑E is a good "clean skate index" or more accurately a good "execution index", which tells us objectively who has a good skate in terms of executing the planned elements well.

Click to expand...

The devil is in the details, but I agree that there is something quite attractive about multiplying totals.

Multiplying D times E gives an extra premium on getting both numbers uniformly high. 8x8 = 64. That is more than 7x9 = 63 and more than 6x10 = 60.

At the championship level skaters would not be able to neglect one aspect of their technical performance hoping to make it up in the other.

Conversely, at the low end, if either score is low you are out of luck. 8x2 = 16. It would be better to work on the 2 than to cram more into the 8. 9x2 = 18 but 8x3=24.

Edited to add The two biggest criticism of the IJS are

(a) a skater can win without doing the hardest elemnts if she does the easier elements extremely well.

And the other side of the coin,

(b) a skater can win if he does a lot of hard quads even if he falls and has other errors.

The CoP should discourage both of these. The CoP should say, do your quads and do them well. The DxE method puts a premium on that symmetric balance.

gkelly said:

The sport consists of recognizable, quantifiable elements linked together into a program or routine in which the use of the medium/apparatus between elements and the transitions from one element to the next are part of the content being scored, along with the difficulty and quality of the elements AND the holistic impression of the performance as a whole including such artistic extra-athletic qualities such as projection to an audience and expression of musical nuances while executing the technical content
-freestyle figure skating (quantifiable elements and in-between skating skills and overall performance impression are all important)
-freestyle roller skating (similar to ice but the in-between skating is less important than the elements)
-IJS-era ice dancing and synchronized skating
-synchronized swimming?
-rhythmic gymnastics
-women's floor exercise

Click to expand...

Rhythmic ==> The final score = Execution Score + (Artistic Score + Difficulty Score)÷2. All E, A and D scores range from 0 to 10. The perfect score in Rhythmic gymnastics is 20. The E/D ratio is 2. (http://gymnastics.about.com/od/majorcompetitions/a/rhythmicscoring.htm)

Synchronized Swimming ==> The final score = Technical Merit Score (= Execution 40% + Synchronization 30% + Difficulty 30%) + Artistic Impression Score (= Choreography 60% + Music Interpretation 30% + Manner of Presentation 10%). The E/D ratio is 1.33. (http://swimming.about.com/gi/o.htm?...option=com_content&task=view&id=49&Itemid=119)

Women's floor exercise ==> The final score = Difficulty Score (= Difficulty Value + Composition Requirements + Connection Value) + Execution Score (= Approximately 70% Execution + Approximately 30% Artistry). According to the newest rules, the number of elements that count towards the D-score is limited to 8 (each worth 0.7 maximum for the highest level). Maximum composition requirements score = 2.50. After adding the connection value and all that, the D-score ceiling is about 10 points. And the E/D ratio is about 0.7 (http://issuu.com/2008agwc/docs/01-1_wag_cop_2009-2012__english_).

Figure skating ==> What's the E/D ratio in figure skating? 15%? 30%? Why so low compared to 70%, 130% or even 200% in other artistic sports? Yes, each sport is different, but this is my big question: Why should execution weigh so little in figure skating?

skatinginbc said:

Figure skating ==> What's the E/D ratio in figure skating? 15%? 30%? Why so low compared to 70%, 130% or even 200% in other artistic sports? Yes, each sport is different, but this is my big question: Why should execution weigh so little in figure skating?

Click to expand...

Just a wild guess -- the other sports I listed in this category are all for women only, whereas male powers-that-be in figure skating think that men's figure skating should not be
scored in a way that emphasizes appearance and that transfers to the scoring for female skaters as well?

Mathman said:

I think boundaries can be pushed in terms of execution and artistry, too.

Click to expand...

True. But as a sport, the athletic boundaries should be absolutely opened and encouraged. The artistic boundaries, though should be encouraged too, are always secondary given the nature of figure skating.

gkelly said:

Just a wild guess -- the other sports I listed in this category are all for women only, whereas male powers-that-be in figure skating think that men's figure skating should not be
scored in a way that emphasizes appearance and that transfers to the scoring for female skaters as well?

Click to expand...

I think so too. I think it's time to separate the scoring of men's skating from the ladies' skating. They should emphasize on different aspects. It's the nature which we should respect so that we could maintain the beauty and the charm of men and women.

Bluebonnet said:

True. But as a sport, the athletic boundaries should be absolutely opened and encouraged. The artistic boundaries, though should be encouraged too, are always secondary given the nature of figure skating.

...I think it's time to separate the scoring of men's skating from the ladies' skating. They should emphasize on different aspects. It's the nature which we should respect so that we could maintain the beauty and the charm of men and women.

Click to expand...

So do you think that pushing athletic boundaries should be primarily encouraged and pushing artistic boundaries should be secondary in women's skating? (Or pairs skating, where the women are usually the biggest risk takers?)

All the flexibility moves we see in the spins (and lifts and death spirals) now and that proliferated in the leveled spiral sequences a few years ago are one way of pushing athletic boundaries in specifically feminine ways. They're not necessarily specifically blade-on-ice oriented though -- I'd rather see more encouragement to push the boundaries on combining more complex bladework or extreme ice coverage with the current level of jump content.

E.g., I'd like to see a leveled spiral sequence again, in one of the two programs anyway, in which the features are more about edge skills than positions.

gkelly said:

So do you think that pushing athletic boundaries should be primarily encouraged and pushing artistic boundaries should be secondary in women's skating? (Or pairs skating, where the women are usually the biggest risk takers?)

Click to expand...

On the contrary, for the ladies, I think it should be the other way around. That's the reason I think men's and women's skating should be separated. I haven't formed my idea about pairs yet.

gkelly said:

All the flexibility moves we see in the spins (and lifts and death spirals) now and that proliferated in the leveled spiral sequences a few years ago are one way of pushing athletic boundaries in specifically feminine ways. They're not necessarily specifically blade-on-ice oriented though -- I'd rather see more encouragement to push the boundaries on combining more complex bladework or extreme ice coverage with the current level of jump content.

Click to expand...

I like this in ladies!

gkelly said:

E.g., I'd like to see a leveled spiral sequence again, in one of the two programs anyway, in which the features are more about edge skills than positions.

Click to expand...

I do too, but only in ladies, not in men's.