Sine qua non: Elements and Quality | Golden Skate

Sine qua non: Elements and Quality

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Would you identify a single quality or element without which a skater should not be considered worthy of winning a competition, in your opinion?

I'm going to list a number of different qualities that have been casually proposed in discussions or that are implied by ISU rules. Clearly there are other qualities and elements that are valued and rewarded but that don't seem to be make-or-break deciders.

If you choose more than one, how would you rank your choices?

Please feel free to add other things if I leave out an option you'd want to choose.

I'll start with singles skating; later maybe I'll make separate lists for pairs and dance.


*Speed

*Continuous flow on edges

*Edge security

*Edge depth

*Difficulty and variety of steps, turns, and other blade-based skating moves (throughout the program and/or specifically in the official sequences)

*Difficulty of jump content

*Variety of jump content

*Size and speed of the jumps

*Correctness of jump technique including takeoff and landing edges, amount of rotation in the air, air position

*A single important kind of jump element

*Well-roundedness and variety of all types of skills including connecting moves as well as all categories of elements

*Carriage, extension, body alignment

*Relationship to the audience

*Relationship to the music

*Thematic coherence of the choreography

*Originality in technical content and/or choreography

*Full use of the ice surface including amount of ice covered (related to speed and edge depth) as well as choices of element placement and multidirectional skating and varied pathways

*Lack of disruptive errors

*Winning the free program

*Average level of performance over both programs

*(up to 1990 only) Ability to trace circles on clean edges with clean turns
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Thank you for this thread! In fact, I was just about to PM you with a queston (posed below) about this.

To me, the sina qua non is #2, continuous flow on edges.

It can't be difficult jumps, because there was skating before there was jumping. It can't be tracing perfect circles because skating has continued long after school figures were abandoned. You don't need music to skate. You don't need choreography to skate. You don't need an audinece to skate. You can skate slowly and you are still skating.

But if you are not flowing across the ice, then why are you out there?

Here is what I regardas a perfect skating performance. (This was posted recently on another thread -- OK, I posted it. :) ) This is Kristi Yamaguchi doing a show program near the end of her professional career. The program consists almost entirely of flowing along on the ice, while displaying a sampling of pleasing positions of the upper body and arms. This is what the angels will be doing when I march through the pearly gates. :)

Now, my question is: Is this hard to do, or is it something that any accomplished skater can do?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWfOF6o5jBs
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
To me, the sina qua non is #2, continuous flow on edges.

I'll agree with that choice (and your reasoning). :)

Here is what I regardas a perfect skating performance. (This was posted recently on another thread -- OK, I posted it. :) ) This is Kristi Yamaguchi doing a show program near the end of her professional career. The program consists almost entirely of flowing along on the ice, while displaying a sampling of pleasing positions of the upper body and arms. This is what the angels will be doing when I march through the pearly gates. :)

Now, my question is: Is this hard to do, or is it something that any accomplished skater can do?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWfOF6o5jBs

I would say that any accomplished skater -- average novice level and up -- could perform all or almost all of those skills. But what makes this special is the effortlessness and seamlessness of the edges and body movement, which are at an extremely high level that most skaters will never achieve even if they can do lots of triple jumps.

Mid-level difficulty but top-notch quality.
 

spikydurian

Medalist
Joined
Jan 15, 2012
I will give it try, gkelly, ranking the skills which I as a non-skater see as what differentiates one skater from another.

1) Speed (which tends to be most obvious) and ice coverage.
2) Flow and deep edges and the ability to turn in all directions without stopping.
3) Blade work - which is least obvious if watching from afar in the rink. I love love it when the t.v. zooms on the footwork of the various skaters.
4) Jumps - technical perfection, height, distance, exit and entry.
5) Carriage and posture- some skaters just have that 'soft lovely body movements' (I don't know why some just have it and some don't. And not all those who have 'it' are within the top ten in the Worlds nor some of the top ten in the Worlds have 'it').
6) Spins - speed and lines

The rest are dressings which add up to the uniqueness of figure skating as sport which are important too but I rate the above skills as something which I first look out for.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
^ That is an interesting take on the question! So, we watch a top level competition. All of the skaters are pretty good. But at the end of the day, we say."This skater was the best and deserves the medal." Why?

To me, posing the question this way brings "big jumps, no fall" to the fore, especially for the men. If a guy starts out with 4T+3T, 4T, 3A, 3A+2T, that guy has got my attention. I can forgive weak choreography and blah musicality.
 

BravesSkateFan

Medalist
Joined
Aug 7, 2003
For me it all boils down to connection..to the music, the audience & the choreography. To me that's what makes a skater great and its what makes skating unique from other sports. Difficulty and the ability to skate cleanly are important, but if you have that connection I'm not even focused on the elements. There have been many times I've watched and program that I loved and afterwords couldn't tell you what jumps they did. A quad lutz to open would certainly get my attention...but only that connection will hold it.
 
Last edited:

skateluvr

Record Breaker
Joined
Oct 23, 2011
For those who did not speak Latin nor feel like googling, can you explain what sine qua non is here? Are you asking which is most important in your list? Or the one thing one cannot do without, i.e. the most important basic skill from which others flow? Thanks.
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
sine qua non = without which not, i.e., something indispensible

So I'm asking what is the one thing that is most necessary to good skating, without which whatever you have may be good but not skating, or may be skating but not good. ;)
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Skateluvr raises a good point, though. Sina qua non could mean something like the lowest common denominator without which it's, "Get off the ice, you impostor!"

But the other question is interesting, too. In an elite competition everyone has good basics, satisfactory speed, adequate choreography, an arsenal of jumps and spins, etc. What characteristic is it that makes us say, "This is the one!"

http://ww3.hdnux.com/photos/11/35/32/2479754/13/628x471.jpg :)
 
Last edited:

Kitt

Final Flight
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Country
United-States
Arms? So you're saying the skater has to have toned arms?

On the other hand, could Sasha be any cuter in that picture?
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Like you, the first person I thought of when I heard "toned arms" was Joannie. I think she has both sine qua non and je ne sais quoi, n'est-ce pas? (One might shorten both and just say that a skater has It.)

I agree that there are some skaters one sees and says, "This is the one!" (Or the two, in the case of pairs and ice dancing.) For me, I think I make the assumption that an excellent skater will have at least good jumps and basics, so for me the element that makes the difference is usually flow that somehow expresses the music. I reason inductively by looking at all the skaters who give me gooseflesh and thinking about what it is they have in common. Browning, Kwan, Yagudin, Asada, Takahashi, Lambiel, Wylie, Sato, Klimova/Ponomarenko, G/G, Davis/White, Virtue/Moir, and so forth make me feel that I'm watching something that is full with meaning, not just something that I can compare in terms of points score with the others. In fact, when I watch it, I don't think of any others. It's in its own world.

Probably a lot of that is due to blade-to-ice skills; my favorite skaters all tend to have that quality. But it's also what happens with the upper body: the arms, the shoulders, the neck, the carriage.
 

miki88

Medalist
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Like you, the first person I thought of when I heard "toned arms" was Joannie. I think she has both sine qua non and je ne sais quoi, n'est-ce pas? (One might shorten both and just say that a skater has It.)

I agree that there are some skaters one sees and says, "This is the one!" (Or the two, in the case of pairs and ice dancing.) For me, I think I make the assumption that an excellent skater will have at least good jumps and basics, so for me the element that makes the difference is usually flow that somehow expresses the music. I reason inductively by looking at all the skaters who give me gooseflesh and thinking about what it is they have in common. Browning, Kwan, Yagudin, Asada, Takahashi, Lambiel, Wylie, Sato, Klimova/Ponomarenko, G/G, Davis/White, Virtue/Moir, and so forth make me feel that I'm watching something that is full with meaning, not just something that I can compare in terms of points score with the others. In fact, when I watch it, I don't think of any others. It's in its own world.

Probably a lot of that is due to blade-to-ice skills; my favorite skaters all tend to have that quality. But it's also what happens with the upper body: the arms, the shoulders, the neck, the carriage.

I totally agree with you on this point. Beautiful uninterrupted flow is what stands out for me in skating. Michelle and G/G epitomize this quality and it's what makes them so great. :)
 

dorispulaski

Wicked Yankee Girl
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Country
United-States
This has nothing to do with scoring, but everything to do with whether I enjoy a program or not, but in dance, it's scoreable:

Do the skaters show a connection to their music? If the piece is a waltz or a tango, can I tell with the music turned off? Do they portray the character of the dance well?

When the skaters have a good connection to the music, they connect me, as a member of the audience to the music, and that's the key thing I love in skating.
 

Dragonlady

Final Flight
Joined
Aug 23, 2003
To me, posing the question this way brings "big jumps, no fall" to the fore, especially for the men. If a guy starts out with 4T+3T, 4T, 3A, 3A+2T, that guy has got my attention. I can forgive weak choreography and blah musicality.

I look at the feet first. Always. If the feet are good, the edges are deep, strong, clean and quiet, speed is achieved effortlessly in a few strokes, the skater has good blade skills in the footwork, and deep strong edges, I'm a fan. I became an Arakawa fan just watching her stroke around the rink. Just the thought of her skating makes me swoon. And don't get me started on Yuka, Yags or Kurt. Of the current skaters, there's Patrick, Takahiko, Yuzuru, Nobi (softest jumping landings - like a feather), and of course, Daisuke. Irina had the most amazing speed and power over the ice. Three strokes and she was flying.

If the feet and basic skating are strong, then I want them put to good use. I want to see them doing complete programs, with real choreography and to pay attention to the music. Nothing bores me more completely than watching skaters strong around stalking jumps. It's why I'm not a Plushenko fan, even though his feet are to die for. My husband used to watch Elvis Stojko setting up for a jump and finally yell "Jump already!" at the TV.

If the feet aren't good, I'm not interested in the rest.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Here is a question that came up on the Suzuki versus Mao NHK thread.

There seems to be a consensus that the bottom line is basic edging and stroking skills. The jumps and other technical highlights serve as adornments to the complete program.

So maybe its like a finely crafted necklace, say, where the beauty is in the workmanship of the chain, while the gems placed here and there serve as embellishments whose value is their contribution to the whole. Yet, if a diamond is missing, that throws the whole piece out of whack.

Here is Michelle Kwan's exhibition number from 1998 worlds (Dante's Prayer). In this debut performance, she seems a little tentative, but still she manages to cast a spell up until her first jump, at about 1:27. She doubles it. Oh, bleep -- she was doing fine up until then. Sorry, 'Chelle, but this won't make your greatest hits vid.

It took most of the rest of the performance for her to reel me back in.

So my question is, in the case of something like a missed jump -- in CoP scoring how much should that lower the program component scores? I think it should be a lot. True, that's only two seconds out of a 4 minute program, but its like that missing diamond in the necklace. Its absence mars the whole thing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FU1TcbFIs-o
 

miki88

Medalist
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
So my question is, in the case of something like a missed jump -- in CoP scoring how much should that lower the program component scores? I think it should be a lot. True, that's only two seconds out of a 4 minute program, but its like that missing diamond in the necklace. Its absence mars the whole thing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FU1TcbFIs-o

I think it depends. There are times when a missed jump or two doesn't mar the whole program. In the case of Janet Lynn, her response to her mistake made the performance more memorable. Michelle's performance of Dreams of Desmodena at Worlds had errors but it's still more memorable than a lot of other clean programs.
 

ImaginaryPogue

Record Breaker
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
I too would argue it varies. Take a look at Patrick Chan's 2012 CoR LP for an example. He pops three jumps. Do they all lower your perception of the program in the same way?
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
I think that how much certain errors "mar" the performance is largely in the eye of the beholder. If it's an error that bothers you, it will continue to bother you after the skater has moved on to the rest of the program without errors. If it's something that you don't consider very important, you'll move on as well.

We won't all be equally bothered by the same errors. E.g., someone who's focusing on the artistic effect of a performance will probably be more bothered by a skater who lands a jump cleanly and then loses balance steps out of the landing, whereas someone who'd watching for technical mastery might be more bothered by a jump that land underrotated with the free toe on the ice.

If the coach knows that the skater has been habitually popping or two-footing jumps and is trying to get the skater to break that habit, a fully rotated jump landed on one foot followed by a fall might be a cause for rejoicing as getting closer to landing the jump cleanly in competition, whereas if the spectator expects a clean program the fall may be more disruptive to the aesthetic experience -- or cause for (possibly premature) rejoicing when rooting for that skater's rival.

Context matters. In a senior short program, turning a triple into a double or a double axel into a single is a costly mistake and will probably affect the skater's placement (depending on what the other skaters do). In a freeskate we won't always know whether the skater made an intentional choice to leave out a revolution on purpose, for strategic or aesthetic reasons. That's even more true in an exhibition context.

Using the necklace analogy, an intact silver necklace set with garnets will be more attractive and appropriate to wear in public than a platinum necklace of the same design set with rubies of which one is missing, but the monetary value of the latter would be higher. Depends on the context which is "better."
 
Top