Fixed base scores for elements

I'm just looking at these particular clips; for some of these skaters we could find other examples with greater or lesser overall quality.

CanadianSkaterGuy said:

I'm curious as to where Caroline Zhang would fall in that list: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQhf7WSUsGE Same with Nagasu, Czisny, and Lipnitskaia.

Click to expand...

I had deliberately chosen examples all from before IJS so that they would not include Biellmanns (and none of them would be more than level 2). There seems to be a glitch with the link to the Lucinda Ruh example that I chose, which wasn't her best layback ever in any case. Should I choose a different clip for her?

I also wanted an example of Slutskaya doing the sideways twist instead of the haircutter, but I couldn't remember which competition(s) she did that at.

Anyway, I think I would consider the quality of the spinning (speed, centering, finding the "sweet spot" of the blade) before the position. Beyond that, I know what looks more or less attractive to me, but it's hard to quantify that quality and not dependent on choosing or eschewing the classic attitude position.

With no levels, how should added difficulty figure into the scoring (e.g., see Yamaguchi's "level 2" example with sideways position, basic attitude, and then haircutter)?

Of the links I posted, I'd only give +3 to Krieg, but most of the others would be positive, either +2 or +1.

The Zhang example CanadianSkaterGuy posted looks like a definite +3 to me and it also has all those extra features for a higher level.

Also wondering where Daisuke's and Rohene Ward's would fall under those.

Click to expand...

Specific clips, please?

gkelly said:

Which do you enjoy most and why? Which do you think should score highest? Are your criteria for answering both questions identical?


Would some of the dissatisfaction with the current state of ladies' laybacks be mitigated if switching to a Biellmann position after at least 8 revolutions were no longer allowed in the short program?

Click to expand...

Yes. First, it makes all layback spins look far too similar. It's also way too demanding and unfair towards less flexible skaters. It's far more difficult for a non-flexible skater to get a level 4 layback spin than a flexible skater, since they likely have to achieve a far more difficult feature (the acceleration feature). Michelle Kwan was at a significant disadvantage under the early version of CoP because she couldn't attempt the Biellmann, likewise Rachael Flatt and Joannie Rochette couldn't get level 4 laybacks; Akiko Suzuki forces herself into a dreadfully ugly Biellmann to get a level 4.

I enjoyed Natalie Krieg and Yukina Ota's laybacks the most, because of their speed, back position, and how their arm movements matched or accentuated the music. Surprisingly, I didn't enjoy as much these particular examples of Angela, Sarah, and Sasha's laybacks even though I do like their laybacks--when I've seen them perform their laybacks within their programs, the speed of their spins didn't matter as much. Looking at their laybacks in isolation for the purpose of this exercise, I enjoyed the faster spins that were more directly matched into the music.

I'd prefer it if there was a cap on levels somehow so that we don't see all skaters attempt so many features per spin, which makes the spins so drawn out and kind of an ordeal since let's face it, most skaters don't spin like the Swiss. Right now, senior ladies attempt 3 spins that can each be a maximum of 4 levels = 12 maximum spin levels to be attained. Why not have the cap be at 10 levels, so that perhaps two of the spins can be level 4 spins while the third a simple level 2? Or just one be a level 4 spin, the other two level 3 spins? There's nothing wrong with a beautiful level 2 layback spin, and nothing wrong with a beautiful level 4 layback spin. There should be room to reward both based on the skater's strength and strategy. Instead most everyone feels compelled to go for the level 4 spin, regardless of how well they can do it, and for the most part, it doesn't enhance the performance. The spin requirements of today are far too demanding, and maybe the spin requirements of 6.0 were far too weak, but there is a middle ground that could be found. Much as they un-leveled the spiral sequence, I think they should consider taking away a few levels from the spins.

gkelly said:

There seems to be a glitch with the link to the Lucinda Ruh example that I chose, which wasn't her best layback ever in any case. Should I choose a different clip for her?

Click to expand...

:think: Yes, I think so: she's in 8th place in my ranking, and that is not the position she desrves, because her spins were usually far better than Yamaguchi's for example!

OK, try this one for Lucinda Ruh

Hopefully the clip will actually start where I told it to.

gkelly said:

Yes, this is true.

Suppose that there are no levels and that all rewards for both difficulty and quality are left up to the judges' GOEs.

Skaters who can perform simple elements with good quality will earn points that way. If they can earn the full range of positive GOE (currently +3) purely on quality, they won't need to add any difficulty.

Some skaters with good but not great quality will also add some extra difficulty so they can get extra points both ways and have a chance of +3 or at least +2.

Skaters who struggle with achieving enough quality to be rewarded (speed, positions, centering on spins; speed, edge quality, musical expression on steps) even when they keep the elements simple may strategize that even with unleveled elements they're more likely to increase GOE by doing clearly more than the bare minimum of difficulty. They wouldn't be guaranteed to be rewarded in the same way that they are guaranteed to earn levels if they execute the features, but they might consider it a better bet for earning points.



It all depends on the quality of the jump. Even top skaters get -3 for most jumps with falls. But if there were enough good qualities in the rest of the element (e.g., difficult entry and/or air position, good speed, good height, and of course full rotation; and especially when there's an excellent first jump in a combo or sequence followed by a fall on the last jump), then -2 or -1 can be justified. And it doesn't have to be a top skater in the sense of being an all-around top skater with top skating skills as well as top-level jumps and spins and presentation -- a top jumper can earn -1 or -2 for a failed jump even with mediocre scores in other areas.

So, similarly, an excellent spinner who rarely wins medals because of mediocre basic skating and/or jumping could earn higher GOEs for simpler spins, or spins with errors in a small part of the spin, than a weaker spinner (who may actually be a stronger skater) doing harder spins or comparable difficulty without visible errors.

Click to expand...

Are you advocating for the elimination of the technical panel?

I agree with the criteria, but I don't see how Lucinda Ruh wouldn't be called the best on that basis.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=mP5pXa0-DEg#t=115s

FSGMT said:

My guidelines would be:
-elegance of the position, judging how parallel to the ice your shoulders and your back are;
-ability to centre the spin quickly;
-high number of rotations in a good position;
-speed throughout the spin (possibly with an increase).
Basing on these, this would be my ranking:
1) Nathalie Krieg (not the best position, but the speed is absolutely outstanding!)
2) Dorothy Hamill
3) Yukina Ota
4) Dianne de Leeuw
5) Irina Slutskaya
6) Sasha Cohen
7) Kristi Yamaguchi
8) Lucinda Ruh
9) Sarah Hughes
10)Angela Nikodinov
11) Oksana Baiul
12) Tanya Street (not really a "layback")

Click to expand...

KKonas said:

Are you advocating for the elimination of the technical panel?

Click to expand...

I'm not necessarily supporting the concept of fixed base scores for elements; just thinking through the implications of what has been suggested in this thread.

But IF all elements had fixed base scores and there were no such thing as levels, the role of the technical panel would be greatly reduced.

They'd just have to identify what each element was, whether it met the very minimum requirements to count as what it was intended. The only real area of potential controversy would be jump downgrades. Otherwise, if everything had a fixed base mark, you could just have one person naming each element for the computer.

Is that really what this thread is proposing -- no levels for any elements? If so, then should judges reward difficulty in the GOEs, or should the scoring system ignore difficulty entirely when it comes to spins and steps?

I think some posters have suggested that one spin per program would not have levels, and someone suggested a cap on the number of levels allowed across the program that would require some elements not to be level 4. So in those cases, the tech panel as it currently exists would still be needed.

I advocate doing away with levels entirely as programs have lost their connection to the music because step sequences and spins no longer match the musical phrasing due to their requirements. Also, much of what is rewarded with higher levels is for people with extreme flexibility, which not all skaters have and GOEs aren't used properly by most judges anyway. Yes, I would do away with the tech panel, maybe just a data/video operator who inputs what the element is. We used to have 9 judges on a panel and that is expensive enough to import. Now, there's 7 judges, a TC, a TS, an ATS, a DO, and a VRO + the expensive system per panel and the results aren't any less controversial.

As it is, the top skaters get rewarded in the current system with higher GOEs than lesser known skaters for the same (or in some cases LOWER) quality (either this is true or many of today's highest level of skater have the greatest spins, which I don't really believe), so I don't understand the argument that levels should be kept to "help" the lower ranking skaters because if your name isn't Yuna Kim or Patrick Chan or (fill in the blank with well known top 10 Senior or Junior phenom), then you are probably going to get 0s or +1s no matter how great your spins are. I am not advocating going back to some of the really craptacular spins of the 90s that some skaters presented in programs where positions were barely held for a revolution as I think you'd have to hold a similar standard regarding establishing position for minimum revolutions, etc for the data/video operator to ratify it met the requirements for a given spin, but I'd rather see a spin that flows with the music as opposed to against it. Same goes for step sequences. I see a lot of skaters who get level 3s and 4s on their step sequences but they CLEARLY are struggling to get the turns and steps chosen for that step sequence to be clean (think rockers that look like 3 turns with a change of edge or twizzles that look like double 3s or Choctaws on a flat) that seem to be interminable in terms of the time they take up in the program. These step sequences also don't match the phrasing of the music in many cases (although Asada's short program steps this past season had magnificent use of music) and skaters are turning, bending, reaching, lunging, etc with no regard to what the music is "saying". Skating is a performance sport which makes it different than running or swimming or pole vaulting and more than a cursory nod to the performance aspect needs to be made to re-attract an audience in North America (along with a strong leading lady). One of the things about some of the greatest skaters in history is how they brought their selected music "alive" with their programs and brought some personality to those programs and this seems to be lost in the changing of positions to achieve levels and zig-zagging across the ice in a step sequence.

gkelly said:

Specific clips, please?

Click to expand...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uYKF00PC7o&t=2m28s (although I appreciate his originality in attempting this, there's practically no back flexibility... this LSp4 got more points than many other female skaters who actually achieve the layback position http://www.isuresults.com/results/gpjpn2012/gpjpn2012_Men_FS_Scores.pdf... seems more like a well-executed upright spin)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eck09NPwYjk&t=6m10s (this is a much better layback and I would rank it higher than some of the women on that list... excellent back position, in general, not just for a guy!... a shame about the rest of the FS though... he was so talented)

mskater93 said:

I advocate doing away with levels entirely as programs have lost their connection to the music because step sequences and spins no longer match the musical phrasing due to their requirements.

Click to expand...

So technical content should not matter at all? Should double jumps have the same base marks as triple jumps? Should step sequences (or whole programs) with no clockwise turns at all and no turns other than threes and mohawks start with the same base marks as sequences full of deep edges and varied, difficult turns? The only thing that should matter is musical phrasing, technical content be damned?

If we want skating to be a sport in which difficulty counts, then difficulty needs to be rewarded. We can debate what would be the best way to reward it -- whether either/or features as determined by a separate technical panel are the right way to go, or whether it would be more appropriate to leave it up to individual judges in some way (and what that way might be). But if you don't reward it at all, then you lose

We also want quality to count. How can that be balanced with difficulty? Can the scoring system build in bigger rewards for adding quality than it does for adding difficulty? Can it make sure that very difficult elements performed very well will earn the highest technical scores? Or do we want a sport in which the best skaters in the world execute the exact same elements as the intermediates, just with higher quality?

And we also want artistry to count, to sum up various aspects of performance that make skating special among sports and friendly to audiences who don't know or care much about technical details. But I think in the sporting context that should be the icing on the cake -- not the cake itself. In a show-skating context, the priorities would be reversed.

Also, much of what is rewarded with higher levels is for people with extreme flexibility, which not all skaters have and GOEs aren't used properly by most judges anyway.

Click to expand...

I'd rather rewrite the rules for features to give more credit for blade-based skills and less for flexibility skills than to give up entirely and refuse to reward difficulty at all.

As it is, the top skaters get rewarded in the current system with higher GOEs than lesser known skaters for the same (or in some cases LOWER) quality (either this is true or many of today's highest level of skater have the greatest spins, which I don't really believe),

Click to expand...

I do not see that this is true. I see high GOEs for good spinners at all levels.
Yes, there may be some psychological halo effect that the skaters with the best skating and the best jumps and the strongest federations behind them also get benefit of doubt when it comes to scoring their spins.

I'm sure you can find examples of spins by elite medalists that you believe are overscored, or spins by skaters who are much better at spinning than anything else that you believe are underscored. But in my experience these are more the exception than the rule.

Claiming that GOEs "aren't used properly" implies that judges almost always get it wrong. I disagree -- I see most GOEs as defensible, with occasional exceptions. It's just that the exceptions are so much more interesting to talk about.

If we assume that there is a "proper" way to judge (GOEs, or PCS, or 6.0 scores) but that judges almost never do it right, then why bother to hold competitions at all?

so I don't understand the argument that levels should be kept to "help" the lower ranking skaters because if your name isn't Yuna Kim or Patrick Chan or (fill in the blank with well known top 10 Senior or Junior phenom), then you are probably going to get 0s or +1s no matter how great your spins are.

Click to expand...

1) Define "great." Maybe your definition and the current rules are not operating on the same understanding. In that case, of course the judges will get it wrong according to your mental definition, because those aren't the rules they're working with. So first we need to come up with a working definition of what should be rewarded.

2) Show some examples of IJS spins that have been improperly marked on GOE in your opinion.

3) If we believe the existing GOE guidelines are appropriate but there a large percentage of spins have not been scored according to those guidelines, then the judges need to be better instructed.

Or if most spins have been marked appropriately according to the existing rules, but the results are still unsatisfying to a significant number of skaters, coaches, judges, and other stakeholders in the sport, then the rules should be changed. But to what? What do we want to reward? How can we write rules that will encourage all the things we want to reward, without putting undue importance on flexibility positions, changes of position, etc., without undervaluing skills that are harder to quantify, but without overacting by refusing to reward the quantifiable skills either?

but I'd rather see a spin that flows with the music as opposed to against it. Same goes for step sequences. I see a lot of skaters who get level 3s and 4s on their step sequences but they CLEARLY are struggling to get the turns and steps chosen for that step sequence to be clean (think rockers that look like 3 turns with a change of edge or twizzles that look like double 3s or Choctaws on a flat) that seem to be interminable in terms of the time they take up in the program. These step sequences also don't match the phrasing of the music in many cases

Click to expand...

Again, I think the goal here is to reward technical content, to reward technical quality, and also to reward phrasing to the music and other artistic qualities. But in skating-as-sport, the artistic qualities can't take precedence over the technical the way they would in shows.

From a sporting point of view, I would want to make sure to reward variety and difficulty of turns and to reward clean edges and turns. These are the fundamental skills of figure skating -- more important than jumps and spins. There needs to be some method built into the sport to make sure that skaters develop these skills and demonstrate them in competition.

Originally, there was a whole separate phase of competition for skaters to demonstrate precise edge work on circles, with no music or artistry. That phase is not going to come back.

So how can rewards for those skills be built into the context of competition programs in such a way that using those skills for artistic purpose is worth even more than just doing them because they're required, and that doing fewer turns well is worth more than doing more of them barely adequately?

How do we make it worthwhile for all skaters to develop good basic skating skills with appropriate difficulty for their skill level? To demonstrate the ability to execute those skills to music? And -- incidentally from a sporting point of view, but valuable from a marketing point of view -- entertain audiences while doing so?

Right now, for senior long programs, we have two sequences, one focused on technical content and the other focused on choreography to the music. It's relatively new -- should that approach be pushed further, with bigger rewards for skaters to use their Choreo sequences to artistic effect, and bigger rewards for greater quality of edges and turns without too much business in the leveled sequences? How can that approach work at lower levels that only have one step sequence for points?

Would different rules for short and long program allow one program to focus more on difficult content and the other more on aesthetic effect?

Should there be different ways to define extra points for difficulty in the leveled step sequences to make sure that all skaters demonstrate a minimum level of steps and turns? And then give options for whether to add more steps and turns, more full-body movement, deeper more sustained edges, extended positions and glides on edges, quick footwork, and/or detailed rhythmic connection to the music and thematic choreography to earn additional points?

Should there be more explicit ways built in to reward variety of steps and turns in the program components (Skating Skills and Transitions) so that skaters can be appropriately rewarded for demonstrating those fundamental skills throughout the whole program rather than cramming them all into a single step sequence?

CanadianSkaterGuy said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uYKF00PC7o&t=2m28s (although I appreciate his originality in attempting this, there's practically no back flexibility... this LSp4 got more points than many other female skaters who actually achieve the layback position http://www.isuresults.com/results/gpjpn2012/gpjpn2012_Men_FS_Scores.pdf... seems more like a well-executed upright spin)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eck09NPwYjk&t=6m10s (this is a much better layback and I would rank it higher than some of the women on that list... excellent back position, in general, not just for a guy!... a shame about the rest of the FS though... he was so talented)

Click to expand...

Thanks.

Again we come back to the definition of what is a good layback, what is the point of this element?

Why has this spin been required (for ladies) for so many decades? What value does it possess?

My guess is that it's a combination of two reasons:
1) Many women are able to achieve beautiful whole-body curves through back and free leg that enhance the aesthetic value of their programs, in ways that are considered traditionally feminine, and the ISU wanted to encourage all female skaters to develop that skill as much as possible.
2) Aesthetics aside, the ability to center a spin with the upper body off axis is a marker of technical skill worth rewarding. Note that the SP requirement has long been "layback or sideways leaning spin" and has not dictated the minimum acceptable position in any more detail than that.

From a purely aesthetic point of view, one could say that any attractive position should be rewarded, and any unattractive position should be avoided by skaters and penalized when executed.

"Attractive" is often in the eyes of the beholder. There are certain basic principles of aesthetics that most eyes will agree with, such as the "classic" attitude position with deep back arch, but different skaters have different body types so they're not all going to be able to create the exact same shapes with their body. Some observers will dislike anything that deviates from the classic position in certain directions (leg too low, back not arched enough, back arched too much, free leg not bent, asymmetrical back position, etc.) while others will enjoy well-performed variations.

From an acrobatic point of view, flexibility could be valued for its own sake. In general more flexibility tends to be associated with the ability to achieve greater aesthetic appeal, but sometimes extreme flexibility can look like contortion and turn off some viewers. Also rewarding certain positions just for being achieved will encourage skaters to attempt them whether they have enough flexibility to look good or not, so we see a lot of bare-minimum-acceptable, or failed, haircutters and Biellmanns by not-so-flexible skaters that may or may not give them an extra level but that detract from the aesthetic appeal.

From a technical point of view, a "good" layback is one that achieves at least a minimum acceptable body position with good centering, good speed, many revolutions. Those would all be reflected in the GOE.

Being able to achieve both the backward and sideways positions, being able to change edge while in the laid-back position, and being able to arch the upper body backward at all in a backspin all add to the difficulty, so they can be rewarded as features.

Looking at these two male laybacks, I agree that Ward shows more flexibility and a more aesthetically appealing curved shape -- which some gender bigots might consider too "feminine" for a man but as far as I'm concerned it's a plus. The spin is well centered and it has about 10 revolutions, so well over the 6+ expected in a senior freeskate. But it is kind of slow. So under the current GOE guidelines I'd go with +1 but could understand +2.

Takahashi's is faster with more revolutions, enough for extra credit on each but not up to the level of the top female laybackers; the position is not unattractive IMO but nothing special, and the centering is mostly good but there is a slight amount of travel. So again I would go with +1 but could understand +2.

However, he did more than a basic layback here. What I'm most impressed with from a technical point of view is the edge change. That is sooo difficult in that position, and he made it look effortless on this occasion. He also had the change from sideways to backward. So that's two obvious features -- I'm guessing he also got credit for 8 revs in the same position and for acceleration? Even without those latter features, it was still a more difficult technical feat than Ward's, so a higher level and a similar GOE for different reasons seems appropriate to me.

So if there were a fixed base mark for "layback" and no levels, I would want to reward Takahashi for the difficulty in that edge change in the GOE. Either way, I think that spin deserves a higher score than Ward's.

gkelly said:

OK, try this one for Lucinda Ruh

Hopefully the clip will actually start where I told it to.

Click to expand...

jenaj said:

I agree with the criteria, but I don't see how Lucinda Ruh wouldn't be called the best on that basis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=mP5pXa0-DEg#t=115s

Click to expand...

Would you deduct for low leg position?

Michelle Kwan, not a great spinner and somewhat "flexibility challenged," experimented with various positions throughout her career and eventually came up with the "heart spin." Dick Button called it "a pretty position within the range of her capabilities."

http://a.espncdn.com/media/oly/2005/1024/photo/g_kwan_195.jpg

gkelly said:

Looking at these two male laybacks, I agree that Ward shows more flexibility and a more aesthetically appealing curved shape -- which some gender bigots might consider too "feminine" for a man but as far as I'm concerned it's a plus. The spin is well centered and it has about 10 revolutions, so well over the 6+ expected in a senior freeskate. But it is kind of slow. So under the current GOE guidelines I'd go with +1 but could understand +2.

Takahashi's is faster with more revolutions, enough for extra credit on each but not up to the level of the top female laybackers; the position is not unattractive IMO but nothing special, and the centering is mostly good but there is a slight amount of travel. So again I would go with +1 but could understand +2.

However, he did more than a basic layback here. What I'm most impressed with from a technical point of view is the edge change. That is sooo difficult in that position, and he made it look effortless on this occasion. He also had the change from sideways to backward. So that's two obvious features -- I'm guessing he also got credit for 8 revs in the same position and for acceleration? Even without those latter features, it was still a more difficult technical feat than Ward's, so a higher level and a similar GOE for different reasons seems appropriate to me.

So if there were a fixed base mark for "layback" and no levels, I would want to reward Takahashi for the difficulty in that edge change in the GOE. Either way, I think that spin deserves a higher score than Ward's.

Click to expand...

The difficulty in the edge change was reflected in the level 4 nature of the spin (edge change is an extra level; he sometimes misses it though and only gets LSp3). Since Takahashi was in a more upright position the edge change (IMO) wasn't super hard... certainly not close to as hard as an edge change in a camel position, or an edge change in a difficult layback position (like Phaneuf's change of edge in her haircutter LSp4). I would certainly give higher GOE to Ward for back position and presentation of the spin, but indeed Takahashi has faster rotations and would get greater difficulty even though it was more like a headless upright spin with his arms out (but it certainly is original and as you said not unattractive, just kinda meh).

gkelly said:

Again we come back to the definition of what is a good layback, what is the point of this element?

Why has this spin been required (for ladies) for so many decades? What value does it possess?

My guess is that it's a combination of two reasons:

1) Many women are able to achieve beautiful whole-body curves through back and free leg that enhance the aesthetic value of their programs, in ways that are considered traditionally feminine, and the ISU wanted to encourage all female skaters to develop that skill as much as possible.

Click to expand...

I like the compromise proposal to have some spins scored for levels and others scored for their esthetic appeal and musical and choreographic value (like the choreography spiral). A wonderful layback spin can just leap up and stab you in the heart. Especially if it is timed to music that says, "Are you ready? Are you ready? Are you ready -- here it is!" (If the music is more fierce at that point you can do a split jump instead with the same emotional appeal.) Changes of foot and direction do not add anything and some changes of position, like hair-cutter and Biellmann, detract.

Then after you did your second mark "pretty spin" you could do your technical "everything nut the kitchen sink combination spin" for big points.

Mathman said:

I like the compromise proposal to have some spins scored for levels and others scored for their esthetic appeal and musical and choreographic value (like the choreography spiral). A wonderful layback spin can just leap up and stab you in the heart. Especially if it is timed to music that says, "Are you ready? Are you ready? Are you ready -- here it is!" (If the music is more fierce at that point you can do a split jump instead with the same emotional appeal.) Changes of foot and direction do not add anything and some changes of position, like hair-cutter and Biellmann, detract.

Then after you did your second mark "pretty spin" you could do your technical "everything nut the kitchen sink combination spin" for big points.

Click to expand...

I agree with this... it would give skaters an opportunity to perform a creative spin that goes with the music (like the ChSp1). It's tricky determining what spin that will be though... maybe a flying spin, a combo spin, and one "other" spin.

CanadianSkaterGuy said:

The difficulty in the edge change was reflected in the level 4 nature of the spin (edge change is an extra level; he sometimes misses it though and only gets LSp3). Since Takahashi was in a more upright position the edge change (IMO) wasn't super hard... certainly not close to as hard as an edge change in a camel position, or an edge change in a difficult layback position (like Phaneuf's change of edge in her haircutter LSp4). I would certainly give higher GOE to Ward for back position and presentation of the spin, but indeed Takahashi has faster rotations and would get greater difficulty even though it was more like a headless upright spin with his arms out (but it certainly is original and as you said not unattractive, just kinda meh).

Click to expand...

IJS definition of layback and sideways leaning spin (from ISU Communication 1740):

Definition of Layback or Sideways Leaning spins:
Layback Spin is an upright spin in which head
and shoulders are leaning backward with
the back arched. The position of the free leg is optional.
Sideways Leaning Spin is an upright spin in which head and shoulders are leaning sideways and
the upper body is arched. The position of the free leg is optional.

Click to expand...

There isn't a definition of exactly how far the back and shoulders need to be arched or leaning in order for the spin to be considered a layback (or sideways leaning spin) as opposed to a headless upright spin, but I would understand the latter to be arched from the neck only, not including the back and shoulders. By that definition, Takahashi's spin is indeed a layback, just not an extremely arched one. I'd say the same about my own layback, which is my best spin.

The ISU decided a couple of years ago that edge changes would no longer count as features in upright spins or in back sitspins. I agree that those are much easier; the only spins I can actually change edge in are back upright and back sit.

Still, I would give props to a skater who could change edge in a headless upright spin, forward or backspin. Haven't seen anyone try, but if they did I would hope they would get the edge-change feature as well as the difficult position feature.

Just thinking about what I would even consider attempting, not that I would expect to succeed, I would think that the next easiest spin in which to change edge would be back camel. As for forward spins, I'll leave it to those who have actually attempted both to tell us whether it's easier to change in camel or layback position, but just based on the fact that we've seen so many more change-edge camels than laybacks, and the reaction of my body to even thinking about attempting either, I would expect the layback to be more difficult.

Obviously, as you note, in a difficult layback position it would be even harder than a simple layback position.

Mathman said:

I like the compromise proposal to have some spins scored for levels and others scored for their esthetic appeal and musical and choreographic value (like the choreography spiral). ...
Then after you did your second mark "pretty spin" you could do your technical "everything nut the kitchen sink combination spin" for big points.

Click to expand...

The way the choreographic sequences currently work, the leveled sequences must be executed earlier in the program and the choreo sequences afterward. I'm sure if the proposal of some leveled-some choreo spins were introduced, the leveled ones would most likely have to go first.

This is mainly for the convenience of the technical panel, so there's no question which was intended to fill which slot.

Choreographically, it would be better if skaters could have the option to do the choreo elements and the leveled elements in whichever order they prefer, both in terms of when they're more likely to succeed and when it fits the music and the concept of the program better.

But if the rules were something like "the spin/step sequence that gets credit for the most features earns the respective level, and the other element(s) of that type get only the fixed base mark and GOE" then there would be nothing to stop skaters from attempting as many features as they could in every spin (and step sequence) and hoping at least one will qualify for level 4. Which would defeat the purpose.

So there has to be a better way to make sure skaters and tech panels are on the same page as to which elements are available for levels and which are not.

I'd kind of prefer to rethink the difference between short and long program -- since there's not much difference between them these days aside from the length.

Alternative one:
Technical program has leveled elements measure how much difficulty each skater can execute
Free program has choreo elements where each skater uses only those skills s/he does best or that best contribute to the aesthetic purpose

Alternative two:
Compulsory program has simple basic required elements without significant variations, to measure how well each skater can execute the basic skills; no reward for extra difficulty, which might not even be allowed
Free program allows free choice of all available skills and element types, with rewards for added difficulty in spins and steps in the form of features and levels

CanadianSkaterGuy said:

I agree with this... it would give skaters an opportunity to perform a creative spin that goes with the music (like the ChSp1). It's tricky determining what spin that will be though... maybe a flying spin, a combo spin, and one "other" spin.

Click to expand...

Yeah, if there are three spins allowed in the program, then probably there would be a requirement for a spin in one position, a spin with change of position, at least one of which must have a flying entry, and then a third spin (which would likely have to be third chronologically) entirely of the skater's choice. If there are at least 3 revolutions, it gets the fixed base mark, and then after that it would be scored entirely on GOE and in the applicable program components.

If there were only 3 revolutions, the GOE would likely be negative.

But a two or even one revolution spin can be a nice touch, even if it doesn't fill a spin box. I guess a skater has to be careful in twirling around that she doesn't accidentally get charged with a weak spin.

I can see the point about the choreography spin having to be last. It would be too much burden on the tech panel otherwise. The element could be effective, even so. You could also do a blinding-fast 0 feature upright spin as the very last element, like pro skaters often do. A crowd-pleasing way to end a program on a TA-DA note without losing levels.

About the short program, alternatives 1 and 2 are food for thought. I can't decide which would be better, even though they are direct opposites.

gkelly said:

OK, try this one for Lucinda Ruh

Hopefully the clip will actually start where I told it to.

Click to expand...

So, judging this (and changing a couple of things) this is my ranking:
1) Lucinda Ruh
2) Nathalie Krieg
3) Dorothy Hamill
4) Yukina Ota
5) Irina Slutskaya
6) Dianne De Leeuw
7) Sasha Cohen
8) Kristi Yamaguchi
9) Sarah Hughes
10)Angela Nikodinov
11) Oksana Baiul
12) Tanya Street (not really a "layback")

jenaj said:

I agree with the criteria, but I don't see how Lucinda Ruh wouldn't be called the best on that basis.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=mP5pXa0-DEg#t=115s

Click to expand...

This specific spin has a low number of revolutions (compared to the other skaters that gkelly posted) and, even if the position is good, there is real speed only during the first 3/4 revolutions... (As you can see, I placed her 1st in the new ranking)

Mathman said:

But a two or even one revolution spin can be a nice touch, even if it doesn't fill a spin box. I guess a skater has to be careful in twirling around that she doesn't accidentally get charged with a weak spin.

Click to expand...

That has always been true in IJS.

Before the mid-90s when the ISU introduced suggested minimum revolutions for spins in the long program (and raised the required minimums in the short), you would sometimes see long program spins with only two or three revolutions. Even good skaters sometimes did that for flying spins where the emphasis was on the air position not the spin.

But since the well-balanced long program rules came in, 6 revs for solo spins and 10 total for combo spins are expected in senior long programs. However, the definition of a spin is 3 revolutions. Less than that is just a highlight move. Which can be a problem at lower levels (which don't use IJS in the US), where getting 3 revolutions in a camel position at all can be a challenge. But that shouldn't be an issue at senior level.

About the short program, alternatives 1 and 2 are food for thought. I can't decide which would be better, even though they are direct opposites.

Click to expand...

Well, if the short program is about specific, basic required elements that everyone should be able to do and we're just going to measure how well they each do each one, then the program can remain short and the format could be similar to what it was in the 1980s (and in junior SPs now), with different specific spins and jumps required each year.

If the technical program is the place to show all the hardest technical content and the free program is for showcasing one's own best skills with more emphasis on aesthetic coherence, then I think the technical program would need to be a long program to require or reward a full variety of jumping skills, in addition to as many technical skills as possible in spins and steps.

FSGMT said:

So, judging this (and changing a couple of things) this is my ranking:
1) Lucinda Ruh
2) Nathalie Krieg

Click to expand...

Just curious, why do you prefer Ruh to Krieg?
I think they're comparable, so neither order would be incorrect. I just like Krieg better myself, for the speed and position.

This specific spin has a low number of revolutions (compared to the other skaters that gkelly posted) and, even if the position is good, there is real speed only during the first 3/4 revolutions...

Click to expand...

Actually, there was a glitch in the link for the first Ruh example I posted -- it started in the middle of the spin, even though I gave the time stamp for the beginning of the element. If you back up the counter to before the start of the spin, you could see the whole thing. But it wasn't one of her best spins -- there was noticeable travel at the beginning -- so I just replaced the broken link with a better link to a better spin.

I am not advocating a reduction in difficulty of everything, as I said, I don't want to go back to the craptacular spins of the 90s from most of the competitors.

Everything would still receive a base value in my world and the minimum requirements for those base values for jump rotation, spins, and steps would be spelled out specifically for the technical operator (data entry/video) and judges. Perhaps this wasn't clear to begin with. BUT, I would remove the levels entirely but still have similar requirements for the spins to receive the base value (positions must be held for X revolutions for the spin to count for a solo spin, fly requirements, and combination spin position requirements such as all three positions must be attained AND a certain number of revolutions must be attained in each of those positions for it to count versus just paying lipservice to the spin and sort of doing 1.5 in the first position, spending a rev flowing to the next position then 1.5 in the next position - no, this would not count in my world) and would have similar requirements on step sequence that a certain percentage of the sequence must turn opposite to the rest of the sequence and a certain variety of turns/steps and direction must be attained. Difficulty of the spin or intracacy of the step sequence along with quality would be ascertained by the judges in GOE. GOE would need to be restructured and judges retrained in my scenario.

If a skater's program all went in the same direction (including turns and steps) this should be hit in SS, TR, and CH (or whatever you choose to call them) as it doesn't show balance. This, again, should be the judges' discretion.

As for spins which were over-graded/under-graded on GOE, I will need to go pick you out specific examples, but frankly I don't have time to do this until the weekend at earliest. I just know when I look at some protocols after some ecents, I say "really, they got a +2 for that? It wasn't THAT good, yeah they had beautiful jumps and steps, but their spins are pretty average for that level of skater" or I see a nice level 2 that doesn't get rewarded as much as I think it should for the quality of the position and speed of the spin.

To me, there's just so much technical thrown in for point-gathering's sake that there are VERY few programs I go back and re-watch because you could put any music on in the background and it would look the same. Much of the NA casual viewing public has been lost for any number of reasons but until there's a lady contending every year and some programs actually have some "artistic" value to them like Kwan, Cohen, Kerrigan, et al, that casual viewer isn't coming back. Skating is NOT running, swimming, or high jump. It needs to cash in on what makes it unique and different from a sport you put a stop watch to while maintaining the athletic aspect of it. Does what I am advocating now make sense?