Analyzing Sotnikova and Kim's footwork in the FS

Nadya said:

I don't think there's much of a story there. FS is a subjective sport? OK.

Click to expand...

I don't think a mere appeal to subjectivity will carry water at all here. The criteria for things like jump ratification, jump GOEs, penalties for mistakes in jumps, are all clear-cut and whether they are fulfilled or not is readily discernible, even for a layperson, if they bother to read and understand the rules. The rules for calling spin and step levels are clear, and should be able to be applied consistently across many different FS comps by the tech panels. But they weren't applied consistently in Sochi compared to the World's just after. Look at the difference of StSq levels awarded for the same programs in both competitions.

I think a far more plausible explanation for the Sochi tech panel's and some of the judges' apparent disregard for the rules is something along the lines of the story I gave. I don't think any of their perceptual faculties were malfunctioning the two nights of the ladies' event, do you? If they had wanted to apply the criteria like they allegedly were trained to do, I believe they could have and we'd have had a different ladies OG Medalist.

You asked me for what I thought would explain the SP results so I told my story. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

gkelly said:

So which feature of #2, #3, #4 do you think Kim didn't/shouldn't have gotten credit for?

Are we talking about the short program or the freeskate? Or does the same reason apply to both step sequences?

Click to expand...

To me #3 is the one most open to question because I didn't see FULL Upper Body Movements for 1/3 of stsq for FS, i.e. she remains upright for most of the stsq, she briefly dipped twice that I can see. Vancouver was better. Adelina and Caro vigorously threw themselves up and down 3 times or more, bent sideways, dipped and bopped, not exactly the smoothest and most graceful of spectacle but those weren't the criteria, since the challenge is BALANCE. Caro did that for almost all of her competitions, which is why she is the best example for Level 4 stsq. This is the most visible Feature to judge on the spot for Tech Panel, the others, such as counting the turns and steps, not so, within the very short timeframe. Probably why Fed instruction is to leave #3 unambiguous, to bend the upper body at the beginning and end of program, etc. Yuna did have the combinations for #4 but the execution was slow, not sure that the difficulty demanded of speed in execution has been fulfilled at Level 4.

What do you think? Do you see all 4 features satisfied by Yuna's skate? I just don't have the time or technology to measure the time when she dipped and her more vigorous arm movements to ascertain she made it 1/3 of the duration. Gracie flung herself and her arms about "like a windmill" and still scored Level 3.

@Kozure

I don't think a mere appeal to subjectivity will carry water at all here. The criteria for things like jump ratification, jump GOEs, penalties for mistakes in jumps, are all clear-cut and whether they are fulfilled or not is readily discernible,

Click to expand...

WOW. You need to read the ISU guidelines for awarding jump GOE. Very subjective. So much so that it states" Judges must take into consideration the bullets for each element. It is at the discretion of each Judge to decide on the number of bullets for any upgrade, but general recommendations are as follows:"

So in Sochi for example...when Adelina launched her 3t as high as she did any judge could legally only sight bullet #4 and award +3 and be within ISU guidelines.

Ill add that the bullets are subjective in my opinion. See for yourself.

http://www.usfsa.org/content/2013-14 S&P Establishing GOE.pdf

qwertyskates said:

Again, this is your opinion which you are free to express. However, your analysis is incomplete without *proving* that Yuna deserves Level 4 because she attains ALL FOUR FEATURES, when you have only proven ONE. The other THREE are simply your opinion.

Click to expand...

The other features have been proven, you're just being ignorant. They are not simply my opinion. She factually achieved criteria #3 if you measure it (I could go through and highlight all of the different directions for you, but anyone who understands skating should be able to do that on their own) and she factually achieved criteria #4 if you look at what I listed.

"Use of upper body movements for 1/3 of the pattern" is slightly more of a grey area, but only because it's a bit more subtle. Constant usage of arms on different levels, often above the shoulders, changes your balance point. That is what Yu-Na did in her sequence. It's just something you need actual dance/skating training to understand; it's not as obvious as someone dipping their entire body forward.

Blades of Passion said:

The other features have been proven, you're just being ignorant. They are not simply my opinion. She factually achieved criteria #3 if you measure it (I could go through and highlight all of the different directions for you, but anyone who understands skating should be able to do that on their own) and she factually achieved criteria #4 if you look at what I listed.

"Use of upper body movements for 1/3 of the pattern" is slightly more of a grey area, but only because it's a bit more subtle. Constant usage of arms on different levels, often above the shoulders, changes your balance point. That is what Yu-Na did in her sequence. It's just something you need actual dance/skating training to understand; it's not as obvious as someone dipping their entire body forward.

Click to expand...

Your opinion is that Yuna's use of mostly arm movements = FULL upper body movement for 1/3 stsq.

As I have posted, the rules do differentiate between MODERATE (3) and FULL (4).

Yes, this is your opinion. Caro, Adelina, their choreographers, the Tech Panel, etc., we all have a different opinion based on how we read the rules, and how most Level 4 are awarded at other competitions.

I feel that this is something that needs to be clarified because I see so MANY websites in an echo chamber that accuse Tech Panel of wrong judgment for Yuna's stsq based ONLY on counting the turns and steps.

And what makes you think I don't have any training? Raising your arms upwards, or sideways do not affect your balance, as long as your torso is kept CENTERED, in fact certain types of arm movements HELP to balance your feet and body movements. Nothing wrong with those, except the Feature SPECIFICALLY calls for movements that challenge Balance.

If there is no more to add, then please let's end this rather fruitless debate, where you insist you are right, and I insist the other Features that matter have not been investigated enough like #1, and Yuna looks to me that she didn't fulfill #3.

qwertyskates said:

As I have posted, the rules do differentiate between MODERATE (3) and FULL (4).

Click to expand...

NO they don't.

STOP posting incorrect rules.

^Is my assessment of jump GOE fair. Is it not a loaded gun for a biased judge to inflate within the rules? I'm very troubled by what I see and hope I'm mistaken. Yet very knowledgable people tend to agree with me.

Sam-Skwantch said:

^Is my assessment of jump GOE fair. Is it not a loaded gun for a biased judge to inflate within the rules? I'm very troubled by what I see and hope I'm mistaken. Yet very knowledgable people tend to agree with me.

Click to expand...

Yep. your assessment is pretty fair. They should have stricter guidelines because a judge could technically give a skater +3, for any one bullet point and there would be no trace of it.

Blades of Passion said:

Since there are still requests for it, here is Yu-Na's Short Program footwork sequence:

Click to expand...

Neato. I got a few comments about it, after comparing with the turns I posted:

1. How did you determine when the step sequence started? When I looked at her moves, I started counting basically from when she finished her spin -- so I was looking at a longer sequence (I posted only the turns, but note that when I posted my breakdown of the turns I had a three-turn about 3.5 seconds before the first rocker). Maybe it was based on where she was in the rink? I'm not sure how the start of the sequence is determined.
2. For your "9. Rocker, counterclockwise": Yeah, I kind of felt that this was a bit debatable -- based on the way she was leaning just before it, I think she was likely intending it to be a bracket. But now that I look at the tracing on the ice in freeze-frame, it does noticeably curve toward her left before the turn, making the entry LFO rather than LFI and hence a rocker.
3. For your "10. Counter, clockwise": I didn't put this as a turn because it seems like she may have put her right foot down when she did this. Then again the video I have is sort of blurry on this, so it's hard for me to make out. Can you confirm that she indeed kept her right foot in the air?
4. For your "23. Twizzle x2, counterclockwise" yeah I only count 2.5 turns (she starts out facing forwards and ends up facing backwards), I don't know why I had put down 3 twizzles.

Other than those comments, it seems like our analysis of the turns were the same. What I find interesting about this is that any regular guy with no special background in figure skating can quickly wikipedia the turns and identify them with pretty good accuracy. In other words it's fairly straightforward for anyone to see for themselves. Makes you wonder about the posters that keep saying they don't have the time nor interest to actually look at the footwork (i.e. the topic of this thread) yet have seemingly boundless time to make post after post trying to derail this thread and saying they're right because the judges said so.

Good luck trying to do Adelina's step sequence for the short program. I ended up not posting it because a lot of times, the positions were pretty marginal, so it was kind of hard to tell just which edge she was on when she did the turns and stuff. A lot of times she was on one edge on the entry but stood up and may have switched edges just before doing a turn so I wasn't sure which turn it would count as (sort of like your "9. Rocker" for Yuna). By contrast Yuna usually had pretty good lean in her turns so most were pretty fairly straightforward.

As an aside, Adelina does a jump in the middle of her step sequence in the short program, but why doesn't it count as more than half revolution (and mandatory GOE deduction)? The rules on this state: "Unlisted jumps, independent of their number of revolutions can be included in the step sequence without a deduction or any other consequence. Listed jumps with more than half revolution will be ignored in SP as an element, but will force the Judges to reduce GOE by 1 grade for “Listed jumps with more than ½ rev. included”. Listed jumps can be included in the step sequence of the FS, will be identified and will occupy jumping boxes." Granted, I know that a flutz is an unlisted jump, but still. (Okay. Just kidding about that one.) I don't know if it's because she lands on her left foot (and thus inside edge of her toe pick foot) rather than her right foot (outside edge of her take-off foot) and thus count as just half revolution or something.

For the steps, I noticed you had listed "cross steps" in both CW and CCW directions. Although they're not named on the list of steps, do they still count as steps toward fulfilling the step requirement? I'm also wondering if including the steps before your first chasse might make a difference.

P.S. I'm waiting for all the Adelina-supporters to jump in and say BoP is wrong, Yuna's SP step sequence was actually level 4, because, you know, she had 3 CW steps (toe step, chasse, and mohawk) and 5 CCW steps (chasse, mohawk, choctaw, change of edge, and cross roll), and that a given step needs to be done in both directions to count is just BoP's "opinion" despite the plain English reading of the requirements. I mean if they were consistent they would be posting just as vehemently. Never mind, I won't hold my breath.

Blades of Passion said:

NO they don't.

STOP posting incorrect rules.

Click to expand...

Somehow, I feel qwertyskates is trying to confuse us.

Vanshilar said:

1. I think she was likely intending it to be a bracket. But now that I look at the tracing on the ice in freeze-frame, it does noticeably curve toward her left before the turn, making the entry LFO rather than LFI and hence a rocker.

Good luck trying to do Adelina's step sequence for the short program. I ended up not posting it because a lot of times, the positions were pretty marginal, so it was kind of hard to tell just which edge she was on when she did the turns and stuff. A lot of times she was on one edge on the entry but stood up and may have switched edges just before doing a turn so I wasn't sure which turn it would count as (sort of like your "9. Rocker" for Yuna). By contrast Yuna usually had pretty good lean in her turns so most were pretty fairly straightforward.

Click to expand...

Yes, Yuna made a mistake there, if you watch her korean national SP step sequence, that part is suppose to be a curve with change edge + bracket. because of that mistake she lost the bracket and curve with change edge, both of which could be counted towards to levels. Although I still think the curve with change edge should still be counted if been lenient.
I also think #20 should be counted as a choctaw step. I watched that step of her sochi performance and korean national one super slow-mo, they looked exactly the same to me, and the change of foot is pretty clear to me, and I dont see too foot during the change of foot.
So I think the Sp step sequence is still level 4 even with that mistake and definitely will be a level 4 if lenient.

I also tried to analyze Adelina's step sequence, but I give up, for the exact reasons you mentioned above, I dont know what level Adelina's step sequence will get, if we scrutinize hers using the same strict standard as we analyzing Yuna's here.

Oh dear. After looking at Sotnikova's SP step sequence, it only should have received Level 3. She only executes ONE cluster of three difficult turns. She actually seems to have FOUR of these clusters planned in this sequence, but she only controls her edges well enough to do one of them successfully.

I'll have to set aside some time to write it all down later. This sequence is monstrous. *sigh*

Vanshilar said:

How did you determine when the step sequence started [for Yu-Na]? When I looked at her moves, I started counting basically from when she finished her spin

Click to expand...

She has a crossover inbetween the spin and the footwork. After the crossover the footwork can be seen as starting.

Vanshilar said:

As an aside, Adelina does a jump in the middle of her step sequence in the short program, but why doesn't it count as more than half revolution (and mandatory GOE deduction)? The rules on this state: "Unlisted jumps, independent of their number of revolutions can be included in the step sequence without a deduction or any other consequence. Listed jumps with more than half revolution will be ignored in SP as an element, but will force the Judges to reduce GOE by 1 grade for “Listed jumps with more than ½ rev. included”.

Click to expand...

Her jump is an unlisted one. Of course, the judges' GOE grades for the sequence were ridiculous anyway.

Sam-Skwantch said:

@Kozure
WOW. You need to read the ISU guidelines for awarding jump GOE. Very subjective. So much so that it states" Judges must take into consideration the bullets for each element. It is at the discretion of each Judge to decide on the number of bullets for any upgrade, but general recommendations are as follows:"

So in Sochi for example...when Adelina launched her 3t as high as she did any judge could legally only sight bullet #4 and award +3 and be within ISU guidelines.

Ill add that the bullets are subjective in my opinion. See for yourself.

http://www.usfsa.org/content/2013-14 S&P Establishing GOE.pdf

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree with you. I was hasty in how I expressed things in that post and should've taken the time to unpack what I was thinking. Despite the suggested guideline that for a +3 GOE, six or more bullet points should be fulfilled, it is well within a judge's right to award the +3 if one point is met exceedingly well.

What I should've said is that the guideline-bullets are expressed plainly enough that even a layperson can, in many cases, tell whether or not a bullet point has been fulfilled. There are borderline cases of course.

The point I was trying to get across is that it won't do to rely on the crutch of 'subjectivity' in judging to explain away the way it went down in the ladies' event at Sochi. Yes, the application of the rules has a subjective element, but that doesn't give license to apply the criteria willy-nilly. Judging in good faith requires the consistent application of one's subjective standards.

Say, for example, Skater A's jumping elements have excellent height, even if they don't fulfill the other bullets so well; she jumps so high that certain members of a judging panel decide to press and hold the +3 GOE button for her down the line for all of her elements. Skater B comes along and she may not jump as high as Skater A, but even many viewers at home, with their ISU rule-book in hand, would agree that: she still jumps high, has good speed into and out of her jumps, doesn't pre-rotate before taking off, seems effortless throughout and times her jumps to the music.

Now the same judges that pressed and held the +3 GOE button down for Skater A decide to press and hold the +1 and 0 buttons down for Skater B. Does the fact that the rules allow them discretion to press and hold the +3 button down for Skater A, justify them in pressing and holding the +1 and 0 buttons down for Skater B? I don't think so. That can't be explained away as 'subjectivity'; that's picking and choosing when to follow the rules and when to ignore them, to prop one skater up and hold the other skater down.

That's why I wish they would show the bullets used to award GOE on the protocols and believe that there should be a notes section to the right with at least a few words as to why any upgrades are awarded.

The point I was trying to get across is that it won't do to rely on the crutch of 'subjectivity' in judging to explain away the way it went down in the ladies' event at Sochi.

Click to expand...

The GOE guidelines on Jumps may in fact be the reason for inflated jump GOE resulting in more than a 5pt gap.

I wasn't trying to be rude and I've never disputed BoP's analasyis. It would be pointless because one of the only StSeq I enjoy belongs to a certain Russian not named Adelina. I know if I were to break her steps down in terms of protocols she is not the going to score the best. That said youll never convince me otherwise. Some scores come from the heart and not the rulebook...

Sam-Skwantch said:

That's why I wish they would show the bullets used to award GOE on the protocols and believe that there should be a notes section to the right with at least a few words as to why any upgrades are awarded.

I wasn't trying to be rude and I've never disputed BoP's analasyis. It would be pointless because the only StSeq I enjoy belongs to a certain Russian not named Adelina. I know if I were to break her steps down in terms of protocols she is not the going to score the best. That said youll never convince me otherwise. Some scores come from the heart and not the rulebook...

Click to expand...

You didn't come across as rude to me at all. FWIW, I thought Sotnikova and Lipnitskaya both skated wonderfully throughout the Olympics. But like you, I prefer Yulia.

Here are Sotnikova and Yuna's step sequences side by side:

Sotnikova: http://youtu.be/CrVL5tM926s?t=2m16s
Yuna: http://youtu.be/hgXKJvTVW9g?t=1m49s

The best way to judge who's using their 'arms torso' etc, is to look at the axis of their bodies and the depth of their edges. Yuna's are simply WAY deeper. She's almost never fully upright, and her entire body shifts with the turns and changes of edges. Adelina by comparison does some arm movements but her body core is never shifted at a very acute angle. She has nice spirals in there (a good stretch as Dick Button would say), but in terms of skating skills and steps, she is merely flapping her arms. Again, this is where her component scores---and not just the levels---look particularly conspicuous.

Also reviewing her opening lutz in 1080p at .25 playback speed (click the gear icon in the bottom right) http://youtu.be/CrVL5tM926s?t=1m14s it is very clearly that she shifts her blade out of an outside edge before take off. It is hard to say if she goes all the way to an inside edge from that angle, but that is clearly not a text book lutz. Her jumps do have great height and flow, but she did not perform the most difficult triples she could have, which is supposed to count for something in the uber objective/technical ISU system.

Extremely unethical having figure skating technical specialist when its so close to isu technical specialist which is official!! Totally unethical gerber! Liar!

sk8in said:

Here are Sotnikova and Yuna's step sequences side by side:

Sotnikova: http://youtu.be/CrVL5tM926s?t=2m16s
Yuna: http://youtu.be/hgXKJvTVW9g?t=1m49s

The best way to judge who's using their 'arms torso' etc, is to look at the axis of their bodies and the depth of their edges. Yuna's are simply WAY deeper. She's almost never fully upright, and her entire body shifts with the turns and changes of edges. Adelina by comparison does some arm movements but her body core is never shifted at a very acute angle. She has nice spirals in there (a good stretch as Dick Button would say), but in terms of skating skills and steps, she is merely flapping her arms. Again, this is where her component scores---and not just the levels---look particularly conspicuous.

Also reviewing her opening lutz in 1080p at .25 playback speed (click the gear icon in the bottom right) http://youtu.be/CrVL5tM926s?t=1m14s it is very clearly that she shifts her blade out of an outside edge before take off. It is hard to say if she goes all the way to an inside edge from that angle, but that is clearly not a text book lutz. Her jumps do have great height and flow, but she did not perform the most difficult triples she could have, which is supposed to count for something in the uber objective/technical ISU system.

Click to expand...

Are you looking at the same stsq?

A few seconds are missing from this video, you might want to compare for yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVc5-0HPe3U

Besides #3 Upper Body, and Adelina moved very vigorously here, dipping more often, there's also a certain rhythm and speed in #4 that has to be met. This is why skaters usually pick the faster more dynamic portion of the music for their step sequence.

Seriously, why hasn't the KSU launched an official demand for investigation? I enjoy it as anyone else.

I respect Adelina's performance, it's a skate of her life...
But watching her step sequence, she made it look so hard and not fluid so it makes some of you think that the step sequence is really hard. When you watch yuna's step sequence, it is difficult i can tell, but she did it soooo effortlessly so it makes some of you think that the step sequence is easy. It is not easy at all, it deserves a level 4...

qwertyskates said:

Are you looking at the same stsq?

A few seconds are missing from this video, you might want to compare for yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVc5-0HPe3U

Besides #3 Upper Body, and Adelina moved very vigorously here, dipping more often, there's also a certain rhythm and speed in #4 that has to be met. This is why skaters usually pick the faster more dynamic portion of the music for their step sequence.

Seriously, why hasn't the KSU launched an official demand for investigation? I enjoy it as anyone else.

Click to expand...

they already did... it was reported yesterday in korea..