Why Bother with Two Programs?

Why Bother with Two Programs?

After reviewing tapes endlessly in these weeks leading up to (and after) Worlds, I have a question regarding the scoring for Short and Long programs that are skated.

If the short program is deemed the technical program, why does the artistic mark get equal time? Likewise, why does the technical score in the long count equally in the free with the artistic marks?

I ask this as it seems that many skaters wind up being held up after the short because of the artistic mark (Sasha at Worlds this year is what made me think about this).

If the short program is truly about required elements and execution therein, and the free is more about overall presentation, then why don't the scores reflect this emphasis? I realize there are mandatory deductions for errors, but still, wouldn't it make sense if in the short, the ordinals were determined by having tech scores counting 2/3 towards the score and presentation 1/3, and in the free skate, the opposite happening?

For example, if a Skater A receives a score from a judge of 5.6/5.9 and Skater B receives a score of 5.7/5.7 during the short program, skater A would receive the higher ordinal as the total of the marks is higher than skater B's, even though skater B had a better technical skate. If they split the value of the marks 2/3 and 1/3, then skater A would have a total of 17.1 (5.6+5.6+5.9) and skater B would have a total of 17.1 (5.7+5.7+5.7), but skater B would receive the higher ordinal and be rewarded for the superior technical skate. Same applies for the freeskate in reverse.

Am I way off base here? Or is it the pain meds I'm on? Mathman, help!!! I'm starting to sound like an algebra problem!!

Re: Why Bother with Two Programs?

You definitely have a point. I like the way the short is played out in dance -- where everybody has to do a program to the same theme. I always find it fascinating to see how different teams interpret it. I would like singles/pairs to have the same prinicple: one program where everybody does the same thing (and cannot hide weakness behind clever choreography), one where everybody does the same theme, and only one truly "free" program.

As to the technical/artistic, I will be interested to see how it plays out with the new scoring system. I mean, if there are no two seperate marks but the judges evaluate every element, then you can make the computer factor in those marks differently for the short and the long.

marks

In a sp, the technical mark breaks the tie, e.g. Skater receives 5.9/5.8, and skater B receives 5.8/5.9, skater A wins.

In the lp the presentation mark breaks the tie
e.g. if skater A receives 5.9/5.8, and B receives 5.8/5.9 then skater B wins.

<span style="color:red;font-size:medium;">Congrats Michelle, Elena and Fumie</span>

Re: Why Bother with Two Programs?

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>In a sp, the technical mark breaks the tie, e.g. Skater receives 5.9/5.8, and skater B receives 5.8/5.9, skater A wins.

In the lp the presentation mark breaks the tie
e.g. if skater A receives 5.9/5.8, and B receives 5.8/5.9 then skater B wins.[/quote]

Eltamina,

That's my exact point. In my example, skater A was originally rewarded with the higher ordinal for the tech program, even though the tech mark was lower than skater B. My point was that if in the tech program, the tech scores counted double what the presentation scores did, even though there was a tie in scoring, the ordinal would go to the person who skated the better technical program.

It just doesn't seem right that skaters who have great artistry but less than stellar technical aspects get held up in the short, and vice versa in the long. Seems to me the short and the long should weigh equally overall (50/50 during GP, 40/40 during worlds) and that the emphasis should be reflected in the scoring, creating more legitimate ordinals.

Put it this way, if Sasha didn't have such amazing presentation on the ice, she'd have been placed FAR lower than 4th (which, as much as I love her skating, is where she should have been if the SP is truly a technical program). Likewise, if this were how scoring was done, IMO it would have caused far fewer arguments about the Ladies' gold at Lillehammer, and would have possibly changed the outcome of the Ladies' gold at Nagano, etc.

Just a thought, I'm no statistician.

Re: Why Bother with Two Programs?

Sk8cynic - I am one of the few, if not the only one who would prefer the judges to just do one ordinal as the final judgment. As it is with me, either the Judge likes the skater or not and can place the skater where he/she believes should be placed. It's that way in Diving and Gymnastics.

I know it breaks with tradition; and oh so many fans whose favorites fail to win can say that so and so won the tehnical or the presentation even though they lost the prize.

The bottom line is the ordinal placements which is the overall skate and the final result.

Joe

Re: Why Bother with Two Programs?

sk8cynic :

I am from the old school of figure skating when figures counted as 50%, the short program was 20% and the long program was 40%. In fact before Karen Magnussen and Janet Lynn's big rivalry it was 60% for figures and 40% for the long program - there was no short program. Anyway, in those days most technical skaters won on the strength of their figures. Since figures no longer factor in - the short program is the "measuring rod" so to speak - for the outcome. The short program was introduced around 1968-69 and "was intended to make sure competitors could not win a world championship without being efficient in all phases of skating. A figures whiz could not, like Trixie Schuba in 1972, pile up a huge margin in that department, then hang on, while more competent free-skaters tried in vain to overcome her massive lead." The short is basically a technical program. The judges are looking for technical abilities combined with artistic. If it was just a jumping contest then the skaters would only have to get out there and demonstrate their jumping abilites. They still have to have presentation skills. The rule book states: "marks will be deducted from technical merit as a result of technical errors, and also from artistic impression if the harmonious and artistic aspects of the program are involved." The same goes for the long program. So that is why there are two programs. I hope this answers your question.

Quotes are from: "Karen - The Karen Magnussen Story"


Ladskater

Re: Why Bother with Two Programs?

Cynic,

You could also flip your thinking to say that the presentation score should count 2x for the LP.

Besides, the ordinals are about relative placements, not raw numbers. For the SP, the skater earns his/her SP placement multiplied by .5 For the LP, the skater earns his/her LP placement multiplied by 1. The LP is worth 2/3 of the overall placements.

So:
if A wins SP over B, A has .5 and B has 1 after SP.
If B wins LP over A, then A scores 2 and B scores 1 for LP. Total: A = 2.5 and B = 2 which is how Skater B wins.

Technical Programs

I see the idea behind this theory, but I prefer the old style system where a 5.6/5.9 would win over a 5.7/5.7. Yes, it is a technical program, but that doesn't mean that the artistic element is any less important. The same for the free skate, which is most commonly associated with artistry and presentation and yet the technical aspect is equally as important. Also, in another thread, someone mentioned the flutz controversy. From the descriptions I've heard, there doesn't seem to be a suggested or mandatory deduction for this. Is there? If not, there should be. A skater performing what essentially is a flip jump should not get the same credit as the skater that performed a true lutz. I wouldn't imagine it should be anything too harsh, a 1/10 deduction would be enough to reflect the mistake in jump technique.
As someone mentioned above, I think a compulsory program sounds like a wonderful idea. Imagine seeing Irina, Michelle and Sasha all performing the same program in one event! That would be the ultimate way of soundly comparing and contrasting skating styles. Especially the technical aspect.

Re: Why Bother with Two Programs?

BronzeisGolden02:

Instead of a compulsory program, why not just bring back compulsory figures? That was the best measuring rod.


Ladskater

Figures

Ladskater,

I've never seen figures performed and you read so many descriptions of them as boring to watch. Yet, so many have sensibly said that it provided the skater a great opportunity to perfect the basic skating skills such as edging, etc. If that's what it takes to get more of these skaters up to par on edging and other basic skills then I say go for it! Although, I don't think it should command such a large percentage of the overall score. The free skate should be the dominant factor in determining the winner. Since you've watched skating through all of these changes, which do you think has best fairly determined the most deserving winners? I've only been an avid fan since 94 and I'm used to this system.

Re: Figures

I understand how the judging/scoring/ordinals/factored placements currently work. My point in this thread was that it seems that all too often that technically poor SPs get grossly overinflated marks that hold skaters up, and vice-versa in the long, Sasha's short at Worlds is a prime example of this. Her presentation marks were what saved her fanny and kept her in the top six.

I don't think that the second mark shouldn't count in the short, or tech. in the free, I just think that in the short the tech score should carry more weight than presentation, and that presentation should carry more weight than tech. in the free.

Maybe we'd be better off if the judging were left to the fans in a format of American Idol . Worlds should last a month, with a program skated every other day. Fans could call in their votes after each day of skating and vote for their favorites. The bottom three would be eliminated every other day until we got down to the remaining six, after which skaters would be eliminated one at a time until three remain. Tongue in cheek, I know, but since we're all experts, let us judge!!

BTW, I think the idea of every discipline having a compulsory skate like ice dancing is a great idea. Makes it a little more like comparing oranges to oranges rather than oranges to pears, apples, grapes, and bananas (you decide which skater is which).

Re: Figures

I believe that figures should be brought back.... if we are even discussing having a compulsory program (which is what the technical was intended to reflect years ago), then I think we might as well have figures a short and a long.... just like before... however this time have figures count for less.....
I am a skating purest who believes in the very basic fundamentals..... figures are good for control, patience, confidence, etc.... they are tedious for younger kids but it's like the old saying... anything worth having is worth working for....
with each skater skating the same figures, which can be judged fairly, you can compare oranges to oranges...

Re: Figures

As I recall the knock on figures was that it was too boring to show on TV, the live audience (if any) couldn't really see the figures very well, and consequently there were more complaints than ever about secret judging with no public scrutiny.

Some famous cases were Linda Fratiani's Olympic experience and some of Scott Hamilton's victories over Brian Orser. All we had was the judges word for it that one skater was so far in the lead that no one could catch him/her no matter what happened in the short or long.

It would be cool (but I don't think it will happen) if the general public could somehow be educated into understanding and enjoying watching skaters do school figures. With the television technology we have now you could see close-up of the edging and of the tracings. That would be really neat.

Once in an exhibition skate Victor Petrenko did an Iron Cross right in the middle of his program.

Maybe bringing back figures at the lower levels would cut down on the career ending injuries caused by too much jumping.

Mathman

Re: Figures

I'd like to see a 2-1/2 minute compulsory routine by all competitors all skating to the same music with the same content of program. Basic skills compared between all the skaters as the principal mode of judging.

Joe

Re: Figures

interesting that you say that Joesitz.... perhaps the USFSA and international skating should borrow a page out of the ISI manual..

Re: Why Bother with Two Programs?

<span style="color:red;font-family:comic sans ms;">Joesitz: People think watching skaters trace figures is boring! Could you imagine watching thirty skaters perform to the same music - much like the ice dance set pattern dances which is what the ice dancers do. I don't know if this would really fly with the judges. Figure skating used to be about figures and applying those principles to free skating. Skaters had to be proficient at both disciplines. Since the demise of figures - at least in the competive arena - I don't know if it has benefited skaters or not. Good basic skating skills should still be taught and should be reflected in skaters performances.

Ladskater</span>