Backloading: What should ISU do?

I don't necessarily think it's a huge problem now, but I can see it being a problem in 10 years if everyone is doing it. I really have no interest in watching an entire competition full of backloaded programs. I don't like them, but I don't think making a rule about it at this point is the answer. It may be somewhere down the line.

I think the problem is how things are scored, especially with regard to PCS. How these scores are allocated needs more definition and tech panels need to be stricter with UR calls. I can admire a skater like Alina's technical prowess but a program designed like that generally shouldn't be getting 9's when it comes to judging a well balanced program and the problem is we use categories like composition with no truly objective definition. As the CBC commentators pointed out, there were also ignored UR's for the top ladies which shouldn't happen at this level.

i'm all for backloading when not all of the jumps are in the second half, but programs like Alina's I find really unbalanced and not composed well. yes she can do the jumps really well for being executed so late in the program, but to me there's hardly any choreography between the jumps...its just one after the other after the other and then the program is over. I personally support a limit on how many jumps get a bonus in the second half for the program's sake...I think 4 jumps top in the 2nd half. that way skaters won't be smushing seven jumping passes in 2 minutes of skating and will have to find other ways to max out points--saving more difficult jumps and combos for the second half, adding arm variations, more difficult entries, etc.

I know alina is pretty much the only skater completely backloading all her jumps right now, but eventually more and more skaters will train programs this way to max out points even more. I believe evgenia performs all but one or two of her jumps in the second half currently (please correct me if I am wrong). I think the way the current system is set up without these limitations you will see many if not most skaters begin to backload all of their jumps in order to catch the ones who already do...think wakaba vs alina. her backloading is one of the reasons why she won in china over 2 clean skates by wakaba. points are points and skaters will do whatever it takes to catch the ones at the top; they'll milk all the points they can and this is one way so many girls still have an opportunity. I just think a limit should be placed to prevent everyone doing the same thing eventually. I personally would rather see more choreography and better program composition towards the end of a program when the music and emotion is building rather than jumpjumpjumpjump.

How about creating a 6th component of PCS called balance-ness of programme.

Backload jumps get 10% on every jump but low balance score.

A balance distribution of elements gets high balance score but less jumps gets 10%.

For those who said do nothing, ISU started this mess by awarding 10% bonus without thinking it through. There has to be a cap on bonus, then there´s no problem. Look at any real life examples, there is always a *maximum bonus will be*
If the bonus is cap at 3 points to the BV, you will see a balance programs. Stupid ISU created a loop hole. That is what it is. They have to fix the loop hole.

ask said:

For those who said do nothing, ISU started this mess by awarding 10% bonus without thinking it through. There has to be a cap on bonus, then there´s no problem. Look at any real life examples, there is always a *maximum bonus will be*
If the bonus is cap at 3 points to the BV, you will see a balance programs. Stupid ISU created a loop hole. That is what it is. They have to fix the loop hole.

Click to expand...

:agree:

I agree with people who mention that only a few jumping passes should count for more...
we talked about this in another thread, but I'd like to see more backloaded combos... that would be cool.

To me, the main problem with backloading is that in order to do it, the step sequence is often use at the beginning of the program... and to me, it makes very little sense most of the times.... There is nothing more satisfying than the last 30 seconds of a program containing a rise in the intensity of the music matched by a great sequence and final explosive spin(s)....

4everchan said:

To me, the main problem with backloading is that in order to do it, the step sequence is often use at the beginning of the program... and to me, it makes very little sense most of the times.... There is nothing more satisfying than the last 30 seconds of a program containing a rise in the intensity of the music matched by a great sequence and final explosive spin(s)....

Click to expand...

In some cases, I actually like the step sequence at the beginning; Courtney's LP is an example. Far too oftem, a program that is building in intensity comes to almost a screeching halt during the sequence.

lyndichee said:

Nothing. Fix PCS scoring and provide much stricter guidelines and punishments for judges not following the handbook. Transparency is key and quality of the programs needed to be defined better for both judges and the audience....

Click to expand...

I think it's important to remember that skating judging -- especially judging of freeskating as opposed to school figures -- developed as an oral tradition that has gotten written down into rules and guidelines over the decades, with a big step forward into more detailed codification with the adoption of the IJS.

Under 6.0 there were only ever a couple of pages of guidelines for judging all aspects of the two scores.

Under IJS there are more detailed rules, but they do not attempt to cover every single aspect of a program that a knowledgeable judge (or other observer) might consider when evaluating a performance, nor to dictate which aspects of the various component scores should be given more or less weight. There is room for disagreement built in. And the mental scales about what each of the numbers 0-10 mean will be based largely on oral tradition of judges comparing their impressions thousands of skaters they have seen over their judging careers with the ways other judges also use the criteria and apply their own expertise. No two individuals will have the exact same history or the exact same ways of translating words into numbers, so we're never going to see identical scores from all judges.

And that's not a bad thing. Nine judges will bring more combined expertise and a broader combined perspective than any individual, even the most knowledgeable and rigorous and perceptive and honest individual possible, ever could.

I think everyone who is complaining just needs to realize that this scoring system is broken/not used to it's full potential. The system isn't broken because these girls are winning; the system is broken because a portion of the system gives arbitrary points that judges can allocate randomly without actually backing up why they are giving such scores. If one judge can give a skater a 7.00 and another can give a 9.00 on the same performance, then something needs to change.

Click to expand...

"Broken" implies that the system was at one time intact/functional and that something has gone wrong to disrupt the healthy system.

If the idea is that subjectivity is the problem and the ideal would be complete objectivity, complete agreement between judges, complete documentation of every thought process that goes into every score, then there was never an ideal that worked once at least in theory and then got broken.

If anything, in terms of those values, IJS is a big improvement over ordinal judging, and most (but not all, IMO) of the tweaks to the rules over the last 15 years have been incremental improvements to the original system.

So rather than saying the system is currently broken, I think it would be more accurate to say that it is not currently working as well as it could or should. The ideal that it should be aiming for is somewhere in an imagined future, not an actual past.

However, that still leaves the question as to whether all subjective evaluation is by definition a problem that should be rooted out, or whether it's inherent in the nature of what's being evaluated.

It's one thing to measure exactly how fast a skater was going or exactly how many degrees of rotation a jump attained in the air between the instant the blades leaves the ice and touches back down again. Someday we may have feasible means to measure those technical aspects 100% accurately and objectively.

But there's no way to measure on an objective scale how well a skater projects to the spectators or how well a program construction reflects the music or demonstrates "balance."

If you believe that judges are supposed to be penalizing programs that group all the jumps together in time and are now wrongly ignoring it, where does that belief derive from?

When it comes to the question of program construction (the Choreography or Composition component), there never has been a strict guideline on how to consider element layout -- only guidelines which judges interpret through their own knowledge and through oral tradition discussions in seminars, post-event discussions with other officials, etc.

Between ~2009 and 2016, the Choreography component was defined as "An intentional, developed, and/or original arrangement of all movements according to the principles of proportion, unity, space, pattern, structure, and phrasing" with the following criteria, with explanations:

Purpose: (Idea, concept, vision, mood)
To reward the intentional and quality design of a program.

Proportion (equal weight of all parts)
Each part and section has equal weight in achieving the aesthetic pursuit of the composition.

Unity – purposeful threading of all movements
A program achieves unity when: every step, movement, and element is motivated by the
music. As well, all its parts, big or small, seem necessary to the whole, and there is an
underlying vision or symbolic meaning that threads together the entire composition.

Utilization of Personal and Public Space
Movement phrases are distributed in such a way they communicate from every angle in
a 360 degree skater-viewer relationship.

Pattern and Ice Coverage
Movement phrases are designed using an interesting and meaningful variety of patterns
and directions of travel.

Phrasing and Form (movement and parts are structured to match the phrasing of
the music)
A phrase is a unit of movement marked by an impulse of energy that grows, builds,
finds a conclusion, and then flows easily and naturally into the next movement phrase.
Form is the presentation of an idea, the development of the idea, and its conclusion
presented in a specific number of parts and a specific order for design.

Originality of Purpose, Movement, and Design
Originality involves an individual perspective of movement and design in pursuit of a
creative composition as inspired by the music and the underlying vision.

Shared Responsibility of Purpose (Pair Skating, Ice Dancing, and Synchronized)
Each skater has equal roles in achieving the aesthetic pursuit of the composition with
equal steps, movements, and a sense of purpose in unifying the composition.

Click to expand...

There is nothing explicit there about the temporal layout of the elements, unlike the specific references to "every angle in a 360- degree skater viewer relationship" and "interesting and meaningful variety of patterns and directions of travel" that would apply to the spatial layout.

The place where temporal layout could be considered would be under "Proportion (equal weight of all parts)." If a judge felt that large durations of the program were not carrying their weight in achieving the aesthetic pursuit of the composition, that would be the place to penalize it.

The definition mentions "principles of proportion [...and] structure." This would also be support for considering the weight of various segments of the program across time. It doesn't dictate what is good or bad program structure but does guide judges toward considering structural concerns and relative weights of different parts of the program.

(Note that "proportion" between parts of a program could refer not only to beginning, middle, and end of a program duration, but also distribution of elements and travel patterns in space, and and to the numbers and importance of different kinds of elements/skills.)

However, last year (for reasons that have not been publicly explained), the ISU decided to supersede these detailed PCS guidelines with a more streamlined version of the criteria and of the PCS overview chart:
http://usfigureskating.org/content/ISU program-component-chart_sandp-and-id_08-16.pdf

Note that the name of the fourth-listed component is now "Composition," there are now fewer criteria listed, and all mentions of "proportion" are among what has been deleted. Also the detailed explanations are no longer available. Would that revision constitute "breaking" better guidelines that existed up to 2016?

Even if we returned to the old guidelines, even if we required judges to score each criterion separately and either use all separate scores or combine then into one Composition or Choreography score, there would still be room for other aspects of proportion or balance to outweigh the temporal layout, or for other criteria for this component to outweigh the proportion/balance considerations as a whole.

There's no history to establish that grouping jumps or other element types together is bad by definition. And if there is a general oral-tradition feeling that it should be discouraged, under today's rules or those of a couple years ago it would still need to be balanced against other aspects of proportion that might make more of an impact in any particular program.

Where does the argument come from that grouping jumps together in time should be discouraged more severely than any other aspects of program construction?

The thing is backloading itself isn't the issue. I find backloading very exciting in the Men's event -- when you see Nathan gearing up for that 4F in the second half of his SP, And I do find Alina's FP very thrilling to watch, all those jumps in succession have an almost hypnotic quality. I do wonder though whether there is anywhere left to go after that; in my opinion it's impossible for 0/7 layouts to look fundamentally different from one another. I disagree with the comparison to front-loading. It's very disingenuous because, while yes, it's annoying when all programs start the same way, skaters obviously have a lot more freedom to do what they want once the jumps are out of the way. So it is much more possible to create well-balanced, well-constructed front-loaded programs than the other way around.

Overall, I think you can definitely support a statement that the current direction of the ladies field (backloading and hand variations) is very lateral progress compared to the quad revolution of Men and Pairs. Backloading isn't really "bigger, faster, stronger", is it? As gorgeous as Alina's 3Lz-3L is, it's not as explosive as it would be were it placed at the start of her program. However, I don't think it is a problem that the ISU needs to address right now. There's no denying that the Russian ladies are the ones currently pushing the boundaries of the sport, and when they all backload they'll obviously have to find some other avenue of progress. Things will sort themselves out then.

Globetrotter said:

I will say.... do nothing. Skates have every right to do what is needed to max out points. What ISU needs to do is start expecting judges to have greater consistency in their judging scores especially in PCS. If the programme indeed turns out imbalanced and disjointed, then let the CO component reflect that. Otherwise, I am not for mandatory deduction and removing of bonus, which only add more rules without reflecting that there is a big issue of PCS scoring inconsistency.

Click to expand...

This. Absolutely this. And I would add: take the bonus away, and simply judge how the program is organized. Both frontloading and backloading should determine a severe lowering of the CO mark (unless the choreographer/skater is somehow able to make it work in a way that doesn't look unbalanced or awkward) and (in many cases) of the PE and IN marks, too, if the "busy" section of the program has the skater focusing 100% on the jumps and not paying attention to music, movements, interpretation etc.

Strangely, I'm both impressed and discouraged when it comes to fully backloaded programs. Yes, it's difficult and deserving of points yet at the same time it feels very calculated, so much so that I'm taken out of the program. In the back of my mind, I'm just like "oh, so they decided to put the seven jumps in the back half and then spliced the music and choreography around that, instead of the other way around."

A tangential point is that the issue is just about having a block of jumps. I disliked it when Nathan Chen frontloaded all eight jumping passes first in last year's program where he also put all three spins and the non-choreo step sequence as the last four elements. Sort of the opposite problem, but it still gives off the effect of being off-center and choreographically stilted. As brilliantly as he skated the program at Nationals, I felt like I was watching a jump drill. And that's how I feel watching Zagitova firing off seven jumps in the back half - a jump challenge.

But back to the issue, I would like to see backloading restricted to a certain number of jumps: last 2 in the short and last 4 in the long. And this is for both the women and the men, though admittedly we don't really have an issue with the men when it comes to backloading since the quads take up so much energy that the top skaters need to do some of tougher quads in the first half of the program. Perhaps when the women finally start putting in 3As and quads, backloading won't become as much a problem. That said, if the skater wishes to continue backloading with these rules, then I would agree that skater is doing it for choreographic purposes and I would be far more impressed.

draqq said:

Strangely, I'm both impressed and discouraged when it comes to fully backloaded programs. Yes, it's difficult and deserving of points yet at the same time it feels very calculated, so much so that I'm taken out of the program. In the back of my mind, I'm just like "oh, so they decided to put the seven jumps in the back half and then spliced the music and choreography around that, instead of the other way around."

Click to expand...

If a judge feels that the jump placement is designed solely to take advantage of the second-half bonus and has little to do with the music or the program theme, they're free to reflect that negative evaluation of one part of one no longer explicitly mentioned criterion in their Choreography/Composition score for the program. If they think it's really egregious, they can penalize significantly. If they barely even notice, they can decide that it doesn't rise to the level of 0.25 lower than they would have given otherwise. Or anywhere in between -- depending on the specific program.

And the same goes if they think that a program with the difficult jumps in the beginning then has a dead spot in the middle while the skater waits for the second half bonus time to kick in before starting the 3rd or 5th or 6th jump pass.

But back to the issue, I would like to see backloading restricted to a certain number of jumps: last 2 in the short and last 4 in the long.

Click to expand...

You mean you want to see the bonus points restricted to only a certain number of jumps? (And if so, how would you determine which, if there are more than that number after the halfway point?)

Or do you actually want to forbid and automatically penalize more than 2/4 jumps in the second half, as if that mere fact is more important than anything else about the choreography that does not have automatic penalties?

If the skater wishes to continue backloading with these rules, then I would agree that skater is doing it for choreographic purposes and I would be far more impressed (and perhaps would even give higher marks in Skating Skills for doing so).

Click to expand...

It has absolutely nothing to do with Skating Skills as that component has been defined.

Reward it for showing stamina via the 10% jump bonus, and reward it for achieving choreographic purposes via the Composition component score.

Some programs will deserve both rewards; others may cancel out the bonus by lower CO component score if and only if the choreography actually suffers, and by sacrificing GOE etc. to lower quality jumps when tired.

They should abolish the bonus completely! If not last 30 seconds only. Maybe only half of jumps.

I actually feel a little bit sorry for the ISU. Then mean well, but every time they tweak the rules it's off to the races far beyond anything they had in mind. Let's encourage skaters to put some jumps in the second half. Oops, no that's not what we wanted. Let's give a bonus for putting your hand over your head. No, wait, we didn't mean on every jump. In men's, let's increase the value of quads...

Why would they do anything? Only a few skaters do it, and it's not like everyone can.

It's funny how people are concerned everyone will start doing it as if everyone could if they wanted...

gkelly said:

If a judge feels that the jump placement is designed solely to take advantage of the second-half bonus and has little to do with the music or the program theme, they're free to reflect that negative evaluation of one part of one no longer explicitly mentioned criterion in their Choreography/Composition score for the program. If they think it's really egregious, they can penalize significantly. If they barely even notice, they can decide that it doesn't rise to the level of 0.25 lower than they would have given otherwise. Or anywhere in between -- depending on the specific program.

And the same goes if they think that a program with the difficult jumps in the beginning then has a dead spot in the middle while the skater waits for the second half bonus time to kick in before starting the 3rd or 5th or 6th jump pass.

Click to expand...

True, it's up to the judges to decide if backloading is jarring or not as far as the Component score is concerned. I would just like to see a more tangible effect in the technical mark than merely leaving it up to the judges whim for components.

gkelly said:

You mean you want to see the bonus points restricted to only a certain number of jumps? (And if so, how would you determine which, if there are more than that number after the halfway point?)

Or do you actually want to forbid and automatically penalize more than 2/4 jumps in the second half, as if that mere fact is more important than anything else about the choreography that does not have automatic penalties?

Click to expand...

Yes, the bonus is restricted to only a certain number of jumping passes, specifically the last two in the short and the last four (or last five in the men) in the long program. In effect, it means that the skater must at least perform one jump in the short and three jumps in the long before the bonus goes into effect for the second half. This is only for bonus purposes; skaters are free to place their jumps however they want for choreographic effect.

gkelly said:

It has absolutely nothing to do with Skating Skills as that component has been defined.

Reward it for showing stamina via the 10% jump bonus, and reward it for achieving choreographic purposes via the Composition component score.

Some programs will deserve both rewards; others may cancel out the bonus by lower CO component score if and only if the choreography actually suffers, and by sacrificing GOE etc. to lower quality jumps when tired.

Click to expand...

I disagree with this slightly as far as it not fitting the criteria for Skating Skills. I think that being able to perform jumps in the second half means that you can generate "strength" and "effortless power", and shows "varied use of power/energy, speed, and acceleration" if the jumps are done throughout the program and not in one chunk.

I can see the boost in Composition as well in terms of having an interesting layout.

has anyone ever thought if CoP changed to a similar system as artistic gymnastics?

skaters would begin with a difficulty start value for their planned elements (D score) and would also have an E score (execution score). each element would be assigned a certain difficulty value (similar to a start value, but only would reflect the difficulty of that element, not how well it is executed). we could still keep a second half bonus for jumps that would be added to the D score, but I still support limiting how many jumps would get the bonus. jump combos could just be two D scores added together. you would add all these D values together for a "technical score" but this score would not increase as it can now with GOE.

instead of having a GOE on elements, skaters would also have an execution (E) score that would be similar to PCS; it would cover artistry and execution. in gymnastics this is a value that begins at 10 and points are taken away for errors in form, artistry, execution, composition, and technique. this could also cover fall deductions, but I haven't thought that far into it.

the D & E scores for a skater would be added together for a final performance score.

just speculation, but it seems in some ways it could be simpler than the current system. it could be a balance between 6.0 and IJS.

Viiktoruu said:

Why would they do anything? Only a few skaters do it, and it's not like everyone can.

It's funny how people are concerned everyone will start doing it as if everyone could if they wanted...

Click to expand...

The judges may want to nip this in the bud early on. Four years ago, pairs teams were given a 10% bonus for all lifts and jumps performed in the second half, and what happened in effect is that every top team's program would have every lift in the back half. So the ISU got rid of it for this quadrennial.

I don't mind backloading as long as the skater doesn't bore me to death in the first half and gives me an AMAZING step sequence (always in the beginning of a fully backloaded program). I think balance, in terms of the skater giving me something to enjoy throughout the program, is very important and SHOULD have an effect on PCS performance and choreography scores -this usually doen't happen especially when the skater hits all jumps clean.

As much as us uber fans with more technical knowledge of the sport understand a backloaded program and can appreciate good skating skills without jumping to support it, we have to remember that competitive skating cannot survive without people paying to watch it so ignoring the entertainment side of it would be very harmful.

Viiktoruu said:

Why would they do anything? Only a few skaters do it, and it's not like everyone can.

Click to expand...

I think the concern is that going forward the coaches of upcoming youngsters will say, aha, train your charges to jump, jump, jump at the end and they will become the next champions. No harm would be done by giving the bonus only, say, to the four highest-scoring of the jumps done after the half-way mark. The skaters would still be encouraged to put some jumps at the end (including high-valued combinations like their triple Lutz / triple loop) and to be rewarded for this display of "legs." But we don't want to make it seem like this is the only goal to aspire to.

Why not give higher incentive to training the triple Axel instead?