- Joined
- Dec 18, 2014
I was not trying to say that. I said not supposed to judged .... the better. 
PCS/Reputation Judging
- Thread starter UpNorth
- Start date
Are movement to music, interpretation of music, and body line components of performing art? Yes.
Are skating to music interpretation of music, and body line judged in figure skating? Yes.
Because both those statements are true, it is also true to say that there are artistic components to figure skating judging.
But that doesn't mean that the point of figure skating judging is to determine how artistic each skater is.
Body line (form) is technical. Ability to demonstrate variety and contrast, e.g., with both legato and staccato movement qualities, is technical skill, although the choice to do so in connection with specific pieces of music can be artistic.
Being able to skate in time with the music, to hit the right edge on the right beat, especially in set pattern dances, is a measure of technical control. Also often evident in step sequences in which each step is choreographed to a specific beat of music -- even if the skater hits those beats mechanically, with no emotion or expressive nuance, they can be rewarded in the IN component for demonstrating sufficient mastery of technique to execute precise timing. (It would be harder to demonstrate this skill using vaguely lyrical music without a clear beat, and therefore harder for judges to reward it in that kind of program.) Even being able to time a jump takeoff or landing to a specific beat of music takes technical control.
And there is room within the PE, CO, and IN components to reward not only technical skills related to beauty and musical timing, but also more emotional and expressive forms of artistry, more subtle nuances of musical timing, structural plans and execution thereof that contribute to the formal beauty of a performance in time and space.
I.e., all else being equal, a performance that is more artistic according to criteria that are meaningful in the world of performing arts should score higher in those component scores.
It's also true that artistically inclined skaters can use the expressive aspects of the sport to make artistic statements that transcend technique and sport/competition itself. Performances might speak to viewers (including judges) emotionally etc. even if they deserve low component scores, for other reasons.
E.g., a skater who is very emotionally connected physically and through facial expression to an emotional piece of music may draw viewers into that emotion and deserve reward for the relevant criteria under PE, CO, and IN. But if that music, or the skaters' movement to it, is rhythmically vague/imprecise and all in approximately the same tempo and effort-shape, then they wouldn't deserve reward for timing or for variety and contrast or perhaps for clarity of movement.
So a skater who is very precise and well positioned and well-timed and clear in her movements, but emotionally cold, might score higher in PCS than one who connects deeply with the audience and the theme of the music and program on an emotional level. The latter skater might be more artistic, but the former could deserve higher component scores. Because "how artistic is it?" is not a criterion for any component.
She wasn't just behind Mao, but behind others too. Because all the quad aside from 2007-2008 season, she wasn't a serious contender for podiums. Her results were really bad the two last years of the quad. Beyond europeans where the competition wasn't strong. I don't think that she deserved same PCS as Mao for these free skates at 2009 worlds or 2010 olympics.
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2013
- Country
-
I was not trying to say that. I said not supposed to judged .... the better.
Lol...I know but you did suggest they judge who performs more. More than who?
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2014
Lol...I know but you did suggest they judge who performs more. More than who?
I meant more of the time, as more parts of the programme (with more body and mental involvement, with more acceleration and pace acording to the rythm change and nuances of the music, with awarness of the public more of the time). So, to interpret the music more seconds/minutes of the programme, i meant simply as that
(editing...so, for example, Medvedeva who try to interpret the music during whole SD programme will get 9,5 and Pogorilaya who only interprets music after finishing all the jumps, or only during StSq will get 8, no matter if Anna appears to did it more or less 'beatifully').
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
What I am saying is that "interpreting music more throughout the progarmme and with more commitment" is an aspect of performing art. When we judge performing art, this is the kind of thing that informs our judgement.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2014
Yeah, it is :thumbsup: But I wanted to say somewhat similliar, but little different than that
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
All art is technical. We can analyze the techniques that Michelangelo used to paint the Sistine Chapel, the literary devises employed by Tolstoi. That doesn't mean that we should shun the word "art" when we speak of such things.
Art is like a duck. All serene and soul-satisfying above the surface, paddling for all she's worth underneath.
I would just like to see technical skills and artistic skills scored exclusively but then combined to establish a total score. Right now, a good jumper automatically starts with decent-good artistic scores before he/she gets on the ice. I get that a quad is a difficult jump and somewhat implies good skating skills. But there is so much more that goes into good skating including posture, line, stroking skills creating speed, spins etc. Then add in interpretation, performance, choreography INDEPENDENT of the technical skills and you will get a true score. I hate the idea of separate competitions. Just do one competition right!
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2014
My point was that it's easy to add more and more checkboxes, but it's not easy for real time scoring for the judges, so it's not practical. As it is, judges already miss quite a bit looking down and just tapping a single number for GOE input. I've seen even on video how many times judges can miss the exits of jumps or spins and completely miss a transition or mistake. Imagine if they have more than 10 boxes they have to go through after each one. It would be worse with a scale.
The discussion of subjective deductions would be a different thing. As such, it's already worth more than positive aspects of an element, since you need 2 to get a +1, while mistakes are graded directly as -1, so one mistake is worth at least 2 good aspects of an element. So it's a big difference to determine if a mistake is worth -1 or -2 or -3 and there are differences in severity of the same mistake. They could be handed off to the tech panel but it would still be subjective. Unclear edges and under-rotations can clearly be subjective given how much discussion there is about it and that there is a 'benefit of the doubt' included in its evaluation.
Regarding PCS, I do feel like the 'corridor' judging seems to be enforced by ISU inadvertently as that is the easiest way to 'stay within the average' for all components and it's also the easiest for the judges to know the ballpark of their own overall PCS score. The idea that 'this is a 90 PCS worthy program' etc. seems to be prevalent among fans, even though technically a 90 PCS program can be achieved in different ways via different components so the skating itself can look very different, and I think that that also plays into how judges give their marks. It becomes an 'overall impression' score where the marks of the individual components don't actually matter (aside from SS and TR never getting 10's while PE,IN,CH can all be 10's even when there are mistakes... and after that new guideline). The idea of 'this is a 90 PCS worthy skater' then kind of follows after that once they've shown that they can consistently have '90 PCS worthy programs'. Like it was said before though, it's hard to distinguish whether or not this is due to the gained 'reputation' or if the skater simply have improved to the point where they DO consistently put out '90 PCS worthy programs', even if they have technical failures (which should be completely possible under the guidelines).
The easiest solution to that would probably be to move away from the idea of a single PCS score and show/announce the marks for the individual components after each skate. This could increase peer-to-peer accountability of the judging panel as the judges can see the actual breakdowns.
I wonder if there is greater variation between the components for skaters at the start of the event, which then become narrower as the judges see the overall PCS being given out and use them as references to rank later skaters, since it is easier for them to gauge their overall score when they are in a smaller range. This could be correlated to what Jackie did but it would not be the same premise, as it would be looking at variation based on start order rather than quality of skate. This would support the hypothesis that judges are trying to go for an overall PCS score rather than scoring each PCS component independently.
Good thoughts.
There also may be a difference between what judges are trying to do, and what the actually end up doing as a result of influences that they're not consciously aware of/not consciously taking into account, such as skating order or expectations based on reputation or crowd response.
There also may be a difference between what judges are trying to do, and what the actually end up doing as a result of influences that they're not consciously aware of/not consciously taking into account, such as skating order or expectations based on reputation or crowd response.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2014
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2008
- Country
-
These are things that have ALWAYS been judged and valued in figure skating. I'm not sure where you get your ideas, but they do not relate to how figure skating has been viewed, appreciated, and judged for nearly a century now.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2017
http://static.isu.org/media/1009/program-component-chart_sandp-and-id_08-16.pdf
This is the rule. Because figure skating is a sport competing based on rules, let's discuss it based on the terms written in the rule.
This is the rule. Because figure skating is a sport competing based on rules, let's discuss it based on the terms written in the rule.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
gkelly said:
Baron Vladimir said:
I still don't get it. You are saying that there is no art in figure skating because the artistic aspects can be broken down into components and bullet points. You can just as well say that there is no sport in figure skating because there is a specific scale of values.
True, the word "art" is not used in the statement of the scoring rules. Neither is the word "sport." Why are we so afraid to speak of "performance art," like we are sullying our hands to mention it?
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2008
- Country
-
It's not the only point of the judging to determine the artistic worth of a skater's performance, but it IS part of it. The components describe artistry, even if the word "art" is not used. How do you define a word without using other words to describe it? That's the very nature of language. "Art" is described with other terms, no real critic says "OMG, this is SO artistic" when evaluating a work of art. Such a statement would be unenlightening.
The components we have of "Performance, Choreography, Interpretation" were specifically made to take the concept of "art" and separate it into categories that are more definable, so as to provide a clearer reference point and hopefully make the judging more accurate. Ultimately that's not what happened with the judging, the CoP scoring system only made the judging worse when it comes to rewarding the "art", since the judges still remain biased with reputation/political judging and on top of that don't understand the effect of the numbers they are using. In the 6.0 system everyone understood the effect of the scores - you just add the two scores of 'technical' and 'presentation' together and in the Long Program the more "artistic" mark was the tiebreaker. Giving one skater 5.8/5.9 and another skater 5.9/5.8 meant the judge preferred the overall "presentation and artistry" of the former skater and declared them the winner, even though their technical merit was slightly lower.
It doesn't matter what semantics people here want to argue to the contrary, the fact is that a countless number of skaters, coaches, judges, and skating officials over a very wide span of years are on record talking about "artistry" in figure skating and how it is supposed to be important. The figure skating world has always acknowledged artistry in skating and has always judged it. The current scoring system has obscured this aspect of the judging, but that doesn't mean it never existed or that it currently is not valued (especially in terms of how most people want to see it valued).
The ISU is presently stating they want to make artistry more important than it currently is, so I don't get how people are even arguing about this point. Ya'll can simmer down with the "it's only a sport, no art" kind of talk. Not happening!
I'm not saying there is no art in figure skating. Often there is art.
What I'm saying is that art is not the primary purpose of standard competitive figure skating. It's valued by many in the skating community, the rules and traditions support rewarding it when present, but it's not required for earning high scores or placements.
And that some of the more important qualities that are emphasized and rewarded that can contribute to art are also markers of technical mastery and can be rewarded for that reason even without artistic intention.
What I'm saying is that art is not the primary purpose of standard competitive figure skating. It's valued by many in the skating community, the rules and traditions support rewarding it when present, but it's not required for earning high scores or placements.
And that some of the more important qualities that are emphasized and rewarded that can contribute to art are also markers of technical mastery and can be rewarded for that reason even without artistic intention.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2017
If you are emphasizing art so far, why can you ignore too bad arrangements of competitors?
From the point of view of art, they are of a level that throws away.
If you truly understand art, there is no way you can endure figure skating music arrangement.
From the point of view of art, they are of a level that throws away.
If you truly understand art, there is no way you can endure figure skating music arrangement.
All these great thoughts. Yet I can't get beyond if the judges had to be subject to an intensely detailed exam, (what is on the exam anyway? Sure doesn't seem like much) and were to sit on a panel with proven ownership of the responsibility to decide people's futures or they themselves are fired? Forever.
What would happen?
What would happen?
Similar threads
