Article:"Rewarding Failure Diminishes Sport"

[gkelly]

We can't make 3A as a rule for the winner in ladies because 3A is not as popular in ladies as quad in men.

Yet.

My point is that single elements that are "popular" or "required to win" will change from year to year, sometimes from competition to competition. Partly it depends on whatever skills the other rules that year happen to encourage, partly on
the particular skaters who happen to be challenging for medals that year.

Let's say triple-triple combination for women. Out of the last 20 years of world and Olympic competition, how many times has the winner landed a 3-3 combo? Percentage for all medalists? How many of the women's 3-3 combos of the past would have gotten < or << calls under the current rules. Or edge calls for the triple lutz? If you make these elements required for a champion,

Should the rules be different at Europeans or Four Continents, where the field is weaker, than for Worlds and Olympics?

What happens when all of the skaters who will be contending for world or Olympic titles by including the "required" jump content skip the continental championships to heal injuries and prepare for the big event? Can a Euro or 4Cs title even be awarded if none of the top skaters among those who actually show up plan to include that element?

What if all the top European ladies that year habitually get edge calls on their flips and all the top 4Cs ladies habitually get edge calls on their lutzes? Should the rules be different for different continents?

If "any triple-triple" is the ladies standard, assuming the jumps are fully rotated, should "3Lz+3Lo e" be worth more than "3T+3T"? It certainly would be now with -1 or even -2 GOE for the flutz-loop combo and 0 GOE for the toe-toe.

 

[Bluebonnet]

Should the rules be different at Europeans or Four Continents, where the field is weaker, than for Worlds and Olympics?

Well, I don't see problems to make Worlds and Olympics' standard higher than regional competitions like Euros and 4CC.

If "any triple-triple" is the ladies standard, assuming the jumps are fully rotated, should "3Lz+3Lo e" be worth more than "3T+3T"? It certainly would be now with -1 or even -2 GOE for the flutz-loop combo and 0 GOE for the toe-toe.

I'm not sure your question. I think it won't hurt to make 3-3 a standard for ladies world and Olympic champions although I'm not sure how steady and popular ladies 3-3s are. I know many of them have it.

I think in order to reduce messy program winning, also find a worthy winner, there are several things we could do:

1. Include the hardest element in the program as the key and essential for winning

2. Maintain partial credit as we have now

3. More deductions for multi-falls

 

[gkelly]

I think that if you require successful completion of a cutting-edge difficult element, even if only at Worlds, you will end up with occasions when no one fulfills the requirement and the highest-place program could only . . . what? earn a silver medal and everyone else down from there?

 

[mskater93]

Bluebonnet: in your comment above, someone like Alissa who always includes a 3Lz (but will likely NOT include a 3S) should win over a Kostner who doesn't include a 3Lz? I am trying to understand how you would account for the other missing jump of skaters (some are missing 3S or 3Lo or 3F but include 3Lz).

 

[Mathman]

There is no need to "require" a quad, or any other particular element. Just raise the base value and eliminate partial credit. Skaters who do a successful quad will automatically have a leg up on skaters who do not attempt a quad and also on skaters whose quad attempt is unsuccessful.

...someone like Alissa ...

My fave , go Alissa , ...but

Someone was kind enough to post Alissa's LP from the Detroit Skating Club send-off show. Any scoring system that would give that performance anything but a flat zero just misses the sports boat altogether. There should be a mercy rule. Four falls and the hook comes out and yanks you off the ice, no matter how see-through your dress is.

 

[bekalc]

No one could guarantee not to mop the floor. The point is no one would want to mop the floor. Do you think Takahashi can't do his 3A or his 3F? He was great at them but he ended up falling on both at Japan Nationals, plus the fall on his less stable 4T. Which jump, do you think, he shouldn't have decided to try at this particular competition in order not to fall?

Dai didn't show that he could do a 3flip or a 3A on that jumping pass which is what he was being judged on.. He wasn't being judged on how he skated the night before, or in practices, or months before that. He was suppose to be judged on what he delivered on that NIGHT. And on that night he was having issues with those jumps. The point of a competition is there are no guarantees. Sometimes you are going to have a bad night. It happens and no the skater shouldn't be drawn and quartered. But the skater also shouldn't necessarily get the type of marks for Performance that they would get when they skate well. You don't skate well than you know what you probably don't deserve to win. That's sports. Now yes sometimes everyone's a mess and so a messy win happens. Sure. But right now I'm seeing some very messy skates beating skaters who may not be perfect but are much cleaner. And the messy skater is beating some very good skaters. For example Kozuka doesn't have the charisma Dai has, but his skating skills certainly aren't second to Dais. By any stretch of the imagination.

As for the hardest element, I'm sorry I disagree. Goebel did a harder element than Yagudin (quad sal) Should Goebel be Olympic Champ? Should we ignore that Yagudin was better on everything else INCLUDING quality of his jumps? No. I don't think so. I don't agree with a litmus test. I think that rather we need to look at the skater's entire jump arsenal.. I think skaters who successful complete a full balanced arsenal should be rewarded for it. But I don't think skaters should be penalized for not having it. I think there's a key difference there.

I mean in the case of Kostners tons of skaters are leaving out jumps. Sure Alissa has a 3lutz, but she doesn't have a 3salchow. And you know what she lips her 3flip. Kostner has four jumps to Alissa's three, that Kostner can execute correctly. And back in the day when Kostner was doing her lutz, she was doing a correct one too.

 

[Mathman]

Dai didn't show that he could do a 3flip or a 3A on that jumping pass which is what he was being judged on.. He wasn't being judged on how he skated the night before, or in practices, or months before that. He was suppose to be judged on what he delivered on that NIGHT.

I agree. This is the key. What did you do? Not what we think you can do, not what did you did in practice, not what you attempted to do.

Jump up in the air, spin around four times, and fall on your head. That's impressive. Let me see if I can find a name for that move in my skating manual so I can give you some points for it.

 

[ImaginaryPogue]

Well, then where would you reward non-listed "elements" that aren't directly connected to listed elements. E.g., stroking-gorgeous sustained Ina Bauer or two huge split jumps-stroking-element?

I suppose that difficult turns and steps not part of a step or spiral sequence and not leading directly into or out of a jump or spin could be rewarded under Skating Skills. And the variety and quality of everything between the elements could be rewarded under Choreography and Performance/Execution, respectively, as applicable.

Still, it would make more sense to me to have a score for transitions (or in-between skating) and not to reflect the transitions in the GOEs, rather than the other way around as you suggest.

As you suggest, actually. Generally, high quality/variety transitions would reflect/demonstrate great skating skills. If they are well performed/executed, they could be part of P/E. If they are part of strong choreography, they can be reflected there as well. And, if there is a penaly for a long, drawn out jump entry (as there is), I don't mind a transition being used as a GOE bullet.

The thing is, to me, the Program component scores are dedicated to analysis not of the elements, but the program as whole. As a rule, when you respond to a transition, you either respond to it as part of the choreography or as an interesting way to get into an element (Goebel hydroblading into his jumps, for example).\

Mathman, what do you think about my earlier post w/ regards to a consequence of high values for individual elements?

 

[Mathman]

Although, there might be a way. To make quad jump a standard for a champion. No quad, no champion.

To me, that suggestion really brings the question into focus. Suppose we did exactly that, passed a rule that you can't win the world championship unless you do a quad.

Now suppose that an excellent skater attempts a quad but falls. Is he eligible to win the championship?

Mathman, what do you think about my earlier post w/ regards to a consequence of high values for individual elements?

I don't think it would make much difference. Men are going to attempt quads anyway, no matter how we adjust the scores. If we raise the base value and simultaneously raise the floor for what constitutes a successful quad (0 points for falling, etc.), then the men who jump successful quads will score a little higher in TES and the ones who attempt a quad but fail will score a little lower.

I don't think it would affect the balance between technical elements and the presentation side much at all.

 

[Mathman]

I have a question about the ISU and changes to the scale of values.

Last year they changed the base scores for various jumps. A triple flip used to be worth 5.5 and a triple loop 5.0. Now the flip is worth only 5.3 while the loop was raised to 5.1.

Did the ISU make this change in order to encourage skaters to do more loops and fewer flips?

Or did they re-evaluate the relative difficulty of these two jumps and decide that a loop was a little bit harder than they thought at first and a flip a little bit easier?

 

[Bluebonnet]

Just raise the base value and eliminate partial credit.

I'm curious to know under what circumstances the partial credit will be eliminated? If a skater has had a wabbly landing jump, will he/she gets the full credit or will he/she lose the credit completely? Will the elimination on partial credit only apply for the jumps with falls, or it applies to all imperfect jumps?

Bluebonnet: in your comment above, someone like Alissa who always includes a 3Lz (but will likely NOT include a 3S) should win over a Kostner who doesn't include a 3Lz? I am trying to understand how you would account for the other missing jump of skaters (some are missing 3S or 3Lo or 3F but include 3Lz).

As for the hardest element, I'm sorry I disagree. Goebel did a harder element than Yagudin (quad sal) Should Goebel be Olympic Champ? Should we ignore that Yagudin was better on everything else INCLUDING quality of his jumps?

To me, that suggestion really brings the question into focus. Suppose we did exactly that, passed a rule that you can't win the world championship unless you do a quad.

Now suppose that an excellent skater attempts a quad but falls. Is he eligible to win the championship?

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough. What I meant was a level of jumps, not a particular type of jump. A quad jump is a quad. No matter if it's a 4T, 4S, 4Lz, or 4F, it's a quad jump. A 3-3 is a 3-3. No matter if it's a 3T-3T, 3Lz-3T, or 3F-3T, it's still a 3-3 jump. One criteria to see whether or not an element could be ruled as a standard element is to see whether or not this element is a popular element which has been executed by most top skaters. 3A is a standard element in SP in men and 2A is in ladies. Now I think it's time to make quad as standard in men for the title of the most prestigeous competitions like Worlds and Olympics. Maybe 3-3 for the Ladies.

In the meantime, I think we should keep partial credit as what we have been having. So a skater who dares to try a quad but unsuccessfully and falls is qualified to have the title. But the skater who doesn't include a quad jump in the program doesn't qualify to have the champion's title. Therefore, we might see a clean program with at least one quad jump wins, or we might see a good program with an unsuccessful quad attempt wins over a clean but all triple jump program. We also might see an unsuccessful quad attempt program wins over a successful quad program because the winning has been determined by other points accumulation which would make no difference from what we have already had.

Further more, we should give heavier deductions on second and third falls and so on in order to bring the cleaner programs over the messier programs. Let's say -2 deduction on the second, the third, and the fourth falls. We hardly ever see four fall programs anyways.

As of the difference between 4T, 4S, 4Lz, and 4F, it's already been addressed in the points given. Owning just the most difficult jump doesn't quarantee the win. Same as in Ladies. the difference in 3Lz, 3F, and 3Lo are given in the points. They are all triples. Neither alone could take over for the win.

 

[gkelly]

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough. What I meant was a level of jumps, not a particular type of jump. A quad jump is a quad. No matter if it's a 4T, 4S, 4Lz, or 4F, it's a quad jump. A 3-3 is a 3-3. No matter if it's a 3T-3T, 3Lz-3T, or 3F-3T, it's still a 3-3 jump. One criteria to see whether or not an element could be ruled as a standard element is to see whether or not this element is a popular element which has been executed by most top skaters. 3A is a standard element in SP in men and 2A is in ladies. Now I think it's time to make quad as standard in men for the title of the most prestigeous competitions like Worlds and Olympics. Maybe 3-3 for the Ladies.

In the meantime, I think we should keep partial credit as what we have been having. So a skater who dares to try a quad but unsuccessful and falls is qualified to have the title. But the skater who doesn't include a quad jump in the program doesn't qualify to have the champion's title.

For the record, I hate this idea as I understand it. But just to figure out exactly what you have in mind, exactly how it might play out in various situations...

First of all, it applies only to Worlds (and Olympics)? I.e., it's not a general rule about required elements to compete at the senior level, not a general rule about how programs are scored. It's just a gatekeeping rule for one title and one title only: world champion in men's singles. (Or two, counting Olympic champion?) The rule does not apply to continental championships. It does not apply to non-championship events such as the Grand Prix or senior B events (or to domestic events unless the national federation decides to adopt the same rule for its national championship)?

How do you determine when an element is "popular" (to use your term) enough that it becomes a gatekeeping element for the world championship title de jure and not just de facto? How many skaters must have done it successfully to win how many titles, or how many skaters throughout the field not including medal contenders, to write it into the rules

Would there be more than one gatekeeping element per discipline? E.g., to win a men's world title, the skater must perform (rotate and stand up?) at least one triple axel and at least one quad? Could they do one in the short program and one in the long, or do they need one of each in each program? Or could it be an either/or thing -- at least one jump of at least 3.5 revolutions in each program?

Suppose the requirement is just "a quad, any quad" -- triple axel is not required, but an axel jump is required and of course triple axel earns a lot more points than double.

At the end of the men's long program, the final standings in order of point totals are A-B-C-D-E-F.

The freeskate jump content is as follows:
A landed 7 triples (two 3A) and popped his planned quad to a double
B landed 7 triples (two 3A) and fell on a quad
C landed 7 triples (one 3A) and fell three times, on two attempted quads (one salchow, one toe loop) and a second triple axel
D skated clean with 6 successful triples (two 3A), doubled salchow and downgraded quad landed heavily on two feet
E completed 8 triples including a planned quad that came out triple, leading to an extra repeat and no points for a whole jumping pass
F landed 2 quads and 4 triples and popped or fell on 2 other attempted triples -- no 3A

Under normal rules, A would get the title/gold medal because he had the highest point total.

What about under your rules?
A planned a quad but didn't execute it, hence he's not eligible for the title under your rules. Does he get a silver medal behind the highest-placed skater who did land a quad? Does A get listed as finishing in first place, get to take home a gold medal, but doesn't get the title World Champion because he didn't include the gatekeeping jump?

Is this a year that no one gets the World Champion title but everyone finishes in order of point total like normal?

Or does the Champion title go to B or C because they at least rotated quads? To D because he stood up on a quad attempt even though it was only 3.5 revs in the air? To F because he actually landed some clean quads, even though he was a distant sixth in point total?

If any of A-E had landed a clean or nearly clean quad in the short program, would that qualify him (the highest placed skater who did so) for the title despite the lack of successful quad in the long program?

 

[amber68]

Generally, high quality/variety transitions would reflect/demonstrate great skating skills. If they are well performed/executed, they could be part of P/E. If they are part of strong choreography, they can be reflected there as well. And, if there is a penaly for a long, drawn out jump entry (as there is), I don't mind a transition being used as a GOE bullet.

Do you get paid twice or thrice for doing your job properly? No, only once and maybe get a bonus if you did something exceptionally well. So why, reward/penalize the skaters twice or thrice for the same thing?
And to answer to your previous post, the best example is Matt Savoie, one of the founding fathers of the transitions craze.
Here is one of his best performed programs, the FS from 2006 Nationals: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRqY2Q2WUl8
Obviously he is not a strong jumper, has bad technique for most of his jumps which have no speed in, bad air position, no flow out. Why encourage a skater like this to execute so many difficult entries by giving him + GOE for jumps AND for transitions ? (And eventually for choreography since it seems that nowadays loads of transitions = good choreography).
For example, at the first combo, I find the entry much too pretentious for his abilities and since the combo really looks bad and deserves – GOE, I think the preceding spread eagle should get a bonus in the transition mark but not in the GOE for the combo which should remain in the minus territory.
Also, in the second part of the program, I think that he really tries too much to find difficult entries into every single jump. They are annoying, break the unity and flow of the program so why encourage this when the program would have looked better without them (what would have been lost in difficulty would have been probably compensated by quality and flow)?.
I gave this example because I know that in 2006, after the Olympics, lots of fans thought that Savoie was undermarked and eventually deserved a medal (at the time, the judges still had the 6.0 mindset) but did he? With that posture and carriage???
If a skater can be rewarded thrice for transitions (GOE, transitions score and choreography) why can’t he be penalized thrice for bad carriage and lack of speed (for example, carriage is explicitly evaluated only in the Execution score, among 6 others aspects so can’t be penalized that much)?

 

[bekalc]

I'm curious to know under what circumstances the partial credit will be eliminated? If a skater has had a wabbly landing jump, will he/she gets the full credit or will he/she lose the credit completely? Will the elimination on partial credit only apply for the jumps with falls, or it applies to all un-perfect jumps?







Perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough. What I meant was a level of jumps, not a particular type of jump. A quad jump is a quad. No matter if it's a 4T, 4S, 4Lz, or 4F, it's a quad jump. A 3-3 is a 3-3. No matter if it's a 3T-3T, 3Lz-3T, or 3F-3T, it's still a 3-3 jump. One criteria to see whether or not an element could be ruled as a standard element is to see whether or not this element is a popular element which has been executed by most top skaters. 3A is a standard element in SP in men and 2A is in ladies. Now I think it's time to make quad as standard in men for the title of the most prestigeous competitions like Worlds and Olympics. Maybe 3-3 for the Ladies.

In the meantime, I think we should keep partial credit as what we have been having. So a skater who dares to try a quad but unsuccessfully and falls is qualified to have the title. But the skater who doesn't include a quad jump in the program doesn't qualify to have the champion's title. Therefore, we might see a clean program with at least one quad jump wins, or we might see a good program with an unsuccessful quad attempt wins over a clean but all triple jump program. We also might see an unsuccessful quad attempt program wins over a successful quad program because the winning has been determined by other points accumulation which would make no difference from what we have already had.

I really disagree with this. I think quads need to be rewarded but they shouldn't be a litmus test. I much preferred Buttle when he wasn't going for that quad fall (i.e he knew he couldn't do the quad). So the idea falling on the quad qualifies, not falling does isn't something I agree with.

I WILL say that if you have two skaters. One skater attempts everything well but falls on a quad attempt. Another skater does everything clean but no quad attempt. I will say I don't think second skater should automatically win, and I'm not even that inclined to punish the first skaters PCS in relation to no 2 because no 2 didn't even attempt the quad...But that's only if no 1 did everything else right. So I do see the point of some credit. But I draw the line at multiple falls etc. I mean if you fall on both your quad attempts, I"m also not willing to be like oh its a quad. Because its like credit for trying one, okay but multiple mess ups like this.... But for me credit for trying one isn't 6 points . Its more like maybe said skater shouldn't be hit hard on P/E for that one mistake.

At the end of the day though I think there's a way to reward mastering a quad that doesn't involve giving out points like candy for falls. I.e I think allowing two quads in the short is one of them. I think as well perhaps the rules should allow the skaters who do quads to have an extra jumping pass. Or if not an extra jumping pass. They could maybe for example let quad jumpers have the opportunity to repeat one quad and two triples in the free. This would give quad jumpers the opportunity to earn more points with the quad.

I guess what I'm saying is I disagree with the idea that the only way to ensure men will try the quad is if you hand them six points for quad falls. I think if you show them other wise having the quad can get them more points. They will be more willing to work on the quad to master it, in fear of their competitor racking up points. Hard combinations need to be rewarded more too.

As for women, so your saying that Rochette shouldn't be able to win because she didn't do a 3/3 Never mind that while she didn't have a 3/3 she was able to do all five triples with correct edges, something neither Kim or Asada could do. I liked both Kim/Asada better but still.

 

[Bluebonnet]

As for women, so your saying that Rochette shouldn't be able to win because she didn't do a 3/3 Never mind that while she didn't have a 3/3 she was able to do all five triples with correct edges, something neither Kim or Asada could do. I liked both Kim/Asada better but still.

Rochette has never been able to win at worlds and Olympics regardless 3-3s. If in Ladies, most of them are unable to skate all types of jumps or include all types of jumps in a program, even Yu Na Kim, then be it. That's the level of the Ladies could reach at present time. You can't hold something universal against top ladies.

I have no doubt that in the future, maybe 10-20 years from now, quad jumps will become standard in men and 3-3 will in Ladies. Just like now 3A in men and 2A in Ladies. But currently, the time to make them a general rule hasn't riped yet.

 

[gkelly]

Historically, general rules have only applied to minimum requirements to compete at that level. Really they only apply to the short program, where at least a double axel and two different triples are required (triple axel and three other triples are now allowed for ladies, triple axel and two quads for men). For long programs, there are no jump requirements aside from some sort of axel jump.

As of last year, there are now minimum SP and LP technical elements scores scores (to have been earned elsewhere) to be able to compete in ISU senior championships at all. It is possible to earn those minimum scores without successfully completing two different triples and a double axel, especially for ladies, if the quality of what is completed and the levels of the non-jump elements are high enough. It's also possible for someone who fails to meet the minimum TES in a given event to beat someone who did meet it, simply by outscoring them on PCS.

The minimums are basically gatekeeping tests to decide who has the very lowest technical skill level (distributed across all technical skills) to be worthy of competing in the championships. Once the skaters get to the championships, they compete against each other according to how their whole performances on the day compare. Landing difficult jumps is a good way to rack up points. But there are other ways to earn points, and the rules of the game under IJS are that the skater with the most points wins. As I tried to show in my last post, it would open a huge complicated can of worms if the rules were to state that the skater with the most points wins unless that skater happened to be missing one specific kind of element.

There is not and never has been, and I would imagine never will be, any kind of rule that separates the competitors in the same competition into eligible or not eligible to win (or medal?) based on specific jumps attempted or completed.

The upper limits of what's allowed in short programs is based on jumps that are "popular" or frequently being attempted and often completed by top competitors and some mid-pack competitors at that level. But there's a significant gap between the upper limit of what's allowed and the lower limit of what's required.

If, for example, the triple axel ever became a required element in the senior men's short program, I think you'd see a lot of talented 19-year-olds quitting the sport once they age out of juniors and still can't do that required element and realize that they probably never will. Not every good skater can do that jump. Even moreso with quads.

As it stands now, they're free to compete at senior B events, and at championships and Grand Prix events if they qualify, with solo double axel in the short program. And if they earn enough points elsewhere they can place well. They're probably not going to win without it. But if the stars align and they rack up more points than everyone else in the competition based on all their other elements, then they deserve to win. It's a figure skating contest, including jumps, spins, steps, and presentation, not just a triple axel contest. Or a quad contest, as the case may be.

 

[mskater93]

I think these ladies would be better served learning all the triple jumps (- Axel) than 3+3. JMHO, of course. I'd rather see a well rounded skater with a full compliment of jumps.

 

[ImaginaryPogue]

Do you get paid twice or thrice for doing your job properly? No, only once and maybe get a bonus if you did something exceptionally well. So why, reward/penalize the skaters twice or thrice for the same thing?
And to answer to your previous post, the best example is Matt Savoie, one of the founding fathers of the transitions craze.
Here is one of his best performed programs, the FS from 2006 Nationals: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRqY2Q2WUl8
Obviously he is not a strong jumper, has bad technique for most of his jumps which have no speed in, bad air position, no flow out. Why encourage a skater like this to execute so many difficult entries by giving him + GOE for jumps AND for transitions ? (And eventually for choreography since it seems that nowadays loads of transitions = good choreography).
For example, at the first combo, I find the entry much too pretentious for his abilities and since the combo really looks bad and deserves – GOE, I think the preceding spread eagle should get a bonus in the transition mark but not in the GOE for the combo which should remain in the minus territory.
Also, in the second part of the program, I think that he really tries too much to find difficult entries into every single jump. They are annoying, break the unity and flow of the program so why encourage this when the program would have looked better without them (what would have been lost in difficulty would have been probably compensated by quality and flow)?.
I gave this example because I know that in 2006, after the Olympics, lots of fans thought that Savoie was undermarked and eventually deserved a medal (at the time, the judges still had the 6.0 mindset) but did he? With that posture and carriage???
If a skater can be rewarded thrice for transitions (GOE, transitions score and choreography) why can’t he be penalized thrice for bad carriage and lack of speed (for example, carriage is explicitly evaluated only in the Execution score, among 6 others aspects so can’t be penalized that much)?

I don't believe the comparison is valid. You're arguing that doing transitions of high variety and quality consitutes what skaters should be doing ("doing your job properly"). But you don't get that if you don't reward that.

You've selected one of my favourite programs, so yeah, I totally think he deserved postive GOEs for some of those jumps (I would give the combo 0). Pretentious? Beautiful, complex choreography is now pretentious? Well, consider me pretentious. Lack of flow? The second triple axel from the hydroblade is gorgeous. Hell, even the spiral into the 3 Lz (that he fell on) is lovely. I don't think the program would've been better without the transitions at all, so there you go.

They CAN be penalized for lack of speed repeatedly. Poor skating skills. Likely GOE loss on spins. If you aren't carrying enough speed to go into jumps, you likely won't get positive GOEs. Lower performance/execution scores could happen. As for carriage, I'd like to see it emphasized in Interpretation as well, but you don't cut off your nose to spite your face.

GENERAL QUESTION: How much should execution of elements factor into the final score as compared to difficulty of elements and program components?

 

[gkelly]

GENERAL QUESTION: How much should execution of elements factor into the final score as compared to difficulty of elements and program components?

My personal opinion:

I think execution should be a significant factor. Just exactly how much, according to what formula, is a trickier question to answer.

At one extreme, we could say that all that matters is what you did, whether you did it successfully or not. Full credit or zero credit, yes or no -- no partial credit for partial success, no extra credit for extra quality. Base mark alone would often determine the winners. I completely oppose that approach.

At the other extreme, quality of elements could be the single deciding factor -- there could be little difference in the base marks between elements and large variations in both the values of the grades of execution and the range of grades awarded by the judges, so that a program full of excellent double jumps or simple spins and steps, for example, would easily beat a program full of adequate triples and level 4 elements. I don't recommend that approach either.

In finding a happy medium, I'd probably prefer to give a slight preference to quality over difficulty.

For elements that are made more difficult by transitions into and out of the element (or enhancements to the air position in the case of jumps), I like that the difficult entries and exits can be considered as positive bullet points for the execution of the element when it otherwise meets minimum standards, but I don't think that added difficulty should override actual mistakes.

Take one typical example -- spread eagle into axel jump with arm overhead (fairly common with single axels at juvenile-novice levels). Do those two enhancements guarantee a +1 if the jump is landed? I don't think so.
If the jump is big and fast and solid and would deserve +1 on its own merits, then the difficult entry and air position could result in +2 for the element.
If the jump itself is clean but nothing special, then the enhancements could result in +1.
If it's landed on one foot but the jump is small or the landing a little shaky, then the enhancements might allow the jump to earn 0 GOE instead of -1.
If there's a blatant error on the jump, e.g., a step out of the landing, then the expected -2 GOE should apply, but the entry and air position could still be taken into account in the Transitions and Choreography components.
In the latter two cases, the shaky or not-held landings could be taken into account negatively under Performance/Execution, especially if there are several such shaky elements, whereas a program full of +1 and +2 elements could receive positive consideration under P/E.

I'd rather see skaters take elements that they can do well and weave them together into a complex integrated program with good execution than to see a program that's just a collection of difficult elements being attempted without much relationship between them or between elements and music.

But since skating competition is a sport, I also want to see skaters challenging themselves by pushing their own limits on difficulty of elements and difficulty of connections between elements, which will mean they won't always execute them perfectly.

And the skaters with the very highest skill levels will be pushing the limits not just of their own abilities but of the possibilities of the sport as a whole.

That's exciting and should be rewarded, IMO.

However, there are different ways to push the limits of difficulty.

Suppose we say that at a certain point the standard top difficulty we expect from a senior lady is 7 triples and one double axel, with either 3T+3T or 2A+3T as the easiest way to fit those 8 difficult jumps into 7 jump passes without sequence penalties.

If that's the expected limit, how can an ambitious skater push the limits to add more difficulty?
One way would be to do a harder triple-triple combo, instead or in addition, so that she could repeat two of the higher-valued triples and only need one triple toe.
Another way would be to add the triple axel, in place of the double axel or an easier triple, and maybe include a total of 8 triples.
Similarly, she could replace one of those triples with a quad.

OR she could keep the "standard" jump content but increase the difficulty of the skating in between the jumps and in and out of the jumps. Seven triples and a double axel seamlessly integrated into a flow of edges, turns, steps, spirals, etc., is more difficult than seven telegraphed triples and a telegraphed double axel and should be rewarded. (It also makes for a more interesting program.)

(Of course, increasing difficulty of spins and step sequence is also an option, but once level 4 has been reached on those 4 elements there's no way to raise the base scores for those elements any further, so at that point the focus would need to be on increasing the quality of those elements.)

 

[Mathman]

I'm curious to know under what circumstances the partial credit will be eliminated? If a skater has had a wabbly landing jump, will he/she gets the full credit or will he/she lose the credit completely? Will the elimination on partial credit only apply for the jumps with falls, or it applies to all imperfect jumps?

Yeah, that's the big question. I think we could start with the worst kind of error and then work our way up.

Fall, 0 credit. Wrong edge on a Lutz? I'm leaning toward zero credit but it's open for discussion. Does not do four complete rotations (remember this is supposed to be a quad -- again. let's talk. Does not land on an edge, leaning toward 0 credit.

For lesser errors, two-foot, slight hand down, wild swing on the landing, we could handle that by giving a steeper scale of negative GOEs.

(By the way, the procedure of starting with the most egregious errors first is more or less what the ISU has done. First they hammered under-rotations. Then they eased up a little. Then they nailed wrong edge take-offs. Than they backed off.)

So a skater who dares to try a quad but unsuccessfully and falls is qualified to have the title.

That's the part I can't go along with. I can dare to try a quad and fall. In fact just this morning I did a truly specular fall off my front porch, daring to try to shovel some snow. I'm not sure I got in all the rotations, but the point is -- the snow is still there.

What if a skater dares to try a quad but pops it into a double? Is he eligible to win the championship?

The idea of awarding points for "trying unsuccessfully" is what this whole discussion is about. It diminishes the sporting aspect of the discipline (so says the author of the article under view).