- Joined
- Dec 19, 2005
Emily has wonderful flow and deep edging out of her jumps.
Brennan has no skating knowledge and should be ignored!
- Thread starter slutskayafan21
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2003
I agree. I also think she has great knee action -- ties into flow -- and that of the top ladies, Arakawa, Rochette, and Hughes share this quality. I just wish she wouldn't wear surburban coctail dresses.new_europe2006 said:
Bravo Doris, Sk8m8, & Red Dog!
Slutskayafan, you are enitiled to your opinion, but I think Sk8m8's "Guide to Good Opinion-Stating" is worth pasting onto your computer, IMHO.
BTW, I don't like Christine Brennan's style of writing either. I find her style and facts to be sloppy, even when I agree with her. However, whether a writer is "sweet" as a person or not should have no bearing on how we view her or his professional writing, IMO. (That Phil Hersh just isn't a sweet guy!) OTOH, Brennan was very sweet to Michelle while writing her Pulitzer Prize winning series on how Lori Nichol and Michelle worked together to create her competitive programs from 1996 through 1997.
As Mathman has pointed out, a sportswriter's job is to sell papers. But it's also to report the facts and, depending on the type of article, also offer his/her opinions about the athlete(s) being discussed. Writing, "Skater X has poor skating skills such as weak edges" is an opinion appropriate for the sports section. Writing "Skater X is a self-absorbed snot" in an opinion appropriate for the gossip section. Of course the executive editor makes the call, but general rules of journalism--though getting fuzzier by the nanosecond--still support the first set of rules.
As for artistry, presentation, COP--it's the COP now and the second mark is made up of five separate categories: Skating Skills, Transitions/Linking Footwork, Performance/Execution, Choreography/Composition, and Interpretation.
IMO, these neither replace "ariistry" nor "presentation." They make up a brand new category for the second mark. If it weren't so clunky to say, I'd call them, "Everything Except Skating Tricks, Spirals, and Footwork." How about "The Program Component Scores"?
Whatever you call them, Irina is stronger in some than Michelle, Sasha is stronger in some than Michelle, and Shizuka is stronger in most than the previous three. IMO. Now if we can just get the commentators to quit referring to the second mark as "the old artistic mark" because that isn't what it is.
However, at least on "Olympic Ice" the observation was made that the judges are still giving a skater pretty much the same scores in each of the five categories of the PCS, which obviously ain't the case. In other words, Irina gets all low 8s and high 7s; Sasha gets all mid and high 8s; and so on. As Scott Hamilton said. with which I agree completely, "The judges need to develop that muscle in their head..." so they can score each category separately. YES!
Once (I hope) the judges do this, I think we'll be seeing much more variation among the five component categories. Finally, "pretty," "beautiful" or "smooth" is not necessarily the criterion for getting a high PCS for each category. Each category has its own criteria for excellence. I've made this analogy before, so I hope folks aren't sick of it. But for me it's rather like having to judge both ballet and modern dancers.
Although the styles are overlapping more and more, Balanchine's "Serenade" and Paul Taylor's "Aureaole" are both great ballets and the performances of each demand tremendous, but different styles of, technique from the dancers. That's basically what figure skating judges are having to do more often now and will have to do even more often in the future. Thus the judges need to be trained in what is excellence in different kinds of styles of figure skating. The basic "Skating Skills" may be the same, but is doing a catch-foot to your head a "skating skill" or "choreography"? These, IMO, are questions, among others, that need to be addressed.
BTW, the closing ceremonies reminded me that Emily Hughes skated with great passion and natural charisma, and Kimmie skated with great precision and lovely, though not yet great, line. I love 'em both. And after the first 45 seconds or so, I felt Sasha skated with the best of both Emily and Kimmie--plus great courage for skating the best last three minutes of her LP after the worst first minute. Great to see the performance go up after a bad start rather than the opposite.
Good luck judges!
Rgirl
P.S. Any GSers in a position to go to judging school, take the exams, and become a FS judge? I seem to remember having a judge here for a while.
Slutskayafan, you are enitiled to your opinion, but I think Sk8m8's "Guide to Good Opinion-Stating" is worth pasting onto your computer, IMHO.
BTW, I don't like Christine Brennan's style of writing either. I find her style and facts to be sloppy, even when I agree with her. However, whether a writer is "sweet" as a person or not should have no bearing on how we view her or his professional writing, IMO. (That Phil Hersh just isn't a sweet guy!) OTOH, Brennan was very sweet to Michelle while writing her Pulitzer Prize winning series on how Lori Nichol and Michelle worked together to create her competitive programs from 1996 through 1997.
As Mathman has pointed out, a sportswriter's job is to sell papers. But it's also to report the facts and, depending on the type of article, also offer his/her opinions about the athlete(s) being discussed. Writing, "Skater X has poor skating skills such as weak edges" is an opinion appropriate for the sports section. Writing "Skater X is a self-absorbed snot" in an opinion appropriate for the gossip section. Of course the executive editor makes the call, but general rules of journalism--though getting fuzzier by the nanosecond--still support the first set of rules.
As for artistry, presentation, COP--it's the COP now and the second mark is made up of five separate categories: Skating Skills, Transitions/Linking Footwork, Performance/Execution, Choreography/Composition, and Interpretation.
IMO, these neither replace "ariistry" nor "presentation." They make up a brand new category for the second mark. If it weren't so clunky to say, I'd call them, "Everything Except Skating Tricks, Spirals, and Footwork." How about "The Program Component Scores"?
Whatever you call them, Irina is stronger in some than Michelle, Sasha is stronger in some than Michelle, and Shizuka is stronger in most than the previous three. IMO. Now if we can just get the commentators to quit referring to the second mark as "the old artistic mark" because that isn't what it is.
However, at least on "Olympic Ice" the observation was made that the judges are still giving a skater pretty much the same scores in each of the five categories of the PCS, which obviously ain't the case. In other words, Irina gets all low 8s and high 7s; Sasha gets all mid and high 8s; and so on. As Scott Hamilton said. with which I agree completely, "The judges need to develop that muscle in their head..." so they can score each category separately. YES!
Once (I hope) the judges do this, I think we'll be seeing much more variation among the five component categories. Finally, "pretty," "beautiful" or "smooth" is not necessarily the criterion for getting a high PCS for each category. Each category has its own criteria for excellence. I've made this analogy before, so I hope folks aren't sick of it. But for me it's rather like having to judge both ballet and modern dancers.
Although the styles are overlapping more and more, Balanchine's "Serenade" and Paul Taylor's "Aureaole" are both great ballets and the performances of each demand tremendous, but different styles of, technique from the dancers. That's basically what figure skating judges are having to do more often now and will have to do even more often in the future. Thus the judges need to be trained in what is excellence in different kinds of styles of figure skating. The basic "Skating Skills" may be the same, but is doing a catch-foot to your head a "skating skill" or "choreography"? These, IMO, are questions, among others, that need to be addressed.
BTW, the closing ceremonies reminded me that Emily Hughes skated with great passion and natural charisma, and Kimmie skated with great precision and lovely, though not yet great, line. I love 'em both. And after the first 45 seconds or so, I felt Sasha skated with the best of both Emily and Kimmie--plus great courage for skating the best last three minutes of her LP after the worst first minute. Great to see the performance go up after a bad start rather than the opposite.
Good luck judges!
Rgirl
P.S. Any GSers in a position to go to judging school, take the exams, and become a FS judge? I seem to remember having a judge here for a while.
Similar threads
