CoP opinions: The short program

[indicatoto101]

If the purpose of the SP is to make the Technical special, then let's have one score for the Technical. Why bring up the PCS if it's not the purpose?

But maybe, the purpose of the SP is now very moot.

Joe

I've only been following figure skating for a few years. Was the validity of the SP debated in 6.0 days? What was the point of the short program then? Why is it questioned now?

 

[Mathman]

^ Great questions. I hope some of our figure skating historians will supply the details, but as I understand it, the original purpose of the short program was to give Janet Lynn (who was bad at tracing figures but great at free skating) a chance to win a world championship. It didn't work out, but that was the goal.

As for why it is being questioned now -- it isn't really, this is just internet chat.

The question of the thread, however, is this. What is the best way to combine the results of the short and long programs to produce an overall winner? That's where the difference between the ordinal system (6.0) and the point total system (CoP) comes in.

Under ordinal judging, only the placements are carried forward, not the points (like a tournament). Under the CoP, points accumulate from both parts of the competition (like the first and second halves of a football game). Which method is best for determining the event winner?

 

[Mafke]

^
Great questions. I hope some of our figure skating historians will supply the details, but as I understand it, the original purpose of the short program was to give Janet Lynn (who was bad at tracing figures but great at free skating) a chance to win a world championship. It didn't work out, but that was the goal.
...
The question of the thread, however, is this. What is the best way to combine the results of the short and long programs to produce an overall winner?

I'm no historian but ... the original purpose wasn't just to get Janet Lynn a championship. And again, her problems weren't figures per se but (comparitively) weak competitive nerve - a concept that was not well understood back then.

Anyway, AFAICT there were several main purposes of the SP
a. Make sure no more Schubas or Nepalas would win major titles (basically that worked (at least after Nepala's last Bratislavan hurrah) all the champions afterwards were at least pretty good if not always the most spectacular freeskaters )
b. Generate more tv coverage in big competitions
c. Make the 'compusory round' more visible
d. ???

And it wasn't until the _9th_ season with the SP that skaters were competing for ordinals and factored placements. The WC and olys from 73-80 were all still decided on cumulative points.

Again, the controversial Lake Placid Ladies competition would have had three different winners depending on how the scores (assuming those would all still be identical) were counted.

system actually in use : Poetzsch
system from 81-88 : Fratianne
system from 89-90: Fratianne

just SP and LP (not counting figures)

total points (system used) : Fratianne
with factored placements: Biellmann

(also interesting: the scoring method actualy used was the only one that keeps Biellmann off the podium she's at least bronze in any other system).

So there is no one ideal method. Any method will generate some competitions that are too close to realistically call and others where the 'wrong' skater wins.

One way to test the 'ideal' method would be to have a large panel of highly trained judges do phantom judging at umpteen different competitions (just putting the top six skaters in rank order with no points) and see which way of processing the scores given by the real judges most closely matches their picks. (this will obviously never happen)

What we're left with is personal bias. My bias is that if there is one part of the competition that's scored very differently from the rest then factored placements are the way to go (I think 81-90 was the overall fairest period in scoring), but otherwise I'd prefer total point count (either 6.0 or CoP).
The few competitions where one skater puts themself out of reach are more than balanced by the broader field with podium possiblities.

 

[gkelly]

Great post, Mafke!

 

[NatachaHatawa]

The good thing about having two programs is that we get to see how the athletes handle two different musical moods.

Maybe the short is upbeat and the long is dramatic, maybe the short is lyrical and the long is down and dirty. What is really neat is when the two programs fit together, like a concert in which two contrasting yet complementary pieces are selected. Lori Nichol especially likes to do that, selecting the music for the short program and the long together. Mao Asada's two programs last year were a good example.

In ice dancing we might see a couple do a waltz in the CD, then a jazz OD and a tango for the finale. It gives us more to go on in judging their overall skills.

That's one of the things I was trying to express in my last post. Having two programs really allow skaters to show what they can do artisticly. I often see skaters who don't have such good LPs but have great SPs, which is why I'm so attatched to them.

In reply to Joe, I wasn't trying to say that LPs don't show basic skills, let me explain myself a little better.
Under the CoP, it's clear that the SP, technicaly speaking, has no interest, as the CoP indirectly imposes figures on skaters during the LP.
Under a more global judging system, like the old one or one that many people would like to see put in place, there is a huge amount of space for inovation. Take for example in ice-dancing (this has no "SP", but being the most etreme case, it's the best illustration). Originaly, there were no lifts, now during the LPs there are several. What's more these are more and more athletic. Plus, since Torvil & Dean, LPs often don't really look like dances and tell a story. This is probably one of the only uses of the CD, to remind people where the sport comes from, what the original and basic skills are. Coming back to real figure skating, it is true that under the 6.0 system, jumps were by far the most important thing, and so more basic skills, such as footwork and spins, weren't so important in LPs. Figure skating, if it will be allowed to with a new system, will naturaly evolve, which is a good thing, but if we want figure skating to evolve, we need to keep SPs to keepa certain amount of authenticity.

As the thread is called "SPs in the CoP", my direct opinion is that technicaly, the SP has become useless, but artisticly, it is essentiel.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

The PCS scores are in BOTH SP and LP.

Are the SPs and LPs both artistc?

Does the LP actually show artistry more than the SP?.

Is ballet-like for ladies and high jumps for men the only artistic endeavors in figure skating? Then they both have them.

Has varied music in the SP and LP actually been judged?

Now pray tell me, just what is the intent of the Short Program other than to give the fans an extra look at figure skating since it is so seasonal?

I really don't think there is an official intent. It is left over from when it had a purpose but even then performance was included as equal to the technical.
I would appreciate no answers to these last questions unless there is an official purpose written somewhere in the ISU. I know all the opinions. (I too, don't mind watching SPs due to lack of skating during the year - not mad about show skating.)

I think we can conclude that the SP does not have an official intent but it does give the fans a bonus of figure skating?

 

[skatergirl45]

Right on, Joe. The short program has no purpose but it can even out the standings and stop the judges from picking favorites.

 

[Mathman]

I would appreciate no answers to these last questions unless there is an official purpose written somewhere in the ISU. I know all the opinions...

I think we can conclude that the SP does not have an official intent but it does give the fans a bonus of figure skating?

(OT). I just tried to search the ISU web site and the Internet for some kind of official statement of purpose. But when I Googled "Figure skating, purpose of the short program" guess what the first entry was (out of 519,000)?

This very thread, and specifically post #2 by Penny.

Conclusion: We are the number one authority on this question!

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

I doubt the lost purpose of the Short Program will ever be known. Much of what Mafke has said is there but he does not mention original plan when it discarded the figures all together. It was to ensure, the jumps, spins and footwork, were included in the total program. In doing so they actually name the elements which must be included. It was to balance the scoring so that Kwan-like skaters didn't walk away with the results of both phases of the competition. That difficult spins and jumps should count.

It was not about this so-called artistry some posters love to talk about.

But it doesn't and it never will judge elements as special in the SP without the PCS just as it is in the LP and my opinion is it is not necessary to have an SP because it's all there in the LP including the specified jumps and spins of the SP.

Thanks to MM, no search can come up with a raison d'etre for the SP.

Joe

 

[Mafke]

I doubt the lost purpose of the Short Program will ever be known. Much of what Mafke has said is there but he does not mention original plan when it discarded the figures all together.

Well I've written before that institutional inertia is a _very_ powerful force. Without figures, the SP was kept because it had been around for over 15 years and most (all?) judged sports have something like compulsory and free rounds.

IIRC in the 80's the parts of the scores were labelled differently in the SPand LP. It might be worth digging up old videos to check exactly, but I think in the SP there were "required elements" and "presentation" while you had "technical merit" and "artistic impression" in the lp.

The idea of a shorter program with required elements followed by a longer one with a much freer structure makes intuitive sense and compares with other judged sports.

But over time, with incremental meddling by the ISU the SP requirements became too loose while the LP requirements became too strict. In that sense, the SP stopped being a separately meaningful part of the competition before CoP came along (though required deductions meant it was arguably differently scored).

Finally, the idea that the ISU would have the purpose of the SP written down somewhere is just .... naive? funny? tragic?

 

[NatachaHatawa]

I think we can conclude that the SP does not have an official intent but it does give the fans a bonus of figure skating?

Spot on!

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Finally, the idea that the ISU would have the purpose of the SP written down somewhere is just .... naive? funny? tragic?

ALL of the aforementioned, imo.

But, be as it may, fans new to figure skating (beyond Janet Lynn) just think of it as an extra skate which they want to see. (Oh, the artistry of it all! ). Since the scores are considered in the final tally, it has to be a value for a championship. I think my example of Joubert in Tokyo was right on.

If the ISU wants to make it meaningful, it should seek methods for launching a new type of competition that is not similar to the LP or put the LP back into an FP.

Joe

 

[Mathman]

I wonder how the skaters feel about it?

Would they be bored if they had to prepare only one program each season? For competitors like Lambiel and Kwan, do they enjoy a chance to show off their versatility by doing two different programs, even though both programs display pretty much the same skating skills? Does it contribute to a skater's body of work to have a string of memorable long and short programs to their credit?

Would they rather do a jump contest, a spin contest, and an Ina Bauer/spread eagle/spiral contest with no music? Or would they (like the fans) find this to be a less interesting form of competition?

 

[skatergirl45]

I am a competitive figure skater, not at the senior level. At my level, I only do one program and it works out fine. The standings are what they are all that matters is how the skaters skate on that day.
I think that it would be fun to go head to head with some of my competitors because when judges grade you overall for a performance, they often miss out the fact that skater A has better footwork and spins but skater B has better jumps. THey only look at the overall.
While this is not true for the COP sometimes the judges do look at the overall effect when the do the PCS.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

I wonder how the skaters feel about it?

Would they be bored if they had to prepare only one program each season? For competitors like Lambiel and Kwan, do they enjoy a chance to show off their versatility by doing two different programs, even though both programs display pretty much the same skating skills? Does it contribute to a skater's body of work to have a string of memorable long and short programs to their credit?

Would they rather do a jump contest, a spin contest, and an Ina Bauer/spread eagle/spiral contest with no music? Or would they (like the fans) find this to be a less interesting form of competition?

Do the judges want to see versatility? and do they see versatility? It is not a factor in the CoP, and it really isn't a factor in figure skating. It's a fan thing.

Some fans would not want to see separate technical constests without music because what makes their day is the need for what they call artistry. Others, the more sporty type would welcome it as part of the Sport. Can't please everyone.

I think a fair way of showing it as a Sport would be to have the SP become LP1 and the LP become FP1. It's the best of both Worlds and you have Sport and your Presentation together at last.

Not going to happen until 2030, though.

Joe

 

[3lutz3toe]

I totally agree w/ you and Sonia (what would we do w/out Sonia).
1) People forget that FS is an Artistic Sport, similiar to gymnastics. So you can't just boil it down to numbers. Ludicrous. I love the Sonia’s qualitive/quantitive comparison. She hits it on the nose every time.

2) There are various things that I like that CoP has introduced, such as weight for spins, footwork, and jumps quality issues. But CoP totally misses the big picture. How do you compare program A from B by just looking at numbers? The pencils example hits right on. You can't do it well that's for sure.

3) There should have been a hybrid system of 6.0 and CoP but w/out the cumbersome points total.

4) Just look at gymnastics, it is so boring watching it now because most are doing pretty much the same things because points is the name of the game now. And the magic is also lost when they took away the 10! (Gymnastics has employed similiar CoP like points system)

* The biggest gripe about CoP is that it doesn't value the big picture of the overall quality of a program. Only humans can do this. Numbers aint gonna do it people.

I am not so sure about that. The reason for ordinals is that some things are qualitative rather than quantitative.

Sonia Bianchetti, on the other thread, makes the interesting point that human judges are better at making relative qualitative comparisons -- A is better than B and B is better than C -- than they are at matching a performance against an arbitrary numerical standard.

Try it. Take three pencils, a long one, a medium one, and a short one. It is very easy to put them in order, even if the difference in length is only a centimeter.

Now try to guess how long each is, in centimeters.

This is why, under the old system, there might be quite a lot of variation among the judges as to whether a performance deserved a 5.6 or a 5.8, even in cases where the judges were unanimous with respect to placements.

There is plenty of precedent in sports for not carrying point totals over from one phase of the competition to the next. In the World Series (baseball), if your team beats the other 30 to 2 in the first game, and loses 0 to 1 in the second, the series is all tied up going into game three -- it's still the best out of seven, not who scores the most runs overall. There would be scant reason to play the other five games, if the winning team got to carry over their 30 runs.

Well, what's good for baseball may not be good for figure skating. In golf they do it both ways, stroke play and match play.

This is a MYTH that judges just pull marks from thin air.
The skaters still have to have content and follow through. Yes, when 2 skaters are close, they would have to mark according to what they think is better and each have their reason, could be preference, styles, usually the more polished skaters and or programs come out ahead.
—Remember, just because they'e NUMBERS don't it don't LIE!

^ The 6.0 system was completely broken. The judges could just pick their favorites to win. The only obvious wins for a skater in 6.0 was if the skater was perfect.Other than that judges was pulling marks from thin are
With COP I actually know how skaters can win and loose a compitition. I now have a rule system that is legitamen tand concrete enough(could be better) to support my agreements of disagreements with the judges. With 6.0 it was Opinions mostly. I don't like PCs because it is exactly like the old 6.0 system except it has a 10.0 scale. I like the fact that a skater has to skate two programs to win a competition. It shows consistancy. It also cuts down the pressure on a skaters.Maybe there should be two three minute programs instead of a short and a long. Maybe the short can count more. Or any other idea, but there should definitly be two programs.

 

[GoldMedalist]

It didn't need to be a 4toe/3toe because Joubert won without it.

Yes, with those judges and judging system, obviously he did. I'm telling you my view of how it should be.

 

[hockeyfan228]

The topic was about the CoP short programs. I just gave a very good example (2007 Worlds Mens Division) of how unnecessary the SP is. Few people will agree with me because they want to see as much skating as possible. I want a definitive champion in one night of competition. Unfortunately, my example brought about a discussion of whether the winner of that worlds championship was correct when his LP skating would not have brought him to the podium.

I don't think you made an argument for why the SP is unnecessary. In fact, the thread followed the path it did because the SP had such an impact on the results. An unnecessary SP would be one where there was no change in ranking from one program to another.

That's very different than saying that your preference is for one chance in one program for the "big night" winning the big prize. Many of us disagree with you, and believe that the SP still tests different skills (limited to a subset of all possibilities) and mindset than the FS, and that the results from both rounds, like in skiing or ski-jumping wins.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

I don't think you made an argument for why the SP is unnecessary. In fact, the thread followed the path it did because the SP had such an impact on the results. An unnecessary SP would be one where there was no change in ranking from one program to another.

That's very different than saying that your preference is for one chance in one program for the "big night" winning the big prize. Many of us disagree with you, and believe that the SP still tests different skills (limited to a subset of all possibilities) and mindset than the FS, and that the results from both rounds, like in skiing or ski-jumping wins.

My argument that the SP is unnecessary is because it has no purpose other than to have two separate competitions, both of which are extremely similar in their organization. Both have the same do's and dont's The tests in the SP are totally overriden by the PCS scores the same as a missed element in the LP. The GoEs are identical. And these so called tests. Do they show anything in the way of skating skills? So does the LP.

My suggestion is to have 2 LPs, the first of which should be guided by all the do's and don'ts of the CoP and the 2nd LP shoule be guided by the freedom of the skater of the 6.0 system.

Joubert won the contest fair and square by the Rules of the Game, but was he the best?

Joe

 

[skatergirl45]

I love your idea Joe about 2 long programs! One would be CoP style with all the stuff and the other would be a more artistic FS. however, to not make it like an exhibition skaters would have to use music with out words.
I say we only use PCS to judge the 2nd FS......... that will show how well judges REALLY know how to use them. lol