How Important is Music in Scoring CoP

[gkelly]

The disjoints between music, choreography, and technical elements in modern skating obviously are a fault of the CoP judging.

I'm going to list a bunch of skaters whose careers spanned the change in the judging system:

Jeffrey Buttle Brian Joubert Stephane Lambiel Chengjiang Li Evgeny Plyushenko Emanuel Sandhu Kevin Van der Perren Johnny Weir Michael Weiss

Miki Ando Shizuka Arakawa Sasha Cohen Carolina Kostner Joannie Rochette Julia Sebestyen Irina Slutskaya Elena Sokolova Fumie Suguri

Some of these skaters are generally considered to be pretty good at connecting music, choreography, and technical elements, and some of them are generally considered to be not so good at that.

Which specific skaters from these lists do you think got notably worse at doing so after the judging system changed, between, say 2003 and 2006?

 

[abaka]

Are you testing me, gkelly? OK. I'll restrict myself to your lists and answer directly.

Of the men, I think it's pretty obvious Buttle, Weir, Joubert, and Lambiel did better after 2004, while Van Den Perren and Weiss dropped off. I can't really say any of them are my favorites, and Joubert's skating style in particular seems to annoy me, despite all his jumps. He's a perfect illustration of what I had in mind. Weir too, somehow. Plyuschenko is my favorite skater of the post-1995 period; his greatness spanned the scoring change. I don't know where the next Plyushenko will come from; we'll have to wait. Li was never quite in the first tier, but I've always liked him somehow; he too is an older-style skater compared to Joubert and Lambiel. As for Sandhu, he's probably the one who was least affected by the scoring changes, probably because he's the male Sasha Cohen. (Great posture standing, and you wonder when you'll cringe next while he's skating).

Of the women, Ando really came into her own after the change, Arakawa dropped off (yes, the Olympic gold notwithstanding; I liked her at the 2004 worlds better), Cohen spanned but was really killed off by CoP, which exacerbated her tendency to choke and fall (too bad, in a way. Really I cringed a lot watching her), while Kostner never much impression on me (there has been only one Midori Ito, so far, and one Tonya Harding likewise). Rochette came on with the changes, but like Li has never quite clicked. Julia Sebestien was always too much of an Elizabeth Manley and has seemed less comfortable since the CoP. Slutskaya is a Plyuschenko not only by nationality but by greatness; she was really the only one (except for Lu Chen and maybe Suguri!) worth watching for a long time after Ito's time was up; her career was almost over by 2004 anyway. Sokolova I never cared for; she too was largely gone by 2004. Suguri, I think, has never adjusted to CoP and will be gone soon.

Just my impressions. I could go on, but the post will become unbearably long...

 

[jyshin]

^ Hey, I'd really like to hear what you have to say. Keep going!

 

[Mathman]

.Of the men, I think it's pretty obvious Buttle, Weir, Joubert, and Lambiel did better after 2004...

...Just my impressions.

2004 -- it was a very good year! IMHO, Lambiel, Weir, Cohen, Ando and Arakawa all hit their peak, in terms of musical expression, that year.

But the skaters that GKelly listed all learned to skate under 6.0 scoring. It would be a fairer test of the IJS to compare, say, Yuna Kim and Mao Asada with Michelle Kwan and Irina Slutskaya. Which duo did the better job of incorporating technical elements within the flow of the choreography?

What about Patrick Chan and Takahiko Kozuka versus Yagudin and Plushenko (judged just on the musicality issue alone)?

 

[abaka]

Well, I'd pick Slutskaya and Kwan over Kim and Asada. Wouldn't you? Although Kwan was far two cautious (I'm being polite )... Kim and Asada are still not quite fully mature. If they get over their gawky choreography, they'll be truly great. In women's skating, though, Midori Ito's 1989 worlds free-skate stands alone in my mind, even today: as regards the exuberance, the technique, and yes, the art of it all. Call it a silly 40-year-old's nostalgia, but nothing I've seen before or since has come close. Kim and Asada have picked up the athletoc slack superbly; sometimes I wonder if they'll have as brief an arc as Ito even (or especially) if they switch to "artistic expression".

As for men, Yagudin (especially Yagudin!) and Plyushenko over Chan and Kozuka. Although Yagudin was too soft, I thought... I like Chan a lot; I'm not sure (yet) about Kozuka. Historically, though, we've yet to see a Kurt Browning c. 1989-91. It's a sport. The music and the expression accentuate and enhance the athletics. If they're missing, the athletics do suffer, perhaps greatly; but better, despite everything I've said, to have small faults in presentation than in execution. Do you agree?

The best good year was 1989.

 

[Tonichelle]

I prefer the Browning of 93 on to the Browning of 89-91...

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

I could list a few skaters who draw me into their programs musically and still fewer who could grab the character of that music. To me they act as a Conductor would in front of an orchestra. It's like a good cake with added skating elements to act as icing. (no pun intended),

 

[abaka]

I prefer the Browning of 93 on to the Browning of 89-91...

Casablanca. Of course. I'd been thinking of the 1989 and 1991 worlds programs, which were more original athletically. But you're right that 1993 is his swan song, especially as regards the musicality. Too bad he chose to repeat the theme in the Olympics.

 

[Tonichelle]

too bad? I thought it was wonderful...

 

[abaka]

too bad? I thought it was wonderful...

Oh, it was a superb skate, better received no doubt than the short-program blues (which was underrated despite the fall and the miss, I thought). But his Olympic long program was full of errors he avoided in 1993. I think sticking with the same theme for more than one year of competition is just bad luck -- kind of tempts fate.

 

[Bennett]

I guess the question I am wrestling with is this.

Suppose the ISU comes up with some additional words to add to the present explanation of the Interpretation component. Would that make you and your colleagues better judges of this component than you are now?

Suppose they made you go to some extra seminars to hear lectures about what it means to be "musical" in the context of dance. Will that help you be more consistent and confident the next time out?

According to gsrossano's post about his/her personal communications with judges, they may not have a common understanding of each definition. As discussed, each term seems to mean different things for different people. So I think that it would help if they have seminars or something so that they could be clearer what each component really means. I think it better if each judge can stick to the ISU definitions regardless of their personal definitions.

I also think it better if they could make each component simpler. Right now, each one looks really crowded with many different concepts. If they wanted to make it comprehensive, they should have divided them into more compoments so that each component has just one concept within each.

Personally, I am not upset about the fact that different judges weigh certain aspects of a performnace more heavily than others. As Abaka puts it above, "There are many different ways to achieve a great performance." It does not seem so terrible to me if this spirit is reflected in a disparity among the judges' marks.

Sorry I feel a little confused. Based on our discussions, I understand that you think detailed analyses are ovbiously important.

Yet, if I understand you correctly (please correct me if I do not), it sounds like you are suggesting that you would not like to have the system to dictate the judges how they should conduct detailed analyses and that the system should allow the judges to have some levels of flexibility. Then the judges could weigh different aspects of a performnace according to what they perceived was significant in the given performance.

Based on your earlier discussions as well as this one, I guess that you may be referring to the idea that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts (correct me if I misunderstood you). I also heard your concern that the current system may be trying to quantify a performing art that is supposed to be all about the quality.

My questions are as follows.

First, I myself do not have any trouble with disparity in marks by judges. But another problem we are seeing is that all the PCS scores are too highly correlated, which suggests a paucity of detailed analyses. So I am not sure how this will be addressed without using the criteria more clearly.

Second, the criteria listed in PCS are mainly concerned about the "quality". Because each criterion is applied to the whole performance, it's not like chopping the performance into pieces as you do with the tech elements. So I wonder if a clearer use of five components enhances quantification of performing arts any more than the use of presentation mark under 6.0 did. Sure, you can't just say that I thought that A was better than B as you did under 6.0 (i.e., Ordinal judging). But I do not think that providing more detailed analyses by using five components marks more discriminantly would change the result if A is really better than B. Because as we agreed before, a good performance should be worth analyzing in detail.

 

[gkelly]

as we agreed before, a good performance should be worth analyzing in detail.

Also, let's not forget that whatever scoring system is used is applied to a sport in which competitors are attempting skills at the limits of their level of ability, whatever that level happens to be for each skater. On a slippery, often unpredictable surface. That means that they will not always succeed at everything they attempt technically, which would affect the overall artistic impression of the performance, or they may choose to prioritize getting the technical content accomplished at the expense of performance quality.

I.e., a lot of competitive performances will not be good performances.

Even if the whole event consists of bad or mediocre performances, for the judging to be anything close to fair, these not-so-good performances also have to be analyzed in detail.

 

[Mathman]

Also, let's not forget that whatever scoring system is used is applied to a sport in which competitors are attempting skills at the limits of their level of ability, whatever that level happens to be for each skater..

That is the killer argument that always stops me dead in my tracks when I start grousing about how bad the CoP is for the sport of figure skating. Yes, if you are talking about the whole spectrum of skating contests -- and there are thousands of beginners for every elite senior -- then all those analytic distinctions and tenths of a point play an indispensible role.

The problem, IMHO, comes when we try to make this wonderful amateur sport into a spectator sport. Do audiences want to pay their hard-earned to watch "a lot of competitive performances [that are not] good performances?"

 

[abaka]

That is the killer argument that always stops me dead in my tracks when I start grousing about how bad the CoP is for the sport of figure skating. Yes, if you are talking about the whole spectrum of skating contests -- and there are thousands of beginners for every elite senior -- then all those analytic distinctions and tenths of a point play an indispensible role.

The problem, IMHO, comes when we try to make this wonderful amateur sport into a spectator sport. Do audiences want to pay their hard-earned to watch "a lot of competitive performances [that are not] good performances?"

At the risk of repeating myself, that was verbatim the argument about compulsory figures 20 years ago. Maybe, just maybe, they had it right the first time? How about introducing a "compulsory movements" section now?

 

[Mathman]

At the risk of repeating myself, that was verbatim the argument about compulsory figures 20 years ago...

A little bit off-topic, but feminist writers have mentioned the following startling way of looking at the role of figures in figure skating. (Maybe this isn't completely off topic after all. Joe began this thread with the lament, "Where have all the macho skaters gone? -- Gone to lyricism, every one.")

Anyway, according to this theory, school figures represent the manly side of the sport. This is ruthless, roughshod Man imposing his will on nature by carving his initials into the virgin ice.

Free skating (suggestively called "Fancy Skating" by its originator, the one-time ballet master Jackson Haines), is the feminine side. In free skating the point is submissively to display one's body, preferably scantily clad, for the approval of the powerful audience.

http://www.idrottsforum.org/reviews/covers/kestnbaum.jpg

(Don't shoot the messenger -- I'm just repeating a theory I once read. )

 

[abaka]

school figures represent the manly side of the sport... Free skating (suggestively called "Fancy Skating" by its originator, the one-time ballet master Jackson Haines), is the feminine side. In free skating the point is submissively to display one's body, preferably scantily clad, for the approval of the powerful audience.

"Where have all the macho skaters gone? -- Gone to lyricism, every one."

That's a neat theory, but I think the usual opposite is more likely: that figures represent submission whereas free skating projects "dynamism". Or does the distinction go in opposite ways for men and women?

The thing is that the basic scoring changes have in practice produced the contrary effect to the one anticipated. When the school figures were dropped, everyone said that the way was open to a more dynamic, less refined style. But exactly the opposite happened. The most athletic skaters fell off and were replaced by more lyrical ones: this happened faster for women than for men, but eventually for both sexes. Compare Ito and Harding vs. Yamaguchi, Kerrigan and then Quan, Lu Chen, etc.; and Browning vs. Stojko, Yagudin, Plyuschenko. Likewise the original idea of CoP was to provide greater accountability to the scoring without influencing the styles, but in practice...

And one thing about the last (or first) part. There's a rule somewhere in the ISU regulations that bans "theatrical costumes", and for men, "tights". I don't know at all, but I wonder how much Candeloro's d'Artagnan had to do with its current phrasing. In any case, rules (on music and everything else) exist to be worked around!

 

[Mathman]

The thing is that the basic scoring changes have in practice produced the contrary effect to the one anticipated. When the school figures were dropped, everyone said that the way was open to a more dynamic, less refined style. But exactly the opposite happened. The most athletic skaters fell off and were replaced by more lyrical ones..

That's an insightful observation! I hadn't looked at it like that. But now that you mention it, a skater like Sonia Henie -- the very archtype of the pretty girl skater -- was actually quite a robust athlete.

So, are you saying that the ISU (led most vigorously by Sonia Bianchetti) was wrong in thinking that audiences (a) did not want to watch figures, and (b) did not like it when a contest was already decided "off stage" before the free skating part began?

About costumes, it is quite funny to me that the main ISU rule is, "men's and ladies' costumes should be appropriate to an athletic contest." I have never seen a figure skating costume that was in any way, shape or form appropriate to an athletic contest -- except Scott Hamilton's dreadful frog costume at the 1980 Olympics.

 

[abaka]

So, are you saying that the ISU (led most vigorously by Sonia Bianchetti) was wrong in thinking that audiences (a) did not want to watch figures, and (b) did not like it when a contest was already decided "off stage" before the free skating part began?

What is the audience as a whole? Some wanted figures kept, others wanted them gone, some didn't care. I remember I didn't have much of an opinion; I didn't think anything would really change. But the fact is that CoP IS like school figures in many ways, except that now the "figures" (ok, required elements individually scored) get in the way of the free skate as an integrated performance. No one was wrong; the effects take a few years to become really clearly seen.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Figures were interesting to the ardent fans of figure skating as a whole. Some accepted the status quo; others did not However, those fans who just watched the Free Skate when on TV for whatever contest were not interested.

Back in the days of outdoor competitions, who would want to watch circle eights made on the ice in cold weather while standing on crusted snow?

However, when Jim McKay got fans interested in figure skating on his Wide World of Sports, the USFS and the ISU saw the dollars coming in, and Hockey Stadiums in Canada and the US were somewhat plentiful, voila, Figure Skating became a somewhat bigger sport on TV. Of course some fans were there to watch the figures as there are some fans to watch the practice sessions.

I, for one, do not know the rationale for discarding figures in the arenas. Maybe it was for monetary reasons. However, it was the best place to cheat scores.

I do not see CoP including the concept of figures in its regulations. The 6.0 system had its requirements too (footwork, etc.). It doesn't really have to. Most senior skaters are capable of rockers, counters, brackets and three turns from any edges. It's all part of choreography.

 

[mskater93]

And one thing about the last (or first) part. There's a rule somewhere in the ISU regulations that bans "theatrical costumes", and for men, "tights". I don't know at all, but I wonder how much Candeloro's d'Artagnan had to do with its current phrasing. In any case, rules (on music and everything else) exist to be worked around!

The "tights" ban for men was introduced because of Boitano's SP in 88. It was a bit, um, revealing and the men's side of the costume rule came into being. The ladies side came about due to Witt's high cut pants on her dresses and the large amount feathers and other theatrical additions she had.