How Much of the Whole Package is Included in CoP?

[Mathman]

I'm not against the CoP, but when you put music to a sport as a component, what are you trying to prove?

Sorry for the double post, but this question struck me like a ton of bricks. "What are you trying to prove?"

That, to me, is what is wrong with the New Judging System. When you take the ice, what are you trying to prove?

In other sports there is a well-defined and easily understood objective. In hockey, put the puck in the net. In high jumping, make it over the bar.

What is the objective of a figure skating performance? Isn't it to present a beautiful program to the audience? Isn't it to delight the eye, engage the emotions, stir the soul?

 

[hockeyfan228]

add the first two Program Components, Skating Skills and Transitions, belong to the technical side of the equation, along with the base scores, GOEs, levels, and deductions that comprise the TES.

The other three Program Components -- Performance/Exection, Choreography, and Interpretation -- combine to play the role of the old second mark.

If you look at the criteria for Presentation Scores in 6.0,

Harmonious composition of the program as a whole and its conformity with the music chosen
Variation of speed
Utilization of the ice surface
Easy movement and sureness in time to the music
Carriage and style
Originality
Expression of the character of the music
Unison (in the case of pairs skating only)

Explicitly listed in the criteria for PCS:

Skating Skills:
Unison in pairs skating
Variation of speed

Performance/Execution:
Carriage and style
Variation of speed, Variety
Unison and “oneness”

Choreography
Harmonious composition of the program as a whole and its conformity with the music chosen
Utilization of the ice surface
Originality

Interpretation
Easy movement and sureness in time to the music
Expression of the character of the music
Unison and “oneness”

Implicit in criteria for PCS:

Utilization of the ice surface:
Skating Skills: "Multi directional skating," is pretty much required to utilize the ice surface to the full extent; otherwise, the skater is going in circles.

Expression of the character of the music:
Transitions: "Transitions can be short or long, including the use of blade, body, head, arms, legs as dictated by the music."

I don't see why transitions is primarily technical, when it applies equally to choreography. Without skating skills, "Variation of speed," "Utilization of the ice surface," "Easy movement and sureness in time to the music," " Carriage and style" and "Unison (pairs)" are moot, and "Expression of the character of the music" is difficult, but doable, as anyone who has sat through the qualification rounds for European Ladies can attest.

 

[dogwood]

Mathman:

Well, they could have gone to anonymous judging without the CoP, if that were their only objective. In fact, the Interim System was exactly that -- 6.0 judging with anonymity and the random draw.

I don't think they could have gone to anonymous judging without the CoP. The Interim System is one thing, But I don't think they could have gotten away with that at an event like the Olympics where the press and scrutiny is intense, and, of course they didn't even try. Do you think the general public and the press would have bought the idea that anonymous judging alone would make the sport more objective? Of course there will always be cheating an scandal, but this system makes it impossible to ever make any real claims and prove anything. Do they even suspend judges any more? And in the name of being fair and objective, secret judging is demeaning to skaters. Any skater who trains, spends a fortune on coaching etc, and puts himself in front of a panel of judges to be evaluated, at least deserves the respect of having those judges look him in the eye and put up a score. It's patronizing.

(By the way, did you notice that the newly elected President of the French Skating Federation is...Didier Gailhauget? )

Of course I noticed. All the crooks are back in the fold now, and the whistleblowers are nowhere to be found.

 

[Mathman]

If you look at the criteria for Presentation Scores in 6.0...

An interesting breakdown. But of the eleven explicit criteria for the old presentation score, all but two (all but one for singles) fall into the Performance/Choreography/Interpretation trilogy.

The implicit ones -- OK, I guess. For transitions my imprssion was that the judges care more about how many cool moves in the field you do, and how many Mohawks and three-turns rather than just crossovers, not so much about the music.

I think equating "multi-directional skating" with "utilizing the whole ice surface" is stretching a little.

Anyway, this seems to be moot in practice since the judges tend to give blanket scores across the board. However, when they do so, I believe they are not really following either the letter or the spirit of the CoP.

 

[gkelly]

What is the objective of a figure skating performance? Isn't it to present a beautiful program to the audience? Isn't it to delight the eye, engage the emotions, stir the soul?

Well, if that's the primary objective, why compete at all? Why not just do shows?

 

[Mathman]

Well, if that's the primary objective, why compete at all? Why not just do shows?

You could have a competition to see who presents the most beautiful program, who best succeeds at ravishing the senses, at engaging the emotions, at satisfying the soul. Jumps and spins and stuff like that all contribute to that goal, and should be evaluated against that criterion.

Nothing like a triple Axel right on the beat of the musical climax to get the pulse racing!

Yes, this puts a burden on the judges, who must use their expert knowledge to make a judgement about the quality of the programs. That is the nature of figure skating judging.

Anyway, we have had many debates about whether the average viewer understands -- or rather, has enough interest to want to learn about -- the CoP, and whether this is a factor in the declining popularity of the sport in the U.S. If you ask a casual fan or a non-fan, what is the objective in golf? what is it that the golfers are striving to accomplish? -- that person can say, "getting the ball in the hole."

What is the objective of figure skating?

 

[gsrossano]

Some random comments re. several posts.

The objective of a skating performance (today) is to earn as many points as possible any way you can and crush the other competitors. If you can somehow do that without being delightful, engaging or emotional you still get to win.

Multi-direction skating refers to the ability to skate forwards and backwards, and clockwise and counterclockwise. It has nothing to do with utilization of the ice -- which is about where on the ice things are executed.

The Transitions PC is only about the technical aspects of the transition movements -- variety, difficulty, quality, intricacy. That mark is not about how the transition movements are used in CH and IN.

All the elements and movements in a program contribute to more than one mark. Everything is interrelated. So elements and movements get judged according to technical criteria in some marks, and then they get judged again for their contribution to the artistic/performance aspects of the program in other marks.

Establishing the criteria for the PC began with the criteria for the old presentation mark. The criteria were then expanded to include other things, and organized in a new way. The added criteria include things that used to be judged under 6.0 but were not explicitly written down in the rulebook, plus some things that were not judged under 6.0. The goal was to make the judging of presentation less dependant on the tastes of the individual judges. The PE, CH and IN criteria are derived in large part from various theories in the dance world about how dance choreography can be dissected and analyzed. For those who say the PCs are a futile effort to judge a performance art, I would thus point out, what is being done now in skating is derived completely from what has been done in the performance art of dance and music competitions for many years -- the approach was not randomly pulled out of some one's butt.

I took the initial question of this thread to be whether IJS actually meets its intended goal of including in the marking everything that ought to be judged in a skating competition, with nothing left out, nothing unnecessary included and nothing counted twice. IMO, the answers to these three things are -- some things are left out, some unnecessary things are included, and some things are counted more than once.

 

[gkelly]

I took the initial question of this thread to be whether IJS actually meets its intended goal of including in the marking everything that ought to be judged in a skating competition, with nothing left out, nothing unnecessary included and nothing counted twice. IMO, the answers to these three things are -- some things are left out, some unnecessary things are included, and some things are counted more than once.

What unnecessary things do you think are included?

(I can easily think of some examples of the other categories.)

 

[gsrossano]

What unnecessary things do you think are included?

Perhaps a better word would have been unjudgeable. The one at the top of my list is that I am supposed to judge whether the choreography projects equally well to all directions in the arena.

Even if the skaters attempted that (which they universally don't) how the heck am I supposed to know how the performance projected to directions where I am not sitting. I can only judge how it projected in my direction. Anything beyond that is a guess.

I also question how judgeable the personal involvement criterion can be judged since it requires me to get inside the skater's head. And the identifiable purpose seems of limited value since the definition of a purpose is so broad it includes pretty much everything and anything. There is a famous book on choreography by Doris Humphreys in which she makes the point that a performer that has not choreographed the dance they are performing can never fully understand what the dance is about. Never as well as the person who choreographed it. I have read similar comments from other choreographer as well. She also says that while it is important for the dance to have a theme (purpose) and writes about what should go into picking a theme, very often the audience will not figure out what it is, but that is OK, and the choreographer shouldn't worry about that.

 

[hockeyfan228]

Some random comments re. several posts.

The objective of a skating performance (today) is to earn as many points as possible any way you can and crush the other competitors. If you can somehow do that without being delightful, engaging or emotional you still get to win.

One of the criteria in Performance/Execution is:
"Projection: The skater radiates energy resulting in an invisible connection with the audience." It would be hard to do that without being engaging in one way or another.

Multi-direction skating refers to the ability to skate forwards and backwards, and clockwise and counterclockwise. It has nothing to do with utilization of the ice -- which is about where on the ice things are executed.

I'd heard this explained a number of times during the 6.0 years that a well-choreographed program was one that used the entire ice surface and multiple directions to get there, i.e., not always skating circles in one direction.. It is extremely difficult to use the entire ice surface without being able to do multi-directional skating. That is what I was referring to; perhaps this was a misinterpretation of the criterion.

The Transitions PC is only about the technical aspects of the transition movements -- variety, difficulty, quality, intricacy. That mark is not about how the transition movements are used in CH and IN.

The documentation says clearly that transitions are to be judged on whether they are "as dictated by the music."

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

I took the initial question of this thread to be whether IJS actually meets its intended goal of including in the marking everything that ought to be judged in a skating competition, with nothing left out, nothing unnecessary included and nothing counted twice. IMO, the answers to these three things are -- some things are left out, some unnecessary things are included, and some things are counted more than once.

Thank you. I read so many posters with this catechism-like approach to the ISU as infallible.

Joe

 

[Mathman]

Perhaps a better word would have been unjudgeable. The one at the top of my list is that I am supposed to judge whether the choreography projects equally well to all directions in the arena.

I can see that this would be next to impossible for the judges, especially if they saw a program only once.

Still, it is an important part of choreography, so I don't see anything wrong with asking the judges to do the best they can with it.

The suggestion has been made that judges could be stationed at different places around the arena, instead of all together. Maybe that would help. (Usually that idea is raised with respect to evaluating underrotation and wrong edge take-offs.)

One of the criteria in Performance/Execution is:

"Projection: The skater radiates energy resulting in an invisible connection with the audience."

It would be hard to do that without being engaging in one way or another.

This is one of the CoP criteria that is most made fun of. How can we ask the judges to evaluate something that is invisible?

The only way to do it is by noticing whether the audience is jumping up and down in ecstacy. But this isn't American Idol where the audience votes for their fave.

And yet -- this (the audience jumping up and down in ecstacy) is what performance art is all about. So again, I don't object to this criterion being listed, and I have confidence in the judges that they will do their best to accomodate it.

Indeed, sometimes it's obvious, like Evan Lysacek's performance at Belbin and Agosto's recent charity show.

 

[gkelly]

Yeah, I don't think much about most of those touchy-feely choreography criteria unless a skater is so good at any of them that it can't help but stand out.

(And I have studied Doris Humphrey.)

 

[gsrossano]

One of the criteria in Performance/Execution is:
"Projection: The skater radiates energy resulting in an invisible connection with the audience." It would be hard to do that without being engaging in one way or another.

I said "if somehow". Being engaging helps with projection (and other things) and that helps earn points, but if they are not engaging they can still win if they "somehow" make up for it with enough points somewhere else. No skater puts everything into a program that can possibly earn points.

It is extremely difficult to use the entire ice surface without being able to do multi-directional skating. That is what I was referring to; perhaps this was a misinterpretation of the criterion.

No it isn't (difficult to do). I can visit every square inch of the ice doing nothing but forward stroking, and I can distribute all my elements all over the ice and get to each element with nothing but forward stroking. Use of the ice is about whether the skater has visited every place on the ice they are supposed to visit. Not how they got there. Also, use of the ice is not actually the name of the criterion involved. The actual criterion is "pattern and ice coverage".

The documentation says clearly that transitions are to be judged on whether they are "as dictated by the music."

And that is done in the other marks. The TR criteria are variety, difficulty, intricacy and quality. Whether they support the choreography and interpretation is judged in CH and IN. That is what is taught in judges schools. No where in the rulebook does it list "as dictated by the music" as a criterion for Transitions. (In fact no where in the rulebook does that phrase even exist -- nor does the phrase "use of the ice".)

And yet -- this (the audience jumping up and down in ecstasy) is what performance art is all about. So again, I don't object to this criterion being listed, and I have confidence in the judges that they will do their best to accommodate it.

Which brings us back to the eternal question, is it performance art or sport? It is both, but IMO the performance art part of it is judged under PE, CH and IN, and those marks make up only 30% of the score in a performance. So I take that to mean IJS thinks a competition is 70% athletic (technical) skill and only 30% performance art. With that breakdown, even if the crowd goes wild for the performance art, an athletic skater with lesser artistic skills is more likely to beat an artistic skater with lesser athletic skills.

 

[Mathman]

Which brings us back to the eternal question, is it performance art or sport? It is both, but IMO the performance art part of it is judged under PE, CH and IN, and those marks make up only 30% of the score in a performance. So I take that to mean IJS thinks a competition is 70% athletic (technical) skill and only 30% performance art. With that breakdown, even if the crowd goes wild for the performance art, an athletic skater with lesser artistic skills is more likely to beat an artistic skater with lesser athletic skills.

Speaking for myself only, I have no objection to that breakdown. Especially since "performance art" also makes a contribution to the tech side through GOEs (a smooth, flowing exit edge, IMHO, is equal parts tech and artistry.)

But maybe this does supply the answer to Joe's original question of how much the IJS pays attention to "whole package" considerations. Thirty percent.

The objective of a skating performance (today) is to earn as many points as possible any way you can...

I think that pinpoints the problem, for those who believe that the casual fan does not understand the judging system.

In golf, Tiger Woods gets a four on the 18th hole and beats the other guy who got a five. How did Tiger achieve this score? He drove 200 yards, hit a seven iron to the green, and two-putted from 20 feet.

Even a non-golfer can understand how Tiger won his stripes.

Now... Yu-na Kim beat Mao Asada, 196.83 to 191.59. How? Well, she did a level four flying camel combination spin with two changes of edge and three changes of position, base value 3.50, plus she got 0.40 more points in grade of execution, after the random draw, trimming, averaging, and factoring. So that's 3.90.

Then she...

I don't know whether this aspect of the CoP (it's too hard for casual fans to master, so they won't even try) adversely affects the popularity of the sport or not.

But yeah, I kind of think it might. I know I started liking Hockey a lot more when I figured out what the blue line was.

 

[gsrossano]

In golf, Tiger Woods gets a four on the 18th hole and beats the other guy who got a five. How did Tiger achieve this score? He drove 200 yards, hit a seven iron to the green, and two-putted from 20 feet.

Even a non-golfer can understand how Tiger won his stripes.

Now... Yu-na Kim beat Mao Asada, 196.83 to 191.59. How? Well, she did a level four flying camel combination spin with two changes of edge and three changes of position, base value 3.50, plus she got 0.40 more points in grade of execution, after the random draw, trimming, averaging, and factoring. So that's 3.90.

Then she...

I don't know whether this aspect of the CoP (it's too hard for casual fans to master, so they won't even try) adversely affects the popularity of the sport or not.

So there are two aspects of this. The calulation method is very complicated to figure out how to score even ONE element. Then, there are so many ways to score, compared to most other sports where there are only a few (usually 1-3), how do you understand why the results came out as they did?

This stirred up a memory. IJS is a modern incarnation of MAD Magazines' game of squamish. For those who don't know what this, Wikipedia describes it thus.

"43-Man Squamish is a fictional sport that was invented in Issue #95 of MAD Magazine (June 1965) by George Woodbridge and Tom Koch. It was published in the "There's a Soccer Born Every Minute Dept." to avoid the "inherent evils" present in most college sports, namely that they are too professional and do not allow everyone to participate. It is an incredibly complex game, but although the writer intended the game to be completely unplayable, MAD magazine received so many reprint requests from colleges, it appears that some colleges have attempted to form teams and play the game."

"In the article, new terminology is introduced with no explanation; much of the humour derives from the reader's half-successful attempts at gleaning a meaning from context. Exactly what everyone on the team is supposed to do, exactly what penalties apply and exactly when or why the yellow danger flag is to be flown remains far from clear, even after repeated readings."

The last paragraph sounds a lot like trying to understanding IJS.

 

[merrybari]

I can see that this would be next to impossible for the judges, especially if they saw a program only once.

Still, it is an important part of choreography, so I don't see anything wrong with asking the judges to do the best they can with it.

The suggestion has been made that judges could be stationed at different places around the arena, instead of all together. Maybe that would help. (Usually that idea is raised with respect to evaluating underrotation and wrong edge take-offs.)This is one of the CoP criteria that is most made fun of. How can we ask the judges to evaluate something that is invisible?

The only way to do it is by noticing whether the audience is jumping up and down in ecstacy. But this isn't American Idol where the audience votes for their fave.

And yet -- this (the audience jumping up and down in ecstacy) is what performance art is all about. So again, I don't object to this criterion being listed, and I have confidence in the judges that they will do their best to accomodate it.

Indeed, sometimes it's obvious, like Evan Lysacek's performance at Belbin and Agosto's recent charity show.

ITA!! especially with that last part! It was truly mesmerizing and captured the attention and hearts of everyone there.

 

[hockeyfan228]

I No where in the rulebook does it list "as dictated by the music" as a criterion for Transitions. (In fact no where in the rulebook does that phrase even exist -- nor does the phrase "use of the ice".).

Could be, but the quote is from the ISU publication "Program Component Explanations."

http://www.isu.org/vsite/vfile/page/fileurl/0,11040,4844-152086-169302-64121-0-file,00.pdf

I agree that there are criteria that overlap different PCS and criteria that are not measurable, but personal, ex: Sonia Bianchetti's "You know it when you feel it" explanation for why Sale/Pelletier or Oksana Bauil should have won Olympic gold without question. I think PCS is a muddle.

What I don't have a problem with in judging the "entire picture" is the idea that PCS make it possible to judge the quality of technical skills and in-betweens over the duration of the program, between the specific elements in which the skaters earn specific points. That, in my opinion, is just as key to judging the "whole package" as choreography or interpretation, and I think the ISU was correct to make these considerations explicit. Under 6.0, skating skills might not have been explicity stated in any judges' handbook as being a quality that should be many of the Pre criteria, but from published judges comments, they certainly did influence the scoring of the second mark, notably in Berezhnaia/Sikharulidze's scores at SLC. Most of the time, the scores were what they were, with each judge expanding or contracting the criteria and weighing them relatively according to his/her own values. Not to mention that ordinals were by no means 50/50; a judge could up the relative value of tech or pre by manipulating the difference (or lack thereof) between the two scores, making a very easy 70 tech/30 pre weight, as easily as saying, well the World Champ is having an off day technically, let's ramp up the pre score to maybe a 30/70 tech/pre balance.

To answer Mathman's question, there is nothing "unfair" about any percentage breakdown of the scores, as long as they applied to all skaters. There was nothing inherently unfair about school figures being the vast majority of the score, being half the score, being 30% of the score, or being deleted. There was nothing inherently unfair about changing the tie-breaker for the FS from the Tech to the Pre score.

The ISU decided to break down an ideal/target score as being 50% individual elements and 50% duration qualities. That some of the duration qualities are more explicitly technically oriented, what's unfair about that?

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

To answer Mathman's question, there is nothing "unfair" about any percentage breakdown of the scores, as long as they applied to all skaters. There was nothing inherently unfair about school figures being the vast majority of the score, being half the score, being 30% of the score, or being deleted. There was nothing inherently unfair about changing the tie-breaker for the FS from the Tech to the Pre score.

Can we agree then that Grossano's estimate of the topic title is 30% of the score.? OK, but then casual fans will wonder how Joubert won over Daisuke in Tokyo. We know that Joubert had the best SP with a big lead going into the LP. So that should be explained to the casual fan that the performance in the LP was only 30% and Daisuke was not able to override Joubert's SP scores. Without explanation, we lose fans because they will reflect on the dishonesty of SLC.

BTW, no one has brought up TECHNIQUE although we assume it is in the GoEs exclusively. Is it? IMo, good technique is the whole package in both the technical and the performance scores. Just a thoughtl

The elements in Diving are judged on technique. There is a definition of a full gaynor. No music, please.

Joe

 

[gsrossano]

Could be, but the quote is from the ISU publication "Program Component Explanations."

OK, I see where you get that, but that explanatory comment at the bottom is not meant to say the TR mark is to be determined in part by the relation of the transition to the music.

The purpose of the comment is to make clear to the judges that what constitutes a transition has a wide definition, It is saying transition movements include not only movements of blade on the ice but also movememnts of the various body parts. It is also telling the judges to keep in mind transition movements can be brief or of long duration.

The phrase about dictated by the music is saying the skaters are supposed to choose transitions that are choreographically effective for the music chosen. As a result, transitions will come in a wide variety of movements because there is a wide variety of music and ways to express music through movement. So the judge should be aware that there is a very wide scope to what is a transition. But that doesn't mean judge the musicality of the transition in the TR mark.

If you look at the three rules covering transitions in the USFSA rulebook they all only refer to the technical qualities of the transitions. And the initial ISU document describing the criteria for the transitions actually refers to them as "characteristics of the technical transitions".

BTW, no one has brought up TECHNIQUE although we assume it is in the GoEs exclusively. Is it? IMo, good technique is the whole package in both the technical and the performance scores. Just a thoughtl

You are correct. Technique is more than just the GoEs.

The GoEs cover technique of the specific elements. SS covers the technique of the fundamental skating skills. TR includes the technique in the transition movements. PE also includes some characteristics of technique in the execution of the program, such as carriage, and clarity of movement. In dance, technique is also included in the criteria related to timing.