How Much of the Whole Package is Included in CoP?

[Joesitz (RIP)]

I'm not against the CoP's position. And I am aware that many posters are here to defend it and offer little if any suggestion to improving it.

Personally, I think the judging should be done as it is in Gymnastics, i.e., one score tells it all. I would also do away with the music It's totally unnecessary or it should be used in a separate event.

Joe

 

[hockeyfan228]

I'm not against the CoP's position. And I am aware that many posters are here to defend it and offer little if any suggestion to improving it.

There are numerous threads on Golden Skate that offer many suggestions on how to improve CoP, from supporters and non-supported of CoP. That would have been off-topic in this thread, no?, since the question is "How Much of the Whole Package Is Included in CoP"? Although there have been suggestions on this thread of how to change it to reflect more of the "Whole Package."

 

[skatergirl45]

Well, how much is the whole package included in the CoP.
Well, to me Yu-na Kim is a skater with the whole package and thus,s he gets rewarded.
However, to win you do not need the whole package. I beleive that Kimmie is still working on the whole package part and she has been winning titles.
The overall package prevails when competing against either just a strong jumper of a strong artist.

 

[Mathman]

But what bothers me about the differene between CoP and 6.0 is that the value of the points in the Tech outweigh the total points in the PCS So there is a big difference here from two part scoring as being equal.

1. It puts the coach and choreographer at odds.
2. It encourages risk skating by the skater.

Are we happy about this?

Just one person's opinion, but here goes.

1. I don't think the coach and the choreographer are at odds. I think the choreographer understands the concept of points, points, points just like the coach does.

But I do think that the CoP puts the choreographer in a straightjacket. Once you leave space in the program for 8 jumping passes and 4 spins (during which little attention is paid to music or choreography), what does the choreographer have left to work with? The two footwork sequences and a few transitions between tech elements?

For instance, it would seem to make sense to put your quad at the end, at the grand musical and dramatic climax. But you can't, because you are too tired. So you put it first, just sticking out there taking up the first 20 seconds of your program before the choreo starts (unless you count the opening pose and a couple of arm-wavings as choreography).

2. I can appreciate the opinion that this is a sport, no guts no glory. In fact, I think most skaters and coaches feel that way and wish the point values would be increased on the hardest elements, like quads and triple Axels.

But on balance I wish the CoP would rather favor elements of lesser difficulty performed extremely well and integrated into the overall program.

Just my preference.

 

[hockeyfan228]

But I do think that the CoP puts the choreographer in a straightjacket. Once you leave space in the program for 8 jumping passes and 4 spins (during which little attention is paid to music or choreography), what does the choreographer have left to work with? The two footwork sequences and a few transitions between tech elements?

There were "well-balanced" requirements before CoP, and they were pretty onerous. Having to create programs with high-level elements -- which the choregrapher and the coach agree is the goal -- may put the choreographers in a straightjacket, but unsurprisingly, the great ones have put out masterworks as great as anything in the triple/quad era, like Dickson, Wilson, Zazoui, Nichol, Miller, and Tarasova.

Morosov became quite famous for the footwork passages he did for Yagudin in the 2001-2 season. He suddenly was a "great" choreographer for two elements, while the rest of the programs were stroking between jumps and mediocre to poor spins. I think Yagudin was an artistic skater, but he wasn't the whole package when ostensibly over 25% of his program -- spins -- were barely competent.

It seems to me that the programs need to go back to being able to be five minutes long, so that they don't feel quite as packed. And of course, not using the same musical cuts year after year and instead finding music to which the elements actually fit might improve matters.

For instance, it would seem to make sense to put your quad at the end, at the grand musical and dramatic climax. But you can't, because you are too tired. So you put it first, just sticking out there taking up the first 20 seconds of your program before the choreo starts (unless you count the opening pose and a couple of arm-wavings as choreography).

What does this have to do with CoP? I think Stojko tried to put a quad at the end of one of his programs, but when else in the quad era did the quad and 3A not comprise two of the first three elements, with no other types of elements before them in the program?

But on balance I wish the CoP would rather favor elements of lesser difficulty performed extremely well and integrated into the overall program.

Just my preference.

I agree with gkelly's suggestion that GOE be raised so that a lower level element performed well earned more than simply a jump to the next level, but that would require the judges to give up the idea that difficult=better and no suppressing the GOE to compensate. I remember seeing Liashenko, a skater I generally found barely tolerable, do fantastic 3S's in two live competitions in a row, and not even average +1 GOE on them. She got similar GOE on her 3F, which had a rink-long telegraph, sloppy freeleg position, and not as much distance or height. But we all know that a 3F is harder than a 3S, so it must be better.

 

[Mathman]

[Morosov] suddenly was a "great" choreographer for two elements, while the rest of the programs were stroking between jumps and mediocre to poor spins.

A little bit OT, but is the choreographer responsible for the quality of the spins?

 

[hockeyfan228]

A little bit OT, but is the choreographer responsible for the quality of the spins?

Edited to add: I'm sorry I wasn't clear: I meant the spin design was mediocre to poor. The execution was barely competent.

The choreographer is just as responsible for the content of the spins under 6.0 and s/he is for the content of the spins under CoP. If Morozov wanted to dictate complicated spins under 6.0, he would have, but chances are the conversation between coach and choregrapher was, "Don't waste any time on them, they're worth nothing unless they are of Ruh or Eldredge quality (and maybe not even then)," just as the conversation now is, "Milk the levels for all they're worth."

He certainly was at least equally responsible for having choreographed little between the elements.

My understanding about jumps is that the coach says, "Here is the jump layout, make it work."

 

[Mathman]

Plus, IMO, if people are more interested in watching the numbers on the scoreboard than in watching the skating, abandon all hope. All is lost.

I think that sentence hits the jackpot.

If we ever get to the point where people are more interested in the scores than in the skating, then we will have succeeded at last in turning figure skating into a "real sport," and that will be the end of it. LSU 38, Ohio State 24.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

There are numerous threads on Golden Skate that offer many suggestions on how to improve CoP, from supporters and non-supported of CoP. That would have been off-topic in this thread, no?, since the question is "How Much of the Whole Package Is Included in CoP"? Although there have been suggestions on this thread of how to change it to reflect more of the "Whole Package."

No different than getting into other nitpicking.

I'm quite aware of personal opinions, I have some of my own, so certain posts do not generate any substantial interest for me.

The CoP is here to stay. Does is it incorporate the 'whole package'. I don't think it does anymore than it was in the 6.0 system. The Whole Package for some posters is an above average routine with, depending on favoritism, a quad for the men, and a 180 degree spiral for the ladies. Others depend on what they see - real or imaginary. The commentators are never sure of an underrotation yet some posters see them quite easily from the TV. Agree or not, it's up to the reader.

The elusive Whole Package will always be elusive to any system unless it gets defined, and I don't believe anyone can do that and be able to back up their definition. Just too many factors involved. If we go with the PCS scores as being the body of the Whole Package, I shall watch closer to see if they are ever higher than the PCS scores. They were in the 6.0 system.

Joe