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?
Mathman said:
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.
