Hybrid System - NJS Discussion

[bekalc]

Please tell that to the people selling me the tickets...



Determine the placements in advance?? The only thing ordinals determines is which 3 have equal footing for gold.

You seem to be looking only at cases where more than 3 people are close in points. I agree that ordinals CAN be seen as unfair in some of those situations. But I already explained how under CoP, pre-determined placements are usually MORE common, if skaters are separated by too many points. This happens very often. Even at its worst, the only thing that is "determined" by SP ordinals is what 3 competitors have a realistic chance at gold. The final PLACEMENTS in the FS are more often determined in the SP under CoP.

You want to ignore all the benefits of ordinals, and you support CoP letting the SP suck the excitement out of many FS's "when it is deserved." Fine, that's your opinion. But saying SP ordinals "determine the placements" and CoP SP scores don't is more or less the OPPOSITE of reality. That's my point here...

First of all huge leads from the short program dont' happen that often. I think they have happened twice this season (and thats with 15 short programs) What mostly happens is maybe a small lead. And people go from 5 to first all the time in this system, so the long program is even more important now than it was under 6.0

The current system gives more people a chance to win if they skate well and that's why I'm for it.

 

[antmanb]

BTW, I believe all Falls have a measure of under rotation because with a properly executed jump the skater will not Fall. Therefore, all Falls should be regarded as URs. The -1 in the total score is not enough.

I would have to disagree joe - there are a number of reasons why a jump can go wrong - under-rotation is just one. Equally i have seen several skaters fall on jumps that were fully and even over-rotated. Nothing to do with under-rotations.

Ant

 

[antmanb]

As i've stated in another thread (more as a rant against Kostner's seeming impossibilty to get marked down) I think SP deductions should be re-introduced with real penalties for failing on elements along the lines of the Mandatory deductions under 6.0. The point deductions should be big so that they can wipe a skater out of contention if the error occurs. Maybe in addition to the GOE reductions to base values and one point deduction for a fall, the skaters could have e.g. 5 point deduction for falling on a required element (jump, spin, footwork), lesser but still harsh deductions for things like two-footing, hand down, turns between jumps that should be in combination e.g. 3 points.

These things would encourage the skaters to put forward a true technical program with elements they know they have to hit and go clean with, otherwise they take themselves out of contention for the LP.

Without this (and a more prescriptive approach to the elements in the SP - mandating spins and jumps) the SP is, as others have pointed out, a pointless event that holds no real meaning anymore.

Ant

 

[bekalc]

As i've stated in another thread (more as a rant against Kostner's seeming impossibilty to get marked down) I think SP deductions should be re-introduced with real penalties for failing on elements along the lines of the Mandatory deductions under 6.0. The point deductions should be big so that they can wipe a skater out of contention if the error occurs. Maybe in addition to the GOE reductions to base values and one point deduction for a fall, the skaters could have e.g. 5 point deduction for falling on a required element (jump, spin, footwork), lesser but still harsh deductions for things like two-footing, hand down, turns between jumps that should be in combination e.g. 3 points.

These things would encourage the skaters to put forward a true technical program with elements they know they have to hit and go clean with, otherwise they take themselves out of contention for the LP.

Without this (and a more prescriptive approach to the elements in the SP - mandating spins and jumps) the SP is, as others have pointed out, a pointless event that holds no real meaning anymore.

Ant

I'm all for this, actually myself. I was thinking 2 point automatic deduction for a fall (along with the normal 3 minus GOE) 2 point automatic deduction for any other missed element.....It's ridiculous some of the scores that people were getting with major mistakes. And I refuse to complain about Kostner when you take into account Mao's 58 for doubling the lutz, and popping her combo.

However, I hope people realize this would have given Joubert, an even bigger lead at Cup of Russia after the short. And I'm for that the other men were dismally bad (besides Adam/Peaubert I believe) in the short. That's why I find this whole let's put ordinals because Joubert had an unsurmountable lead at Cup of Russia to be ? That's like oh, those poor babies, they skated poorly and gave Joubert a huge lead after the short, we should help them out and let them still stay in contention, anyways.
I'm sorry, but NO, NO, NO, NO, NO. I wonder if the same people advocate making the score even in third quarter going into the basketball game, because "it's more exciting that way."

 

[gkelly]

BTW, I believe all Falls have a measure of under rotation because with a properly executed jump the skater will not Fall.

This does not logically follow. There are many ways in which a jump can be not properly executed, and not all of those involve underrotation. It's perfectly possible for a jump to be fully rotated but improperly executed in some other way and result in a fall for that reason.

Also, given the nature of the skating surface, it's also possible that a jump can be properly executed in such a way that ordinarily the skater would flow out of the landing with no problem, but if that landing edge just happens to cross a bump or trough in the ice or a stray piece of costume detritus, the skater might go down through no fault of his/her own. Too bad for that skater, who will be penalized for the fall -- no need also to penalize for underrotation if the jump was actually well rotated.

 

[antmanb]

However, I hope people realize this would have given Joubert, an even bigger lead at Cup of Russia after the short. And I'm for that the other men were dismally bad (besides Adam/Peaubert I believe) in the short. That's why I find this whole let's put ordinals because Joubert had an unsurmountable lead at Cup of Russia to be ? That's like oh, those poor babies, they skated poorly and gave Joubert a huge lead after the short, we should help them out and let them still stay in contention, anyways.
I'm sorry, but NO, NO, NO, NO, NO. I wonder if the same people advocate making the score even in third quarter going into the basketball game, because "it's more exciting that way."

I'm not sure that the discussion about having factored palcements again was as a result of Joubert's lead. I think the discussion is more around - what is the point of the SP?

To me mind there is no longer any point in having the SP. With the change in elements this year for the LP, then LP is exactly the same as the SP but with an extra 4 or 5 jumping passes for the ladies and men respectively. What is the point of this? Why not just have the one program (the LP) decide things? Why base it on two very similar events? Unless the SP becomes something actually different from the LP what's the point? I think the insurmountable leads or 6 or 7 programs that are all within 1 point of each other after the SP are pointless since no other skills are being tested in the LP. Why not keep the whole score cumulative throughout the season? Would it even matter if they did?

Ant

 

[Buttercup]

I think the discussion is more around - what is the point of the SP?

To me mind there is no longer any point in having the SP. With the change in elements this year for the LP, then LP is exactly the same as the SP but with an extra 4 or 5 jumping passes for the ladies and men respectively. What is the point of this? Why not just have the one program (the LP) decide things?

Well, my preferred solution would be to make the two segments of the competition distinct - the LP should be more of a free skate than it is now, while the SP should stress the required elements. JMO.

 

[antmanb]

Well, my preferred solution would be to make the two segments of the competition distinct - the LP should be more of a free skate than it is now, while the SP should stress the required elements. JMO.

I agree with this completely but then tie myself in knots trying to work out how you can make the free program freer? You have a to have a maximum number of jumping passes as jumps are the way you amass the most points. A skater could throw 6 double axels in a row at the end of a program to amass a ton of points that they have missed earlier.

Or you could give footwork and spins base values that are equal to the jumps so that a skater can genuinely substitue spins or footwork for jumps and earn the same number of points, then simply say a LP has a maximum of X elements and let the skaters work out what they want to do?

Ant

 

[Alsace]

Or you could give footwork and spins base values that are equal to the jumps so that a skater can genuinely substitue spins or footwork for jumps and earn the same number of points, then simply say a LP has a maximum of X elements and let the skaters work out what they want to do?

Well, that's a nice idea. If the music has more "jumping" swells, then jump. If it has more "dancing" music, then do footwork. Of course that opens a can of worms as to what type of spin is equal to the difficulty of a triple axel...but I'm sure that could be determined.

 

[bekalc]

I think the best way to make the free program "freer" is to have penalities in the short for missing elements.

 

[Buttercup]

Or you could give footwork and spins base values that are equal to the jumps so that a skater can genuinely substitue spins or footwork for jumps and earn the same number of points, then simply say a LP has a maximum of X elements and let the skaters work out what they want to do?

I like that in theory but I'm not sure jumps and non-jump elements are comparable in terms of difficulty. What I would consider is modifying the Zayak stuff so skaters have more freedom with the jumps but retain some sort of cap. Next, broaden CoP as regards to spins and footwork levels - e.g. you can get high levels without all those ugly edge changes on a spin if it's really fast, etc. Also, allow skaters any two "sequences" and leave it up to them if it's to be a spiral seq, SL footwork, Circ footwork or moves in the field. Or, to simplify what I think I'm suggesting, maybe stipulate that a skater can do X jump elements and Y non-jump elements but leave the specifics to them.

 

[jenaj]

According to one of the books that came out after the 2002 debacle--I think it was Frozen Assets--the original idea for the NJS was to retain the 6.0 mark for the presentation component. The current system is ridiculous--too many things for the judges to evaluate. I'm sure they all use a kind of overall marking system--most of the component marks are pretty consistent by judge. It doesn't eliminate bias or cheating, especially since the marks are now anonymous!

 

[jenaj]

Both. Without an audience, the skaters wouldn't have much to do, so don't act like audience concerns shouldn't matter. CoP has seen a steady decline in audience numbers. That's about the only way I could see ISU making a change, in fact: to save their pocketbooks. But restoring artistic marks is also right for figure skating itself. If you want an expressionless contest of athleticism, there's many other sports to choose from.

So true. Other sports conform their rules to please the audience. Didn't the NBA get rid of the inscrutable illegal defense call? I think they did. And the designated hitter rule, while still somewhat controversial, is intended to make the game go faster and add more action, which it does. Overtime is another sports development that was added to make the game more interesting, since people wanted a winner. Ironically, tradition is the reason most people give for not changing rules in sports to suit the audience.

ETA: Check out this article about changes in NBA scoring that were inteneded to increase fan interest and boost tv ratings.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9903E1D81431F931A25757C0A9679C8B63

 

[gkelly]

I agree with this completely but then tie myself in knots trying to work out how you can make the free program freer?

I have thought about this at length.

I don't see why the well-balanced program rules shouldn't give more options to the skaters in what skills they want to emphasize to earn their points, allowing each skater to play to his or her strengths, while requiring them to show at least minimum competence at skills that are considered basic for everybody.

The current senior well-balanced program rules allow the following:

Jump elements: maximum 8 for men, 7 for ladies; minimum 1 maximum 3 combinations or sequences; at least one axel-type jump (Zayak rule restrictions on repeated jumps)

Spin elements: 1 combination spin, 1 flying spin, 1 spin in one position

Step sequences: maximum 2 of a different nature for men, 1 for ladies

Spiral sequences: maximum 1 for ladies


Here's how I would modify the requirements:

No differences in long program requirements for men or women; program length 4:15 +/- 15 seconds

Maximum of 13 (or more?) elements per program

Jump elements: minimum 4, maximum 8; minimum 1 maximum 3 combinations or sequences; at least one axel-type jump
I would also include a "small-jump sequence," consisting of 3 or more jumps of 1.5 revolutions or fewer, with levels 1-4 like nonjump elements, as another possible option to fill one of the jump element slots

Bonus of 2.0 for performing 6 different jump takeoffs as doubles or higher with average GOE of -1 or better (downgraded doubles and flips or lutzes with "e" calls don't count); bonus of 4.0 for performing 6 different jump takeoffs as triples or higher with average GOE of -1 or better (downgraded triples and flips or lutzes with "e" calls don't count)

Spin elements: minimum 3, maximum 5; there must be at least 1 but no more than 3 each of combination spin, flying spin, and spin in one position with or without change of foot; if there is more than one flying spin or single-position spin, the spinning position and/or the entry must not be the same

Step sequences: minimum 1, maximum 2 of different nature

Spiral sequence: minimum 0, maximum 1

Field moves sequence: minimum 0, maximum 1

Figure element: minimum 0, maximum 1

There would be shorter skate time and lower maximums for levels below senior, but with comparable amount of choice available.

I can supply suggested definitions and level features for the small-jump sequence, field moves sequence, and figure elements.

This would allow a skater to do a program with 8 jump elements, 3 spins, 2 step sequences, just like we see from all the men these days

It would also allow a skater who is a great spinner with more spin skills than can fit into three spins and a so-so jumper to do something like 5 jump elements (with creative combinations or enhancements of doubles from the takeoffs s/he can't do triples from), 5 spins, step sequence, field moves sequence, and spiral sequence

Or 6 triple jump passes including two 3-3 combos, plus a small-jump sequence; 3 spins; step sequence; figure 8 pattern of edges and turns that meets the figure element definition; and field moves sequence

Different program layouts emphasizing different skill sets, but they've all had to prove they can do jumps, spins, and steps and then they can choose what kinds of elements to earn the rest of their points with.

Because the point values would standardized according to the scale of values, there'd be a clear standard of comparative value between the extra spin or the extra step sequence, between the spirals or the figures, between the level 4 small-jump sequence or an extra double axel. So each skater could do the elements they do best and be rewarded appropriately without having to worry, as might be the case in the 6.0 system, about whether Judge A puts more emphasis on counting jumps or Judge B tends to forget about the spins unless they're extremely good or extremely bad, or Judge C is wowed by complex steps , Judge D by beautiful positions, and Judge E by absolute ice speed.

 

[Buttercup]

And the designated hitter rule, while still somewhat controversial, is intended to make the game go faster and add more action, which it does.

This is very OT, but the designated hitter does NOT make baseball games go faster; how could it? The easiest (and often fastest) out in 99% of all games is the pitcher. Tougher outs=longer at bats=longer games. The DH rule was probably intended to add excitement and to address the dominance of pitchers in the 1960s.

 

[jenaj]

This is very OT, but the designated hitter does NOT make baseball games go faster; how could it? The easiest (and often fastest) out in 99% of all games is the pitcher. Tougher outs=longer at bats=longer games. The DH rule was probably intended to add excitement and to address the dominance of pitchers in the 1960s.

I'm sure you're correct about the reasons, but in my experience AL games are shorter than NL games. Maybe because managers stay with a pitcher longer if he doesn't have to come up to bat. I guess it's an unintended consequence.

 

[enlight78]

I'm not sure that the discussion about having factored palcements again was as a result of Joubert's lead. I think the discussion is more around - what is the point of the SP?

To me mind there is no longer any point in having the SP. With the change in elements this year for the LP, then LP is exactly the same as the SP but with an extra 4 or 5 jumping passes for the ladies and men respectively. What is the point of this? Why not just have the one program (the LP) decide things? Why base it on two very similar events? Unless the SP becomes something actually different from the LP what's the point? I think the insurmountable leads or 6 or 7 programs that are all within 1 point of each other after the SP are pointless since no other skills are being tested in the LP. Why not keep the whole score cumulative throughout the season? Would it even matter if they did?

Ant

I like the fact of there being two programs.. It forces the skater to win a competition on consistancy.. I don't see why we need a SPand a LP. Two different SP would be fine with me. Or two LP. Or two 3minute and 15sec programs. Most sports have a half time, preliminaries, or rounds because consistancy is important in all sports

 

[fairly4]

Won't work, why (GOE's) with the human judging. Example Yu=na score,she got a deduction for wrong edge, by rights .The humans (judges) the highest Goe they could (should) have given her was a -1or a (0) zero not the +1's and +2's that they did. shows favoritism, elitism, bias and racism. when they give Carolinezhang (0') for -1 and -3 for the same stunt
The technologly is out their for the computer to call underrotated jumps, wrong edge and have the computer to tell the judges whether to give the plus's or minus's on jumps etc. but because they Isu and other skating federations including us doesn't want to change , skating will forever be bias, racist, subjective and whatever bad thing is out there.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Well, my preferred solution would be to make the two segments of the competition distinct - the LP should be more of a free skate than it is now, while the SP should stress the required elements. JMO.

Exactly! As I said on another thread, the SP and the LP should be the same length of skating time and judged the same way CoP judges figure skating. However, the actual scoring should be factored in favor of a Tech Prorame (TP instead of SP) and the second program should be factored in favor of a Free Program (FP instead of LP). The factoring ratios should be decided by a Commitee (i would suggest 60/40) because that is important and the ISU could call a conference on deciding this. The details on what a tech score should look like and what an artistic score should look like will have to be worked out.

It would give chance to the Technical skater and the Artistic skater.equally once the two sements are added together. It would be wonderful, imo, to have this ready for the upcoming Olympics so that the audience and TV fans will understand the outcome. I think that is important to clear that up too.

 

[Mathman]

^ I like this idea, too. This is how the pro competitions were organized a decade ago, with a "technical program" and an "artistic program" (as they called it.)