My understanding is NO major changes to IJS will be considered by the ISU prior to the Olympics. Any significant revisions to IJS will not be considered until the 2010 Congress.
Hybrid System - NJS Discussion
- Thread starter Particle Man
- Start date
My understanding is NO major changes to IJS will be considered by the ISU prior to the Olympics. Any significant revisions to IJS will not be considered until the 2010 Congress.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
I wonder if one of the reasons the ISU is so sold on its scoring system is because Cinquanta and the ruling clique come from the speedskating side. A stopwatch and a referee to disquality people for tripping -- there's your scoring system.
Is figure skating a quantitative or a qualitative sport?
Is figure skating a quantitative or a qualitative sport?
^ 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.)
Of course, don't forget that pro competitions tended to feature no more than 4-6 skaters per discipline who were personally invited on the basis of having won prominent ISU medals years or in some cases decades earlier, being personal favorites of the organizers, having agents who could make deals on their behalfs, and/or having human interest stories to appeal to the media.
How does the format work for international championships with 40+ entries, including many skaters who have no interest in being anything more than successful jocks or who don't yet have the presentation skills to satisfy fans who watch skating for the artistry?
Maybe there needs to be a pro circuit or an ISU-sponsored artistic skating circuit to satisfy fans (and skaters?) who want skating competitions to be mostly about artistry. At this point in history I don't know who could start where to make that happen, but I do think there would be a market for it. Just not a large enough market to interest US TV networks.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
I don't see why that would be a problem. Just like now, those skaters who were good at jumps but weak in presentation skills could compete but would probably not win the championship.
If the problem is that 40 is an unwieldy number, there are lots of ways to cut it down (just like now, where only the top 24 advance, or when they used to have a qualifying round.)
Well, the proposal is not to make skating mostly about artistry, but to have a technical program where jocks would be put through their paces followed by a "free" program where the contestants could stretch their wings and show us what they got.
I don't see why this couldn't be done at the amateur level as well as the pro. Obviously, beginners would not be as good at choreography, musical interpretation, etc., as we would expect of world champions.
I may be a minority of one, but to me the best figure skating event so far this season was the last Disson show.
I guess that's not the topic of this thread. Just saying...
I like your idea, gkelly.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2003
There used to be the Grand Slam of Figure Skating and the World Pro for the "serious" pro competitions... they also had a pro skate america and skate canada... I wish they'd bring them back.
semi serious were Ice Wars and the World Team Challenge
then you had the improv on ice, rock and roll challenge, and battle of the sexes competitions for the silliness... but the skaters - especially the men - went all out for it and trained... it wasn't just a throw away deal. I wish they could bring it all back.
semi serious were Ice Wars and the World Team Challenge
then you had the improv on ice, rock and roll challenge, and battle of the sexes competitions for the silliness... but the skaters - especially the men - went all out for it and trained... it wasn't just a throw away deal. I wish they could bring it all back.
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2003
As a Canadian adult skater who competes, I would be very disapointed to go back to a sort of 6.0 system because I could not look back on my competition skates after being done them and see where I need improvement, what the judges liked of my skating, what I did wrong and keep a record of how my skating is progressing over time.
Some fans may not like CPC/IJS/COP but they put the power into the skaters' hands instead of the judges. If I skate it clean, I get my planned points or more depending on how good my TES elements or PCS is performed. Just why do fans and some in the skating community want to take the power away from the skaters?
Do you live in the US? If so, I don't think it has anything to do with the marking system but more how your elite competitive skaters are performing in competition. If the US skaters aren't getting decent skates compared to the rest of the world, maybe that's why more fans are staying home from competitions that are held in the US.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
I think you mean, depending on the judges' opinions of your TES and GOEs? And, depending on the tech panel's views of whether you completed your elements correctly and cleanly?
I do not see how the new system puts anything more (or less) in the hands of the skaters than the old system did.
THE FOLLOWING IS IMO
The last thing we need, I feel, is yet another overhaul of the scoring system. The skaters have already gotten used to this one, and to change it yet again would give the impression that FS is simply lost and that will accelerate its decline. I think we should be focused on ways of tweaking the current system (Cop, or NJS, IJS, whatever you want to call it) so it is more fair and balanced. What is the solution? Have the judges spaced about the rink instead of in a row? Multiple Tech Callers? Instant Replay that shows up on the Arena Screen? The actual scoring process to be shown on TV (and the arena audience)?
Should the penalty for Falls be increased? URs be decreased? Should the PCS be thrown out? Should the SP be seeded? A million different questions can be posed, and a million different changes can be made, all without changing the scoring system. See where I'm going with this?
jmo. carry on.
The last thing we need, I feel, is yet another overhaul of the scoring system. The skaters have already gotten used to this one, and to change it yet again would give the impression that FS is simply lost and that will accelerate its decline. I think we should be focused on ways of tweaking the current system (Cop, or NJS, IJS, whatever you want to call it) so it is more fair and balanced. What is the solution? Have the judges spaced about the rink instead of in a row? Multiple Tech Callers? Instant Replay that shows up on the Arena Screen? The actual scoring process to be shown on TV (and the arena audience)?
Should the penalty for Falls be increased? URs be decreased? Should the PCS be thrown out? Should the SP be seeded? A million different questions can be posed, and a million different changes can be made, all without changing the scoring system. See where I'm going with this?
jmo. carry on.
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2003
Figure Skating is both a quantitative and qualitative sport. The COP does reflect this. Case in point: Jeffrey Buttle, Joannie Rochette, Tessa Virtue & Scott Moir, Alissa Czisny, Stephane Lambiel, Daisuke Takahashi, Jessica Dube & Bryce Davison, Patrick Chan, Yu-Na Kim...and a few more. If you want just a skating show, go see Stars On Ice or one of those Disney Skating shows.
A carpet with sensors under the ice.
The system definitely needs "tweaking." Here are some suggestions. Get rid of anonymous judging. Stop rewarding catchfoots /Biellmans with points in any move. If skaters can do them, like them and can make them look good, the judges can reward them in the presentation mark. Make the free skate free. No counting the number of seconds on spirals or the number of rotations on spins. No levels. Award technical points for jumps and penalize falls but grade the rest on presentation/artistry.
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2008
Both, like singerskates wrote, though I might have used different skaters as examples. There are things that are measurable in it, alongside components that are harder to quantify. The successful combination of all these is what makes some skaters great.
I agree with those who said we don't need a new system (again?!), just some tweaking of the IJS. I already made some of my suggestions earlier in the thread. Like just about everyone, I agree the penalties for URs and falls are currently disproportionate. Also, make the upper body movement requirement in the step sequences go away. As I was watching the skaters at CoR, the upper body movement looked like it required most of their attention, with the footwork often an afterthought. A step sequence should be about the steps, not about looking like the Whomping Willow.
And yes, anonymous judging needs to go.
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2008
antman - For the record, I have watched almost NONE of the men's programs this season, except those at Skate America. Haven't gotten around to it yet. So your assertion that my argument is based on Joubert is simply not the case, as I don't even think I've seen him skate this season. I came up with the idea for the hybrid system after watching the ladies LP at CoR, and I didn't even necessarily disagree with the final podium there. It's not based on one skater, one podium or even one season. It's just something that has been building for a while.
A lot of effort has been spent in the thread arguing about a return to SP & FS ordinals. I suggest that be tabled for now, as it doesn't seem to be accomplishing much, and because I think it's a distraction from more critical issues. A hybrid system could either use, or not use, traditional SP & FS ordinals. That's a side issue, and I'd rather focus on other issues involved in a possible hybrid system.
Interesting. It's extremely unfortunate that they didn't do that. I wonder what the reason was, and whether it stemmed from the dilemma I mentioned -- How can one adequately combine a limitless point-based score (CoP TE) with a limited "perfect maximum" artistic score (6.0 or 10.0 style Presentation marks) to produce final results - whether it be through SP & FS ordinals, or through combining SP+FS to directly reach medal standings as happens now?
Under 6.0, both Tech and Pres marks could be added together, because they were on the same scale. Ex.: 5.7 + 5.8 = 11.5, producing the combined mark from that judge. The combined marks for each skater were then ranked for each judge, producing the ordinals for that judge. For a hybrid system, you can't directly add the two scores to produce a combined mark in this way, because they are not governed by the same scoring system. Two possibilities then arise:
A.) Compile one set of rankings for Technical, another set of rankings for Presentation, then somehow combine those into an overall standing.
B.) Devise another method of combining Technical and Presentation scores for each skater, THEN determine a single set of standings from this combined score.
A is problematic, and I haven't yet figured out a good way to do B. Examples:
1.) Linear Ordinals (using case A). Rank each half of the score with ordinals, and combine the ordinals into an overall ranking. Note this does NOT require observing "traditional SP/FS ordinals", in fact for the sake of example I will not observe them. Let's say Skate America 2008, the ladies SP and FS happened and we are figuring out the final medal standings.
Tech scores can add directly into a combined TE. Presentation scores would have to be weighted before addition since they have the same maximum score but 2 different program lengths, so let's say the SP counts for 1/3, and the FS for 2/3 of the final Presentation score. (This is also in line with the PC "factoring" under CoP.) No problems yet. Let's look at the top 6 marks from SA08 Ladies. For the sake of example I will invent Artistic/Presentation marks based on the PC standings. I will also apply -1 deductions to both of the original CoP TE & PC scores - many agree falls should count for more, so this is a minimal way to apply it here. (I'm using images captured from the browser since I can't figure out how to make the forum recognize whitespace...)
From this, we can compile an "ordinal" for Tech and Pres:
I chose this competition without any bias or advance selection. But in fact the example illustrates some of the problems with the method. There were a lot of ties in the Presentation rankings, however this isn't a large problem since VERY rarely will the Tech total tie, since it is based on CoP scoring, so Tech readily breaks the tie. A more important problem arises for Miki and Yukari, and illustrates quite by accident what I feared:
Combinational ties of ordinal rankings will happen OFTEN. So the question is how to break them. Initially it may seem sensible to use the Tech score as the tie breaker. But as you can see in this case, it would be blatantly unfair. Miki is ahead by only one one hundredth Tech score (+0.011%), while Yukari is head by 3 whole tenths in Presentation (+3.226%). Could percentages be used? If so, the final standings are:
1. Yu-Na Kim
2. Yukari Nakano
3. Miki Ando
4. Rachael Flatt
5. Mirai Nagasu
6. Susanna Poykio
7. Mira Leung
8. Yan Liu
9. Kimmie Meissner
10. Tugba Karademir
11. Annette Dytrt
The actual standings from Skate America are almost the same, with 8<->9 and 10<->11 switched in placement.
There's no single point being argued here, other than to explore the feasibilty of given hybrid scoring methods. Comments welcome.
I don't see how you can "tweak" a fundamentally flawed concept, namely that of mathematically adding artistry to technicality to achieve an combined, unlimited point total.
Here's a new perspective on it. What if we applied CoP as it stands now to skaters 40 years ago, like Peggy Fleming? Then we compared the scores from then with the scores skaters get now. TE scores might have increased by 2-4 times as much in those 40 years. Would the artistic scores (such as they are under CoP) have done the same? Of course not. How could it then be logical to mathematically add the two together to create a single point total?
Conclusion - either Presentation scores would only count for a fraction of what they once did 40 years back, or, they'd have to keep fudging up the "factoring" multiplier to compensate, to maintain the illusion that artistry actually counts for what it should.
6.0 was able to add Tech and Pres scores because they were each subjective, and based on a maximum. This worked well for artistry, not as well for tech. CoP works well for tech, but not for artistry, as I've explained. This is why a hybrid system is required.
A lot of effort has been spent in the thread arguing about a return to SP & FS ordinals. I suggest that be tabled for now, as it doesn't seem to be accomplishing much, and because I think it's a distraction from more critical issues. A hybrid system could either use, or not use, traditional SP & FS ordinals. That's a side issue, and I'd rather focus on other issues involved in a possible hybrid system.
Interesting. It's extremely unfortunate that they didn't do that. I wonder what the reason was, and whether it stemmed from the dilemma I mentioned -- How can one adequately combine a limitless point-based score (CoP TE) with a limited "perfect maximum" artistic score (6.0 or 10.0 style Presentation marks) to produce final results - whether it be through SP & FS ordinals, or through combining SP+FS to directly reach medal standings as happens now?
Under 6.0, both Tech and Pres marks could be added together, because they were on the same scale. Ex.: 5.7 + 5.8 = 11.5, producing the combined mark from that judge. The combined marks for each skater were then ranked for each judge, producing the ordinals for that judge. For a hybrid system, you can't directly add the two scores to produce a combined mark in this way, because they are not governed by the same scoring system. Two possibilities then arise:
A.) Compile one set of rankings for Technical, another set of rankings for Presentation, then somehow combine those into an overall standing.
B.) Devise another method of combining Technical and Presentation scores for each skater, THEN determine a single set of standings from this combined score.
A is problematic, and I haven't yet figured out a good way to do B. Examples:
1.) Linear Ordinals (using case A). Rank each half of the score with ordinals, and combine the ordinals into an overall ranking. Note this does NOT require observing "traditional SP/FS ordinals", in fact for the sake of example I will not observe them. Let's say Skate America 2008, the ladies SP and FS happened and we are figuring out the final medal standings.
Tech scores can add directly into a combined TE. Presentation scores would have to be weighted before addition since they have the same maximum score but 2 different program lengths, so let's say the SP counts for 1/3, and the FS for 2/3 of the final Presentation score. (This is also in line with the PC "factoring" under CoP.) No problems yet. Let's look at the top 6 marks from SA08 Ladies. For the sake of example I will invent Artistic/Presentation marks based on the PC standings. I will also apply -1 deductions to both of the original CoP TE & PC scores - many agree falls should count for more, so this is a minimal way to apply it here. (I'm using images captured from the browser since I can't figure out how to make the forum recognize whitespace...)
From this, we can compile an "ordinal" for Tech and Pres:
I chose this competition without any bias or advance selection. But in fact the example illustrates some of the problems with the method. There were a lot of ties in the Presentation rankings, however this isn't a large problem since VERY rarely will the Tech total tie, since it is based on CoP scoring, so Tech readily breaks the tie. A more important problem arises for Miki and Yukari, and illustrates quite by accident what I feared:
Combinational ties of ordinal rankings will happen OFTEN. So the question is how to break them. Initially it may seem sensible to use the Tech score as the tie breaker. But as you can see in this case, it would be blatantly unfair. Miki is ahead by only one one hundredth Tech score (+0.011%), while Yukari is head by 3 whole tenths in Presentation (+3.226%). Could percentages be used? If so, the final standings are:
1. Yu-Na Kim
2. Yukari Nakano
3. Miki Ando
4. Rachael Flatt
5. Mirai Nagasu
6. Susanna Poykio
7. Mira Leung
8. Yan Liu
9. Kimmie Meissner
10. Tugba Karademir
11. Annette Dytrt
The actual standings from Skate America are almost the same, with 8<->9 and 10<->11 switched in placement.
There's no single point being argued here, other than to explore the feasibilty of given hybrid scoring methods. Comments welcome.
I don't see how you can "tweak" a fundamentally flawed concept, namely that of mathematically adding artistry to technicality to achieve an combined, unlimited point total.
Here's a new perspective on it. What if we applied CoP as it stands now to skaters 40 years ago, like Peggy Fleming? Then we compared the scores from then with the scores skaters get now. TE scores might have increased by 2-4 times as much in those 40 years. Would the artistic scores (such as they are under CoP) have done the same? Of course not. How could it then be logical to mathematically add the two together to create a single point total?
Conclusion - either Presentation scores would only count for a fraction of what they once did 40 years back, or, they'd have to keep fudging up the "factoring" multiplier to compensate, to maintain the illusion that artistry actually counts for what it should.
6.0 was able to add Tech and Pres scores because they were each subjective, and based on a maximum. This worked well for artistry, not as well for tech. CoP works well for tech, but not for artistry, as I've explained. This is why a hybrid system is required.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
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.
I really like this idea - it does seem to make things "freer", however, if the values of spins/steps is not increased then isn't it always going to be the case that the person that uses the slot to land 8 big jumps is always going to beat the person who just does 6 and tries to make up the points using steps and spins?
Can you also let us know what enhancements you would apply to the jump sequence. I love the idead of asking the skaters to do sequeunce of three or more jumps of 1.5 revolutions or fewer! Also the levels/enhancements for the field move and figure 8 patterns would be good to read!
Ant
Do you really think it gives the skater the power? Do you feel Kimmie was empowered in the Cup of Russia SP?
What would you do if you know you skated your program to it's full potential and executed every element correctly, yet you get back your score sheet and it's all -GOEs?
Ant
I made no such assertion particle man. If you look at the top post of page 4 it was bekalc who suggested that the factored placements were suggested as a reaction to Joubert - i corrected him/her to say i didn't think it had been.
Ant
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2005
Underotating a jump and failling to count to three( which a lot of other skaters can do) is not doing a program to it's full potential. Kimmie's score was what she did on the ice. Her actions are the main source of her low score. The jugdes gave her decent PCs. Tes is mostly kimmie.
I have witness only a few skaters(three at most) skate a program to its full potential. None of them recieve -goe's. Doing one's best at a certain time and skating a program to its full potential is two different things. Sometimes ones best is not good enough.
If a skater does an element cleanly;in my experience the judges and tech give points. If they don't they some times still give them points(mostly less points). If they break rules they don't get points. It seems like the cause of the effect always go back to the skater. The skater has the most control. Show me a competition were a skater does nothing in a program and score more than 0 in tes . That is when I'll question the power of the skater.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
My two prargraphs in my previous post were unrelated and making two different points. The main point of the second paragraph was asking how the skater has any power when the point is that FS is a judged sport. The only people with the power in this sport are the Tech Panel and the Judges. If you as a skater or your coach does not agree with what the Panel or the judges do. There is nothing you can you do about it. That sounds pretty powerless to me.
Ant
It's Meissner's own fault that she didnt' hold her positions long enough to get the levels. She's not a spring chicken, she's skated COP before, there's no excuse for Meissner not doing the necessary things to get her levels.
Right now, the highest level non-jump elements are worth approximately the same as a double axel.
Skaters who can do all the triples (or maybe quads) but who can't do triple-triples would need the full 8 jump passes to get in all their big jumps.
Skaters who can do all the triples including triple-triples can get all their big jumps including a double axel if they don't have a triple into 5-7 jump passes. So then they would just use the last jumping pass or two to crank out points with extra double axels or other doubles. Why not give them other options for how to use those slots?
Lower-ranked senior skaters who only have 2 or 3 kinds of triples can get all their triples and one double axel into 6 jumping passes even with repeats. If they're inconsistent on those jumps, though, and fall and/or get downgraded more often than not, it might be in their best interest to repeat jumps that will likely end up earning them very few points or even netting negative points (downgraded triple with a fall). Then they might want another pass to put in doubles of the jumps they don't have triples of. But that could still leave them at least one pass that would just be a filler double, or extra double axel which may be inconsistent. In which case it might be a safer bet to fill that slot with a level 4 non-jump element.
So it would be the skaters with the best jumping skills and the ones with the weakest (by senior standards) who would be best served by replacing one of the jumping passes with non-jump or small-jump elements. The ones who need 7 passes to do 7 triples will want all the jump slots.
However, I'm certainly amenable to the idea of making the highest level for the non-jump elements worth at least as much as a triple toe or triple salchow.
I would also put a level in between the current level 1 (0 features or no features) and level 2 (2 features). I think doing 1 feature should be worth more than none.
Here are my proposals for definitions and features for the new elements. I'm willing to be talked out of some features by coaches or experienced skaters who think they're not difficult enough to merit extra points, or talked into any possibilities that I didn't think of. I would also listen to tech specialists' arguments about what features might be impossible to identify in a reasonable amount of time. But I can't imagine that these proposed sequences would be harder to call than step sequences under the current rules.
Field Moves Sequence
Should cover the entire ice surface in either a serpentine or circular/oval pattern or combination thereof. May include two to four positions, of which at least two different moves must be chosen from the Mandatory Moves, and one or two may be chosen from Optional Moves.
Mandatory Moves
-Spread Eagle (inside or outside, right or left foot leading -- count as four different moves)
-Ina Bauer (inside or outside, right or left foot leading -- count as four different moves)
-Shoot-the-Duck: defined as a glide on an edge with the skating leg bent so that the buttocks are even with or lower than the skating knee and the free foot is extended forward (or to the side?) (right or left foot, forward or backward, inside or outside edge -- count as eight different moves)
Optional Moves
Spiral: any edge or direction, free leg above hip height behind, to the side, or in front
Hydroblading: any low move (hips even with or lower than skating knee ) that doesn't qualify as a shoot-the-duck; one or both hands may be placed on the ice for balance
Lunge or Drag: the skating knee is bent at least 90 degrees with all the weight over it; the free foot may slide across the ice on the side of the blade or side of the boot behind the body or on the heel of the blade to the side
Features:
-any spiral features as defined for the spiral sequence
-change of edge maintaining spread eagle, Bauer, or shoot-the-duck position, or moving from spread eagle to Bauer or vice versa or from spiral to shoot-the-duck or vice versa, held at least 3 seconds before and 3 seconds after the change
-change from spiral to shoot-the-duck or vice versa while maintaining the same edge, at least 3 seconds in each position
-full back arch (or sideways lean?) in Bauer (or spread eagle?)
-spread eagles and/or Ina Bauers performed both inside and outside, with both right and left foot leading
-hydroblading/shoot the duck with free leg crossed under the skating leg and no hand assist on the ice
-cantilever position in spread eagle
-outside spread eagle or Ina Bauer held for at least 3/4 of a rink-width circle
Small-Jump Sequence
A sequence of jumps of no more than 1.5 revolutions connected by no more than two steps or turns between each jump, covering at least half the length of the rink or at least half of a rink-width circle. 1.5 jumps may be axel-type jumps landed on back inside or back outside edge, or any backward-takeoff jumps landed facing forward with a toe assist and push to a forward edge.
Features
-split, stag, or double stag jump (flip, lutz, or loop/falling leaf takeoff, half revolution) with both legs at least parallel to the ice at the top of the jump
-split, stag, and/or double stag jumps (flip, lutz, or loop/falling leaf takeoff, half revolution) performed in both directions
-ring jump (flip or lutz takeoff, half or no rotation) in which one or both legs is bent up behind the body to foot above waist height and the head is arched backward
-full- or 1.5-revolution jump (any takeoff) with legs split at least 90 degrees at the top of the jump
-tuck/stag axel with one leg extended parallel to the ice at the top of the jump
-1- and/or 1.5-revolution jumps rotating in both directions
-at least three edge jumps (salchow, 1-foot salchow, loop, half-loop, walley, half-walley, toeless lutz, one-foot axel, inside axel) performed in immediate succession with no steps or turns in between
-forward-takeoff jump with one revolution landed on the same edge as the takeoff with no toe assist and a controlled forward-edge exit
Figures
Eights: defined as two tangent circles, initiated from a standstill, which may be symmetrically divided into halves, thirds, or quarters by turns and/or loops
Serpentines: defined as three tangent circles along a common long axis, initiated from a standstill, which may be symmetrically divided into halves, thirds, or quarters by turns and/or loops
Features:
-backward start
-two full circles performed on one foot without touchdown (counts twice if performed on each foot)
-double repetition of the full pattern
(the reason for including double repetition as a feature is that it takes twice as long to execute and gives an opportunity to demonstrate consistency of tracing, although it also runs the risk of lowering GOE points for failure to trace accurately)
-at least two different threes or two different changes of edge (backward and forward and/or inside and outside) on each foot
-at least one bracket or loop on each foot
-counter or rocker at the changes of lobe
-difficult arm position sustained for the entire figure: both arms overhead, clasped behind the back, or crossed in front of the chest
-difficult free leg position: free foot held above the level of the skating knee during and for at least half a circle before and after a turn or change of edge, performed on each foot
I think the key is to have well over 4 possibilities for features for each kind of element. That way we don't have everyone trying to do the exact same features to get the highest level. E.g., on step sequences I would not take away the upper body movement feature, but I would break down the other features differently so that it would be possible to get level 4 without that feature.
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
Ok having looked through your proposals I agree the jumping passes would work. Especially with the bonus points for double jumps with 6 different take offs and triple jumps with 6 different take offs.
However, I'm certainly amenable to the idea of making the highest level for the non-jump elements worth at least as much as a triple toe or triple salchow.
I haven't looked at the scale of values recently for spins so i'm not sure if there are different base values given for flying spins, compared to combination spins with one change of foot, layback, etc. I would be happy if the most complicated spin type (e.g. a flying change foot combination spin with a level 4) be given e.g. the highest number of points, which with +3 GOE be worth the same as a 0GOE base value triple loop or triple flip. And then recalculate the rest of the spins so that even the most basic spin of level four can attain the same points as a double axel.
Agreed!
I loved the rest of the features/enhancements for the jump sequence and the field move sequences! Let's get all fo the changes passsed!
Ant
