Ice scope data shows zero correlation between height & GOE

[Mathman]

(the) graph would look a little different, with the GOE of the triple of the axel on the x-axis as the independent variable, and the PCS being on the y-axis as the dependent variable.

Makes no difference to the mathematics, but yeah, that would male it be easier for the viewer to conceptualize the question visually.

I don't think that's quite a correct description of r[sup]2[/sup], it's more the amount of variation in GOE that's explainable by differences in height/distance, rather than the % of GOE itself.

I think the following is good language: What is r? When the height goes up by 1 standard deviation, we expect (statistically, on the average, and with everything else staying the same) that the GOE will go up, not by a full standard deviation but by only r% of a standard deviation.

(Put this way, I am not surprised that the correlation is low.)

Quantity rather than quality.

To me, that is the whole core and soul of the CoP. Quantify everything you possibly can. What's left over, try your best to attach numbers to esthetic qualities as opportunity arises. What you will get is a lot of quantity, with new world's records in point totals set in every competition.

 

[kiches]

[SUP][/SUP]I think there is a common-sense reason why jump height might be somewhat negatively correlated with speed out of the jump (as a surrogate for flowing exit edge). If you jump straight up you will get a lot of height, but little horizontal ice speed on the landing.

I would expect the overall size (height and distance) of the jump would have more of an impact on how judges award GOE to a jump rather than height on its own. The parabola on ice scope of jumps with good height but not a lot of distance would probably cover a smaller surface area than a jump with average height but good distance. So I wonder what correlation we would get comparing computed jump surface area to GOE vs height, distance, and speed in isolation with GOE.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

Yes, "lower" level of transitions and "easier" footwork, like Browning's. BTW, compared to whom? Vincent Zhou?

Yes, "basic" spin postions, like the classic camel, substituted for foolishly defined "difficult" positions.

Interesting that you picked Browning (arguably the best ever at footwork) as if his ability is representative of the typical quality of footwork of the men's field in the 70's and 80's. Talk about strawmen arguments!

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

The amount of transitions was not lower and the footwork wasn’t “easier” per se. The footwork was very fast and sharp back then. These days, footwork isn’t even footwork. It’s just convoluted and time-consuming turns in the ice. Quantity rather than quality. People these days could not do the footwork from back then if you told them to try it, they would need to learn how first. I’d love to see someone right now try to do Gary Beacom’s footwork. How laughable that would look.

As for spins, there were still difficult variations back then, and a lot more emphasis on speed and big flying entrances. Again, what we see these days also tends to be quantity over quality in the spins. Lots of ungainly “difficult variations” at the cost of better body line and speed and actual musical interpretation while spinning. It’s also a flaw in the current system that some positions don’t count as difficult variations. It’s more difficult to do a low sit spin with a straight back and free leg, than most of the hunched positions we see these days.

I'm talking about the field as a whole. Today's skaters could execute the footwork sequences of most of the field in the 70's and 80's, but vice versa not so much. Several footwork sequences comprised Mohawks/3-turns/toe steps - you wouldn't see a ton of difficult turns. Even today's juniors could execute most of the step sequences of the past (yes, save for some brilliant strawmen exceptions like Beacom and Browning).

Vern Taylor had some brilliant highlights in his Worlds 1978 program (like the first 3A, and the jump into his flying sit spin, the Russian splits, the footwork around 0:57) but a great deal of his FS was rudimentary in its choreography compared to the programs of today (mostly crossovers and two footed skating... not particularly deep edges... not much variation in upper body, spins with few rotations save for a scratch spin). https://youtu.be/UilAARymnSs

Also, not that a split into a 3T isn't cool... but if the guys of today had to only do jump elements as easy as a 3T, I'm sure they would do split jumps and other fancier entrance transitions.

 

[Shanshani]

I would expect the overall size (height and distance) of the jump would have more of an impact on how judges award GOE to a jump rather than height on its own. The parabola on ice scope of jumps with good height but not a lot of distance would probably cover a smaller surface area than a jump with average height but good distance. So I wonder what correlation we would get comparing computed jump surface area to GOE vs height, distance, and speed in isolation with GOE.

This is an interesting point, and I've been thinking about using height*distance as an overall metric for the size of the jump and seeing how that compares to GOE (should be pretty easy but I'm on mobile right now so it'll have to wait). However, given the lack of correlation between both height and distance and GOE, I'm unoptimistic this will show a significant correlation either. Notably, under this metric, Keegan Messing has the second biggest 3A (first is obviously still Yuzuru), but there were a lot of skaters who got the same or higher GOE than him who had significantly smaller jumps, despite the fact that (at least as far as I recall) many of them did not obviously do better on the other GOE bullets in comparison to him. So I think Keegan is really being hurt by the lack of reward for jump size--his other jumps are pretty big too, so I wouldn't be surprised if we see a similar pattern.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

This is an interesting point, and I've been thinking about using height*distance as an overall metric for the size of the jump and seeing how that compares to GOE (should be pretty easy but I'm on mobile right now so it'll have to wait). However, given the lack of correlation between both height and distance and GOE, I'm unoptimistic this will show a significant correlation either. Notably, under this metric, Keegan Messing has the second biggest 3A (first is obviously still Yuzuru), but there were a lot of skaters who got the same or higher GOE than him who had significantly smaller jumps, despite the fact that (at least as far as I recall) many of them did not obviously do better on the other GOE bullets in comparison to him. So I think Keegan is really being hurt by the lack of reward for jump size--his other jumps are pretty big too, so I wouldn't be surprised if we see a similar pattern.

Regarding Keegan's 3A, I think his landing position compromised potentially higher GOE... the jump looks clunkier and his posture isn't ideal. Compare it to Rizzo or Brown whose 3A (which got the same GOE) had less amplitude but it still looked more elegant and effortless with better posture/extension on the landing, IMO. I would have also given those guys +3 for theirs. And the 2.51 GOE = 30%, so I think the judges got it right. It's a bit of a gripe I have with Keegan's elements - a little better posture and extension would really max out his GOE because he has fantastic amplitude on his jumps and excellent speed on his spins. The baggy gray sweater wasn't exactly helping either and with better styling and more flattering costume choices that in itself could help his elements look better.

 

[Blades of Passion]

I'm talking about the field as a whole. Today's skaters could execute the footwork sequences of most of the field in the 70's and 80's, but vice versa not so much. Several footwork sequences comprised Mohawks/3-turns/toe steps - you wouldn't see a ton of difficult turns. Even today's juniors could execute most of the step sequences of the past (yes, save for some brilliant strawmen exceptions like Beacom and Browning).

Footwork is not just about the prescribed "difficult turns". It's about the entire usage of the feet and body, quickly and constantly moving the feet, effortlessly transitioning between steps and turns, the syncopation, and the speed across the ice. There is a lot of difficulty to that. Skaters today don't show the ability to do it; they wouldn't be able to just do it on the fly. A lot of them would trip if they tried to do that kind of footwork or they wouldn't do the movements well. We've had the "choreographic step sequence" element since the 2011 season and literally nobody in the past 9 years has shown an extremely fast footwork sequence, with very quick feet, in this element. The footwork sequences in CoP don't even ask for any steps anymore, which is so dumb. The rules were changed so that only a select set of "difficult turns" matter, so now an entire skating vocabulary has been lost.

There's no strawman argument either, there were many other people back then besides just Browning or Beacom who were doing great footwork or at least very fast footwork. Cranston, Curry, Cousins, Hoffman, Barna, Hamilton, Fadeev, Kotin, Orser, Boitano, Cerne, Bowman, and others, they all showed great ability. Your assessment of Vern Taylor's program from 1978 is completely off base too, you try to say it's just crossovers when he is doing many turns, mini-leaps, cross-rolls, and deep curved edge movements. Look at the series of moves he does starting at 4:07 in that program for example.

Also, LOL, back then they were doing FIGURES. They showed the "difficult turns" in that segment of the competition.

Also, not that a split into a 3T isn't cool... but if the guys of today had to only do jump elements as easy as a 3T, I'm sure they would do split jumps and other fancier entrance transitions.

That may be, but the fact is, they don't do it anymore. It's a skill that takes time to train and needs to be accounted for in the transitions/choreography. People were doing it into harder jumps than 3T as well. Gary Beacom was doing double russian splits into 3Flip.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

Footwork is not just about the prescribed "difficult turns". It's about the entire usage of the feet and body, quickly and constantly moving the feet, effortlessly transitioning between steps and turns, the syncopation, and the speed across the ice. There is a lot of difficulty to that. Skaters today don't show the ability to do it; they wouldn't be able to just do it on the fly. A lot of them would trip if they tried to do that kind of footwork or they wouldn't do the movements well. We've had the "choreographic step sequence" element since the 2011 season and literally nobody in the past 9 years has shown an extremely fast footwork sequence, with very quick feet, in this element. The footwork sequences in CoP don't even ask for any steps anymore, which is so dumb. The rules were changed so that only a select set of "difficult turns" matter, so now an entire skating vocabulary has been lost.

https://www.isu.org/docman-document...munications/17142-isu-communication-2168/file

Sequences
1) Minimum variety (Level 1), simple variety (Level 2), variety (Level 3), complexity (Level 4) of
difficult turns and steps throughout (compulsory)

Types of difficult turns and steps: twizzles, brackets, loops, counters, rockers, choctaws.
Minimum variety includes at least 5 difficult turns and steps, none of the types can be counted more than twice.
Simple variety includes at least 7 difficult turns and steps, none of the types can be counted more than twice.
Variety includes at least 9 difficult turns and steps, none of the types can be counted more than twice.
Complexity includes at least 11 difficult turns and steps, none of the types can be counted more than twice, 5 types must be executed
in both directions.

Yes... steps like mohawks, mazurkas, toe steps, chasses, cross rolls, and change of edge were taken out from difficult steps -- as they should have been, because they're relatively easy to execute (it's also why 3-turns were removed from turns). The legitimately difficult steps like choctaws were kept in for purposes of achieving the level feature of a variety of difficult steps/turns. You're still allowed to do toe steps, and indeed many skaters do them in their footwork sequences for variety within the sequence. But I'm not complaining that 3 turns are no longer treated on the same level as rockers/counters.

I thought you would have been happy with the recent changes easing up on footwork requirements - it's now easier to achieve complexity on the feature 1) of a step sequence: it used to be for minimum variety you needed 7 turns AND 2 steps, Simple = 7/4, Variety = 9/4, Complexity = 5/3 in both directions. Step sequences now are less busy than before, and you see more deep edges instead of skaters filling up a sequence with toe steps and extra turns to attempt to get the maximum complexity. Sure, you're not getting the "fly down the ice in 8 seconds doing toe steps" that we saw in the 80s/90s either... but at least we're seeing more edge work and difficult turns incorporated in footwork (which wasn't a requirement of past footwork sequences) and programs themselves.

These minimum requirements for difficulty are important. Vern Taylor doing a glorious jump here - but completely ruins it with a pitifully poor sit position (his front sit is atrocious, as seen earlier in the program too at the 4:10 mark). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UilAARymnSs#t=4m30s

As for the choreo sequence I agree that they could show faster/quicker steps a la the 80s/90s... but it seems most treat the ChSq as a movements in the field sequence... those some skaters are a bit lazy (some do like a spread eagle or a 2 second spiral and call it a day).

 

[Blades of Passion]

Yes... steps like mohawks, mazurkas, toe steps, chasses, cross rolls, and change of edge were taken out from difficult steps -- as they should have been, because they're relatively easy to execute (it's also why 3-turns were removed from turns). The legitimately difficult steps like choctaws were kept in for purposes of achieving the level feature of a variety of difficult steps/turns.

Again, that's not what footwork is supposed to be about. There are many more difficult movements possible in skating than just these ones, and in the first place footwork sequences are supposed to be about musicality, dance-quality, and the overall LOOK of the sequence. Not just cramming in turns on the ice without a good artistic purpose. You are wrong to say "steps" are still included, plural, when choctaws are the only step in the rules now. They indeed removed the actual STEPS portion from the footwork, and that is a bad thing. 3-turns in opposing directions are very beautiful and now nobody does that move. There used to be an entire level credit given for "quick changes from steps to turns".

Everyone just does the same thing in footwork now and it's boring as hell. We don't need to see a counter, bracket, twizzle, loop, rocker, and choctaw in every single footwork sequence, much less in both directions, and with clusters on both feet, as is now the requirement. The movement included in footwork sequences should be about creating a distinct picture/flow on the ice and exactly interpreting the music, and it shouldn't need to last for such a onerous amount of time. The SP, for example, should ask for 2 shorter footwork sequences (or a spiral sequence), instead of the big boring conglomeration that is now required. With different movements being required for level credit in separate sequences for a single program, we would still see plenty of the "difficult turns". Just not all of them in the same program, and not all clumped together.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

Again, that's not what footwork is supposed to be about. There are many more difficult movements possible in skating than just these ones, and in the first place footwork sequences are supposed to be about musicality, dance-quality, and the overall LOOK of the sequence. Not just cramming in turns on the ice without a good artistic purpose. You are wrong to say "steps" are still included, plural, when choctaws are the only step in the rules now. They indeed removed the actual STEPS portion from the footwork, and that is a bad thing . 3-turns in opposing directions are very beautiful and now nobody does that move. There used to be an entire level credit given for "quick changes from steps to turns".

Everyone just does the same thing in footwork now and it's boring as hell. We don't need to see a counter, bracket, twizzle, loop, rocker, and choctaw in every single footwork sequence, much less in both directions, and with clusters on both feet, as is now the requirement. The movement included in footwork sequences should be about creating a distinct picture/flow on the ice and exactly interpreting the music, and it shouldn't need to last for such a onerous amount of time. The SP, for example, should ask for 2 shorter footwork sequences (or a spiral sequence), instead of the big boring conglomeration that is now required. With different movements being required for level credit in separate sequences for a single program, we would still see plenty of the "difficult turns". Just not all of them in the same program, and not all clumped together.

Firstly, there are several ways to do a Choctaw, depending on the edges and whether it's open or closed so there is potential variety. It's like saying all twizzles are the same turn when there are different ways to do them (eg Chen does two forms of twizzles with different leg position and arm movements in his footwork at 2:24 and 2:35) https://youtu.be/TVsApp9a1YU.

And as I said, Choctaws are a step remaining for a level feature because they are difficult. Chasses/Mohawks/cross rolls do not deserve to have the same value as a Choctaw for a complexity-based level because they are generally not difficult... but they can still be incorporated into a step sequence to great effect. You said it yourself - the overall sequence is also important ..: so every single step doesn't have to contribute to its base value but it can still contribute to the sequence's overall impression and GOE.

 

[Mathman]

I would expect the overall size (height and distance) of the jump would have more of an impact on how judges award GOE to a jump rather than height on its own. ... So I wonder what correlation we would get comparing computed jump surface area to GOE vs height, distance, and speed in isolation with GOE.

This is an interesting point, and I've been thinking about using height*distance as an overall metric for the size of the jump and seeing how that compares to GOE.

I think height*distance is, in fact, a perfect surrogate for "surface area." A little fooling around with parabolic equations convinces me that the surface area displayed by Ice Scope comes pout to 2/3 (max height) x (distance).

 

[Edwin]

Thanks for keeping this thread alive with interesting technical discussions and its effects.

 

[shmy]

Where can one find the Ice scope data?

Disclaimer- I skimmed the thread so I might have missed the source lol

 

[Edwin]

Technology is advancing: https://www.fujitsu.com/global/about/resources/news/press-releases/2019/1015-02.html and https://gymnasticscoaching.com/2019/10/09/fujitsu-3d-computer-video-analysis-update/