Joshua Farris articles re 2015 Worlds

[Tavi...]

Don't kill me for saying this (I like them both), but I don't really understand why Jason should get higher GOE for his non-axel triples than Josh? With the exception of that Nationals SP--where he indeed had excellent spring and a certain airiness to his jumps--I don't really think Jason's triples look top caliber. They're sometimes a bit low and eeked out, in fact. He does have difficult entries but why can't we just reward that on the TR mark?

Granted, Josh's triples aren't incredible either, but he does have one of the best 3As in the business. His spins are a little slower than Jason's, but it's not a huge difference. If both go clean in the SP, I'd hand it to Josh on the basis of his superior program. There is magic in "Give Me Love", while Jason's program is fun and well-performed... but not magical.

I actually think Jason has the superior LP, but the difference there is covered by Josh's quad.

Isn't the problem that you are a) confusing your opinions with fact and b) trying to weigh things against each other that really aren't comparable?

For example, in your opinion Josh has a much better short program than Jason, and it draws you in emotionally. I have read other people say that his program is boring. I personally don't find it boring, but I don't find myself emotionally drawn in by it. Even if the judges agree with you-which is not a given - how will they score that - higher PCS overall? And with respect to the free skate, I have heard many prople say they hate Jason's and love Josh's. Leaving that aside, how do you weigh one skater's "better" program against the other's quad?

Finally, with respect to transitions and Tano jumps, both of those elements are considered to increase the difficulty of performing the jumps themselves, and are factors for increasing GOE, so under the current rules, they should be rewarded with plus GOE as well as higher PCS.

To be clear, I'm not criticizing your opinions, just pointing out that they are opinions and that the balancing you suggest may not be realistic.

 

[Jammers]

if talking about watching live, the only thing, I wish Joshua can improve, is his skating skills. And really glad that he said in IN telecom that he is indeed working on his skating skills

There is nothing wrong with Josh's skating skills.

 

[Sandpiper]

I don't agree that Jasons triples are "low and eeked out". Not if he hits them well, and that's what we're talking about in an all clean scenario, aye? Sometimes that happens to him, but IMO that's a mistake happening like other guys popping their jumps or even falling. But I'd rather have someone getting a little short on rotation than landing on their butt, so why this is used against Jason and the quality of his jumps is a mystery to me.

About who has the better non-Axel triples... I'll remain with my boring "they're pretty equal" point of view. Both of them have good height and ice coverage, but not Hanyu/Han Yan levels. Jason has better transitions into his jumps, while Josh still has beautiful ones as well. Josh has a great air position, that makes his jumps look very secure and clean, but Jason isn't wild or loose in the air either. Both have good flow coming out, but again it's one of the points one could critizice compared to the other top jumpers. OTOH, both manage to make their jumps look like part of the choreo and perform them comapred to a lot of the more powerful jumpers. So I don't see why either one should pull ahead so far of the other in this regard.

I should clarify: a bit low and eeked out compared to the best in the world: people like Yuzuru, Tatsuki, Takahito Mura, ect. Not low and eeked out like he's the male Satoko Miyahara or something.

I actually agree with your assessment: their triples are comparable in quality (though aesthetically they look very different). But since Josh has a much better 3A, and they're about the same on the other jumps, it seems to me like Josh should get higher GOE for his jumps as a whole. *shrugs* Worlds will tell whether Josh just needs more reputation building, or whether it's just another case of "This poster is baffled by GOE this season: continued from Europeans, 4CC, and Jr. Worlds..."

I think Joshua presents a clean, straight line in the air, with his legs tight and his arms tight, where on occasion Jason is a little more open. his makes Joshua's jumps look better from an aesthetic point of view.

I think you hit the nail on the head. Josh's jumps are very pure and tight, with a lightness in the air and on the landing. These qualities are why I think Josh should at least match Jason's GOE. And no, I didn't mean to say Jason's jumps were tiny. Just smaller than I'm used to seeing from the top men of the world.

To be clear, I'm not criticizing your opinions, just pointing out that they are opinions and that the balancing you suggest may not be realistic.

...Did I say my opinions are fact?

If you want to say, "Well, I'll score Jason's SP higher than Josh's, because I prefer his style/choreography/whatever," then my response is, "Okay." I don't necessarily agree, but it's just a difference in opinion. I won't cry foul if they both go clean at Worlds, and Jason ends up with a two-point lead in the SP.

What I'm questioning is the idea that Jason's non-axel triples are (notably) better than Josh's. Or that, clean-to-clean, they have the same scoring potential right now (the LP quad makes the difference). I get this based on how they've been scored thus far, and the difference in the technical side. Whose programs I like more is basically an aside; perhaps I shouldn't have even written that at all.

 

[Li'Kitsu]

I actually agree with your assessment: their triples are comparable in quality (though aesthetically they look very different). But since Josh has a much better 3A, and they're about the same on the other jumps, it seems to me like Josh should get higher GOE for his jumps as a whole. *shrugs* Worlds will tell whether Josh just needs more reputation building, or whether it's just another case of "This poster is baffled by GOE this season: continued from Europeans, 4CC, and Jr. Worlds..."

Then we actually agree on most of this comparison yes, Josh should score higher on all jumps combined, I just wanted to point out the difference is not as big as the tone of some posts suggested to me (as a Jason fan, I'm pretty used to defending his jumps, as he sometimes gets pretty harsh criticism on them).
To clarify completely: IMO, Josh and Jason have similar scoring potential in the SP. Josh has higher scoring potential in the LP. The quad is the difference, as they're equal(ly good) in most other aspects. And if both skated clean at worlds, I'd burst with happiness

 

[Tavi...]

I wouldn't score Josh, Jason or anyone else higher because I preferred the style or choreography of his program. In my opinion, a performer should be scored only on how he or she executes the elements and choreography relative to the ideal for his program. Whether or not the judge likes the program should not really be relevant.

I'm not 100% clear on what you're saying with regard to jumps. I agree with you that the quad gives Josh a scoring advantage. I agree he has a lovely 3A. I don't hear anyone saying that Jason's non-3A jumps are noticeably superior to Josh's, but on the other hand, judges have given Jason higher GOE on some jumps, and just because Josh has a good 3A doesn't mean that all of his jumps are better than Jason's and that he should be scored higher. Anyway, I don't understand the problem. Jason beat Josh at Nats and Josh returned the favor at 4CCs. They've been going back and forth like that for years. There's a pretty good chance that Josh will place higher at Worlds because of his quad, but if he didn't, what would be wrong with that?

 

[silverlake22]

There is nothing wrong with Josh's skating skills.

His skating skills are great but he could improve his speed IMO. He used to be noticeably slow, now his speed is fine, but nothing to write home about. If he could add more speed it would just be another quality that could make him even better.

 

[StitchMonkey]

Sandpiper I think you do have a touch of baffled by GOE. The jumps are each (or supposed to be judge individually), not on jumping as a whole.

There is also specific criteria for what makes a +1 +2 +3 that are in theory supposed to be followed. It is not just do you think the jumps is good, but did the jump do some of the things that formally make it a jump worth more points.

Page 11 http://static.isu.org/media/139590/1861-sandp_sov_levels-of-difficulty_goe_2014-15.pdf has what the criteria is. In short there are 8 bullet points, you need to have 6 to get a +3. And for example bullet #3 is "varied position in the air / delay in rotation" hence why you see so many tanos, it checks a bullet.

If you are interested in this stuff, I know The Skating Lesson is not the most popular on here, but they did to a video on jump GOE specifically where they go over the bullets and look at jumps and debate what bullet points the jump got compared to what the judges gave. I found it really helpful and interesting to get to see people talk about it in the context of specific jumps that you can watch. Also just seeing the differing opinions can help understand why things sometimes don't make sense. For example one bullet is "clear recognizable steps/free skating movements immediately preceding element" Jenny was fine with treating cross-overs as steps so long as they were recognizable, Dave took the position it meant something more difficult than cross-overs.

If you find this dull, feel free to ignore, but I find it interesting so I wanted to share.

EDIT
I just realized just posting the dang bullets might make more sense.

1) unexpected / creative / difficult entry
2) clear recognizable steps/free skating movements immediately preceding element
3) varied position in the air / delay in rotation
4) good height and distance
5) good extension on landing / creative exit
6) good flow from entry to exit including jump combinations / sequences
7) effortless throughout
8) element matched to the musical structure

 

[Sandpiper]

*sigh* I've had discussions that included those "GOE bullets" at least three times this season. My opinion is, as I've stated before: I think the bullet points are pretty stupid and not a good way to evaluate jumps. And--aren't those bullet points just suggestions? Judges are not supposed to follow them like the Bible and ignore how the jump looks as a whole.

Lots of the jump GOE given this year were pretty ridiculous, even if you just evaluate them based on the bullets. And even when they do tick off bullet points... I'm sorry, but no amount of explaining/rules will make me agree with -2 for falls (Europeans) or +3 for small, tilted jumps (4CC).

 

[StitchMonkey]

Sandpiper In that case I apologize for posting.

I don't think they are just suggestions, but I would not argue that some may treat them that way.

I tend to be the type of person to just try to play by the rules even if they don't make sense. Someone decided these are the rules, so i default back to them and try to use that as a starting point. I also find this stuff interesting, so it is fun for me to read and watch this stuff.

 

[Sandpiper]

^I understand what you mean, about the rules. Just... chalk it up to my inner teenage rebel. And I admit I'm a little sick of those bullets, because I feel like I've been discussing them all year.

Back to Josh and Jason: So, if we are to go by the rules, how would you score Josh's jumps vs. Jason's?

 

[karne]

I do think that something needs to be done about the way the bullets are structured. I think greater emphasis should be put on presenting a jump that is technically perfect, rather than just seeing how much kitchen sink transitions you can stick in before and after, where you stick your arms while in the air, etc.

Josh does lose some ground to Jason in this regard, because Josh relies on the perfect technique of his jumps to speak for themselves, and that's just not rewarded enough, IMO. Whereas Jason likes to take more risks with 'tanos and hands behind his back. And that's okay too, it's just...I really do think technical perfection should be rewarded more.

 

[ice coverage]

deleted

 

[andromache]

I do think that something needs to be done about the way the bullets are structured. I think greater emphasis should be put on presenting a jump that is technically perfect, rather than just seeing how much kitchen sink transitions you can stick in before and after, where you stick your arms while in the air, etc.

Josh does lose some ground to Jason in this regard, because Josh relies on the perfect technique of his jumps to speak for themselves, and that's just not rewarded enough, IMO. Whereas Jason likes to take more risks with 'tanos and hands behind his back. And that's okay too, it's just...I really do think technical perfection should be rewarded more.

I agree on the transitions, though I don't think it's unreasonable to reward air position variations either. Provided the air position is actually a variation within the program--if all of your jumps are tano jumps, it stops being a variation and should not be rewarded. But transitions are already rewarded in PCS, so there's no need to include that criteria in GOE as well.

 

[Tavi...]

I agree on the transitions, though I don't think it's unreasonable to reward air position variations either. Provided the air position is actually a variation within the program--if all of your jumps are tano jumps, it stops being a variation and should not be rewarded. But transitions are already rewarded in PCS, so there's no need to include that criteria in GOE as well.

I disagree- in my opinion, if a transition makes performing the jump more difficult and you execute the jump successfully, then you should be rewarded with plus GOE for that jump. It's the same principle as assigning a quad higher base value than a triple.

 

[yyyskate]

IMO, transitions immediately before or after jump which clearly increased the difficulty of a jump and being executed with great quality without affect the actual jump quality, should be rewarded. because it is a proof of your prowess of the actual jump. other than that, not so much.

Also, transitions together with jump served music IN purpose, should give even more point, IMO that is golden, also a proof that you have absolute control of your jump. I much prefer a well choreoed transition+jumping pass than some random throw in moves/steps for points. The ultimate skating for me is movement serve music IN.

 

[Li'Kitsu]

I disagree- in my opinion, if a transition makes performing the jump more difficult and you execute the jump successfully, then you should be rewarded with plus GOE for that jump. It's the same principle as assigning a quad higher base value than a triple.

Agreed. I think though that it's a mistake how the system double rewards transitions - because you have it as a GOE bullet point and as a program component. I'm not quite sure how to do deal with this, but I think I'd rather have the GOE bullet and get rid of it as a single PCS part - if they like it so much, make it one point in the scoring for CH maybe.

 

[ice coverage]

‏@USFigureSkating

.@joshDfarris on #WCShanghai in #WhatTheyreSaying!
5:48 PM - 20 Mar 2015
https://twitter.com/USFigureSkating/status/579082034972205056​

The Josh quote that USFS chose to graphicize with his SP photo:

"I believe that if I skate the best I can and the way I know how, I will contend with the top skaters at Worlds."​

 

[karne]

What makes this situation unique in Joshua's competitive history is that, for the first time, not only does he really believe in his own abilities, he has confidence in them, as well. He now KNOWS that he can skate well on big occasions, and he KNOWS that if he does so, the judges will reward him.

 

[ice coverage]

What makes this situation unique in Joshua's competitive history is that, for the first time, not only does he really believe in his own abilities, he has confidence in them, as well. He now KNOWS that he can skate well on big occasions, and he KNOWS that if he does so, the judges will reward him.

:yay:

(Hope you don't think I was disagreeing with Josh's quote. I wasn't.)

 

[karne]

:yay:

(Hope you don't think I was disagreeing with Josh's quote. I wasn't.)

Oh, not at all, merely remarking on why this season is so different while attempting to keep the lid firmly shut on my wildly crazy dreams and hopes...

Trying not to get so ridiculously excited for Worlds is very tricky.