Ladies Jumping Passes - GOE

[synteis]

Yes, perhaps difficult variations should affect base value and GOE should be reserved for how well performed the jump was in all those aspects and height, distance, flow, speed. The only problem I can think of is that it could get quite complicated to score each jump because how would the BV be determined? Are all "difficult" entries/exits/variations created equal (add the same amount to the BV) or are some more difficult than others? Would it be similar to the bonus we have now with jumps in the second half of the program being worth more? Would skaters have to submit the features they plan to do in a planned content or something like that?

Yeah the actual details probably would be complicated.

My personal vote would be for each entry, exit and arm variation (and maybe delayed rotation?) have a specific bonus in a table basically (ideally scaled to the number of rotations in the jump). I'm sure that determining the exact points would be a lot of work for the ISU (as I imagine was determining the score associated with each jump) but once it was done, it would be done minus tweaks in scoring. Debates about how difficult a tano is would be about the number of points they added, not about whether the judges had counted them or not when awarding GOE which IMO is preferable since it could lead to tweaking to those scores as opposed to now when all there is is whole scale change every quad and memos

You could certainly have them submit it in advance but they could also just look and see whether any of those elements were present. Do they submit their planned steps or spins for each sequence in advance re determining the level (I looked on google but didn't find any easy answers)? Which ever way they do it, I'd vote for being the same thing for this.

 

[Makkachin]

Yeah the actual details probably would be complicated.

My personal vote would be for each entry, exit and arm variation (and maybe delayed rotation?) have a specific bonus in a table basically (ideally scaled to the number of rotations in the jump). I'm sure that determining the exact points would be a lot of work for the ISU (as I imagine was determining the score associated with each jump) but once it was done, it would be done minus tweaks in scoring. Debates about how difficult a tano is would be about the number of points they added, not about whether the judges had counted them or not when awarding GOE which IMO is preferable since it could lead to tweaking to those scores as opposed to now when all there is is whole scale change every quad and memos

You could certainly have them submit it in advance but they could also just look and see whether any of those elements were present. Do they submit their planned steps or spins for each sequence in advance re determining the level (I looked on google but didn't find any easy answers)? Which ever way they do it, I'd vote for being the same thing for this.

I'm not sure either, the last time I saw a planned program content sheet was in 2007 and I don't even remember what it specifically asked for

But more to the point, this would probably be the most exact science way to do it. It's definitely an interesting, probably worthwhile proposal. Half of the GOE features really do seem to have more to do with the difficulty of the jump itself than with how well it was executed.

 

[Sam-Skwantch]

Sorry if I'm not understanding correctly...as the rules are right now, they do get credit for doing any arm position that is different from "normal," even if all the jumps in a program have the same arm position, at least I thought so?

Where is this stated? I thought if anything the criteria for awarding GOE was a suggestion/recommendation and not anything set in stone as you seem to imply.

To establish the starting GOE Judges must take into consideration the bullets for each element. It is at the discretion of each Judge to decide on the number of bullets for any upgrade, but general recommendations are as follows:

http://www.isu.org/docman-documents...munications/14352-isu-communication-2089/file

Even the first part doesn’t suggest billets have to be awarded.

These guidelines are tools to be used together with the minus GOE charts. The final GOE of a performed element is based on the combination of both positive and negative aspects. It is important that the final GOE of an element reflects the positive aspects, as well as any possible reductions that may apply.
The final GOE of an element is calculated considering first the positive aspects of the element that result in a starting GOE for the evaluation. Following that a Judge reduces the GOE according to the guidelines of possible errors and the result is the final GOE of the element.

 

[Baron Vladimir]

Half of the GOE features really do seem to have more to do with the difficulty of the jump itself than with how well it was executed.

Difficulty of the jump is awarded by base value. With GOE judges award quality/execution of the jump. GOEs of the jump are defined by perceiving jump looking better (in terms of hight, distance, flow) and perceiving jump looking new/original (in terms of variation in air position of the jump or entries and exists as part of the jumps). Individual judges need to decide how to positively reward with GOE aestetic and variety/originality of the jump/required element. But skaters are left to fullfill positive GOEs criterias by different ways, and all of them are probaly difficult to achieve, looking from skaters point of view.

 

[labgoat]

(I know it's cool to hate on stalking jumps, but I loooooove a long lutz entrance on that outside edge.)

I too love a long lutz entrance. Some of my favorite lutzes have such entrances. I do expect a payoff from that long entrance - a fast, powerful jump with superior height, technique and/or musical interpretation where the jump serves as an exclamation point. Some of my faves:

1988 Brian Boitano FS (the tano lutz that started it all)
1988 Brian Orser FS ( exceptional spring and height and quickness) - Boyang Jin reminds me of Orser a bit.
1988 Midori Ito SP & FS (the gold standard, thrilling beyond compare)

1991 Tonya Harding SP (big, powerful lutz, very dramatic)
1992 Victor Petrenko FS (just massive jumps with the most gorgeous landing position)
1992 Paul Wylie FS (beautiful jump always placed in such a way as a musical exclamation point)
1992 Kristi Yamaguchi FS (gorgeous triple lutz-triple toe very musical)
1992 Nancy Kerrigan SP (big beautiful combination jump)
1994 Elvis Stojko FS (beautiful, dramatic lutz)

2010 Yuna Kim FS (big, beautiful jump with superior height)

 

[Makkachin]

Where is this stated? I thought if anything the criteria for awarding GOE was a suggestion/recommendation and not anything set in stone as you seem to imply.



http://www.isu.org/docman-documents...munications/14352-isu-communication-2089/file

Even the first part doesn’t suggest billets have to be awarded.

Frankly I didn't know that, I thought it was pretty mandatory that the bullets are counted. Since it isn't, I have no problem with leaving it up to the judges to decide what deserves a +3 or not.

Whether all the +3's that are being given out is deserved is another matter.. increasing the scale to +/-5 would encourage some development though.

 

[Sam-Skwantch]

Well unless all the judges think and operate like gkelly who offers critical and unbiased thinking I’m afraid to give them too much power. I’d rather let the skaters and their coaches determine the sport and let the chips fall as they may.

I’ve been critical of Medvedeva and Alina before but I’ve always enjoyed their efforts if not their programs and I’ve never seen Zhenya win undeserved in my opinion. We can talk about cheated jumps and all that but to me it’s clear who is the best skater.

Bottom line: The judges use the PCS as 6.0 in order to rank them. The TES puts them in the running but PCS and even GOE are well understood enough by the judges to place who they want at the top. What’s missing is the thought process behind those points being made public. We’re left to speculate but I caution against putting much stake into that rabbit hole. . Two completely different skaters with different strengths and weaknesses can achieve the exact same scores thru completely different ways with the rules we have. I don’t think we’re seeing the wrong people win though...even if it’s not my preferences.

 

[andromache]

I think this is the best exit I’ve seen out of a jump all season. Far more impressive than any Tano/Rippon although she does a nice Rippon coincidentally
https://youtu.be/mE9IXqb4wXs?t=1m55s

It's a gorgeous exit that doesn't sacrifice holding that edge on the exit and showing incredible extension and flow (my main complaint with most difficult exits is that they disrupt what could be beautiful landings - I want to ENJOY a landed jump before the skater rushes on to the next thing).

 

[Makkachin]

Well unless all the judges think and operate like gkelly who offers critical and unbiased thinking I’m afraid to give them too much power. I’d rather let the skaters and their coaches determine the sport and let the chips fall as they may.

I’ve been critical of Medvedeva and Alina before but I’ve always enjoyed their efforts if not their programs and I’ve never seen Zhenya win undeserved in my opinion. We can talk about cheated jumps and all that but to me it’s clear who is the best skater.

Bottom line: The judges use the PCS as 6.0 in order to rank them. The TES puts them in the running but PCS and even GOE are well understood enough by the judges to place who they want at the top. What’s missing is the thought process behind those points being made public. We’re left to speculate but I caution against putting much stake into that rabbit hole. . Two completely different skaters with different strengths and weaknesses can achieve the exact same scores thru completely different ways with the rules we have. I don’t think we’re seeing the wrong people win though...even if it’s not my preferences.

It's possible to split hairs over how GOE should be judged and a lot of other stuff but I'm inclined to agree with you. Certainly there is room within the system for judges to hold scores up or down (maybe there would be more so with +5 being an option), but at the end of the day if skaters are getting the points they deserve with the structure we have in place that's what matters.

 

[gkelly]

Skaters suppose to be judged comparing to ISU scale, not comparing to each other. You can see some examples of it - Sotskova jumps are hardly awarded with variety because all are tanos, so first or second jump can be awarded, but the rest will not, because arm variation in that individual programme is not existing after the third tano jump anymore.

Perhaps rules could be written to require that to be the case. Currently, it's up to the individual judges.

I'm not sure either, the last time I saw a planned program content sheet was in 2007 and I don't even remember what it specifically asked for

It just asks which elements they intend to do when. E.g.,

http://www.usfsa.org/content/programcontentform.pdf
http://www.skatecanadasaskatchewan.com/files/planned_program_sheet.pdf

The skater is free to write in what level they're hoping to earn on non-jump elements, but the tech panel will ignore that and call the features and levels based on what they see on the ice during the program (with replay afterward if they need to confirm revolutions, etc).

There really isn't space to detail which specific features they're attempting.

And of course skaters are not required to follow the plan. If a skater submits that she's doing a 3Lz first and then a FCSp, the tech panel will be on the lookout for those elements in that order. But if she does the flying camel as the first element, that's what the panel will call.

Half of the GOE features really do seem to have more to do with the difficulty of the jump itself than with how well it was executed.

True. But it might be tricky to write rules for how to codify various kinds of added difficulty and for tech panels to call them. The main problem is that various entries or exits or air positions might add a lot of extra difficulty or only a little. Some variations are pretty standard but there's always room for something completely new.

Mainly the tech panel decisions are supposed to be yes-or-no decisions, whereas judges are evaluating more continuous variables and are expected to disagree with each other to some extent. The averaging takes all the different judgments into account.

Bottom line: The judges use the PCS as 6.0 in order to rank them. The TES puts them in the running but PCS and even GOE are well understood enough by the judges to place who they want at the top.

Do you mean figuring out which few skaters they want to finish among the top placements, based on demonstrating higher overall skill than the rest of the field? (I.e., which skaters deserve PCS in the 8 or 9 range as distinguished from those who only deserve 5s or 6s or 7s)

Or distinguishing among skaters in the same general range to try to push the ones they like better (or are politically motivated to hold up) to higher totals than their direct rivals?

There are too many separate scores for each skater from each judge -- most of them factored -- for judges to keep track of who among close rivals their own scores are putting on top. Especially since the judges don't know what levels are called by the tech panel and would have to memorize the Scale of Values to estimate the likely differences in base values among skaters with roughly similar tech content.

I doubt many judges are spending more energy on mental math than on just scoring each element and component as they see it.

What’s missing is the thought process behind those points being made public.

That is very true. We can see more from the IJS scores than we could from two scores per skater under 6.0, but there's still a lot of mental balancing of different criteria into each score that doesn't get captured in the protocols.

Two completely different skaters with different strengths and weaknesses can achieve the exact same scores thru completely different ways with the rules we have.

And I think that's a good thing. There are lots of different ways to be a great skater . . . or a good skater or an average skater. Although judges surely have personal preferences just as fans do as to what kinds of skating they like best, I don't think we want judges always to be focusing only on their favorite strengths and pet peeves. Or the rules to be set up

If sometimes the rules seem unbalanced to be favoring some skills disproportionately, that's the fault of the Scale of Values and the well-balanced program rules, the rules for level features, etc., more than of the individual officials. Rules can be tweaked to try to restore balance, but sometimes it takes a couple of years to recognize the problem, come up with a solution, and get it voted through. (And then there may be unintended consequences that swing things too far in the other direction.)

 

[Procrastinator]

Or distinguishing among skaters in the same general range to try to push the ones they like better (or are politically motivated to hold up) to higher totals than their direct rivals?

There are too many separate scores for each skater from each judge -- most of them factored -- for judges to keep track of who among close rivals their own scores are putting on top. Especially since the judges don't know what levels are called by the tech panel and would have to memorize the Scale of Values to estimate the likely differences in base values among skaters with roughly similar tech content.

I doubt many judges are spending more energy on mental math than on just scoring each element and component as they see it.

I disagree with this. It's not hard to know the general base values for the top skaters. Heck, I know them. Osmond and Medvedeva are around 62 in the FS, Zagitova around 66.

It's also easy to memorize that the easier jumps and the spins gradate by intervals of .5 as GOE goes up, up to 1.5, while the bigger jumps and the footwork gradates by .7, up to 2.1.

As for component scores, I think they're heavily susceptible to "block voting" like under 6.0, and there's a trend of giving your favorite all 9.75s in order to skew the average.

Here are Sotnikova's Components for interpretation in the Sochi FS:
9.75 9.75 9.00 9.25 9.75 9.25 9.75 8.75 9.25

Note that there's a normal range (8.75-9.25) among five judges, and unanimity among the four outliers (9.75 x 4)

Same for skating skills:
9.50 9.50 9.25 8.75 9.50 9.00 9.50 8.75 8.50

Now that judging isn't anonymous, this bloc voting is even clearer. Look at the protocols from Rostelecom and cross-reference them with the members of the judging panel.

That's why the composition of the panels in Korea will tell us more about who will win than anything actually happening on the ice.

----

Disclaimer: I'm not trying to revive the Sochi 2014 controversy! I actually thought Adelina should have won, though with components ranging from 8.75-9.25, and the bloc voting delegitimized her win.

 

[geige]

Mai Mihara’s Salchow in her current FS deserves +3. Really difficult entry with Rippon variation, and landed with such good flow which is characteristic of Mai.

 

[Sam-Skwantch]

Mai Mihara’s Salchow in her current FS deserves +3. Really difficult entry with Rippon variation, and landed with such good flow which is characteristic of Mai.

I don’t disagree! Loops and especially great salchows don’t get enough love.

What bugs me is the underscoring of 3z-2lo!! I think it’s way undervalued and wish it was scored more competitively with with 3t’s tacked onto jumps. Some 3z-2lo look as good as 3z-3t but good luck finding a protocol to support it!

 

[charlotte14]

What bugs me is the underscoring of 3z-2lo!! I think it’s way undervalued and wish it was scored more competitively with with 3t’s tacked onto jumps. Some 3z-2lo look as good as 3z-3t but good luck finding a protocol to support it!

Yeah some 3lz2lo (or 3F2lo) looks really good. Not 3lz3lo though. Not many 3-3lo look great.

 

[Sam-Skwantch]

Yeah some 3lz2lo (or 3F2lo) looks really good. Not 3lz3lo though. Not many 3-3lo look great.

Score one for the Juniors then. This one is money!!!

https://youtu.be/RzPudHrgCSE?t=1m40s

 

[FSGMT]

Gabrielle 3T-3T -> +3
Polina 3LZ-3T -> +3

Height - check
Distance - check
Flow - check

I also like Kaetlyn's. She's between 2 and 3.

That's exactly the kind of evaluation I was referring to (no offence, you simply offer me a great case to analyze ): Gabrielle's combo does not have much flow out of it (she often has close to no speed after the second jump) so I wouldn't give her that bullet point, just as I wouldn't give her credit for any of the other bullet points except for (maybe) a difficult entrance because of the Ina Bauer. And even with that she has merely reached +1 level (since height and distance count only as one) : where does the +3 come from? :gaah:

 

[Shayuki]

That's exactly the kind of evaluation I was referring to (no offence, you simply offer me a great case to analyze ): Gabrielle's combo does not have much flow out of it (she often has close to no speed after the second jump) so I wouldn't give her that bullet point, just as I wouldn't give her credit for any of the other bullet points except for (maybe) a difficult entrance because of the Ina Bauer. And even with that she has merely reached +1 level (since height and distance count only as one) : where does the +3 come from? :gaah:

Agreed. Height, distance and flow is enough for +1, +2 if it's exceptional.

Scoring empty jumps with good basics +3 is where the inflation comes from.

 

[charlotte14]

Score one for the Juniors then. This one is money!!!

https://youtu.be/RzPudHrgCSE?t=1m40s

yes but she's the rare one and who knows will she be able to do it at age 18?

 

[YesWay]

Sorry if I'm not understanding correctly...as the rules are right now, they do get credit for doing any arm position that is different from "normal," even if all the jumps in a program have the same arm position, at least I thought so?

Where is this stated? I thought if anything the criteria for awarding GOE was a suggestion/recommendation and not anything set in stone as you seem to imply.

http://www.isu.org/docman-documents...munications/14352-isu-communication-2089/file

Even the first part doesn’t suggest billets have to be awarded.

I have heard FS commentators on Japanese TV, on multiple occasions, saying that it's no longer enough, to simply "do" a Tano or Rippon.

It now has to "look good", or it won't help GoE.

They've often said that after seeing a skater do a bent-arm "helicopter" tano... or a jump that had "other stuff" wrong with it.

I haven't noticed anything in rules etc that state this... but when the commentators have included Nobunari Oda, and Yukiko Okabe (ISU judge and technical panellist)... I'm inclined to believe it.

 

[David21]

That's exactly the kind of evaluation I was referring to (no offence, you simply offer me a great case to analyze ): Gabrielle's combo does not have much flow out of it (she often has close to no speed after the second jump) so I wouldn't give her that bullet point, just as I wouldn't give her credit for any of the other bullet points except for (maybe) a difficult entrance because of the Ina Bauer. And even with that she has merely reached +1 level (since height and distance count only as one) : where does the +3 come from? :gaah:

Please don't tell me that you are talking about Gabreille's combos like this one in here https://youtu.be/2L7pkjl2u0U and tell me this doesn't deserve +3.