Problems with CoP and how to fix them

[GoldMedalist]

It is possible for a layback that was intended to be a higher level to get downgraded to level 1 because of insufficient revolutions in each intended feature and also to get GOE as low as -3 because of insufficent revolutions in the whole spin, traveling and/or bobbles (either of those could range from -1 to -3), and weak position could lose -1 to -2 as well. Although the lowest GOE it can receive from any combination of those kinds of errors would be -3.

Yes but that's exactly what I mean. Mao's 3F + 1Lo was clean. Someone else could have done the exact same move with horrible landings on each jump and still received the exact same amount of credit.

If there truly must be a penalty for not doing at least a double and a triple in your combination (in addition to the amount lost from the downgrade, remember) then it should just be a .5 deduction and not factored into the GOE of the element at all.

 

[Mathman]

Yes but that's exactly what I mean. Mao's 3F + 1Lo was clean. Someone else could have done the exact same move with horrible landings on each jump and still received the exact same amount of credit.

I don't know. If there is going to be such a thing as a "required element," and you don't do it -- then you didn't do it. 0 points.

BTW, what is the requirement in Juniors for a combination in the SP?

 

[gkelly]

Yes but that's exactly what I mean. Mao's 3F + 1Lo was clean. Someone else could have done the exact same move with horrible landings on each jump and still received the exact same amount of credit.

And in the long program, she wouldn't have gotten negative GOE. That's one of the differences between the short and long program.

Is there a similar example in the short program with a non-jump element?

How about the combination spin (or change sit or change camel for the men)? The skater could be going along great on the first foot, great positions, centering, speed, few extra level features so the spin should get called as level 3 already even before the change of foot and is looking to earn +1 or possibly +2 GOE . . . and then the skater struggles with the change of foot and barely ekes out two or three weak revolutions on the second foot (six are required in the short) . . . All that good stuff on the first foot goes to waste, the GOE will be -3.

If s/he can't get onto the second foot at all to spin or falls before completing two revolutions or otherwise doesn't hold any position on the second foot for at least two revolutions, then the spin will get no level and no points, which is a lot more severe penalty than just -3 GOE.

 

[GoldMedalist]

I don't know. If there is going to be such a thing as a "required element," and you don't do it -- then you didn't do it. 0 points.

Required to *attempt*. Such as, you must have a Flying Spin in your Short Program. If you don't, one of your 3 spins doesn't count.

How about the combination spin (or change sit or change camel for the men)? The skater could be going along great on the first foot, great positions, centering, speed, few extra level features so the spin should get called as level 3 already even before the change of foot and is looking to earn +1 or possibly +2 GOE . . . and then the skater struggles with the change of foot and barely ekes out two or three weak revolutions on the second foot (six are required in the short) . . . All that good stuff on the first foot goes to waste, the GOE will be -3.

There's another thing which should be changed. Half point deduction, leave GOE out of it. Judges shouldn't be counting revolutions in a spin. The tech panel decides exactly what a spin/jump/footwork sequence should be called as and the judges should be determining only the quality of those elements.

 

[gkelly]

shouldn't be counting revolutions in a spin.

They always have, especially in the short program. Both to determine whether the spin meets the minimum requirements (and to give deductions in the SP if it didn't under the old system) and to determine the quality. Extra revolutions would be taken into account in the positive GOEs.

At least judges don't, and didn't, have to keep track of how many revolutions in each position or variation and on each edge. But how many in the spin as a whole, or on each foot? Always part of the judges' job. They're used to counting.

BTW, are you familiar with the old SP deductions? Most of the current SP GOE deductions are just translating the same rules to the new system.

http://ww2.isu.org/news/1086.pdf

 

[Kypma]

I don't know. If there is going to be such a thing as a "required element," and you don't do it -- then you didn't do it. 0 points

I believe this happened to Jessica Dubé (yes, the pair skater with Bryce Davison) at Nationals in 2006. They gave her no credit for her flying spin, because she had intended it as a flying camel but the biellman position made it a flying combination and she was given 0 points.

Kypma

 

[GoldMedalist]

BTW, are you familiar with the old SP deductions? Most of the current SP GOE deductions are just translating the same rules to the new system.

http://ww2.isu.org/news/1086.pdf

I'm familiar with those but I don't see the point. #1 - because 6.0 was deeply flawed and, #2 - the deduction for doing a Triple/Single (or double/double or single/single or whatever) instead of a Triple/Double in CoP is the loss of points in the combination itself. Just to put it into perspective, Mao's mistake of doing a Triple/Single with the current scoring system was such that someone who had done a 3Flip/2Loop but was marked a full point less on every single Program Component would have come out with the same point total as her. Or, they could have fallen on their Double Axel. Doesn't make sense, which is why I believe the rule needs to be changed.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

You have the short program because it's shorter. It creates different kinds of performances than the Long Program. *shrug*

That's a very sane opinion but that was not what the SP was all about when it was originated.

Has the purpose of the SP been written in stone somewhere?

Joe

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

I'm familiar with those but I don't see the point. #1 - because 6.0 was deeply flawed and,

We just compared the two systems with the top 6 Ladies and found the results to be identical.

What do you see as 'flawed'?

Joe

 

[Mafke]

That's a very sane opinion but that was not what the SP was all about when it was originated.
Has the purpose of the SP been written in stone somewhere?

I don't think there is one single reason given. Practically, at the time it was make sure that there were never any more Trixie Schubas (though what little I've seen of Nepala, he was more unwatchable than Schuba).

I sometimes wonder how much longer downgrading (and eliminating) figures would have taken without Schuba. Had she not existed, then Janet Lynn still wouldn't have won olympics or worlds because the all-round best skater of the time was easily Karen Magnussen, not that far behind Schuba in figures and close to Lynn in free skating. And she had a better mental game than Lynn too. Had Lynn gotten silver (or bronze) behind Magnussen, it just wouldn't have been that big a deal. I actually wonder if the SP wasn't introduced more for her than Lynn, she certainly took much better advantage of it.

I think (taking into acount that IINM I think mini-medals were introduced at around the same time), another possible purpose was to ultimately split singles skating into three separate compeitions (figures, free skating and combined) which unfortunately never happened.

For a time (at least through 1988) the SP was a chance to compare and contrast free-skaters in a list of closely matched elements (while the LP was much more holistic with fewer required elements that could be filled in more different ways). For example in 1988 ladies had to do a double flip and the combination had to include a double loop. As the double flip wasn't so difficult, you had skaters doing interesting things with arm positions which has been lost now.
Since figures were scrapped, the number of requirements in the LP seems to have grown with less and less freedom about how to fulfill them while the required elements in the SP are much looser.

I'd like to see the requirements of the SP tightened up and made more uniform (bring back the camel spins! prescribe which jump has to be done out of footwork!) and more freedom given back to the LP (first thing is I'd eliminate the number of jumping passes possible, though say the number of jumping passes with jumps of three or more rotations is limited.

 

[Mathman]

(while the LP was much more holistic with fewer required elements that could be filled in more different ways).

This is what the CoP has finally killed altogether, IMHO. There is no such thing as "holistic" when the winner is determined by who accumulates the highest point total. There cannot be any variation in elements because every skater will automatically fill his program with as many of the biggest point-getters as possible.

All coaches and skaters can read that a flip is worth 5.5 and a loop 5.0. Therefore, do two flips and no loop. The Gold Medalist proposal says, change this and give loops a higher value than flips. OK, then everyone will scrutinize the rules to see how best to get in their loops.

...(first thing is I'd eliminate the number of jumping passes possible, though say the number of jumping passes with jumps of three or more rotations is limited.

There is a video around of Shizuka Arakawa doing 14 double loops in a row (21 points) in an exhibition. Kurt Browning did six double Axels in his "It's Easy" program (also 21 points).

BTW, here's what Kurt has to say on the subject:

It's kind of hard to be creative within the Code of Points.... The hard part is to have the footwork not look like everyone else's, when everyone's being asked to do the same thing in the footwork. And that's a little frustrating. I'm not saying the footwork looks bad the way they're asking for it, I'm just saying that they all kind of look the same."

(Asked how his own eligible programs would have done in the code of points, Browning responded immediately,) "They would have been crap!"

The programs that he and other skaters of his generation competed with can not possibly be compared on the same scale, he emphasizes, because they were created for an entirely different set of criteria. "They weren't designed for any of the points. We would have been level one all over the place. You know, I didn't grab a blade, I didn't change to the inside edge 'cause heaven knows, when you did that, that looked bad. So what they're asking them to do, we tried not to do in certain situations. So you can't. You can't compare the Olympic champion now to what Brian Boitano did [using] the code of points. You know, these people [Boitano, etc.] are not trying to get points on the system, so you just can't (compare them.)"

Interview with Tina Tyan on Skate Today, Jan., 2007

http://www.skatetoday.com/articles07/010607.htm

 

[Mafke]

All coaches and skaters can read that a flip is worth 5.5 and a loop 5.0. Therefore, do two flips and no loop. The Gold Metalist proposal says, change this and give loops a higher value than flips. OK, then everyone will scrutinize the rules to see how best to get in their loops.

The weird thing is, that although the CW says the degree of difficulty is (ascending) loop, flip, lutz, I get the impression that more (ladies) fall on flips and loops. Can anyone check that? I've heard some announcers say that the flip is the more difficult in competition since timing is more of an issue than with the others and that in the stress of competition the timing is more likely to falter.

I'd set the loop, flip and lutz at the same number of points (a little more than the toeloop and salchow which most skaters really do seem to find easier, Kristi Yamaguchi notwithstanding).

The big problem with COP is just that it's become too finely grained too soon, so that instead of doing what they do well, skaters are doing what they can get points for.
There was no reason whatsoever to create so many levels of spins so quickly (except to increase the number of skaters doing slow, fugly and badly centered spins). I wish there had been (maybe) two levels at the beginning and that the judges hammered poorly executed higher level spins (ie most of them) so that well executed lower level spins would get more points.
If it's a question of hard and done (barely) well enough to get points vs done excellently, I'll go for excellence of execution every time.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Mafke - Back to the importance of the SP.

I do believe there was an official reason for establishing it for eliminating the school figures partially and then totally, but I do not know of any official reason for maintaining it other than to give the technical portion of the score some sort of credence as being egual to the presentation. Kwan woud do the required elements as would other skaters but she would win the SP on her presentation anyway. That's fact! so there was no difference between judging the technical as something special.

So I agree with you, Mafke, that there really is no need for the SP any longer particularly with using the CoP which does all the nitty gritty work in the LP and has titlted the scores in favor of the Technical anyway which was the secondary purpose of the SP.

However, I would like to see something official from the ISU on the current purpose of the SP.

Joe

 

[Mathman]

The weird thing is, that although the CW says the degree of difficulty is (ascending) loop, flip, lutz, I get the impression that more (ladies) fall on flips and loops. Can anyone check that?

I just went quickly through the protocols for the 2007 Worlds ladies LP. Here is the success rate for the three jumps.

Lutz: 25 for 39 = 64%
Flip: 15 for 31 = 48%
Loop: 12 for 18 = 66%

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

I just went quickly through the protocols for the 2007 Worlds ladies LP. Here is the success rate for the three jumps.

Lutz: 25 for 39 = 64%
Flip: 15 for 31 = 48%
Loop: 12 for 18 = 66%

Like I said, the Loop is a tough jump and even tougher when done solo.

 

[GoldMedalist]

We just compared the two systems with the top 6 Ladies and found the results to be identical.

What do you see as 'flawed'?

We didn't really compare the two systems, we just compared their placements. Who knows how everyone would have actually been ranked in 6.0 (for the top 5 ladies in this case it probably would have worked out the same but that's just one case). In 6.0 you deduct for things skaters do wrong...but deduct from what? Judges could give skaters any kind of base mark they desired. I like how CoP puts every competition on the same level (even though, yes, the scores will vary a bit because of different judges from competition to competition) and lets skaters actively compete against themselves.

In terms of the actual skating there are things which still need tweaking. In addition to allowing skaters to swap one of their elements in the LP, I also suggest making it a requirement that at least 1 of the spins or footwork/spiral sequences a skater performs be LEVEL 1. It's truly not necessary for everything to include lots of variations.

 

[Mathman]

Like I said, the Loop is a tough jump and even tougher when done solo.

But according to these results, the flip is even harder. Less than half of the flips were landed successfully, compared to two-thirds of the loops.

 

[GoldMedalist]

I just went quickly through the protocols for the 2007 Worlds ladies LP. Here is the success rate for the three jumps.

Lutz: 25 for 39 = 64%
Flip: 15 for 31 = 48%
Loop: 12 for 18 = 66%

How did you define if a jump was successful or not (it also looks like I saw 2 more Lutz and Flip attempts)? My numbers differ greatly for the Lutz and Flip:

Lutz: 21 for 41 = 51.2%
Flip: 19 for 33 = 57.6%
Loop: 12 for 18 = 66.7%

FYI, I did not count Mao's Lutzes as "successful". Too much flutzing without quality landings to make up for it (like the the Lutz she did in the SP).

 

[Mathman]

Unsuccessful meant downgraded, fall, or -2 or worse GOE. I assumed all doubles were intended triples (not sure about Katz' 2F+2T). Also, in a combo like 3F+1T or 3F+3T< I counted that as a failed flip. When I could tell just from the protocols, I also counted a solo 3F than was intended to be a combo as unsuccessful.

I did this pretty hurriedly -- might have made some mistakes.

Anyway, Mafke made an interesting observation. Many skaters find the flip to be easier than the loop because of the toe assist. But the other side of the coin is that the flip requires perfect timing and co-ordination between the pick, the jump, and the upper body.

Mafke's point was that under pressure of competition, if skaters succum to nerves, that hair-trigger timning is the first to go, whereas you still might be able to muscle up an edge jump even if you are nervous.

I suppose it affects different skaters different ways.

 

[GoldMedalist]

But according to these results, the flip is even harder. Less than half of the flips were landed successfully, compared to two-thirds of the loops.

Then again, 10 ladies did not even schedule a 3Loop in their program (as compared to only 3 ladies not even trying the Flip). You've got to wonder how many of those 10 ladies would have failed if they attempted the Loop. If you assume that all 10 would have failed and all 3 of the ladies who didn't do the Flip would have failed on that jump, the success rate for the Flip is higher.