Reimagining PCS Categories

NaVi

Medalist
Joined
Oct 30, 2014
I've been haphazardly and half understandingly been doing some reading on the philosophy of art, aesthetics, media theory, emotions(neuroscience and philosophy), and affect theory... and after TSL linked some old US nationals performances from their twitter feed my mind think about how to rework the PCS categories for figure skating.

First of all, how exactly are PCS judged in the real world? I think there's many different judging heuristics(methods), but I doubt all categories are considered equally. I personally think that many judges look mostly at Skating Skills, Transitions, and then Performance/Composition/Interpretation as one. Any major performance mistakes would add a negative mask to those scores even if unrelated to the category. A positive mask would be added to amazing technical performances. And then the judges have to mind a corridor which forces the scores to be somewhat homogeneous. And the corridor is dictated not just on what other judges legitimately think but can also be biased by PR, reputation, previous performances, and the crowd. And with trying to juggle so many categories along with the corridor to mind, they may have a 1-10 scale of where to put them in comparison to other skaters that they my coalesce their scores around. Now I've seen my general sentiment here expressed elsewhere(FSU) and a judge objected, but to my mind PCS scores are not judged as advertised though I think the system mostly kind of works in it's own way.

The program components categories are not just a tool for judging, they're a pedagogical(teaching) tool. While I think reworking the PCS categories can improve judging, I'm more optimistic that a rework of the PCS would result in better programs. Coaches in cultivating their skaters think in these categories... choreographers mind them when constructing programs... and skaters somewhat internalize these categories.

Here is a table of the current PCS categories that I copied from here.

If you have trouble viewing the tables, try changing the zoom in your browser temporarily.

SKATING SKILLSTRANSITIONSPERFORMANCECOMPOSITIONINTERPRETATION
Defined by overall cleanness and
sureness, edge control and flow over
the ice surface demonstrated by a
command of the skating vocabulary
(edges, turns, steps, etc.), the clarity
of technique and the use of
effortless power to accelerate and
vary speed.
The varied and purposeful use of
intricate footwork, positions,
movements and holds that link all
elements.
Involvement of the
Skater/Pair/Couple physically,
emotionally and intellectually as
they deliver the intent of the music
and composition.
An intentionally developed and/or
original arrangement of all types of
movements according to the
principles of musical phrase, space,
pattern, and structure.
The personal, creative, and genuine
translation of the rhythm, character
and content of music to movement
on ice.
Use of deep edges, steps and turnsContinuity of movements from
one element to another
Physical, emotional, intellectual
involvement
Purpose
(Idea, concept, vision, mood)
Movement and steps in time to
the music (Timing)
Balance, rhythmic knee action and
precision of foot placement
Variety (including variety of holds
in Ice Dance)
ProjectionPattern/Ice coverageExpression of the music’s
character/feeling and rhythm,
when clearly identifiable
Flow and glideDifficultyCarriage & Clarity of movementMultidimensional use of space and
design of movements
Use of finesse to reflect the details
and nuances of the music
Varies use of power, speed and
acceleration
QualityVariety and contrast of
movements and energy
Phrase and form (movements &
parts of the program to match the
musical phrasing)
Relationship between the skaters
and reflecting the character and
rhythm of the music (Pairs, Ice
Dance)
Use of multi directional skatingIndividuality/PersonalityOriginality of the compositionSkating primarily to the rhythmic
beat for Rhythm Dance and
keeping a good balance between
skating to the beat and melody in
the Free Dance (Ice Dance)
Use of one foot skatingUnison and “oneness” (Pairs, Ice
Dance)
Spatial awareness between
partners (Pairs, Ice Dance)

Below is my reimagining of the PCS categories. I think it achieves 3 main things:

  • More discreet and differentiated categories for better judging
  • More memorable and mnemonic categories for the skaters internal dialogue
  • Encourages better program construction... less transitions for the sake of transitions

The main changes I made were to.

  • Split of Skating Skills into Skating Glide and Skating Skill. These should be measured separately since quite often there are skaters quite adept at precise difficult turns but don't have great glide and (less often) vice versa.
  • Dissolve the Transitions category into the Skating Skill and Composition categories. This is to prevent transition overloading just for the sake of transitions.
  • Rename and rearrange Performance and Interpretation to Affect and Aesthetic. Affect tries to judge the artistic aspect of emotional and conceptual transference while Aesthetic judges the more general and usually kinesthetic artistic aspect of the performance.
  • I reworded and edited a few things and wrote new descriptions when needed.

SKATING GLIDESKATING SKILLCOMPOSITIONAFFECTAESTHETIC
Defined by overall cleanness and sureness, edge control and flow over the ice surface.The varied and purposeful use of intricate footwork and movements.Arrangement of movements according to the principles of musical phrase, space, pattern, and structure.Transference of emotions and concepts from the skater to the audience through a physical interpretation of the music.Eyepleasing qualities intrinsic to the craft of figure skating itself that are general and not particular to the emotions and concepts expressed in the music.
Use of deep edgesUse of steps and turnsPattern/Ice coverageEmotional and intellectual involvementCarriage & Clarity of movement
Flow and glideBalance, rhythmic knee action and precision of foot placementContinuity of movements from one element to anotherProjectionMovement and steps in time to the music (Timing)
Varies use of power, speed and
acceleration
Use of multi directional skatingPhrase and form (movements & parts of the program to match the musical phrasing)Contrast of energyUnison and “oneness” (Pairs, Ice Dance)
Use of one foot skatingOriginality of the compositionIndividuality/PersonalitySpatial awareness between partners (Pairs, Ice Dance)
VarietyVariety of movementsExpression of the music’s character/feeling and rhythm, when clearly identifiable Skating primarily to the rhythmic beat for Rhythm Dance and keeping a good balance between skating to the beat and melody in the Free Dance (Ice Dance)
DifficultyMultidimensional design of movements and use of spaceRelationship between the skaters reflects the character and rhythm of the music (Pairs, Ice Dance)
QualityThere are a lot of other things that could be added to this category like Posture, Positioning, Presence, Poise, Costuming

I left out "Use of finesse to reflect the details and nuances of the music". I kind of felt this was simultaneously redundant while not fitting in well with my scheme. Could easily go in either Affect or Aesthetic but not really needed in either. If I had to choose, I'd put it in Affect but I prefer it out because it may cause confusion between the two categories.

"Skating Flow" could be used instead of "Skating Glide" but it really doesn't matter.

This is just a start and I'm sure other people would rework things differently. The main critique I see against this is that it over privileges skating over the artistic side and and this might not work as well for pairs and ice dance as for singles. My response is that it seems to me that often skating skills and transitions are already highly weighted but if there's a problem perhaps Composition could be given double weight or Composition/Affect be given a 50% boost or Composition/Affect/Aesthetic be given a 30% boost. Or someone else might come up with a better solution(maybe a new category)... or it may not be a real problem.

Here's an interesting recent thread I found in the middle of writing this that I also think could be an improvement. He/She wants to just use Skating Skills, Transitions, Performance: https://www.goldenskate.com/forum/showthread.php?78451-Modernization-of-PCS-score
 

ruga

Final Flight
Joined
Oct 20, 2017
I think it's important to have as few categories as possible. There are 5 now and judges basically score them the same way, because they don't have time to look at each component while scoring GOE at the same time. You rarely see, say, someone get 9.5 for transitions and 8.5 for performance. The difference between the best and worst component is usually no more that 0.5 points even if what has been shown was way different. Besides, transitions is almost always the lowest component and interpretation or performance the highest. There are quite a few skaters that have very good transitions and worse performing skills, but it's not reflected. Maybe judges treat PCS just as some 'artistry marks', because there is no way to describe such treatment of components.

I have two proposals. First is to separate GOE and PCS panels. Now GOE is scored during performance and parts of program are missed, so judges score not only according to actual skills, but take reputation and technical score into account.

Secondly, less components. Ideally there could be just two: skating skills+transitions and performance. One is more objective and technical while the other is more subjective. Having three (TR, SS and PE) is also a good idea: more importance for rather objective components. Subjective components like IN or PE just leave more room for manipulations.

NaVi, you did a great job redefining PCS, but even if it was implemented, judges would still treat them as one because there are still five of them. Also, getting rid of TR is not something I'd agree with. Skating Glide is bit like a second mark for Skating Skills. It could encourage skaters to remove transitions such as spirals or non-listed jumps from their programs.
 

enzet

On the Ice
Joined
Sep 13, 2006
I want a separate category for body lines, posture and carriage (one category including all of these to be precise), as I feel now they are lumped together with elements they have little to do with.
One can have beautiful lines and be a very poor performer with zero projection and vice versa and I’d like that to be properly reflected.
 

medoroa

On the Ice
Joined
Dec 30, 2017
I agree that there should be fewer categories. This is not a criticism of judges as such, since I don't think judges are any worse than the average person or the average fan, but it's not possible for a single human being to judge these multi-faceted and numerous points in under five minutes while also judging the quality of elements. The human brain is not wired for it. So basically I agree with ruga.

What should be judged:
Skating skills (this is a technical skill and should include transitions but not be limited to it; transitions are currently given too much weight in the judging of SS)
Performance (judging the commitment to a program and the ability to skate it coherently with no major interruptions or loss of focus or loss of body control)
Interpretation (which should judge what is now composition and interpretation as one; no one needs a separate category to judge what is largely a choreographer's job)

I also agree about separating the PCS and GOE judges, mostly because if judges can focus on GOE, they'll be able to check off the GOE bullet points and let the computer add them up rather than pick a number off a screen.
 

NaVi

Medalist
Joined
Oct 30, 2014
I want a separate category for body lines, posture and carriage (one category including all of these to be precise), as I feel now they are lumped together with elements they have little to do with.
One can have beautiful lines and be a very poor performer with zero projection and vice versa and I’d like that to be properly reflected.

That would pretty much be my Aesthetic category... though it'd be lumped in other things like timing, positioning(think spins), and maybe even costuming.
 

ruga

Final Flight
Joined
Oct 20, 2017
But can someone without right proportions have nice lines? I understand that everyone can try to keep their limbs straight and stretched, but wouldn't that disadvantage those who have shorter legs and arms?

And I agree with medoroa, composition is choreographer's job and basically something that one can buy. It is reflected in TR (all the moves between elements that choreographer decides to add), SS (multidirectional, one foot skating is also decided by choreographer) and IN. Also, I don't want clothes, hair and makeup to make any difference in scoring (unless something falls out of costume for example). It often depends on the financial situation of skater (and the creativity of designer). Once again, it's something that can be bought and is also subjective.
 

cohen-esque

Final Flight
Joined
Jan 27, 2014
I agree with Ruga that we should strive for as few categories as possible. Looking at your proposal, I wouldn’t split SS into two different components. The use of various turns and steps while accomplishing or in order to accomplish the things you’ve listed under Glide links this into one category for me. I would also merge your Affect and Aesthetic into one “Presentation” component.

I agree with how you’ve distributed the criteria amongst the categories, maybe with some minor rewording. “Variety of movements” is superfluous considering “multidimensional design of movements and use of space,” though.

So that would leave use with three components: Skating Skills, Composition, Presentation. I’m not personally worried about the amount of specific criteria under each heading; I think that the judges actually will do a better job of reflecting all the various different aspects and nuances when working under a “bigger picture” sort of system where there are fewer categories but with broader and more meaningful distinctions, as opposed to the current system where there are more categories with significant overlap.

This is just a start and I'm sure other people would rework things differently. The main critique I see against this is that it over privileges skating over the artistic side and and this might not work as well for pairs and ice dance as for singles.

My response is that it seems to me that often skating skills and transitions are already highly weighted but if there's a problem perhaps Composition could be given double weight or Composition/Affect be given a 50% boost or Composition/Affect/Aesthetic be given a 30% boost. Or someone else might come up with a better solution(maybe a new category)... or it may not be a real problem.

You could probably just get away with Ice Dance having its own components. It already has its own judges, even though they may also be certified in singles.

Once upon a time the PCS factoring weighted each component differently based on whether it was the Compulsory, Original, or Free Dance. You could do some thing like that in all of the disciplines. For instance, you could weight Skating Skills more heavily in the Short Program, and Composition/Presentation more heavily in the free.

And with trying to juggle so many categories along with the corridor to mind, they may have a 1-10 scale of where to put them in comparison to other skaters that they my coalesce their scores around. Now I've seen my general sentiment here expressed elsewhere(FSU) and a judge objected, but to my mind PCS scores are not judged as advertised though I think the system mostly kind of works in it's own way.

I’ve expressed this exact sentiment to a pretty experienced USFSA judge and she agreed with me. One point we both also agreed on, though, was that for a scale of 1-10 that has to encompass every possible level of skating, using 0.25 increments means the system has pretty coarse resolution. Therefore, small-looking differences in the components scores are probably more significant than they seem at first.

The current system allows 40 discrete levels of different ability across all skaters. Thinking in terms of current SS and TR, do you think that you could fit more than 40 skaters at all different levels between this performance, and something like this?
 

cohen-esque

Final Flight
Joined
Jan 27, 2014
And I agree with medoroa, composition is choreographer's job and basically something that one can buy. It is reflected in TR (all the moves between elements that choreographer decides to add), SS (multidirectional, one foot skating is also decided by choreographer) and IN. Also, I don't want clothes, hair and makeup to make any difference in scoring (unless something falls out of costume for example). It often depends on the financial situation of skater (and the creativity of designer). Once again, it's something that can be bought and is also subjective.
There’s no rule against self-choreographing, and it is done... and they could always just ban working with choreographers and force skaters to apply their own skills to this, though it could be difficult to enforce such a rule in practice.
 

dunnoww

On the Ice
Joined
Apr 5, 2016
I've always thought the fine line between interpretation and performance is almost nonexistent and in judging practice, they are basically two different categories for largely similar (or the same) qualities.
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Interesting topic. I may reply at greater length when I'm not on my phone.

One thing that 5 components allows for better than 3 is making fine distinctions between skaters who are generally in the same skill range but who have different strengths and weaknesses or one is a tiny bit better overall.

For making finer distinctions than 2.5 increments allow, if there were fewer components I'd recommend smaller increments. Go back to 0.1.

More separate scores allows for more specific feedback about what the performance's strong and weak points are. Too many scores is unwieldy and hard for judges to separate in real time. Five is probably fine for judges who aren't also judging GOEs.

If the panels were to be split, I'd recommend having skating experts judge skating skills and the technical aspects of transitions and program construction along with GOEs. Then have a separate artistic judge appointment that requires greater expertise in the arts from a practical or theoretical perspective along with at least a general understanding if skating.

Artistic judges could give general scores for interpretation and performance or the various artistic qualities could be broken down further.

Of course finding and training arts experts willing to volunteer many weeks a year to judging skating would be easier said than done.
 

enzet

On the Ice
Joined
Sep 13, 2006
But can someone without right proportions have nice lines? I understand that everyone can try to keep their limbs straight and stretched, but wouldn't that disadvantage those who have shorter legs and arms?

Yes, I think they can have good lines or at least clean lines.
If taken purely from the aesthetic point of view, I agree they would be disadvantaged, but that's happening already and has always been the case (not saying it's OK).

Body types like e.g. Midori's or Wakaba's have never seemed to be the preferred look on the ice, but I think Wakaba's lines and posture are actually quite good.
On the other hand, there are people like Yuna or Alina, who might be perceived as having the ideal bodies for skating, yet both have had defficiencies in this depertment, e.g. Yuna having a pretty terrible leg line, Alina skating bent forward etc. (of course they've had many qualities in this regard as well, e.g. Yuna had beautiful arms and upper body line, and Alina while not a ballerina is rather OK in general).

Perfect body proportions and great flexibility don't automatically guarantee good lines or elegance.
On the other hand a skater with less than "ideal" body type can still have clean lines and beautiful posture and that's what I feel should be encouraged in my ideal world.

That would pretty much be my Aesthetic category... though it'd be lumped in other things like timing, positioning(think spins), and maybe even costuming.

I like your categories and see what you mean by your Aesthetic category.
I'm just not sure if "Aesthetic" would be the right word (have no other suggestion at the moment though), and I wouldn't include rythm and timing here.

Personally, I'd divide the PCS categories like this:

- Skating skills (I like your division into glide and intricate movements, but would probably keep it as one category, not sure)
- Musicality, interpretation, rythm, timing, projection, performance etc.
- Body lines, posture, carriage, clarity of movements, positions etc.
- Total package/impression that might include how the program and choreography fits the particular skater, even the composition and layout perhaps (incl. backloading, frontoading...)?, costume etc.

I haven't thought about it too deeply and I'm lazy to come up with proper names for those categories, but generally these are the things I look for when when it comes to PCS.
 

dunffvanstorn

Final Flight
Joined
Mar 20, 2019
Yes, I think they can have good lines or at least clean lines.
If taken purely from the aesthetic point of view, I agree they would be disadvantaged, but that's happening already and has always been the case (not saying it's OK).

Body types like e.g. Midori's or Wakaba's have never seemed to be the preferred look on the ice, but I think Wakaba's lines and posture are actually quite good.
On the other hand, there are people like Yuna or Alina, who might be perceived as having the ideal bodies for skating, yet both have had defficiencies in this depertment, e.g. Yuna having a pretty terrible leg line, Alina skating bent forward etc. (of course they've had many qualities in this regard as well, e.g. Yuna had beautiful arms and upper body line, and Alina while not a ballerina is rather OK in general).

Perfect body proportions and great flexibility don't automatically guarantee good lines or elegance.
On the other hand a skater with less than "ideal" body type can still have clean lines and beautiful posture and that's what I feel should be encouraged in my ideal world.



I like your categories and see what you mean by your Aesthetic category.
I'm just not sure if "Aesthetic" would be the right word (have no other suggestion at the moment though), and I wouldn't include rythm and timing here.

Personally, I'd divide the PCS categories like this:

- Skating skills (I like your division into glide and intricate movements, but would probably keep it as one category, not sure)
- Musicality, interpretation, rythm, timing, projection, performance etc.
- Body lines, posture, carriage, clarity of movements, positions etc.
- Total package/impression that might include how the program and choreography fits the particular skater, even the composition and layout perhaps (incl. backloading, frontoading...)?, costume etc.

I haven't thought about it too deeply and I'm lazy to come up with proper names for those categories, but generally these are the things I look for when when it comes to PCS.

I didn’t use to bother about timing, but it has grown on me, and I see many skaters only doing, for example, jumping passes according to the music timing, and not paying attention to the timing of other elements. It would make wonders to the performance.
 

yelyoh

Medalist
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Separate panels for tech and pcs that way judges can really pay attention to pcs elements and tech elements.
 

Mathman

Record Breaker
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
One thing that 5 components allows for better than 3 is making fine distinctions between skaters who are generally in the same skill range but who have different strengths and weaknesses or one is a tiny bit better overall.

This is an intriguing argument, which I think heads us back in the direction of ordinal judging and away from the whole "points" idea.

Suppose there are three skaters who are about the same, say in the 8.5 range across the board. But in the judge's opinion, one is a tiny bit better and deserves the first place ordinal, another the second place ordinal, and then third place. So you give your first place skater 8.75, 8.50 and 8,50, your second place skater 8.5, 8.5 and 8.5, and your third place 8.5, 8.5 and 8.25. This amounts to a difference of 0.08 point for this one judge's score averaged over three components -- completely irrelevant in terms of deciding the winner (which, after all, is the sole purpose of judging).

In balance, I think I agree most with the posters who want to cut down the program categories. I think there should be two: (1) Fundamental Skating Skills (edging and gliding, speed and acceleration, plus mastery of the "full skaing vocabulary" (my favorite ISU phrase) -- i.e, steps and turns, etc.

And (2) Performance. I am not enthusiastic about having separate a catergories for how well you interpret the music, how well you execute the choreography that interprets the music, and how well you project your interpretation of the music and choreography to the audience.

(You could call these two the first program mark and the second program mark. :) )

By the way, in terms of GOE, I have also come to see the merit in the scoring model used in diving. For each element you multiply the difficulty score by the quality score (GOE). So if you do a triple Axel, base value 8.0, and the quality is 85% of perfection, then you get .85 x 8.0 = 6.8 points.
 
Last edited:

rlopen

On the Ice
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
This also brings something else up to argument about the way PCS is scored...and I used to blame the judges who I always thought were unfairly favoring others because they wouldn't do different PCS scores for different categories even though same skaters had gorgeous skating skills and transitions but were downright terrible performers and had almost no connection to the music. However, one time I did try to score skaters on my own and I realized that it's literally impossible to focus on PCS components when trying to focus on GOE...which is why there need to be two separate panels. Maybe an old talking point but really it is something important to bring up as I had to watch skates twice in order for me to judge PCS and TES accurately.
 

rain

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 29, 2003
In balance, I think I agree most with the posters who want to cut down the program categories. I think there should be two: (1) Fundamental Skating Skills (edging and gliding, speed and acceleration, plus mastery of the "full skaing vocabulary" (my favorite ISU phrase) -- i.e, steps and turns, etc.

And (2) Performance. I am not enthusiastic about having separate a catergories for how well you interpret the music, how well you execute the choreography that interprets the music, and how well you project your interpretation of the music and choreography to the audience.

(You could call these two the first program mark and the second program mark. :) )

I think this is maybe the best suggestion I've seen. It's simple and quite intuitive. It's not asking the judges to start splitting hairs when they have fractions of a second to do so. I think maybe you could properly judge the component categories as they are now if you had a separate panel just looking at that, but the ISU is not going to pay for an increase in judges, so I think the most reasonable suggestion is to cut the number of categories.

I also agree with medoroa on this
transitions are currently given too much weight in the judging of SS)
.

In fact, I actually think transitions are both being judged incorrectly (at least compared to the intention), and are given way too much weight by judges because they are more quantifiable than many of the other PCS categories for multi-tasking judges. First, I think the judges are just deciding OK, such and such a skater had some. Good, next. But it was never meant just to be a tabulation exercise. There was supposed to be some kind of judgement that these moves were difficult, added to the program's overall effect and choreography. The idea was to reward the kind of programs that a skater like, say, Jeffrey Buttle was doing against a program like Brian Joubert was doing. Joubert would get the technically superior marks for doing the quad, while Buttle would be rewarded in the PCS components for having superior and more difficult in-betweens. They were supposed to encourage skaters not to just go from jump to jump to spin to footwork sequence to jump to finish, in an age when skaters would take ages to set up difficult quads, triple axels, or for ladies, triple lutzes. It was supposed to make skating more watchable as an art form again.

But the way they are being judged now, as a numbers exercise, has had the opposite effect and has made ladies skating well-nigh unwatchable, IMO, but I'll use a different, less controversial discipline to illustrate my point: pairs. Does anyone actually enjoy all those stupid and unaesthetic leg kicks, weird dance-type lifts, the woman holding her leg up in an ugly position that has nothing to do with anything as the couple enters the lift/death spiral/throw jump? No, no, no. But they all have to do the obligatory throwaway transition for the points. That's not to say all transitions being done are ugly, but a lot of them I could certainly live without. Men's is a different animal because, largely, quads still trump all given the relative weight of the technical and PCS scores. And that's a whole other discussion, lol.
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Even if a judge explicitly tries to rank the skaters by adding up the PCS for each skater, those scores won't really drive the final results directly.

Judges are also awarding GOEs for each element. And they have no control of the base values and not even knowledge of what levels were officially called. A mathematically inclined judge might be able to come up with a good estimate of what the TES might be but they won't know exactly. So if the think skater A should be a point or two ahead of skater B on total PCS, that doesn't t mean they don't also think skater B should be ahead on TES. And if the tech content or quality is close the judge won't know who will have the higher total overall.

If the tech content is not at all close then the one with much higher TES will place higher overall. The judges can still try to reflect the appropriate differences in their individual and total PCS for each skater but the final results won't match the PCS rankings.
 

cohen-esque

Final Flight
Joined
Jan 27, 2014
By the way, in terms of GOE, I have also come to see the merit in the scoring model used in diving. For each element you multiply the difficulty score by the quality score (GOE). So if you do a triple Axel, base value 8.0, and the quality is 85% of perfection, then you get .85 x 8.0 = 6.8 points.

Your version of this idea is tailored for skating, but to be clear the implementation is quite different in diving: it's the three middle executions scores, summed, and multiplied in total by the base score. So that 6.8 points would actually become... 204 points, and we see the reason why there are no dives that even begin to approach an assigned 8.0 degree of difficulty.

I think that the diving method is similar to how compulsory figures were scored, except the judges marks were averaged.

I like the gymnastics approach of having a combined base score for the whole routine, which includes things like bonuses for combinations so that it's not simply a function of adding up all the individual elements, and then adding that to the execution score. But in gymnastics, the execution score includes both the quality of elements and also the presentation, whereas in skating those have always been separated into two scores.
 
Top