- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
The question remains, though -- suppose the ISU really does want to elevate the non-jump side and give the all-rounders a chance to out-GOAT the jump specialists. What rule changes would accomplish that?
Should quads per program be limited to balance artistry?
- Thread starter gsk8
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2019
No rule-change, just enforcing the existing rules. I repeat, with accurate scoring Ilia Malinin wouldn't have won this Final. At first sight, and given Daniel Grassl's and Yuma Kagiyama's uncalled errors, I would say, he would maybe have got Silver, depending on the number of underrotations. Because with all what you said about the merit of his jumps, which is true, in spite of the underrotation calls I suppose that he would still have had slightly positive Grades of Execution. (As to if this is fair or an excessive sanction, we may go back to the thread, do rotation matter, where we slightly entered in the ground of, are today's sanctions for lack of rotation excessive.) Whoever would have taken the third place, it would have made a beautiful podium with a variety of skates?
I think it's pretty obvious that judging is far more worth criticism than any formula of "balance". No one can be looking at the current step sequence rules, and be coming to the conclusion that it's not requiring high quality basic skating *on paper*.
If anything, I'd say the spin levels and step levels should *also* be simplified. Less time spent on those elements would again open up space elsewhere in the skating program, for performance, choreography, interpretation.
If anything, I'd say the spin levels and step levels should *also* be simplified. Less time spent on those elements would again open up space elsewhere in the skating program, for performance, choreography, interpretation.
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2019
I think that Spin level is something that wouldn't be too difficult to translate into automated scoring? I also think that Judges and Technical Panels have too much to do now, not to be liable to "discreet" suggestion, with narratives and the like.
Well, let's see.
We're mainly talking about the effect of quads in the senior men's event. The calculations would be different in other events where it's less likely for anyone to come close to maxing out on jump content.
Let's focus on the free skate, although if we assume everyone skates their best we can assume that a great jumper with the most difficult quads will also have an advantage in the short program, or at least not much of a disadvantage against a good jumper with great everything else.
Under this year's rules, we see the highest base value successfully achieved so far (pretty darn close to the max possible base value without adding quints) is 82.51 just for jump base value.
Maximum +5 GOE on all jump elements could add up to half that value again for the jumps.
The maximum base value achievable in TES for other five free skate elements would be 3.00 for the choreo sequence, 3.90 for level 4 step sequence, 3.50 + 3.50 for level 4 CCoSp and FCCoSp as the combo spin and flying spin respectively, and 3.20 for level 4 change-foot spin in one position (with or without flying entry), or a total of 17.1 in base value.
Let's take an extreme case scenario for the non-strong points of our respective jump expert and spin/sequence expert.
Suppose the jumper can only earn level 1 on his step sequence (1.80) and each of his spins, and he opts for the slightly easier spin layout of CCoSp1 (2.00), FCSp1 (1.90), and CSSp1 (1.90), or a total 3.80 for spin base value. Base value of the choreo sequence is 3.00 regardless. Let's assume with average of 0 GOE, so no extra points there.
Our jumper expert would therefore have 8.80 for non-jump elements, while perfect scores on jumps and steps could earn 17.1 base value plus up to 9.55 in GOE for straight +5s on every element, for a total of 26.65 for perfect spins and sequences.
There is no way to increase the contribution to TES from these elements beyond 26.65 by adding more difficulty or quality. The current rules do not offer any more points for these elements.
So the expert jumper with low-value, mediocre quality spins and sequences would be 26.65 - 8.80 = 17.85 points behind the perfect spin/steps skater on those elements.
How much of an advantage does he have on jumps?
Well, that depends what kind of jumps the other-elements expert is attempting.
Let's say one each of 4Lz, 4T, and 4S, with triples otherwise and similar layout to the jump expert. I.e., a very good jumper, but not outstanding. So much closer to the jump expert on difficulty than the jump expert came to him on non-jumps.
Changing the values of the quad expert's other quads to triples
4A 12.5 vs. 3A 8.0
4Lz 11.5 vs. 5.9
4F 11.00 vs. 3F 5.3
4Lo 10.5 vs. 3Lo 4.9
45.5 for those four quads alone vs. 21.11 for the comparable triples, or a difference of 24.4 base value. And if the GOEs are comparable, an additional loss of added value prorated to the loss of base value.
So 3 vs. 7 quads can mean a difference of 20-30 TES points on jumps, with an advantage of less than 20 points on non-jump elements ASSUMING the quadmaster is only doing easy spins and steps with just-adequate quality. That could be just a few points the just-very-good jumper is behind on TES, to be made up on PCS.
If the jumper is doing level 2 and 3 spins and sequences with decent quality, that lessens the other guy's advantage on non-jump elements and widens the jumper's advantage on total TES.
Can our just-good jumper catch the amazing jumper on PCS?
For an extreme case scenario, imagine the good jump with amazing everything else earns straight 10.0s on every component from every judge. That gives a total PCS of 100.00. Under the current rules, that's the maximum PCS for a men's free skate.
What kind of PCS is our amazing jumper likely to earn?
Well, if he has the speed and control to land all those quads with positive GOE, he does have solid Skating Skills. And a confident, flawlessly skated program is likely to earn high Presentation marks as well. Maybe the performance wasn't very musical and the program wasn't very complex. So maybe we're looking at a mixture of 8s and 7s for PCS, let's say a total of 80.0 PCS.
Can a 20-point difference in PCS close the gap?
Sure, if the non-jumper did have a few good quads and perfect everything else, and the quadmaster was just mediocre on other elements and Composition, just verging into "very good" on Skating Skills and that day's Performance.
But chances are the everything-elser was not perfect on everything else (i.e., more +3s and +4s than +5s, and PCS maybe all in the 9s but few if any 10s), and that the quadmaster's spin and step levels were better than level 1 and GOEs better than 0, and his choreography might have been pretty decent choreography after all.
So 7 quads will beat 3 quads almost every time.
If we have an amazing skater with amazing spins and steps and skating skills and choreography and performance quality, but no jumps harder than a 3A, he has no chance. Probably not even against 3 quads.
Mistakes on either side will of course change the calculations further.
So do we want to balance out the rewards for excellence in skating, excellence in steps and unlisted moves, excellence in spins, and/or excellence in composition and performance so that those who really are far above the rest of the field in any or all of those areas can be adequately rewarded the same way that a jumper far ahead of the rest of the field can currently rack up a huge advantage just from base values and +GOEs on his best elements?
Removing one jump pass will lessen the jumper's advantage in that area.
Should it be possible for really difficult spins or steps to earn base values commensurate at least with the easier triple jumps, with GOEs based on those higher base values?
Or should an expert spinner have the opportunity to replace a jump slot that would have gone to a double axel or low-value triple, or to a riskier harder jump with likely negative GOE, with a fourth spin to showcase their strengths instead? (This option would probably be more relevant in the women's discipline, but some men who aren't top medal contenders based on jumps but may be excellent spinners might still benefit from this kind of flexibility.)
If a strong performance from a strong-but-not-amazing skater with amazing jumps will probably not be deserve >10 let alone >20 points lower than the amazing everything-elser with good quality but just pretty-good difficulty on jumps, would we want to widen the obvious gap on PCS?
How?
Change how judges are trained to evaluate each component completely separate from the difficulty of the elements?
Change the range of scores used in elite competitions so that we see lower components across the board from everyone aside from those few exceptional skaters who are truly excellent in all criteria of a given component? (In which case, if we start seeing lots of 7s for skaters who are among the top 20 in the world, lots of 6s and not-infrequent 5s for other Grand-Prix worthy skaters, what would that do scoring for skaters at levels that fans rarely see but sometimes compete against these skaters at domestic and senior B events?)
Or change the factoring so that the difference between straight 9.5s vs. straight 9s, for example, is worth more than the value of one quad?
If you argue that an excellent jumper had above average or good everything else, then what's the problem with having him win?
A not-so-excellent spinner/step sequence doer/field move doer can still do all those things. A not-so-excellent jumper can often not do the elements that set multi-quadsters apart at all.
But you yourself say the components are affected by jumps. Flow indicates skating skill (even though that's not the only reason for flow). Jump landing position and speed in and out add to performance. Quality of jump and transition in and out can affect composition. Difficulty of jump, too, can make a program more exciting.
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2015
The more I think about all of this, the more I wish that there would be a technical program and a free program of about equal duration and perhaps even equal weight (haven't done the maths yet)
Technical program would require more jumps and specific elements in other skills (spins, steps with pattern required) It would focus on the difficulty of elements and their execution.
Free program would bring down the number of jumping passes... Maybe to 4-5
(limit of 100 points) (don't forget it would be shorter too) but leave PCS factoring to 100.(men) Jumps would still be rewarded for difficulty and quality of execution like other elements would be. However, there would be more freedom in spins and steps to achieve certain levels or even have some of these elements not-levelled. PCS would become important as the BV with less passes wouldn't be enough to surpass 100 points. I would be very strict with jump mistakes... or any mistakes in the Free Program only (keep it the same in the technical program). Fall on an element is 0 points. Rough landing would be automatic minus 5 GOE (step outs, hands down) ... any other problem with jumping would be minus 3 GOE. This would really advantage the greatest jumpers and would reward cleaner programs.
In this scenario, the sport aspect (jumps) of figure skating would be not only favoured in the Technical program but would still remain important in the FP. However, in the Free program, it would be an opportunity for skaters to showcase choreography and other skills than just jumps.
I'd be okay with this because it would require skaters to be masters of both the requirements of the technical program and the good skating of the free program (with big jumps still being part of it)
I think a guy like Malinin would still win. I am not interested about which skater would be favoured or not by this. I am interested in bringing back great skating while recognizing the talent and skills of jumpers. I am interested in having the different aspects of figure skating get a better impact on the scoring.
Of course, pure fantasy. And, still then, until judges get better at well... judging (by this I mean not giving huge composition marks to a skater who only jumps and does crossovers in the first 2 minutes of a program) it won't matter.
I can go even further, though this is tongue in cheek : have skaters do a preliminary round of performing one school figure It wouldn't be for points but it would place them in their starting order 
It may perhaps encourage skaters to practice more things and ipso facto be better skaters.
Technical program would require more jumps and specific elements in other skills (spins, steps with pattern required) It would focus on the difficulty of elements and their execution.
Free program would bring down the number of jumping passes... Maybe to 4-5
(limit of 100 points) (don't forget it would be shorter too) but leave PCS factoring to 100.(men) Jumps would still be rewarded for difficulty and quality of execution like other elements would be. However, there would be more freedom in spins and steps to achieve certain levels or even have some of these elements not-levelled. PCS would become important as the BV with less passes wouldn't be enough to surpass 100 points. I would be very strict with jump mistakes... or any mistakes in the Free Program only (keep it the same in the technical program). Fall on an element is 0 points. Rough landing would be automatic minus 5 GOE (step outs, hands down) ... any other problem with jumping would be minus 3 GOE. This would really advantage the greatest jumpers and would reward cleaner programs.In this scenario, the sport aspect (jumps) of figure skating would be not only favoured in the Technical program but would still remain important in the FP. However, in the Free program, it would be an opportunity for skaters to showcase choreography and other skills than just jumps.
I'd be okay with this because it would require skaters to be masters of both the requirements of the technical program and the good skating of the free program (with big jumps still being part of it)
I think a guy like Malinin would still win. I am not interested about which skater would be favoured or not by this. I am interested in bringing back great skating while recognizing the talent and skills of jumpers. I am interested in having the different aspects of figure skating get a better impact on the scoring.
Of course, pure fantasy. And, still then, until judges get better at well... judging
(by this I mean not giving huge composition marks to a skater who only jumps and does crossovers in the first 2 minutes of a program) it won't matter.I can go even further, though this is tongue in cheek : have skaters do a preliminary round of performing one school figure
It wouldn't be for points but it would place them in their starting order It may perhaps encourage skaters to practice more things and ipso facto be better skaters.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2019
But the same problem would remain if this Technical Program is judged inaccurately as Short and Free Programs are scored today?The more I think about all of this, the more I wish that there would be a technical program and a free program of about equal duration and perhaps even equal weight (haven't done the maths yet)
Technical program would require more jumps and specific elements in other kills (spins, steps with pattern required) It would focus on the difficulty of elements and their execution.
Free program would bring down the number of jumping passes... Maybe to 4-5
In this scenario, the sport aspect (jumps) of figure skating would be not only favoured in the Short program but would still remain important in the FP. However, in the Free program, it would be an opportunity for skaters to showcase choreography and other skills than just jumps.
I'd be okay with this because it would require skaters to be masters of both the requirements of the short program and the good skating of the free program (with big jumps still being part of it)
I still think a guy like Malinin would still win. I am not interested about which skater would be favoured or not by this. I am interested in bringing back great skating while recognizing the talent and skills of jumpers. I am interested in having the different aspects of figure skating get a better impact on the scoring.
Of course, pure fantasy. And, still then, until judges get better at well... judging
I can go even further, though this is tongue in cheek : have skaters do a preliminary round of performing one school figure
Why seeking changes in rules when, as far as we can see, the only change needed would be to enforce the rules as they are? If it's impossible to have accurate judgment, then no change of rules will improve the result. If it's possible to have accurate judgment, let's do it! Pray!
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2015
I think some of the changes I would like to see may actually allow the judges to see things differently as the focus of each program would be more definitive.
Right now, both programs are a short and a long version of the same... with some of the exact same requirements like you must perform three spins... you must perform this or that.
In my version (btw I edited out short program which was an oversight from my part and replaced it with technical program) the skaters would really need to bring it on for the technical program which would have more jumping than the current short... and bring on performance, choreography and execution of their chosen jumps but a bit fewer of them, in the FP.
So, the judges would be able to focus on the aspect of what is a programme in the Free program and focus on the technical merit in the Technical program
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2009
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2019
I am! I hate unfair judging! Lately I have learned to "relativise" with how the Chopin Piano Competition was judged (which was, sort of, as if the few skaters who had skated the best programs had been left out of the Free Skating at the Olympic Games, perhaps out of the Games themselves; while those on the podium had had skates that ought to have barred them from the Free; which I have never seen in Figure Skating). Still, it rots the Sport. Can you imagine being a skater and fighting all your might and managing the best skates at a competition, only to be replaced on the podium at every competition by skaters who have skated less well, according to the rules?
Yes I'm bitter. Please, tell me, what are you if this situation doesn't bother you?
And of course, egoistically, I can see way less good skates because it's completely demotivating.
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2019
You mean, and supposing that having too much to do is the only reason why scores are inaccurate and they will produce all of a sudden unbiased accurate scoring if they have less to judge in each skate, that one program would be to show technically better elements, and in the other program they could botch them as they want and "play artistic"?
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2015
Well I don't want to derail the thread too much (not like it hasn't gone in all directions already) but as a pianist, I must disagree with your assessment of the Chopin Piano Competition. I didn't agree with the choice of the winner either, but he is certainly deserving. There were about 12-15 pianists who could have won it. The level was extremely high and tight. It could have gone one way or the other. Also, there were a couple pianists who were lauded by fans who were completely not on my list for top three even top 5. (I wasn't fond at all of the Georgian pianist in this repertoire. He is a fabulous pianist but not for Chopin) I saw the scoring from every judge. It's very close and relatively straightforward. It's not like some judge lowballed anyone to make someone else win
And judges linked to a pianist didn't cast a vote. Maybe it's time for judges from a country not to vote for their skaters in figure skating To me, it doesn't make sense to compare it to figure skating where one guy is completely ahead of the others technically and his wins are easily justified on the ice. You could ask many once-every-four year fans to pick the winner and most would have picked Malinin for the LP. But ask the once-every-five year fans (Chopin competition is once every 5 five years) to pick the winner and they wouldn't have easy arguments to justify anything but their own taste. Yet, there are objective things one can measure when equipped to do so.
This was GPF and the field wasn't tight. There were mistakes across both programs and we are talking about what is supposed to be the elite of the GP season. Put the top 6 pianists in one competition and it will be extremely tight... and that's what happened at the Chopin competition. The level of refinement in listening skills to properly assess pianists of that level is far beyond what the general public can achieve, really. Even my own students who are high level young elite pianists were having a hard time picking a winner. Also, being in a hall is a bit like being at the rink but times 25. Streaming Chopin competition compared to being there, wow... I need to stop here because there is a huge difference in perception and I gave myself a personal limit on how long this off-topic post would be.
Also to note, I will not reply to this topic further because it's the extent I am willing to discuss it. I come here to get away from the intensity of my work... so I don't want to bring my work in here
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2015
Nope. I mean that being in the right frame to judge something that is properly defined is easier for any human.
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2019
I completely agree with you about David Khrikuli, I haven't tried to hear him playing Beethoven or Rachmaninoff but I had this feeling that his problem was specifically with Chopin and he was probably great elsewhere. I don't opine about his presence in the third stage. If you heard Eric Lu just at the Final, then you may have found him quite good; yet in the first two stages, do you really think that he was one of those meant for the third? The candidates are supposed to be consistently good all along, not propelled to the Final and impress...Well I don't want to derail the thread too much (not like it hasn't gone in all directions already) but as a pianist, I must disagree with your assessment of the Chopin Piano Competition. I didn't agree with the choice of the winner either, but he is certainly deserving. There were about 12-15 pianists who could have won it. The level was extremely high and tight. It could have gone one way or the other. Also, there were a couple pianists who were lauded by fans who were completely not on my list for top three even top 5. (I wasn't fond at all of the Georgian pianist in this repertoire. He is a fabulous pianist but not for Chopin) I saw the scoring from every judge. It's very close and relatively straightforward. It's not like some judge lowballed anyone to make someone else win
To me, it doesn't make sense to compare it to figure skating where one guy is completely ahead of the others technically and his wins are easily justified on the ice. You could ask many once-every-four year fans to pick the winner and most would have picked Malinin for the LP. But ask the once-every-five year fans (Chopin competition is once every 5 five years) to pick the winner and they wouldn't have easy arguments to justify anything but their own taste. Yet, there are objective things one can measure when equipped to do so.
This was GPF and the field wasn't tight. There were mistakes across both programs and we are talking about what is supposed to be the elite of the GP season. Put the top 6 pianists in one competition and it will be extremely tight... and that's what happened at the Chopin competition. The level of refinement in listening skills to properly assess pianists of that level is far beyond what the general public can achieve, really. Even my own students who are high level young elite pianists were having a hard time picking a winner. Also, being in a hall is a bit like being at the rink but times 25. Streaming Chopin competition compared to being there, wow... I need to stop here because there is a huge difference in perception and I gave myself a personal limit on how long this off-topic post would be.
Also to note, I will not reply to this topic further because it's the extent I am willing to discuss it. I come here to get away from the intensity of my work... so I don't want to bring my work in here
The thing is, I compared the competition with Olympics but it's different because the Chopin Competition is much about affinity with Chopin and it's not a given. (In Figure Skating I've seen only two skaters able to skate creditably to Chopin's music, one of them needing an even play, without tempo rubato; in my opinion choosing Chopin for her Short Program was the cause of Mao Asada's poor result at Sochi Olympics, she has exceptional Skating Skills but showed no affinity to Chopin.) On can be one of the great pianists of one's time but not with Chopin. You're right it's off-topic.
Have you tried to score the skates after the rules? Do you still have him ahead of the others? I don't.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
When thus idea was floated a couple of years ago by the ISU, I, too, found the idea intriguing. Nothing came of it, and the suggestion seems to have been abandoned.
To be honest, I eventually came down on the negative side. For one thing, that is going backward in terms of the ideal of combining all skills together in a grand and glorious whole package.
The second objection is that if there were a "technical program" and an "artistic program" in the men's discipline, with separate "small medals." they would quickly become known as the Macho Prize and the Wimp Prize. or the "objective, measurable prize" and the "phony-baloney judges' pet / federation politics prize.."
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2019
I'm sure this is what you mean, but what I answered you is in my opinion, the practical result we would have. And after all, we have a Technical Panel to determine part of these technical aspects, and we may have more rather easily with automated scoring help, provided that the judges don't have these data under the eyes before giving their scores, or they would be influenced and we would have skates judged only on the automated data available (and some other suggesting/PR certainly) instead of scoring the criteria left to them based on what they see. It's just human.
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2019
I hadn't imagined that one, yet I'm afraid you're probably right. I don't think that we need more gender/orientation stereotypes in Figure Skating.When thus idea was floated a couple of years ago by the ISU, I, too, found the idea intriguing. Nothing came of it, and the suggestion seems to have been abandoned.
To be honest, I eventually came down on the negative side. For one thing, that is going backward in terms of the ideal of combining all skills together in a grand and glorious whole package.
The second objection is that if there were a "technical program" and an "artistic program" in the men's discipline, with separate "small medals." they would quickly become known as the Macho Prize and the Wimp Prize. or the "objective, measurable prize" and the "phony-baloney judges' pet / federation politics prize.."
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
Thank you so much for shedding some light on the topic and scaling back the heat.The trouble with a statistical /mathematical approach is that if we are comparing the 7-quad category of skaters with the 3-quad, exceptional everything else category, the first is a sample of size one. and if we expand the category to "6- or 7-quads," now we have a sample of size two
As in turns out, Malinin is entirely adequate in "everything else," and Nathan Chen was quire good, so we don't have any examples of "amazing at quads, sucks otherwise" to include in our speculative analysis.
However, the calculation of highest jump base value = 82.51 (actually achieved), versus 17.1 for all non-jump technical elements is hard to ignore. Plus, the biggest factor of all -- falls, under-rotations, pops and other outright errors -- does not affect the big quadies any more than it does the medium quadies, outstanding everything else guys.
