Should quads per program be limited to balance artistry?

[DizzyFrenchie]

I'm falling prey to my own biases then, I guess. But the judges never really judge only what happens on the ice, right? Costumes, whether a skater is with coaching staff known for a style of skating, choreography done by certain people, with recognisable moves... doesn't all that play a part, even unconsciously?

I don't know if you're falling for any bias but it's alas true that judges don't really judge only what happens on the ice. (Costume is a small part of the Composition score but it seems visible that judges rarely separate the Components, even now that there are two less, they give a global Presentation score and share it rather evenly in the three Components scores boxes.)

 

[freedomlover]

Are you speaking of Debussy's Suite bergamasque which third movement is called Clair de Lune and is often chosen by skaters/teams for reasons unknown to me (except if they compete at the Lombardia Trophy), or of the Beethoven 14th Sonata which a rather infamous critic called Clair de Lune/Moonlight, but which Edwin Fisher and Andras Schiff have shown to be rather inspire by the theme of the scene of the murder of the Commendatore in Mozart's Don Giovanni?

Beethoven's 14th Sonata. (Again, German- so I would have said Mondschein Sonate- should have been clearer with that, sorry)
Clair de Lune is Debussy for me, lol. Just as you said, both are overdone- but I feel like that with Claire de Lune, you can commit less wrongs at least? Before I got deep into figure skating, I was excited to see skaters take on Beethoven- for example op.13, (which is a personal favourite by farrr for me) only to realise that Beethoven gets used way less than Chopin et al.? Is that the French influence?

 

[freedomlover]

I don't know if you're falling for any bias but it's alas true that judges don't really judge only what happens on the ice. (Costume is a small part of the Composition score but it seems visible that judges rarely separate the Components, even now that there are two less, they give a global Presentation score and share it rather evenly in the three Components scores boxes.)

I can understand Composition and Presentation being scored ... more evenly in this set of regulations , but at least the skating skills should have more of a difference if that is the case for a skater.

 

[yfan1]

What I mean't is how they'd be judged under IJS, I guess?
And the things you'd mention in a skater- how they open up, where they land, how they position their landings- I'd expect someone with a good technique to have all those, you know? I just don't think you can have a skater capable of doing mutiple quads properly with horrible skating skills, is what I'd meant to say.

You need a solid fundamental base in order to gather the speed needed to execute triples and quads properly, no doubt.

Skating skill is a score, though. It depends on what was executed in any given competition. So there's no such thing as "6-8" if you can jump quads.

 

[DizzyFrenchie]

I can understand Composition and Presentation being scored ... more evenly in this set of regulations , but at least the skating skills should have more of a difference if that is the case for a skater.

In theory, if a skater doesn't change a iota in their program along a season, a same judge would have to give the same score to the Composition (in reality, I don't know if even the most competent and honest judge wouldn't be influenced by how it's skated). Now, let's imagine a skater who interprets this program wonderfully when everything goes well, but crumbles if it doesn't; let's imagine that they start the program by, say, popping a 3A into a 2A and there's no Zayak problem after (something that oughtn't affect the Components), and start overworrying, still do all their steps and moves without an error but "they're not there". Normally the Composition and Skating Skills scores remain the same, but the Presentation score gets lower?

 

[freedomlover]

You need a solid fundamental base in order to gather the speed needed to execute triples and quads properly, no doubt.

Skating skill is a score, though. It depends on what was executed in any given competition. So there's no such thing as "6-8" if you can jump quads.

Sometimes it feels like there is. Trusova used to get 9s....

and no shade to her, I respect her as a person, but man.

 

[yfan1]

I mean, are we speaking about judging, or just basic talk about skating and the technique that goes into it. Trusova obviously never deserved 9s on skating skills (she also didn't have good technique on her jumps, for that matter).

 

[freedomlover]

I mean, are we speaking about judging, or just basic talk about skating and the technique that goes into it. Trusova obviously never deserved 9s on skating skills (she also didn't have good technique on her jumps, for that matter).

Can we seperate one from another? We talk about how things *should* be weighted or scored because the way they are or have been for the past years.
Imagine if a complete newbie or someone who just has a passing interest in figure skating is watching. How do you explain that a skater that *should* be getting 6s is getting 9s , while a skater who should be getting 9s is getting 7s?

And that is me just asking about the Skating Skills component. How can the understanding of what a good skater *should* be capable of be more transparent?

 

[gkelly]

Regarding that hypothethical scenario of a Skater who is excellent at Jumps, but nothing else- we don't have much to base this off because the quadsters that can "jump" but have horrible skating skills usually cheat at some points during the jumps as well.

Surya Bonaly comes to mind, although she didn't compete under IJS.

She could skate with good speed, if not deep flowing edges. And she could interpret the music and relate to the audience. Which probably counted for a lot 30 years ago.

Someone who has excellent technique on Take-off and landing will consquently also having a good running edge... and from what I've learned so far you can't have good running edges into the next transitional content without at least being in the 6-8 range on Skating Skills, at least? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I would say yes, but a lot of the quality of the landing edge is also dependent on the rotation in the air.

Skaters who may not be able to quite rotate quads (or triple axels, especially talking about the women; or other triples when talking about lower levels/non-elite seniors) might still have good running edges on their double jump landings.

How well the edge runs is a continuous variable, not a yes/no either/or.
And can be demonstrated either by holding a basic landing position or by varying the body position on the held landing edge or by transitioning directly into one-foot turns or a spread eagle with no intervening steps.
The opposite would be needing to put the other foot down ASAP, for balance and/or to build up speed again that was lost during the jump, either continuing backward or immediately turning to forward stroking.

But in general, yes, if you can skate with decent senior-level speed and strong landings on your triple jumps, I'd say that probably indicates skating skills of at least 6.0, maybe into 8s for someone like Plushenko who had good power and flow but chose not to do much complex skating between the elements.

 

[yfan1]

Imagine if a complete newbie or someone who just has a passing interest in figure skating is watching. How do you explain that a skater that *should* be getting 6s is getting 9s , while a skater who should be getting 9s is getting 7s?

TBQH, I don't think anyone with a passing interest cares about anything in figure skating apart from who's dating who and who is the prettiest...

But aside that, I don't believe there is one bench mark. You can send them off to watch videos of various skaters, and compare themselves, if they are willing. A lot of the things that judges care about in skating skill, though - balance, precision in foot placement, use of edges to gain speed, quality of glide, acceleration/deceleration ability - are not things people suddenly "understand" with just a few videos. It's actually quite esoteric for the outside world. If you can think of a musician or a dancer whose talent would be appreciated by their in-group, but not outside it, it's a good comparison.

Where, I guess, this thread begins.

 

[Magill]

Funny thing about Chan's and Hanyu's Chopin programs was that they were both not considered particularly good outside their respective fans, unless I'm forgetting the reactions.

Oh, where has art gone.

Oh, that cannot be true, lol! I recall at least one enthusiastic mention of Yuzuru's "triumphant" interpretation of Chopin's Ballad no 1 in a very "serious" academic Chopin-focused publication at the time.

I admit, it might have been somewhat boosted by the fact that he actually won Olympics with it. Even renown musicians and classical music reviewers get impressed by the shining glory of an Olympic gold.

And BTW no, no whining on the music cuts was ever mentioned there

 

[gkelly]

I don't know if you're falling for any bias but it's alas true that judges don't really judge only what happens on the ice. (Costume is a small part of the Composition score

Costume is not mentioned anywhere in the Composition criteria.
Or anywhere else in the scoring rules aside from the deduction (given if a majority of the judges+referee hit the deduction button) for a costume that doesn't cover 50% of the upper body, not counting illusion fabric.

There's a separate deduction if part of the costume comes off and falls on the ice.


The Composition criteria are:
"The intentional/developed and/or original arrangement of the repertoire of all types of movements into a meaningful whole according to the principles of proportion, unity, space, pattern and musical structure.
*Multidimensional movements and use of space
*Connections between and within the elements
*Choreography reflecting musical phrase and form
*Pattern and ice coverage
*Unity"

Nothing about costumes.

A costume might serve as a signal to the judges about what the intended meaning is behind the meaningful whole, so a costume that points judges' thinking in the right direction is likely to result in somewhat higher Composition scores than a costume that completely confuses them and seems to have nothing to do with the music or the choreography.

But a completely neutral costume can support most programs just as well as an overtly literal translation of the music source.

And sometimes a skater might show up at a competition but their costume was lost in transit or suffered some mishap that rendered it unwearable, so the skater had to compete in practice clothes or the other program's costume or an unrelated costume borrowed from another competitor. There's no penalty for that.

but it seems visible that judges rarely separate the Components, even now that there are two less, they give a global Presentation score and share it rather evenly in the three Components scores boxes.)

I would like to see wider ranges for skaters whose skills are less well balanced among the separate components.
(Many skaters' skills are pretty similar among the three components, so in those cases I do expect the numbers to be close to each other.)

Can we seperate one from another? We talk about how things *should* be weighted or scored because the way they are or have been for the past years.
Imagine if a complete newbie or someone who just has a passing interest in figure skating is watching. How do you explain that a skater that *should* be getting 6s is getting 9s , while a skater who should be getting 9s is getting 7s?

How do you determine what score the skater "should" be getting?

If I'm watching at home on video and disagree with the judges, my first thought is that something came across live that I'm missing on video.

Even if I'm watching in the arena and that I would have scored a given skater higher on one component or lower on another, I attribute the difference of opinion to different priorities of what to reward most among that component's criteria. Judges on the panel may disagree with each other as well, in which case at least one of them might agree with me.

If they all agree with each other and I'm the outlier, I figure I'm the one who's missing something.

We might in general believe that judges should be less afraid to use wider ranges and to give 8s and 7s rather than 9s for performances full of quads and not much else. But even if you and I both agree we'd like to see that happen, we probably don't agree on exactly what score to give a given component for a given performance. It's not an exact science.

On GOEs there are sometimes right and wrong answers, but even there it's more a matter not of right and wrong but rather better and worse. For PCS, it's all better and worse. There is no single correct answer.

 

[Magill]

TBQH, I don't think anyone with a passing interest cares in anything about figure skating apart from who's dating who and who is the prettiest...

But aside that, I don't believe there is one bench mark. You can send them off to watch videos of various skaters, and compare themselves, if they are willing. A lot of the things that judges care about in skating skill, though - balance, precision in foot placement, use of edges to gain speed, quality of glide, acceleration/deceleration ability - are not things people suddenly "understand" with just a few videos. It's actually quite esoteric for the outside world. If you can think of a musician or a dancer who's talent would be appreciated by their in-group, but not outside it, it's a good comparison.

Where, I guess, this thread begins.

I don't know.
I think the passing interest of casual fans is made even more passing when they do not understand at all why poor performances win over great performances (when it happens, of course). I guess casual fans are most interested in the performance aspect of the sport, and this is what can keep them in or not.
IMHO, everything else - TES, SS, PCS - should in fact add up to give the greatest performance possible, should be tools to an aim, and not the aim in itself. Jumps? When on music and adding up to the performance quality. Same of spins, steps etc. That's why we're talking about programs and not just separate jumping, spinning, or stepping-on-ice contests.
As the one skater-who-cannot-be-named put it once; "Artistry in skating is rooted in great technique and it is impossible without it".

Still, it is absolutely possible to imagine great technique and no artistry. When it happens, it is to me like an empty cathedral, made with much effort and much skill and yet missing the point and leaving me unimpressed.

 

[Mathman]

In theory, if a skater doesn't change a iota in their program along a season, a same judge would have to give the same score to the Composition (in reality, I don't know if even the most competent and honest judge wouldn't be influenced by how it's skated).

I do not understand this point. Of course the judges take into account "how the choreography is skated." What else are they judging except how well the skater executes the choreography? Otherwise, the medal would go to the choreographer. and the Composition component would be removed from the scoring protocols altogether.

Well, OK, the skater gets more credit if the choreography that they execute is more substantial, more intricate, better matched to the music, etc. Still, having great choreography on paper but failing to execute it -- no, that is not going to be rewarded, nor should it.

 

[DizzyFrenchie]

Costume is not mentioned anywhere in the Composition criteria.
Or anywhere else in the scoring rules aside from the deduction (given if a majority of the judges+referee hit the deduction button) for a costume that doesn't cover 50% of the upper body, not counting illusion fabric.

There's a separate deduction if part of the costume comes off and falls on the ice.


The Composition criteria are:
"The intentional/developed and/or original arrangement of the repertoire of all types of movements into a meaningful whole according to the principles of proportion, unity, space, pattern and musical structure.
*Multidimensional movements and use of space
*Connections between and within the elements
*Choreography reflecting musical phrase and form
*Pattern and ice coverage
*Unity"

Nothing about costumes.

A costume might serve as a signal to the judges about what the intended meaning is behind the meaningful whole, so a costume that points judges' thinking in the right direction is likely to result in somewhat higher Composition scores than a costume that completely confuses them and seems to have nothing to do with the music or the choreography.

But a completely neutral costume can support most programs just as well as an overtly literal translation of the music source.

And sometimes a skater might show up at a competition but their costume was lost in transit or suffered some mishap that rendered it unwearable, so the skater had to compete in practice clothes or the other program's costume or an unrelated costume borrowed from another competitor. There's no penalty for that.


I would like to see wider ranges for skaters whose skills are less well balanced among the separate components.
(Many skaters' skills are pretty similar among the three components, so in those cases I do expect the numbers to be close to each other.)


How do you determine what score the skater "should" be getting?

If I'm watching at home on video and disagree with the judges, my first thought is that something came across live that I'm missing on video.

Even if I'm watching in the arena and that I would have scored a given skater higher on one component or lower on another, I attribute the difference of opinion to different priorities of what to reward most among that component's criteria. Judges on the panel may disagree with each other as well, in which case at least one of them might agree with me.

If they all agree with each other and I'm the outlier, I figure I'm the one who's missing something.

We might in general believe that judges should be less afraid to use wider ranges and to give 8s and 7s rather than 9s for performances full of quads and not much else. But even if you and I both agree we'd like to see that happen, we probably don't agree on exactly what score to give a given component for a given performance. It's not an exact science.

On GOEs there are sometimes right and wrong answers, but even there it's more a matter not of right and wrong but rather better and worse. For PCS, it's all better and worse. There is no single correct answer.

I have noticed that it's not mentioned explicitly, as well as for instance, deep edges aren't mentioned explicitly anymore in the Skating Skills, yet I understand it's likely to be part of the Choreography and/or Unity criteria? I wonder how judges would score a skater who has lost his costume. A skater who has the means but refuses to wear a costume in relation to the program may be a different case?
I agree that most of the (few) skates I've seen were rather even in Components.

It's not an exact science because judges are free to weight each part of each criteria differently in their score, or to have caps and the like, but if a skater A is way better in each and every criteria than a skater B yet receives lower or similar scores; or if no weighing can account for the scoring of the different skaters in a competition, then what's left?

 

[yfan1]

I think the passing interest of casual fans is made even more passing when they do not understand at all why poor performances win over great performances (when it happens, of course).

Do poor performances win? When is the last time this happened?

What is a "poor performance" for you?

Casual fans, at the onset of IJS were more than likely confused about several things. The skating back then was fine - quite a lot of 6.0 skaters were carrying on after all, even if the choreo was getting convoluted due to the requirements. But back then, jumps as an example, even on under-rotations, used to get downgraded altogether. This when 3+3 for the women was getting more important (see: why Yuna Kim started winning consistently. She could do it like she was breathing).

Many visually clean performances ended up losing as a result of that. Confusing for the audience. Results made no sense.

Nothing to do with performances, right?

 

[DizzyFrenchie]

I do not understand this point. Of course the judges take into account "how the choreography is skated." What else are they judging except how well the skater executes the choreography? Otherwise, the medal would go to the choreographer. and the Composition component would be removed from the scoring protocols altogether.

Well, OK, the skater gets more credit if the choreography that they execute is more substantial, more intricate, better matched to the music, etc. Still, having great choreography on paper but failing to execute it -- no, that is not going to be rewarded, nor should it.

I understand that the Composition is how the program is conceived, and Presentation how it's effectually skated? So, if the skater manages to skate as in a run-through in the second situation, but not as should be to interpret the program perfectly, the Presentation score ought to be lower?

 

[yfan1]

I do not understand this point. Of course the judges take into account "how the choreography is skated." What else are they judging except how well the skater executes the choreography? Otherwise, the medal would go to the choreographer. and the Composition component would be removed from the scoring protocols altogether.

Not really. Choreography can only happen if a skater can execute it. Composition consists of element placement, as an example. If a skater cannot do a jump at the 3:40 mark, say, then that jump won't be placed there. This changes the rest of the composition, right? And therefore, the mark.

Same for spin positions. And footwork clusters. And field moves. And transitions. So on.

However, I do think that as the season goes along, a skater gets better at performing the program, then the judges can be affected on the choreography component too. Someone earlier in the season was waving an arm half-heartedly. Ineffective. At worlds, they wave it confidently. Now it's effective.

 

[freedomlover]

My mention about costume was rather in regard to the subjectivity that still is prevalent in figure skating judging, even when it shouldn't be.
I'm sure some judges, even in passing, would think that one costume highlights someone's lines , while another comes off as garish to them. Maybe a skater can change that opinion with a solid skate and interpretation, but when the skate is messy too... I wonder if someone falling to an unconventional program would get scored lower than someone skating to Swan Lake, for example.

My usage of the phrase of how things *should* be scored in comparison to how they are was not on the grounds of anything regarding my knowledge of figure skating- in fact I broke my teeth when I first put skates on (funny TMI), but rather to the guidelines that are presented as standard by the ISU?
I understand how one judge could see a difference in an execution of a technical element, mostly- that is pretty much well explained.
But why is it, that at almost all competitions, you will have at least some judges whose view of the skate differs so much from their other colleagues by like 5-7 points?
Isn't there bias at play then? And I don't mean this as some kind of conspiracy, but just the general margin of human error, I guess.
For example, at the GPF, the Italian Judge had Grassl scoring 305 total, 206 points of those being the Free skate.

Costume is not mentioned anywhere in the Composition criteria.
Or anywhere else in the scoring rules aside from the deduction (given if a majority of the judges+referee hit the deduction button) for a costume that doesn't cover 50% of the upper body, not counting illusion fabric.

There's a separate deduction if part of the costume comes off and falls on the ice.


The Composition criteria are:
"The intentional/developed and/or original arrangement of the repertoire of all types of movements into a meaningful whole according to the principles of proportion, unity, space, pattern and musical structure.
*Multidimensional movements and use of space
*Connections between and within the elements
*Choreography reflecting musical phrase and form
*Pattern and ice coverage
*Unity"

Nothing about costumes.

A costume might serve as a signal to the judges about what the intended meaning is behind the meaningful whole, so a costume that points judges' thinking in the right direction is likely to result in somewhat higher Composition scores than a costume that completely confuses them and seems to have nothing to do with the music or the choreography.

But a completely neutral costume can support most programs just as well as an overtly literal translation of the music source.

And sometimes a skater might show up at a competition but their costume was lost in transit or suffered some mishap that rendered it unwearable, so the skater had to compete in practice clothes or the other program's costume or an unrelated costume borrowed from another competitor. There's no penalty for that.


I would like to see wider ranges for skaters whose skills are less well balanced among the separate components.
(Many skaters' skills are pretty similar among the three components, so in those cases I do expect the numbers to be close to each other.)


How do you determine what score the skater "should" be getting?

If I'm watching at home on video and disagree with the judges, my first thought is that something came across live that I'm missing on video.

Even if I'm watching in the arena and that I would have scored a given skater higher on one component or lower on another, I attribute the difference of opinion to different priorities of what to reward most among that component's criteria. Judges on the panel may disagree with each other as well, in which case at least one of them might agree with me.

If they all agree with each other and I'm the outlier, I figure I'm the one who's missing something.

We might in general believe that judges should be less afraid to use wider ranges and to give 8s and 7s rather than 9s for performances full of quads and not much else. But even if you and I both agree we'd like to see that happen, we probably don't agree on exactly what score to give a given component for a given performance. It's not an exact science.

On GOEs there are sometimes right and wrong answers, but even there it's more a matter not of right and wrong but rather better and worse. For PCS, it's all better and worse. There is no single correct answer.

My question is exactly that: What if the Judges don't agree? Who is right and who is wrong then?

But overall, thanks for these in-detail replies. This has been a good and insightful read for me, personally.

 

[Mathman]

Someone earlier in the season was waving an arm half-heartedly. Ineffective. At worlds, they wave it confidently. Now it's effective.

Yes. The Worlds performance deserves higher marks in choreography (as well as in performance in the Worlds outing than the half-hearted one, even though both are following the same script."Wave arm here."

That, in fact is why I think it would be better to combine choreography and performance into one, and go with two program components, SS and Presentation. (Sort of like 6.0 -- the technical mark and the "artistic" mark as applied to the whole program, separate from, TES which is the individual elements score ._