Sine qua non: Elements and Quality

[Mathman]

I too would argue it varies. Take a look at Patrick Chan's 2012 CoR LP for an example. He pops three jumps. Do they all lower your perception of the program in the same way?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWr9-OdyX-4

How is anyone ever going to beat this skater?

First, after the first three jumping passes it didn't really matter what he did the rest of the way. This is in contrast to Mao Asada's performance in which she doubled her very first jump, started to get back on track, then missed another. The viewer never lost his anxiety. In Patrick's case, I got in the groove from the first jump and just let the program flow along.

As for the three doubled jumps: (1) the double Axel was OK. He could always play it off as intended. However, as far as incorporating transitions into the entry, I didn't see any. (2) The 2Lo was very noticeable and gave the impression of a lapse in focus. This was compounded when he appeared to get his feet tangled up a little bit right after the landing. The element did not disrupt the flow of the program, but it was definitely a boo-boo.

On the doubled Sal it wasn't the last jump that was the problem, it was the landing of the first jumps and a little balance problem on the 1/2 loop, to my untrained eye.

None of these was a big deal. Still, in aggregate the small errors robbed the program of a big triumphant crescendo and left the impression that he was running out of steam after a strong start. That is the part that maybe should have lowered, say, his P&E mark. Like from 9.5 to 9.0. And he did get a couple of 8.75s.

As for transitions, well, he already got positive GOE on all three of his mistakes, so I con't see any need for him to double dip on the Transitions score.

 

[Mathman]

I think that how much certain errors "mar" the performance is largely in the eye of the beholder. If it's an error that bothers you, it will continue to bother you after the skater has moved on to the rest of the program without errors. If it's something that you don't consider very important, you'll move on as well.

That is certainly true. I think that is the core of the argument on this thread about whether Suzuki was robbed or not.

Watching Mao's performance, although one can find much to admire, the mistakes came so fast one upon the other that we started to feel, poor thing, when will this mercifully be over?

Akiko, on the other hand -- actually, the quality of her jumps were not outstanding (she got some negative GOEs and not much in the way of positive) -- still, with every success the feeling grew of, She's doing it! She's doing it! She's doing it! SHE DID IT!!!

If the coach knows that the skater has been habitually popping or two-footing jumps and is trying to get the skater to break that habit, a fully rotated jump landed on one foot followed by a fall might be a cause for rejoicing as getting closer to landing the jump cleanly in competition, whereas if the spectator expects a clean program the fall may be more disruptive to the aesthetic experience -- or cause for (possibly premature) rejoicing when rooting for that skater's rival.

The coach may be happy. But the customer who paid $100 to see the show may feel like, get those kinks worked out in practice before you take the stage.

 

[ImaginaryPogue]

I'll agree with Mathman's sentiment re: Suzuki. During the choreo step sequence, where she was just flying over the ice, radiating joy, I was applauding

 

[gkelly]

That is certainly true. I think that is the core of the argument on this thread about whether Suzuki was robbed or not.

This thread? Maybe we should take that discussion to the actual Suzuki thread(s).

Watching Mao's performance, although one can find much to admire, the mistakes came so fast one upon the other that we started to feel, poor thing, when will this mercifully be over?

Who is "we"? Evidently not most of the judges. They can only judge on what they see, and when it comes to the intangible qualities, on what they personally feel. They can't try to guess what each and every paying member of the audience, and everyone watching for free on TV, might be feeling and assign scores based on their best guess about the average fan opinion.

But the customer who paid $100 to see the show may feel like, get those kinks worked out in practice before you take the stage.

But a competition is not a show.

In a show, satisfying the paying customers is the primary goal, and that often means lower technical content (jumps and/or in-betweens) in order to concentrate on emotional connection and quality of execution.

In a competition, the primary goal is demonstrating to the judges a superior overall "package" of technical and presentation skills according to the rules. That usually means including the hardest technical content throughout the program (jump content being only one part of that) that the skater believes she can pull off successfully. In competition, skaters are usually attempting to operate near the upper limits of their technical ability, which is always a risk, and perfect programs are few and far between. Spectators who go to competitions expecting surface perfection are usually going to be disappointed.

When I buy a ticket to a competition, I expect to see skaters challenge themselves and try to execute to the best of their ability in that moment. I personally am more interested in programs that are challenging on the ice as well as in the air. And I don't feel that a skater has let me down as a paying customer if she doesn't succeed at all she tries, especially in an early-season event. I don't know exactly how this performance fits into what else is going on in her life or her plan for the season. And she's not doing it for me, she's doing it for herself. I pay for the privilege to watch the process because I find the sport interesting, on many levels.

 

[Mathman]

This thread? Maybe we should take that discussion to the actual Suzuki thread(s).

Sorry. I meant "the" thread.(Typo.)

Who is "we"? Evidently not most of the judges. They can only judge on what they see, and when it comes to the intangible qualities, on what they personally feel.

The judges don't have to try to guess what what the audience sees, feels, or experiences.

But as for what the judges themselves see, feel, and experience -- this is a two-time world champion and Olympic silver medalist from only two seasons ago. She manages 3 triple jumps amid a smattering of not-too-difficult transitional moves between elements. If I were a judge I would be feeling a little bit down on Mao's behalf, never mind the audience.

 

[gkelly]

And if that is how judges feel, how should they respond? Lower the scores to penalize the skater for making them feel down? Try to make her or themselves feel better by rewarding her with pity points/reputation points? Or just judge the performance they see today according to the same standards they apply to all performances by all skaters?

We're not actually in the judges' heads, so we don't know what they were feeling or thinking. We can guess, or extrapolate how we would feel watching the same performance from a judge's perspective. But we can't expect the judges to judge based on how the skater makes us feel or even on how she makes them themselves feel, even on the subjective aspects of the P/E and IN components, to the exclusion of how she actually meets all the criteria for all the components.

But if the judges' scores don't match how we felt about the performance, we can only guess and can't be sure we're right as to whether the judges felt it differently than we did or were better able to put emotion in its proper relation to all the judging criteria or were too swayed by emotion in a different direction than we were.

 

[Mathman]

I guess i don't know what I think.

Let me try again to see if I can bring into focus what is bugging me. There is a difference between "better" and "more difficult." The Grade of Execution is supposed to reward the quality of an element, not its difficulty.

A triple Lutz is more difficult than a triple toe-loop. In honor of this extra difficulty a triple Lutz has the higher base value. Similarly, a triple jump is more difficult than a double jump. This is reflected in the base value.

Now comes the GOE. What about the quality of the element? Making the jump harder does not by itself increase the quality. A Tano position may increase the difficulty, but it does not increase the quality. Same with doing transitions before the take-off. In fact, most of the time doing transitions before the take-off decreases the quality of the jump by making it harder to achieve a proper take-off edge, harder to achieve proper air position and rotations, harder to get good height and distance, harder to achieve a proper landing edge and good ride out.

In short, the jump is not better because of the transitions, and it is likely to be worse. It is harder, but that is not the business of the GOE.

Rewarding transitions in program components, on the other hand -- that does make sense. For starters, it adds to the Transitions score (duh). Transitions may also enhance choreography, interpretation, and performance, and they give evidence of strong skating skills. In short, they do everything except enhance the quality of the jump.

Jump difficulty -- base value. Jump quality -- GOE. Transitions -- Transitions.

 

[gkelly]

Valid points.

However, I still think there's a place for rewarding added difficulty in a jump -- just that that reward should be subordinate to the evaluation of quality.

An excellent jump with from a long simple setup, with good speed in and out, height, distance covered, control throughout, quality of the takeoff and landing edges, etc., is still going to get higher GOE (probably +2) than a smaller, weakly landed jump from a difficult entry (maximum of +1 if it's clean but mediocre aside from the enhancements, negative or at most 0 if there are deductible errors).

But why shouldn't a jump that is excellent technically and enhanced with added difficulty, performed excellently, receive even higher GOE (potentially +3)?

BTW, "element matched to the musical structure" is another bullet point that can add to the GOE of jumps performed with either simple or complex entries and that would also be rewarded in Choreography and maybe other components. How do you feel about "double dipping" on that bullet point?

 

[Dragonlady]

In short, the jump is not better because of the transitions, and it is likely to be worse. It is harder, but that is not the business of the GOE.

The problem with any cumulative points scoring system in an artistic sport from a performance standpoint, is sometimes the whole is worth less than the sum of the parts. A jump is broken down into so many parts, each worth part of the score, that when skaters add the difficult entry and a difficult exit to a jump, if they have good speed on the entry and good air position, even if the landing is shaky, they're going to get +GoE for what, to anyone looking at it from a performance standpoint, is going to be a wonky element. Those are jump landings I would call technically clean but not pretty.

Using your necklace analogy, I don't think of mistakes as missing stones, but rather as flawed stone. I would consider an intentionally doubled jump a stone of a smaller size. Even a flawed diamond sparkles, but it's just not worth as much. If the skaters doesn't fall and the performance flows in an uninterupted manner, I don't find interntionally doubled at all distruptive, and even popped jumps aren't really disruptive beyond that second of noting the miss, then the small disruptions like noticeably 2-footing the landing, or a small step out. Where skaters should take a big hit in the performance/execution mark is a big fall where the skater slides across the ice and has to get up and race to catch up to the music. Of course that usually means a missed element so they take a big hit on that as well as the fall in terms of the mark.

 

[ivy]

When I think of essential elements of skating I think of moves like Michelle's spirals, Angela Nikodenov's layback, Shizuka's Ina Bauer, Brian Boitano's spread eagles. They are unique to skating, they can't really translate to other sports/arts. Sadly they aren't worth a lot of points, but can create a spell. They speak to an edge cutting a curve into the ice and the curve being felt through out the body.

Over all I like CoP, but this increasing fracturing of elements in things that add or subtract points is not the right direction in my opinion. It's loosing the forest for the trees. I'd like GoE to be more holistic - - failed, poor, below average, average, above average, good, excellent. That may seem more subjective, but feels right to me

 

[WeakAnkles]

When I think of essential elements of skating I think of moves like Michelle's spirals, Angela Nikodenov's layback, Shizuka's Ina Bauer, Brian Boitano's spread eagles. They are unique to skating, they can't really translate to other sports/arts. Sadly they aren't worth a lot of points, but can create a spell. They speak to an edge cutting a curve into the ice and the curve being felt through out the body.

Over all I like CoP, but this increasing fracturing of elements in things that add or subtract points is not the right direction in my opinion. It's loosing the forest for the trees. I'd like GoE to be more holistic - - failed, poor, below average, average, above average, good, excellent. That may seem more subjective, but feels right to me

I agree with every word of this. In 1994, when Brian Boitano was attempting to come back and compete at the Winter Olympics, he debuted a long program set to Shaker hymns. In the middle of the program, he did something I will never forget: a spread eagle followed by another spread eagle to one long note. The two spread eagles covered the entire length of the rink. It was so simple, so musical, and so so perfect (and very much "in tune" with the spirit of Shaker hymns and Shaker philosophy). I do remember hearing people in the audience gasping in admiration (you could hear them even on tv). He changed the program significantly for the Olympics and never included that portion again (but I remember seeing a great increase in spread eagles by other skaters for the next season or two or three after that).

Now I'm a big fan of COP (yes you can shoot me now), but that kind of move would never be used today because it doesn't gather enough points. But it's not only sine qua non for me, it's ne plus ultra of artistic skating - flow, edge, musicality.

 

[Mathman]

BTW, "element matched to the musical structure" is another bullet point that can add to the GOE of jumps performed with either simple or complex entries and that would also be rewarded in Choreography and maybe other components. How do you feel about "double dipping" on that bullet point?

Boy, that's a toughie. It is so cool when that happens. But to go along with Dragonlady's further analysis of the necklace, it does seem to make sense that the TES should be about the quality of each stone considered in isolation, and that the relation of the element to the musical structure should fall on the program component side.

I also agree with Ivy and Weakankles that breaking down everything into hundredths of a point seems to run counter to what we cherish most about a skating performance.

Here is an example of an element matching the musical structure (a non-scoring element in this case, like Boitano's spread eagle). In the end title track of the East of Eden soundtrack, there is a breath-holding pause at the end of the second bridge. The music swells to a big crescendo, then there is a dramatic lull of a second or so before the triumphant main theme resumes on the downbeat.

But skating fans know what note it is that fills the pregnant pause. A split falling leaf into a change edge spread eagle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcYTdxyoehk#t=2m42s

(Not that there is anything wrong with the jump at 3:18 and the spiral at 3:28. )

 

[rvi5]

Would you identify a single quality or element without which a skater should not be considered worthy of winning a competition, in your opinion?

*Relationship to the audience

Speaking purely from the point of view of "a Sport"...

This characteristic may be more related to "Fine Arts" than "Sport", depending on the intended definition of "relationship". Also not certain how to classify "Thematic coherence of the choreography", depending on the meaning of "Thematic coherence".

 

[Mathman]

^ Still, I think that pleasing the audience is a symptom of having given a good performance, and this is true of sports as well as other forms of entertainment.

Interesting about "Thematic coherence of the choreography." To me, that's what Suzuki's LP has in spades this season.

 

[Olympia]

Here is an example of an element matching the musical structure (a non-scoring element in this case, like Boitano's spread eagle). In the end title track of the East of Eden soundtrack, there is a breath-holding pause at the end of the second bridge. The music swells to a big crescendo, then there is a dramatic lull of a second or so before the triumphant main theme resumes on the downbeat.

But skating fans know what note it is that fills the pregnant pause. A split falling leaf into a change edge spread eagle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcYTdxyoehk#t=2m42s

(Not that there is anything wrong with the jump at 3:18 and the spiral at 3:28. )

That program is soooo gorgeous. Every time I watch it.

 

[plushyfan]

If the feet and basic skating are strong, then I want them put to good use. I want to see them doing complete programs, with real choreography and to pay attention to the music. Nothing bores me more completely than watching skaters strong around stalking jumps. It's why I'm not a Plushenko fan, even though his feet are to die for. My husband used to watch Elvis Stojko setting up for a jump and finally yell "Jump already!" at the TV.

I believe Plushy's programs aren't conform to the American taste. Because if anybody really knows his programs don't says those aren't complete programs, because lack of choreography...And if these programs are so boring I don't know why the audience are so enthusiastic all the time?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEJXkfMYTX4 Tribute to Nijinsky
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aQdGyJQ1cU Gipsy dance
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK6GucbtVGs Once Upon a time in America

and Carmen, Bolero, St. Petersbourg 300, Tango and flamenco, etc.

 

[rvi5]

^ Still, I think that pleasing the audience is a symptom of having given a good performance, and this is true of sports as well as other forms of entertainment.

Interesting about "Thematic coherence of the choreography." To me, that's what Suzuki's LP has in spades this season.

Perhaps judges view competitions in a different light than the fans. As fans, we put high value on our "entertainment". Just read the many posts on these FS boards, and see how many mention or are related to the entertainment value of the programs. Perhaps the judges are primarily interested in the skating skills within the confines of the rules. Audience connection, thematic coherence, etc. may be secondary to them. Do the judges even have time to sit back and appreciate the programs from an entertainment point-of-view? If the ISU would like to protect Figure Skating as a Sport, would they want to risk elevating "entertainment value" to a point where it may rise above "skating skills"? At that point, would Figure Skating be moving down the path towards Fine Art, and away from Sport?

 

[Mathman]

Perhaps judges view competitions in a different light than the fans. As fans, we put high value on our "entertainment". Just read the many posts on these FS boards, and see how many mention or are related to the entertainment value of the programs. Perhaps the judges are primarily interested in the skating skills within the confines of the rules. Audience connection, thematic coherence, etc. may be secondary to them. Do the judges even have time to sit back and appreciate the programs from an entertainment point-of-view? If the ISU would like to protect Figure Skating as a Sport, would they want to risk elevating "entertainment value" to a point where it may rise above "skating skills"? At that point, would Figure Skating be moving down the path towards Fine Art, and away from Sport?

Its a tricky predicament. Certainly the judges have no other responsibility than to score conscientiously according to the rules. But the question is whether the rules themselves should take into account audience appeal.

This is very much the case in other sports. Every year the baseball umpires association gets together with Major League Baseball (MLB owns Ice Network, by the way) and they decide whether the fans want to see more home runs or more pitching duals this year. Then they instruct the umpires to call the strike zone wider or more narrowly accordingly. The National Basketball Association brought in the three-point shot to make the game more exciting to the fans, and they continue to tinker with lane rules, the criteria for charging versus blocking calls, etc., in order to place the best possible product before the customers.

All sports fall into the category of Recreation and Entertainment. (What else? It's not agriculture and mining, its not transportation and communication, its not banking and financial services. ) If you skate yourself, that's recreation. If you watch someone else skating, that's entertainment. My concern is that with the IJS the ISU is drawing an ever-narrowing circle about itself, resulting in a sport/performing art discipline that is of interest to fewer and fewer people.

 

[rvi5]

...This is very much the case in other sports. Every year the baseball umpires association gets together with Major League Baseball (MLB owns Ice Network, by the way) and they decide whether the fans want to see more home runs or more pitching duals this year. Then they instruct the umpires to call the strike zone wider or more narrowly accordingly. The National Basketball Association brought in the three-point shot to make the game more exciting to the fans, and they continue to tinker with lane rules, the criteria for charging versus blocking calls, etc., in order to place the best possible product before the customers...

The same is true for Hockey. The "icing" rule was implemented after the New York Americans iced the puck 50 times, while the Boston Bruins iced it 87 times during a single game. Likewise, a rule was implemented against goalies who hold the puck unnecessarily. This first occurred in a Toronto Maple Leaf verses Montreal Canadiens Stanley Cup final game (which tells you how long ago that was). The Toronto goalie would throw himself on the puck whenever it came anywhere near him (as if it were a grenade). The rules were implemented to keep the game flowing and more enjoyable. However, these are tweaks to the technical aspect of the game which I liken to the ISU tweaking required content, footwork, jumps, etc (for better or worse). I can't think of another sport where a "relationship to the audience" would be a scoring requirement. In most other sports, the audience entertainment is typically derived from the suspense of who will win, and the appreciation of the technical skills needed to achieve the end result (eg. baseball involves pitching, batting, running, throwing, catching, and strategy).

I am not saying entertainment value is bad thing to have in Figure Skating (it sells tickets). However some of it may be stepping outside the realm of "Sport", and may be of secondary concern to the judges. If the ISU/judges had their way, would they structure competitions like "Figures" had been, and instead have the audience buy tickets to the Gala for the entertainment?

 

[gkelly]

I can't think of another sport where a "relationship to the audience" would be a scoring requirement. In most other sports, the audience entertainment typically comes from the suspense of who will win, and the appreciation of the technical skills needed to achieve the end result (eg. baseball involves pitching, batting, running, throwing, catching, and strategy).

I think this is important. I think that some sports fans can appreciate the suspense of who will win a skating competition as decided by difficulty and success of the risk elements like jumps. They can easily see whether a skater falls or stumbles, they can soon learn to tell the difference between 2, 3, or 4 revolutions in the air (especially with replay), and with a minimum of study they can learn the relative difficulty of the various jump takeoffs even if it might take longer to recognize them for themselves. And often times the success and difficulty of the jumps are the deciding factor in determining the results of competitions. This was probably most often true in the 1990s (post-figures, pre-IJS), although there have certainly been exceptions.

Sports oriented-viewers who hate the idea of show business or subjective aesthetic perceptions infiltrating the world of pure sport would tend to think that only the difficulty and success of the technical elements, especially the big obvious risk elements, should determine the results. And to the extent that is true, they can enjoy skating as sport entertainment.

Arts fans who look at skating as a performing art and want the results to reflect the success of each program as entertainment or as a work of art would value presentation criteria, obvious quality of elements, and again lack of obvious visible errors.

So aside from the agreement that "no falls or major stumbles" is important, these two groups would have opposite opinions about what should be important in deciding competitions.

However, both these emphases ignore the technical fine points that require more detailed knowledge of skating to appreciate.

Since most potential fans do not already skate themselves, and many would not have access to even beginning figure skating lessons even if they wanted for reasons of location or finances or physical fitness, there will always be a problem for perceptions of the sport that many details that are very important to the practitioners are invisible to the unschooled viewer.

I think the federations (and TV networks who want to build interest in the sport) would do well to find fan-friendly ways to educate fans about technical details that are important in determining results. Instead of saying "Oh, fans will never understand, so either we should just ignore what the fans think, or else we should dumb down the rules to be obvious to casual viewers," I think that instead they should do a better job of inviting fans to think like insiders and appreciate what's going on.

However, it's a complicated sport with a number of built-in contradictions, so viewers who are looking for something simple to understand without much effort of their own may find it hard to get drawn in.

If the ISU/judges had their way, would they structure competitions like "Figures" had been, and instead have the audience buy tickets to the Gala for the entertainment?

I imagine that there is a range of opinions among officials as to whether to ignore audience interests and focus primarily on technical fine points or whether to emphasize the artistic possibilities of the medium that can be incorporated into competitive formats and/or cater to audience interests in order to attract outside money to the sport through sales of tickets, TV rights, and sponsorships. Probably there are some sticklers who would be happy to judge elements only on technical difficulty and quality only, but I expect that most would at least want to keep the program-to-music format and those aspects of presentation scoring that reflect mastery of technique.

And some judges would want to emphasize the artistic impression, because that aspect of figure skating is why they love skating more than, say, diving. But their impressions of programs would be informed by knowledge of skating technique and by a close-up view of the ice surface that fans in the cheap seats don't have access to.