Sine qua non: Elements and Quality

[Mathman]

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 think it's a catch 22. In the past the ISU met the dilemma by discontinuing figure-tracing contests altogether, going instead with pretty girls in short skirts (aka free skating). People seem to have moved on in their entertainment tastes. Outside of Japan, skating shows are struggling. In the U.S. Ice Capades is gone, Ice Follies is long gone, Champions on Ice is gone, Stars on Ice is hanging by a thread. Conditions are not quite so dire in Canada and Russia, but still ...I don't think anyone would want to buy a ticket to a gala held after a private competition.

So, sports it is: "The suspense of who will win, and the appreciation of the technical skills needed to achieve the end result." (Well put. :yes: )

Now our task is to create a scoring system that allows the audience to know who won and what technical and performance skills they displayed in doing so.

 

[gkelly]

My father was just suggesting last night that "they" (by which he meant NBC) should show more instant replay or close-up videos of elements to explain fine points about jump edges. I said there is some of that and there was more back when there were more hours of TV coverage. But that's really about the networks choosing whether to develop a knowledgeable fan base or to aim their broadcasts at casual viewers only, not about what the sport itself is doing.

How can the ISU and national federations themselves invite spectators to understand the scoring and results? What should they change about what is scored (I'm sure there are differences of opinion among insiders about what should count most, e.g., revolutions in the air vs. edge work on the ice), how it's scored, how the scores are reported (including announcing freeskate-only standings before combined standings)? Unless the decision is made to give no credit for anything that isn't obvious to a first-time viewer, then even with a scoring system that is transparent to knowledgeable fans, it will still be important to find ways to make the necessary knowledge easily accessible to nonskaters who want to understand the sport. That's the big challenge.

 

[Mathman]

In typical television coverage, while the scores are being tabulated, they show replays of three elements. The jump the skater fell on, a successful jump (while saying the the technical specialist is scrutinizing it for short rotation), and then maybe a spin.

What if instead they showed some sort of short transitional sequence, with the expert commentator saying, that step is called a Mohawk, now look how she changes from inside to outside edge and turns backward in the opposite direction. etc. This demonstrates the Skating Skills that the judges are looking for, and contributes to the mark for Transitions.

That at least would head off some of the puzzlement when a skater wins despite a fall or obvious mistake on a highlight element. The commentator could say, he lost 5 points for the fall, but he made up ground with these transitional moves -- see?

 

[gkelly]

What if instead they showed some sort of short transitional sequence, with the expert commentator saying, that step is called a Mohawk, now look how she changes from inside to outside edge and turns backward in the opposite direction. etc. This demonstrates the Skating Skills that the judges are looking for, and contributes to the mark for Transitions.

Yup, that would definitely be helpful.

Here's a failed attempt at such commentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0MmXR1Q1ro&t=3m44s
If only they had actually shown the process of turning backward and named it as a choctaw, explaining that it changes from inside to outside and counterclockwise to clockwise at the same time as changing from forward to backward, which is what makes a choctaw more difficult than a mohawk (inside to inside -- easy -- or outside to outside -- medium).

It's only one step and doesn't by itself explain why this skater won this short program. But it gives the same amount of explanation as just saying it's a "difficult way to turn backward" and also gives the viewer a knowledge base to apply in recognizing choctaws on his/her own and understand how they contribute to difficulty in the future.

 

[Mathman]

Here's a failed attempt at such commentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0MmXR1Q1ro&t=3m44s
If only they had actually shown the process of turning backward and named it as a choctaw, explaining that it changes from inside to outside and counterclockwise to clockwise at the same time as changing from forward to backward, which is what makes a choctaw more difficult than a mohawk (inside to inside -- easy -- or outside to outside -- medium).

PLus, Scott could have mentioned that there is a mandatory one point deduction for wearing a silly-looking collar. ("Skating costume must be appropriate to an athletic contest." )

It might be better to show transitions that are not a lead-in to a jump. In this example the audience will be more interested in the jump than in the fine points of the entry.

By the way, if you back up to the previous element, a triple Axel, Scott says about the rotations and the landing -- three and half rotations; he just barely made it." I thought it was perfect. Maybe the tiniest of a few degrees rotation on the ice, but basically right on the money. Am I wrong?

 

[gkelly]

It might be better to show transitions that are not a lead-in to a jump. In this example the audience will be more interested in the jump than in the fine points of the entry.

Fair enough.

By the way, if you back up to the previous element, a triple Axel, Scott says about the rotations and the landing -- three and half rotations; he just barely made it." I thought it was perfect. Maybe the tiniest of a few degrees rotation on the ice, but basically right on the money. Am I wrong?

Looks rotated to me. At full speed in the program, it's clear that the axel loses speed, some of which he gets back with the double toe. That's not evident in the slow motion because you can't see how much more speed he had on the entrance compared to the landing. That's probably what Scott was referring to.

 

[rvi5]

...I don't think anyone would want to buy a ticket to a gala held after a private competition.

Probably why they don't have their way



I forgot to mention, other sports may also have "close calls" ie. the puck hitting the goal post, the basketball bouncing on the rim and falling off the wrong side. Close-calls illicit ooohs of excitement. Figure Skating does not have close-calls, but does have the opposite ie. falls and stumbles etc. Perhaps not as exciting, since I assume everyone feels bad for the skater (unless you are bias against, or indifferent).



All the ideas you have been discussing are good, but they appear to be aimed at casual fans with some basic knowledge. In some cases, I think it may be necessary to go even further back to raw basics.

When I was at a hockey game with my brother and his wife, the wife mentioned it was difficult for her to "get-into" hockey because she did not understand it. As an example, she commented how the whistle just blew and the game was stopped, yet she had no idea why. I responded by telling her it was an "off-side" call. Her response was, "yeah, what is that". I think it is the same with Figure Skating.

Before I became interested in Figure Skating, I had heard the terms "Lutz", "Axel", etc. and knew they were jumps. I knew a double was the number of rotations in the air, although it was not obvious from the name that a double axel was actually 2.5 rotations. I had no idea what the differences were between the jumps. To the new casual viewer, they all look alike (jump up, rotate, land). It was not until I made the effort to search the internet that I learned the differences. Even then, reading the descriptions wasn't clear (that site had too much technical details, and was difficult to follow). I had to read the descriptions several times in some cases. Most casual viewers would not make that type of effort, and would go through life blissfully ignorant and uninterested. The same sister-in-law also mentioned to me on a different occasion, that she wouldn't know the difference between a Lutz and a Flip (she chose those jump names randomly). What is a Mohawk? Is that a type of haircut or a native Indian tribe? Like my brother's wife with hockey, it would be difficult for people to become interested in Figure Skating if they do not have a clue.

Occasionally there are trade shows held for cars, home products, hunting & fishing, wine & cheese. I don't know if there are similar sport trade shows, where local skating clubs can put on exhibitions, and give a brief basic "skating-for-dummies" demonstration between the performances. Perhaps the indifferent can be turned into casual fans, and the casual fans may become avid fans.

 

[Olympia]

I like that idea! It would be a great way to get people up to speed on skating.

 

[gkelly]

To reach general audiences who wouldn't even call themselves skating fans, short educational segments on TV broadcasts would probably read the most people at that level of interest.

The federation and local skating clubs could also have an ad that does more than just identify their existence but that also directs viewers to opportunities to learn more: local lesson opportunities and upcoming spectator-friendly events; major events featuring name skaters that fans might want to travel to and buy tickets for; educational written materials and videos available in print, on DVD, and/or online (probably for a modest fee) that go into more depth than what's shown during the TV broadcasts; live seminars that could be held in conjunction with competitions or at local rinks.

There might be a few people in any given city who would go down to a skating rink to learn about a sport they never had any interest in before if they saw something advertised on TV, or who might just happen by the rink and wander in, but I think for the most part people who will go to a live event would be people who are already interested. Especially if it involves paying an entrance fee or traveling.

So if whoever's organizing the educational opportunities wants to attract the widest audience, I think short bursts on TV are the way to reach the most people.

I definitely think that seeing live skating at, say, novice level and above up close would be more exciting than watching on TV or from the upper levels of an arena. So if you can get casual fans down to rinkside, probably some of them will become more than just casual.

And then do make the live demonstrations and the educational videos easily available for interested fans who want to learn more.

 

[rvi5]

I think Kaetlyn Osmond's Ice Palace skating club is in a unique position to promote Figure Skating. Being located in the middle of a popular mall, they can attract a crowd of miscellaneous viewers. However, I don't know what type of financial arrangement they have with mall management. If they must lease ice time, they may not be in a position to promote skating unless there was also a bigger financial goal to cover the cost, like acquiring new paying members.

 

[BravesSkateFan]

To reach general audiences who wouldn't even call themselves skating fans, short educational segments on TV broadcasts would probably read the most people at that level of interest.

When I attended the Summer Olympics in London, before each event they showed an event guide on the screens in the arena. It was fairly basic, but it described format, scoring etc. For example when we saw the Rhythmic Gymnastics they described the 4 apparatus and basic skills that would be performed, the area of the floor, how many judges there were, what the judges were looking for etc. It was particularly helpful in the sports that we knew little or nothing about. Perhaps if they aired something like this at the beginning of a broadcast it would be helpful to the casual fan...most especially at the big competitions like Olympics, Worlds and Nationals.

 

[Dragonlady]

To reach general audiences who wouldn't even call themselves skating fans, short educational segments on TV broadcasts would probably read the most people at that level of interest.

CTV used to broadcast a segment at the beginning of discipline's SP setting out the 8 required elements and what the judges were looking for on each. They would also have fluff pieces showing how to identify jumps, and again what the judges are looking for. For a while they also had Jean Senft doing a judge's segment, but I don't remember much about them.

When CoP was introduced, they spent time at the beginning of each broadcast explaining how it worked. Tracy Wilson and Debbie Wilkes took the ISU technical specialist training to help with their commentary. Big difference from what happened in the US where the commentators still don't seem to have a clue about the scoring.

 

[Mathman]

About educating viewers, it's a tough sell any way you look at it. As much skating as I have watched live and on TV, I still generally can't tell one jump from another. Unless the announcer says, here comes a triple flip. Then I nod sagely and say, yup, that was a triple flip -- note the three turns entrance and the inside edge take-off. (Everybody say, ooo, an expert in the house! )

Is it possible to teach such a numbskull the difference between a counter and a Chocktaw?

In this video (its creator is in the U.S. Figure Skating Hall of fame, in the same class as Paul Wylie), is it possible to identify the particular turns and movements in the first 20 seconds? (Serious question.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBrALhb8uiQ#t=0m21s

 

[gkelly]

Is it possible to teach such a numbskull the difference between a counter and a Chocktaw?

Yes, because a counter is a one-foot turn and a choctaw changes feet at the same time it changes direction.

Being able to distinguish between counters vs. rockers or brackets, or choctaws vs. mohawks, would be trickier.

But none of these turns should be introduced in a first lesson on element recognition. Should I suggest a possible format for teaching turn recognition?

In this video (its creator is in the U.S. Figure Skating Hall of fame, in the same class as Paul Wylie), is it possible to identify the particular turns and movements in the first 20 seconds? (Serious question.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBrALhb8uiQ#t=0m21s

There are some recognizable three turns there, but some of the other steps are just simple strokes or two-foot nothings, at least nothing that real skaters on blades would be likely to do or give names to.

 

[dorispulaski]

BTW, there is a Reference section in The Lutz Corner folder-

http://www.goldenskate.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?319-References

When a thread comes up that does a relatively decent job of explaining elements and steps, we store it there.

And if you have a question about either scoring, or about elements, we hope you'll start a thread there.

 

[gkelly]

Here's a good place to start online for recognizing steps and elements: http://www.sk8stuff.com/m_recognize.htm

What I'd like to do is put together some scripts for potential video segments explaining the basic skills to nonskaters.

The time-consuming part would be finding clips to illustrate each point. If we were really a network producing these segments for broadcast, we'd just take a camera down to a rink and get some skaters to demonstrate each one.

 

[mskater93]

MM, pick a program, post the youtube and what section you want identified, and one of the skaters here can identify the steps and turns for you....I typically catalog them as I watch.

 

[Riemann]

In response to the original question, I have to say that I don't view competition that way. There is no one thing that I think a skater has to have in order to deserve to win a competition, because every competition is different.

 

[Mathman]

MM, pick a program, post the youtube and what section you want identified, and one of the skaters here can identify the steps and turns for you....I typically catalog them as I watch.

I will take you up on that!

Here is Mao Asada, Grand Prix Final short program just skated. Staring at about 2:12 she does ??? then a short bacjward spiral (?) then a couple of ???, then a triple loop.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZnHBWYwSfg#t=2m12s

Gkelly beat me up about saying that skaters twitch back and forth. The last moves just before the jump are what I was referring to. The average viewer who is not watching her feet just sees a saucy swish of the backside.

 

[Mathman]

How about this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hXcbgqsq8Q#t=2m0s

To me this looks like a series of one-foot turns into the jump. Mao's transitions are more varied, but are they harder than Ashley's? Does Ashley get any credit for the stag jump right after the triple loop?