Structure of Zagitova's Free Skate
- Thread starter Tolstoj
- Start date
from the Skating Skills criteria:
Use of deep edges
Balance, rhythmic knee action and precision of foot placement
Flow and glide
Varied use of power, speed and acceleration
Use of multidirectional skating (clockwise and counterclockwise, forward and backward)
Judges would also look at whether the skater is getting power from both feet and would listen for the sounds the blades make or don't make (the side of the blade grinding into the ice = good; toepicks scratching = bad)
I don't think crossovers themselves would count positively toward transitions. But body movements count as transitions. So if a skater includes choreographed arm or head or torso movements during the crossovers, or free leg movements between crossovers, those could add to the TR score.
That part was more to clarify what CBC commentators said a couple of weeks ago at the Cup of China, that Alina's program should be penalised on the composition (so on the PCS) because the program is "unbalanced" and judges don't know the rules, while in reality such rule do not exist, and the meaning of "balance" is completely different for ISU: it's possible receiving high components for a fully backloaded program.
Then i totally understand that people might appreciate more the symmetry on a program, it's a matter of personal taste.
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2016
Thank you so much! So: in general are the criteria for SS (with the exception of mastery of one-foot skating), but I do not understand - and if I have read well your post maybe it is the same for you - how they can be counted in TR, as the tweet of Wong seems to suggest.
And just moving the head during crossovers is really to be counted as turns or in general difficult steps on one foot?
Then, if I am not too much OT, it would be possible to know if a lot of two feet skate (and thus also crossovers) of "high quality" too, mixed with few more difficult steps and/or turns can receive high scores in SS and TR as well as one foot skate with a lot of difficult transitions and just a limited number of crossovers (i.e. an FS program with crossovers from 44 to 54 against an FS program with 28-34 max. crossovers)?
I know that it is difficult to say it just by numbers without seeing the actual performances, but I would like to know if in some part those numbers could/would count something in the scores of SS and TR or not.
Thanks in advance for the possible answer/s.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
Skating Skills: talks about precision of foot placement as well as flow and glide. A fall, IMO, is contrary to those things. If you're falling, your foot was not placed right, and it is not exhibiting flow or glide. Some might argue that the execution of an element is not part of skating skills and elements are distinct from PCS, but I disagree... it's part of "the clarity of technique" that the criteria describes. And of course, jumps are part of choreography even if they are elements. Not to mention, footwork sequences - like jumps - are elements too. So if a skater is doing a very interpretive footwork sequence, with good skating skills and deep edges and expression, most would agree that should contribute to higher SS, PE, CO and IN scores, even though the StSq/ChSq is an element. Can't have your cake and eat it too.
Interpretation: talks about use of finesse to express details in the music. If a skater falls on a jump that's supposed to be in time with the music (as many jumps are), then they are not using finesse, not to mention it is also a break in the "Skater reflecting the expression or character of a music". Jumps are supposed to complement/reflect/enhance musical highlights, so failing to execute them properly is failing to highlight the music appropriately.
Transitions: If a skater does a 2A normally with an exit transition, if they fall on that exit transition, then she should score lower as they have not executed the transition.
Composition: it talks about Idea, Concept, Vision and Mood. A fall is disruptive to these things... obviously a fall is not PART of the Vision, Concept or the Mood of the program. It is an error, after all, and in an ideal program, the skater intends NOT to fall. I don't think the choreographer is saying "that fall was intentional because that's when Romeo/Carmen/Satine/etc. dies." and constructs the program inserting deliberate falls, lol.
The most obvious case against falls getting 10's for PE: Performance talks about "Carriage and clarity of movement". How the heck is a fall upholding "Carriage and Clarity of movement"? Carriage is alluding to the posture and poise of the skater. If they fall, they do not have perfect carriage and posture throughout the entire program, therefore the Performance cannot be considered perfect (i.e. 10.00).
Re: backloading... Performance talks about Variety of Contrast of Movements and Energy. If the most energetic parts of a program/the program's highlights (i.e. jumps) are all stacked together in one part of the program, how is that being upheld? If Zagitova had a more energetic StSq to start her SP and FS, sure the backloading might be a bit more justified because the energy is still balanced throughout the program, however she skates her step sequences as if she's just using up time to get to the bonus half and doesn't fully commit (otherwise she'll tire herself out before her jump fest).
Can we stop justifying 10's for falls (and even backloading) as if these things aren't covered by the Components criteria?
Interpretation: talks about use of finesse to express details in the music. If a skater falls on a jump that's supposed to be in time with the music (as many jumps are), then they are not using finesse, not to mention it is also a break in the "Skater reflecting the expression or character of a music". Jumps are supposed to complement/reflect/enhance musical highlights, so failing to execute them properly is failing to highlight the music appropriately.
Transitions: If a skater does a 2A normally with an exit transition, if they fall on that exit transition, then she should score lower as they have not executed the transition.
Composition: it talks about Idea, Concept, Vision and Mood. A fall is disruptive to these things... obviously a fall is not PART of the Vision, Concept or the Mood of the program. It is an error, after all, and in an ideal program, the skater intends NOT to fall. I don't think the choreographer is saying "that fall was intentional because that's when Romeo/Carmen/Satine/etc. dies." and constructs the program inserting deliberate falls, lol.
The most obvious case against falls getting 10's for PE: Performance talks about "Carriage and clarity of movement". How the heck is a fall upholding "Carriage and Clarity of movement"? Carriage is alluding to the posture and poise of the skater. If they fall, they do not have perfect carriage and posture throughout the entire program, therefore the Performance cannot be considered perfect (i.e. 10.00).
Re: backloading... Performance talks about Variety of Contrast of Movements and Energy. If the most energetic parts of a program/the program's highlights (i.e. jumps) are all stacked together in one part of the program, how is that being upheld? If Zagitova had a more energetic StSq to start her SP and FS, sure the backloading might be a bit more justified because the energy is still balanced throughout the program, however she skates her step sequences as if she's just using up time to get to the bonus half and doesn't fully commit (otherwise she'll tire herself out before her jump fest).
Can we stop justifying 10's for falls (and even backloading) as if these things aren't covered by the Components criteria?
As i wrote before for me, a fall on a jump is not part of skating skills (it might huts that depending on how you recover), and even performance but it is on the steps sequence or during a transition for example.
We aren't justifying anything, but technically there isn't a rule to prevent 10s on a program with a fall.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
Why is the ability to control foot placement/edges and flow/glide in transitions or footwork sequences part of skating skills.... but the ability to control the foot placement/landing of a jump and the exit flow/glide NOT part of skating skills?
There isn't a rule to prevent 10.00's for a program with 20 falls in it. So I don't really buy the whole "there's no rule for it, so it's okay" rhetoric.
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2008
Jackie Wong is wrong, as are you. Her program is not balanced, this is an exact phrase used by the ISU in describing the component:
"Each part and section has equal weight in achieving the aesthetic pursuit of the composition."
Taking half of your program to conserve energy and then doing all of the jumps of your program in a row does not show equal weight.
Here's another phrase that also applies to why Zaigotva's program (and nearly every program these days) should not be receiving the very high component score that they often do:
"A program achieves unity when: every step, movement, and element is motivated by the music."
Pretty much every program we see these days has movements that are not motivated by the music, but rather movements that are there to pick up a feature for technical points. In Zagitova's jump layout this is evident, several jumps are placed in the program only because that's where the second half bonus happens to be, not because the music dictates that kind of movement.
As shown above, the rules DO exist and the judges are not doing their job properly. "Balance" DOES mean what the CBC commentators described. Just because the term "well balanced program" exists with regards to the inclusion of elements, that doesn't mean this word doesn't also have other meanings.
"Each part and section has equal weight in achieving the aesthetic pursuit of the composition."
Taking half of your program to conserve energy and then doing all of the jumps of your program in a row does not show equal weight.
Here's another phrase that also applies to why Zaigotva's program (and nearly every program these days) should not be receiving the very high component score that they often do:
"A program achieves unity when: every step, movement, and element is motivated by the music."
Pretty much every program we see these days has movements that are not motivated by the music, but rather movements that are there to pick up a feature for technical points. In Zagitova's jump layout this is evident, several jumps are placed in the program only because that's where the second half bonus happens to be, not because the music dictates that kind of movement.
As shown above, the rules DO exist and the judges are not doing their job properly. "Balance" DOES mean what the CBC commentators described. Just because the term "well balanced program" exists with regards to the inclusion of elements, that doesn't mean this word doesn't also have other meanings.
My understanding is that crossovers, especially their quality, are considered in the Skating Skills component, not under Transitions.
I referred to all the SS criteria that relate to crossovers in answer to your question about how to evaluate the quality. I left out the mentions of steps and turns and one-foot skating because they don't apply to crossovers.
NO. It counts as body movements.
Transitions include things like steps and turns, unlisted jumps, "field moves" (spirals, spread eagles, etc.), and body movements.
It's possible to do body movements during crossovers, so a program with many crossovers could be gaining some credit for Transitions during those crossovers.
Technically, anything that happens between other moves is a transition between those moves. But very basic skating -- the kinds of moves that beginners do, even though elite skaters do them much much much better -- doesn't by itself add anything positive to the Transitions score. If Jackie Wong is implying that they should, I disagree. But to some extent it is a matter of semantics.
If a skater is doing a lot of crossovers in a program, she probably doesn't have time for much difficulty or variety of transitions.
But there could be exceptions. maybe she uses crossovers to get up speed for an awesome field move or unlisted jump(s) leading straight into a triple jump element, with enough speed and control coming out to do something interesting right on the landing.
Maybe she can step directly from a jump landing into a spin, or from the last step of a step sequence into a jump or spin.
Maybe she does choreographed body movements during or between all those crossovers.
And the "continuity of movements" criterion that was added to the Transitions guidelines last year (in place of "intricacy") means that even if the skater is doing something really simple such as crossovers, if they flow continuously from one element to another that's worth more than starting and stopping and lurching and squaring off and telegraphing.
So it is possible to deserve high transitions scores even with lots of crossovers, but not if the only thing between the elements is crossovers (because then there would be no variety or difficulty).
It's also possible to have few crossovers but not much variety or difficulty. Maybe there's a lot of simple forward stroking. Or two-foot skating like swizzles half swizzles and slaloms. Maybe the only turns in the whole program (outside the step sequence) are the simplest threes and mohawks. Maybe there are no unlisted jumps or field moves at all, let alone leading into or out of elements.
I don't think whether a program is balanced or not is a yes-or-no question. I think it's a matter of degree. There are several different kinds of balance that can be considered under the Composition component (more under the old Choreography wording). There are also numerous criteria under that component that don't relate to balance.
So it's silly to harp on one part of one criterion as though it is the defining factor for that component.
Look at the bigger picture. Decide which criteria you weight most strongly in your own assessments. Disagree with scores that appear to be valuing different bullet points more strongly. But consider that other experts may have equally or possibly more valid weightings that are just different, not necessarily better or worse.
So it's silly to harp on one part of one criterion as though it is the defining factor for that component.
Look at the bigger picture. Decide which criteria you weight most strongly in your own assessments. Disagree with scores that appear to be valuing different bullet points more strongly. But consider that other experts may have equally or possibly more valid weightings that are just different, not necessarily better or worse.
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2016
Thank you so much @gkelly, very clear.
It is also clearer to me that these parts of PCS (SS and TR) are very difficult to judge-and-score using some kind of measurable reference. And I thought that these were the more "objective" to evaluate ( or countable also in some quantitative way) among the five components...
So, I find debatable also another statement in the article of Wong (related to that tweet: http://www.rockerskating.com/news/2017/11/12/opining-on-2017-nhk-trophy-all-components-are-not-created-equal) that says "They (PCS) are a way to quantitatively measure qualitative parts of a program" ...or not?
This is not to discuss Wong in particular, because this is not the right thread, but to understand better the scores gave in SS and TR to the programs of Zagitova and of other top ladies, as well as those of the top men.
It is also clearer to me that these parts of PCS (SS and TR) are very difficult to judge-and-score using some kind of measurable reference. And I thought that these were the more "objective" to evaluate ( or countable also in some quantitative way) among the five components...
So, I find debatable also another statement in the article of Wong (related to that tweet: http://www.rockerskating.com/news/2017/11/12/opining-on-2017-nhk-trophy-all-components-are-not-created-equal) that says "They (PCS) are a way to quantitatively measure qualitative parts of a program" ...or not?
This is not to discuss Wong in particular, because this is not the right thread, but to understand better the scores gave in SS and TR to the programs of Zagitova and of other top ladies, as well as those of the top men.
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2008
Yes this is the most sensible thing people need to be focusing on. The PCS are on a scale. An unbalanced program like Zagitova's can still have better choreography and interpretation than a "balanced" program, but that doesn't mean her choreography and interpretation are nearly perfect.
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2015
I'm sorry that your ears failed you. Her jumps are exactly timed with the highlights of the music. And yes just so conveniently happen to be in the latter part of the music. But hey, you are entitled to your "unique" opinion anyway.
Compared to the other components, they're less subjective. But they still rely on human perception, and on value judgments about how to weight the different criteria against each other.
Well, they're quantitatively scored in the sense that the judges turn their impressions into numbers. But they're not really measuring -- more evaluating. Or estimating, when it comes to things like speed that could be objectively in theory, but not by the human eye.
To me falling on a jump is a technical mistake, the components mark is everything not related to the jumps or the spins. So when you fall on a jump, you get the -1 deduction and -3 on the GOEs from all the judges.
That is also why on the flip side, an original spin position, maybe related to theme of the music shouldn't give any advantage on the components but instead on the GOEs, or even an arm variation on a jump that is nice detail that should boost the GOEs, not the PCS in any way. When you're doing a footwork sequences you're not just doing it but you're also supposed to sell the program, that is not just technical but also artistic so that should be reflected.
That is my interpretation, but there isn't anything about the jumps or the spins on the rules for the components, because that's what it is: jumps and spins are merely technical elements.
It's okay because it did happen already: Evgenia Medvedeva has received 10s with one fall on the 2a: she quickly recovered, it wasn't an hard fall by any means but it is still a fall.
So the message there is that we can expect 10s for programs with falls, and looking at the Olympics where usually scores are very inflated, i can see this situation happening again. Then we can all say that is ridiculous,... it is what it is.
Please link me the part on the rules where it says that balance means an equal distribution of elements, and the fact that is a rule, otherwise there is a lack of evidence here.
The part you mentioned about choreography / composition is NO LONGER there if you read the rules.
http://www.isu.org/inside-single-pa...igure-skating-rules/regulations-rules-fs/file
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2015
Meh I just can't bring myself to get worked up about this girl...in 2-3 years she will most likely be fighting for her relevance and we will have a new over scored Russian teen to argue over...wash rinse repeat
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2013
All the more reason to support her now IMO.
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2008
They aren't, her 3Lutz+3Loop has literally nothing to do with the music and the 2Axel+3Toe is not very revelant to the music either.
Putting jumps on music highlights is not the entirety of interpretation either, it's about a greater sense of purpose and form and translating music into form. Whatever the music is doing, it's about finding the BEST way to marry the movements of skating into phrases of movement that create emotion and draw out the inner life of the music or build upon it.
That document is not all of "the rules". There have been many other clarifications and descriptions to this "base set" of rules in communications from the ISU over the years. Additionally there are many other facets and specifics of skating that are not listed in any public ISU document, but rather shared between judges, ISU officials, coaches, and skaters. The base rules are not intended to be a full description of everything the ISU shows judges and coaches, and the full understandings ISU members have, nor a full description of the reasoning behind why ISU members create certain rules.
Similar threads
- Sticky
