What is the point of the Short Program?

[RIskatingfan]

I am very much for keeping the status quo. Reforms are necessary, but those are made every year. I see no need for major changes when they aren't necessary.

Just to add to the discussion the point of view of someone who knows what she's talking about... Tatiana Tarasova talked about this issue in a magazine interview awhile back. She believes the SP is fine, but she (and, according to her, other coaches) would like to see a few more seconds (5 or 10, can't remember) added to the LP to allow the skaters to have more time to "breathe" in between the elements they perform. She talked about other reforms she would like to see in the system, but nothing more about SPs or LPs.

She stressed that the athletes need more support, using as an example how sometimes they wouldn' have enough room to do their warm-up... She also mentioned that because of the expensive equipment necessary for COP, coaches have less room close to the boards to instruct their skaters. Detaisl like that. And as always, she mentioned how ISU should listen more to the coaches and athletes because the sport is made with them, not with officials. Very interesting interview. She also said she likes COP and sounded positive about it and the creative aspect of the programs.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Ahh, the discussion is beginning to take hold.

What is the purpose of two free skates now? It is obviously no longer to test the technical ability of the skater (it never really did, imo) or to replace the school figures. Under CoP, the LP will definitely test the technical, even better than the SP did. So why the SP?

Can anyone tell me what would be the purpose of the SP now, other than to please some fans for an extra skate which will probably never be shown on TV.

Joe

 

[kemy]

Ahh, the discussion is beginning to take hold.

What is the purpose of two free skates now? It is obviously no longer to test the technical ability of the skater (it never really did, imo) or to replace the school figures. Under CoP, the LP will definitely test the technical, even better than the SP did. So why the SP?

Can anyone tell me what would be the purpose of the SP now, other than to please some fans for an extra skate which will probably never be shown on TV.

Joe

The SP has always been used to show that a skater is able to perform a certain number of elements and perform them well under the allotted time. I don't agree with adding more time because it allows the skater more time to set up for an element and it defeats the purpose. I always though of the SP as a sort of compulsary round. In the LP, you don't have to do much of anything. It's rewarded if you do, but you don't get docked points if you don't do steps into your jump. The SP gives exact requirements. The LP only tells you the max and min amount of elements that you can perform. As long as you meet the max and min criteria, you can do whateveryou want. The SP is more specific.

 

[hockeyfan228]

The Short Program was created for Janet Lynn in the 70's, partially to reduce the percentage for the compulsories, and to create another TV-friendly program. Ironically, because the SP had requirements, Lynn managed to botch it, when it was thought to be custom made to hand her the World Championships after the Sapporo Olympics. However, it was still the mix of compulsories and "free" skating in the SP that determined who had a shot for the podium.

The SP still gives a boost to the technical score for Ladies and Pairs, by factoring the component scores to .8, and it allows the judges to compare most competitors within the same range as apples to apples. It used to do this by forcing the majority of competitive skaters into pretty much the same jump selection. Under CoP, the selection is more diverse, because, for example, the psychological element of doing the "lesser" triple under 6.0 -- 3 turns into 3R or steps into 3F for Men -- or lesser triple combo -- 3Z/3T vs. 4T/3T or 4T/2T -- and having that turn into disproportionally lower ordinals in the SP is gone under CoP, at least in the technical scores, and by using the "true" scale, aggregates difficulty and quality uniformly, regardless of one's opinion as to the correctness of the scale.

 

[SkateFan4Life]

The Short Program was created for Janet Lynn in the 70's, partially to reduce the percentage for the compulsories, and to create another TV-friendly program. Ironically, because the SP had requirements, Lynn managed to botch it, when it was thought to be custom made to hand her the World Championships after the Sapporo Olympics. However, it was still the mix of compulsories and "free" skating in the SP that determined who had a shot for the podium.

True! Everyone expected Janet Lynn to win the 1973 Worlds in a waltz, since the short program gave her another opportunity to showcase her superior free skating, and it decreased the weight of the school figures to 30 percent. You still had to skate decent school figures, but if you were a respectable school figures skater and a GREAT free skater, you had a legitimate shot at the title, or at least the podium. Lynn fell twice in her 1973 Worlds short program, yet managed to win the silver medal by winning the long program.

Canadian Karen Magnussen, the 1972 Olympic silver medalist, and a model of consistency, won the 1973 Worlds with solid school figures, and excellent short and long programs.

 

[shine]

I feel the other way around. The short program is jam packed with technical requirements, and usually executing each of these elements flawlessly with precision is enough to make a short program enjoyable. In the LP, though, because it is twice longer and jumps are further apart IMO it's usually more difficult to sustain the mood and keep the audience interested. Fewer skaters have really good choreography in the long program and very few skaters are brilliant long program skaters.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Whether it was Janet Lynn as the reason for the SP, I think the SP was designed to replace figures and test the technical ability of the skater. Jumps and spins are elements of figures, too, as well as stroking and flow.

The fact that is was designed to cram certain elements in a limited time as part of the test is questionable. I think that just happened.

As far as the test of the SP is concerned, all those elements that are included year after year are basically the same and all the skaters execute them very well. A skater does not want to fall, so if the choice is triple or quad, a skater chooses the one he/she believes will not cause a fall. However, many skaters do falter during the actual competition so the test is really how well you can do these elements on this particular day. Tomorrow is not another day.

I still think this can all be accomplished in one skate under the CoP because I have not read anything that makes the SP special in judging a figure skater. As for the time limit, I think the last third of any skater's LP show a lot of whether the skater can measure up to the demand of 4.5 minutes.

Any really good reasons for keeping the SP at this point in time?

Joe

 

[Rgirl]

Can't answer the "do we still need the short program" question, but the purpose of the short program remains valid, at least at the junior level and down.

Junior competitors (and below) are required to execute 8 elements in their short (technical) program. The solo jump (this year a double/triple loop), the axel (single/double), the solo spin, and the flying spin are "predetermined." The remaining 4 elements: combo jump, combo spin, spiral sequence and footwork pattern are at the skater's discretion. Theoretically, the comparison of element to element (axel to axel, loop to loop etc.) helps the judges determine the "quality" and "level of difficulty" (read skill level) that each skater is functioning at.

In the long program, choreographers theoretically cater to the skater's strength and hide their weaknesses by not including weaker, or non-existant elements. Just because you can do the lutz doesn't mean you can do equally well, or at all, all or any of the lesser value jumps.

I have no problem with the short program staying put ... its like a mix of the Compulsory and Original Dances. :yes:

ITA with Lotusland. I'd like to see the SP for seniors evolve into the exact same program: same jumps, same MITF and FW, same music, same basic costume, e.g., black longsleeved or sleeveless leotard with short skirt. Each year the SP would change so that skaters with different strengths would have the opportunity to highlight them.

Sure it would be dull, but since at least in the US ESPN and ABC aren't broadcasting the SPs, only the judges would have to suffer. Seriously, as Lotusland said, it gives the judges the opportunity to compare skaters Lutz to Lutz, layback to layback, musicality and interpretation to same. The purpose for the seniors would be, in my mind, to design a SP that is difficult enough to challenge a skater seeded 5th to 10th in the world, yet not make it a walk in the park for the medal contenders. IMO it would be fine if the SP was somewhat beyand the capabilities of the rest of the field (as long as the elements didn't cause injury) and there could be options, perhaps, of making a 3/2 a 3/3 or something else like that if a a skater can do it. But the main thing would be to compare apples to apples as much as possible in the SP.

Also, I think Tarasova's comment from her interview in which she recommends lengthening the time for the LP is a good one to consider. Ten or 15 years ago, the jump and lift content was not as difficult for singles and pairs both in number of jumps and number of rotations per jump and/or jump combo. Plus the COP make it so that skaters are tempted to do the maximum on spins, spin combos, MITF, FW, spirals, difficult jump entrances and exits, etc. in order to increase points. All this takes energy.

A dozen years ago, it's as if the skaters did a 4:00 or 4:30 min. LP at a pace of about 75% or 80% capacity with five or six explosive moves. Now the LP is done at 100% capacity with 10 or 12 explosive moves. Plus, if a skater does everything on the ISU circuit--the GP series, the ISU competitions, Nationals, Euros or 4CC, and Worlds, plus touring--that's a lot of skating without much time for recovery and training. Add 10 or 15 seconds onto the LP and as Tarasova pointed out, the skaters will have some time to rebuild their lactic acid, which is the primary energy source for this kind of skating.

With a time increase in the LP, I think we'd see a higher quality of skating and a decrease in injuries. With a uniform SP, I think the judges would have clear value system by which to evaluate the technical aspects of the skaters, which was supposed to be it's main purpose in the first place.
Rgirl

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

ITA with Lotusland. I'd like to see the SP for seniors evolve into the exact same program: same jumps, same MITF and FW, same music, same basic costume, e.g., black longsleeved or sleeveless leotard with short skirt. Each year the SP would change so that skaters with different strengths would have the opportunity to highlight them.

Sure it would be dull, but since at least in the US ESPN and ABC aren't broadcasting the SPs, only the judges would have to suffer. Seriously, as Lotusland said, it gives the judges the opportunity to compare skaters Lutz to Lutz, layback to layback, musicality and interpretation to same. The purpose for the seniors would be, in my mind, to design a SP that is difficult enough to challenge a skater seeded 5th to 10th in the world, yet not make it a walk in the park for the medal contenders. IMO it would be fine if the SP was somewhat beyand the capabilities of the rest of the field (as long as the elements didn't cause injury) and there could be options, perhaps, of making a 3/2 a 3/3 or something else like that if a a skater can do it. But the main thing would be to compare apples to apples as much as possible in the SP.
With a time increase in the LP, I think we'd see a higher quality of skating and a decrease in injuries. With a uniform SP, I think the judges would have clear value system by which to evaluate the technical aspects of the skaters, which was supposed to be it's main purpose in the first place.
Rgirl

Welcome back Rgirl and ITA on this post. I belikeve it is time to give the SP a raison d'etre.. I see the LP as a do whatever you want and entertain me with big tricks included in a well balanced choreographic routine. The music and costume should reflect the personal tastes of the skater. And 4.5 minutes will test the endurance of a skater.

But, the SP should be the test, as mentioned above, as a comparison of apples to apples. Rather than complain about flutzes, let's compare the skaters' lutzes and reward the skaters that execute true lutzes, and compare: faster spins, intricate footwork, etc. Establish a color for a costume for all to wear. I would even go so far as to have the same music.

I agree that the contest would be boring after a while but that would only be for the casual fan and general public who probably are not in the arena at that time of day or early evening. But for the avid fan, it will be plenty interesting see the difference in skaters as they execute the same elements. (I am not bored with the compulsory dances.)

Of course, this will never happen. The ISU is slow on changing formats and testing a new format may take years with lots of negative input.

Joe

 

[Mathman]

Rgirl, you're the GS MVP! Cool to see you posting again.

Mathman

 

[SkateFan4Life]

Back in the days before the short program, the singles skates competed in the school figures and the long program. One free skate, period. Of course, the school figures played a huge role in determining the outcome of the competition.
You could be the most brilliant free skater on the planet, but if your school figures looked like the Santa Fe Railroad, you didn't stand a chance to medal, unless everyone in front of you self-destructed in the long program.

Personally, I think it's perfectly OK and reasonable to have two programs, one "short", and the other "long". I would like to see the short program deductions for errors reduced so that a fall doesn't necessarily take a skater out of the competition.

Remember when the short program was called the "original" program? What a silly name, as the skaters still had to do the same required elements!

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Nothing wrong with two programs. The question is are they different? If they are judged the same why have two? One is enough. If they are different then by all means have two programs. The problem remains, what can the SP tell of a skater's excelence other than making an error which they don't normally do.

Joe

 

[Rgirl]

Welcome back Rgirl and ITA on this post. I believe it is time to give the SP a raison d'etre......

Rgirl, you're the GS MVP! Cool to see you posting again.

Thanks Joe and Mathman. Good to have some time to post again .

Of course, this will never happen. The ISU is slow on changing formats and testing a new format may take years with lots of negative input.

So true. Talking about the ISU making changes initiated by anybody but Speedy is, as they say, whizzing in the wind . Still fun to hope though.
Rgirl