Why male figure skating has become stale/lackluster – thoughts after seeing the GPF

[Joesitz (RIP)]

I kind of agree with the topic although it is basically sexbiased. I also think more of the lackluster of Women's skating. Women's figure skating has the same old tricks with either ballet-like arms or flailing arms, and now giddy girls are taking over.

 

[let`s talk]

However, right now, I feel something is lost. Figure skating has become less artistic, fluid; programs feel more mechanical, monotonous. In short, many programs look dull to watch.

+1 So, what to do? Come back to 6.0? Or what?

I would make the judgement open. Now they do what they want and they know their names are protected, as the result they will never be dismissed or banned from judging.

 

[gkelly]

something worth noticing which I would like someone to explain me, how can the same jump in sp get from -3 to +2 Goe?

Examples?

I can think of two reasons why that might happen.

1) In a short program, the jump is not according to requirements, e.g., double-double combination in a senior program, but it was very well done. The GOE in that case is required to be -3. It's possible a judge momentarily forgot the rules of the kind of program they were judging and marked the element only on quality, as if in a long program.

2) The jump is high and has decent speed in and out, so one judge sees only the good aspects and gives it +2. Another judge sees a significant change of edge on the takeoff, telegraphing/long pause between jumps and preceding steps, and/or underrotation on the landing and gives -3. This is less likely because the judges are supposed to see the downgrade and edge calls from the tech panel, so if there are calls then +2 would be an incorrect GOE, and if there's no call than -3 would be overly harsh for errors only that judge could see. But at least the latter would be an honest, correct mark according to that judge's assessment of the element.

Oh, I can also think of a third possibility:

3) The judge intended to give the +2 or -3 to the element before or after, but they inputted it in the wrong box and didn't check their marks carefully enough before sending them.

1) and 3) are just flat-out errors that any judge could make occasionally -- to err is human. Making those kinds of mistakes frequently would be cause for concern about competence.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Jumping High is a natural ability. It has nothing to do with natural skating. Best thing is to limit the those skaters who are only high jumpers as contestants.

Should the skater who jumps a fraction higher than that of a second jumper be rewarded more than one who jumped less than a fraction as high? Btw, who measures these heights? and how does he do it?

 

[gkelly]

Jumping High is a natural ability. It has nothing to do with natural skating. Best thing is to limit the those skaters who are only high jumpers as contestants.

In effect, the short program requirements already do that. If you can't rotate double axels and triples, you can't do a legal senior short program and will score low in long programs as well. So skaters who can't jump high at all will be weeded out before senior level.

Some who only jump just high enough but are good at rotating quickly will do OK if they're also good at other skills.

Should the skater who jumps a fraction higher than that of a second jumper be rewarded more than one who jumped less than a fraction as high?

Height is only one aspect of a jump. That alone won't earn more points. Rotating and landing the jumps successfully will give the full base mark.

A jump that is also high and well-organized in the air and also has at least one other good aspect to it (e.g., speed in and out) can deserve +1 GOE.

A jump that has just enough height and just enough speed will probably earn 0 GOE.

A jump that's high but doesn't cover much ice and/or is tilted in the air and saved on the landing will probably earn 0 GOE, maybe -1 for a bad tilt and save. So height alone doesn't give extra points. It does make it easier for the skater to complete the rotation than a skater with smaller jumps and the same technique weaknesses.

Btw, who measures these heights? and how does he do it?

Just the judges' perceptions by eye.

 

[silverlake22]

Found Verner's Always Look On The Bright Side Of Life.

Tommy is quite a showman too, though not quite Kurt Browning or Stephane Lambiel.

BTW, some of Kurt's most memorable programs were professional rather than competitive, 10.0 instead of 6.0 judging.

I wish he'd do this as his EX number again, it works really well with the "theme" of his season and outlook. MJ was good too but where he has an actual MJ program I feel an MJ exhibition on top of it is a little excessive.

My other favorite EX of the season has to be Takahashi's Amelie. So gorgeous.

 

[seniorita]

Examples?

I can think of two reasons why that might happen.

.

I took the example from men's score sp,I didnt want to mention specifically because it was an observation regardless of the skater and the event.
Thank you for answer. I m always puzzled actually when I see such differences in Goe, especially when there is negative and positive goe on the same element, not so much when one has +1 and the other +3 . I know there is always human mistake, and at this example i think this must be it because with my untrained eye I could see if it was an element of + or - Goe, I was just wondering how subjective the Tes can be if it is not an accident (not this case, in general)

 

[gkelly]

Ah, so you're referring to the first jump of the second-place skater?

Looks like that's an example of my reason no. 2 -- there was a < call so most judges reduced the GOE below 0.

As of this year a << call requires that the final GOE be negative; the < just requires that the GOE be reduced by -1 to -2 from what it would have been otherwise.
(Last year, the judges weren't shown the < symbols)

In theory a judge could say that s/he saw the slight underrotation but also saw 6 or more other aspects of the jump that were good enough to deserve +3 so s/he reduced it to +2.

More likely, the judge just thought it looked great in real time, inputted the +2, and didn't go back to check the calls and adjust the GOE after the program.

 

[Mathman]

Ah, so you're referring to the first jump of the second-place skater?

Looks like that's an example of my reason no. 2 -- there was a < call so most judges reduced the GOE below 0.

As of this year a << call requires that the final GOE be negative; the < just requires that the GOE be reduced by -1 to -2 from what it would have been otherwise.
(Last year, the judges weren't shown the < symbols)

In theory a judge could say that s/he saw the slight underrotation but also saw 6 or more other aspects of the jump that were good enough to deserve +3 so s/he reduced it to +2.

More likely, the judge just thought it looked great in real time, inputted the +2, and didn't go back to check the calls and adjust the GOE after the program.

What is the exact procedure? Does the technical specialist call out "<" or "e" in real time, and expect the judges to react instantly? What if the assistant tech specialist yells, "no, it wasn't?"

When the matter goes to replay, do the judges then have an opportunity to change their minds and bring their GOEs into conformity with the final call?

If there is no call, either in real time or as a result of reply, can a judge say, well I thought it was under-rotated or wrong edge anyway, so I will give a negative GOE even if the tech specialist let it go?

 

[gkelly]

What is the exact procedure? Does the technical specialist call out "<" or "e" in real time, and expect the judges to react instantly? What if the assistant tech specialist yells, "no, it wasn't?"

From what I've heard, the technical specialist calls the name of the jump. Then any of the three tech panel members can immediately say "review" and the data operator flags that element for review. The call is not made until after the review, after the end of the program.

When the matter goes to replay, do the judges then have an opportunity to change their minds and bring their GOEs into conformity with the final call?

Yes. I suspect that in this case, that judge just didn't go back and check. Too busy figuring out the PCS maybe.

If there is no call, either in real time or as a result of reply, can a judge say, well I thought it was under-rotated or wrong edge anyway, so I will give a negative GOE even if the tech specialist let it go?

Yes.

 

[seniorita]

More likely, the judge just thought it looked great in real time, inputted the +2, and didn't go back to check the calls and adjust the GOE after the program.

yes it was about this jump, although I used it as example, I ve seen the difference in Goe in other occasions also.

From what I've heard, the technical specialist calls the name of the jump. Then any of the three tech panel members can immediately say "review" and the data operator flags that element for review. The call is not made until after the review, after the end of the program.

This reminds me of the Buzz! Game
Since we open the questions box, do the judges put marks as the program goes, or their system opens after the skater finishes and in the meantime they take notes?
Is it better if they wait until calls, reviews, flags are ready and then mark? Or there is not enough time for this?
It looked so easy when they were sitting on a chair around the sides of the ice and had this little cartons with numbers!

 

[gkelly]

Since we open the questions box, do the judges put marks as the program goes, or their system opens after the skater finishes and in the meantime they take notes?
Is it better if they wait until calls, reviews, flags are ready and then mark? Or there is not enough time for this?

From what I've observed at club competitions, they can put in the marks for each element as it occurs and they can also go back and make changes afterward. Different judges might have different preferences about how many notes to take on paper, which could affect their ability to keep up with the live GOEs.

After the end of the program, the tech panel will be doing reviews and the judges will be putting in their GOEs. They should also check the elements for changes or underrotation/downgrade and edge calls.

I don't know if there's anything different about how the system works at international events.

It looked so easy when they were sitting on a chair around the sides of the ice and had this little cartons with numbers!

Heh. Well, they only had to come up with two numbers back then. But they still sometimes ended up holding up the cards backward, wrong card in each hand. (At least, I've seen that happen at club competitions with open marking but no electronic display . . . not all that long ago.)

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

In effect, the short program requirements already do that. If you can't rotate double axels and triples, you can't do a legal senior short program and will score low in long programs as well. So skaters who can't jump high at all will be weeded out before senior level.
Some who only jump just high enough but are good at rotating quickly will do OK if they're also good at other skills.

That would be Lipinsky. She could rotate 3 air turns at 3/4 inch off the ice. and had that giddy style for gold.

Height is only one aspect of a jump. That alone won't earn more points. Rotating and landing the jumps successfully will give the full base mark.

That's your opinion. Others might think if one can not jump high, the skater should not go into competition unless they do overextended Spirals on the flat of the blade.
Is it written in the description of a jump how high in cm or inches it should be? If one jumps higher than the other does he negate the award for the former? All this is the eye of the beholder. No?

A jump that is also high and well-organized in the air and also has at least one other good aspect to it (e.g., speed in and out) can deserve +1 GOE.

Speed makes jumping easier. It's a physics law, not a skating attribute. One doesn't see a High Jumper in the Summer Olys standing by the bar. He runs to it. Same as a Pole Vaulter runs to his bar.

My opinion is that a skater who is not gifted with height in jumping should not be penalized. If he/she executes a jump (including proper take offs) by definitions they deserve base value. Anything else is GoE stuff and should be reflected in the PC scores.

 

[pangtongfan]

This is the worst season EVER for singles skating. Even the pairs and dance with all the retirements/breakups or absences has been far superior. I have no explantion, but singles skating has hit rock bottom for the moment. Thank goodness Kim will be back for Worlds and Chan finally did a clean (or almost clean) competition.

 

[gkelly]

That would be Lipinsky.

Yes. She did more than just OK.

Rudy Galindo comes to mind as another skater with small jumps who did well for himself when he got the technique working just right for him in 1996.

That's your opinion. Others might think if one can not jump high, the skater should not go into competition unless they do overextended Spirals on the flat of the blade.

I don't know anyone who thinks that.

Is it written in the description of a jump how high in cm or inches it should be?

No.
It is written in the rules what consitutes a clean double axel or triple jump. If a skater's physical abilities don't allow them to achieve those jumps, they won't succeed in a sport that requires those jumps. Having the ability to jump higher will make it much more likely that they will achieve the necessary rotation in the air.

Speed makes jumping easier. It's a physics law, not a skating attribute.

Yes, but speed also gives skaters less time to prepare for the jump and think about technique. Why do so many skaters first beginning to attempt double axels (at juvenile through novice level) or who never got comfortable with that jump (e.g., Caroline Zhang) slow down and telegraph the approach to that jump? Why do so many junior men first attempting triple axels also crawl into them? They need time to think and get the muscles and body parts positioned just right?

Why did I do my single axel practically at a standstill? (So much so that I have even been known to land behind the point where I took off)

You don't see it as much with the backward-takeoff jumps, especially at the senior level with triples, but go watch a juvenile competition. The kids who still need to think about the technique on their double jumps will approach them much more slowly than the kids who are already confident in their technique.

My opinion is that a skater who is not gifted with height in jumping should not be penalized. If he/she executes a jump (including proper take offs) by definitions they deserve base value.

Right. To get better than base value, they have to do at least two things extra well. Height could be one of those things, but it doesn't have to be.

Anything else is GoE stuff and should be reflected in the PC scores.

You personally insist on misunderstanding the intention of GOE and PCS. The rest of the skating world will go on rewarding superior technique in the elements in the score for those element.

 

[Nadine]

In answer to the subject of this thread, yes, it is stale/lackluster this season, that I agree with, but then again it usually is after a phenomenal Olympic season. But deep down we hope, or at least I do, that a skater will come out of the blue & set the world on fire! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTVsGijzB-A

But don't worry y'all, Zhenya will come and make everything right starting next season. The King is back, he'll set aright a world gone mad! hwell: And show the young'uns how's it's done, complete with consistency, quads, 3axels, Nijinksy, et al. :coo:

 

[Violet Bliss]

Why did I do my single axel practically at a standstill? (So much so that I have even been known to land behind the point where I took off)

Wow! I'm impressed! How did you manage to accomplish that? Did you jump Eastward or Westward? Were you able to stay in the air while the Earth rotated under you? Or you had a time machine?

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

I don't know anyone who thinks that.

Neither do I. I was being facetious.

No.
It is written in the rules what consitutes a clean double axel or triple jump. If a skater's physical abilities don't allow them to achieve those jumps, they won't succeed in a sport that requires those jumps. Having the ability to jump higher will make it much more likely that they will achieve the necessary rotation in the air.

Tara says not necessary.

Yes, but speed also gives skaters less time to prepare for the jump and think about technique. Why do so many skaters first beginning to attempt double axels (at juvenile through novice level) or who never got comfortable with that jump (e.g., Caroline Zhang) slow down and telegraph the approach to that jump? Why do so many junior men first attempting triple axels also crawl into them? They need time to think and get the muscles and body parts positioned just right?

ok but that's talking Technique. Nothing wrong with Technique although it's not scored per se.

Right. To get better than base value, they have to do at least two things extra well. Height could be one of those things, but it doesn't have to be.

That's new to me. If a skater earns the base value of an element he should also do two extra things to get the plus GoEs going. It makes sense for the present system, but as you know I find the plus GoEs will fit into the PC scores. Take a look at the Protocols and add up the plus GoEs then subtract the minus GoEs and voila you have his performance of the competition regarding his Tech. I think it will give the skater his reward too. GoEs not necessary in scoring if the 0-10 scoring system is used as it is in other scored sports.

 

[Violet Bliss]

GoEs not necessary in scoring if the 0-10 scoring system is used as it is in other scored sports.

The PCS is 0-10 scoring system.

The elements are scored separately and differently because they have different degrees of difficulty so they are assigned base value points. GOE points are about the quality of the elements performed. I don't understand why you keep saying GOE on elements should go into PCS. :scratch:

Figure skating is just so very different from other sports.

 

[gkelly]

Wow! I'm impressed! How did you manage to accomplish that? Did you jump Eastward or Westward? Were you able to stay in the air while the Earth rotated under you? Or you had a time machine?

Nah, I just had a very curled-in takeoff edge and no speed. Kind of like an axel flying sitspin without the sit and without the spin.

The funniest was the time when I landed exactly where I took off, so the tracing looked like a 3 turn (the bottom curve being the takeoff edge and the top curve being the landing).

Neither do I. I was being facetious.

Good.

ok but that's talking Technique. Nothing wrong with Technique although it's not scored per se.

Yes, it is.

That's new to me. If a skater earns the base value of an element he should also do two extra things to get the plus GoEs going.

Right.

Originally the guidelines for GOEs talked about phases of the element and how many phases had to be acceptable, good, very good, or superior to earn +GOEs (see p. 4):
http://www.isu.org/vsite/vfile/page/fileurl/0,11040,4844-168551-185769-65184-0-file,00.pdf

A few years ago they rewrote the GOE guidelines to encourage judges to give positive GOEs when warranted and defined the criteria in terms of bullet points. The latest version is on p. 10:
http://www.isu.org/vsite/vnavsite/page/directory/0,10853,4844-130127-131435-nav-list,00.html

It makes sense for the present system, but as you know I find the plus GoEs will fit into the PC scores. Take a look at the Protocols and add up the plus GoEs then subtract the minus GoEs and voila you have his performance of the competition regarding his Tech. I think it will give the skater his reward too. GoEs not necessary in scoring if the 0-10 scoring system is used as it is in other scored sports.

How does diving scoring work? Each dive has a degree of difficulty (=base value) and also a score for execution, right? Are they added or multiplied or what?

Obviously there are no points in diving for the quality of how the diver climbs to the diving board/platform before the dive or swims to the edge of the pool afterward. That's not important in that sport.

In skating, there are scores for what the skater does between the trick (Skating Skills and Transitions). And then there are also scores for how the skater presents the whole program, to the music, which are also not important in diving. Thus the need for more scores.