WinForPooh

@illyria Your gifsets and video on steps and turns are absolutely priceless, thank you so much for doing them! And for the stsq breakdowns as well that you do on your blog.

Oh cool if you wouldn't consider it derailing here!

ISU is an international body made up of member federations and the ISU council is basically put together from major participating federations - USA, Russia, Japan, Spain, Canada and a couple of other countries are in the ISU council - so it's not like it's a separate thing, the politics we see in judging (judges are also representing their countries' feds) is probably just a sample of the politics that go on during rule-making and conferences of ISU. And I don't buy the judges aren't trained thing at all, they are very well trained when they have to spot edges and UR when done by skaters from smaller feds. I didn't see any of Emmi's URs go uncalled, iirc, for instance. There are better words for such selective incompetence.

It's not just Liza, you know. I mean I love Caro but her spins are not exactly great, either. Her jumps are fabulous once she gets the long setup over with, and her SS are sublime, but her spins... And probably every junior among Japanese men. Maybe difference between levels for spins and stsq should be like differences between single, double, triple and quad jumps. Theoretically, about StSq, if the levels were distinguished like that, then a very slow and not musical StSq would get negative GOE and one with deep edges like Chiddy or lightning fast footwork like LGC would get positive GOE. But even if there was a system like that, ISU would do the same thing they're doing now with jumps Suddenly soft knees would become ugly and winks would become essential GOE bullet for StSq. It just doesn't matter what the system is if they keep it deliberately vague and ignore what specifics they do give, you know? They are, like @makebelieveup said, deliberately going in a certain direction that does look very much like agenda.

It is possible, but it shouldn't be. I mean I love Empress Liza so much but that her spins get level 4s with positive GOE is wild. The way the levels are set up now, it's perfectly fair that she gets them, but the way I see it, good spins need skill, and it's just as impressive a skill as jumping. The difference in spin skills between Liza and Satoko should be worth more than a couple of points. The difference in jumping skills between the two of them is worth a lot more, as it should be. CoP undervalues everything except jumps, because with GOEs tied to BV, even a +5 on spin only gives you a couple of points. I don't think that a bad StSq could give level 4 because StSq requirements are far stricter. You can get away with a kinda-layback-ish spin but you have to have edge control to be able to do a three-turn cluster, you have to have the curves to do a rocker or a counter, you have to be able to change foot, direction and edge to do a choctaw, you need excellent control to keep the blade on the ice when you do an inside loop. For spins, you can hit the required number of rotations if you can hold it, but for StSq, you really cannot get the level 4 without having good SS. Well, you shouldn't be able to, I haven't a clue how Vincent's StSq got the levels they did because I couldn't tell between counters and brackets, how do you tell when everything looks so flat? Curve, what curve, where? But yeah, BV is the most important thing now, which means jumps and going clean are the most important things. That's why Nathan is very smart to stick with the high value jumps he's confident of landing, he gets both BV and consistency. That is the winning combination right there. He has established his reputation as having good toe jumps so the fact that his Flip edge has been getting flatter and flatter in the last two seasons doesn't seem to matter. If Samarin can drill his jumps enough to land them, he'll start getting high GOE and PCS too, irrespective of how his axis wobbles in the air. We can debate the current rules all we want but I think, realistically, the judging we've seen this season shows what ISU wants. It's not like they make the technical handbooks and then some random strange aliens from outer space with no context apply them. The rules are being applied by the people who made the rules so I think we can conclude that what we've seen is exactly what they intended from the rules. PCS and GOE both depend on BV, technical requirements are guidelines, and not falling on quads no matter how they're executed will win. The tech panel isn't made of strangers to the rule-making, either. I don't know why they want the sport to head in this direction, but they do, and they control it. ETA: Should we have a thread where we try to guess what ISU want? I mean what do they want exactly and why do they do what they do? It might descend into all kinds of mayhem though.

I agree, there are. I think that is because jumps are over-valued, and the CoP allows bad spinners to hit level 4s, and TPs don't evaluate StSq properly. I don't think jumps should be worth so much more than everything else, tbh, because why are they? I think a very well done StSq should be worth as much as a 4Lz. So should a very well executed level 4 spin, and I don't think awkward spins should get level 4s. Could a skater execute quads and spins and the StSq and the ChSq well, really well, without committing to the in-between? I don't know, actually. We do know that having good SS doesn't mean they'll use them between elements, Shoma still does all the crossovers even if we know he has the ability to do a lot more. But he does commit to the programme despite that. You know, it's funny. ISU talked such a big game about reassuring judges that they're important and things haven't really changed and all of these are guidelines and all of that, but those caps for PCS tell another story, don't they? That's a blatant admission that they think judges were doing their jobs wrong and giving too many 10s. It also kind of gives the impression that clean programme = winning programme, doesn't it?

I don't want the 'must use eyes' part to be discarded, but I was talking more about the 'good flow' part of GOE, out of jumps, which should at the very least have a few examples of what it is not. For SS, or any marks out of ten that essentially works like the out of six artistic marks, the only solution that has any hope of working is somehow instilling in the judges integrity and loyalty to the sport instead of to their federations and I don't think medical science will get that advanced in the time we have left before the apocalypse. I mentioned the twitter comment mostly because most of these comments are being made to justify scores that have already been given, so these points of view don't exist in a vacuum, they're being supported by the scores. And the comments then support the scores, and that then... But I don't think it's because the judges lack training. Well maybe they don't, but go farther down than the top five or six and we see skaters and their skills being judged quite according to how you'd expect the CoP to be applied. ( Thank you, I do believe in keeping my rants as entertaining as possible, we need the laughs.)

lol I thought I was done but I'm not because I just read @hoodie axel's comment properly and I don't know if this is what you're getting at but I don't think a really great jump should get an additional 50% of its BV. That was supposed to reward quality, that rule, but what that actually did is just lower the bar so much for what an acceptable jump is. What would have got a +1 before now gets +3 (if the flag is right, of course) and the only way they give anything lower than -2 is if they splat. Now the BV seems to be for 'on their feet, no hand down, no foot down'. How many quads have got just the BV in the last season? What exactly is a quad that just gets its BV now? I haven't the slightest clue. An average in every way quad should get BV, I think, but it automatically gets +2 or +3! Visible wobbliness in the air or on landing should get negative GOE but ??????? I don't know. The new GOE system is turning out to be a modern mini 6-point system for the highest value individual elements in a programme and that's not a step forward. Well unless they know what they're stepping towards and this is where they wanna go, in which case I suppose it is.

I don't have a problem at all with having PCS and TES separate, but I really hate the whole PCS=artistry thing because TR and SS are very definitely technical skills, just not distinct elements that can be judged from one specific point of the programme like a jump or a spin. PCS is for skills that are judged over the course of the entire programme, while TES is the score for mandatory individual elements within the programme. That's how it should be approached during judging, and that's also why things should be made clearer in their rules and guidelines. CoP, once made clearer and less vague, could work, if applied properly. But it just feels futile to talk about what kind of a scoring system would adequately reflect the skating we see when the problem is that whatever the system is, it will be implemented by the same people who will manipulate it to suit the same goals that they have now. (I am fed up and might also be very fed up with the last episode of GoT so my frustration with everything is frothing like boiling broth.)

@makebelieveup I meant I'm waiting as in I fully expect it to happen, not in the eager 'I can't wait to not have protocols to read and contemplate breaking a bottle over my head!' though from the POV of what's good for our sanity, it might end up being better. The making protocols public was supposed to give transparency and legitimacy after THAT scandal but I don't think they counted on some of us being utterly mad enough to actually read their damn rules guidelines and watch their conferences and seminars and actually go through protocols and do analysis videos. I think it might have backfired for them a bit and they might not like it.

Describe the mark you'd like to see on the ice? The ideal landing posture? Whether dipping back and forth like that thing - that long-necked glass bird with the liquid inside that dips forward and backward, you know the thing - is 'good flow', whether the bullet can be ticked if you can see the blade scratching the ice, whether UR within 90 degrees can be good flow out of landing, demonstrate choreographic element or skating step/turn out of exit? If it can't be described as something more detailed than 'good flow' which apparently any landed jump can have because it's subjective, they should come up with a better way of describing what they are giving points for. The thing with describing something as just 'good flow' is that if you say skater A, whoever it is, has good flow enough times, they will suddenly have good flow because there's nothing to measure against it. I saw somebody say (on twitter, I know, I know) that soft knees on landing was NOT part of good flow out of jumps because... idk why tbh I expect because the skater they want winning doesn't land like that and something as vague as 'good flow' can be made to mean anything if enough people say it loudly enough. Right now the only way I can explain judging to anybody who doesn't follow figure skating the way I have doomed myself to do is by shrugging and going 'ah well, it's just like that' (after I have a fit, of course). I know what kind of sense it makes sometimes, but none of it is fair, and the CoP rules guidelines are deliberately written to give room for manipulation.

I think the rule is that with a serious mistake (in the singular) you can't give 10s or 9.5s in certain components and with serious mistakes (plural) you're capped at 9 and 9.5 for different components? I'm actually still confused about that one because I remember being surprised when Shoma doubled his toeloop in combo and got 9.5s at some competition but Yuzu invalidated his spin at ACI and got his PCS capped and some dipped into 8s, I think, so basically, ISU agrees with the people who believe that PCS and GOE are all subjective. I mean, after you have a two or three-day conference to clarify rules and discuss stuff, how difficult would it be to define something as basic as 'serious mistake'? It should be basic, right? It shouldn't be like when your teacher decides whether just lines will do or whether you deserve detention as well based on their mood that day, this is supposed to be a code of points so if there are deductions, they should define what the deductions are for. Same for GOE. 'Very good'? What's 'very good'? That's like a primary school teacher commenting on your handwriting! There should be objective standards for what is perfect, absolutely perfect. I don't think that's so hard, ISU had those simulation videos of takeoffs for jumps, so you can absolutely have an objective standard for perfect technique! And an objective standard for average technique. That's the kind of thing I wish they'd focus on during their thrice-damned and accursed congress. But they never will because this whole sport is like a game of thrones politicking episode but with sad-looking coffee and many spiral-bound files instead of wine and swords. It's not like they're all too stupid to define these things that need to be defined, they just don't want to because once you define them, the judging can be questioned and they don't want that. I'm honestly waiting for them to stop making protocols public to avoid confusion, as they will call it, just like they eliminated the steps before solo jump in SP to avoid confusion. I mean that will be good for our blood pressure, I suppose, but it is a real pity that a sport where athletes break themselves trying to combine astounding physical skills with sometimes breathtaking beauty of spirit and movement is turning into a joke with ducking bathing beauty judging. It's not even ENTIRELY based on the technical components of the programmes because look, Nathan's programmes had watered down content last season. He never did more than three separate types of quads. His combos were usually with 4Ts. His BV was about four points higher than Yuzu's BV at Worlds and that was down to Yuzu's sequence being so undervalued. If landing a 4F or a 4Lz will give you that PCS boost, by the same damn logic, landing a 4T-3A in competition should give you the boost! It had never been done before! Can you imagine if a skater with the right flag had landed a 4T-3A in competition? Do you think their PCS would have got an extra boost? As an aside, I am also entirely DONE with people who go 'ooooh you stupid fanyus talking about scores' because you know what, if these people would just DEFINE these vague terms, and it turns out that the perfect jump needn't have the pure technique Yuzu has, then that's fine! Fine, go right ahead, Yuzu can water his programmes down, land all those quads, and he can save all our souls when he skates the gala finale like only he can. I for one am ducking done with this ducked up ducking sport once he retires because I do NOT deal well with all this vague bullcrappery of 'very good' and 'serious' and 'good flow' and whatever else. If they won't let technology into the actual judging, they could at least use it to define standards to be held up, but they won't even do that. All this vague wording isn't some kind of accident or mistake, it's deliberate. Bunch of power-hungry, resentful, old-fashioned doubledippers who just want to control the sport even if it means it dies.

Tat (and I think BOrser) said it, too - that what we see as artistry is often a matter of getting superior extension and developing blade skills well enough that you can allow your musicality to show, or something of the sort. But getting the extension and getting the skating skills means perfecting your technique. I can see where that's coming from. What Jeff and SLB have said about choreographing for Yuzu reminds me of that, too. That they don't have to water their artistic vision down in any way because Yuzu has the technical skill to make it work, or something along those lines. ETA: But I do agree with the using 2s and 3s even among seniors. A 2 in senior does not mean the same thing as a 2 in juniors, like a 50% in algebra isn't the same as a 50% in calculus even if it's all math. Just because you get 7s at a lower level doesn't mean you keep those 7s when you move up a level, standards are supposed to be different and higher there. ETAA: I think this is what Xen was talking about, not factoring. I wouldn't mind if total max PCS was put at total absolutely maxed out TES with the most insane highest point-getting layout (instead of an arbitrary 100), even, if scoring actually reflected the reality of what we see?

Oh yes, absolutely! My tangent was basically going off like this: Well some of PCS is actually tech score, would it be possible to get those high TES if your SS, for instance, is not high enough to get at least 8s, and remember what Yuzu said about artistry coming from perfecting your technique. But then jumps are so highly valued and everything else is not, so you don't actually need to work extra hard on the tech skills that get evaluated in PCS, so high tech now just means proficient (to a point) jumping. And maybe if everything else was valued, then TES would reflect technical ability beyond jumps and then balancing TES and PCS would probably happen naturally. But also, yes to everything you said about smaller fed skaters and the standards they're held to. I also do not buy the whole judges can't evaluate everything because camera and slowmo and so on and so forth quite as much because they seem to be capable of doing a far, far more efficient job with smaller fed skaters. I think when I have some free time I'll take a look at scoring for smaller fed skaters across different competitions with different judges to see if the whole 'you can't compare different competitions because panels are different' thing actually holds up without big fed politics, too.

Actually, very unpopular opinion, I think jumps in general are overvalued and stsq and spins are undervalued. Right now, if you have kinda-quads and you're below average on everything else, you will still beat everybody except the most extraordinarily skilled skaters, like Jason. The only way to keep younger skaters from prioritising learning to jump over everything else is if everything else comes with at least some kind of comparable reward. If a good StSq with speed, coverage, deep edges and so on could get as much as a 4Lz could, more people would be inclined to work on those skills. But you need to work as hard to get that, maybe even harder and longer with more drilling, as you do to get a quad and a quad gives you points, so... No-brainer.

I hope media will be kind to Nastya after that statement because that's very gracious without being a doormat and letting herself being trampled all over. And it's obviously nonsense that Nastya was too weak to try quads or whatever considering we've seen her attempt 4T during practice before competitions and she went for it without hesitation and did not cry or anything. Not that it would be any sign of weakness if she did feel fear and cry about it. Just that implying Nastya was too afraid to try bigger jumps is obviously not true, not always. Maybe, just maybe, helping young students over that barrier and giving them confidence to try jumps while making them feel (and be) as safe as possible is in fact the coach's job!

I think the jump GOE would reward big jumps with speed and flow in that system, and it would go towards higher PE and IN and maybe CO as well if a jump is big, without reduction in speed, and with good flow out - if the TR into jumps is meh and affect those components, that should be reflected in the score too - so that should balance out some.

Maybe there shouldn't be a cutoff, maybe each of those things should get that .5 that @Xen described, and the upper limit should be whatever the max no of bullets x.5 is. Base value for an average jump of average height without a stepout or UR on landing, with no wrong edge, no PR beyond what's prescribed for jump - basically for a jump that has nothing particularly bad wrong with it. Negative GOE for flawed technique and particularly bad air position, for extremely long setup, .5 deduction per negative bullet. Positive GOE for above average, rising to excellent, and for everything else. ISU pulled that 5 out of their dark holes, like they pulled the 3 out of it earlier, so why should that be set in stone, too, if we're questioning everything else? So if a jump is that level of excellent AND has a perfect rippon, it can get the credit for the rippon, too. (By the same measure, I wish bad tanos would at least not hit that bullet, if not get a negative bullet for really ugly air position, but that's my pet peeve.) Yes, difficult entries to jumps, and if at least three jumping passes in the free skate don't have that - that could be three solo jumps out of four, even - then TR should get capped, though maybe not as low as 7.5 if it's still part of GOE. If it's taken out of GOE, then at least a couple of points in the SP and up to four or five points in the free skate on PCS should be achievable only if they can TR into jumps. I mean, ideally that should be one of the things you look for when you score a skater for TR! For the solo jump in the SP thing... I still don't understand why the solution to 'judges can't tell what's difficult and what's a step' was to just get rid of a difficult technical requirement instead of teaching judges what that is. Oh wait no, I do understand, I just don't like it. ETA: You know, if there was no upper cutoff except for whatever no. of bullets x.5 is, it might be a bit harder to fudge GOE by throwing candy? They'd actually have to check the bullets they're giving the points for instead of chucking a number with this very laissez faire attitude of 'well we mixed and matched a bunch of the bullets and came to the conclusion that +4 looks about right' which is the impression I get from looking at protocols now.

I would be on board with taking steps before jump out of the GOE for jumps IF and only if it would actually matter to TR. Say, if a free skate does not have at least three jumping passes out of creative entry with steps, it's capped at 7.5 no matter how many arm wavy things there might be. If you can't jump out of steps, then you don't get high marks for TR. If it's taken out of GOE, then it becomes a far more important component for TR. And I think the steps before solo jump in SP should still be a rule. That's a specific skill that should be tested as part of what's supposed to be the more technically strict programme. But oh well.

Poor Nastya.

@shanshani I love your idea. I'd like math to account for the time and length of setup and eliminate that -1 for long setup, as well. Then the bullets the judges choose could be for creative entry and exit, musical accent, good air position and so on.

I think I see what you're saying: That the current system of evaluating how good a jump is via bullet points is flawed because a definitely, unquestionably above average on all counts jump - say, a 2A off a spread eagle and into a high kick, with above average height and distance, landed to a musical note, with good position - would get the same score as an excellent jump - say, a 2A out of twizzles and into a catch-foot spiral, with outstanding height and distance, and a rippon, taken off and landed to create the most impact to music. And yeah, I agree with that, an above average on all counts jump should get rewarded, but an outstanding on all jumps should be rewarded more, and an above average on some things but outstanding on others (or some such combination which is what most skaters will have) should have more nuanced judging. But as it stands now, I'd give Kaori +5 for that loop because deductions should be for below average, and getting the bullet is for being visibly above average of the field, which her 3Lo is in both height and distance. Again, this is because 'very good' is so open to interpretation. I'd say visibly above the average of the field is good enough, but then compared to Liza's or Tomoe's Lz, it's obviously not that big so are they going above and beyond because they're nuts, like Yuzuru and his complex entries?! I guess I can see both sides of it and somebody's getting screwed either way. Loops, though, seem to be among the smaller jumps compared to others because of that takeoff, so judging 'very good' height and distance for loops should be by comparing what kind of amplitude 3Los usually get. (Re: the comparing 2A and quads thing, I think they were referring to judging whether a jump hits 'very good' of that bullet by comparing it to average of the field in that particular jump, so a very good 2A would probably not have the height of an average quad. Obviously the 2A would still hit that bullet even if a quad of that size, even if they managed to rotate it, should not.) ETA: As the rules are now, there is really no explanation for why Kaori would get more than +3 but also less than +5 because it seems obvious that she hits all the other bullets, so if that's the one she's getting deducted for, she shouldn't get more than +3 from anybody even if she does a handstand-twizzle out of it, according to the rules. Very good height and distance is a core bullet. Any jump with more than +3 from any judge should automatically be assumed to have got the core bullets. So this is just more inexplicable judging, imo. Judges really should be made to write reports explaining five randomly chosen judging decisions after every segment.

If a 2A had the height of even a small quad it would mean a leg wrap at least. I love Yuzu's toe jumps but his 2T rippon has to have a leg wrap because his toe jumps are so big in general. Without the rippon he'd lose a bullet point there. And now I double posted. I'm on fire.

That was very OT there.

Well that's kind of unfair because then how do you differentiate between (and reward) average and above average jumps, in height and distance? That is one bullet and a necessary one to get more than +3, iirc, so no above average jumpers would get anything more than the whew-just-managed-rotations small jumpers, if you consider 'very good' to mean something like oh-boy-that-almost-took-off-into-orbit like Boyang's 4Lz. Then unless you're one of the .5% of truly exceptional talents with the capability to jump like Boyang, you'd have absolutely no motivation to do more than just manage to get the rotations, and cross fingers for politicking and a generous TP in case you're a bit under. Because you either tick the bullet or you don't, and if you don't, you're capped at +3 no matter what. Which anybody might get with transitions and good air position, let's say.