General Skating Chat

[fireovertheice]

5 minutes ago, xeyra said:

@fireovertheice, I was reading that GS thread and found your question and realized you've been confusing Chen with Chan. Jackie Wong said Patrick Chan had high quality crossovers. He doesn't mention whether Nathan has them or not, his example was Patrick Chan. 

 

Ah ok, thank you for the correction. Better, for sure as example ...anyway doesn't change nothing in the general subject and discussion generated after. In fact in general Patrick is well known for his high level SS, not always the same about TR also if he in these component he is at another level of some of the young quadsters .

[xeyra]

1 minute ago, fireovertheice said:

 

Ah ok, thank you for the correction. Better, for sure as example ...anyway doesn't change nothing in the general subject and discussion generated after. In fact in general Patrick is well known for his high level SS, not always the same about TR also if he in these component he is at another level of some of the young quadsters .

 

From what gkelly explains, it seems that quantitive measures of steps and crossovers and multidirectional skating don't have much bearing on those scores, since judges don't have time to count and have to estimate, mostly based on the criteria they find more important. So, as gkelly said, if one does a lot of high quality crossovers (high number as they may be), with good body movement, and link those to certain moves before jumps and keep all elements linked, in a good flow, throughout the program, then that could explain, for example, the kind of SS and TR scores someone like Shoma receives despite not having as much one foot skating as others. 

[EisElle]

tbh I'd absolutely use Hope&Legacy as benchmark for the "continuity of movements", because it has all the flow in the world while having both complexity and difficulty.

If you use difficult and varied connecting movements and still get that continuity, you should always be rewarded more than when same continuity happens by doing easier stuff, because it shows a whole different level of "mastery".

 I see a lot of people have expressed very sensible and insightful opinions, but I'm going to say my piece anyway.

(So the effort of typing it won't be in vain)

 

Jackie does make some interesting points (or rather, he says was it's been said for a while now about the need to score each component on its own), but he loses me when he insists on the high quality cross-over that need to be rewarded.
 

imo PCS only make sense in comparison to how different skaters are scored, and should reflect both what they do and how, so the point about TR in particular is how much you can reward basics steps compared to more difficult ones.

If we want to really nitpick (and Jackie is really nitpicking by calling crossovers as "transitions" just because they are "movements" and happen between jumps), I'd point out that crossovers fall under the footwork category and for TR it's expressly said "INTRICATE footwork" counts, so crossovers should be automatically ruled out. (I'm glad more knowledgeble people said the same)

 

But all right, let's concede cross overs are transitions if we call "transition" whatever happens betweens jumps and steps (which, being really accurate, the IJS doesn't). It's not like a skater can just fly or teleport himself from jump to jump anyway, he's gotta do some kind of skating in the in between. The point is which skating he does and its quality. BOTH things are to be considered.

OK, high quality crossovers should grant higher TR mark than poorly executed ones. Purposeful HQ ones even more so.

But then what about the "intricate footwork" and the "variety" and "difficulty"? Should we give the same score for HQ crossovers and for high quality or even medium quality more difficult/varied movements?

NO.WAY.IN.HELL.

Because crossovers are basic steps, and that a skater can do them with the highest quality doesn't make them any more difficult than that. And this is just pure mechanics of figure skating, really. So you can have the most beautiful and purposeful crossovers in the world, but you have to prove that you can do more than that to get high TR.

 

And (now straying into SS) you can have amazing speed, but if you only get it and keep it relying on a lot of crossovers you're merely applying the basics. You aren't doing anything outstanding, just something that is both ordinary and expected.

Good for you, you're fast! It's like saying that if I put my high heels on I get taller. Cool but totally expected.

Instead being able to gain and keep speed with the minimum number of crossovers and two footed skating means that you can skate more efficiently and with much better control, and that alone should get a higher reward. It means your whole body has learned how to maximize the result of every single movement. Now, that is what's called mastery.

 

All right, from now on instead of saying "X skater has very few transitions" we're going to detail and say "X has very few difficult/varied transitions". Stil it doesn't mean "hey, those basic steps are so gorgeous and beautiful, why should X bother to do anything different? He's a master at what he does anyway". Well, X should bother because he/she would be missing the whole difficult and varied part.

So, all in all, it doesn't change that, according to the IJS, X shouldn't get high TR marks.

[PapiandPooh422]

34 minutes ago, fireovertheice said:

Well @PapiandPooh421 if you read everything she wrote about the subject, it is really disconforting, at least to me. It seems that there is almost not way to fall under subjectivity (or bias) of judges for any of the components.

 

It's no wonder that Italians gave a big effort in the construction of this system of scoring (I am Italian...).It seems to me like the most part of competition in our country (even for professorship at Uni): you have a three part examination, of which only one can be count or referred to countable or objective criteria, while the other two are more or less leave to subjectivity. This is made on purpose to give room to the judges to do what they want, also if within certain limits.

In FS now is quite like that: you can count how many, the type and of some extent some the levels of elements, but there are GOE and PCS that can be given as someone please. And if this someone score too much in different way from the other judges - also in a good sense - they recall him/her to be more adherent to the corridor of the scores of the others ... .

This is the down side of a sport judged subjectively... 

11 minutes ago, xeyra said:

 

From what gkelly explains, it seems that quantitive measures of steps and crossovers and multidirectional skating don't have much bearing on those scores, since judges don't have time to count and have to estimate, mostly based on the criteria they find more important. So, as gkelly said, if one does a lot of high quality crossovers (high number as they may be), with good body movement, and link those to certain moves before jumps and keep all elements linked, in a good flow, throughout the program, then that could explain, for example, the kind of SS and TR scores someone like Shoma receives despite not having as much one foot skating as others. 

But if some untrained eye can point out that others don't have that much of a variation in their skating, why can't they, the judges whom I think SHOULD BE more "knowledgeable" than us, acknowledge it!? And yes, it is understandable that you wouldn't get much time by counting it but if you're a professional you can simply identify a true "quality" transition on the spot.

[fireovertheice]

26 minutes ago, xeyra said:

 

From what gkelly explains, it seems that quantitive measures of steps and crossovers and multidirectional skating don't have much bearing on those scores, since judges don't have time to count and have to estimate, mostly based on the criteria they find more important. So, as gkelly said, if one does a lot of high quality crossovers (high number as they may be), with good body movement, and link those to certain moves before jumps and keep all elements linked, in a good flow, throughout the program, then that could explain, for example, the kind of SS and TR scores someone like Shoma receives despite not having as much one foot skating as others. 

 

Yes it seems so, sadly for me, also if for example in another thread about PCS/reputation you can find adfirmation such as this one: "What I have found is that TR is usually half a point lower than SS. I always figured that this was because it is easier for judges actually to count the transitions and evaluate their variety at least, if not quality -- so they are more confident in giving a lower score".

So ? They count transitions and evaluate the variety or not...? In fact the observation that TR could be at least lower of SS is true, if you check.

 

Or, if you look at the programs of the ladies, like for example those of Carolina Kostner and Wakaba Higuchi, that have both a quite number of crossovers "a lot of high quality crossovers (high number as they may be), with good body movement, and link those to certain moves before jumps and keep all elements linked, in a good flow, throughout the program", how can you explain the difference in SS and TR between them?

At COR, i.e. with the same panel  for SP Wakaba received 8.32 for SS and 8.14 for TR, while Carolina got 8.96 for SS and TR; for the FS Wakaba 8.56 in SS and 8.36 in TR, while Caro 8.93 in both...

And anyway they didn't received a mark above 9 for these components, that was awarded only to Medvedeva, who actually has a lot of difficult transitions.

If you compare this to what is happening to Uno, you can understand that a program like his in this season can not be in the 9s, at least for TR (and maybe also for SS), IMO.

 

[PapiandPooh422]

18 minutes ago, LadyLou said:

tbh I'd absolutely use Hope&Legacy as benchmark for the "continuity of movements", because it has all the flow in the world while having both complexity and difficulty.

If you use difficult and varied connecting movements and still get that continuity, you should always be rewarded more than when same continuity happens by doing easier stuff, because it shows a whole different level of "mastery".

 I see a lot of people have expressed very sensible and insightful opinion from @gkelly, but I'm going to say my piece anyway.

(So the effort of typing it won't be in vain)

 

Jackie does make some interesting points (or rather, he says was it's been said for a while now about the need to score each component on its own), but he loses me when he insists on the high quality cross-over that need to be rewarded.
 

imo PCS only make sense in comparison to how different skaters are scored, and should reflect both what they do and how, so the point about TR in particular is how much you can reward basics steps compared to more difficult ones.

If we want to really nitpick (and Jackie is really nitpicking by calling crossovers as "transitions" just because they are "movements" and happen between jumps), I'd point out that crossovers fall under the footwork category and for TR it's expressly said "INTRICATE footwork" counts, so crossovers should be automatically ruled out. (I'm glad more knowledgeble people said the same)

 

But all right, let's concede cross overs are transitions if we call "transition" whatever happens betweens jumps and steps (which, being really accurate, the IJS doesn't). It's not like a skater can just fly or teleport himself from jump to jump anyway, he's gotta do some kind of skating in the in between. The point is which skating he does and its quality. BOTH things are to be considered.

OK, high quality crossovers should grant higher TR mark than poorly executed ones. Purposeful HQ ones even more so.

But then what about the "intricate footwork" and the "variety" and "difficulty"? Should we give the same score for HQ crossovers and for high quality or even medium quality more difficult/varied movements?

NO.WAY.IN.HELL.

Because crossovers are basic steps, and that a skater can do them with the highest quality doesn't make them any more difficult than that. And this is just pure mechanics of figure skating, really. So you can have the most beautiful and purposeful crossovers in the world, but you have to prove that you can do more than that to get high TR.

 

And (now straying into SS) you can have amazing speed, but if you only get it and keep it relying on a lot of crossovers you're merely applying the basics. You aren't doing anything outstanding, just something that is both ordinary and expected.

Good for you, you're fast! It's like saying that if I put my high heels on I get taller. Cool but totally expected.

Instead being able to gain and keep speed with the minimum number of crossovers and two footed skating means that you can skate more efficiently and with much better control, and that alone should get a higher reward. It means your whole body has learned how to maximize the result of every single movement. Now, that is what's called mastery.

 

All right, from now on instead of saying "X skater has very few transitions" we're going to detail and say "X has very few difficult/varied transitions". Stil it doesn't mean "hey, those basic steps are so gorgeous and beautiful, why should X bother to do anything different? He's a master at what he does anyway". Well, X should bother because he/she would be missing the whole difficult and varied part.

So, all in all, it doesn't change that, according to the IJS, X shouldn't get high TR marks.

[xeyra]

11 minutes ago, fireovertheice said:

Or, if you look at the programs of the ladies, like for example those of Carolina Kostner and Wakaba Higuchi, that have both a quite number of crossovers "a lot of high quality crossovers (high number as they may be), with good body movement, and link those to certain moves before jumps and keep all elements linked, in a good flow, throughout the program", how can you explain the difference in SS and TR ? At COR, i.e. with the same panel  for SP Wakaba received 8.32 for SS and 8.14 for TR, while Carolina got 8.96 for SS and TR; for the FS Wakaba 8.56 in SS and 8.36 in TR, while Caro 8.93 in both...

 

Well, not all high quality crossovers are made equal and not all body movement during them can have the same quality and sense of purpose to the judges. And, well, reputation does play a role and Wakaba has less of one than Carolina. Alina's scores compared to Wakaba, though, are less easy to justify on reputation... so I assume TR and TES weight a lot there.

[EisElle]

7 minutes ago, xeyra said:

 

From what gkelly explains, it seems that quantitive measures of steps and crossovers and multidirectional skating don't have much bearing on those scores, since judges don't have time to count and have to estimate, mostly based on the criteria they find more important. So, as gkelly said, if one does a lot of high quality crossovers (high number as they may be), with good body movement, and link those to certain moves before jumps and keep all elements linked, in a good flow, throughout the program, then that could explain, for example, the kind of SS and TR scores someone like Shoma receives despite not having as much one foot skating as others. 

 

I still disagree, because even if a judge can't count each step and all, he can still have a fair idea of what's going on in a skate (hell, I can have one, and I'm being more than a casual fan only from january, I really don't see why far more experienced professionals can't have at least a general idea, more so if they get to watch the practices too and can see some skaters side by side). And if they fail to have an idea of what's going on, then maybe they should just train more (or humbly say that they're not the right guys for the job).

 

Figure skating is still "skating", so I'd think what happens with the skater's feet still should count more than what the hell his/her upper body does. Of course if someone can be great at everything it's better, but a skater should be good at skating first, then at doing all the rest, at least as long as more technical components like SS and TR are concerned.

(tbh I wouldn't be against bringing them into the TES score, GOE are already assessing quality of elements anyway, so even things like "continuity of movement" could fit there)

And if the aim of giving high marks is rewarding mastery then no, I'm sorry, doing easy things, even if wonderfully, isn't mastery. Because this is still a sport and it is still skating, so what one does with the skates should be the most important thing.

 

I could be ok with some skaters' SS and TR scores by themselves, what I'm not ok with is what others do and get in comparison.

[fireovertheice]

1 minute ago, xeyra said:

 

Well, not all high quality crossovers are made equal and not all body movement during them can have the same quality and sense of purpose to the judges. And, well, reputation does play a role and Wakaba has less of one than Carolina. Alina's scores compared to Wakaba, though, are less easy to justify on reputation... so I assume TR and TES weight a lot there.

 

So, you can see is a complex system that give the possibilty to the judges to give more weight to the aspects the impress them more or that the like/evaluate more (the sense of purpose to me is one of the most subjective thing...): in one case is reputation, in an other TES, in another in upper body movements despite what the feet are doing...and so forth.

Really, I do not know what is your experience in competition also in life, but this seems to me the best way to meddle with those scores beyond what you can already do with IN, CO and PE, and in the current situation there is no need of that.

[katonice]

Uhm sorry it boggles me that Jackie has made us nitpick about quality crossovers and not quality crossovers. I hardly think judges consider this specifically?

 

Maybe I'm being too simplistic, but crossovers are a basic movement in figure skating that you actually need to do to gain more speed. I don't understand why they should even be counted as transitions. It's not like you add them to show that you can do more difficult movements. Now the quality of execution, if you have bad crossovers then it's more likely than not you have bad skating skills. So you should just get marked in that aspect accordingly. I'm not sure why Jackie's making it so complicated 

 

(This reminds me of that clean and messy tap discussion we had before. And that was from JW too lol.)

[xeyra]

8 hours ago, fireovertheice said:

 

So, you can see is a complex system that give the possibilty to the judges to give more weight to the aspects the impress them more or that the like/evaluate more (the sense of purpose to me is one of the most subjective thing...): in one case is reputation, in an other TES, in another in upper body movements despite what the feet are doing...and so forth.

Really, I do not know what is your experience in competition also in life, but this seems to me the best way to meddle with those scores beyond what you can already do with IN, CO and PE, and in the current situation there is no need of that.

 

Yeah. I agree. It happens a lot with Ice Dance too, which is even more manipulable (it's a word!) than other disciplines according to all I hear. This is what happens when you have a judged sport with subjective measures with underlying sort of objective but unclear criteria. Which gets more and more unclear with each iteration of the handbook. GOE, which should be the most objective of criteria, is equally mired in subjectivity (and politics), thus the great variety of scores between judges on one element.

[xeyra]

7 minutes ago, katonice said:

 I'm not sure why Jackie's making it so complicated 

 

I wonder if Jackie lurks at GS and saw all the talk about Carolina being overscored in PCS in there.

[fireovertheice]

I don't want to give too much importance to what JW said about crossovers: to me his statement was just instrumental to discuss with you and others and to understand better some of the aspects I am observing in the last times.

More: this is a subject, in a broader discussion about PCS, of debate not only for men but also for ladies and the other disciplines, also because is not working well.

It is because this doesn't work properly that all the top men have similar PCS scores, so that to be sure to win they are pushing so hard in TES, with all what is happening of good, but also of bad. Yesterday Ambesi and Dolfini in their podcast were discussing if this was also one of the causes for Yuzu to bring the 4Lz this year, also if half FS world is saying that he could win also without.

[katonice]

2 minutes ago, xeyra said:

 

I wonder if Jackie lurks at GS and saw all the talk about Carolina being overscored in PCS in there.

I see. I haven't read that discussion. Could be that. Carolina's PCS are an unsolvable mystery. I'm surprised people haven't given up debating about it yet lol. 

[xeyra]

1 minute ago, katonice said:

I see. I haven't read that discussion. Could be that. Carolina's PCS are an unsolvable mystery. I'm surprised people haven't given up debating about it yet lol. 

 

It's very in vogue now since she's beating everyone in PCS except a flawless Zhenya, despite her very low BV.