General Skating Chat

[EisElle]

Sorry, another longish and repetitive post (it looks like I'm eager to upgrade my rank on the planet )

 

2 hours ago, Sombreuil said:

Bottom line is that there isn't much wrong with the original rules the problem lies in their application.  You can fiddle with the wording til doomsday - if the judges don't apply the rules equally across the board then it's pointless.  And that's from a lawyer 

 

and they are accountable to no one for their flawed decision making.

I wonder if they just reprimand judges that don't give scores in line with the others or if they actually bother to go and revise the scores checking their rulebook too. Maybe the outliers were the only ones doing their job properly. I wouldn't be surpised tbh

 

Rules are there for all skaters to have the same chance when they skate, but the application can be so dodgy... and it's not only because of subjectivity. Some things are more objective than others, subjectivity is becaming a pretty lame excuse for the current scoring mess.

Why do ISU even bother to have a rulebook (and making it available to the public) if they aren't going to apply the rules (driving fans crazy)?

Just cancel the CoP and go back to the fudging 6.0, so we can all resign ourselves.

Oh wait, that's probably what they're planning to do, break the system so everyone will beg for them to go back to the good old times.

I don't know if it's because I've only known skating under the current system (and it's already too wild for my tastes), but I really really really can't stand the 6.0.

BTW even when 6.0 was there, the Components weren't only "artistry", so where the hell does that misconception come from?

 

3 hours ago, Aotoshiro said:

A long time ago (actually, in 2011) the compliment that Yuzuru got when he smashed into Seniors in his second year, was that he reaches the same speed others conjure with three crossovers by doing two, so maybe I should stop here, and just accept that the ultimate basic step do deserve a recognition, and I just disagree with a place in a scoresheet in which it gets said recognition.

 

Yes, and back then Yuzuru was far far far "worse" than now (as we know from Brian's persistence on working on Yuzuru's basics when he moved to Toronto). That Yuzuru can be superfast using few crossovers certainly shows that he has "mastered" the figure skating tools.

Kurt Browning said once (maybe GPF 2014?) that he couldn't understand how Yuzuru gained so much speed and he was in awe. That one cannot "see" where speed comes from doesn't change that that speed is real and tangible. Actually that's way more impressive than seeing a skater doing crossovers all the time.

Doing less crossover and still being fast means SS are better and there is more time to do more difficult transitions.

Certainly I wouldn't ever think that a skater that is fast while doing few crossovers has worse SS than one that shows off  how high quality the crossovers are over and over again. Speed has to came from somewhere and (unless we found out some skaters have some mutant power) it must come from the way their muscles work, from the timing of their movements and from how their blades interact with the ice. Looking at the quality of crossovers is one way to partially deduce the skaters' skill. Looking at the consequences of their skill (e.g. varied use of power, speed and acceleration. good flow despite intricate steps...) is another.

 

 (I've said this already) if we really want ot be strict and analyze the rulebook word for word to see if crossovers are to be evalued in both SS and TR, in TR only "intricate footwork" should be evalued. Crossover aren't just "movements", they are "footwork" but they're not "intricate", so they shouldn't fall under TR per se. It makes sense to "count" them for this simple reason: if you have lots of crossover, then there cannot be lots of intricate footwork, variety and difficulty because there is literally not much spare time in the program to execute everything.

Hence the quality of crossover shouldn't really matter in TR score, imo, but the quantity should. While for SS both quantity and quality matter. Again, if there is huge speed with only few basic steps, and everything else is on par (rythmic knee action, flow and so on) than the skater is displaying better skating skills, as a matter of fact.

The upper body movements executed while feet are busy doing crossovers do count for the TR mark, but again, doing arm movements while doing easy steps is easier than doing them while you have to focus also on what the hell your feet are doing, because intricate footwork is more tiring per se, and it challenges more the skater's equilibrium and focus etc etc, so beautiful movements in a program with lots of crossovers shouldn't be awarded as much as beautiful movements on intricate footwork.

 

Tbh I see GPF 2016 protocols of LGC with only a bad landing on a 4Lo and I see PCS 47.35 (SS 9.39 and TR 9.25), then I see Shoma's SP protocol from France (PCS 46.01, 9.29 SS and 9.04 TR, when he obviously wasn't skating at his best) and I want to burn the judges at the stake cry.

 

@fireovertheice thank you for your hard work. I'll take my time with your table and post again later

btw can I suggest to also add the SS and TR scores, given how more closely related those two components are to the listed content? (I know usually pcs are all in the same range, but I think it would still be more accurate )

 

 

[fireovertheice]

4 minutes ago, LadyLou said:

@fireovertheice thank you for your hard work. I'll take my time with your table and post again later

btw can I suggest to also add the SS and TR scores, given how more closely related those two components are to the listed content? (I know usually pcs are all in the same range, but I think it would still be more accurate )

 

Yes you are absolutely right: I was thinking now (and I have already done for some skaters) what you have just suggested

[fireovertheice]

@Xen as far as i know crossovers are considered transitions in the literal meaning of the term in FS, and they are considered under the category of "footwork > steps"; these are considered the among easy TRs, while the "footwork > turns" are the more difficult ones.

Then there are also the "skating movements" such as SE, IB, lunge, arabesque, HB etc... and the "non-listed elements" such as FL, SJ, walleys and so forth, plus the "body movements"

I think that this document here is very useful in this sense: http://www.skatinginbc.com/sites/default/files/technical-updates/transition_summary.pdf

 

We have to pay attention to old criterion of "intricacy" that is now changed in "continuity of movements from one element to another", I suspect because the prior definition was misleading.

In fact, also before for intricacy was intended the presence of "series of different transitional tools linking into each other and immediately into and out of listed technical elements". So, if you look at the rulebook that you have linked, I think that also now for "intricate footwork" written in the general description, is intended the "continuity of movements from one element to another" listed after, combined with "variety" and "difficulty".

 

However to me it's true all this you wrote (but maybe not for some judges...?):

Quote

It makes sense to "count" them for this simple reason: if you have lots of crossover, then there cannot be lots of (....), variety and difficulty because there is literally not much spare time in the program to execute everything. Hence the quality of crossover shouldn't really matter in TR score  imo, but the quantity should. While for SS both quantity and quality matter. Again, if there is huge speed with only few basic steps, and everything else is on par (rythmic knee action, flow and so on) than the skater is displaying better skating skills, as a matter of fact.

 

To me it depends really if the number of crossovers is in the average to consent variety and/or difficulty of TR or not: if among the top skaters the average of crossovers/crossunders is around 30-34, those skaters who use more than 40-42 crossovers (plus 20-30%) or more than 50-52 (plus 45-50%) than the others, are using less difficult TR in the first case, and surely also less varied TR in the second.

 

In conclusion: also if we want to take in account crossovers for high scores in TR for the aspects of "continuity of movements" and "quality" (but only IF they are QUALITY crossovers" ), a big or a huge number of crossovers should counted in negative way for the scores in TR regarding the aspects of "variety" and "difficulty".

In this sense to count them, such as to count and to verify the difficulty of the other transitions too, should be done and to have an impact scoring TR. For this I began also to count at least the "skating movements" and the time of their hold, for example.

 

An I agree also with this part:

Quote

The upper body movements executed while feet are busy doing crossovers do count for the TR mark, but again, doing arm movements while doing easy steps is easier than doing them while you have to focus also on what the hell your feet are doing, because intricate footwork is more tiring per se, and it challenges more the skater's equilibrium and focus etc etc, so beautiful movements in a program with lots of crossovers shouldn't be awarded as much as beautiful movements on intricate footwork.

 

Maybe the most part of the judges is still working having in mind the 6.0 system, but athlets, technicians and fans are not. I think that we have the tools now and the way to let them know that we are all understanding, observing and following closely what they are doing, also if someone want to convince us that because is a "judged system" there is no way to find more objective way to score some parts of it.

Sorry for the final rant

[EisElle]

57 minutes ago, fireovertheice said:

@Xen as far as i know crossovers are considered transitions in the literal meaning of the term in FS, and they are considered under the category of "footwork > steps"; these are considered the among easy TRs, while the "footwork > turns" are the more difficult ones.

Then there are also the "skating movements" such as SE, IB, lunge, arabesque, HB etc... and the "non-listed elements" such as FL, SJ, walleys and so forth, plus the "body movements"

I think that this document here is very useful in this sense: http://www.skatinginbc.com/sites/default/files/technical-updates/transition_summary.pdf

 

We have to pay attention to old criterion of "intricacy" that is now changed in "continuity of movements from one element to another", I suspect because the prior definition was misleading.

In fact, also before for intricacy was intended the presence of "series of different transitional tools linking into each other and immediately into and out of listed technical elements". So, if you look at the rulebook that you have linked, I think that also now for "intricate footwork" written in the general description, is intended the "continuity of movements from one element to another" listed after, combined with "variety" and "difficulty".

thank you for correcting me in particular about the intricacy part (tho I think maybe they could choose another word instead of "intricate"? true, they do clarify the meaning below, but still...)

well, the core doesn't change much but good to be as accurate as possible

 

ETA: that isn't even the only muddled thing in that rulebook

 

ETA 2: and I'm going to leave my beloved 3A rank soon. What's next?

[fireovertheice]

These two videos are always useful to explain in the essence the "footwork" in the transitions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhGY4aI7yzM&pbjreload=

and the old "intricacy" (now the continuity etc...: this is an aspect of which Yuna Kim and Yuzuru are the best example): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnXGtSK9hCw that can be considered as opposit to a long preparation to and the telegraphing jumps/elements.

 

In the videos is nice to see also part of the performances of Chan, Kim, Asada, Buttle and an explosive Orser (videos are from a DVD released ante 2012).

 

Interesting also the examples (not responding to actual standard and scoring, I would say):

average/above av. TR (ex. Jonny Weir): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6grQEfEEZ8

good TR (ex. Jeffry Buttle): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdSXZr0dsl8&t

very good TR (ex. Patrick Chan): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYEVxjfy_IA

 

[Murieleirum]

35 minutes ago, LadyLou said:

 

ETA 2: and I'm going to leave my beloved 3A rank soon. What's next?

 

_{By memory, it should be Layback Ina Bauer?} 

[Xen]

16 hours ago, fireovertheice said:

These two videos are always useful to explain in the essence the "footwork" in the transitions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhGY4aI7yzM&pbjreload=

and the old "intricacy" (now the continuity etc...: this is an aspect of which Yuna Kim and Yuzuru are the best example): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnXGtSK9hCw that can be considered as opposit to a long preparation to and the telegraphing jumps/elements.

 

In the videos is nice to see also part of the performances of Chan, Kim, Asada, Buttle and an explosive Orser (videos are from a DVD released ante 2012).

 

Interesting also the examples (not responding to actual standard and scoring, I would say):

average/above av. TR (ex. Jonny Weir): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6grQEfEEZ8

good TR (ex. Jeffry Buttle): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdSXZr0dsl8&t

very good TR (ex. Patrick Chan): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYEVxjfy_IA

 

It's kind of amusing that all 3 examples given would probably get 8.75+ these days.

Have to also "lol" at the video saying "We could not find very good body movements during transitions." So instead, have some step sequences. Kind of makes you appreciate the skaters we have today.

[katonice]

 

[yuzuangel]

I collected some of the scoring data on this site. The results aren't exactly shocking, but you guys might find them interesting...

 

So basically "differential" is defined as how much extra GOE/PCS per element (jump, spin, stsq, chsq for GOE, and each of the PCS categories for PCS) a judge would give to a skater.

 

I describe it in more detail here: https://bunniko.blogspot.com/2017/11/figure-skating-scores-judging-and.html

 

 

Some things I found interesting (although perhaps not so surprising):

1. Feds with one skater to push tend to go all out on that skater, i.e. Spain and Italy.

2. The women seem have more variance in scores than men.

3. Japan definitely seems to push their skaters the least compared to the other top federations.

[Murieleirum]

1 hour ago, katonice said:

 

 

Hersh saying something right?? Am I dreaming? 

[xeyra]

17 minutes ago, yuzuangel said:

I collected some of the scoring data on this site. The results aren't exactly shocking, but you guys might find them interesting...

 

So basically "differential" is defined as how much extra GOE/PCS per element (jump, spin, stsq, chsq for GOE, and each of the PCS categories for PCS) a judge would give to a skater.

 

I describe it in more detail here: https://bunniko.blogspot.com/2017/11/figure-skating-scores-judging-and.html

 

 

Some things I found interesting (although perhaps not so surprising):

1. Feds with one skater to push tend to go all out on that skater, i.e. Spain and Italy.

2. The women seem have more variance in scores than men.

3. Japan definitely seems to push their skaters the least compared to the other top federations.

 

If I'm reading the individual skaters graphic correctly, surprisingly USA judges just undermark everyone more or less? And CHN and ESP really hate Shoma, but mostly in GOE.

[yuzuangel]

1 minute ago, xeyra said:

surprisingly USA judges just undermark everyone more or less?

Yeah, I was surprised too. But it seems that way, at least in GOE.

[Dori6886]

2 minutes ago, Murieleirum said:

 

Hersh saying something right?? Am I dreaming? 

I'm in shock too.  Now I want to know what b******t ISU will come up with for answers to Hersh's questions 

[xeyra]

5 minutes ago, yuzuangel said:

Yeah, I was surprised too. But it seems that way, at least in GOE.

 

Ah, but things are wilder when you look at judges in the ladies. USA stops equally undermarking everyone to really pushing Ashley up and pushing the Russians down. But the Russian judges are the most biased, it seems like. Not a single positive differential for any non-Russian lady.

[yuzuangel]

38 minutes ago, xeyra said:

 

Ah, but things are wilder when you look at judges in the ladies. USA stops equally undermarking everyone to really pushing Ashley up and pushing the Russians down. But the Russian judges are the most biased, it seems like. Not a single positive differential for any non-Russian lady.

Yeah, definitely seems like ladies event has more politics involved. In hindsight I'm not that surprised, since the BV for most of the ladies are pretty close together...it comes down to GOE/PCS for them.