General Skating Chat

[xeyra]

4 minutes ago, LadyLou said:

 

Maybe in analogy to what happens now? iirc currently the factor for GOE is related to the first jump, ie for quad or 3A combos the multiplier is 1.0. Idk if it will be the same for combos in the new system.

 

Thank you. That makes sense. Still not quite sure why they didn't calculate the GOE increments off the second half BV, only from the non-bonus BV, even when jumps are in second half. 

[cirelle]

2 hours ago, SSS said:

ISU is trying to use the big rule change aka artistic and technical programs to hide the BV conspiracy

 

Yeah, get fans and federations upset about the artistic/technical and then ram through the change they really want in the confusion/aftermath, maybe.

[xeyra]

New article on Nathan Chen's plans. He's apparently only going to be doing 1 quad in the SP and 2-3 in the FS for the US Classic since it's not an important competition and he wants to go slow and use it as an opportunity to see what he needs to work on for the Grand Prix season. And to work his way into basically winging his layout based on his mood/condition at the time, so whether we'll see 5, 6 or 7 quads will depend on whatever mood he's in, how much he needs to make up for in terms of points, etc., though I suspect they'll be working to get Nathan ready for 7 quads for the Big Day. But he'll need the 4Lo for that so we'll see.

 

Also, the plan is also to do both his quads in the second half of the SP, so.... 

 

His old SP BV: 53.15

His new SP BV: 55.32

[liv]

I DO enjoy Nathan. I love that he just decides to do however many quads he is in the mood for... not the approach most would take, which is why i enjoy it, lol!!

[Aotoshiro]

6 hours ago, Murieleirum said:

 

I think cleanliness should be rewarded, but falls are already penalized through deductions. Why putting another 10% off when the skater's already lost -3 points, deduction only, without counting the minus GOE? I think falls are already being penalized enough... 

Under current rules, three falls equals -4 points, I think? every next fall aftr the second one gets double penalty...*needtocheckthat*

Quote

This already looks better than those plastic sunburnt orange medals at GPF and the teeny tiny junior worlds medals and "small" (literally) worlds medals.

We're better at organising the events than the actual organisers xD Maybe they should hire Fanyus as advisors? "Ya know, we know you want your fave to enjoy this, come help us out?" I actually study a specialization focusing on event organising and planning from the scratch, so maybe I should consider applying for, you know, working experience or something xD

 

Also, something that struck me the most is, we whine here, we whine on the forums, we criticize over public media, but did we ever put a petition or any other form of giving our ideas out to ISU? I consider myself a new fan, so I would need advice of longer-term fans, who also understand the original logic of current system (aka, know what's in the rulebook) for my idea, but my honest dream is to make out an internationaljudging and technical panel out of those technically adept fans, and make them score the skaters in the competition like judges do, maybe with the use of slow-mo on the jump takeoff to additionally show the difference in judging when added this ability, and then send the results along with printed official score sheets to Isu, to make them see the difference. Of course, that would mean Planet Hanyu-origined "judges" would have to stop themselves from judging Yuzuru, as it would be a biased judging (I'm not saying we're all fans of exclusively one skater, but just from my reactions to Yuzuru's skate I know it would be hard to keep objective, while I don't worry so much about that in Shoma or Javier's case...)...

Or, maybe ask retired skaters to do that? Though they are also forced to do politicking...

If that ever succeeded I would even ask mr. Szewczyk to come out of his retirement to help us with that, and then add Max and Angelo to the pack...

[xeyra]

Back in 2016 Lakernik gave an interview where he talked about the technical and artistic programs and what they might contain.

• Technical program would be like the short or free skate, with a certain number of elements
• Artistic would focus on presentation, with easier elements
• They'd be equal in length
• Medal for each program and possibly overall (sum of scores of the two programs?)

http://web.icenetwork.com/news/2016/08/16/196138174

[Murieleirum]

1 hour ago, xeyra said:

New article on Nathan Chen's plans. He's apparently only going to be doing 1 quad in the SP and 2-3 in the FS for the US Classic since it's not an important competition and he wants to go slow and use it as an opportunity to see what he needs to work on for the Grand Prix season. And to work his way into basically winging his layout based on his mood/condition at the time, so whether we'll see 5, 6 or 7 quads will depend on whatever mood he's in, how much he needs to make up for in terms of points, etc., though I suspect they'll be working to get Nathan ready for 7 quads for the Big Day. But he'll need the 4Lo for that so we'll see.

 

Also, the plan is also to do both his quads in the second half of the SP, so.... 

 

His old SP BV: 53.15

His new SP BV: 55.32

 

"Doing how many quads he feels like in the moment" is fun and unique... but it also means "no planned choreography or difficult transitions/steps in and out of jumps", does it not? Should this make us skeptical about any Skating Skills progress or what? *deep sigh* 

[kaeryth]

4 hours ago, katonice said:

Someone kindly worked out the proposed percentage changes in BVs for each jump

 

 

This is still confusing to me... Why not the same percentage deduction across the board?

[Yatagarasu]

55 minutes ago, Murieleirum said:

 

"Doing how many quads he feels like in the moment" is fun and unique... but it also means "no planned choreography or difficult transitions/steps in and out of jumps", does it not? Should this make us skeptical about any Skating Skills progress or what? *deep sigh* 

 

Or you know ... let me do less quads with more content so by the time I put in all these quads, the judges will give me the same PCS I had with that content instead of what I deserve for my empty program ... yes, I'm a cynic. 

[Xen]

1 hour ago, Yatagarasu said:

 

Or you know ... let me do less quads with more content so by the time I put in all these quads, the judges will give me the same PCS I had with that content instead of what I deserve for my empty program ... yes, I'm a cynic. 

well he doesn't have much time. he is up against 5 quads Yuzu first at russia, then against boyang, he has to show his plans soon since his pcs probably won't be higher than Yuzu's.

[katonice]

A helpful visual comparing the current max scores of each jump vs the new proposed system.

 

[EisElle]

2 hours ago, xeyra said:

Back in 2016 Lakernik gave an interview where he talked about the technical and artistic programs and what they might contain.

• Technical program would be like the short or free skate, with a certain number of elements
• Artistic would focus on presentation, with easier elements
• They'd be equal in length
• Medal for each program and possibly overall (sum of scores of the two programs?)

http://web.icenetwork.com/news/2016/08/16/196138174

Wow that is...surprising. I guess they really want to go there.

I guess it could be doable to diversify SP and FS a bit more. But IMHO  more than do something as drastic as a so called "artistic" program with less difficult elements (how many? and what is a difficult element? levels on spins too? on steps? requirements for GOEs should get easier as well?), it would be way easier to just tweak a little with the technical requirements for the current FS e.g. maybe removing one more jumping pass while leaving the full duration at 4.0 minutes, so skaters don't have to pack their programs with "big technical elements" and can save time and energy for whatever "artistry" is.

But I wouldn't like PCS to take over TES in factoring, for example as that proposal from BianchettiSr. to make TES/PCS as 40/60. If you want balance than you give the chance to show everyone the "artistry", but you cannot forget that technical elements can be integral part of "art" when they are done with quality (which is still evalued in TES). And skating skills and transitions are heavily linked to technique anyway, so should we have different multipliers for the less "artistic" components too? I don't think so. TES and PCS already overlap in a way, so let's just try to stick to 50/50. Given how consistently PCS are misused, I think is safer not go too much the subjective way (or at least not more than it is already).

And i still think the easiest way to keep 50/50 is just change PCS multipliers. For ladies and pairs PCS are already capped below 100 (or 50 in SP) to keep that supposed balance, so multipliers have been fine all this time. I don't really see why change those multiplier should be suddenly that hard or that scandalous now. There would not even be any need to get convoluted change of BV and range of GOE and give everyone headaches.

 

And of course the main problem is always that of the human element. So if ISU doesn't do anything to address that a tad more seriously all the talk about tech and artistry is BS, because everything will still go down to bias and corruption and ineptitude. (which now are not the proverbial elephant in the room anymore, but the elephant in the car kinda crushing the driver and the passengers alike, sorry for the bad joke)

 

Also, funny that Lakernik talks about making things simpler.
 

Quote

 

The technical program could be something like current short programs or free skates. The artistic program could contain less difficult elements with a focus on the program presentation. The programs could be equal in length. This way, we can increase the number of medals by having technical, artistic and maybe overall winners.

Icenetwork: In your candidate's vision statement, you wrote that you hoped to promote ways to improve the TV viewing experience. What are some of the things you hope to develop?

Lakernik: First, I welcome any measures to make our competitions shorter as currently they are too long and the audience in the rink and TV viewers can hardly survive it all.

 

I guess that means that a) he's contradicting himself about shortening competitions (if the technical one gets to be like the actual FS, and the artistic one too), or 2) we are going to have two short programs. If so, good luck with highlighing "artistry" better (unless they just want a single jumping pass...ugh).

LOL at the "maybe overall winners". Certainly not the strategy of someone who wants well-rounded skaters.

Also, that a sport should change that much just to abide to the audience's necessities isn't that "normal" to me. True, you need paying public to gain money, but for decades public survived just fine with those looooong competitions. BTW the length of competitions isn't the reason why people dropped/can't get into FS, but i guess ISU doesn't think so. Also no one has ever thought to make marahtons shorter so the audience doesn't get bored, or to stop a tennis match just because people had enough. Just what the...
 

Quote

 

How can the IJS be changed to be more understandable to viewers?

Lakernik: By giving more explanations of how it works -- by written materials and by experts. Small details are not so important, but basic principles could be explained much better.

 

This is actually a good point. But even more important, there is need for more competent commentators that actually know what they are seeing and not just screaming/fangirling/talking nonsense all the time . If they have to talk they should at least say something useful for the average audience. I don't need them to tell me someone is delightful to watch and someone else has an ugly costume, that I can see myself, thank you very much. Tell me why this or that can score this or that, or why something is difficult or not.

Quote

The main thing is that a judge should have knowledge and be objective.

Key word: should.

[Xen]

2 hours ago, katonice said:

A helpful visual comparing the current max scores of each jump vs the new proposed system.

 

Suspected as much, under the new system, more so if goe scales off of bv, the guys without quads will not make it, even a 3A with max goe will have trouble. Ladies can just go for 4T, since one landed 4T is worth more against a 3lz versus a 3A against a 3lz. I also do not think quads will get 0 goe so long as they are landed. One of the bullets is good height and distance right? Unless we give min height standards, everyone would assume that by nature of doing a quad, you would have good height and distance, cause that's a min requirement to pull off a quad right? SO I see pos GOEs for quads short of a fall all the time as a norm.

[SparkleSalad]

46 minutes ago, LadyLou said:

This is actually a good point. But even more important, there is need for more competent commentators that actually know what they are seeing and not just screaming/fangirling/talking nonsense all the time . If they have to talk they should at least say something useful for the average audience. I don't need them to tell me someone is delightful to watch and someone else has an ugly costume, that I can see myself, thank you very much. Tell me why this or that can score this or that, or why something is difficult or not.

 

I agree. This is one of the major reasons I never got hooked before. All I heard from our commentators was salchow salchow salchow, and with an American pronunciation rendering it super impossible to even know how to spell it (like how they pronounce solder "sawder.") I had to remember it as the "lady pig-cow jump." Also a lot of "lol@gay Johnny Weir and his crazy costumes." Never did I hear anyone explain the requirements of the programs, the difference between various jumps or spin positions, or anything technical at all. It was assumed that if you were watching you already knew everything which is an utterly ridiculous assumption to make in a country with no ice! 

 

There's a fantastic guy on YouTube whose name escapes me right now who does incredibly detailed commentary for full competitions. When I watch his videos with my family - who are still at the "pretty sparkles!" stage of appreciation - whenever they ask me what's going on this guy explains it before I can answer. The downside is he talks a lot so if you just want to enjoy the program it's a bit difficult - not something you could really broadcast. A lot of professional commentators seem to have pretty cushy jobs, though, and have a very minimalist approach to commentary.

[Xen]

3 hours ago, LadyLou said:

Wow that is...surprising. I guess they really want to go there.

I guess it could be doable to diversify SP and FS a bit more. But IMHO  more than do something as drastic as a so called "artistic" program with less difficult elements (how many? and what is a difficult element? levels on spins too? on steps? requirements for GOEs should get easier as well?), it would be way easier to just tweak a little with the technical requirements for the current FS e.g. maybe removing one more jumping pass while leaving the full duration at 4.0 minutes, so skaters don't have to pack their programs with "big technical elements" and can save time and energy for whatever "artistry" is.

But I wouldn't like PCS to take over TES in factoring, for example as that proposal from BianchettiSr. to make TES/PCS as 40/60. If you want balance than you give the chance to show everyone the "artistry", but you cannot forget that technical elements can be integral part of "art" when they are done with quality (which is still evalued in TES). And skating skills and transitions are heavily linked to technique anyway, so should we have different multipliers for the less "artistic" components too? I don't think so. TES and PCS already overlap in a way, so let's just try to stick to 50/50. Given how consistently PCS are misused, I think is safer not go too much the subjective way (or at least not more than it is already).

And i still think the easiest way to keep 50/50 is just change PCS multipliers. For ladies and pairs PCS are already capped below 100 (or 50 in SP) to keep that supposed balance, so multipliers have been fine all this time. I don't really see why change those multiplier should be suddenly that hard or that scandalous now. There would not even be any need to get convoluted change of BV and range of GOE and give everyone headaches.

 

And of course the main problem is always that of the human element. So if ISU doesn't do anything to address that a tad more seriously all the talk about tech and artistry is BS, because everything will still go down to bias and corruption and ineptitude. (which now are not the proverbial elephant in the room anymore, but the elephant in the car kinda crushing the driver and the passengers alike, sorry for the bad joke)

 

Also, funny that Lakernik talks about making things simpler.
 

I guess that means that a) he's contradicting himself about shortening competitions (if the technical one gets to be like the actual FS, and the artistic one too), or 2) we are going to have two short programs. If so, good luck with highlighing "artistry" better (unless they just want a single jumping pass...ugh).

LOL at the "maybe overall winners". Certainly not the strategy of someone who wants well-rounded skaters.

Also, that a sport should change that much just to abide to the audience's necessities isn't that "normal" to me. True, you need paying public to gain money, but for decades public survived just fine with those looooong competitions. BTW the length of competitions isn't the reason why people dropped/can't get into FS, but i guess ISU doesn't think so. Also no one has ever thought to make marahtons shorter so the audience doesn't get bored, or to stop a tennis match just because people had enough. Just what the...
 

This is actually a good point. But even more important, there is need for more competent commentators that actually know what they are seeing and not just screaming/fangirling/talking nonsense all the time . If they have to talk they should at least say something useful for the average audience. I don't need them to tell me someone is delightful to watch and someone else has an ugly costume, that I can see myself, thank you very much. Tell me why this or that can score this or that, or why something is difficult or not.

Key word: should.

I think a key that he mentioned, that the ISU system has neglected is this:

"Alexander Lakernik: In my opinion, we should simplify some of the approaches and make the system more consistent. It's too early to speak on the details, but the work is already going on." I think while not perfect the system is starting to approach that- if the recent example of Mitsuki can be used.  And if consistency is a problem, then having a very PCS focused program is going to be supsect to manipulation, more so than TES. At least with TES, you have a BV that is set, we can fiddle about GOEs all we want, but if you get a jump, you can count on your BVs. The real issue is juding independence, and the ISU does need to figure out how to do some of that. Anonymous juding doesn't quite help, I think it would be better perhaps that the ISU gets is own panel of judges that are trained to implement the IJS system correctly, and independently of federation leanings. That is the only way smaller feds can break out. I'm also curious if he did the BV changes and the scale GOE to BV c**p.

 

As for the artistic/technical divide he's talking about...I wonder if in the end only the technical will survive as the Olympic sport version? Artistic can be easily prone to abuse, because as Lakernik himself mentions, people aren't that knowledgeable. Artistry is subjective-look at ice dance-there is hardly any movement in the ranks between segments, is that what we want? And even if we reduce both programs to be 2:30 mins, it still takes a toll on skater stamina. At this point, why don't they just be upfront about this and say "Hi we want to reduce figure skating to just 1 program, the technical aka the free skate, and just get it done with." Because I think in the end that's what is will be. Artistic can cause tons of controversy- an audience can like one skater, but the judges another and we need to explain why the judges' preferred skater is more artistic...oh and can you image what would happen if we have nothing but caucasian skaters dominating the artistic for years?

 

@SparkleSalad: I wonder if us Fanyus here should do a commentary channel on Youtube to enlighten the masses. We already had this mock judge panel idea, why not go into commentary? We have enough people here who can ID steps, spins and jumps to comment on them. If the ISU can't do it, this is probably all we can do to balance stuff out in regards to skating knowledge. In china there is a saying that the people's eyes are always able to see through trickery (technically it translates as the audiences' eyes are always bright), but we need to give them eyes first.

 

@Aotoshiro : there was a mock judging panel suggestion some time ago, not sure what its status is. But yes, even with the commentary panels, I think it would be good to have a cross section of fans represented in both, to alleviate concerns of bias. But I trust the technical fans could maintain consistency when juding or commenty. However, I'm of the opinion that for tech panel calls, we still refer back to the actual tech panel results from the competition, because the tech calls is where us Fanyus have the biggest clashes with some fandoms (not the normal ones, just the extreme fans of both camps).