General Skating Chat

[katonice]

14 hours ago, fireovertheice said:

Maybe you have already seen this: https://twitter.com/rockerskating/status/930106084257337349

 

Please read also the comments and observations of @Lys, @Joey and Chibura and others (I do not know if she/he ever signed on this forum) and the answers of Jackie Wong to them.

 

Personally I would like to ask him (but I am not on twitter) or to who can/want answer how to recognise this "high quality" crossovers (the charachteristics) and what is the differences in the crossovers of Chen (quoted as example of high quality crossovers) and of the other top 10 men: please, can someone explain to me...?

Yeah, I went  at his "quality crossovers as part of transitions" comment.

Where'd that come from you have to wonder...

[xeyra]

19 minutes ago, katonice said:

Yeah, I went  at his "quality crossovers as part of transitions" comment.

Where'd that come from you have to wonder...

 

I mean, quality crossovers are very nice, yes, but an overabundance of them doesn't really meet the 'difficulty' and 'variety' aspects of TR...

[katonice]

2 minutes ago, xeyra said:

 

I mean, quality crossovers are very nice, yes, but an overabundance of them don't really meet the 'difficulty' and 'variety' aspects of TR...

I feel like he's making everyone go around in circles

- too many crossovers but good quality - credit in TR score

- but too many crossovers reduce number of other difficult transitions (i.e., real transitions lol) - debit in TR score

- therefore reduce crossovers to increase number of other difficult elements - credit in TR score

- but then we can't give credit to quality crossovers - debit in TR score

 

Wth now he's giving us a headache thinking about those crossovers. 

We already have scores for SS for evaluating overall skating quality. It should already be covered there.

No need to highlight crossovers specifically. So it's making me wonder a little bit why he did.

[xeyra]

5 minutes ago, katonice said:

I feel like he's making everyone go around in circles

- too many crossovers but good quality - credit in TR score

- but too many crossovers reduce number of other difficult transitions (i.e., real transitions lol) - debit in TR score

- therefore reduce crossovers to increase number of other difficult elements - credit in TR score

- but then we can't give credit to quality crossovers - debit in TR score

 

Wth now he's giving us a headache thinking about those crossovers. 

We already have scores for SS for evaluating overall skating quality. It should already be covered there.

No need to highlight crossovers specifically. So it's making me wonder a little bit why he did.

 

Well, to be honest, quality crossovers ends up being more of a SS area, though, right?

 

There was an example in that discussion, that compared the crossovers of Carolina Kostner and Ashley Wagner. Both have a great number of crossovers in their programs but Kostner's are higher quality, due to her better SS, so should she be better rewarded in TR, SS or both in comparison to Wagner?

[PapiandPooh422]

4 hours ago, ralucutzagy said:

He could do SkA too, he hasn't done it in a while ... 

1 hour ago, xeyra said:

 

 

I'm not sure it's likely for him to go to SkA with Nathan there, though it will depend on Worlds placements and how everyone will be seeded. If Yuzu and Nathan are on the podium at Worlds, they can't both do SkA. 

Oh yeah! He hasn't gone to Skate America for a long time and then I remembered that 1-2-3 and 4-5-6 can't go together. And the way things are going now, Nathan might place among the 1-2-3. But do you think they'll still pit him against Yuzu in any GP assignment if in case he places on the 4-5-6 part?

2 hours ago, meoima said:

People sent him asks and feedbacks but he doesn’t seem to get those. Sadly so. The more scary is that he is the reporter for FS, one among well known ones. Ughhh

22 minutes ago, xeyra said:

 

I mean, quality crossovers are very nice, yes, but an overabundance of them doesn't really meet the 'difficulty' and 'variety' aspects of TR...

If you're a skater if you already have that so-called "quality" crossovers, wouldn't you like to upgrade them to more challenging transitions? And for goodness sake! We're talking about top skaters. Of course they can do quality crossovers or whatever he likes to call it. And to think that I've seen some thank you comments in there for him making them understand more about the guidelines...Dear Neptune

[fireovertheice]

30 minutes ago, katonice said:

I feel like he's making everyone go around in circles

- too many crossovers but good quality - credit in TR score

- but too many crossovers reduce number of other difficult transitions (i.e., real transitions lol) - debit in TR score

- therefore reduce crossovers to increase number of other difficult elements - credit in TR score

- but then we can't give credit to quality crossovers - debit in TR score

 

Wth now he's giving us a headache thinking about those crossovers. 

We already have scores for SS for evaluating overall skating quality. It should already be covered there.

No need to highlight crossovers specifically. So it's making me wonder a little bit why he did.

 

This is the point: crossovers are steps used in between/ connecting elements so literally they are transitions indeed.

However, I do think that speaking - for example - of the ten top men is difficult to find actual bad quality crossovers, also if some of them are slightly better than others, as @Xen also said, if I remeber well.

And maybe Chen is just not the best.

 

Also follow me that should be count more in the general SS than in TR, more if we think that other than quality (cleanennes and clarity), the criteria for the scores of TR comprehend also variety (and if crossovers are the transitions in majority were is that?) and  difficulty (....).

It is true that I realised only now that from this year they changed the other requirement for TR, i.e. intricacy with a more general  - and bland to me - "continuity of movements".

 

Last, and I have already spoken about this, IMO if in a program crossovers are too many in comparison to other transitions, that should be reflected in some negative way not only in TR scores, but also in SS scores (because at least  in contradiction with > Multi directional skating (Includes all direction of skating: forward and backward, clockwise and counterclockwise including rotation in both directions) and Mastery of one foot skating (No over use of skating on two feet), if not with Cleanness and sureness of deep edges, steps, and turns (The skater should demonstrate clean and controlled curves, deep edges, and steps: easy to do if they are mainly crossovers...).

[PapiandPooh422]

Oh..Don't know there's this so called continuity of movements. Pardon me if I'll ask this but, does the judging in that requirement can be literally based on what it's called, as in continuous and smooth flow on the ice?

[katonice]

43 minutes ago, xeyra said:

 

Well, to be honest, quality crossovers ends up being more of a SS area, though, right?

 

There was an example in that discussion, that compared the crossovers of Carolina Kostner and Ashley Wagner. Both have a great number of crossovers in their programs but Kostner's are higher quality, due to her better SS, so should she be better rewarded in TR, SS or both in comparison to Wagner?

Exactly, my point too it's already covered in SS.

Why would he bring it up specifically? (It even has its own bullet point in his post lol).

He's playing with our heads here  

[Xen]

17 minutes ago, PapiandPooh421 said:

Oh..Don't know there's this so called continuity of movements. Pardon me if I'll ask this but, does the judging in that requirement can be literally based on what it's called, as in continuous and smooth flow on the ice?

unless difficulty and variety are removed, continuity on ice should be about the general flow, speed, quality and cleansiness that a skater maintains between transitional steps. It means crossovers are allowed, but should not automatically give a pass to crossover heavy programs. 

 

At least that is how I would read it. 

[fireovertheice]

22 minutes ago, PapiandPooh421 said:

Oh..Don't know there's this so called continuity of movements. Pardon me if I'll ask this but, does the judging in that requirement can be literally based on what it's called, as in continuous and smooth flow on the ice?

 

I write you down here the answer that @gkelly gave me on GS forums (one of the few persons there and not here, that I find a reliable and interesting source):

Quote

"And the "continuity of movements" criterion that was added to the Transitions guidelines last year (in place of "intricacy") means that even if the skater is doing something really simple such as crossovers, if they flow continuously from one element to another that's worth more than starting and stopping and lurching and squaring off and telegraphing.
So it is possible to deserve high transitions scores even with lots of crossovers, but not if the only thing between the elements is crossovers (because then there would be no variety or difficulty)".

 

I asked also about the statement of Wong and she (I think is a she) said:

Quote

"My understanding is that crossovers, especially their quality, are considered in the Skating Skills component, not under Transitions.
I referred to all the SS criteria that relate to crossovers in answer to your question about how to evaluate the quality. I left out the mentions of steps and turns and one-foot skating because they don't apply to crossovers".

 

My oher question: "And just moving the head during crossovers is really to be counted as turns or in general difficult steps on one foot?"

Quote

Her answer: "NO. It counts as body movements. Transitions include things like steps and turns, unlisted jumps, "field moves" (spirals, spread eagles, etc.), and body movements. It's possible to do body movements during crossovers, so a program with many crossovers could be gaining some credit for Transitions during those crossovers."

 

If you wanna read the details of the entire conversation between us you can find it in the "Structure of Zagitova's Free Skate" thread on GS.

[PapiandPooh422]

9 minutes ago, Xen said:

unless difficulty and variety are removed, continuity on ice should be about the general flow, speed, quality and cleansiness that a skater maintains between transitional steps. It means crossovers are allowed, but should not automatically give a pass to crossover heavy programs. 

 

At least that is how I would read it. 

Ah.. Thank you for explaining this. But isn't that rule kinda' like common sense? I mean who would give a skater that does not qualify with the above requirements a good score? And from what I read earlier it's a new rule (2016?) But doesn't this requirement is in scope of another rule? Aaaahhhh... It's so confusing. 

[PapiandPooh422]

11 minutes ago, fireovertheice said:

 

I write you down here the answer that @gkelly gave me on GS forums (one of the few persons there and not here, that I find a reliable and interesting source):

 

I asked also about the statement of Wong and she (I think is a she) said:

 

My oher question: "And just moving the head during crossovers is really to be counted as turns or in general difficult steps on one foot?"

 

If you wanna read the details of the entire conversation between us you can find it in the "Structure of Zagitova's Free Skate" thread on GS.

Ah... Thank you for taking the time to explain this!! I'll gladly read what you recommended!! ♥️ ♥️ 

[bubbletea0712]

Can I ask you guys something? It's nearly end of my semester and I will have about 1 month free time. If I want to learn fs rule in PCS area(last time I study in tech area), what are good source or good competition I should learn? (I ask this cause pcs nowaday is...) thank you very much^^ 

[fireovertheice]

Well @PapiandPooh421 if you read everything she wrote about the subject, it is really discomforting, 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 ... .

[xeyra]

@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.