General Skating Chat

[rockstaryuzu]

7 minutes ago, Cerunias said:

 

Challenge to Yuzu: Note that perfect sync between all four skaters? Your turn now...

 

I can see it now: Guinness World Record attempt for the most number of people doing simultaneous 1A...when Yuzu said he wanted to do a quad axel, he never did specify that he would be the one doing all four rotations, did he? Technically this is also a 'quad' axel....

 

[Xen]

29 minutes ago, rockstaryuzu said:

I can see it now: Guinness World Record attempt for the most number of people doing simultaneous 1A...when Yuzu said he wanted to do a quad axel, he never did specify that he would be the one doing all four rotations, did he? Technically this is also a 'quad' axel....

 

you'd have to find an ice rink big enough to fit all of them in one rink, if one of the requirements was all of them do it from the same rink. I'm sure if he posted it as a goal, people would volunteer, as 1A isn't that high up on difficulty in FS level tests. =D

[rockstaryuzu]

8 hours ago, Xen said:

you'd have to find an ice rink big enough to fit all of them in one rink, if one of the requirements was all of them do it from the same rink. I'm sure if he posted it as a goal, people would volunteer, as 1A isn't that high up on difficulty in FS level tests. =D

Maybe? Considering it's probably a record no one's attempted before, you probably wouldn't need that many people...but if you did need the space, you'd probably have to pick an outdoor surface like the Rideau Canal.

[Xen]

Hey guys, just letting you know, I have a friend on twitter who's going to a training seminar with the ISU. She's kind of curious what rules FS fans think need more clarification etc, and I just opened a thread for it here:  she doesn't have an active account here, but will be checking this thread. So feel free to leave comments. Cheers. 

 

 

 

[OonsieHui]

18 minutes ago, KatjaThera said:

It's not really the place to discuss this, but the GOE talk reminds me that I recently thought they should have an additional score. GOE is just grade of execution and as long as the bullet points are fairly clear, anyone who ticks them all should get all the GOE they deserve, regardless of what anyone else does. HOWEVER, I believe they should have an additional score for the quality of each element. I guess they are technically included in the PCS, but they're not really properly evaluated.

 

For example, two skaters both jump a 4T from steps, they have good height, good position in the air, good landing. They both deserve the same amount of GOE, for ticking the same boxes. However, one skater has a buttery smooth 4T with huge distance and super high and extra creative landing and very difficult steps going into it, while the other has just enough to tick the boxes. Then skater 1 has a higher quality for a well executed 4T, while skater 2 has a lower quality for a well executed 4T. A difference should be made between the two and that difference should be an extra score, marked 1-10, but individually, for each element, like GOEs. If you just bunch them together like PCS, the judges will just give them by general impression anyway, without analyzing in detail. Also, if one skater had great quality jumps and poor quality spins, for example, the score would be different if each element had its own quality score, as opposed to giving an overall score for elements - for example, if some of the elements are impressive enough, the judges might be tempted to give a higher overall score, ignoring how poor the other elements are.

 

I'm kind of surprised nobody has suggested something like this. THIS would really make a difference between skaters, because just GOE isn't enough, IMO. Ticking the GOE boxes shouldn't really be impossible, because it's grade of execution, not quality of execution. And I think it's fair to give a score for how well the elements were executed, then give bonuses to who executes them better (which is, naturally, subjective, hence, PCS-like scoring).

 

 

While I see where you're coming from, and its a good idea, we can't even get judges to follow the existing rules/bulletpoints when giving out GOEs.... I shudder to think what would happen if we put even more criteria in the tech score. Just more room to throw around.....

 

But let's say we live in a perfect world and judges actually... you know..  judged.... it seems a bit subjective for a tech? Hence why it's currently SUPPOSED to be in PCS I think.

[Murieleirum]

I am a bit late to the discussion (I don't have one breathing minute these days) but I think we should be safe in stating that Yuzuru has never been substantially overscored. This is because the few (few) cases in which some of his elements (and not the overall performance, imo) were given a generous GOE (I can only think of the +1 GOE 4Lutz in Cup of Russia - which is a special element, though, because it was his first time trying that, because it was a 4Lutz, and because that save was so glorious, and the flight time was so long, I really don't see why it should not receive positive GOE. It was overall beautiful and excellent in execution) are strongly balanced by the vast number of times his PCS weren't as rewarded as they should have been. I am talking pre-2015-2016 season, and especially pre-Sochi. His Skating Skills were already on par with the greatest skaters around that time (Chan, Takahashi), but since he was young and without a reputation and without backing, this fact was not recognized. There was always substantial criticism to the same things: not enough stamina, fragile-looking, posture, lack of depth of interpretation (this last one being highly debatable), and these things weighted down on his PCS. Was this fair? Probably yes, but if you then compare his situation to the situation of other skaters at that time, and other skaters at modern times... then you see that the story is different. Then you see that Yuzuru is one of the few skaters treated 'fairly' whereas most big, acclaimed skaters have always been backed, and pretty hard. And the last two years, we've seen younger skaters being rewarded for things that were not on ice - for example, Uno and Chen receiving +44 in PCS for their SP. At their level of experience (during Sochi season, for example), Yuzuru still received scores like 76, 79 PCS for his Free Program. When have we ever seen PCS like that for Chen, for Uno? We've seen them for Boyang, maybe, whom definitely lacks the SS that Yuzuru had during Sochi year.

 

Basically, Yuzuru was told to stay humble and that he had to give his 200% to be on par with the top skaters - even when, in reality, he already most of the skill and the talent to be considered equal. Whereas now, the youngsters are told that they already are on par with the top, complete skaters... even when, in reality, they still have a lot to learn on many levels. 

[KatjaThera]

16 hours ago, OonsieHui said:

 

While I see where you're coming from, and its a good idea, we can't even get judges to follow the existing rules/bulletpoints when giving out GOEs.... I shudder to think what would happen if we put even more criteria in the tech score. Just more room to throw around.....

 

But let's say we live in a perfect world and judges actually... you know..  judged.... it seems a bit subjective for a tech? Hence why it's currently SUPPOSED to be in PCS I think.

Actually, I'm thinking some of them might even appreciate it? (Or I'm just being super idealistic, believing there are good judges out there, too...) As it is, they have to use GOE to differentiate quality, too, and that just makes it extra confusing. Like: how can I give this jump 5GOE when there might be a much greater jump later on, more deserving of 5GOE? So they don't. And we'll again see very few +5GOE (just like we saw few +3GOE), because it's some mythical element that only the very best should ever achieve (unless it's a favorite skater doing it, then it's +5 by default Just to be mean). I don't think that should be the case. (Then again, that seems to be the case with 10s in PCS, too... they're afraid to give 10s because it's supposed to only happen with an all time best and surely there could come something better, right?)

 

Alternatively, maybe instead of giving -5GOE to +5GOE, they should give marks depending on what bullets they hit. A skater who hits 3 bullets, should get 3 points. One who hits 5, should get 5 points. Then the bullets would actually have to be analyzed, which I'm pretty sure isn't done now. (Someone also mentioned once that judges should be forced to tick boxes corresponding to each bullet, instead of picking a number from -5 to +5. That'd work, too.)

 

Of course, it definitely leaves a lot of room for screwing up, but IMO, the bias would also be even more visible. Like judges giving a 9.5 to a low, barely enough distance jump, and a 9 to a high, long distance one would really stand out as biased. Which might not have any consequences and create even more controversy, but at least it'd be clear.

 

As for too subjective for tech, yeah, possibly. Though it's still do to with technique, in a way. And it's not like it's not subjective now. I'm sure many judges give the marks based on impression, without actually thinking about the 'guidelines'. There's bad technique, good technique and better technique. Those who go the extra mile should get the bonus points over those who only do the bare minimum.

 

I think it'd definitely encourage skaters to work even more on technique and quality of elements, rather than just quantity.

 

For example, a skater with 5 quads might not even need really good technique or high quality, because the BV of the elements will be enough when he nails them. So why bother on anything other than stabilizing the jumps? But if both technique and quality were rewarded even more than they are, then his chances of winning on BV alone will decrease. I think in some ways the GOE changes this year are good, but it still bugs me, that GOE = quality because I don't think it should be so. At least not under the current guidelines.

 

Though at the end of the day, this discussion is quite pointless, because nobody's going to ask me what I think could be done to improve FS

 

That said, I'm still really fuzzy on how PCS is judged. I'm sure the quality of elements is supposedly included in one of the categories, but none of them seem to fit that, intuitively, just based on what they're called. I know someone linked me to the ISU rules on that before, but I think my brain short-circuited before I could make sense of them ^_^;

[EisElle]

5 hours ago, asiacheetah said:

You can kind of guess by the parents. Anyone know what Stephen's parents look like? Are they super tall?

 

Yuzu could have gone either way. I think his dad was on the bulkier side since he used to play baseball. He lucked out by looking like his mom who is le tiny.

 

Also Yuzu hit his growth spurt around 14/15 I believe. He grew a few more inches after Nice but it wasn't drastic. Maybe 2 more inches.

 

Turning senior at 15 can happen I suppose. He might just be going through a growth spurt at the same time. If I was Brian I would lay off letting Stephen turn senior until after the growth spurt. Or he'd end up hurting in ranking and confidence trying to quad and medal while growing. Just look at the poor Russian ladies that got hit with puberty right when they were getting into the swing of things.

 

Both Nam and Jun Hwan became senior when they were still very young, under Brian. Both had a huge growth spurt  (Jun Hwan right before his senior debut, Nam later on), so I can see Brian and most important Skate Canada letting Stephen turn senior as soon as possible, even if it's before his growth spurt.

Senior men field will be quite depleted in Canada (not that it was so exceptionally deep in hte last years...not to be mean to hard-working skaters, I'm just talking about possible gold medal contenders in major comps), with Kevin with his UR problems on the verge of retiring and Keegan who might be training 4A and be on the raise, but he's certainly not 'young' in figure sakting terms... there are a few promising canadian junior skaters (some turning senior maybe?) but overall none of them with really imressive tech arsenal at the moment, and it looks like US has more depth there at the moment.

So the fed might push Stephen a lot, and might also push his PCS.

 

As far as I can tell, it looks like Stephen might be better than Nam in that department, so he wouldn't be necessarily undeserving of that push. It's just that, historically, men don't get the early push that looks so common among ladies. Which is understandable, as there are no doubts that many things evalued under PCS, like SS, depth of interpretation, purpose of movements and so on, need time and experience to be developed and polished, so PCS should naturally raise as skaters grow and trains and learns.

It's actually surprising that among ladies the youngest with the hardest tech are so easily rewarded in PCS too (tho not all ladies are equal). This trend looks quite peculiar of ladies, as far as I can tell. In ID and Pairs there are many 'older' teams that are plenty competitive and you rarely see a team winning everything at their senior debut.

So history of the sport says Stephen can probably go to OWG 2022, get the experience under his belt, maybe even grab a medal if top guys falter under pressure, and then prepare to claim that elusive gold at next OWG. Right now it looks like he can be one of those rare talent like Yuzuru, that break all the rules and go beyond expectations, but he'll be younger than Yuzu was in Sochi, with only 2 years as a senior at most instead of 4, so that kind of experience could make the difference too.

But who knows, if he'll keep the exceptional promise we see now, we could have a big surprise. Hopefully growth won't hit him as hard as Nam.

For now, let's enjoy how he'll progress in his JGP. If he wins everything the upcoming season or the next one, like Yuzu did, he'll turn senior in 2020/21 for sure. By then we'll see how the Men field looks, if there would be space for him at the top or not (and if Yuzu is still competing ). With the new rules, BV is gonna weight less and actually I expect less junior skaters will be able to have fast breaktrhough like Boyang, Shoma and Nathan did. Judging will be more conservative towards the 'new faces', just like it was when Yuzuru made his senior debut.

 

Current Jr ladies pushing for quads and 3A are amazing and ngl, I'm exctited about such jumps being executed by senior ladies too (tho I'm less excited when the quad is tiny...a tiny quad might be impressive for the rotational speed, but other than that, meh), but I hope coaches and families are very careful with their daily workload. It's not only about young ladies tho, also about young men training a lot of hard jumps at an early age.

Any sport practiced at high-levels is actually unhealthy for kids and FS is one of those sports where having the body of a kid can help, hence the push for intense trianing when it would be advisable to take things a bit slowly. Adults should be very careful not to endanger the kids' natural growth.
 

 

 

@KatjaThera I'm not sure if I've understood your point, so I'm sorry if I've missed it completely

I think the system is fine as it is, with BV, GOE on elements and PCS for the whole program.

GOE are supposed to reward the quality of execution and technique.

 

Chronic bad/flawed technique (assuming all judges know what it is) or mistakes that happen on the day are supposed to result in the GOE deductions, as they reduce the quality of the element on the day. This results in elements being 'punished' with a score lower than the BV.

Good basic technique and good execution (resulting in e.g. very good height/distance, very good landing on a jump or a fast, centered spin) result in positive features and increase the score of the element. Same for e.g. transitions into a jump: everything else being equal, a jump out of steps has higher quality than one without because 1) it's more difficult, hence to execute that means better level of mastery of the basic technique 2) doesn't result in a break in choreo and makes the element look 'prettier'.

When quality of the element is only average, they check no bullets.

 

An average quality jump is a 0 GOE, it just get the full BV. A bad quality jump, be it for messed landing or poor take off, gets a negative GOE.

If an element has a higher than average but not high enough quality to check one bullet but sky-high quality to check another, judges might remember that bullets are guidelines and go for a solid +2 instead of the +1 the element could get if each and every bullet had to be checked strictly and on its own.

Problem is that guidelines have proved way too lax, and ISU is not addressing the problem that yes, there can be subjectivity, but there should also be standars for everyone. Otherwise, what's the point in singling out some judges for their 'out of line' scores?

 

Also, in theory components like SS are about the quality of the use of the blades, and TR the quality (besides the quantity) of all linking movements, upper body included. Quality of movements is also evalued as part of the other components like PE and IN (TR maybe a little more about quality per se and other componets as elements fitting the music) and so on.

So in theory quality is already assessed both in GOE, where the focus is more on the technical execution per se (plus the fitting the music part, for that specific elelment), and the PCS, where there is more focus on how all different elements as a whole combine with music and the 'artistic' concept of the program. Technique is also assessed in GOE and in components like SS and TR.

 

In theory, with proper knowledge and application of ruels, the better techinque already has enough room to be awarded more than the good technique with the current rules.

And when it isn't enough, the range of goe and the bullets themselves can be changed, as it's happening now.

Some commentators hinted that the range would be changed to reward more skaters like Yuzuru (I don't remeber who said that they almost felt +3 was too little for Yuzuru's jumps, they would give +5).

A skater could hit all 8 bullets and got only a measly advantage on people hitting only half of them for a +2. With new range of GOE and correlation with BV, this will change (the higher the BV, the bigger the change).

Possibly, they will also award elements with 'very good basic technique' more than elements 'executed well but with average basic technique'.

 

I think the first talk about new range +/-5 started after Yuzu broke the system at NHK15. Lakernik's Icenetwork article dated 2016 isn't available anymore, but iirc it was the one were he first mentioned the will to change the rules to push for more 'quality' (and maybe also the idea about separate artistic and tech programs). 

And there was the wave of ladies banking on transitions in and out jumps and arm variations to boost their scores instead of focusing on getting big, clean jumps (I'm thinking about some ugly tano on UR jumps, where a skater focused on adding a tano instead of focusing on working on take off and air position to get elevation and clean landings).

I expect many ladies now will have harder time getting full goe because of the bullet very good height&distance (Kaori has potential to go beyond +3 in most of her jumps. I guess skaters like Kaetlyn might, too, and Liza Tuk, tho she maybe would have hard time going above +3 because she lacks steps before her jumps). Some ladies can execute jumps very well, with difficult transitions even and good flow, but their jumping technique only allows them to do small jumps (degree of PR is often correlated to size of jumps, too).

 

As for judges being afraid to give +10 because something better might come later, well, that was what used to happen. Not so much in the last couple of seasons. In ID they were giving away lots of 10s and 9.75, while in other disciplines they were starting giving away 9s and 9.5s. In ID top teams were already maxing out all their scores with almost all 10s (and maxed out GOE*), so ISU now is trying to make it harder to receive a 10 (let's see how long this 'strictness' will last).

IMO they should just stop scoring at 9 skates that are very obviously lacking the requirements for 'very good', rather than focusing on the subtle difference between 'excellent' and 'outstanding'... because if you give 9 for 'very good', then of course 'excellent but not outstanding' is gonna become a 10, duh

 

*I find very interesting that in ID has a very different system for GOE than singles&pair, with a 'no higer than' section and as much as 15 positive features. You have to hit more than 8 of them to have +5 but you can't have any negative feature. Looking at that chart, ID looks mightly difficult to judge, my head is spinning

 

EDITED to add emoji, the post looked like a boring wall text, now it's a boring wall text with cute emojis

[KatjaThera]

21 minutes ago, LadyLou said:

 

Both Nam and Jun Hwan became senior when they were still very young, under Brian. Both had a huge growth spurt  (Jun Hwan right before his senior debut, Nam later on), so I can see Brian and most important Skate Canada letting Stephen turn senior as soon as possible, even if it's before his growth spurt.

Senior men field will be quite depleted in Canada (not that it was so exceptionally deep in hte last years...not to be mean to hard-working skaters, I'm just talking about possible gold medal contenders in major comps), with Kevin with his UR problems on the verge of retiring and Keegan who might be training 4A and be on the raise, but he's certainly not 'young' in figure sakting terms... there are a few promising canadian junior skaters (some turning senior maybe?) but overall none of them with really imressive tech arsenal at the moment, and it looks like US has more depth there at the moment.

So the fed might push Stephen a lot, and might also push his PCS.

 

As far as I can tell, it looks like Stephen might be better than Nam in that department, so he wouldn't be necessarily undeserving of that push. It's just that, historically, men don't get the early push that looks so common among ladies. Which is understandable, as there are no doubts that many things evalued under PCS, like SS, depth of interpretation, purpose of movements and so on, need time and experience to be developed and polished, so PCS should naturally raise as skaters grow and trains and learns.

It's actually surprising that among ladies the youngest with the hardest tech are so easily rewarded in PCS too (tho not all ladies are equal). This trend looks quite peculiar of ladies, as far as I can tell. In ID and Pairs there are many 'older' teams that are plenty competitive and you rarely see a team winning everything at their senior debut.

So history of the sport says Stephen can probably go to OWG 2022, get the experience under his belt, maybe even grab a medal if top guys falter under pressure, and then prepare to claim that elusive gold at next OWG. Right now it looks like he can be one of those rare talent like Yuzuru, that break all the rules and go beyond expectations, but he'll be younger than Yuzu was in Sochi, with only 2 years as a senior at most instead of 4, so that kind of experience could make the difference too.

But who knows, if he'll keep the exceptional promise we see now, we could have a big surprise. Hopefully growth won't hit him as hard as Nam.

For now, let's enjoy how he'll progress in his JGP. If he wins everything the upcoming season or the next one, like Yuzu did, he'll turn senior in 2020/21 for sure. By then we'll see how the Men field looks, if there would be space for him at the top or not (and if Yuzu is still competing ). With the new rules, BV is gonna weight less and actually I expect less junior skaters will be able to have fast breaktrhough like Boyang, Shoma and Nathan did. Judging will be more conservative towards the 'new faces', just like it was when Yuzuru made his senior debut.

 

Current Jr ladies pushing for quads and 3A are amazing and ngl, I'm exctited about such jumps being executed by senior ladies too (tho I'm less excited when the quad is tiny...a tiny quad might be impressive for the rotational speed, but other than that, meh), but I hope coaches and families are very careful with their daily workload. It's not only about young ladies tho, also about young men training a lot of hard jumps at an early age. Any sport practiced at high-levels is actually unhealthy for kids and FS is one of those sports where having the body of a kid can help, hence the push for intense trianing when it would be advisable to take things a bit slow. Adults should be very careful not to endanger the kids' natural growth.
 

@KatjaThera I'm not sure if I've understood your point, so I'm sorry if I've missed it completely

I think the system is fine as it is, with BV, GOE on elements and PCS for the whole program.

GOE are supposed to reward the quality of execution and technique.

Chronic bad/flawed technique (assuming all judges know what it is) or mistakes that happen on the day are supposed to result in the GOE deductions, as they reduce the quality of the element on the day. This results in elements being 'punished' with a score lower than the BV.

Good basic technique and good execution (resulting in e.g. very good height/distance, very good landing on a jump or a fast, centered spin) result in positive features and increase the score of the element. Same for e.g. transitions into a jump: everything else being equal, a jump out of steps has higher quality than one without because 1) it's more difficult, hence to execute that means better level of mastery of the basic technique 2) doesn't result in a break in choreo and makes the element look 'prettier'.

When quality of the element is only average, they check no bullets.

An average quality jump is a 0 GOE, it just get the full BV. A bad quality jump, be it for messed landing or poor take off, gets a negative GOE.

If an element has a higher than average but not high enough quality to check one bullet but sky-high quality to check another, judges might remember that bullets are guidelines and go for a solid +2 instead of the +1 the element could get if each and every bullet had to be checked strictly and on its own.

Problem is that guidelines have proved way too lax, and ISU is not addressing the problem that yes, there can be subjectivity, but there should also be standars for everyone. Otherwise, what's the point in singling out some judges for their 'out of line' scores?

 

Also, in theory components like SS are about the quality of the use of the blades, and TR the quality (besides the quantity) of all linking movements, upper body included. Quality of movements is also evalued as part of the other components like PE and IN (TR maybe a little more about quality per se and other componets as elements fitting the music) and so on.

So in theory quality is already assessed both in GOE, where the focus is more on the technical execution per se (plus the fitting the music part, for that specific elelment), and the PCS, where there is more focus on how all different elements as a whole combine with music and the 'artistic' concept of the program. Technique is also assessed in GOE and in components like SS and TR.

 

In theory, with proper knowledge and application of ruels, the better techinque has enough room to be awarded more than the good technique with the current rules.

And when it isn't enough, the range of goe and the bullets themselves can be changed, as it's happening now.

Some commentators hinted that the range would be changed to reward more skaters like Yuzuru (I don't remeber who said that they almost felt +3 was too little for Yuzuru's jumps, they would give +5). A skater could hit all 8 bullets and got only a measly advantage on people hitting only half of them for a +2. With new range of GOE and correlation with BV, this will change (the higher the BV, the bigger the change). Possibly, they will also award elements with 'very good basic technique' more than elements 'executed well but with average basic technique'.

 

I think the first talk about new range +/-5 started after Yuzu broke the system at NHK15. Lakernik's Icenetwork article dated 2016 isn't available anymore, but iirc it was the one were he first mentioned the will to change the rules to push for more 'quality' (and maybe also the idea about separate artistic and tech programs).  And there was the wave of ladies banking on transitions in and out jumps and arm variations to boost their scores instead of focusing on getting big, clean jumps (I'm thinking about some ugly tano on UR jumps, where a skater focused on adding a tano instead of focusing on working on take off and air position to get elevation and clean landings). I expect many ladies now will have harder time getting full goe because of the bullet very good height&distance (Kaori has potential to go beyond +3 in most of her jumps. I guess skaters like Kaetlyn might, too, and Liza Tuk, tho she maybe would have hard time going above +3 because she lacks steps before her jumps). Some ladies can execute jumps very well, with difficult transitions even and good flow, but their jumping technique only allows them to do small jumps (degree of PR is often correlated to size of jumps, too).

 

As for judges being afraid to give +10 because something better might come later, well, that was what used to happen. Not so much in the last couple of seasons. In ID they were giving away lots of 10s and 9.75, while in other disciplines they were starting giving away 9s and 9.5s. In ID top teams were already maxing out all their scores with almost all 10s (and maxed out GOE*), so ISU now is trying to make it harder to receive a 10 (let's see how long this 'strictness' will last).

IMO they should just stop scoring at 9 skates that are very obviously lacking the requirements for 'very good', rather than focusing on the subtle difference between 'excellent' and 'outstanding'... because if you give 9 for 'very good', then of course 'excellent but not outstanding' is gonna become a 10, duh

 

*I find very interesting that in ID has a very different system for GOE than singles&pair, with a 'no higer than' section and as much as 15 positive features. You have to hit more than 8 of them to have +5 but you can't have any negative feature. Looking at that chart, ID looks mightly difficult to judge, my head is spinning

 

EDITED to add emoji, it looked such a boring wall text, now it's a wall text with cute emojis

I don't think you've missed my point, so it's ok But I'll explain a bit more what I meant, just to be safe lol

 

I understand all of that about GOE, I just think it's not really enough. For example, as far as GOE guidelines are concerned, an SE 3A is the same as Yuzu's trademark back counter 3A. I'm sure many - including one Takahito Mura lol - would argue, though, that the latter is more difficult. However, if there's no benefit for trying something more difficult, why do it? It's hard to argue that SE-3A doesn't hit the same bullets as back counter 3A, but I think the latter should get rewarded more. I understand the GOE bullets being guidelines actually does give judges a bit of freedom to do this, but IMO, that's not right. As long as GOE is grade of execution and not grade of difficulty or grade of quality. To me, execution is simply that: you execute an element, and you have a standard by which you judge how accurately the element was executed. And yes, that does include some measure of difficulty and quality. However, the guidelines are so vague and kind of generic that it doesn't really tell you THAT much. And for GOE, I'm not sure it even should. (Also, maybe I should point out, this is from the pov of someone who is still somewhat new to FS. Maybe if I'd been into it for longer, that notion of 'execution' would have changed by now for me, too.) I also think 11 grades of execution aren't enough to truly differentiate the quality of the elements, simply because there are too many things that should be taken into consideration to be able to cram it all up in 11 grades of execution, out of which only 5 are positive.

 

Also, my impression on PCS is that it's mostly looking at the program as a whole from various points of view, while I'm thinking about individual elements. Someone can have an awesome 4Lz and a rather unaesthetic spin (that still manages to hit enough bullet points to get a decent TES score). A quality score for individual elements could easily be a 9 for the 4T and a 4 for the spin, while normally, few would give a 6.5 for the average (reducing it to just two elements for simplicity.)

 

I guess my biggest issue is that judges are given a check list. And then they're told "Here, have a check list. But you know, it's kind of optional, so... it's up to you. Figure it out." It's a really half-hearted way of doing things, IMO. Either make the check list clearer and mandatory or figure out something else. I know I'd feel really lost as a - rookie; I guess the veterans already have their own standards, which may or may not have much to do with the checklist - judge if I were faced with that. (My boss does that to me sometimes... gives me only half the facts and nothing really strictly clear and leaves me hanging, to try to figure out the rest myself. I absolutely hate it when it happens! So I guess this reminds me of that. ) I actually tend to think it might be easier for them, too, if the bullets were mandatory as opposed to guidelines. Much more straightforward and easy to follow. Not that it'll happen lol

[Neenah]

A probably very unpopular opinion but I think that IJS is a very good system and it is the best way to evaluate a sport like FS (not perfect but good) 

 

Let me explain why, FS does have a subjective aspect that will ruin the sport if removed, which is why I don't think that using computer to judge is a good idea. The rules as they are written assure that difficulty and quality for both elements and programs as a whole are considered and evaluated.  The fact that the bullet points and PC criteria are guidelines is also the best way to handle a sport with an artistic side that needs the judges to have  the ability to reward innovation and creativity, which are things that cannot be always rewarded with pre existing rules since no one thought of it before the skater. I myself used similar scoring rubrics when marking students work (videos, essays, presentations, etc) so I understand the system and how it should work. I can see its strengths and weaknesses and I can understand why some rules are written the way they are. 

 

Take for example PC; before it was in the hands of the judges, they were to decide if the performance as a whole was impacted by errors and deduct accordingly. However, that wasn't working well, not because of the rules did not work but because the judges did not apply it. There was a huge debate between fans about how much falls should affect PC scores and we never truly agreed on anything because there is really no easy solution.

The ISU decided to acknowledge the problem and they added the rule that a program with serious errors should have its PC capped for all components, and that is a bad idea. They tried to take the power from the judges by introducing a rule which should force the judges to consider this deduction (or cap) when scoring performances with errors. The problem is that PC is not a fixed value that you can deduct from. It is a scale that is used to rate the quality of the performance (errors included) and that is exactly how it should be. By putting a cap on PC they put the judges in a weird situation and the result will be one of three scenarios 1) If a judge though that the performance was very good even with mistakes they may go higher than they would have before to ensure that the skater is not hurt too much by the deduction. 2) If the skater does not usually receive  scores above 9 then the deduction will not hurt them and they will be getting higher scores compared to a 9+ skater with the same number of mistakes, which will create a discriminatory situation (that many fans don't seem to care about because top skaters are privileged and should be punished all the time ) 3) the judges will latch on to the "it is a guideline" and ignore the deduction altogether to prop their favorites, which will undermine the whole  system. 

What I was trying to explain in my lengthy example (sorry ) is that the original system was the better way to evaluate the component and what was needed is accountability and quality control for the judging. Because they couldn't do that (or didn't want to) they put a rule that messes up the process and creates new problems without actually addressing the original issue. Strict rules are not always the best option and giving the judges space is required and useful as long as it is not abused (which is the problem really)

 

The same goes for GOE, the judges need to have some freedom to reward quality even if the element does not hit all bullet points, but this also needs to be controlled and justifiable. I personally think it is correct to give an element high GOE even if he didn't hit all bullet points required if it was an outstanding element that is a highlight on its own (Boyang's 4LZ ). I also think it is okay not to give high GOE if the element is mediocre even if it hits the bullet points for it. That freedom to assess quality and reward creativity and innovation is essential in a system that have a subjective element and it should not undermine its credibility.

 

The real problem with IJS (if we ignore corruption) is and has always been the lack of unified interpretation and understanding of the rules . The judges will always have their own opinions on what makes an outstanding element or a great performance and that is fine. What is not fine is that they would have a vastly different opinion and interpretation of the rules or that they would let other factors, such as national and cultural bias, influence that judgement and interpretation. The judges need to be on the same page when it comes to recognizing quality even if they did not all end up giving +5 ( few +4s should be acceptable) for a great element. However, we should not be seeing +5s and +1 or +2 for one element because that is absurd and unrealistic 

 

TBH I don't know how to fix this. When marking we do quality control by having someone else check your marks afterwards and adjusting the it later based on second opinions, but that is hard to do in FS since they need to give scores immediately after the performance. Maybe more transparency to make the judges accountable and aware of each others thought process, or possibly having multiple workshops where the judges sit together and judge different performances while discussing it so that they can exchange ideas and opinions and maybe reach a consensus or a compromise where they have different perspectives 

 

Sorry for the long post, I just like discussing the IJS 

[monchan]

Do u know any other skater has skated to Ballade no. 1 and LGC (all disciplines)? While im quite sure seimei and h&l are unique to yuzu, ballade and lgc are pretty popular pieces, idk if any has tried be4 yuzu. Search on youtube they only show yuzu's ones. 

[ralucutzagy]

52 minutes ago, monchan said:

Do u know any other skater has skated to Ballade no. 1 and LGC (all disciplines)? While im quite sure seimei and h&l are unique to yuzu, ballade and lgc are pretty popular pieces, idk if any has tried be4 yuzu. Search on youtube they only show yuzu's ones. 

I rmb Mao Asada doing Ballade, not the same cuts, but I cannot rmb somebody else doing LGC...

Spoiler

 

 

[ralucutzagy]

 

[hoodie axel]

On 7/18/2018 at 2:52 AM, Neenah said:

The same goes for GOE, the judges need to have some freedom to reward quality even if the element does not hit all bullet points, but this also needs to be controlled and justifiable. I personally think it is correct to give an element high GOE even if he didn't hit all bullet points required if it was an outstanding element that is a highlight on its own (Boyang's 4LZ ). I also think it is okay not to give high GOE if the element is mediocre even if it hits the bullet points for it. That freedom to assess quality and reward creativity and innovation is essential in a system that have a subjective element and it should not undermine its credibility.

 

  

 

I think we might need a computer tech panel, but not computer judges. The judges should be selected through a universal standard, and should be held accountable for what they do, but replacing them with computers is likely not the answer.

[Rainna]

13 hours ago, ralucutzagy said:

 

 

 

So these are some of the examples from the ice dance handbook.  High quality stuff right there!

I first saw it this morning while on the train and I couldn't help but crack up. Definitely got me some weird stares, so thanks for that, ISU...