General Skating Chat

[sallycinnamon]

1 hour ago, ralucutzagy said:

Can we have a WTT fluff threah, please? ... 

 

We'll have one WTT thread, here: 

 

[ralucutzagy]

9 minutes ago, sallycinnamon said:

 

We'll have one WTT thread, here: 

 

Thanks!

[yuzupon]

Have this been discussed and I just completely miss the discussion?

 

 

[Veveco]

Bringing this here because I don't want to derail the general Yuzu topic again but:

 

 

 

ISU shenanigans aside, serious question: what would be, in your opinion, the best way to integrate Icescope - or equivalent technology - in the judging system?

 

I certainly think that new technologies should be used as a more objective way to grade of jumps (you know, the ever elusive height/distance guidelines from ISU), but clearly it is not the only relevant factor. Air position, landing, difficult entry/exit (haha, right?) etc. are still very important. So what is your best hypothetical scenario? Would you see it as 2 separate components of the jump score, one from Icescope-like + one from judges for execution? Or Icescope stats used to factor the score somehow, goe style? Or a level system (being in this range allows you a bv of so much, step seq style) ? 

 

I'm curious to see how more experienced fans/skaters would prefer to see this being used. 

 

Also, don't tell me it's impossible to develop a similar technology to evaluate rotations and finally get fair calls for UR. 

[Sombreuil]

I am watching the equivalent in gymnastics with great interest.  I think they need more time to refine the system but I think they’re planning to use it in Tokyo 2020.  If it can give reliable, explainable stats on landings, rotations, subjective quality of catches on bars (point at which the catch happens, straight arms, legs together etc) then those elements become measurable, at speed, by a machine.  It’s translatable to skating with extra viewpoints.  It’s potentially a game changer 

[Figure_Frenzy]

On 3/30/2019 at 12:51 PM, yuzupon said:

Have this been discussed and I just completely miss the discussion?

 

 

 

Wired also made a video on this topic (except that they covered jumps in skiing and snowboarding as well). It is also mentioned in that video that the rotational speed is the limiting factor. Some of the researchers also attempted to figure out how to rotate faster — exercising with weights (strapped to their hands) seemed to help at first, but it only gave an immediate effect right after the person attempted to spin without the weights on their body — consequent attempts showed that their rotational speed returned to their speed before they trained with the weights. The jury's still out on how to increase rotational speed 

 

So for now I personally think that one way to reach quints is by jumping larger jumps (ie. increase air time)

[Old Cat Lady]

13 hours ago, Veveco said:

ISU shenanigans aside, serious question: what would be, in your opinion, the best way to integrate Icescope - or equivalent technology - in the judging system?

 

I think the IceScope should be used as an aide to judging.  I forget who, but someone suggested that if a skater doesn't reach a predetermined height/distance, the 4 and 5 buttons automatically disappear.

 

Same thing for rotation.  The judges score the quality, and then the ice scope (or whatever equivalent) automatically deducts from the judges' GOE.  Less 90 degrees, -1 (since judges are supposed to reduce for "lacking rotation, no sign"), 90 to 120 is -2 + <, 121 to 179 is -3 +<, and greater than 180 is << .  I write this based on current rules - frankly, I don't think you should get both the </<< and GOE reduction, except maybe that the final GOE can't be greater than 3 since that means that the landing or takeoff wasn't good.

[Neenah]

18 hours ago, Veveco said:

Bringing this here because I don't want to derail the general Yuzu topic again but:

 

 

 

ISU shenanigans aside, serious question: what would be, in your opinion, the best way to integrate Icescope - or equivalent technology - in the judging system?

 

I certainly think that new technologies should be used as a more objective way to grade of jumps (you know, the ever elusive height/distance guidelines from ISU), but clearly it is not the only relevant factor. Air position, landing, difficult entry/exit (haha, right?) etc. are still very important. So what is your best hypothetical scenario? Would you see it as 2 separate components of the jump score, one from Icescope-like + one from judges for execution? Or Icescope stats used to factor the score somehow, goe style? Or a level system (being in this range allows you a bv of so much, step seq style) ? 

 

I'm curious to see how more experienced fans/skaters would prefer to see this being used. 

 

Also, don't tell me it's impossible to develop a similar technology to evaluate rotations and finally get fair calls for UR. 

I think the most important contribution Icescope can have in its current design is to provide accurate data on jumps performed by different skaters. There is always this debate about which jumps are naturally higher, which jumps require more speed, how different entries affect the jumps size, is the height and body type of the skater important for a jumps size, and many other questions that when answered can help refining the rules and score skaters more fairly.

Maybe after this data is collected and analysed the software and its numbers can be used for scoring like @Old Cat Lady suggested, but it is important to make sure that the numbers are understood first, so that we do not discriminate against any skater because of their body type or technique.

 

What I think would be really helpful for judging and easier integrated into scoring is calculating the skaters speed and ice coverage, which can be done easily with the overhead camera and a motion tracking software. With the ice as a background, it should be fairly easy to map the skater's movement in real time and calculate their speed. This could be very useful for the judges and giving the result of that as  a graph shouldn't be complicated.

[Old Cat Lady]

1 hour ago, Neenah said:

What I think would be really helpful for judging and easier integrated into scoring is calculating the skaters speed and ice coverage, which can be done easily with the overhead camera and a motion tracking software. With the ice as a background, it should be fairly easy to map the skater's movement in real time and calculate their speed. This could be very useful for the judges and giving the result of that as  a graph shouldn't be complicated.

 

I don't think we'd want to do that for singles skating because a skater with worse skating skills will get more speed with doing straight crossovers than a skater that is doing a lot of complicated turns and steps.

 

But I was disappointed that it didn't get used for ice dance.  I thought the ice scope would have been great on twizzles to show how much distance gets covered.  

 

I think an ice scope like device could also be used to help with the composition mark.  Either judges could get access to a screen showing the exact pattern of the program or there could be some sort of automatic thing that a minimum percentage of the ice needs to get covered to reach a certain  score.

[Neenah]

1 minute ago, Old Cat Lady said:

 

I don't think we'd want to do that for singles skating because a skater with worse skating skills will get more speed with doing straight crossovers than a skater that is doing a lot of complicated turns and steps.

This should added information for the judges and does not replace them. A judge sitting there should be able to see who has good skating skills and who doesn't. Also, a skater with good skating skills will have easier time maintaining and varying their speed. I am just thinking that this kind of information would be useful to inform decisions. 

 

I don't think that we will ever or even should eliminate the human judges in FS, but we can provide more information to help them make better calls and to be able to hold them accountable when they don't  

[kaeryth]

 

[hoodie axel]

This is against weird decisions by the coaches in general, and the poor state of judging. Not Medvedeva/Orser specifically.

 

2 hours ago, yuzuangel said:

 

 

Brian Orser says here that her "4T isn't bad". Here's one of Medvedeva's +3T executions from Worlds 2019:

 

 

Now of course this is on a combo, and solo technique may slightly differ, but 270 degrees of PR doesn't fill me with confidence (and she didn't land it backwards, either) that her solo 4T will be done any better.

 

They also speak about her 4S. Here's her 3S now:

 

This jump isn't that great either. It's slightly better on take-off than her toe-loops, but the vault on the jump isn't that great. I am not sure why people say she has one of the best 3S out there.

 

(that's a very nice performance BTW, program set aside. Something quite Sotnikova-at-Sochi-like.)

 

So my question to the coaches out there is, when someone has weak basic technique, why would you try to build quads on that? Why not try to fix the technique, and try to get the skater to vault? Plus, I am sure the coach knows about cheated technique, so why would they try to not fix that and instead try to train a quad?

[moonkat]

15 minutes ago, hoodie axel said:

This is against weird decisions by the coaches in general, and the poor state of judging. Not Medvedeva/Orser specifically.

 

 

Brian Orser says here that her "4T isn't bad". Here's one of Medvedeva's +3T executions from Worlds 2019:

 

 

Now of course this is on a combo, and solo technique may slightly differ, but 270 degrees of PR doesn't fill me with confidence (and she didn't land it backwards, either) that her solo 4T will be done any better.

 

They also speak about her 4S. Here's her 3S now:

 

This jump isn't that great either. It's slightly better on take-off than her toe-loops, but the vault on the jump isn't that great. I am not sure why people say she has one of the best 3S out there.

 

(that's a very nice performance BTW, program set aside. Something quite Sotnikova-at-Sochi-like.)

 

So my question to the coaches out there is, when someone has weak basic technique, why would you try to build quads on that? Why not try to fix the technique, and try to get the skater to vault? Plus, I am sure the coach knows about cheated technique, so why would they try to not fix that and instead try to train a quad?

Cause there's no time for it? Perhaps he tried correcting technique with Elizabet.

[yuzuangel]

39 minutes ago, hoodie axel said:

This is against weird decisions by the coaches in general, and the poor state of judging. Not Medvedeva/Orser specifically.

 

 

Brian Orser says here that her "4T isn't bad". Here's one of Medvedeva's +3T executions from Worlds 2019:

 

 

Now of course this is on a combo, and solo technique may slightly differ, but 270 degrees of PR doesn't fill me with confidence (and she didn't land it backwards, either) that her solo 4T will be done any better.

 

They also speak about her 4S. Here's her 3S now:

 

This jump isn't that great either. It's slightly better on take-off than her toe-loops, but the vault on the jump isn't that great. I am not sure why people say she has one of the best 3S out there.

 

(that's a very nice performance BTW, program set aside. Something quite Sotnikova-at-Sochi-like.)

 

So my question to the coaches out there is, when someone has weak basic technique, why would you try to build quads on that? Why not try to fix the technique, and try to get the skater to vault? Plus, I am sure the coach knows about cheated technique, so why would they try to not fix that and instead try to train a quad?

 

I'm guessing:

 

1. It may be easier to add a rotation than to fix basic takeoff technique. I can see that a skater may actually find it easier to do a quad than to go back to jumping basics after a lifetime of muscle memory. 

2. In the end, there are ladies doing quads and getting full credit for them with equally not-ideal technique. Unfortunately not every skater has the legacy, the financial backing, and the fanbase to focus on things that don't get awarded by the judges if funding/sponsorship/spots/opportunities are once in a lifetime and gone in a flash if they do not win medals. Not to mention, the health to do so. Yuzu is a one in a million here, IMO. 

3. If Medvedeva learns a quad even with PR and UR I think it will help with her issues on her triple. Just like I'm sure she can jump a double toe with not much PR by itself, if she can get a consistent 4T then it would probably improve lift/rotation with her 3T.

4. The jumps you posted are all combinations. Her 3S is a little bit better than that on its own, but she needs to keep it low to control the landing for her 3Lo. So yeah, I think she can get more height than that.

5. Medvedeva is basically forced to add quads if she's skating for Russia. Quads or perish, basically.

[Yume]

Something tells me that next season URed quads will be judged with the same amount of leniency than flutzes (or flat edge lutzes) at worlds.