Jump to content

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, hoodie axel said:

Well for the steps part, I don't think there should be nothing in lieu of steps. Strong flow and great speed needs control and shows skill, and would make the succeeding element hard to control. Not everyone can move into an element with the same speed that Kim carried and make it successful.

 

ETA:

 

Also, IMO, we must consider "what-ifs" and slippery slopes that come along with it. You already are selecting an arbitrary line of termination for +5 GOE with steps beforehand being "necessary" in a way to get there, saying something extra is needed beyond classic jumps to set it apart. But, well, then there rises the question of what would happen if a person can replicate your example of +5 GOE jump, and adds a rippon to it? That now gets equated with a "lower" quality jump with "just" steps before an outstanding jump.

 

So, to me, an outstanding demonstration of classic jump quality is enough to get +5, especially because such a demonstration already is very rare and to me it seems extremely hard already to produce such a jump given how few have done it. Not to mention, we already see jumps that get a little less vault (Yuzuru gets a little less height on his back counter 3A than a no steps entry by Yagudin into it, for instance), a little too tilted in the air, removing a bit of classic quality in order to get steps in, or a tano out. Seems to me that extraneous qualities such as these can lower the inherent qualities of jump technique which might be harder to produce, but also, what I essentially want to say is "perhaps you can't get outstanding height, but you can compensate for that by adding a rippon". It is a matter of what the skaters choose to do, since best at everything at the same time isn't at all possible. Just a matter of where to terminate, and what is harder, IMO.

 

I would be on board with taking steps before jump out of the GOE for jumps IF and only if it would actually matter to TR. Say, if a free skate does not have at least three jumping passes out of creative entry with steps, it's capped at 7.5 no matter how many arm wavy things there might be. If you can't jump out of steps, then you don't get high marks for TR. If it's taken out of GOE, then it becomes a far more important component for TR. 

 

And I think the steps before solo jump in SP should still be a rule. That's a specific skill that should be tested as part of what's supposed to be the more technically strict programme. But oh well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, WinForPooh said:

  

I would be on board with taking steps before jump out of the GOE for jumps IF and only if it would actually matter to TR. Say, if a free skate does not have at least three jumping passes out of creative entry with steps, it's capped at 7.5 no matter how many arm wavy things there might be. If you can't jump out of steps, then you don't get high marks for TR. If it's taken out of GOE, then it becomes a far more important component for TR.  

  

And I think the steps before solo jump in SP should still be a rule. That's a specific skill that should be tested as part of what's supposed to be the more technically strict programme. But oh well. 

Well, I mean, I obviously want PCS evaluated properly. I am not sure if I WANT to ensure creative entries into a minimum number of jumps, but I do agree that TR should take a hit if there aren't any transitions, and that's a different debate anyway. Just that, well, we need a cut-off for GOE evaluation somewhere while making rules, because then one could say "here's a Yuzuru Hanyu back counter 3A + a rippon" and then that's even more worthy of a +5, so why end at steps in...? And what's stopping someone else from saying "Rippons to jumps are what show real mastery"? So leave a +5 possible for perfect classic executions of jumps (it IS after all extremely rare, and have beauty of their own, and show mastery of this basic technique), but make sure you can still get +5s even in other ways, because there's hardly anyone who has shown such perfect executions. Also, I disagree with steps in being a criteria anyway. Difficult entries (and exits) is what should be asked for. (EDIT: Also I'm not asking it to be taken out of GOE entirely! The bullet is still up for grabs, just not necessary to get +5s, asuming there are enough of other qualities. And I really am thinking of Kolyada-level 4Lz executions here. It's not easy to jump a perfect classic jump even with no steps in after all, assuming you still maintain good speed and control in, so not like Chen would be getting +5s if he ever jumped a 4Lz as high as that)

 

I do agree steps into jumps for SPs should remain, though. (although even then, you got extra GOE credit only if the entry was difficult/creative, not simply for existing)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, hoodie axel said:

Well, I mean, I obviously want PCS evaluated properly. I am not sure if I WANT to ensure creative entries into a minimum number of jumps, but I do agree that TR should take a hit if there aren't any transitions, and that's a different debate anyway. Just that, well, we need a cut-off for GOE evaluation somewhere while making rules, because then one could say "here's a Yuzuru Hanyu back counter 3A + a rippon" and then that's even more worthy of a +5, so why end at steps in...? And what's stopping someone else from saying "Rippons to jumps are what show real mastery"? So leave a +5 possible for perfect classic executions of jumps (it IS after all extremely rare, and have beauty of their own, and show mastery of this basic technique), but make sure you can still get +5s even in other ways, because there's hardly anyone who has shown such perfect executions. Also, I disagree with steps in being a criteria anyway. Difficult entries (and exits) is what should be asked for. (EDIT: Also I'm not asking it to be taken out of GOE entirely! The bullet is still up for grabs, just not necessary to get +5s. And I really am thinking of Kolyada-level 4Lz executions here. It's not easy to jump a perfect classic jump even with no steps in after all)

 

I do agree steps into jumps for SPs should remain, though. (although even then, you got extra GOE credit only if the entry was difficult/creative, not simply for existing)

 

Maybe there shouldn't be a cutoff, maybe each of those things should get that .5 that @Xen described, and the upper limit should be whatever the max no of bullets x.5 is. Base value for an average jump of average height without a stepout or UR on landing, with no wrong edge, no PR beyond what's prescribed for jump - basically for a jump that has nothing particularly bad wrong with it. Negative GOE for flawed technique and particularly bad air position, for extremely long setup, .5 deduction per negative bullet. Positive GOE for above average, rising to excellent, and for everything else. ISU pulled that 5 out of their dark holes, like they pulled the 3 out of it earlier, so why should that be set in stone, too, if we're questioning everything else? So if a jump is that level of excellent AND has a perfect rippon, it can get the credit for the rippon, too. (By the same measure, I wish bad tanos would at least not hit that bullet, if not get a negative bullet for really ugly air position, but that's my pet peeve.)

 

Yes, difficult entries to jumps, and if at least three jumping passes in the free skate don't have that - that could be three solo jumps out of four, even - then TR should get capped, though maybe not as low as 7.5 if it's still part of GOE. If it's taken out of GOE, then at least a couple of points in the SP and up to four or five points in the free skate on PCS should be achievable only if they can TR into jumps. I mean, ideally that should be one of the things you look for when you score a skater for TR! 

 

For the solo jump in the SP thing... I still don't understand why the solution to 'judges can't tell what's difficult and what's a step' was to just get rid of a difficult technical requirement instead of teaching judges what that is. 

 

Oh wait no, I do understand, I just don't like it. 

 

ETA: You know, if there was no upper cutoff except for whatever no. of bullets x.5 is, it might be a bit harder to fudge GOE by throwing candy? They'd actually have to check the bullets they're giving the points for instead of chucking a number with this very laissez faire attitude of 'well we mixed and matched a bunch of the bullets and came to the conclusion that +4 looks about right' which is the impression I get from looking at protocols now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, WinForPooh said:

Yes, difficult entries to jumps, and if at least three jumping passes in the free skate don't have that - that could be three solo jumps out of four, even - then TR should get capped, though maybe not as low as 7.5 if it's still part of GOE. If it's taken out of GOE, then at least a couple of points in the SP and up to four or five points in the free skate on PCS should be achievable only if they can TR into jumps. I mean, ideally that should be one of the things you look for when you score a skater for TR! 

I guess "ideally" there will always be one jump everyone does transitions into in the LP. Well, everyone in the top 6 except one guy (Zhou) did, IIRC. It seems like a matter of principle to preserve program content. I do agree dinging skaters on TR is good if there aren't any. But there are also difficult entries into spins, out of jumps etc. I do still question what is "harder" though -- because between doing some meh steps in, or maintaining strong flow in, the latter would be harder to control certainly, and it would help with overall PCS too because strong flow is still more desirable than meh steps (and I'd rather also see big jumps without steps in than small jumps with difficult steps in), and necessitating things like this might not help. But there's an undeniable hierarchy there anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, hoodie axel said:

I guess "ideally" there will always be one jump everyone does transitions into in the LP. Well, everyone in the top 6 except one guy (Zhou) did, IIRC. It seems like a matter of principle to preserve program content. I do agree dinging skaters on TR is good if there aren't any. But there are also difficult entries into spins, out of jumps etc. I do still question what is "harder" though -- because between doing some meh steps in, or maintaining strong flow in, the latter would be harder to control certainly, and it would help with overall PCS too because strong flow is still more desirable than meh steps (and I'd rather also see big jumps without steps in than small jumps with difficult steps in), and necessitating things like this might not help. But there's an undeniable hierarchy there anyway.

 

I think the jump GOE would reward big jumps with speed and flow in that system, and it would go towards higher PE and IN and maybe CO as well if a jump is big, without reduction in speed, and with good flow out - if the TR into jumps is meh and affect those components, that should be reflected in the score too - so that should balance out some. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, WinForPooh said:

 

I think the jump GOE would reward big jumps with speed and flow in that system, and it would go towards higher PE and IN and maybe CO as well if a jump is big, without reduction in speed, and with good flow out - if the TR into jumps is meh and affect those components, that should be reflected in the score too - so that should balance out some. 

Fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the issue is this, we have different definitions of what is a masterful jump.

 

Let's say you have 2 types of jumps:

1) A 3A  that has above avg height and distance (let's say 3m distance but only around 60 cm height), but the skater has intricate steps weaving in and out of the jump, all of which match the chorepgrahy. The flow is nice and the air position is tight and looks effortless.

2) A 3A that has great height and distance (let's say 3.3m distance and 70 cm height), air position is good, flow on landing is nice and looks effortless. But no steps (simple or even intricate) coming in and out of the  jump to match the music, and no varied air position.

 

Question is, which is the more masterful jump? Both stand out above the crowd, one for how fancy it is, and another due to how pure and large it is.

 

Having steps, especially intricate ones meant to highlight the music and choreography would reduce speed and require the skater to have pretty good SS to ensure they hit the correct take off position and timing to jump up properly. So you could argue that the skater has to have pretty solid grasp of jump technique to begin with before even considering doing intricate steps (say, rolling 3 turns) before a jump. But this also could affect the overall height and distance achieved, since speed going into the jump itself can affect the results. However it is also possible the skater could not jump that much bigger and needed all this augmentation. So this is a trade off.

 

On the other hand, the second type of jump demonstrates very traditional, "pure" jump technique. But the trade off for the skater to keep that, might be the skater cannot add any augmentation.

 

If I use the bullets I listed before, both jumps can merit a +3 GOE, assuming no negative deductions. And I think that's fair, as both demonstrate a good grasp of jump technique, and they are doing trade offs to do the best they can. However, neither should reach +5 because to a degree, the idea of a +5 "true mastery" of jumping, would be a combination of both type 1 and type 2 jump. That is, you want something that is the best of both worlds.

 

IMO, if properly applied, we really would be seeing very few +5 and +4 jumps (and no, not even all of Zuzu's jumps would get +5 or +4s). There would not be that many +3's either. Most jumps would be huddled around 0-2 GOE if no negatives are applied to begin with. Because quite frankly, most jumps are average to begin with.

 

Edit: forgot to add something. As to why I think some bullets must be met before we get a +5 GOE, hmm, personally I guess I take it more like handing out letter grades in a class. Ie 0-2 are the C's and some of the lower B's, +3 is a bit like a B+ and 4 and 5 are the A's range. So yes, the issue is does your demonstration of your skill warrant a C, B or A?  And IMO, at least where jumps are concerned, I think most jumps make passing grade, but very few truly stand out to me at least. And okay, so I'm a harsh grader XD

 

As for all those trade offs- I think the idea is to give skaters the options to do trade-offs and mark them correctly for their choices. So a skater who's not a big jumper, could still use other methods to make their jumps stand out and demonstrate that they have jump technique mastered to a degree. And a big jumper can opt for a no-frills approach. All trade-offs and choices, all ones that should be marked properly. But hey, if you're some space kitty who can opt to not make any trade offs and you land everything, well I don't see why you don't deserve that +5 then. :winky:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also want to re-iterate this one thing I still cannot get over.

 

The notion that someone PCs and TES need to balance. This idea seems to be one people cite alot for why PCS have inflated so much over the years.

 

And I've never understood why they must balance. Skaters for the most part are not perfectly balanced between TES and PCS, so why must it balance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, tbh, if we really want to go for "no trade-offs" definition for a masterful jump, then, well, I think there are zero jumps that have ever deserved perfect GOE. I can respect the approach, but I can find something to nitpick usually. I don't think that's where we should end up.

 

1 hour ago, Xen said:

And I've never understood why they must balance.

Well let's make it absurd to give that argument a chance. Suppose currently you were taking an average of the five components and giving people just PCS out of 10, when they were getting 100+ TES.  

(Unless you're saying why an argument someone somewhere else made to justify inflation, then lol agreed it was a stupid argument. But TES and PCS do need to be in somewhat of a balance) (ETA: I might just not get what you're saying here, anyway. Maybe you don't mean "why PCS refactoring should be done as TES achieved increases" which is how I took it)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/16/2019 at 11:46 AM, Xen said:

I also want to re-iterate this one thing I still cannot get over.

 

The notion that someone PCs and TES need to balance. This idea seems to be one people cite alot for why PCS have inflated so much over the years.

 

And I've never understood why they must balance. Skaters for the most part are not perfectly balanced between TES and PCS, so why must it balance?

 

Actually, very unpopular opinion, I think jumps in general are overvalued and stsq and spins are undervalued. Right now, if you have kinda-quads and you're below average on everything else, you will still beat everybody except the most extraordinarily skilled skaters, like Jason. The only way to keep younger skaters from prioritising learning to jump over everything else is if everything else comes with at least some kind of comparable reward. If a good StSq with speed, coverage, deep edges and so on could get as much as a 4Lz could, more people would be inclined to work on those skills. But you need to work as hard to get that, maybe even harder and longer with more drilling, as you do to get a quad and a quad gives you points, so... No-brainer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, WinForPooh said:

 

Actually, very unpopular opinion, I think jumps in general are overvalued and stsq and spins are undervalued. Right now, if you have kinda-quads and you're below average on everything else, you will still beat everybody except the most extraordinarily skilled skaters, like Jason. The only way to keep younger skaters from prioritising learning to jump over everything else is if everything else comes with at least some kind of comparable reward. If a good StSq with speed, coverage, deep edges and so on could get as much as a 4Lz could, more people would be inclined to work on those skills. But you need to work as hard to get that, maybe even harder and longer with more drilling, as you do to get a quad and a quad gives you points, so... No-brainer. 

No, no that I get.

 

I guess the way I'd say is this- I don't get why we *must* make PCs balance with the TES for all skaters. Other than give a higher coefficienct for PCs, another way is to say, multiple the TES score by 0.8.  But back to what @hoodie axel mentioned about inflating PCs, I think people saying it's okay for the PCs to rise with TES for some skaters, is ludicrous, because not all skaters are that balanced. And it's perfectly okay. I'm just wondering why people think it's okay to give some quadsters around 85+ PCs when it's not warranted.

 

In regards to PCs scoring, there are some fans who insist on an absolute scale- ie 7 is above average, and there's no pt in raising it up just because someone is a senior vs a junior. Well the issue I see in some of the PCs scoring is while there is a bell-curve system going on, it's not like judges are truly scared to give below 8 PCs scores for senior skaters. If you look at the protocols, especially for some small fed skaters, 6's and 7's are quite common. Above 8.25 is not that common. And that raises the question how exactly are judges really judging PCs? If 7.75 is the avg for a senior skater, then any senior skater who does not stand out for their SS/TR/ etc should not be getting above that (certainly not above 8.25). In which case, it makes some scores of some quadsters extremely suspect. But now it's a bit of a mixed bag, where there's both a bell-curve system going on and an absolute system possibly mixed in. Smaller fed skaters do seem to be getting judged to an absolute standard, but there's also a weird bell curve system being used in some ways to justify others' scores (*ahem* big feds in particular).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Xen said:

No, no that I get.

 

I guess the way I'd say is this- I don't get why we *must* make PCs balance with the TES for all skaters. Other than give a higher coefficienct for PCs, another way is to say, multiple the TES score by 0.8.  But back to what @hoodie axel mentioned about inflating PCs, I think people saying it's okay for the PCs to rise with TES for some skaters, is ludicrous, because not all skaters are that balanced. And it's perfectly okay. I'm just wondering why people think it's okay to give some quadsters around 85+ PCs when it's not warranted.

 

In regards to PCs scoring, there are some fans who insist on an absolute scale- ie 7 is above average, and there's no pt in raising it up just because someone is a senior vs a junior. Well the issue I see in some of the PCs scoring is while there is a bell-curve system going on, it's not like judges are truly scared to give below 8 PCs scores for senior skaters. If you look at the protocols, especially for some small fed skaters, 6's and 7's are quite common. Above 8.25 is not that common. And that raises the question how exactly are judges really judging PCs? If 7.75 is the avg for a senior skater, then any senior skater who does not stand out for their SS/TR/ etc should not be getting above that (certainly not above 8.25). In which case, it makes some scores of some quadsters extremely suspect. But now it's a bit of a mixed bag, where there's both a bell-curve system going on and an absolute system possibly mixed in. Smaller fed skaters do seem to be getting judged to an absolute standard, but there's also a weird bell curve system being used in some ways to justify others' scores (*ahem* big feds in particular).

 

Oh yes, absolutely! My tangent was basically going off like this: Well some of PCS is actually tech score, would it be possible to get those high TES if your SS, for instance, is not high enough to get at least 8s, and remember what Yuzu said about artistry coming from perfecting your technique. But then jumps are so highly valued and everything else is not, so you don't actually need to work extra hard on the tech skills that get evaluated in PCS, so high tech now just means proficient (to a point) jumping. And maybe if everything else was valued, then TES would reflect technical ability beyond jumps and then balancing TES and PCS would probably happen naturally.

 

But also, yes to everything you said about smaller fed skaters and the standards they're held to. I also do not buy the whole judges can't evaluate everything because camera and slowmo and so on and so forth quite as much because they seem to be capable of doing a far, far more efficient job with smaller fed skaters.

 

I think when I have some free time I'll take a look at scoring for smaller fed skaters across different competitions with different judges to see if the whole 'you can't compare different competitions because panels are different' thing actually holds up without big fed politics, too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, I think everyone's PCS is 10+ points inflated nowadays. Judges should start using the 2s and 3s at their disposal more.

 

8 minutes ago, WinForPooh said:

Yuzu said about artistry coming from perfecting your technique.

I don't agree with this anyway. :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, hoodie axel said:

To be fair, I think everyone's PCS is 10+ points inflated nowadays. Judges should start using the 2s and 3s at their disposal more.

 

I don't agree with this anyway. :laughing:

 

Tat (and I think BOrser) said it, too - that what we see as artistry is often a matter of getting superior extension and developing blade skills well enough that you can allow your musicality to show, or something of the sort. But getting the extension and getting the skating skills means perfecting your technique. I can see where that's coming from. What Jeff and SLB have said about choreographing for Yuzu reminds me of that, too. That they don't have to water their artistic vision down in any way because Yuzu has the technical skill to make it work, or something along those lines.

 

ETA: But I do agree with the using 2s and 3s even among seniors. A 2 in senior does not mean the same thing as a 2 in juniors, like a 50% in algebra isn't the same as a 50% in calculus even if it's all math. Just because you get 7s at a lower level doesn't mean you keep those 7s when you move up a level, standards are supposed to be different and higher there.

 

ETAA: I think this is what Xen was talking about, not factoring. I wouldn't mind if total max PCS was put at total absolutely maxed out TES with the most insane highest point-getting layout (instead of an arbitrary 100), even, if scoring actually reflected the reality of what we see? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, WinForPooh said:

Tat (and I think BOrser) said it, too - that what we see as artistry is often a matter of getting superior extension and developing blade skills well enough that you can allow your musicality to show, or something of the sort. But getting the extension and getting the skating skills means perfecting your technique. I can see where that's coming from. What Jeff and SLB have said about choreographing for Yuzu reminds me of that, too. That they don't have to water their artistic vision down in any way because Yuzu has the technical skill to make it work, or something along those lines. 

Well, with this I think of skaters like Sasha Cohen. Not the best skating skills, still the most artistic skater of her era, and holds up very well no matter whom we compare her to. Technique can help artistry (it's not like you can put a non-dancer against a dancer and expect them to be equally artistic when it comes to dance), but it's not the only part of it, and there's a lot more to it. Not to mention, technically simpler pieces can be more artistic than the ones that are more difficult, in terms of expressing music and having good performance ability; plus as you grow older you lose some of your technical ability (when it comes to how flexible you are, for instance), but your own artistic vision grows (Kwan comes to mind here). Better technique CAN give you a greater range of motion and more confidence to your skating, allowing you to care more about peformance and expressing yourself better while doing the technical aspects, though (but here again skaters like Cohen, Kwan, and Lu Chen come to mind who never had a HUGE range of motion, or the best technique, or were at their best in their later years, or combinations of the three.)(sorry for lack of examples from men, I usually find ladies to be more artistic, the current era being an anomaly).

 

It's too complicated to properly discuss it here, and there's a lot to it. But, yeah, I don't agree that artistry comes from technique, at least not solely; it's not that simple, IMO. "Understanding of the music" isn't a technical aspect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...