PDA

View Full Version : If you could have a rule created, what would it be.



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10]

CantALoop
07-19-2011, 10:04 PM
Maybe orchestration should be banned. All programs must be performed to a single instrument.

Years of horrible tinkly piano music, screechy Vitamin String Quartet, or Apocalyptica overuse :scream:

Susan M
07-20-2011, 03:21 AM
I think I like most of the suggestions made so far. I think I would add -

Get rid of the eligibility rules and rules designed to restrict a skater's activities/choices in order to force them into ISU events. We can call this the Kwan/Rochette/Plushenko rule (or rather, non-rule).

There should be some kind of bonus to reward skaters who do 6 different triples (less the 3A for the ladies). I don't know whether it could be done as simple add on bonus points or by constraining the jumps schedule in some way. For example, perhaps the rule could say no triple/quad jump entrance can be repeated until the skater has done either a double or triple using all 6 different jump entrances. This has the bonus effect of pushing the repeated jumps to later in the program. It always bugs me when we see skaters do the same jump again 20 seconds later.


End anonymous judging
:respec: :respec:


It would be a semantic feat to distinguish meaningful differences between the criteria under CH, IN, & PE.
I think they need to dump the separate choreo component mark. If the skaters all did their own choreo then this mark could perhaps be defended, but I find it whacked that there is a separate mark for choreography when the credit for the choreo mainly belongs to someone other than the skater. Why should the skater get sporting credit for hiring a good choreographer? What's next, a separate mark for costumes to reward the designer's work? It is supposed to be a sport and the results should be based only on the athlete's efforts. The skater should still get rewarded for execution and interpretation of the choreo, but there are already marks for that.


Treat multi-rotation walleys and toe walleys as distinct jumps and award them their own base value.
Not a plan. They stopped treating these differently because it is often difficult, in real time, to distinguish them. We don't need more elements with footnotes from the callers for things that are invisible to the audience, and we really don't need programs with 4 jumps that all look like a triple toe loop. (And you know there would be some opting to repeat the 3 toe and the 3 toe walley.)


I would institute a rule that there must be one "classic" move per long program, no levels, just GOE points.
One of the sad things about COP is the disappearance of things like spirals by men and cool jumps you list. So, of course, I like this suggestion too for senior skaters: "Jumps of 1 revolution, except in combinations, are considered nonlisted jumps. No points and they don't take up a jump slot." I think I would remove "except in combinations, though. (In other words, a single jump as an entrance to a triple jump is just a difficult entrance and does not turn it into a combination.)


Revising the step sequence rule (levels), so that they don't have to last forever (and at the speed of a tortoise with a bad foot) and do not have to use every turn ever invented. I preferred the pre-COP step sequences.
This. The sad thing is they did kind of do this by assigning no level to the second fw seqence for the men, and still most of them were ugly. I guess it will take a while to get footwork un-COP-ified. I also like the suggestion of adding a time limit for completing the step sequence. I timed someone last year at using a full 45 seconds to go from one end of the ice to the other. They also need to insist that SL footwork stay in a reasonably strait line, constantly progressing - no stopping to dance in place and no meandering from side to side.


Once you compete at a senior ISU international event (GP, ISU champs, whatever), you cannot then compete at a junior ISU international event (JGP, Junior Worlds).
ITA.


What if in the FS, they did 8 jumps and 6 spins/footwork/spirals

That basically is the pre-quad free skate program standard for men. Personally I like the idea of no more than 8 big jumps. A quad should replace its counterpart triple jump, not be done in addition to the triple.


I would like to alter the current rule regarding only repeating two triples to allow 3T to be a 'third' repeated triple provided that they are only included as the second half of a 3+3 combination (or 2A+3),... This would allow more 3+3 combinations.
Do not like this one. If skaters want to do 3 triple-triple combinations, they should have to do the 3 loop. (It is possible. Browning did 3A-3T, 3F-3T, 3S-3Lp once to win one of his World titles (90? 91, maybe?)


My rule is that skaters get a 50 point bonus for actually skating to the music instead of over it.
:lol: In theory, at least one of the PCS marks is supposed to take this into account, but the judges don't seem to use it. IMO if a skater uses one of those bland style music choices that function as little more than background music for their skate, it should be impossible to get anything higher than about 6 for Interpretation because there isn't much there to interpret.


Keeping skaters from using the same music over and over. I would not allow them to use the previous season's programs.

Wow, Viktor P would have been in serious trouble if that one had been around 1990-92. I think that one would get too tricky to enforce, with skaters pretending the music is different by adding different cuts or using different recordings.

I think I'd propose instead that each spring, the ISU publish a list of music that is prohibited for the coming year. Carmen would, of course, top this list at first, but they could also use the list preemptivelty. For 2011-2012, for example, I would have included Swan Lake/Black Swan because you know we will be heartily sick of that by December at the latest.

While we're on the music police theme, I'd change the no lyrics rule to no vocals. We have had enough debates over mumbling/chanting/dead languages and more than enough wailing sopranos.

Rex
07-20-2011, 03:25 AM
Maybe orchestration should be banned. All programs must be performed to a single instrument.

Or better yet, LIVE music!!!

Marco
07-20-2011, 03:51 AM
I think they need to dump the separate choreo component mark. If the skaters all did their own choreo then this mark could perhaps be defended, but I find it whacked that there is a separate mark for choreography when the credit for the choreo mainly belongs to someone other than the skater. Why should the skater get sporting credit for hiring a good choreographer? What's next, a separate mark for costumes to reward the designer's work? It is supposed to be a sport and the results should be based only on the athlete's efforts. The skater should still get rewarded for execution and interpretation of the choreo, but there are already marks for that.

Well, I actually think the skater should be rewarded for executing such choreography (and executing it well i.e. to the music, beat, mood, expression etc). A simple slip may ruin the effect of an entire segment (Nagasu missing the layback to the drum beat last season and Asada's waxel at 2008 Worlds etc).

I think the 5 components are very clearly defined and differentiated. There are bound to be some common features but overall each category rewards something a little different. Using a spread eagle as an example:

SS rewards the speed and edge quality displayed while the skater does a spread eagle;

TR rewards how the spread eagle is incorporated into the program (in between other elements or movements);

PE rewards the body positioning and expressiveness while doing the spread eagle;

CH rewards how the spread eagle is timed to the music, the effect created by the spread eagle, and also the placement of the spread eagle on the ice compared to the rest of the program;

IN rewards how "into the music" or "into character" the skater is while doing the spread eagle.

Skate Talker
07-20-2011, 04:58 AM
Keeping skaters from using the same music over and over. I would not allow them to use the previous season's programs.


Wow, Viktor P would have been in serious trouble if that one had been around 1990-92. I think that one would get too tricky to enforce, with skaters pretending the music is different by adding different cuts or using different recordings.

Oh my, you hit the memory button for me there. I remember at least one year that the Grand Prix Final had a requirement for two different free programs from the skaters. The particular memory is of Ina and Zimmerman performing 99% identical program to a different orchestration of the same music and calling that a "different program". I am still shaking my head at how Moskvina got away with that one.:confused:

TheIronLady
07-20-2011, 05:05 AM
Well, I actually think the skater should be rewarded for executing such choreography (and executing it well i.e. to the music, beat, mood, expression etc). A simple slip may ruin the effect of an entire segment (Nagasu missing the layback to the drum beat last season and Asada's waxel at 2008 Worlds etc).

I think the 5 components are very clearly defined and differentiated. There are bound to be some common features but overall each category rewards something a little different. Using a spread eagle as an example:

SS rewards the speed and edge quality displayed while the skater does a spread eagle;

TR rewards how the spread eagle is incorporated into the program (in between other elements or movements);

PE rewards the body positioning and expressiveness while doing the spread eagle;

CH rewards how the spread eagle is timed to the music, the effect created by the spread eagle, and also the placement of the spread eagle on the ice compared to the rest of the program;

IN rewards how "into the music" or "into character" the skater is while doing the spread eagle.

You make me want to support ISU judges who refuse to pretend these things can be reified and separated. It is hard enough to quantify absolutely, but you are asking them to also use an abstract model that will unfortunately not apply to every program. I would be interested in hearing your analysis of two rival programs that warrant specific variation in the components points awarded (besides in TR).

Proustable
07-20-2011, 05:17 AM
I like transitions, but I'm not sure it needs to be a separate component (as opposed to a GOE earning bullet, part of skating skills and/or choreography).

re: footwork

I love COP footwork. I think one thing I really enjoy is how the non-jump elements under COP are more than just window dressing.

Marco
07-20-2011, 06:17 AM
You make me want to support ISU judges who refuse to pretend these things can be reified and separated. It is hard enough to quantify absolutely, but you are asking them to also use an abstract model that will unfortunately not apply to every program. I would be interested in hearing your analysis of two rival programs that warrant specific variation in the components points awarded (besides in TR).

The ISU has very specific guidelines on how to mark each PCS component that each judge should have to understand and know how to apply. The spread eagle thing is just an example.

My point is, the judges are required to mark within the corridor which already is contrary to the spirit of separating PCS into 5 components. If judges are allowed to and actually diversify each component as they see it, the idea of PCS is fine IMO. (so was that of 6.0, although under both systems, the idea of reputation judging, politiking, and saving room is too strong and skaters like Ryan Jahnke wouldn't have really shone in any system even if they could deliver ther jumps).

A recent example of someone who deserved a variation of PCS scores would IMO be Miki Ando's 2011 Worlds free skate. I would give her SS in mid 7s, TR in the 4s, PE in the high 6s, CH in the mid 6 and IN in the 4s.

Susan M
07-20-2011, 07:47 AM
Well, I actually think the skater should be rewarded for executing such choreography (and executing it well i.e. to the music, beat, mood, expression etc).

The skater is already rewarded for executing the choreography well in the performance and interpretation marks. How is "how a move is timed to the music" not part of "how into the music the skater is"? It would be impossible to do the latter and not include the former.


PE rewards the body positioning and expressiveness while doing the spread eagle;
According to the rules, it also covers the skaters' involvement as they "translate the intent of the music and choreography" I believe you put that under Interpretation, but it also goes here.


CH rewards how the spread eagle is timed to the music, the effect created by the spread eagle, and also the placement of the spread eagle on the ice compared to the rest of the program;
The rules don't say anything about effect. They talk mostly about the what, when and where of the elements and movements, in other words, the things the choreographer is responsible for, not the how it is executed. Those are covered under Performance/Execution and Interpretation.


In rewards how "into the music" or "into character" the skater is while doing the spread eagle.
Not quite. According to the rules, the Performance part of Performance/Execution "is the involvement of the Skater/Pair physically, emotionally and intellectually as they translate intent of the music and choreography." I think Interpretation is defined best in the footnote to the rule: "Skater's refined, artful manipulation of nuances. Nuances are the personal artistic ways of bringing subtle variations to the intensity, tempo, and dynamics of the music made by the composer and/or musicians." I think you would have scored this under choreo as well.

Bottom line: I think comparing your interpretation to the actual wording of the rules pretty much confirms the original criticism that there is too much overlap between the Program Components and that the same things are being scored multiple times.

gkelly
07-20-2011, 01:23 PM
Do you want to suggest alternative divisions of the program component criteria to avoid overlap?

How many individual marks would that end up with? How should they be factored?

Jenna
07-20-2011, 01:55 PM
double post.

Jenna
07-20-2011, 01:55 PM
I agree that the wording of the components is confusing.

How about going down to three components...skating skills, transitions, and PE/CH/IN, and just factor them by a higher number?

zilam98
08-04-2011, 02:14 AM
at least one season of techno/club music for FD ;)

dinakt
08-04-2011, 01:41 PM
Separate judging panels for TES and PCS.