PDA

View Full Version : How has IJS affected each discipline in skating for the good & the bad?



Pages : 1 [2] 3 4

briancoogaert
11-01-2011, 10:29 AM
Could you please give me an example of awful and perfect spins? I can't understand what you mean by rewards difficulty over technique? Doesnt difficulty show technique? Thanks.
You get more points with an awful spin with change of edge than a perfect classic scratch spin. For example, the forward inside spin with the free leg bended to help to maintain the inside edge. Hope I'm clear. ;)

For example, about spiral sequences for the ladies. You had almost no point for a classic but beautiful Nancy Kerrigan spiral. But you had points for a change of edge spiral with an awful body line, or a dog peeing spiral.

RobinA
11-01-2011, 12:37 PM
I have never liked CoP and so far have seen nothing to change my mind. I like how there is less skate, skate, jump. I like the development of SOME more interesting footwork in Mens.

I like the crackdown on edges and incomplete rotations, but there is no earthly reason that that could not have been done under 6.0. Dance has become interesting only in who can do the most fugly lifts. When I think back to the T&D, K&P days I could just cry.

Ugly spins in all disciplines, simple elegant moves have disappeared.

And the number hash that is now the Kiss & Cry. Good bye accessibility to the casual viewer. No more immediate wild excitment when the 6.0 goes up on the board, just squints and side conferences until the standings flash up.

All in all, this long time fan could miss an entire season and not be too upset.

antmanb
11-01-2011, 12:49 PM
I hate, hate, hate the the serpen-strai-cular step sequences we get with IJS in singles and pairs (not sure about dance).

None of the step sequences are straightline, circular, or serpentine any more. Seemingly now that doing half of the step sequences on one foot gets points (something I do agree with) it means you get a fairly decent straightline step sequence on one foot, then the mandatory double back most of the way back up the rink to then make room to put in all the rest of the necessary turns in both directions with spastic arm/body movements to get higher levels. The pattern on the ice is that of drunken insect at a picnic, not anything that can be described as circular, straightline or serpentine.

About the spins in singles and pairs. I kind of think that the bullets for levels need to be revised every quadrennial. When back to front spins started counting for levels it was rare to see them, now every skater includes at least one back to front combo spin in their LP and SP. So I question how difficult this truly is now that more or less everyone demonstrates they can. Since it is a hell of a lot uglier and always requires a re-centre on the change, can we not get rid of that bullet now for levels? Everyone has proved they can do it, everyone has proved you cannot do it without re-centering the change, nearly everyone has shown that the free leg transition to the front spin ends up looking ugly (and yet it doesn't seemingly affect the GOE for the element) so I wonder what the point of it is anymore, back to front or front to back, who cares anymore?

Pairs - I think the levels have killed the beauty of the death spiral and the lifts. In the lifts, the catch-foot kitchen sink changes, and the stop-the-rotation and make the audience scared while the man is in a precarious spread eagle or doing bloody cross overs are just :eek: and just don't look good. Also some of the twisting, summersaulting, nearly landing, but not really, one last flipping twisiting dismount back the other way bfore landing type landings just seem over the top for the sake of point whoring. I miss the days of a top pair couple executing a single position beautifully extended laso lift that went from one oend of the rink to the other with fast clean mohawks from the man.

gkelly
11-01-2011, 01:51 PM
I think you are right that the artistic quality of programs has suffered under CoP - but I dont believe that is intrinsically due to CoP. I think the focus on the elements has encouraged coaches to choreograph the programs themselves rather than hire a professional. And the result is what you see. Mostly programs that look like what they are - a collection of elements vaguely put to music and strung together with a few connecting moves. This is not what I would call a FD, but all too often it passes for one nowadays.

But it doesnt have to be like that. I have seen some amazing dances under CoP that I think rank with the best of 6.0. But with one exception they have all been done by people who are choreographers - not coaches. I think including all the elements makes it more challenging to create something that feels like an artistic whole- but it's not impossible. It's just beyond the ability of most of the coaches working today - unfortunately.

I do agree, although I also think that the focus on elements in the scoring strongly encourages teams to focus on elements when constructing their programs and also makes the construction of every program have more in common with every other team's program under that year's rules.

The sameness between programs is not a problem for short dances IMO -- there's actually more freedom now than in OSPs or most versions of the OD.

But is there a way for the rules and guidelines to transcend that for free dances?

Fewer elements for points in the FD, maybe a choice between twizzles and dance spin instead of requiring both?

Another optional kind of element that could be used in place of the above or in place of one lift or step sequence?

"Choreo" elements that earn points for quality but don't have levels?

Changing the factors for some or all of the program components so that excellence in global qualities can override lower levels on the elements?

Training to encourage judges to use wider ranges between components and really reward a well-constructed program even if the skating quality is mediocre by comparison -- or vice versa?

RobinA
11-01-2011, 06:32 PM
Antmanb, you reminded me of one thing I forgot to mention - the hideousity now known of as the death spiral. Points apparently go to the most awkward looking concoction.

In general, many fine elements have been grossly distorted to try to make them difficult. Some things are hard for a reason - they have no business being attempted.

RobinA
11-01-2011, 06:41 PM
There have been enough beautiful CoP programs for me to believe that it is possible to put together a CoP program that doesn't look like a collection of elements. I do wonder if it is rewarded enough to make it generally worthwhile. What happens with the next generation of choreographers not trained under 6.0? Certainly in gynastics the well-put together floor exercises are non-existent, and they are well ahead of figure skating in the codification of difficulty.

briancoogaert
11-01-2011, 08:10 PM
There have been enough beautiful CoP programs for me to believe that it is possible to put together a CoP program that doesn't look like a collection of elements. I do wonder if it is rewarded enough to make it generally worthwhile. What happens with the next generation of choreographers not trained under 6.0? Certainly in gynastics the well-put together floor exercises are non-existent, and they are well ahead of figure skating in the codification of difficulty.
Yes, I agree that we have masterpieces under CoP. But, as said previously in this thread, the problem is more for the "not so good" skaters, who try too hard.

gkelly
11-01-2011, 08:18 PM
Yes, I agree that we have masterpieces under CoP. But, as said previously in this thread, the problem is more for the "not so good" skaters, who try too hard.

What are they supposed to do?

Simpler programs, simpler elements (including easier jumps), to allow themselves to skate cleaner and with better overall control?

How could that be encouraged? More points for quality (GOEs) than for difficulty (base mark/levels) on elements? More rewards for clean programs and confidence than for intricate transitions?

If these skaters are going to place in the middle and lower ranks anyway because of their overall skill level, how should they try to compete against others with comparable skill levels?

If you're a so-so skater competing in IJS competition, to what extent do you aim at creating a satisfying overall experience for yourself and/or spectators, and to what extent do you aim to place as high as your skill level allows? How can the system be designed to make those two goals complementary and not mutually exclusive?

Tak
11-01-2011, 11:14 PM
A classic layback with the free leg where is should be with a low back position in that position for the entire spin is going to earn less point than a lay back with a less than desirable position if the skater adds a "feature" like grabbing the foot/hair cutter etc, even if the first type of spin is faster with a more "correct" position.

For example, the layback that Cohen would perform back in 2002 would earn less points than say Elene Gedevanishvili's, because it's "less difficult" despite being superior.

I hate that no one ever does a layback that doesn't end in a catch foot or biellmann. There is nothing wrong with a spin that has one position that is fast, centred with a beautiful position.

Thanks to you and the other poster - now I see what you're saying. I agree that CoP needs fine tuning. Maybe they could give options on elements like either do a spin with "feature" or a spin in "classic" position [defined] held for a certain amount of rotations? I also think they are too strict with the UR calls - esp for ladies.

I dont think CoP is perfect as a system, but I certainly feel it's WAY better than 6.0 was.

Tak
11-01-2011, 11:32 PM
But is there a way for the rules and guidelines to transcend that for free dances?

Fewer elements for points in the FD, maybe a choice between twizzles and dance spin instead of requiring both?

Another optional kind of element that could be used in place of the above or in place of one lift or step sequence?

"Choreo" elements that earn points for quality but don't have levels?

Changing the factors for some or all of the program components so that excellence in global qualities can override lower levels on the elements?

Training to encourage judges to use wider ranges between components and really reward a well-constructed program even if the skating quality is mediocre by comparison -- or vice versa?


I think part of this could be addressed if the PCS marks were more strictly interpreted according to the rules. There are supposed to be separate marks for things like choreography, interpretation, timing, musicality, transitions etc - but all too often these marks become subsumed into general marks of 8's or 9's across the board - regardless of what the program looked like.

I think judges need to be re-educated to give each PCS mark in isolation based on how the program fit the criteria in that category - not bunch the marks together like they couldnt be bothered to differentiate them.

Once some top couples started getting 4s and 5s in some of those areas - which IMO is what they deserve - I think coaches would start addressing some of the problems you listed. They might even think of calling in outside help and hiring an actual choreographer.

briancoogaert
11-02-2011, 08:31 AM
What are they supposed to do?

Simpler programs, simpler elements (including easier jumps), to allow themselves to skate cleaner and with better overall control?

How could that be encouraged? More points for quality (GOEs) than for difficulty (base mark/levels) on elements? More rewards for clean programs and confidence than for intricate transitions?

If these skaters are going to place in the middle and lower ranks anyway because of their overall skill level, how should they try to compete against others with comparable skill levels?

If you're a so-so skater competing in IJS competition, to what extent do you aim at creating a satisfying overall experience for yourself and/or spectators, and to what extent do you aim to place as high as your skill level allows? How can the system be designed to make those two goals complementary and not mutually exclusive?
One name : Ivana Reitmayerova.
I loved her programs in 2009, she tried her best and seemed happy with it. So did I. Ivana Reitmayerova 2009 Worlds LP (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOOCY7JJCAk)
IJS has been made for that, too. GOE might be used for quality. But it's not. You will rarely see a 3Sal with +3 if 3Sal is the most difficult triple in the program.
Anyway, it's very difficult, since you will always have skaters to say : "I tried harder, and I'm not 1st..."

antmanb
11-02-2011, 08:59 AM
If you're a so-so skater competing in IJS competition, to what extent do you aim at creating a satisfying overall experience for yourself and/or spectators, and to what extent do you aim to place as high as your skill level allows? How can the system be designed to make those two goals complementary and not mutually exclusive?

I think the two goals will end up being mutually exclusive, especially outside of say the top 10-15 at worlds. Outside of the very top of the field, skaters will battle with elements that aren't 100% in practice, and they will do it in order to rack up points, they will painfully wobble round two Bielmann rotations in a spin just to get the extra bullet. They will put elements that have just started being sucessful in practice in order to give them competition mileage. If they were constantly concerned with the clean or aesthetically pleasing programme, they would never risk developing the elements they do in practice.

The only way to make both goals work together would be to use the GOE correctly on spin and step elements (I think they are used pretty well in jumps) or change the system on spin and step elements so that the GOE penalties for doing hard spins slowly and travelling will always net you less points than doing a fast and easier spin which is centred.

The trouble is, that to strike the balance between the technical and the aesthetically pleasing will require more subjectivity which seemingly a lot of people do not like. I don't think there's an easy fix.


IJS has been made for that, too. GOE might be used for quality. But it's not. You will rarely see a 3Sal with +3 if 3Sal is the most difficult triple in the program.


Arguably though, if the hardest jump a skater has is a triple salchow, then they are unlikely to be performing that jump so well that it merits a +3, if they were performing the jump with a difficult entry, very high or arm over head, with incredible flow out of the jump and transition to follow, they would likely have the skills to perform harder triples too.

Looking at the youtube link there is very little about her jump that would make think of giving her anything other than 0 or +1 maybe on the basis that the flow throughout the jump seemed good (but not exceptional) and it looked like quite high while she was in the air.

ETA: in the protocol she got two +2s, two +1s and the rest 0 and got 0.8 boost to the jump http://www.isuresults.com/results/wc2009/wc09_Ladies_FS_Scores.pdf

flyingsit
11-02-2011, 12:57 PM
I think it has hurt pairs more than any other discipline. As others have said, death spirals have become hideous, but what's more, the ladies no longer have to demonstrate nearly the same core strength as they did before. When the guy changes arms and pivot positions, she ends up twisted to the side and no longer has to maintain the arch. And the catchfoot positions in lifts, ugh! And I really hate seeing every team do two lasso lifts because group 5 have the highest base value; I'd like the rules to state only one lift from each group is permitted. I miss the days when a second death spiral was permitted, because a great death spiral is a thing of absolute beauty.

I also think that three-jump combinations are stupid in both singles and pairs at the senior level; an extra double toe loop should not be a differentiating factor above the novice level.

antmanb
11-02-2011, 01:59 PM
I think it has hurt pairs more than any other discipline. As others have said, death spirals have become hideous, but what's more, the ladies no longer have to demonstrate nearly the same core strength as they did before. When the guy changes arms and pivot positions, she ends up twisted to the side and no longer has to maintain the arch. [snip] I miss the days when a second death spiral was permitted, because a great death spiral is a thing of absolute beauty.


Does anyone else remember Kavarikova&Novitsky's (i think 95 worlds) LP where they had an (albeit short) clockwise rotating death spiral in the programme and then later on they had a much longer anti-clockwise rotating death sprial :swoon:

The other death sprial peeve I've ranted about previously is people getting credit for the "difficult" shoot the duck entrances to the death sprial. Why that can garner extra points is beyond me when it is inifintely harder to go down into a death sprial from a classive entrance, than already being at ice level in a shoot the duck :mad: :mad:

Marco
11-02-2011, 03:49 PM
For singles:

Steps have changed from taking all of 5 seconds to 55 seconds but at least there is more meat and change in direction now. Unfortunately the musicality of steps have gone from an average of about 70% to about 25%. There's only one Lambiel and one Takahashi.

I like the current requirements on spirals: still have to hold them, but no more focus on ugly catch foots and much more focus on speed, edge quality, coverage and positions.

Spins have become bigger and more difficult, but I don't think overall speed and quality has increased mostly because everyone is too focused on levels. IMO GOE on spins still mean too little compared to jumps. HATE Biellmanns. HATE most sit spin variations. I miss an effective simple layback or scratch spin. And, if there are only 3 spins compared to 7/8 jumping passes, each spin should be worth more.

Focus on edge changes and under-rotations of jumps is a great thing, so is downplaying the value of difficult combos. Again, GOEs mean too little compared to base values of the jumps IMO.

PCS is a great way of analysing / judging skating qualities. Theoretically judges can send signals to skaters for them to work on certain areas. The judges just need to apply them better (e.g. not within the corridor, based on reputation, or marking transitions that aren't there).

The great thing about an accumulative math system is you can work it. You can plan all your jumps and spins and steps to the highest difficulty to compensate for weaker PCS, for example. Whereas before, there are only 2 marks that sum up technical merit and presentation and it's hard to know if the effort made had been duly rewarded.