gkelly
11-02-2011, 06:03 PM
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.
Actually, I think the overall speed and quality have increased, but not necessarily in ways that enhance the viewer's aesthetic enjoyment.
In order to include enough features for level 3 or 4, it's usually necessary to hold the spins for more revolutions than for a spin without features. To hold the spins longer, the skater usually needs to start the spin with more speed than would otherwise be necessary and/or to develop superior skills at maintaining spin speed.
Often, however, skaters will try to hold the spin past the point where they should exit it, in order to fit in one more position or in order to try to get the 8-revolution feature. And they will also often include positions that don't look great on their bodies just to earn another feature. So although the average level of spinning skill seems to be a lot higher now than 10+ years ago, the number of memorably awkward positions or noticeable losses of speed is also higher.
When those problems outweigh the strengths in the spin, the GOE should be negative. If there were so many strengths to the spin to begin with, and then one notable problem, that might reduce a +2 or +1 spin to +1 or 0 as the final GOE.
I think under 6.0 we saw the following general categories of spinners:
Weak: Poor positions, slow and/or uncentered rotation, minimal revolutions -- the spins might be ugly, but they were usually over quickly
Average: Acceptable to good positions, acceptable to good centering and speed, usually held 1-1 1/2 times the number of ISU-prescribed rotations -- generally pleasant to look at and often included simple variations that enhanced the connection to the music and program theme -- sometimes includes variations that would now count as features but not necessarily performed sufficiently well to be credited by today's tech panels
Strong: Good to excellent positions and/or good to excellent speed and centering, often at least twice the required revolutions, often with one or two variations that would now count as features, but not necessarily combined in the ways that would earn levels in later years
I'd guess that close to 90% of the spinners fell into the Average category, with a range from unremarkable to quite pleasant indeed. And then there were a few outliers on either end. We remember the strong ones more than the cringeworthy ones.
Maybe there should be a category between Average and Strong to include spinners like Kwan or Nikodinov who excelled in centering and/or positions but not speed, and others like Slutskaya and Stojko who excelled in speed and often number of revolutions but often lacked centering or position
With IJS, it's probably more like this:
Weak: Generally slow and/or weak positions or centering; attempts several features per spin but rarely achieves higher than level 1 or sometimes 2 because the features aren't performed well enough; usually just enough revolutions to meet the minimums for the spin as a whole but not to get credit for all features attempted
Average: Usually starts with pretty good speed and includes a few difficult variations successfully, but there's usually at least one attempted feature that negatively affects the execution and overall impression of the spin -- if it's the last feature (e.g., Biellmann position on a layback), I often find myself thinking to the skater "Quit while you're ahead" -- that one extra attempt can make the difference between +GOE and -GOE. Or often they will balance out and the skater will end up with a 0 for the spin.
Strong: Good speed, generally good centering, number of revolutions often 2-3 times the minimum, often positions are chosen to demonstrate flexibility and earn levels rather than for attractiveness
So there are more instances in all those skill levels where there's at least one cringeworthy moment in the spin, but there are also more moments of Wow, that was really good or really cool. At least for me, because I'm inclined to look for the positive aspects and not focus only on the negative.
I would also say that the percentage of skaters who fall into the Strong category might be higher than 10+ years ago. Certainly if we look at spins from skaters who generally get positive GOE for their spins but don't have reputations as outstanding spinners in today's context, I think they would stand out as strong by 6.0 standards.
Looked at another way -- Vanessa Gusmeroli stood out a decade ago for attempting combination spins with variations that were unusual for the time and demonstrated rare skills, but she didn't always hold positions long enough, etc., to earn all the features attempted. Today she would not stand out at all and might be considered a low-average rather than high-average spinner because so many other ladies are doing the same features and doing them better.
IMO GOE on spins still mean too little compared to jumps. HATE Biellmanns. HATE most sit spin variations.
I like them when they're well done, not when they're the same positions that many others are also doing for points and doing better.
I miss an effective simple layback or scratch spin.
Simple scratch spins were pretty much gone from elite skating well before IJS . . . except for back scratch positions as the upright variation in combination spins. You do have a point about the laybacks . . . but the weak laybacks then were slow, simple, and unattractively positioned, whereas the weak laybacks now are usually faster to start out with and might have one attractive position along with a couple of unattractive ones.
And, if there are only 3 spins compared to 7/8 jumping passes, each spin should be worth more.
Well, I'd like to see the good spinners have the opportunity to trade a jump pass or two for an extra spin.
Beyond that . . . what could be the solution? Make the +GOEs worth more for spins, including level 1 spins, so that there is incentive to train spins for quality and not just focus on spin features and jumps?
Actually, I think the overall speed and quality have increased, but not necessarily in ways that enhance the viewer's aesthetic enjoyment.
In order to include enough features for level 3 or 4, it's usually necessary to hold the spins for more revolutions than for a spin without features. To hold the spins longer, the skater usually needs to start the spin with more speed than would otherwise be necessary and/or to develop superior skills at maintaining spin speed.
Often, however, skaters will try to hold the spin past the point where they should exit it, in order to fit in one more position or in order to try to get the 8-revolution feature. And they will also often include positions that don't look great on their bodies just to earn another feature. So although the average level of spinning skill seems to be a lot higher now than 10+ years ago, the number of memorably awkward positions or noticeable losses of speed is also higher.
When those problems outweigh the strengths in the spin, the GOE should be negative. If there were so many strengths to the spin to begin with, and then one notable problem, that might reduce a +2 or +1 spin to +1 or 0 as the final GOE.
I think under 6.0 we saw the following general categories of spinners:
Weak: Poor positions, slow and/or uncentered rotation, minimal revolutions -- the spins might be ugly, but they were usually over quickly
Average: Acceptable to good positions, acceptable to good centering and speed, usually held 1-1 1/2 times the number of ISU-prescribed rotations -- generally pleasant to look at and often included simple variations that enhanced the connection to the music and program theme -- sometimes includes variations that would now count as features but not necessarily performed sufficiently well to be credited by today's tech panels
Strong: Good to excellent positions and/or good to excellent speed and centering, often at least twice the required revolutions, often with one or two variations that would now count as features, but not necessarily combined in the ways that would earn levels in later years
I'd guess that close to 90% of the spinners fell into the Average category, with a range from unremarkable to quite pleasant indeed. And then there were a few outliers on either end. We remember the strong ones more than the cringeworthy ones.
Maybe there should be a category between Average and Strong to include spinners like Kwan or Nikodinov who excelled in centering and/or positions but not speed, and others like Slutskaya and Stojko who excelled in speed and often number of revolutions but often lacked centering or position
With IJS, it's probably more like this:
Weak: Generally slow and/or weak positions or centering; attempts several features per spin but rarely achieves higher than level 1 or sometimes 2 because the features aren't performed well enough; usually just enough revolutions to meet the minimums for the spin as a whole but not to get credit for all features attempted
Average: Usually starts with pretty good speed and includes a few difficult variations successfully, but there's usually at least one attempted feature that negatively affects the execution and overall impression of the spin -- if it's the last feature (e.g., Biellmann position on a layback), I often find myself thinking to the skater "Quit while you're ahead" -- that one extra attempt can make the difference between +GOE and -GOE. Or often they will balance out and the skater will end up with a 0 for the spin.
Strong: Good speed, generally good centering, number of revolutions often 2-3 times the minimum, often positions are chosen to demonstrate flexibility and earn levels rather than for attractiveness
So there are more instances in all those skill levels where there's at least one cringeworthy moment in the spin, but there are also more moments of Wow, that was really good or really cool. At least for me, because I'm inclined to look for the positive aspects and not focus only on the negative.
I would also say that the percentage of skaters who fall into the Strong category might be higher than 10+ years ago. Certainly if we look at spins from skaters who generally get positive GOE for their spins but don't have reputations as outstanding spinners in today's context, I think they would stand out as strong by 6.0 standards.
Looked at another way -- Vanessa Gusmeroli stood out a decade ago for attempting combination spins with variations that were unusual for the time and demonstrated rare skills, but she didn't always hold positions long enough, etc., to earn all the features attempted. Today she would not stand out at all and might be considered a low-average rather than high-average spinner because so many other ladies are doing the same features and doing them better.
IMO GOE on spins still mean too little compared to jumps. HATE Biellmanns. HATE most sit spin variations.
I like them when they're well done, not when they're the same positions that many others are also doing for points and doing better.
I miss an effective simple layback or scratch spin.
Simple scratch spins were pretty much gone from elite skating well before IJS . . . except for back scratch positions as the upright variation in combination spins. You do have a point about the laybacks . . . but the weak laybacks then were slow, simple, and unattractively positioned, whereas the weak laybacks now are usually faster to start out with and might have one attractive position along with a couple of unattractive ones.
And, if there are only 3 spins compared to 7/8 jumping passes, each spin should be worth more.
Well, I'd like to see the good spinners have the opportunity to trade a jump pass or two for an extra spin.
Beyond that . . . what could be the solution? Make the +GOEs worth more for spins, including level 1 spins, so that there is incentive to train spins for quality and not just focus on spin features and jumps?