PDA

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



Pages : 1 2 3 [4]

gkelly
11-08-2011, 04:04 PM
I guess the spin Nazi in me wants to say that an attempt to get the higher level and executing it badly should either cost more in GOE, or should not count for the level.

If it's done really badly, both will be the case. I've seen some attempts at Biellmanns that don't achieve the difficult position and/or don't rotate for two revolutions, so they don't get the feature. And then if the spin grinds to a complete halt, that's got to knock down the GOE.

Just slowing down a little in a less than beautiful position for 2-3 revolutions probably makes the difference between +1 (if the rest of the spin was good) and 0. Occasionally between +2 and +1.


Perhaps it would be too harsh a penalty, but maybe if the attempt at the higher level ends up compromising that section of the spin enough (like the really slow Bielmann) then the spin has to have a mandatory -GOE.

How would you define compromising the spin "enough"?

It's probably going to remain a judgment call, and some judges will be harsher than others.


Ok I have now gone and read the GOE guidelines for spins and I think they are just quite difficult to interpret, a lot of the + guidelines are subjective:
acceleration,
balanced rotations in all positions (does that mean equal number of rotations or actually well balanced as in not wobbling?)

I think it means approximately equal numbers of rotations on each foot or in each position.

Not wobbling should be taken for granted even for base value. If there is significant wobbling, that would be a reason for negative GOE.


clearly more than required rotations (does that mean doing not just two for levels and doing say four or five, or does that mean doing 15 rotations on each foot?)

I think both, as applicable. Four revolutions in a difficult position is probably not "clearly" more than the required two, and eight is a feature in its own right, but six or seven might be a reason to reward that position in GOE, regardless of whether the position itself qualifies as a feature. E.g., the opening camel position of a combination spin.


Good positions (really subjective - does the butt spin ever make a good position, or in fact any of the difficult variations)

Rarely, but some skaters can make them look attractive to me. As you say, it's subjective.


The mandatory negative GOE is basically a fall or both hand down on the ice. The rest of the negative GOE is also things like hand or foot touch down, poor/awkward positions.

I think wobbling and scratching/slowing down on the toepicks will also inspire lower GOE. And too few total revolutions especially in the short program. Not usually a problem at the elite levels.


:rofl:Whenever possible? That would be never then! By the very definition of those steps they can't be done on one foot, saying that I'd love to see someone at the ISU (preferably the person who wrote that part of the rules) try to execute chasses, mohawks, choctaws or running steps (actually anything that is in the list under steps) on one foot to demonstrate what they mean :rofl:

Ha! Actually I think edge changes count as steps, so those can be done on one foot, but you can't make a whole step sequence out of them. I guess a hop on one foot would also qualify. I agree that is badly worded.

kwanfan1818
11-09-2011, 07:03 AM
manleywoman started a thread (http://www.fsuniverse.net/forum/showthread.php?t=80998) in The Great Skate Debate to announce that highlights of her first three podcasts have been transcribed and posted to her website.

To quote Oleg Vasiliev (http://www.manleywoman.com/episode-3-oleg-vassiliev/):


On the strengths of his partnership with Elena Valova: Probably the beauty of concentrating mentally for competition. Not so much elements, because more or less pairs skaters did the same elements, the same jumps, the same throw jumps, lifts and twists, it was more or less the same.


On the differences between the 6.0 judging system and the newer systems: System is system, but we, coaches, skaters, we still do the skating. We coaches help skaters to do something interesting. [The newer systems] are kind of manipulating skaters and coaches to find something new, new elements, new spins, new footworks, new spirals. With the old 6.0 system, I just took a look, not too long time ago, at some competitions which happened a few years ago with the 6.0 system. The footworks was boring, the spirals were simple, and the spirals were short in pairs skating. So it was interesting programs, yes, it was good skating in general, yes, but easy elements were boring. So right now, you can look at programs and see everything, good footwork, spins, spirals, death spirals are interesting. Maybe sometimes we can see some awkward positions and movements, but at least skaters and coaches are trying to do something new. They are trying to push figure skating forward and make it more interesting, more skatable, you know, better looking for the spectators.

(He then goes on to criticize the scoring paradigm.)

I believe Mr. Vasiliev competed in the late '70's-80's ;)

antmanb
11-10-2011, 01:07 PM
How would you define compromising the spin "enough"?

It's probably going to remain a judgment call, and some judges will be harsher than others.

I think it is always going to be a judgment call and some judges must deduct and others not. I always struggle to try to quantify and word any suggestions.



I think it means approximately equal numbers of rotations on each foot or in each position.

Thanks for the clarification.



Not wobbling should be taken for granted even for base value. If there is significant wobbling, that would be a reason for negative GOE.

That's what I thought but when i read the words i wasn't too sure!



I think wobbling and scratching/slowing down on the toepicks will also inspire lower GOE. And too few total revolutions especially in the short program. Not usually a problem at the elite levels.

Being short on rotation in the SP is the other mandatory -GOE for the whole element but not for the LP I noticed...actually are number of rotations in the spins specified in the LP? Perhaps not.

gkelly
11-10-2011, 01:47 PM
Being short on rotation in the SP is the other mandatory -GOE for the whole element but not for the LP I noticed...actually are number of rotations in the spins specified in the LP? Perhaps not.

I'm not sure where (or whether) it is currently written in ISU documents.

Here's the USFS table of free skating requirements (http://www.usfigureskating.org/Content/201112SinglesFSElements.pdf). For junior and senior (which follow ISU rules), the minimums are 6 revs for a solo spin, 10 for a combo, which may or may not change feet.

There didn't used to be any minimums in the free program, and you'd see a lot of really brief spins there. Around the mid-90s the ISU introduced these minimums or something similar as part of the new well-balanced program guidelines (not requirements at first) -- about the same time they raised the short program minimums from 6 solo or 5 on each foot to 8 and 6 respectively.

Ajax
11-14-2011, 05:01 PM
I think pairs has been hurt a lot by IJS. The ridiculous death spirals and lifts have already been mentioned. IMO the work required by the pairs skaters to achieve high levels on their footwork, lifts and spins has come at the expense of unison, which should be the defining characteristic of good pairs skating. You rarely ever see a perfectly synchronized sbs spin any more. It seems no pair on earth is capable of maintaining unison through 3-4 changes of position. Same with the labored, painful-to-watch footwork sequences.

Triple Butz
11-14-2011, 07:19 PM
I think pairs has been hurt a lot by IJS. The ridiculous death spirals and lifts have already been mentioned. IMO the work required by the pairs skaters to achieve high levels on their footwork, lifts and spins has come at the expense of unison, which should be the defining characteristic of good pairs skating. You rarely ever see a perfectly synchronized sbs spin any more. It seems no pair on earth is capable of maintaining unison through 3-4 changes of position. Same with the labored, painful-to-watch footwork sequences.

Yes x1000.