PDA

View Full Version : What happened to ladies skating?



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

Triple Butz
01-02-2012, 05:47 AM
There is a difference between competent and outstanding. Basically if you have the flexibility you can do an outstanding spiral (like Cohen and Bobek). But most skaters can do a competent spiral. Watch enough lower level competitions and you will see it.

Aren't you a judge??

The first and most important aspect of an "outstanding spiral" should be the edge control. Position and carriage are extremely important, but secondary to edging.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtNTyUG0DTE#t=1m05s
THIS, for example, is an "outstanding" spiral, not a "competent" one. It does not exhibit flexibility anywhere near Kwan, Cohen, Bobek, etc but the edges are incredible, as is the speed and the balance/carriage.

Triple Butz
01-02-2012, 05:54 AM
As for the skater you referred to, whilst there were issues with the body, they still did a very clean change of the edge at speed. And the positions would have been considered difficult which is what the judges would have taken into account (difficulty vs execution). The problems only occurred on the first spiral but the rest was competently done. But that program was also quite a few years ago now and maybe in hindsight would be looked at differently now.

You think that change of edge was VERY CLEAN???? :rofl::rofl::rofl:

And no, the rest was not competent. There were wobbly edges throughout the sequence.

Loves_Shizuka
01-02-2012, 08:07 AM
L_S is so pleased so many of you meet the criteria for his FSU Moet List :40beers:

Aussie Willy
01-02-2012, 08:22 AM
Aren't you a judge??


Yes and I am trying to explain why the judges may have made the decisions they did just as gkelly did. There were other aspects of the element that would have been looked at postively, regardless of what you consider was a major error. However I am not actually making any personal comment on what I would have given the element myself.


You think that change of edge was VERY CLEAN???? :rofl::rofl::rofl:

And no, the rest was not competent. There were wobbly edges throughout the sequence.
Actually the change of edge went straight from the inside to outside edge, without skating both edges at the same time as it transitioning. That is a change of edge. And it was done at speed without hesitation. If anyone had a chance to see the tracing of the blade left on the ice you would not have seen both edges had been on the ice during the transition.

But I suppose I don't know what I am looking at, do I? Why don't you become a judge as you obviously know much more than the rest of us on this forum.

gkelly
01-02-2012, 01:50 PM
I guess it's a question of whether you start by looking at a typical successful element by the the top skaters, make that your baseline for 0 or +1, and then subtract from there (or on very rare occasions go up to +2 or +3).

Or do you look at a typical successful element by average skaters and make that the baseline for 0 GOE, from which to go up and down?

edonice
01-02-2012, 06:28 PM
A good spiral sequence required excellent control, speed, line, and charisma. It was always the element that clearly delineated the best skaters from the rest of the pack. You can flail your way through a step sequence, and pretzel your way through a spin, but it’s much harder to fudge your way through a spiral sequence.

Elizaveta Tuktamisheva was the break-out skater of the year, but if you watched her closely her ice coverage was lacking, and she was really working it across the ice. There would have been a clear-as-day difference between a spiral sequence from her and a spiral sequence by Carolina Kostner or Alissa Czisny.

But maybe this is one of the things that’s toughest about judging. Judges now have to break elements down into components to accurately assess them, and that can make it hard to see how much those components work in concert. I also think this awareness of how difficult it is to both break an element down and see it in its entirety is what’s driving positive changes in the C.O.P system. As the judging system evolves, it’s getting easier and easier to assess what’s really good. Maybe now the spiral sequences would be judged more completely than they were when the C.O.P system was really young.

So I still say… bring it back!!

smarts1
01-02-2012, 07:15 PM
That's complete BS. A good spiral with a strong edge and beautiful position is incredibly difficult. Even some of the highest ranking skaters with wonderful skating skills (Slutskaya comes to mind) often had trouble maintaining balance/edging during their spirals. Maybe if the judges didn't hand out positive GOE to crappy looking spirals like candy, the skaters would have worked harder on that element.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=av7fBhDP-o8#t=2m25s

This, for example got all +1's and +2's... :rolleyes:

And I'm still kind of :confused: as to how that step sequence got a level 3. The other ladies had way more content in their step sequences and only got level 2s. There was definitely something funny going on with the levels given out at the 2006 Olympics for the ladies.

Triple Butz
01-02-2012, 07:31 PM
And I'm still kind of :confused: as to how that step sequence got a level 3. The other ladies had way more content in their step sequences and only got level 2s. There was definitely something funny going on with the levels given out at the 2006 Olympics for the ladies.

Well, we have a judge here who thinks that the only way to achieve an outstanding spiral is to have Sasha-Cohen-like flexibility...anything less is all grouped together under "competent." I think the problem is that the judges themselves don't really know what they're looking for. Time for a changing of the guard.

Aussie Willy
01-02-2012, 09:05 PM
But maybe this is one of the things thatís toughest about judging. Judges now have to break elements down into components to accurately assess them, and that can make it hard to see how much those components work in concert. I also think this awareness of how difficult it is to both break an element down and see it in its entirety is whatís driving positive changes in the C.O.P system. As the judging system evolves, itís getting easier and easier to assess whatís really good. Maybe now the spiral sequences would be judged more completely than they were when the C.O.P system was really young.

Totally agree and you have summed it up very well. I don't think some people get that you have to look at every aspect of an element and not just look at one thing. That is one of the things that make judging very difficult.

Vagabond
01-02-2012, 09:43 PM
The first and most important aspect of an "outstanding spiral" should be the edge control. Position and carriage are extremely important, but secondary to edging.

Maybe edge control should be the first and most important aspect of an "outstanding spiral," but that's not how the ISU looks at it.

From ISU Communication No. 1611, which was in effect last season:


Updated Guidelines for marking +GOE of Single/Pair Elements
(positive aspects)

....

To establish the starting GOE Judges must take into consideration the bullets for each element. It is at the discretion of each Judge to decide on the number of bullets for any upgrade, but general recommendations are as follows:

FOR + 1 : 2 bullets
FOR + 2 : 4 bullets
FOR + 3 : 6 or more bullets

....

Spiral Sequences

1) good flow, energy and execution
2) good speed during sequence
3) good body line and full extension
4) minimal delay between spiral positions
5) good flexibility
6) creativity and originality
7) ability to attain positions and variations quickly and effortlessly
8) element matched to the musical structure

...

Updated Guidelines in establishing GOE for errors in Short Program and Free Skating

...

SPIRALS

Fall -3
Poor positions -1 to -3
Less than half of the pattern in spiral position -2 to -3
Stumble -1 to -2
Poor edge quality -1 to -2

And here is some information about the Scale of Values for spiral sequences. I'm not sure how recent it is.

Figure Skating Spirals in Competition (http://gofigureskating.com/skills/spirals/compete.html)


Spirals on each foot, forward & backward, inside & outside mandatory for Levels 3-4

Number of features for Levels : 2 for Level 2, 3 for Level 3, 4 for Level 4

A difficult variation of position
A difficult variation of position on a different foot significantly different from the first variation
Change of edge in a spiral
Unsupported change of free leg position or direction of skating maintaining the spiral (3 seconds hold before and after the change)
Free leg in a total split position, one or both arms hold possible
Holding spiral position (without any interruption) for 6 or more seconds without changes in position/variation

A skater who could master the first, second, fifth, and sixth entries on the list of features, was very flexible and able to achieve the positions quickly, and had average (but not "poor") edges could easily get a Level 4 with +1 GOE.

Skaters and their coaches quickly figured out the positions that would result in a SpSq4, and about three dozen of the competitors in Ladies at Worlds in 2010 had one in their SP. For what it's worth, ten of those skaters earned GOE of at least 1.00 on that element.

skateboy
01-02-2012, 09:52 PM
I don't think some people get that you have to look at every aspect of an element and not just look at one thing. That is one of the things that make judging very difficult.

Agreed, but I can't help wonder if judging is now simply TOO difficult. (Sigh.)

Aussie Willy
01-02-2012, 10:41 PM
Agreed, but I can't help wonder if judging is now simply TOO difficult. (Sigh.)
I sometimes wonder that too. In an SP you have to evaluate 7 elements, considering all the details that make up that element, including the positives and the negatives. You are also trying to make notes about each element to justify why you come up with the decision you did. At the end you might get time to watch replays of elements, that is if you have it.

And then during the whole process you have the 5 components to evaluate and consider and have to justify those decisions too.

But then at least you can give better consideration to the elements because you are looking at the whole element, not just what to deduct on it. So it ends up being fairer.

There was a great video that I got shown at am ISU seminar which had a judges thought process voiceover. PJ Kwong provided the commentary. But it showed what can go on in a judges mind during a program. PJ did it quite brillantly.

gkelly
01-03-2012, 12:32 AM
What judges don't have to do any more is figure out how to balance one element against the other elements and how to weight them all against the global criteria for skating skills and the second mark.

The scale of values does that for them now.

Nor do they need to keep track of what scores they gave to previous skaters and why, in order decide exactly where to slot in skater #30 in the short program, whose closest rivals might have been, e.g., skaters #2 and 14 in the skate order.

And now the technical panel decides exactly what elements each skater gets credit for executing.

I would guess that the best judges were doing all of this already, so taking some of the details away from the judges and giving them to the tech panel and the system itself makes the job easier for the best judges. For less skilled judges who used to take fewer of the relevant details into account under the old system, it would make things harder.

Triple Butz
01-03-2012, 06:18 AM
Maybe edge control should be the first and most important aspect of an "outstanding spiral," but that's not how the ISU looks at it.

A skater who could master the first, second, fifth, and sixth entries on the list of features, was very flexible and able to achieve the positions quickly, and had average (but not "poor") edges could easily get a Level 4 with +1 GOE.

Skaters and their coaches quickly figured out the positions that would result in a SpSq4, and about three dozen of the competitors in Ladies at Worlds in 2010 had one in their SP. For what it's worth, ten of those skaters earned GOE of at least 1.00 on that element.

I agree, and that's why I suggested earlier that the ISU should have revamped the criteria for levels and GOE instead of just trashing the element. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater...

Marco
01-03-2012, 09:18 AM
Another question is, if the judges only have so much time and focus, should they pay more attention on quality of individual elements (GOE) or on PCS? I am sure judges are doing the best they can but often I see judges giving out questionable GOEs or PCS and wonder, maybe they are just too busy to take care of everything and often have to revert to reputation / impression.

The suggestion of having separate GOE and PCS judging panels actually makes sense. It doesn't have to involve extra judges. It could be just 5 judges for each of GOE and PCS instead of 10 for overall.