PDA

View Full Version : Should all Competitions,Basic Skills included be judged by our moderen judging system



Pages : 1 2 3 [4]

Jenna
02-22-2012, 01:18 AM
I like 6.0 on the whole a lot better than IJS. And for the lower levels it's perfect, because of the elements that don't count under IJS, and levels, and all that stuff.

BUT.

I hate skating under 6.0 because I don't know WHY I get the results I do. I've done two competitions and placed last both times, each time confusing several onlookers who thought I was better than at least one of the others in the (very small) group. It would be nice to know what I did "wrong". They don't even put the scores out of 6 up, they just put up the ordinals. There's no way to tell what elements were not good enough and so on.

IJS has major flaws though. (Not least the whole "fall over four times and still win" thing.) So for lower-level competition it would not be perfect either. Especially when you'd see skaters having to spend half their program doing a footwork sequence because they want to get a certain level to get points. That's just ridiculous.

I didn't say the elements had to be leveled. They could just do a ChSt. The portion I have bolded highlights exactly why I believe 6.0 should be done away with. Is it more expensive? Yes. Is it more time consuming? Yes. Does it adequately prepare our young skaters for the higher levels? No. Not at all.

I know there are some clubs out there that do indeed use the IJS for all levels. Glacier Falls FSC in Anaheim, CA comes to mind.

I suppose a choice must be made in the battle between club finances and keeping up with the times. As a parent, I wouldn't mind paying $30-$40 more if I knew my kid was going to get a lot more out of the experience..

5Ali3
02-22-2012, 05:16 PM
The idea of judging Low Beginner (usually limited to half jumps, toe loops, Salchows) and High Beginner (I think they get loop jumps, too?) under IJS strikes me an absolute nightmare.

1) Their jump elements usually consist of: "hop; hop-hop; hop; hop (1T???); waltz; hop(S?)." Nothing like using ice time at $300/hour to review five jumps to determine what-the-heck the skater thought she/he was trying to do. [Adults at a similar level almost always have recognizable jump elements.]

2) Basic Skills events that consist of a program set to music are judged - essentially - entirely on skating skills, with a side of spins thrown in. The bottom line of 6.0 is that it ranks skaters in order of how the judge felt they skated that day. When judging Basic Skills programs, judges want a) someone to obviously skate better than anyone else to make the task easier b) the event to end c) coffee and/or vodka d) to be able to easily and quickly rank-order the skaters.

3) While IJS provides "more feedback" to the skaters than 6.0, it does not provide the kind of feedback that Basic Skills skaters need. They need feedback from their coach that the coach is proud of them; from their parents/family/friends that they are loved; and (if they run into judges in the bathroom line) that the judges enjoyed watching them skate and that the skater looked like she/he was having fun.


How is 6.0 beneficial to the skaters at all anymore?

How are Basic Skills competitions particularly beneficial to the skater? They should be about fun, encouraging a love of skating and competition, cheering on rinkmates, and conjoling parents into buying rhinestoned hair ties and blue lollipops.

kwanfan1818
02-22-2012, 05:35 PM
Cheated jumps and bad spin positions are problems a coach should be addressing, no matter which system a skater is being judged under.


No. Don't put that one on the system. That is ENTIRELY a problem with the coach. The coach should have seen that she was cheating jumps etc and fixed it long ago.
Rafael Arutunian was angry that Mao Asada was getting edge calls on her flutz. A whole string of elite level former coaches let that blatant jump problem slide. Why spend valuable time fixing something that isn't called? (It was years into CoP before the technical panel called edge calls.)

Skittl1321
02-22-2012, 05:53 PM
1) Their jump elements usually consist of: "hop; hop-hop; hop; hop (1T???); waltz; hop(S?)."

That's really generous calling. We often wait to see if a skater holds a landing position to know whether we should clap for a jump....having missed any actual time where they left the ice. (My jumps often have this problem too)

Clarice
02-22-2012, 06:09 PM
Rafael Arutunian was angry that Mao Asada was getting edge calls on her flutz. A whole string of elite level former coaches let that blatant jump problem slide. Why spend valuable time fixing something that isn't called? (It was years into CoP before the technical panel called edge calls.)

I can't speak to what Arutunian or Asada or any other elite skaters or coaches do. All I know is that I work to correct technical problems in my students because that is what I am supposed to be doing as their coach. It doesn't matter to me whether these things would get called or not, or how they place at competitions (my students are low level, and so don't compete under IJS). If they're not doing something correctly, they're going to hear about it.

Jenna
02-22-2012, 08:39 PM
The idea of judging Low Beginner (usually limited to half jumps, toe loops, Salchows) and High Beginner (I think they get loop jumps, too?) under IJS strikes me an absolute nightmare.

1) Their jump elements usually consist of: "hop; hop-hop; hop; hop (1T???); waltz; hop(S?)." Nothing like using ice time at $300/hour to review five jumps to determine what-the-heck the skater thought she/he was trying to do. [Adults at a similar level almost always have recognizable jump elements.]

2) Basic Skills events that consist of a program set to music are judged - essentially - entirely on skating skills, with a side of spins thrown in. The bottom line of 6.0 is that it ranks skaters in order of how the judge felt they skated that day. When judging Basic Skills programs, judges want a) someone to obviously skate better than anyone else to make the task easier b) the event to end c) coffee and/or vodka d) to be able to easily and quickly rank-order the skaters.

3) While IJS provides "more feedback" to the skaters than 6.0, it does not provide the kind of feedback that Basic Skills skaters need. They need feedback from their coach that the coach is proud of them; from their parents/family/friends that they are loved; and (if they run into judges in the bathroom line) that the judges enjoyed watching them skate and that the skater looked like she/he was having fun.



How are Basic Skills competitions particularly beneficial to the skater? They should be about fun, encouraging a love of skating and competition, cheering on rinkmates, and conjoling parents into buying rhinestoned hair ties and blue lollipops.

If you read my post above, you would know I suggested using it for only Pre-Preliminary and above. ;)

julianaqtpi
03-03-2012, 04:12 PM
Massive jumbo post coming your way... :eek:


All the suggestions for a modified IJS are lovely, but the fact remains that IJS is a costly system for clubs to use - costly in ice time (every skater takes an average of 45 to 60 seconds longer than the norm under 6.0), in officials (adding 3 tech panelists to the norm of 5 judges and a referee - and in long competitions, you can't expect the same people to judge every event all day so you need two panels at least) and in equipment (the mini system is expensive to rent and the paper system uses more than 10 times the paper per event that 6.0 uses and takes much longer for the accountants to set up).

I competed IJS for Juvenile at a competition last weekend. We used the paper system, and IJS was only Friday night (short programs) and Saturday morning (freeskate). There were about 7 events- 1 Juv. SP, 4 skaters, 2 Int. SPs (they split it into 2 groups.... idk why), 9 skaters total, then 2 Juv FS, 10 skaters total, 2 Int. FS, 11 skaters total. So basically, not a huge portion of the competition. It took maybe 2 hours on Friday and 3 hours Saturday for those 7 events. Then another hour after the event ended to get results each day, so about seven hours total for seven events. So my Juvenile SP took about 30 minutes total with 4 skaters. That's a 5 minute warm up, so 25 minutes. Then the 2min programs, plus the time to take your starting position, so that's around 10 minutes. So thats 15 minutes left. Divide that between 4 skaters, and there's over 3 minutes between skaters. That sounds about right, I was the second skater and I had plenty of time to tighten my skates after warmup. So yes, its time consuming, but the event with 6.0 would have taken 5 minutes warm up, 15 minutes on and off the ice (one coach makes his skaters take the allowed minute to get to your starting position as an extra minute to warm up like with IJS between skaters), so thats only 10 minutes less for one event. Not super time consuming, really. The accountant was John Morasco, who does it at Nationals too, and he said that it took him maybe three times as long to set up as for a 6.0 event, which was the majority of the competition. So say there were 130 events total, which doesn't sound right, I think there were more even, it would be like having 150 instead of 130. Not a huge difference on the large scale. John said also that he doesn't mind having to deal with IJS because his daughter used to compete and he knew that she liked IJS a lot more, and he experienced as a parent the confusion of ordinals with 6.0, so he knows skaters usually prefer IJS. It does use more paper, but the competition uses recycled paper for all of the events. So instead of having a wall of start orders and placement sheets on the wall, they're double sided onto scratch paper. So all that paper thats totally blank on one side, we use it for the result sheets for the competition. It's very environmentally conscious.


They should be judged under ISJ in my opinion. It doesn't make sense to be judged under one system for a year or so, then change. Skaters will be better in the long run if they are already comfortable with all the ISJ involves.

For most skaters though, they compete under 6.0 for many years. I've been competing for over 6 1/2 years, and I just used IJS for the first time last weekend. That's about normal for most skaters who competed in Basic Skills levels.


You can quite easily judge lower levels with components under IJS. We do it for artistic events. You could pick Skating Skills and Performance as the two.

Thinking about artistic events, I wish they would judge them with a largely weighted PCS and TES. The Technical Elements aren't supposed to be awarded, but in my Juvenile artistic, I got 1st with a double salchow (umbrella in hands, none the less....), an axel-side toe hop-axel-loop, a back camel spin, a two footed double toe, a two footed double flip, and a sit spin. The girl who got 2nd had a great program, but she did a two footed axel and a two footed double salchow, and some great single jumps. I thought she would get first because of her program concept, but I did. I don't like how they judge artistics like that, but really, the jumps were in my program because they are right on the music, and if I didn't do any other jumps, I would have a lot of split jumps. Anyways, I think it would be nice if they had some sort of scoring program (it would be very hard to develop, but this is my dream idea) that gave you some score for technical elements, like I would have gotten some points for my jumps and spins, but then a largely weighted PCS. So I mean weighted, as in instead of giving the Juvenile skaters 1.50-2.50 PCS scores in each category, the judges would be instructed to give PCS scores for each of the 5 categories (skating skills, interpretation, etc) that were above 3.00 or something, so that way it would be a much higher PCS than TES (am I abbreviating that right? I mean the technical score). So a skater might have a 10.00 TES, and a 20.00 point PCS. That way, it would be weighted for the artistic side, perfect for artistic and interpretive events. Again, that wouldn't work very well for lower levels, but hey, this is just my fantasy.


Even small IJS competitions require two accountants, at least two laptops and printers, (more if you have more than one ice surface) and a staff of people behind the scenes to generate all those lovely results. Frankly most clubs who host small low-level competitions have decided that IJS isn't worth the time and effort involved. Having the choice of system is beneficial to them and to the skaters.

I think it was great to have the Juv and up events with IJS at the competition last week, even though it was a fairly small competition. We had one accountant, and it worked fine. The LOC (Local Organizing Committee) is composed of about 70% adult skaters and judges, and the rest are skaters' parents. So they understand that skaters want IJS because you get the detailed results.


All I know is that I work to correct technical problems in my students because that is what I am supposed to be doing as their coach. It doesn't matter to me whether these things would get called or not, or how they place at competitions (my students are low level, and so don't compete under IJS). If they're not doing something correctly, they're going to hear about it.

My coaches do the exact same. I remember competing High Beginner with a single lutz and I flutzed it, and my coach worked with my for my entire lesson the following week on getting the correct edge, and I always pay attention to the edge on single lutzes and make sure they're actually an outside edge. That didn't transition over to double lutzes though, unfortunately.... Now I'm competing IJS, and my coaches are really getting on me about having downgraded and two-footed doubles, because it really hurt me in my FS- I got 0.35 or something for my double flip, and 0.37 for my double lutz. That's it. Because they were downgraded and two footed, and then negative GOE. So I'm really hearing about that now, and my coaches are working with me to fix that, versus jumping right into new jumps or whatever. So good for you for working on that, another coach in my city just ignores the feedback from IJS, he's like 'okay whatever triple loop' even if their double loop was under-rotated.

Aussie Willy
03-03-2012, 11:53 PM
I think artistic should have elements limited. We do that here so things like double and triple jumps are not allowed. It helps to create a level playing field where the concept and performance shines through.

I have judged artistic quite a few times under IJS components. So far we have tended to stick how you would normally judge under IJS. But I see no reason that you couldn't use the full range of PCS. After all the aim is to get the right result.

5Ali3
03-04-2012, 06:36 PM
(misskarne, as I often do, I used your post as a prompt to talk generally about approaching judges for feedback, so my comments aren't aimed specifically at you.)



I hate skating under 6.0 because I don't know WHY I get the results I do. I've done two competitions and placed last both times, each time confusing several onlookers who thought I was better than at least one of the others in the (very small) group. It would be nice to know what I did "wrong". They don't even put the scores out of 6 up, they just put up the ordinals. There's no way to tell what elements were not good enough and so on.

Always feel free to ask for feedback from judges on the panel. It's helpful to have a specific name when you go to the referee to ask if you can speak to _____. (Sometimes it's helpful to hear from the person who placed you lowest, sometimes it's helpful to hear from someone who placed you high: you're likely to get different feedback. Under IJS, if you have questions about calls/levels, the proper protocol is to approach the Technical Panel captain to ask to speak to the Technical Controller. This is followed strictly at qualifying competitions, a bit wiggly at non-quals. Only the Technical Controller and Assistant Technical Specialist have written notes. At a non-qual, those notes often get recycled overnight.)

Be polite; bring your coach; focus the conversation on your own skating and your desire to improve your skating, rather than comparisons to other skaters in the group or seeming obsessed with your placement/wanting to win. That might seem obvious, but you'd be surprised how often a coach wants to have a conversation focused on, "Suzy fell and my student didn't. It's absurd that Suzy won. My skater is the Skategods' gift to High Beginner. She didn't fall. She should have won!" The judge thinks, "[Coach] is overly defensive about [his/her] coaching; [Coach] doesn't understand enough about skating to know why a skater who fell might beat one who didn't. This conversation is not going to go well. I'm going to say vague, non-quotable things, because I sense that whatever I say might be used against me later. Also, it will likely fall on "deaf ears" and I really need to pee before my next event starts in five minutes."

It's "acceptable" to reference your placement and/or confusion over the marks, but try to do so in the context of wanting feedback for improvement. Depending on your level and where you are in your season, it can be helpful to mention your goals to the judge, so that she/he understands what kind of feedback might be most helpful.
Coach: "Thanks for taking the time to speak with us. I'm Callie Coach and this is Sarah Skater. She skated second in the final warmup of Juvenile B, red dress* with orange stripes and plaid circles, a techno mashup of Carmen and Malagueña. I watched most of the event and I admit that I was surprised that Sarah placed third overall. You placed her sixth. She's really hoping to make final round at Regionals this year and we're wondering if you have any feedback for us about the program or her performance that might help us achieve that goal. "
*If you/your skater seek feedback from a judge, try - if at all possible - to wear (or hold) your dress/outfit so that it's visible to the judge. Dresses/costumes don't contribute to marks (except in something like showcase), but it will help the judge remember your performance. After eight hours of Intermediate Ladies, the visual cue of "adorable, hair in bun" doesn't really prompt a judge's memory. Similarly, the sooner you can ask, the more likely the judge is to remember you specifically. If that's logistically impossible, feel free to ask the registration desk to pass a note to the referee/Tech Panel Captain/TC to mention that you'd like feedback from when it's convenient; that will allow the preservation of notes; plus, it can also allow the judge/TC to jot down additional "critique comments" that might fade from memory.

At the lower levels of Basic Skills, it's almost impossible to give/receive useful advice about you/your skater's specific placement (see my post about "hop, hop-hop, hop? 3-turn?"). It might be more useful to ask something like, "My student competed in Basic 1 and I was a little confused by the results. I'm wondering if you might be willing to tell me something about what you look for in Basic 1 skaters." Remember that some Basic Skills competitions use judges trained in judging Juvenile->Senior competitors, while others use teenage skaters who have no training in judging at any level - among other possibilities. Everyone involved in Basic Skills competitions does their best, including the judges, but it's awfully difficult to generate meaningful distinctions at that level.

Aussie Willy
03-04-2012, 09:32 PM
We used to have a coach who always asked for feedback with "Why did such and such place first?" or "Why did my student place third?" instead of asking for feedback on their own skater. It got quite embarassing because the responses were usually "Because the other skater was better". And it was also because the coach had made comments to the parents that that their skater had won before the results were even announced. So she put herself under pressure having to then explain the result to the parent.

julianaqtpi
03-05-2012, 03:27 AM
... Sounds like an idiotic coach. Why would a coach be stupid enough to set herself up to be potentially wrong and assume that stuff? My coach sometimes says something to me like "with that skate, you should be above her", but that's usually if we're watching other groups of skaters- like my friend competing Intermediate, she fell on a double toeloop and another girl fell on an axel, and my coach said something to me like "well, (friend's name) shouldn't be in last place". But that's saying SHOULD or SHOULDN'T, not saying "she won".

I admit I do question 'why did so and so get first', but I don't ask for critique from judges (except testing, my coach and I almost always ask for additional feedback other than the judging sheets with (sometimes illegible) remarks if I don't pass). For competition, I usually ask my mom to write down the elements each skater does, because it unnerves me to watch skaters before me (I start thinking 'oh she fell on a double flip that's good for me' and then I totally mess up. It's all in my head, I know.), so at least I have some way to know what each skater does. So if the girl who skated before me gets first, I can see that my mom wrote down that she did a really fast combination spin and a huge double loop. And my mom likes having that in her notes too. Of course, not totally necessary with IJS, but that's another topic.

zaphyre14
03-05-2012, 01:00 PM
Using IJS for Juvenile and up is fine and I can support that. But the original poster asked about using IJS at ALL competitions, for ALL levels, even Basic Skills, and that's what I feel is totally impractical. Basic Skills competitions are supposed to be fun events to introduce skaters to competitions and to give clubs a chance to make some money to run their programs. IJS, as it exists now, does not work for those lower levels.

Now if someone know computer programming and was willing to volunteer their time to rewrite the IJS programming to include those levels and present it to USFS, maybe that would change. But I don't see the point.

misskarne
03-29-2012, 04:14 PM
I've decided to change my mind.

If the ISU/whatever can come up with a way to make IJS suitable for lower levels, I WANT IT.

We had a competition on the weekend with both a technical and artistic component. The technical programs were skated under 6.0 below Preliminary, as usual. (I won something!....er...I was the only one in my group.)

The artistic competition, however, was scored using the Program Components of IJS. This means that there is a webpage up with actual numbers, broken down, that I can get my hands on.

I love it.

Even though it shows the hideous fact that yes, I came last AGAIN, it shows me WHY. (the -1 for a fall doesn't help. On the plus side, i have a SPECTACULAR bruise.)

Looking at this page, the two worst scores I had were Transitions (lol Plushenkofan getting a low Transitions score) and, of all things, SKATING SKILLS.

So now my coach is kicking my backside on edges and turns, which I admit I had been getting lazy on. The use of the PCS enabled us to identify the particular weak points in my skating, although perhaps it would have been a more useful reference had I decided not to clean that patch of ice with my backside and damage my execution score.

But more to the point, seeing those numbers makes me WANT to work on my edges and turns, which are two things I normally avoid.

Anyway, this was a bit of a ramble probably more suited to the MITF section, but I'm sold on using IJS at a lower level. The feedback potential is enormous.

(As a side note, my best score was for interpretation - and it was the only score I didn't come last in. Considering my program theme was "unusual" at best: Result!)

Sylvia
04-24-2012, 05:20 AM
Now if someone know computer programming and was willing to volunteer their time to rewrite the IJS programming to include those levels and present it to USFS, maybe that would change.
During this earlier discussion, I wasn't aware of the existence of Technical Notification 44, dated April 2009, RE: IJS Calculations for Nonqualifying Events and Non Standard Elements Scale of Values (PDF) (http://www.usfsa.org/Content/Technical%20Notification_44.pdf).

Thanks to this post in the MITF forum (http://www.fsuniverse.net/forum/showpost.php?p=3554952&postcount=2), I was made aware of Technical Notification 96, dated April 19, 2012, RE: IJS Calculations for Nonqualifying-Level Events and Non Standard Elements Scale of Values – Modifications to Technical Notification 44 (PDF) (http://www.usfsa.org/content/TN%2096%20with%20NQ%20values%20tables.pdf)
Excerpt from the introduction:

This Technical Notification provides numeric factors and event formats for IJS scoring of nonqualifying-level events in competitions held by U.S. Figure Skating clubs.

There are specific IJS scoring requirements for qualifying-level events for juvenile and above levels in singles, pairs and ice dancing, as well certain levels of synchronized skating and adult skating events. For other events, clubs have latitude within the rules for setting requirements in nonqualifying competitions.

The following tables provide IJS scoring of nonqualifying-level events at nonqualifying competitions.

Clubs are not required to use IJS for nonqualifying-level events; however, if clubs choose to use IJS for nonqualifying-level events per rule 1235 (C), the accountants are to use the system officially selected by U.S. Figure Skating. This Technical Notification serves as notice of the values and factors for the official calculation software.