Changes accepted by the 56th ISU Congress: Singles/Pairs & Program Components definition revisions

[Sylvia]

Starting a new thread from the ISU Congress thread for the Changes in General Regulations, Special Regulations and Technical Rules - link to ISU Communication no. 2014: http://static.isu.org/media/339062/2014-sandp_changes-accepted-by-the-2016-isu-congress.pdf

Program Component categories (5): Skating Skills, Transitions, Performance, Composition, Interpretation of the Music (Timing for Ice Dance).
(5 components before: Skating Skills, Transitions/Linking Footwork/Movement, Performance/Execution, Choreography/Composition, Interpretation & Interpretation/Timing for dance)

Re-posting @gkelly's reply in the ISU Congress 2016 thread re. the revisions in the Definition of Program Components:

Interesting that they have reworded the Program Component criteria somewhat significantly. There really haven't been changes there since the beginning of IJS.

There's still some vagueness, but some of the overlap has been eliminated -- e.g., removing the "Proportion (equal weight of parts)" and "Unity (purposeful threading)" criteria under Choreography (renamed Composition) and replacing "Intricacy" with "Continuity of movements from one element to another" under Transitions.
I understand that to mean that telegraphing, for example, would be properly penalized under Transitions but not specifically under Composition. And that busy-ness (i.e., just sticking in a higher quantity of transitional moves for the sake of "intricacy") would not be rewarded under Transitions, but rather that one move should lead to another, counting both the elements and any additional moves.

@Theoreticalgirl's post:

I found this footnote interesting:

*Finesse is the Skater's refined, artful manipulation of music details and nuances through movement. It is unique to the Skater/Skaters, and demonstrates an inner feeling for the music and the composition. Nuances 3 are the personal ways of bringing subtle variations to the intensity, tempo, and dynamics of the music made by the composer and/or musicians.​

 

[gkelly]

That wording is very similar to what appears in the Program Component Explanations document dated 31 July 2004

http://www.isu.org/en/single-and-pair-skating-and-ice-dance/isu-judging-system/introduction (scroll down to bottom)

http://usfigureskating.org/content/JS08A-Programcompexplan.pdf

I expect that expanded PCS document will also need to be updated, but you can make a direct comparison today while the old one is still online.

 

[Theoreticalgirl]

I am really curious to see how "genuine translation" is interpreted by judges. I mean, there's a whole area of music criticism that can't agree on what it means.

 

[gkelly]

That's one of the parts that's still vague and subjective. I don't know how it could be nailed down, but I guess TPTB do want judges to reward it if they feel a performance excels in those subjective areas.

 

[Susan M]

I am really curious to see how "genuine translation" is interpreted by judges. I mean, there's a whole area of music criticism that can't agree on what it means.

I think this is an attempt to distinguish between the skater who clearly moves in response to the music from the gratuitous arm flapping. While a few skaters have this innately (Baiul, for example) this is often something that only comes with maturity. I remember a skater saying once in her last season that she finally felt like she finally really understood and felt her choreography, where as before she stuck her arm out here because the choreographer said stick your arm out here. We see an awful lot of skaters clearly going thru those motions. I think this is an attempt to make the judges distinguish between the two.

Frankly, I think the difference is not that tricky to see. I agree it is hard to define in words but, to borrow from Justice Stewart, I know it when I see it.

 

[SkateGuard]

I think this is an attempt to distinguish between the skater who clearly moves in response to the music from the gratuitous arm flapping. While a few skaters have this innately (Baiul, for example) this is often something that only comes with maturity. I remember a skater saying once in her last season that she finally felt like she finally really understood and felt her choreography, where as before she stuck her arm out here because the choreographer said stick your arm out here. We see an awful lot of skaters clearly going thru those motions. I think this is an attempt to make the judges distinguish between the two.

Frankly, I think the difference is not that tricky to see. I agree it is hard to define in words but, to borrow from Justice Stewart, I know it when I see it.

Well put... and I agree. It's more obvious than Trump's orange foundation. #BlendSweetie

 

[Theoreticalgirl]

I am really curious to see how "genuine translation" is interpreted by judges. I mean, there's a whole area of music criticism that can't agree on what it means.

Frankly, I think the difference is not that tricky to see. I agree it is hard to define in words but, to borrow from Justice Stewart, I know it when I see it.

Oh my, if it were that easy to see the difference, this message board—and others like it—would have tumbleweeds rolling through. A performer's intent and an audience's response are not always aligned with each other. It's quite possible to perform something genuinely and with a level of depth and have it received by an audience in a manner in a way that was never intended.

 

[casken]

I found this footnote interesting:
*Finesse is the Skater's refined, artful manipulation of music details and nuances through movement. It is unique to the Skater/Skaters, and demonstrates an inner feeling for the music and the composition. Nuances 3 are the personal ways of bringing subtle variations to the intensity, tempo, and dynamics of the music made by the composer and/or musicians.

If this was/is taken seriously, there would be a bunch of top skaters who would be royally screwed.

 

[Marco]

The layback is no longer mandatory in the Sr and Jr ladies short program. The ladies are allowed to do solo camel or sit spins without change of foot.

So the difference between the men and the ladies (besides jump revolutions) is now down to changing foot in the solo spin. Assuming the top skaters aim for level 4, is it easier for the ladies to have to achieve all 4 features on the same foot, or for the men to achieve 2 features on each foot?

Also, I believe there is a rule forbidding men in doing the same basic position in the flying spin and the change foot solo spin. Is there one for ladies too? i.e. can somene do flying camel and then also a camel solo spin?

 

[Aussie Willy]

I am happy to see that a combo spin with only two positions is labelled with a V rather than having to apply the 2p (or 3p for those that achieve the 3 positions). Makes the abbreviations a bit easier to understand and review.

I like how they have explained "finesse". I like to reward skaters who demonstrate that they listen to the music rather than just doing random choreography.

 

[Aussie Willy]

I think this is an attempt to distinguish between the skater who clearly moves in response to the music from the gratuitous arm flapping. While a few skaters have this innately (Baiul, for example) this is often something that only comes with maturity. I remember a skater saying once in her last season that she finally felt like she finally really understood and felt her choreography, where as before she stuck her arm out here because the choreographer said stick your arm out here. We see an awful lot of skaters clearly going thru those motions. I think this is an attempt to make the judges distinguish between the two.

Frankly, I think the difference is not that tricky to see. I agree it is hard to define in words but, to borrow from Justice Stewart, I know it when I see it.

As I always say you can give a skater all the choreography in the world but how it works with the music has to come from the skater themselves.

 

[misskarne]

No mandatory layback: yes! Good! Finally!

Not a fan of this "nuance" thing. Will it really change anything? Will it really force judges to look closer at certain skaters they might have pigeonholed into their various boxes, or will it simply be another "oh look, xyz is from the "unartistic skater" box, can't possibly be artistic, it's just really good choreography. But abc skater is from the "artistic skater" box, they're interpreting the music really well, even if their movements are slightly off."

 

[gkelly]

As mentioned above, check out the original documents that have been in effect for the past 12 years:

http://www.isu.org/en/single-and-pair-skating-and-ice-dance/isu-judging-system/introduction

In the Program Components Overview from 18 Jun 2004, one of the Interpretation/Timing bullet points is "Use of finesse to reflect the nuances of the music"

In the Program Components Explanations from 31 Jul 2004, the explanation for this point is "Finesse is the skater's refined, artful manipulation of nuances. Nuances are the personal, artistic ways of bringing subtle variations to the intensity, tempo, and dynamics of the music made by the composer and/or the musician."

This is not a significant change of wording. The biggest difference is moving the explanation of that specific bullet point into the summary document. Is the intention to increase the focus on that particular criterion? But it is not a new criterion.

 

[Deleted member 19433]

I am happy to see that a combo spin with only two positions is labelled with a V rather than having to apply the 2p (or 3p for those that achieve the 3 positions). Makes the abbreviations a bit easier to understand and review.

I disagree. I don't like that change. Both tech panels and skaters/coaches have gotten used to the "2p" and "3p" and now will have to unlearn that. Also, it's a bit confusing that the symbol "V" means something totally different for a flying spin and for a combination spin. (That was the case a couple seasons ago too, when spins with change of foot could get a V1 for not having a basic position on one of the feet, which meant something totally different for a flying spin, but I was glad they got rid of that last season).

Also, I believe there is a rule forbidding men in doing the same basic position in the flying spin and the change foot solo spin. Is there one for ladies too? i.e. can somene do flying camel and then also a camel solo spin?

No, it doesn't look like they can per the document.

611, paragraph 4, part d, applies to men and ladies (here is the original document before revision http://static.isu.org/media/166717/...and-technical-rules-sandp-and-id_14-09-16.pdf)

Senior: Any type of flying spin is permitted with landing position different than in the Spin in one position.

The ladies solo spin in Senior may be a layback/sideways leaning, camel, or sit without change of foot (so not a regular upright).
The ladies solo spin in Junior for 2016-17 may be a layback/sideways leaning or sit (not a camel because flying camel is the prescribed flying spin, and also not a regular upright)


Strangely though,
611, paragraph 4, part e, was revised to say "Ladies -- sit or camel spin without change of foot: minimum of eight (8) revolutions in this position."

That's where it used to describe the requirements for the layback/sideways leaning spin in the SP. Maybe the text they were saying was supposed to be added, rather than replacing the previous text, because layback/sideways leaning spin is still allowed per the other sections.


Per the wording of this chart put out by U.S. Figure Skating a flying camel and camel would have been allowed at both Junior and Senior for this season, and also a regular upright spin would have been allowed as the solo spin. I imagine this will be revised soon.
http://usfigureskating.org/content/2016-17 Singles SP Chart v1 05-20-16.pdf

 

[Aussie Willy]

I disagree. I don't like that change. Both tech panels and skaters/coaches have gotten used to the "2p" and "3p" and now will have to unlearn that. Also, it's a bit confusing that the symbol "V" means something totally different for a flying spin and for a combination spin. (That was the case a couple seasons ago too, when spins with change of foot could get a V1 for not having a basic position on one of the feet, which meant something totally different for a flying spin, but I was glad they got rid of that last season).

I am looking at it from the calling point of view which I do a bit of. And it won't be too difficult to change back.

 

[Meoima]

Comparison of PCS before and after http://ww2.sinaimg.cn/large/005G2DRcgw1f4wj22n393j316o1kwngm.jpg

 

[casken]

I like that they dropped "Execution" from Performance. It was too confusing and linked too often to landing jumps.

The new wording of Transitions clearly puts emphasis on quality over quantity, which is good.

I'm a little concerned that the word "choreography" appears to be gone completely. It's not even a bullet point under Composition, and maybe only kinda referenced in the renamed "Interpretation of the music" mark.

 

[Marco]

I'm a little concerned that the word "choreography" appears to be gone completely. It's not even a bullet point under Composition, and maybe only kinda referenced in the renamed "Interpretation of the music" mark.

It may have got to do with so many people questioning whether that mark was supposed to be rewarding the skater or the choreographer.

 

[gkelly]

Still, "Purpose (idea, concept, vision, mood)" is still the first bullet point, and that covers much of what was considered "Choreography"

 

[Susan M]

It may have got to do with so many people questioning whether that mark was supposed to be rewarding the skater or the choreographer.

I think so. They've gone with just composition but the bullets are mostly the same. The bullets they have discarded here are:

• Proportion (equal weight to all parts)
• Unity - purposeful threading of all movements.

Don't understand why unity (threading of movements) is no longer important, except that it seems maybe a bit more of an ice dance concept. Still, IMO the best pairs choreo does also have a seamlessness (sticking with the sewing metaphor).

I'm not sure what proportion was meant to cover. Was proportion about front loading and empty last minutes, or about not having too many of the jumps in the same corner, or about choreo that spends too much time facing the judges rather that trying to reach the whole audience, or maybe all of the above?
Some of those would still be covered by pattern/ice coverage I guess.

 

[gkelly]

I'm not sure what proportion was meant to cover. Was proportion about front loading and empty last minutes, or about not having too many of the jumps in the same corner, or about choreo that spends too much time facing the judges rather that trying to reach the whole audience, or maybe all of the above?

I think all of the above, and maybe also putting a lot of attention on the jumps or the lifts, for example, and treating the other elements as throwaways, or conversely being especially deficient in one important category of elements. Or, I suppose, being great at elements and being weak in all the components, or vice versa.

 

[Deleted member 19433]

It may have got to do with so many people questioning whether that mark was supposed to be rewarding the skater or the choreographer.

I've never understood that objection. Even if the choreographer is the one who created the concept of the program, you're not judging the concept that's in the choreographer's head, but only the movements the skater actually executes and whether they successfully conveyed that concept. What do those who say the choreography mark doesn't reward the skater propose to do with those criteria (which, as others have mentioned, haven't actually changed that much)? Even though a choreographer may give a skater a "bad" program, a coach can also contribute to development of a skater's "bad" technique, and obviously that still needs to be reflected in the skater's marks.

 

[clairecloutier]

... You're not judging the concept that's in the choreographer's head, but only the movements the skater actually executes and whether they successfully conveyed that concept.

To me, this is covered in the Interpretation score. What is Interpretation, if not how well the skater conveys/fulfills the concept of the choreo?

I'm among those who have never understood the Choreography category. I think the new Composition category is better, but I still question the category's inclusion, as it really still speaks mostly to the choreographer's work, not the skater's. I suppose you could argue that it evaluates the skater's ability to choose a good choreographer and successfully collaborate with him/her to create a good program.

 

[Deleted member 19433]

To me, this is covered in the Interpretation score. What is Interpretation, if not how well the skater conveys/fulfills the concept of the choreo?

I'm among those who have never understood the Choreography category. I think the new Composition category is better, but I still question the category's inclusion, as it really still speaks mostly to the choreographer's work, not the skater's. I suppose you could argue that it evaluates the skater's ability to choose a good choreographer and successfully collaborate with him/her to create a good program.

Yeah, I could've worded it better (and you can see why there's a lot of overlap in the categories and marks are often close together). The skater would have to be at least "close enough" to the timing of the music and conveying the concept for the choreography to be understood, while going beyond that and really conveying it perfectly would result in a better interpretation score. The choreography (now composition) mark should be somewhat consistent across programs if the skater is executing the same movements in the same place in the music and on the ice, whereas the "selling" of it would be reflected in P&E and choreography. But they still have to do that much. If they just don't execute the choreography that's been created then they obviously don't deserve a good mark regardless of how good the concept was in the mind of the choreographer.

Do you think originality should be rewarded or is desirable? That really doesn't seem to me like it would belong with any of the other components, if the composition category were to be eliminated. Where would you put it? I think originality certainly deserves to be rewarded even if the skater didn't actually come up with the idea. Also, as you mention, some skaters choreograph their own programs or are heavily involved in doing so.

 

[gkelly]

To me, this is covered in the Interpretation score. What is Interpretation, if not how well the skater conveys/fulfills the concept of the choreo?

Well, Interpretation applies specifically to interpreting the music. In fact, that has now been explicitly added to the name of the component.

Any aspect of concept to the choreography that goes beyond specific relation to the music would not fit in that category as it was or is defined. I guess you could move the Purpose criterion under Interpretation, with the understanding that whatever the purpose is or how well thought out it is or whose vision it represents, only the skater's ability to interpret and demonstrate that vision on the day counts toward that score, in addition to their ability to interpret the music as music.

I'm among those who have never understood the Choreography category. I think the new Composition category is better, but I still question the category's inclusion, as it really still speaks mostly to the choreographer's work, not the skater's. I suppose you could argue that it evaluates the skater's ability to choose a good choreographer and successfully collaborate with him/her to create a good program.

And also their ability to perform the program as intended. E.g., a skater who is incapable of skating on deep curves with good power (abilities measured under Skating Skills) will also be unable to demonstrate the same level of ice coverage as one who can, regardless of what the choreographer gave them to work with. You could see the difference in that part of that criterion by looking at the same compulsory dance skated by teams at different skill levels.

 

[clairecloutier]

Do you think originality should be rewarded or is desirable? That really doesn't seem to me like it would belong with any of the other components, if the composition category were to be eliminated. Where would you put it? I think originality certainly deserves to be rewarded even if the skater didn't actually come up with the idea. Also, as you mention, some skaters choreograph their own programs or are heavily involved in doing so.

I personally feel that originality is very desirable and should definitely be rewarded. Right now, the right place to reward it is in the new Composition mark. Which is an argument for keeping that mark. I'd say there should and must be some reward for developing a creative, artistically satisfying, and/or innovative program. (Because otherwise, skaters wouldn't be incentivized to do much more than have their coach throw together a bunch of moves in between elements.) So, as I think through it, I suppose that the Composition mark (or something equivalent) needs to stay.

 

[barbarafan]

Comparison of PCS before and after http://ww2.sinaimg.cn/large/005G2DRcgw1f4wj22n393j316o1kwngm.jpg

thanks so much for the breakdown....but do the judges actually read this and apply...This brings back to me the nightmare of Davis/white and performance execution....They are talking before and after about chemistry....Davis and White had none whatsoever and Meryl had zero expression at all ..a blank stare with a pasted on smile....sorta like a dead fish and yet in their last 2 years they were getting 9:00's and 10.00's for this...AS soon as it was decided they were going to be the winning dance team they were given pcs to match all around.

 

[gkelly]

thanks so much for the breakdown....but do the judges actually read this and apply...This brings back to me the nightmare of Davis/white and performance execution....They are talking before and after about chemistry....

Who is talking about chemistry? Before and after what?

Davis and White had none whatsoever and Meryl had zero expression at all ..a blank stare with a pasted on smile....sorta like a dead fish

"Chemistry" is not part of the written criteria now or in the past. It's a very intangible quality and therefore very subjective. Some people may see none where others see some or even a lot.

For any such nebulous criteria that are written into the rules (e.g., "genuine" translation of the music into movement, as discussed above, or the Physical, emotional, intellectual involvement and Individuality/personality criteria under Performance), we would expect disagreement among different observers, affected not only by what the skaters put out on the ice but also by each observer's preexisting mindset toward those skaters. Each judge can only score based on what he or she perceives; it will not always match what a different judge or what various fans perceive.

Some of the criteria are just unavoidably subjective. There will never be a single right answer. But as long as the skating community does value these qualities when seen, they will continue to be included in the rules and rewarded by those who perceive them, and others will just disagree. Expressing that disagreement with insult and hyperbole doesn't make one more correct.

As for "Expression of the music's character/feeling and rhythm," this does not apply only or even primarily to facial expression. Ice dance judges tend to put a lot of emphasis on the quality of the knee action with respect to expressing the musical nuances, whereas freestyle judges may be less attuned to that quality and fans may not think to look for it at all, or may not be able to see it at all depending on camera angles if watching on video.

 

[Theoreticalgirl]

Revise GOEs & whatnot for 2016-2017 is up:

http://static.isu.org/media/338930/2000-sptc-sov-and-goe-2016-2017_revised-after-congress.pdf

 

[mgobluegirl]

I like that they dropped "Execution" from Performance. It was too confusing and linked too often to landing jumps.

I don't like that they've gotten rid of it. I think there should be something in PCS that reflects that the overall impression of the program/the "artistry" is less effective when the program itself, including the jump elements, is not performed well.