Cinquanta Wants to Eliminate Short Programs

Discussion in 'Great Skate Debate' started by reese, Mar 26, 2014.

  1. manhn

    manhn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2002
    Messages:
    9,252
    With all these mandatory deductions, wouldn't the SP become even more important than it already is? It would result in the insurmountable leads we too often see.
     
  2. RFOS

    RFOS Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2007
    Messages:
    2,335
    I think what some WANT is for the SP to be more important, and for it to feel like "do-or-die" like it used to. I don't think it would lead to many more insurmountable leads than we have now, because usually the skaters near the top don't have any completely failed elements so unless other major changes were also implemented, the results would be similar except that skaters with falls or pops or seriously missed elements would have lower scores, and would have to do more in the free skate to come back from their SP misses.

    Hmm, it would be interesting to actually figure out scores for an actual competition under that method and I'll try to do that sometime soon if I get bored. ;)
     
    skateboy and (deleted member) like this.
  3. kwanfan1818

    kwanfan1818 I

    Joined:
    May 24, 2003
    Messages:
    19,640
    I think you're wrong about this: a skater was not supposed to receive a technical ordinal > 6.0 less the mandatory deduction(s).

    And there were judges who've said that they didn't, even if they had given Skater A a 5.9, but thought that Skater B was better. This could have nothing to do with mandatory deductions -- they might have thought the skater slowed down a hair or a Pair went slightly out of synch for one revolution in the SBS spins or the start of the SBS jump -- but was a matter of quality.


    What is unclear about "else?"

    I can't find the full list of deductions for the SP under 6.0/OBO; the bookmarked page I had is resolving to a file not found :( I believe there was a different deduction for missing the combo than for a fall, and this could be an explanation of there wasn't. However, a solo jump out of the same steps with a fast, beautiful entrance, good distance, tight revolutions in the air, rotated, but with a slip on the landing, instead of landing a jump should incur no more than the mandatory jump deduction than the same jump with a good landing, nor should it take less of a hit, because the skater has a reputation.


    If the skater had been landing the jump with same quality or lack thereof throughout the season, the difference, with the same entrance, air position, distance, etc. with a fall has one thing different about it: the fall, which has a mandatory deduction. If the judges wanted to slam the skater for overall impression in the presentation ordinal, they did.

    If the skater bumbled, slipped, came into the jump tentatively or with bad timing, then all else would not have been equal.

    ETA:
    Like Hanyu at Worlds, where Machida's lead might have been insurmountable? (Hanyu still would have been in the last group even without the 4.X points from the 4T<.) Like Ten at the Olympics, who would have been skating in the second group if his quad hadn't received 7.73 points after the fall and wouldn't be the bronze medalist, had he not substituted the quad for a good quality triple?

    The impact of Lipnitskaia's fall in the SP was minimal, since she barely received over a point for the 3F<< with fall.

    Were the skaters to decide that, despite their proven success in landing the harder jumps and combinations that it wasn't worth the risk, they would lessen difficulty to be sure, then the scores would likely be much closer together than they are now, and there wouldn't be more insurmountable leads. If they looked at the stats and decided that their success was worth the risk, or they couldn't afford to be conservative because of what their biggest competition was attempting and landing with success, then there wouldn't be a great impact on difficulty, especially now that so many skaters have leveled the field with spin and step levels and aren't leaving many points on the table.
     
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2014
    Maofan7 and (deleted member) like this.
  4. RFOS

    RFOS Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2007
    Messages:
    2,335
    Once again, there is no such thing as a "technical ordinal > 6.0." A mark like 5.6 or 5.9 or 6.0 is NOT referred to as an ordinal. Those are marks. The ordinals are 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc., and are based on the total of both marks in relation to the totals of the rest of the competition, with the tiebreaker going to one specific mark or the other (required elements/technical elements in the short program).

    Yes, so what? Even if they thought one skater was slightly better on one mark, they didn't necessarily HAVE to give a higher mark. There are only so many marks to use, and judges often ended up giving the same mark on either technical merit/required elements/technical elements or presentation/program components to a bunch of skaters, who may not have been EXACTLY equal on that mark.





    I think there's a lot more ambiguity there than with my statements that a 5.9 or 6.0 is NOT an ordinal, which you still seem to be unclear on. Sorry, but it's frustrating to see such consistent misuse of the term even after I've explained it several times.


    Here is the last ISU communication regarding 6.0 deductions, which is still valid for short program events judged under 6.0 (which are pretty rare these days) http://ww2.isu.org/news/1086.pdf. Falling on the first jump of the combination is the same deduction (0.4) as falling on a solo jump or the axel jump. However, it might result in more than 0.4 hit than what they would've gotten on technical merit had they landed the intended combination. For example, if a Senior Lady was intending to do a 3Lz+3T but fell on the lutz, it wouldn't be fair to give them "base mark credit" for a 3T they didn't execute just because they may have executed that in a past competition. No marks should ever be determined because of a skater's reputation. You'll find no one who feels more strongly about that than me. The mark should be at least 0.4 less than the skater would've gotten had they cleanly executed the combination with the simplest allowable 2nd jump, because assuming they would've done a more difficult 2nd jump would be judging based on reputation.



    Of course the judges should not be thinking about how the skater executed the jump in other competitions throughout the season, but if they were able to be completely consistent then yes the overall required elements/technical elements mark should probably be about and at least 0.4 lower than what it was at other competitions. However, I still think it could be a little bit more in a similar way to how a fall could result in ultimately costing the skater more than 3 "GOE steps" worth of points these days.

    It may well be that the skater usually does a particular jump absolutely beautifully in every phase -- preparation, takeoff, air, and landing-- and frequently gets +3s on it. And perhaps in this competition, the preparation, takeoff, and air position were as beautiful as ever (judging independently of the quality of the past), but the skater for some unknown reason slipped off of the landing. To come up with the "starting GOE" you evaluate all phases of the jump, and I don't think you could ever reasonably start at a +3 for a jump with a fall, because the landing phase was seriously flawed. But even if you could start at a +3, the guidelines say that an element with a fall must be in the negatives so you'd have to reduce by 4 GOE steps to get to a -1. It's very rare to see a jump or any element with a fall get any better than a -2 overall GOE (maybe one of Chan's footwork sequences where he had a fall somewhere in it). Sometimes you do see -2s, but that's usually only if the element really was VERY good in all other phases except the one where the fall occurred. If those jumps had been landed as well as the rest of the phases were executed, you might see a +2 or +3 GOE. So ultimately the fall might have cost them 4 or 5 GOE steps instead of the required 3 just for the fall. But it makes sense that it might only start with a +1 because the landing phase was flawed and you can't necessarily assume that the landing phases would've been as good as the other phases even if the fall hadn't occurred.

    So that's where "else" can be unclear. Because if by "else" you DO assume that the landing phase would've been as good as the other phases, or as good as it was in other competitions, had the fall not occurred then that's arguably judging based on the reputation of the skater (well, it DEFINITELY is in the latter case).
     
  5. gkelly

    gkelly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2003
    Messages:
    10,568
    kwanfan1818, I think I understand what you're trying to say but you're confusing the intended meaning by completely misusing the word ordinal. If you forgo misusing that word and make your argument with words whose meanings are clearer, we'll avoid some of the confusion.

    Ordinal numbers are 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 24th, millionth -- rankings, not scores.

    or·di·nal [awr-dn-uhl] adjective...2. of or pertaining to order, rank, or position in a series.

    Every time you want to use the word "ordinal" ask yourself whether you could substitute the word "ranking" in its place. If not, "ordinal" is not the word you mean.

    6.0 or 5.9 or 3.5 is not an ordinal. Those are cardinal numbers
    In skating scoring terms, they were scores or marks

    There's no such thing as a "technical ordinal" or "base ordinal"
    There were technical scores or base scores, technical marks or base marks.

    No scoring system that has actually been used in skating has ever attempted to rank skaters separately on technical merit and presentation.
    The two scores that each judge gave a skater for a program only served the purpose of keeping track of that judge's rankings while the event was in progress, with some rough correspondence to skill level and general balance of strengths/weaknesses between technical content and presentation.

    (Yes, the approximately nature of the base marks combined with the absolute nature of deductions did present a paradox.)
    (School figures scoring is another issue; judges never gave more than one mark per figure.)

    And, just to clarify, the way the word "ordinal" has been used in skating, it never referred to a skater's overall placement or ranking in one phase of the event, but only to the rankings of each individual judge.

    So, for example, if we say "Susie came in 5th in the short program," we're talking about her short program placement.

    If we say "Three judges had Susie 3rd in the short program, the other six had her 6th or lower, and she ended up 5th," then "3rd" and "6th or lower" in that sentence are referring to ordinals. The "5th" refers to her overall placement.

    After 1980, calculations of overall results used factored placements to combine standings from the various phases of the competition.

    Placements are ordinal numbers (they have suffixes -st, -nd, -rd, -th), but they're not "ordinals" in the traditional skating usage of the term.

    Note how this explanation of 6.0 scoring does and doesn't use the word "ordinal."

    BTW, 6.0 scores are still used at lower levels in the US. In most cases, these events used closed marking, so the skaters never get to see the actual scores that the judges used to keep track of their rankings -- all that gets posted publicly are the ordinals.

    Since these levels only have one program, there's no discussion of factored placements in this explanation. We could find an older explanation that does go into it.

    Now, back to the regularly scheduled discussion of what kinds of failed elements should get no credit in short programs...
     
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2014
    Maofan7 and (deleted member) like this.
  6. kwanfan1818

    kwanfan1818 I

    Joined:
    May 24, 2003
    Messages:
    19,640
    Yes, you are right: I was using the word "ordinals" for the cardinal scores, 5.7, 5.2. I referred to these cardinals in all of my examples, but I used the wrong terminology.

    Is it true or false that in the SP, the final technical cardinal score in the SP was not supposed to equal more than 6.0 less the total of required deductions?
     
  7. gkelly

    gkelly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2003
    Messages:
    10,568
    Yes, that is true, and yes, occasionally that principle seemed to be violated.
     
  8. Susan M

    Susan M Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2004
    Messages:
    1,470
    While you are right to point out that the term "ordinal" refers to the placement not the point score, you are perpetuating a great fallacy to say today's Program Components equate to the old Presentation mark. In fact, the things scored under Skating Skills and Transitions would largely have been considered in giving the Technical marks under 6.0. The traditional "Presentation" qualities are hugely less valued under the current judging system and in some cases are missing altogether from the PCS guidance.

    I don't think it is correct to say "violated" because that somehow implies knowing and willful misconduct on those judges' part. Under the 6.0 system, judges tended to give the benefit of the doubt to the skater. If they did not see a thing clearly enough to be sure they should take the deduction, they let it go. This was esp true of slight errors like second foot toepick brush on jump landings, the slight lip or flutz that's almost a flat, and under-rotations that were not real obvious. Unlike today's callers (or even TV viewers then, with slo-mo close up replays) the judges were working in real time with the naked eye.

    One famous example comes from the 94 Olympic ladies short program where one of Baiul's jumps was landed with the toe-pick touch. The seven judges sitting nearest to the jump saw it and took the deduction, the two on the far end were not sure, so they did not take the deduction.

    Also, for most errors, there was a range given for the deductions. In the case of 2-footed landings it could be as much as -.3 if the skater stepped out of a jump to as little as -.1 for the toepick brush. It was pretty rare that one could say definitively that a .1 deduction was not taken. (Also, we need to remember the specified deductions applied only in the SP. The Tech mark in the FS was more of an over all assessment.)

    As mentioned above, all skaters did not work from a 6.0 starting point in the SP Required Elements score. Before quads were allowed in the SP, men pretty much had to do 3A-3T, 3Lz, 2A to begin at 6.0. For ladies it was 3Lz-2T, 3F or 3L, 2A. Those who used other combinations (even 3T-3T) were not going to score as well because the judges really wanted to see that triple Lutz.
     
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2014
    Maofan7 and (deleted member) like this.
  9. RFOS

    RFOS Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2007
    Messages:
    2,335
    The way I was using the term "program components" in that sentence was for the actual name of the "2nd mark" now under 6.0 in the U.S. Figure Skating rulebook, when the 6.0 system is still used. Its name was changed from "Presentation" to "Program Components" several years ago and the description changed to match the Program Components criteria under IJS.

    However, you're right that SOME aspects of skating skills and transitions were considered under the required elements/technical merit mark also, in establishing the "base mark." In fact, even now, some aspects that also fall under program components are listed as criteria for the "first mark" even though it is called "technical elements." Namely, speed and difficulty of transitions. Personally, I don't think that makes sense if the mark is called "technical elements" (except to the degree that speed and transitions enhance the execution of the elements) and I wish they would change it to match the name of the mark. So those are now considered in BOTH marks under 6.0 and I think they probably would have been previously under 6.0 also. I know that "flow and effortless glide" was for sure a listed criterion under the presentation mark under the old 6.0 system when I first was learning about judging, and that falls under skating skills now.

    See http://www.usfigureskating.org/content/2013-14 Rulebook For Printer 10-31-13.pdf (starting with rule 4910 on page 157) for the current 6.0 judging guidelines.

    True. Technically, ISU Communication 1086 linked earlier also says the deductions are "guidelines" for judges.

    Interesting, where did you hear that? The marks seem to support that if judges 1 and 2 were been the ones on the "far end" since those 2 judges had her required elements mark equal to or higher than Nancy Kerrigan's while the other 7 judges gave Oksana the lower required elements mark.

    http://winter-olympic-memories.com/html/results/jp_3d/17_lillehammer/17_figure/17_figure_w_ex.htm


    Yep, that is a good example of where a variety of errors that might be described the same way (as a "2-footed landing") could mean anything from a quite minor error to a very serious one.


    That is mostly true. There were no specified deductions for errors on jumps in the free skate but there were for well-balanced program violations (and time or music or costume violations, etc.) and also there often were for being short revolutions in spins (generally only 0.1). However, in the rulebook sections linked above that is no longer a specified deduction, it only says that it must be considered in the technical elements mark.

    It was possible and legal for a skater to do both a 3T+3T and a 3Lz in the SP, as for example Krisztina Czako did at 1997 Worlds.

    However, when a skater did 3T+3T and an easier solo jump, like Bonaly with a 3S in 1998 it did seem to be looked upon as easier and result in much lower marks than say 3Lz+2T and 3F (under IJS the two layouts are almost equal in base value, with the latter worth just a hair more, 4.1+4.1+4.2=12.4 for the former and 6.0+1.3+5.3=12.6 for 3Lz+2T and 3F. The 3Lz+2T and 3T that Kwan did would have a lower jump base value, 6.0+1.3+4.1=11.4). Kwan's marks didn't seem to suffer much for doing the 3T as the solo jump, since most of her required elements marks were 5.8s and only one was below 5.7. So it does seem like the presence of a lutz MAY have been the especially important thing when evaluating the difficulty and determining the "base mark" for Senior Ladies SPs in that era, at least for many judges. (The French judge didn't seem to mind Bonaly's lack of a lutz :shuffle: and in fact gave her a higher required elements mark than Kwan by 0.1, while most of the other judges had Kwan about 0.5 higher).
     
  10. essence_of_soy

    essence_of_soy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2003
    Messages:
    2,572
    I miss the 1980s version of the short program. Even with mostly identical elements, it was good to compare skaters against each other in terms of their overall quality. Everything hinged on the jump combination as it often decided how skaters who skated a clean short program were ranked.
     
    Maofan7 and (deleted member) like this.
  11. N_Halifax

    N_Halifax Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2013
    Messages:
    727
    Maofan7 and (deleted member) like this.
  12. RFOS

    RFOS Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2007
    Messages:
    2,335
    How would you propose such rules to fit skaters today? How much would you restrict the difficulty of what top skaters could do?

    Under IJS, if most of the required elements were exactly the same and ones that all skaters could do then you probably wouldn't get much separation in points.under IJS. So the quality of the elements, including jump combination, might determine the ranking of the short program but now that the ranking itself doesn't matter (except in terms of seeding for the free skate) I think that would effectively diminish the importance of the short program in terms of its effect on the overall results.
     
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2014
  13. bardtoob

    bardtoob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    7,954
    If anything, the SP should be reformed to consist of:

    - 1 Basic sit spin with required rotations
    - 1 Basic camel spin with required rotations
    - 1 Basic upright, sideways, or layback spin with free leg away from the core and required rotations
    - 1 Strict Pattern Step Sequence (Straight Line, Circular, or Serpentine)
    - 1 Spiral Sequence or additional strict pattern steps sequence
    - 1 Jump in combination with a loop jump
    - 1 Jump from preceding steps
    - 1 Solo Jump
    - 3 Jump passes total with one jump being an Axel, and the Axel jump can be used to meet the solo, preceding steps, or combination requirement.

    The program elements are not to have levels, but only is judged on GOEs, with the GOEs having smaller increments than 1, such as 0.10 or 0.25, so that a skater can received 2.75 or 1.90 GOEs for an element.
     
  14. skatesindreams

    skatesindreams Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2002
    Messages:
    13,883
    Skaters should be judged on how well they do what they select/choose; rather than doing sloppy elements to ramp point totals.
     
  15. N_Halifax

    N_Halifax Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2013
    Messages:
    727
    YES @ basic spin positions! Agreed 100% on this one.
     
  16. RFOS

    RFOS Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2007
    Messages:
    2,335
    Here are you using the term basic "basic" to mean with no variations, or in the sense that it is used in IJS Technical Panel speak? If the former, that would get pretty boring if they weren't even allowed if the skater could do them well. Even before spins really seemed to matter very much in the marks (i.e., mainly before IJS) skaters would often do slight variations that at least made things a little more interesting and gave their own touch to the spin.

    In case you weren't referring to the IJS Technical Panel speak usage of the term "basic" and aren't aware of that use of the term, I'll explain. It is somewhat confusing. A "basic sit" position means a position with the skating leg bent such that the thigh is at or below parallel, and may or may not include up to 3 different types of difficult variations (as well as many possibilities of simple variations). Likewise, a "basic camel" position is a position with the free leg extended behind the skater's body with the free knee higher than hip level, and may or may not include multiple difficult or simple variations. A "basic upright" is any spin with the skating leg straight or *slightly* bent that is not a camel spin, and a layback or sideways leaning spin is a specific category of basic upright that is distinguished from other types of basic upright spins because it is a specific requirement in the Ladies SP at the novice through senior levels.

    In summary, any "basic" position can have no variations, simple variations, or difficult variations. "Basic" means it fulfills the definitions above. If a skater attempts a sit spin but doesn't get low enough, it would be said that he or she didn't achieve a basic sit position (and if it happened in a spin with only one position at the elite levels, the spin would receive no points). Looking back at pre-IJS spins, it's amazing (or appalling) how many spins would have received no points under today's rules.

    Any position that does not fulfill the definition of one of the basic positions (sit, camel, or upright/layback) is called a "non-basic position." This does not necessarily mean it's difficult-- it could just be a really bad attempted sit position with no variations, for example. A skater can get a maximum of one feature per program in a combination spin for executing a difficult variation of a non-basic position, which counts toward the level of that spin. Otherwise, non-basic positions are generally undesirable. But difficult variations of basic positions are good (if the skater can do them at least adequately). :p
     
  17. VIETgrlTerifa

    VIETgrlTerifa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2003
    Messages:
    10,040
    I think what some people want is for the SP to be all about execution rather than difficulty. I was hoping that having the SPs be about judging the execution of similarly-difficult elements in an entire field may force programs to go back to simplicity and separate those who have strong "basics" vs. those who don't. Then the LP can be all about level 4 elements the way it is now.
     
  18. kwanfan1818

    kwanfan1818 I

    Joined:
    May 24, 2003
    Messages:
    19,640
    I think the SP should be about executing the required elements, with no credit given for missed elements. That is agnostic towards difficulty or content.
     
  19. skateboy

    skateboy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Messages:
    4,258
    I kind of agree with this but, with jumps, shouldn't there be a difference between a triple popped into a single and a rotated jump with a fall?

    OTOH, it certainly would up the ante if the rules were "do it correctly or get nothing for it."
     
    Maofan7 and (deleted member) like this.
  20. VIETgrlTerifa

    VIETgrlTerifa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2003
    Messages:
    10,040
    How troubling is it that it may mean that skaters stop attempting 3/3s in the SP? I know some people found 3/3s to be exciting, but I really don't mind making the SP more compulsory even if we run the danger of having someone who is only capable of doing 3 different triples making it into the final group. Maybe with the higher potential of skaters who are capable of more difficulty failing to make the final group, the judges will sort of stop holding off on high PCS until the final group.

    Of course the PCS problem is due to many other factors (like how although it's not meant to be a comparative system, there's no way to really give a certain mark unless you do compare skaters).
     
  21. RFOS

    RFOS Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2007
    Messages:
    2,335
    It's not a bad idea in theory, but if the current IJS was used to judge the SPs like that, if skaters couldn't get higher levels on spins or add in jump difficulty that would separate them from the pack, then the point separation even across the whole field would be greatly reduced. Such a system of requiring similar, relatively simple elements did allow for separation when the placements in each segment mattered in themselves (in fact, for quite some time they were all that ultimately mattered, with the factored placements of the segments completely determining the final result).

    I worry a little bit that there might be a tendency to artificially create separation by inflating marks for top contenders and/or those with a reputation.

    Unless the SP had a different method of judging, changing the SP at this point to that type of format would make the SP less important than it is now relative to the free skate in terms of the overall results, which isn't something that's desirable when you have the ISU President saying that even now the SP isn't important. And if the SP had a different method of judging to create more separation then that would be quite confusing, and there are already also frequent comments/complaints that the judging system is complicated as it is.

    ETA and with regards to your newest post, I do agree that not allowing skaters to execute difficulty they are capable of in the SP would make it much less exciting. Changing the format to allow for less exciting technical content and so it matters less in the final results seems counterproductive when we're fighting against it being eliminated.
     
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2014
    Maofan7 and (deleted member) like this.
  22. Visaliakid

    Visaliakid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Messages:
    3,309
    Petitioning ISU Figure Skating Federations and Associations
    Reject ISU President Ottavio Cinquanta's Figure Skating Proposals for the 2014 ISU Congress.

    Sign the petition at Change.org and email a copy of the link or entire petition to your Federation/Association email address among the list of ISU Member Nations at the petition bottom.
     
    Vash01, lmarie086, Maofan7 and 3 others like this.
  23. VIETgrlTerifa

    VIETgrlTerifa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2003
    Messages:
    10,040
    I think those are very fair points. I guess I don't mind if we see like 12 clean SPs and seeing minimal point differences based on nitpicky things. It may create more debate, but if the skaters are close enough in points after the SP, then I don't see what the real problem is.

    Of course, we will run into the problem if "lesser" skaters making it to the final flight, but I don't mind if a skater skates lights out in the second-to-last group and receiving astronomical scores, if they deserve it.

    As for the judges finding arbitrary things to separate the skaters with reputation and skaters without, I'd argue it's happening already.
     
  24. bardtoob

    bardtoob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    7,954
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXiHaW4c8Is

    Here is model except it includes a combo spin per those old requirements.

    Pre-IJS definitions, when the technical committee knew how to describe skating .... mmm ... technically.

    This conjures memories of those ISU communications that defined a spiral using words like "regular", which were meaningless.
     
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2014
    Maofan7 and (deleted member) like this.
  25. RFOS

    RFOS Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2007
    Messages:
    2,335
    Most of that program was very good but :lol: at the footwork with about 14 full turns counterclockwise and only a half turn clockwise, and pretty much ALL 3-turns and mohawks. It was very well-executed but I find it interesting that figure required skaters to be able to execute every type of turn in every direction to very exacting standards, but that that wasn't expected AT ALL in free skating. I guess that's one of many contributing factors as to why there was such little correlation between figures and free skating placements. Her combination spin was truly exceptional for the era but even she didn't hit what would be considered a "basic" sit position on the back sit (I'd still give it a +2 under today's rules and standards though).
     
  26. gkelly

    gkelly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2003
    Messages:
    10,568
    So are there three spins, each in one basic position?

    What is it you want to measure here?

    Only the ability to spin in those three positions, all other spin skills are forbidden?

    What about flying entry? What about change of foot? Would it be allowed to do all three spins as forward spins and never any backspin?

    Or should the rules be something like three spins, one in each basic position, one of them should fly, one should change feet, and the other should do neither?

    What about the ability to change position during the spin (combination spin)?

    Must the position be standard plain vanilla no variations at all allowed? Not even arm variations, or slight variations of the back position, hip angle, etc., that different body types might need to meet the definition of the basic position? How specifically would you define the required position?

    Or define it broadly enough, allow variations that maintain the general definition of the position, but give no reward in the base mark for "difficult" variationsor other features -- no higher levels. The spin either meets the requirements or it doesn't, and judges are supposed to reward only how well it is done, not consider any added difficulty?

    What is being measured here? The ability to adhere to a pattern and nothing else?
    Can judges reward the difficulty in the steps in their GOEs, and in the Skating Skills component? Should specific steps and turns be required and it's up to the skaters to execute those steps and turns in a strict pattern? How straight does a straight-line sequence have to be? Are deep curves symmetrically around a clear long axis OK, or only very shallow curves and flats allowed?

    How about the spirals? Do you want to require a 1990s-style spiral sequence for women and a second step sequence for men, or do both genders have the option of either a spiral sequence or second step sequence? What qualifies a spiral sequence as a spiral sequence -- 1990s rules or can it be as unrigorous as the current ladies' LP choreo sequence?[/quote]

    What options do skaters have of how many revolutions to do in each jump? Same as today?
    The second jump in the combo needs to be double or triple loop? Or could double loop-triple toe (or triple loop-double toe) meet that requirement?



    That's still possible in the ladies' event. Aside from the double axel, there are only three other jumps in the program. If they're all triples (3T+3T and one other triple), or two harder triples (3Lz+2T and 3F), a skater who goes clean and is strong in other elements and PCS could make the final group now by doing the triples she can do in her short program. In the free skate, it might become apparent that she doesn't have the other triples.
     
  27. bardtoob

    bardtoob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    7,954
    Those are good questions, gkelly, and not ones I can answer, not because they are difficult but because I was brainstorming, not masterminding the whole thing.

    ... but I do prefer how Debbie and Midori handled the 2Lp requirement, as opposed to Poetzche.
     
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2014
  28. matti

    matti Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2003
    Messages:
    378
    Yes, SP should include only basic spins and double jumps, but judged strictly for cleanliness and virtuosity. Step sequences should either be exactly the same for everybody or at least have several key points that all skaters would do (for example rockers and threes one year, counters and brackets the next).
     
  29. N_Halifax

    N_Halifax Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2013
    Messages:
    727
    Great job on the petition Peter! Please take the time to sign and share!
     
  30. Hanna

    Hanna Wheeeeeeeeeee

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    16,204
    I was just wondering... is there a chance that Speedy's proposals are actually going to be taken seriously at the Congress? So far I've been under the impression that these are just his ideas but there's no proof that anyone else with decision making power concurs.