Has IJS made the short program redundant?

Discussion in 'The Trash Can' started by essence_of_soy, Sep 17, 2012.

  1. essence_of_soy

    essence_of_soy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2003
    Messages:
    2,487
    With the elimination of the preliminary round at worlds, skaters will qualify also on the basis of a minimum TES.

    Since the free skate is essentially an extended short program with required elements to be completed as well, is the short program really necessary any more to determine the best overall skater?
  2. VIETgrlTerifa

    VIETgrlTerifa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2003
    Messages:
    9,938
    That's what I'm wondering. Wasn't the purpose of the SP (other than trying to make skating more tv-friendly and give Janet Lynn a chance to win a title to which she botched) to allow judges to evaluate skaters on a set list of skills that they were forced to adhere to whereas the LP portion was a lot more varied with what the skaters presented (thus allowing them to hide their weaknesses better and show up their strengths)?

    With COP, I just feel like the SP is very redundant since the LP really is just an extended version of it except with more combination jumps. Maybe the ISU can think of a way to differentiate the SP from the LP a bit more.
  3. briancoogaert

    briancoogaert Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2003
    Messages:
    12,385
    I don't like the SP as it is now.
    You can miss the combo, and still be in 1st place. So, it's not a SP with required elements anymore.
    I don't know how to change it, but for example, if you miss any of the required elements, you get 0 for it !
  4. VIETgrlTerifa

    VIETgrlTerifa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2003
    Messages:
    9,938
    Yes, making a mistake on a REQUIRED ELEMENT should have much harsher penalties in the SP. I miss the drama that came from skaters knowing that they had to hit all their elements.
  5. kwanfan1818

    kwanfan1818 I

    Joined:
    May 24, 2003
    Messages:
    19,361
    The "well-balanced" rules for the FS were in place before CoP. What CoP doesn't do is allow the judges to dump a skater for missing an element, which was never applied equally.

    I agree that penalties should be harsher in the SP. I've written before that I think any missed element (including a fall), should get 0. (A 2/2 combo would be a missed element, for example. Flawed elements should be credited.) Practically speaking, for the most part, with -3 GOE, skaters net little for them now until they're in the 3Lo-quad range.
  6. Marco

    Marco Missing Ziggy

    Joined:
    May 9, 2002
    Messages:
    11,239
    Yes, in essence you get more time to do 4 or 5 more jumps and an extra sequence in singles, or more jumps and lifts in pairs. Because elements are marked individually and there are so many rules to follow, a long program has basically lost the element of freedom which had previously encouraged creativity. Everyone repeats the same spins over both programs.

    I would like ISU to extend the current junior practice of prescribing a jump and/or a spin in the short program to seniors, and also relax some long program rules. Such as:

    in the short program:

    - the 2 solo jumping passes should both be preceded by footwork / transitions and should be one edge jump and one toe jump (compulsory axel requirement should be eliminated)
    - there should be one prescribed double/ triple jump each season
    - the position of the solo spin / flying spin should be prescribed and perhaps changed every season (like in Juniors)
    - the entry of the flying spin should be prescribed and perhaps changed every season
    - prescribed footwork pattern (circular or serpentine or straight line)

    in the long program:

    - no more compulsory axel requirement but there must overall be 2 types of toe jump takeoffs and edge jump takeoffs, otherwise there is a deduction
    - for each additional takeoff without "e" call, there can be a bonus
    - for each additional takeoff with 3 revs and above, there can be another bonus

    etc...
  7. Karpenko

    Karpenko Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    9,083
    Maybe make the SP more of a compulsory program, with two or three of the required elements actually being "required" and the GOE will be the difference on those elements as opposed to a level. Like maybe have something like, a required level 2 or level 1 spin with a certain position that has to be attained or something along those lines. Short program now should be more about quality over difficulty you can squeeze in that time frame within the guidelines. It would make the SP "make or break" the skater again because it will be about the quality of the elements in the program instead of half-arsed difficulty that will still score well because its difficult.
  8. johndockley92

    johndockley92 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2011
    Messages:
    474

    Perhaps not these specific changes, but something in this direction sounds intriguing.
  9. gkelly

    gkelly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2003
    Messages:
    10,493
    Oh, it was possible to miss the combo and still be in 1st place under 6.0 as well. It all depended what the other skaters did.

    Define "miss." :)

    Under 6.0, there were required deductions for errors of varying severity. So a severe error or leaving out an element entirely would lose more points than a less severe error. And yet, in casual parlance, we might say that the element with only a moderate error (e.g., stepping out of a jump landing) was "missed."

    But what did they lose points from? Each judge set a base mark for each skater in their minds, the score they would have given that skater for the whole program if skated as intended, and then subtracted the deductions from there. So more difficulty and/or better overall quality on the other elements and the in-between skating could easily make up for one missed element.

    I believe (although I was not following skating closely at the time) that, in the 1970s-80s, the deduction for complete failure on the jump combination was as high as 0.7, so missing that particular element would indeed make it very unlikely for the skater who missed it to come out ahead of skaters who skated clean or missed only one "lesser" element, unless there was a considerable gap in overall skill level.

    But by the early 90s the maximum deduction for any failed element was 0.5, and then by mid-90s the maximum deduction was 0.4 (0.5 for complete omission). So by then it was no more costly to miss the combination than to miss any other jump element, or to completely miss a spin.

    I think the reasoning was that the overall quality of the skating and of all the elements should have more impact than the success or failure of one element. And this was at least a decade before IJS.

    I could live with something along these lines.

    I'm sure a lot of the reasons for the current long program rules are to simplify the computer programming.

    And if there's a required jump in the short program each year, then some years it would be the axel?
  10. VIETgrlTerifa

    VIETgrlTerifa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2003
    Messages:
    9,938
    Yeah, but a 0.4-0.7 deduction under 6.0 is a much bigger than under COP, not to mention more is at stake with factored placements making it much more difficult to move up from a bad SP.
  11. briancoogaert

    briancoogaert Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2003
    Messages:
    12,385
    The thing is that I wouldn't give credit for a Double jump, if the required element is a Triple.
    And of course, it's not a missed element, but the example I have in mind that I didn't like was 2005 Worlds SP, where Michelle Kwan placed in 3rd behind two skaters who made mistakes ! LOL.
    Under 6.0, I'm sure such mistakes would have cost the 1st and 2nd places.
    I guess it's just because I'm a MK Fan, and that I'm spiteful !!! ;)
  12. Vash01

    Vash01 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2001
    Messages:
    25,108
    Exactly. SP used to be a do or die part of the competition. Fall on a jump in the SP and usually it took you out of medal contention, under 6.0. Now skaters can fall, make other mistakes, and still come up on top. It's meaningless, the way it is now. Now a short program is just that- a program that is shorter than the long program.:lol:
  13. caseyedwards

    caseyedwards Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2009
    Messages:
    6,345
    It was sometimes called the technical program and they should dramatically cut the factor of PCS to make it more technical. Now people can mistake mistakes on elements and it can be wiped out by continued high PCS. It was true that that was the case with 6.0 too but as was mentioned the deductions from 6.0 were far more severe.
  14. aliceanne

    aliceanne Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2010
    Messages:
    2,147
    I think the short program is more tv friendly for casual fans. If you don't know the difference between the different jumps the long program can seem very tedious and repetitious, and 4 minutes can seem a long time. I've had more than one casual fan ask me, "When is he going to stop skating?'.
  15. Macassar88

    Macassar88 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2010
    Messages:
    1,824
    I personally would like it if they had prescribed elements (like the solo jump must be a certain one that changes every year and the spins change)
  16. Vash01

    Vash01 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2001
    Messages:
    25,108
    ITA. It's a bigger penalty if you look at the fraction. Under COP a skater like Chan (for example) is able to overcome a couple of major mistakes on required elements by getting very high PCS. Occasionally we saw something like this in 6.0 but it was rare compared to what we are seeing under COP.

    The same jump by every skater? That would never work because it would severely limit skaters that can do more difficult jumps (quads in men, or lutz in women) than those who cannot. It will take away the competitive advantage.
  17. demetriosj

    demetriosj Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    1,064
  18. Macassar88

    Macassar88 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2010
    Messages:
    1,824
    Not really because you can either do a double, triple or quad. They do it in juniors.
    Another thing would be to double deductions in GOE.
  19. Rock2

    Rock2 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2008
    Messages:
    1,855
    I don't mind some specifics like that. I also like the toggle between loop and toe lop combos each year.

    Overall make SP higher pressure by making every element worth 1.5 more than it is on LP. So overall scores go up and a poor skate can leave you too far behind going into the LP.

    Creates more drama in the SP which has been missing.
  20. gkelly

    gkelly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2003
    Messages:
    10,493
    You'd have to argue against other fans who think the winner of the freeskate should be the overall winner unless they really bombed the short and hate it when one skater builds up such a big lead that s/he can afford to bomb the long and still win.

    What you're suggesting is exactly the opposite and would lead to more such situations.
  21. kwanfan1818

    kwanfan1818 I

    Joined:
    May 24, 2003
    Messages:
    19,361
    A presentation score of 5.9 with a technical score of 5.6 -- as if that skater would have ever received a 6.0 in tech if s/he had landed that combination or triple jump, which is what the starting score would have been to cover a -.4 deduction -- would trump a 5.7/5.7, a 5.8/5.6, a 5.9/5.5, and a 5.6 and anything but a 6.0 in pre.

    Since the scores in 6.0 were treated equally except in tie-breakers, the judges could use a pre or tech score to change the relative balance between tech and free.
  22. Coco

    Coco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2002
    Messages:
    10,582
    I think sometimes we view the past with rose colored glasses. I can remember plenty of lackluster SPs under 6.0 that ended up on the podium.

    I *love* that you can roar back from 8th place to 1st if you earn it. That's exciting!

    But I do wish ISU would take advantage of the SP to require things like:

    * flying sit spin in the basic position for 8 revs, no variations
    * the skater must show both a backwards edge takeoff and a backwards toe supported take off (2nd jump in the combo doesn't count); OR
    * make the 2nd jump in a combination an edge jump

    The basic sit spin position is sometimes harder to maintain than the difficult variation position, which is only harder to get into. And edge jumps are so tricky under pressure - what better way to see who's mastered the technique of this sport than to require backwards edge jumps in the SP? This would keep things a bit closer, not to mention reward those who master the 3loop!
    jamesy and (deleted member) like this.
  23. attyfan

    attyfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    Messages:
    7,420
    I think that the SP could be used to emphasize the more elegant, but less complicated moves. Maybe, limiting everyone to level one on the non-jump elements would encourage this. I would also penalize mistakes much more heavily in the SP ... if you can't do the jump perfectly, do a different one. The idea is that, in the SP, the skater needs to go for simple perfection; in the FS, where there is time to recover from mistakes, a skater can go for more difficulty.
  24. VIETgrlTerifa

    VIETgrlTerifa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2003
    Messages:
    9,938
    One thing I do love about COP is that it does reward skaters who are close enough to one another in points to win the competition after the SP, but I do think more emphasis should be put on executing required elements properly and maybe standardizing the elements to make it stand out from the LP.
  25. Seerek

    Seerek Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2002
    Messages:
    3,436
    Exactly prescribed jump and spin elements would be my recommendations for the short program - you will likely see many singles skaters struggle if the combination requires a double loop (as a minimum)

    With prescribed content in the short program, it would likely come down to positive GOE as the margins by which the placements are to be determined.
  26. briancoogaert

    briancoogaert Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2003
    Messages:
    12,385
    I would love to see a required triple jump in the SP by year. For example, 3Loop for everyone, and if you can't do it, then do a 2Loop !
  27. Macassar88

    Macassar88 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2010
    Messages:
    1,824
    This is what I mean! So you can do a single, double, triple, quad etc and that's how you get your advantage. And for lutz/flip jumps, if you have an e call you don't get credit for the jump.
    It would definitely go a long way toward forcing skaters to have good edges.
  28. gkelly

    gkelly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2003
    Messages:
    10,493
    Would it be required double, triple, or quad at senior level (quads for ladies too?), or would single jumps be legal and not require -3 GOE?

    So it would be more valuable to do a 1Lz with a correct takeoff and possible +2 or +3 GOE (not that it's worth many points for singles) than to do 3Lz with an edge call?

    I think the tech panels would have to go with the benefit of doubt on the calls -- only call it if there's a clear blatant change, not if it's just "unclear" -- but let the judges take -GOE if the edge is suspicious to them.
  29. Ziggy

    Ziggy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2002
    Messages:
    20,569
    No, IJS has not made the short program redundant.

    For a number of reasons (technical requirements which don't exist in the FS, harsher penalties for mistakes, a big TES lead for skaters doing harder jumps like 3a and quads, etc.).

    They are different.
  30. Macassar88

    Macassar88 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2010
    Messages:
    1,824
    Maybe unclear edge would be -3 GOE and a clear edge change would be 0 points. And I personally think that it's a matter of risk. If you can't do a triple lutz with a good edge, then don't do it.
  31. kwanfan1818

    kwanfan1818 I

    Joined:
    May 24, 2003
    Messages:
    19,361
    What I dislike about choosing a specific jump in the SP is that even if it is cyclical, it gives skaters a distinct advantage or disadvantage in the Olympic year.

    There's certainly a precedent for it in dance, either back in the day of the CD and OD and now in the SD, but in the OD/SD, there's either a workaround in stretching the definitions of genre or the non CD half of the SD, which in the SP, it not only directs one of the jump elements, it also impacts the jump combination, since the same jump can't be used for the combo and solo jump.
  32. manhn

    manhn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2002
    Messages:
    9,175
    I could see the politics already if ISU ever insituted a specific type of jump in the SP. I'm sure everyone would be just peachy keen if the ISU selected the lutz as the required singles jump in the pairs during the Olympic season.
  33. kwanfan1818

    kwanfan1818 I

    Joined:
    May 24, 2003
    Messages:
    19,361
    Look at what happened in the 2006 Olympic cycle in Pairs: the year before the Olympics, the ISU changed the jump rules, and Zhang ruptured his Achilles tendon in trying to learn/re-learn a jump to meet the requirements.
  34. gkelly

    gkelly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2003
    Messages:
    10,493
    IF they were going to do this, including no credit for edge calls, I would suggest phasing it in.

    Maybe start with juniors where many of the skaters are doing doubles of the required solo jump anyway, just add the incentive to get the edge right, even if it means planning a single or double jump -- it's more important to show the edge than the rotation.

    After a few years, so that lutz and flip have both come around the rotation in juniors at least once, then you could put the requirements into the senior SP as well -- many of the competing seniors would have lived through the penalties in juniors and fixed the technique if they're able or focused on strategies using the double jump and more points elsewhere to compensate if they're physically unable to do a true triple lutz (or flip, as the case may be).

    But definitely allow doubles as a legal option if you're going to prescribe the takeoff.

    OR, if they want to start with seniors, still give enough notice that skaters wouldn't be caught unprepared especially in an Olympic year.

    E.g., make the rotation salchow in 2015, loop in 2016, flip 2017, lutz 2018. Skaters would know four years in advance that they'll get no credit for a flutz in the short program in 2018 and will plan their training accordingly.
    mag and (deleted member) like this.
  35. bardtoob

    bardtoob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    7,870
    Perhaps. I do think the application of the IJS to the SP did not respect the intended purpose of the SP, which was to restrict the technical quantity of freeskating so that the judging could focus of the technical quality of freeskating.
  36. gkelly

    gkelly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2003
    Messages:
    10,493
    But IJS didn't make the short program any less restricted than it was as of 2003.

    What it did was make the long program more restricted. I.e., less accurate to call it the "free program."
  37. bardtoob

    bardtoob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    7,870
    ^ I agree, the freeskate is prescripted, both by the balanced program criteria and the tendency to maximize TES base values when constructing a program.

    However, I was speaking to the significant lead that can be built in the SP based on the technical difficulty although the SP was originally supposed to measure quality.
  38. misskarne

    misskarne Spirit. Focus. Ability. Tenacity. Aussie Grit.

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,489
    I do wonder about the specified jump thing. In Juniors they have specified jumps/jump combos. This year is a solo double or triple flip, I think. So why couldn't they do that at Seniors?

    The "balanced program" criteria is being made redundant by the emphasis on backloading. I've seen people praising a 2-6 program to the hilt and calling it wonderful - but that's hardly a "well-balanced program", is it?
  39. VIETgrlTerifa

    VIETgrlTerifa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2003
    Messages:
    9,938
    It's not, but it's preferable to front-loading because in theory it's more difficult although it's not necessarily more aesthetically-pleasing.
  40. AxelAnnie

    AxelAnnie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2002
    Messages:
    5,684
    Well, I am not a particular MK fan, and I agree with you. The tension and drama of the short program was in the fact that you HAD to COMPLETE the elements. I miss that part.