Discussion in 'The Trash Can' started by essence_of_soy, Jul 14, 2011.
Can we limit pairs to 1 lift that includes a blade grab?
i wish it were up to me in my dream world LOL i personally don't find blade grabs in lifts attractive for pairs or dance couples.
a skater can angle his or her arm AS IF he/she were going to grab the blade but refrain from actually grabbing--then the wrist/ hand/arm achieves a more aesthetic line/position. i've seen this with several skaters that either go to grab blade and 'missed' or intentionally struck such a (finger perilous) pose.
in general i prefer moves performed without 'assistance'--blade grabs are a form of assistance, as are spirals with the leg being held up by the arm. bielmanns and other blade grab spins, including usually hideous I spins, are rarely performed well enough to be more beautiful than eyesore IMO.
if one had the strength and flexibility, one can achieve the grace of a blade grab position without actually grabbing the blade, no?
still, it takes all opinions to make a world--while i'm celebrating the decreased number of dog-at-hydrant crotch-flashing ladies spirals others are campaigning for a return of the spiral in short programs. i would be ok with spirals briefly held (minimum time: 2 sec, maximum time: not so long that it jars with the music) and no assistance from grabbing the leg --but i'm happy for the demise of the _old rules_.
Have you read the criteria under each PCS? It would be a semantic feat to distinguish meaningful differences betrween the criteria under CH, IN, & PE. Even the criteria under SS overlaps slightly with the others. We need to rewrite the criteria.
So what would be some good changes in the way they're written?
Why do you want to get rid of the axel?
I think the "double axel" option should be got rid of in the men's SP, the required element should be a triple. We are long past the days of double axels being the norm.
Besides, if you made the rule an edge jump, most skaters would do an axel anyway, because it's worth more points!
. ANYTHING that the judges feel has been overused.
I love the idea of a 2 pt. bonus for combos [but keep the limitations in place, so skaters don't go crazy with it]. This should be goal #1 for the ISU. CoP is supposed to reward jumps with difficult entries. Then, what is a more difficult entry to a jump than another jump???
Also love the idea of giving point values to walleys, toe walleys, and inside axels to allow skaters a greater variety of jumps to choose from.
You do realize that there are senior men who cannot do all the triples, the triple axel being the most likely one missing, right? Check out some senior B events and lower groups at championships.
And that occasionally even an otherwise medalworthy skater with top-quality skating and all the other triples plus a quadruple jump has a particular problem with the triple axel, whether rooted in technique, injury, or mental block about the forward takeoff.
Triple axel may be the norm at level expected on the Grand Prix or Worlds top 24, but there are sometimes exceptions at that level, and the same rules also need to apply to all senior-level competitions, which includes every man who is good enough to represent his country internationally and is older than 19.
For quite a while, Patrick Chan's 3A was iffy. Should he have been prohibited from senior competition by that?
Doesn't seem right.
I agree that the men should have to do a triple axel.
But for the edge jump, I think they would probably do a salchow or loop if they didn't need to do an axel as both of those give you more points.
Adam Rippon as well.
Let's not forgot Joubert splatting a double axel of all things as well. He'd long been an established senior at that point.
Anyone can splat on any jump at any time if one little thing goes wrong with technique, concentration, ice surface, etc.
But sometimes a skater consistently never masters a certain jump, or has it for a while and then loses consistency to the point that they choose not to include that jump in their programs.
I'm thinking more of Stephane Lambiel often opting to do double instead of triple axels a couple years ago, while still including quads.
Maybe orchestration should be banned. All programs must be performed to a single instrument.
Maybe they should have to accompany themselves with said instrument while they skate
Years of horrible tinkly piano music, screechy Vitamin String Quartet, or Apocalyptica overuse
I think I like most of the suggestions made so far. I think I would add -
Get rid of the eligibility rules and rules designed to restrict a skater's activities/choices in order to force them into ISU events. We can call this the Kwan/Rochette/Plushenko rule (or rather, non-rule).
There should be some kind of bonus to reward skaters who do 6 different triples (less the 3A for the ladies). I don't know whether it could be done as simple add on bonus points or by constraining the jumps schedule in some way. For example, perhaps the rule could say no triple/quad jump entrance can be repeated until the skater has done either a double or triple using all 6 different jump entrances. This has the bonus effect of pushing the repeated jumps to later in the program. It always bugs me when we see skaters do the same jump again 20 seconds later.
I think they need to dump the separate choreo component mark. If the skaters all did their own choreo then this mark could perhaps be defended, but I find it whacked that there is a separate mark for choreography when the credit for the choreo mainly belongs to someone other than the skater. Why should the skater get sporting credit for hiring a good choreographer? What's next, a separate mark for costumes to reward the designer's work? It is supposed to be a sport and the results should be based only on the athlete's efforts. The skater should still get rewarded for execution and interpretation of the choreo, but there are already marks for that.
Not a plan. They stopped treating these differently because it is often difficult, in real time, to distinguish them. We don't need more elements with footnotes from the callers for things that are invisible to the audience, and we really don't need programs with 4 jumps that all look like a triple toe loop. (And you know there would be some opting to repeat the 3 toe and the 3 toe walley.)
One of the sad things about COP is the disappearance of things like spirals by men and cool jumps you list. So, of course, I like this suggestion too for senior skaters: "Jumps of 1 revolution, except in combinations, are considered nonlisted jumps. No points and they don't take up a jump slot." I think I would remove "except in combinations, though. (In other words, a single jump as an entrance to a triple jump is just a difficult entrance and does not turn it into a combination.)
This. The sad thing is they did kind of do this by assigning no level to the second fw seqence for the men, and still most of them were ugly. I guess it will take a while to get footwork un-COP-ified. I also like the suggestion of adding a time limit for completing the step sequence. I timed someone last year at using a full 45 seconds to go from one end of the ice to the other. They also need to insist that SL footwork stay in a reasonably strait line, constantly progressing - no stopping to dance in place and no meandering from side to side.
That basically is the pre-quad free skate program standard for men. Personally I like the idea of no more than 8 big jumps. A quad should replace its counterpart triple jump, not be done in addition to the triple.
Do not like this one. If skaters want to do 3 triple-triple combinations, they should have to do the 3 loop. (It is possible. Browning did 3A-3T, 3F-3T, 3S-3Lp once to win one of his World titles (90? 91, maybe?)
In theory, at least one of the PCS marks is supposed to take this into account, but the judges don't seem to use it. IMO if a skater uses one of those bland style music choices that function as little more than background music for their skate, it should be impossible to get anything higher than about 6 for Interpretation because there isn't much there to interpret.
Wow, Viktor P would have been in serious trouble if that one had been around 1990-92. I think that one would get too tricky to enforce, with skaters pretending the music is different by adding different cuts or using different recordings.
I think I'd propose instead that each spring, the ISU publish a list of music that is prohibited for the coming year. Carmen would, of course, top this list at first, but they could also use the list preemptivelty. For 2011-2012, for example, I would have included Swan Lake/Black Swan because you know we will be heartily sick of that by December at the latest.
While we're on the music police theme, I'd change the no lyrics rule to no vocals. We have had enough debates over mumbling/chanting/dead languages and more than enough wailing sopranos.
Or better yet, LIVE music!!!
Well, I actually think the skater should be rewarded for executing such choreography (and executing it well i.e. to the music, beat, mood, expression etc). A simple slip may ruin the effect of an entire segment (Nagasu missing the layback to the drum beat last season and Asada's waxel at 2008 Worlds etc).
I think the 5 components are very clearly defined and differentiated. There are bound to be some common features but overall each category rewards something a little different. Using a spread eagle as an example:
SS rewards the speed and edge quality displayed while the skater does a spread eagle;
TR rewards how the spread eagle is incorporated into the program (in between other elements or movements);
PE rewards the body positioning and expressiveness while doing the spread eagle;
CH rewards how the spread eagle is timed to the music, the effect created by the spread eagle, and also the placement of the spread eagle on the ice compared to the rest of the program;
IN rewards how "into the music" or "into character" the skater is while doing the spread eagle.
Oh my, you hit the memory button for me there. I remember at least one year that the Grand Prix Final had a requirement for two different free programs from the skaters. The particular memory is of Ina and Zimmerman performing 99% identical program to a different orchestration of the same music and calling that a "different program". I am still shaking my head at how Moskvina got away with that one.
You make me want to support ISU judges who refuse to pretend these things can be reified and separated. It is hard enough to quantify absolutely, but you are asking them to also use an abstract model that will unfortunately not apply to every program. I would be interested in hearing your analysis of two rival programs that warrant specific variation in the components points awarded (besides in TR).
I like transitions, but I'm not sure it needs to be a separate component (as opposed to a GOE earning bullet, part of skating skills and/or choreography).
I love COP footwork. I think one thing I really enjoy is how the non-jump elements under COP are more than just window dressing.
The ISU has very specific guidelines on how to mark each PCS component that each judge should have to understand and know how to apply. The spread eagle thing is just an example.
My point is, the judges are required to mark within the corridor which already is contrary to the spirit of separating PCS into 5 components. If judges are allowed to and actually diversify each component as they see it, the idea of PCS is fine IMO. (so was that of 6.0, although under both systems, the idea of reputation judging, politiking, and saving room is too strong and skaters like Ryan Jahnke wouldn't have really shone in any system even if they could deliver ther jumps).
A recent example of someone who deserved a variation of PCS scores would IMO be Miki Ando's 2011 Worlds free skate. I would give her SS in mid 7s, TR in the 4s, PE in the high 6s, CH in the mid 6 and IN in the 4s.
The skater is already rewarded for executing the choreography well in the performance and interpretation marks. How is "how a move is timed to the music" not part of "how into the music the skater is"? It would be impossible to do the latter and not include the former.
According to the rules, it also covers the skaters' involvement as they "translate the intent of the music and choreography" I believe you put that under Interpretation, but it also goes here.
The rules don't say anything about effect. They talk mostly about the what, when and where of the elements and movements, in other words, the things the choreographer is responsible for, not the how it is executed. Those are covered under Performance/Execution and Interpretation.
Not quite. According to the rules, the Performance part of Performance/Execution "is the involvement of the Skater/Pair physically, emotionally and intellectually as they translate intent of the music and choreography." I think Interpretation is defined best in the footnote to the rule: "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 musicians." I think you would have scored this under choreo as well.
Bottom line: I think comparing your interpretation to the actual wording of the rules pretty much confirms the original criticism that there is too much overlap between the Program Components and that the same things are being scored multiple times.
Do you want to suggest alternative divisions of the program component criteria to avoid overlap?
How many individual marks would that end up with? How should they be factored?
I agree that the wording of the components is confusing.
How about going down to three components...skating skills, transitions, and PE/CH/IN, and just factor them by a higher number?
at least one season of techno/club music for FD
Separate judging panels for TES and PCS.