# Thread: Hypothetical question on TR and SS

1. ## Hypothetical question on TR and SS

I am getting confused how TR and SS should be scored, so please help me with scoring some extreme hypothetical cases.

Assuming the following list shows how a same skater performed in 6 different competitions. Assume her major skills stayed same, avarage difficulty of transion moves stayed same. Judges were consistent and fair. Even other competitors and their performances stayed same.

Only differences between the competitions are her elements and amount of the transitions, hence the variety of transition moves, as she does not repeat the same move during a program.

She did not stop for taking a breath during any programs.

- Competition A:
All single jumps(intentional), level 1 elements(intentional). Executed all 12 elements in a well balanced order with some transition between each element. All elements got GOE 0.
Total time of the transitions were 2min 0sec.
Assume her SS and TR were both 4.0 in this competition A.

- Competition B:
The same elements as Comp A but very frontloaded. Finished all jumps without any other elements nor transitions between.
Total time of the transitions were again 2min 0sec, all after the jumps were finished.

- Competition C:
Only valid element was 1A at the very end of the program. The GOE was 0. She did not even attempt any other element than the 1A but kept doing transition moves.
Total time of the transitions were 4min 0sec.

- Competition D:
All triples and level 4 and the GOEs were 0. The number of elements and the balance were the same as Comp. A.
She gets faster during entrance of elements, but during the transitions her speed stays same as Comp. A.
Total time of the transitions were only 1min 0sec because difficult elements took more time.

- Competition E:
The same elements as Comp A but none of them was intentional and fell on every element. Singled all jumps planned triples, and received all level 1 for elements all planned level4, GOE -3. She recovered from each fall very quickly and did not miss any transition moves.
Total time of the transitions were 2min 0sec.

- Competition F:
Almost the same as Comp A but executed the elements very well with difficult entrance and all, then received all GOE +3.
Total time of the transitions were 2min 0sec.

How should her scores for TR and SS be in each competition?

Apparently the skater is major headcase for fans and coaches, but I believe that does not affect the scores

ETA: add bold to some assumptions.

2. I am sorry but I don't understand what you are asking. How can anyone comment without seeing the skater and then be asked to give a score? Because transitions do not just depend on quantity but also the quality and difficulty.

To just say a program is full of transitions does not paint the picture.

3. Originally Posted by Aussie Willy
I am sorry but I don't understand what you are asking. How can anyone comment without seeing the skater and then be asked to give a score? Because transitions do not just depend on quantity but also the quality and difficulty.
Please assume the overall difficulty and quality do not differ. Only the quantity differs between the above programs.

e.g. In Comp A, B, E, F, her transition moves consist exactly the same 2 min total, and she executed in the same quality, as if copy+pasted.
In Comp D, she did only half of them because she took more time for elements but the average difficulty and quality of transition was the same as Comp A,B,E, and F. Just with less quantity and hence less variety.

TR4.0 at Comp. A is given to suggest how difficult and how good it is. If the number 4.0 is not right then you could use any number X for the reference score at competition A. Or just "much higher than Comp A" or "same as Comp A" would be good.

The question is all hypothetical because real programs have too many noises to evaluate. Real skaters cannot repeat exactly same moves in two competitions

Actually this question is here inspired by your post, Aussie. I remember you once (or more) explained that if a program was all filled with transitions it should get 10 and if half of if it gets 5, or something like that. (I think it was you, wasn't it?)

If the assumptions above are not enough, what kind of assumptions do you think we need?

Thanks,

4. I'll try to get specific later when I have more time.

One of the criteria for Transitions is Intricacy, which involves how closely the elements are connected to each other or to transitional moves (lack of telegraphing). Another criterion is Difficulty, which includes not only the difficulty of the transition move, but also the difficulty of how it's connected to an element (if any), which includes the difficulty of the element.

Example, back outside counter in isolation, back outside counter into single axel or double axel or triple axel.

The turn itself adds to the difficulty level of the connecting steps. Doing it directly into an element also adds to the intricacy. Doing a difficult turn directly into a very difficult element such as triple axel adds a whole lot more difficulty than doing the same turn in isolation.

5. Originally Posted by midori
Actually this question is here inspired by your post, Aussie. I remember you once (or more) explained that if a program was all filled with transitions it should get 10 and if half of if it gets 5, or something like that. (I think it was you, wasn't it?)
I didn't realise I was so inspirational. I will take that as a compliment. Thanks.

6. Transitions are scored not just in terms of difficulty and quantity, but also in quality of execution, so simple transitions executed smoothly and with speed can give a skater a higher transitions score than more difficult transitions executed with difficulty. This includes transitions in and out of jumps and spins. Let's say the same skater skated the same exact program with the same choreographed transitions in-between elements but in the first competition she fell on every jump and in the second competition she landed every jump solidly. In the program with the landed jumps, the transitions score should be higher because the transitions out of the landed jumps would be seamless and controlled. It is impossible to have a seamless, controlled transition out of a jump landing when you have fallen on the jump.

7. Originally Posted by Doubletoe
Transitions are scored not just in terms of difficulty and quantity, but also in quality of execution, so simple transitions executed smoothly and with speed can give a skater a higher transitions score than more difficult transitions executed with difficulty. This includes transitions in and out of jumps and spins. Let's say the same skater skated the same exact program with the same choreographed transitions in-between elements but in the first competition she fell on every jump and in the second competition she landed every jump solidly. In the program with the landed jumps, the transitions score should be higher because the transitions out of the landed jumps would be seamless and controlled. It is impossible to have a seamless, controlled transition out of a jump landing when you have fallen on the jump.
Thanks.
I would be very grateful to a person who attempts an objective analysis of TR of particular skaters, for ex. Chan, Kozuka, Abbott and Takahashi; and the underlying similarities and differences.

8. I actually like these discussions. I've read the definitions of each component of PCS, but these discussions help me understand it that much better. Thanks.

I'm assuming Sawyer's cantilever is an example of a Transition with good quality and difficulty then.?

9. I love Cantlievers and I would definately classify them as a difficult transition. Not many skaters can do them and do them well.

10. Originally Posted by dinakt
I would be very grateful to a person who attempts an objective analysis of TR of particular skaters, for ex. Chan, Kozuka, Abbott and Takahashi; and the underlying similarities and differences.
OK, I'll go through and give some thoughts on the transitions I see. Short programs, because they're shorter.

Takahashi 2010 NHK first:

Various poses with upper body moves
Back crossover into BI and FO (i.e., counterrotated) mohawks, cross to RBI counter

Picks up speed with various simple turns (threes and mohawks, including LBO three with nice flow on the exit) and three crossovers in between, mohawk into flip combination

Forward crossovers to deep LFI choctaw; second edge not held -- immediate crossover to RBO extended edge to RBO counter

Mohawks and crossovers with some upper body movement into simple BO approach to triple axel (bad landing here)

Cross in front strokes to get back to speed

Can't tell how he turned back to front, but it was clockwise

FI three, step into flying spin

Posing
Little backward edge wiggles

Clockwise FO twizzle or traveling threes, little falling leaf

Crossovers, threes, mohawks, w/ some little shuffling steps and free leg kicks, quick rocker-choctaw (? so quick the edges aren't important -- I just call that move "step outs" when performed quickly in footwork);

shallow LFO rocker into lutz (?) -- this is risky because it doesn't look much different from skaters who unintentially "lip" by turning what's supposed to be a three turn into a flip into a rocker instead -- especially since he'd already done a triple flip in this program so if the tech panel saw it that way and called it "3F e" instead of "3Lz" he'd get no credit for the element -- but maintaining the outside edge through the turn certainly is a difficult entrance into the lutz. (He did get an e call on the flip combination, so there really wasn't much difference between the takeoffs of those two jumps, despite the different preceding steps.)

Turns directly into sitspin

One or two steps on two feet to set up the straight-line steps

And then inside three again straight into combo spin

He keeps up the flow, keeps moving through the program, with nice soft knees., fairly deep edges (especially on that sequence that I boldfaced)

Hard to tell absolute speed on video, but it looks like he gets his speed pretty effortlessly thanks to those soft knees. The edges impress me more for softness and flow than for precision. Pretty good balance of multidirectional skating.

For transitions, the quality looks good to me, some difficult and moderately difficult turns. Difficult lutz entry. Combo was the opposite of telegraphed. Last four elements were chained pretty seamlessly one after the other, so pretty good intricacy -- only the 3A entrance really seemed lacking in transitional moves in or out. No real highlight elements such as half jumps or extended glides in difficult positions, so there could be more variety.

More later.

11. Please gkelly, analyze/compare Jeremy's transitions.

12. Originally Posted by Doubletoe
Transitions are scored not just in terms of difficulty and quantity, but also in quality of execution, so simple transitions executed smoothly and with speed can give a skater a higher transitions score than more difficult transitions executed with difficulty. This includes transitions in and out of jumps and spins. Let's say the same skater skated the same exact program with the same choreographed transitions in-between elements but in the first competition she fell on every jump and in the second competition she landed every jump solidly. In the program with the landed jumps, the transitions score should be higher because the transitions out of the landed jumps would be seamless and controlled. It is impossible to have a seamless, controlled transition out of a jump landing when you have fallen on the jump.
Thank you Doubletoe! So, TR score for Comp E would be lower than Comp A, perhaps, right?

How about SS? Some says that falls in elements should not matter in PCS becaues PCS should be scored separately from elements. Then if everything else is the same but she fell on every jump in a competition and landed solidly in another, should SS be different?

Originally Posted by gkelly
I'll try to get specific later when I have more time.

One of the criteria for Transitions is Intricacy, which involves how closely the elements are connected to each other or to transitional moves (lack of telegraphing). Another criterion is Difficulty, which includes not only the difficulty of the transition move, but also the difficulty of how it's connected to an element (if any), which includes the difficulty of the element.

Example, back outside counter in isolation, back outside counter into single axel or double axel or triple axel.

The turn itself adds to the difficulty level of the connecting steps. Doing it directly into an element also adds to the intricacy. Doing a difficult turn directly into a very difficult element such as triple axel adds a whole lot more difficulty than doing the same turn in isolation.
Thanks a lot gkelly!

If I interpret it correctly, you are saying even if the difficulty of each move is the same, connecting one another makes it more difficult, especially when connecting into a difficult element, right?

So, if she could have put the exactly same moves into Comp D (all triples) as Comp A (all singles), she would get higher TR in Comp D than Comp A, even though only differences are elements.

How much would the difference be? In other words, if she does a simple arm movement before a triple jump, how complex moves into a single jump would be considered equal value on TR point of view to the arm move before the triple?

Also thank you very much for the analyzing the program! I will watch it later when I can concentrate

13. Originally Posted by midori
So, if she could have put the exactly same moves into Comp D (all triples) as Comp A (all singles), she would get higher TR in Comp D than Comp A, even though only differences are elements.

How much would the difference be? In other words, if she does a simple arm movement before a triple jump, how complex moves into a single jump would be considered equal value on TR point of view to the arm move before the triple?
The guidelines aren't that specific. There's no scale of values for program components. Judges just have to take as many different aspects of the criteria into account as they can to come up with a number on a scale of 0 to 10.

For Transitions, I guess 0 would mean nothing but the simplest possible stroking with very weak skating quality and very telegraphed elements. Even the worst juveniles or even preliminary skaters will do a bit more than that.

I guess 10 would be very difficult and varied moves throughout the program, including directly into and out of elements, or elements leading directly into other elements, all performed with very high quality. No simple stroking and no pauses to set up elements or to recover afterward. And nobody quite achieves that ideal either.

But each judge has to decide for him or herself where to fit a given performance somewhere in the middle of that scale of 1-10. High middle if we're talking about elite skaters.

Would there be any way to make the guidelines more specific so judges would be more consistent among themselves on what numbers to use for certain kinds of transition content?

14. Originally Posted by gkelly
I'll try to get specific later when I have more time.

One of the criteria for Transitions is Intricacy, which involves how closely the elements are connected to each other or to transitional moves (lack of telegraphing).
So, when people complain about Miki's lack of transitons they probably aren't taking into account the short entry that she takes into her 3salchow from the 3lutz and the short entry into the 2x+2l+2l from her 3toe.

16. O wow, gkelly, THANK YOU! I am looking forward to poring over what you wrote with the corresponding video. If you have time, please do more!!!

17. Thank you, Gene Kelly for the detailed rundown.

I have some philosophical quibbles about the current design of the 5 components in the second score. I do not disagree that the quality of executing transitions should be taken into consideration when scoring TR. However, the quality of transitions is very closely associated with skating skills. It goes directly to the reason why all 5 components are so often in lock steps. I used to think it is because judges do not have the time and mental energy to assess each component separately. However, it is also true that skating skills indeed affect the other components as they are defined.

Meanwhile, the TR component score is also directly and substantially correlated with the GOE of most technical elements and sometimes correlated with determining the level of a technical element via difficult entry into the element.

In psychometric instruments (composite scales used to quantitatively assess things like depressive mood, anxious mood, fatigue, quality of life), questions that measure the same symptom should not be confused with questions that measure different symptoms. An instrument is only valid if it measures what it intends to measure. If a question is supposed to measure depressive mood, but it really measures fatigue or overlaps with another question in the same instrument that also measures fatigue, you are giving disproportional weight to fatigue than to depression. Thus the total composite outcome score will end up not giving you the information you are looking for, because the depressive symptoms were unduly discounted in the total score.

If the TR component really measures 50% the difficulty/complexity of transitions choreographed into the program and 50% the skater's innate* skating skills, which is already given 100% weight in the SS component, the scale is basically rewarding the innate skating skills 3 times as much as the actual amount and difficulty of the transitions in a program. It seems that the other 4 components have very significant overlaps with the SS component. If so, why have 5 components? This structure gives an illusion of 5 discrete aspects of skating that are being judged, when that is not true. Clearly skaters are judged primarily on their SS, but to what extent nobody can really tell because of all the overlaps and correlations.

*By "innate," I mean a skater's mastery of the blades, to put it generally, that is relatively stable in any given season that is unlikely to be affected by jumps and spins.

*************

That IJS measures and sums up discrete aspects of a program performed by a skater at a given occasion is largely an illusion because all the separate scores, including the score for each technical element executed (base value +/- GOE) and the score of each component, are highly correlated and therefore muddled. On the other hand, a jump and a spin and a step sequence are discrete elements, but a step sequence and the SS component score are not. It is not possible to clearly understand how much each discrete aspect of skating actually counts in the scheme.

I would think that skating skills, interpretation of music, and projection and emotional/intellectual involvement with the audience are fairly distinct from each other. But that's another subject altogether.

This "muddling" phenomenon is much bigger in the judging of ice dance than in the other disciplines. It often seems arbitrary that some attributes/characteristics are written into the criteria for level determination and other attributes are written into GOE criteria. And in the end everything seems to be determined by skating skills, with a little space left for posture and extension and another sliver left for "reasonably tasteful music."

**************

If the rules cannot clearly establish what attributes/outcomes are measured in the judging system and why, and how much each actually counts, it is not only the casual audience or the fans who are confused. Clarity is even more important for coaches, choreographers, and skaters.

That is not to advocate for going back to the 6.0 system, which was hardly a model of clarity either. However, numbers alone do not guarantee accuracy, precision, and validity.

***************

For TR analysis of short programs, gkelly, may I suggest Adrian S... OK, sorry, not him --- it's just my uberdom talking. How about Kozuka's? Or Joubert's? Abbott's SP would be interesting as well, as an illustration of "How much should upper body movements count as transitions?"

18. Abbott 2010 Cup of Russia

Lots of posing and arm movements, with simple skating including a clockwise FO three

LBO counter to LFO three into flip combo

Stretch with little forward edge changes to a quick 360-degree turn -- I think it's a RFI mohawk and a toe-assisted LBI three

Mohawks, crossovers, arm movements

LFO choctaw continuing into RBI double three, edge change, step forward into triple axel

Controlled RBO three on the landing to RFI rocker to two-foot posing

Inside three to sitspin

Crossovers with arms, clockwise three and mohawk, cross in front, into lutz

Exit landing to brief inside spread eagle, two-foot pose glide, twizzles both directions, two little scissory hops, inside spread eagle, brief two-foot pose glide, half loop, quick two-foot turn into flying spin

Simple glide to end of ice to start straight-line steps

Inside three to combo spin, exit straight to kneeling pose

Edges seem well-controlled, probably a little more precise but not as effortless as Takahashi's, not the same lilt in the knees

A bit more variety in the kinds of turns and other connecting moves (hops, spread eagles); no really big highlights -- bold for the combinations of turns and edges that strike me as most difficult

Fine use of turns and stroking in both directions

I'm especially impressed by the approach to the axel (same as last year) because of the seamlessness of changes of direction and the amount of ice covered through those few moves, leading into a difficult jump . . . and then more turns continuing seamlessly out of that difficult jump

Entries to two of the spins and the step sequence were pretty basic, neither directly connecting the steps to the spins before and after nor telegraphing them

I don't know how the arm movements would figure into the Transitions score. They seemed less obtrusive to me in this CoR performance than at NHK. My impression is they add more to the choreography than to the difficulty.

19. Originally Posted by gkelly

shallow LFO rocker into lutz (?) -- this is risky because it doesn't look much different from skaters who unintentially "lip" by turning what's supposed to be a three turn into a flip into a rocker instead -- especially since he'd already done a triple flip in this program so if the tech panel saw it that way and called it "3F e" instead of "3Lz" he'd get no credit for the element -- but maintaining the outside edge through the turn certainly is a difficult entrance into the lutz. (He did get an e call on the flip combination, so there really wasn't much difference between the takeoffs of those two jumps, despite the different preceding steps.)
But if you look at his short at Skate America…this is exactly where my confusion was ... wasn’t the entrance just from a three turn—left forward inside edge right into the LBO “lutz” edge? There was a change of edge from going in and out... would that still be considered a rocker? And considering the lutz on its own *could* have been marked as a flat/slight inside edge, I was pleasantly surprised he got credit for a flip as well. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKWvLyJ2u9s The NHK SP camera angle was slightly ambiguous I thought.

20. Jun Y, I totally agree with your brilliant analysis !
You are one of the few, if not the only one I've heard or red that understands clearly what components are about.

I was talking with a friend who wants to become a coach and she sometimes judges some competitions. I was explaining her how difficult it is to get a precise idea of what SS are and how accurate are transitions evaluations.
She messed up, didn't understand the point and mixed everything in the bad way. Other coaches also have difficulties to gest the real point. As for judges I bet it's the same.
The problem is that none of those want to agree with what you say because they don't want to recognize in front of their students that there is something not really rationnal nor really precise in their judgement.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•