Choreo step sequence and choreo spirals

[hanca]

Well, if you look at the winner of bronze category, she got TES 3.96 (with 7 jumps in it)and PCS 8.94. Another skater in the same category had only Salchow, toe loop and toe loop -toe loop combination (which in theory shouldn't be recognised because you are not supposed to use any jump 3 times), and got TES 3.74 and PCS 7.99. Am I the only one who thinks that there is something wrong with the marking?

[Aussie Willy]

I don't think it is the standart of skating. Here the adults do the same tests as children, and most of the adults have passed their jumps in tests, and then the jumps were not called at the competition (especially last year nearly everyone in bronze category).

http://www.johnds.org/BAC_10/BACDay2html/index.htm


This year the rules for underrotation changed; if you look at the protocols (see the link in my previous post), it seems to me that they did not bother with <, they went straight for <<. Although I do agree that someone may underrotate more than half of the revolution, I don't believe that every skater who underrotated was underrotating more than half of revolution. So I think the judging here is a bit suspect.

As a result, the skater would not get even something very tiny for the jump, they would get 0 for the jump. I haven't skated in this competition this year, so it is not like if I am upset about my results and therefore screaming that it is unfair... but I do find it fascinating that, in my opinion, the adults are here judged much more harshly than children. In fact, the value of the PCS is what wins you the competition at the lower levels. It seems to me that if you send a dancer to compete at free skating and the dancer will get 0 for all four jumps elements, she still would be able to win it based on two spins, step sequence and PCS. I think that's wrong. Why bother with the jumps then?

With judging jumps, you are not just looking at underrotations as a reason for deductions. You also need to take into account the preparation, take off, air position and landing.

So a skater may get around on the jump to backwards, but if the rest is poor quality, then you can justify a deduction. From the ISU Communication 1611poor speed, height, distance, air position alone can incur a -1 to -2 GOE. If a skater has reasonable quality of those, at a minimum then you could go a 0 GOE.

Like I said with Australia, skaters don't even have to test to compete at a certain adult level. They just enter the division that they are doing relevant elements, regardless of the quality.

Also if you are looking at a disparity between TES and PCS, it could be that some skaters don't have good quality elements, but maybe they have strong PCS. It is quite possible.

As for LLOS's question about components, I found that if a skater is very good, I tend to go into the threes. But most adults are sitting in the twos and that is okay. If they are not good then I am in the ones.

[gkelly]

If an adult gets in components a 2, is that already considered as good?

My impression is that at adult bronze level components in the 2s would be good, at silver level they would be normal, and at gold level I would expect high 2s or 3s.

And of course different judges might use the scale differently, especially if they're not used to judging at those levels.

Obviously the Skating Skills score might be significantly different from, say, Performance/Execution or Choreography, if you have an adult who has a lot of off-ice performing experience, or alternatively one who is very shy and more interested in technique than performance.

[hanca]

With judging jumps, you are not just looking at underrotations as a reason for deductions. You also need to take into account the preparation, take off, air position and landing.

So a skater may get around on the jump to backwards, but if the rest is poor quality, then you can justify a deduction. From the ISU Communication 1611poor speed, height, distance, air position alone can incur a -1 to -2 GOE. If a skater has reasonable quality of those, at a minimum then you could go a 0 GOE.

I do realise that you have to take into account poor speed, height, distance, air position etc. However, for those the skater would get minus GOE, and the jump would still be worth something (even if very little). What I don't get is how often << was used and never < . You don't give << for poor speed, air position etc, and I just don't think that everyone underrotated more than 1/2 rotation. I would believe that some were < and some <<, but it looks that the judges claim that all those jumps didn't deserve anything at all (not even tiny bit of point), which I just struggle to believe.

[Doubletoe]

Back to the original question, I believe at 2011 U.S. Adult Nationals the step sequence will still get levels under IJS; only the spiral sequence will be scored as 2.0 point choreo spirals. That gives an advantage to anyone who can get a level 2 on a step sequence, or even get +GOE on a level 1 step sequence (1.8 BV +1 GOE = 2.3) . There are a number of skaters who have gotten levels 2 or 3 on step sequences at A.N., especially among the Masters skaters.

I haven't been working on footwork for the past 5-6 years, so I'm still doing a spiral sequence, even though the removal of the levels has really hurt my score. The first year U.S. Adult Nationals was scored under IJS, I got 4.15 points for a SpSq4 with +GOE. In my most recent IJS competition, I got 2.5 for a ChSpSq with +GOE. If they change the step sequence scoring to choreo for next season, then I'll probably just start doing whichever type of sequence best fits the music I choose.

[Aussie Willy]

I do realise that you have to take into account poor speed, height, distance, air position etc. However, for those the skater would get minus GOE, and the jump would still be worth something (even if very little). What I don't get is how often << was used and never < . You don't give << for poor speed, air position etc, and I just don't think that everyone underrotated more than 1/2 rotation. I would believe that some were < and some <<, but it looks that the judges claim that all those jumps didn't deserve anything at all (not even tiny bit of point), which I just struggle to believe.

I must have misread you. Because how I read your previous post was that you were saying that if the jump wasn't under rotated they should have been getting 0 GOE.

But I just had a look at the protocols and that looks weird. I think there could be questions asked to the referee about that. The only thing you could say is the technical panel were consistent.

If you look at the elements from the Australian Nationals, you will see that most of the adults got called "e" on their lutzes.

[hanca]

hmm, here in the UK both of them were choreo. You have a choice of either choreo steps or choreo spiral. So the same starting points.

Here you would have to work on your steps sequence for tests though (if you decided that you want to test).

Back to my original question, I just wondered why would anyone bother with the steps, if it takes more time, and very likely wouldn't be getting any better GOE than steps. But if at your country you still can get levels at steps...

[Doubletoe]

hmm, here in the UK both of them were choreo. You have a choice of either choreo steps or choreo spiral. So the same starting points.

Here you would have to work on your steps sequence for tests though (if you decided that you want to test).

Back to my original question, I just wondered why would anyone bother with the steps, if it takes more time, and very likely wouldn't be getting any better GOE than steps. But if at your country you still can get levels at steps...

It was a timing issue. The USFSA rules for the coming season are decided every year in May, and that was before the new ISU rules came out, so there was no chance to adjust the U.S. adult rules to accommodate the new ISU choreo spiral rule. The result was that the spiral sequence is automatically a choreo spsq but the step sequence is still leveled (since there's never more than one step sequence in our adult programs). It will be interesting to see if they adjust the 2012 U.S. adult rules in May to make all step sequences choreo as well.
But even so, I know some adult skaters--including some very good ones--who prefer step sequences over spirals. Either they are men and consider steps more masculine, or they just hate spirals (usually due to a bad face plant experience, poor flexibility or some sort of hip or back problem).

[Artifice]

ETA - you can check out the results for the Adult Demonstration Event at Australian Nationals - http://www.isa.org.au/Results/2010_Demo/results.htm. I was Judge No 3. But you can see that it was a pretty consistent panel.

Components marks appears pretty generous IMO. At least compared to what I see in other competitions.

Insightful thread! And very surprised how much judging standards differ from region to region...

Yes it does.

... but I do find it fascinating that, in my opinion, the adults are here judged much more harshly than children. In fact, the value of the PCS is what wins you the competition at the lower levels. It seems to me that if you send a dancer to compete at free skating and the dancer will get 0 for all four jumps elements, she still would be able to win it based on two spins, step sequence and PCS. I think that's wrong. Why bother with the jumps then?

That's true and that's something to think about.

I wonder if it would be better to adjust the COP system to adult skaters so that one can work on getting more points, the levels would not rise at all.

I don't think so. Points in themselves are not important, there is no reason to adjust the system for specific populations. Rules are rules, skating requires the same skills for everyone. The best get higher marks, the bad get lower marks, that's normal.

My impression is that at adult bronze level components in the 2s would be good, at silver level they would be normal, and at gold level I would expect high 2s or 3s.

It can be, but, looking at various competitions results, it appears that those marks differs a lot from competitions to competitions. Standards are different. I don't have any official explanation for that but this is what happens.

[hanca]

I don't think so. Points in themselves are not important, there is no reason to adjust the system for specific populations. Rules are rules, skating requires the same skills for everyone. The best get higher marks, the bad get lower marks, that's normal.

But I do think points are important, on any level. If you are skating at bronze level, you get for toe loop and Salchow 0.4, for Loop and flip 0.5 and for Lutz 0.6. (Assuming that the jumps for reasonably good and you are getting 0 GOE, because realistically you are not going to get positive GOE on jumps as an adult on bronze level. You can check the score sheet from our competitions for the last two years).

So if you fall, it is very likely that you will get << for that jump (because you probably fell because it was underrotated and as you see, it doesn't look that they are aware here that they can give you only <) and then you get -1for the fall. That means that appart of that one jumping elements being 0, you also succesfully erased two another clean well executed jumps. Considering that the winner of the bronze category had TES only 3.86, a fall would erase her 1/4 of her TES. I think that's a very expensive mistake. It is the same like if you wanted on elite level take for fall -10. That's far too much.

You are saying " The best get higher marks, the bad get lower marks, that's normal." Really?
Imagine, you have two skaters. They have comparable spins and step sequences, the difference is only in jumps. First skater does only one Salchow and one Toe loop (because this skater can't do anything else from jumps.) Then you have the second skater who does Salchow, toe loop, flip and loop, but unfortunately falls on the flip. If both skaters have the same skatings skills (get the same PCS), then the first skater will win in total because the first skater would get for jumps in total 0.8, whereas the second skater would get nothing for the flip, 0.4+0.4+0.5-1=0.3.
Is the first skater really better when he/she can't do anything else except of toe loop and Salchow, or is the second one better because he/she did succesfully toe loop, Salchow, loop and mistake on flip... I know, you may say he/she shouldn't fall, but is the fall really that big mistake, relatively to anything else the skater has done well? Is it as big mistake to justify taking 1/4 of someone's TES? (I am talking theoretically, I don't have anyone particular in mind).

I don't think this system is working very well for lower levels.

[C_T_T_]

Aussie Willie...just wondering from a judging perspective when you are awarding GOE, are you rewarding it based on the level of skating your watching or based on an overall standard? For example say you were judging an adult competition where the skater has very good speed and height on a jump for an adult skater. Would that person get + GOE or would they have to have good speed and height compared to the general skating population?

[Artifice]

hanca, the only thing I can say is to not attempt elements, jumps or spins, that the skater can't master properly, making the attempt in competition too risky.

The goal is not to get points with poor tries. This is not the purpose of the judging system. Poor tries are marked accordingly, with points and negative GOE.

There are already some competitions that are judged under a system that doesn't penalize poor tries too much, that is the 6.0 judging. Therefore this kind of competition fits what you mean better.

[Aussie Willy]

Aussie Willie...just wondering from a judging perspective when you are awarding GOE, are you rewarding it based on the level of skating your watching or based on an overall standard? For example say you were judging an adult competition where the skater has very good speed and height on a jump for an adult skater. Would that person get + GOE or would they have to have good speed and height compared to the general skating population?

With IJS and judging elements, I judge on an overall standard. I am not looking at the skater being an adult or a kid but just a skater and what they put out there. If a skater, being an adult or kid, does a good jump, they will be rewarded accordingly. You could say the skater earns their GOE, not the judge gives it to them. The ISU guidelines make it a lot clearer than the deduction sheets you used to have because it also has what you are looking for to get elements into a positive territory with GOEs. So you can have more consistency with overall judging.

I found judging under 6.0 you were more likely to look at a skater and give them marks based on what that they were good for the level rather than what they were doing. It is a placement system and there is so much more subjectivity with it.

As for the comments about judging standards differing from region, I don't think it is the judges. It is what the skaters put out there that you are judging.

Being an adult skater myself, I know that my jumps are pretty crap and I would only be giving myself probably -2. But I am my own harshest judge. I really admire good adult skaters who do have great spins and jumps because I know how difficult they can be to come by. But it doesn't mean I am going to judge them any differently.

[overedge]

If a skater, being an adult or kid, does a good jump, they will be rewarded accordingly.

I get what you are saying (it confirms what my coach says too), but I agree with hanca that framing the system like this is somewhat unfair to adults. IMHO "good" in this system is predicated on what young competitive skaters can achieve. I know that there are "good" things that should be common to all jumps, e.g. clean and correct takeoff edges, controlled landings, but when the criteria are interpreted to include things like height and speed of rotation, adults, especially older adults, are automatically at a disadvantage. And it becomes *very* discouraging to adults to do elements really well for an adult skater, but then still get 0 or negative GOE because the element is not as good as a younger skater would be able to do it.

Personally I would like to see a separate IJS-type marking system for adults that is more realistic about what adults are generally capable of.

[gkelly]

I think the problem is not so much a difference between adults and kids as that the system hasn't been designed with lower levels in mind, in general, and that there aren't standardized rules across federations as to how to adapt the elite system even for the middle levels (juvenile-novice).

Most adults who started as adults are competing at levels at or below the equivalent of US juvenile, and the elite rules don't work all that well for those levels either.

For both adults and lower level kids, I'd want to see the following adaptations:

*Partial credit for moderately cheated jumps (the < as opposed to << designation) and benefit of the doubt as to rotation especially when there's no video replay. That change last year was necessary at all levels.

Still, I have seen some adults who really don't get into the air at all and don't get half a rotation. It's not fair to the adult skaters who do get adequate rotation to call a little hop adequate for an adult. I don't know whether the example cited above was due to a group of adults who really couldn't jump at even adult bronze standard (or axels at silver standard), or a technical panel that was overly harsh. Both are possible explanations.

But since double jumps called << do get the base mark of a single, maybe the compromise for << single jumps would be 0.1 base mark with minus GOEs in the hundredths of points. Same for intentional half-revolution jumps including waltz jump.

Either that, or all half-jumps should be rewarded as transitions, whether or not they were intended as single jumps and also filled jump boxes.

*Credit (base mark) for spins with at least 2 but less than 3 revolutions, especially camel spins, with -GOE as appropriate.

*Fall deduction of 0.5 instead of 1.0, or maybe only 0.25 for prebronze/no-test levels.

*Either a distinction between level 0 (meets the basic requirement of the element) and level 1 (one added feature) for calling spins and step sequences below juvenile/adult gold level. Or else a bullet point for judges to reward adequately performed added difficulty with positive GOE, before any reductions for errors if necessary. Including features like change of edge and change of direction in upright spins that are no longer rewarded at elite levels.

*More lenient definition of sitspin position.

As a bronze-level adult skater I've never had the opportunity to compete under any version of IJS. I'd much rather compete under a version adapted for lower levels than under the exact same rules as elite levels OR under 6.0, but 6.0 is the only option I've got where I live.

I figure that my harder single jumps would be subject to underrotation calls and minus GOEs on all but my best day, in which case they might earn 0s. But I should be azble to consistently earn 0 for an easier jump like a salchow, so maybe, just maybe, I could earn a +1 by enhancing it with an unexpected entry and varied arm position in the air or something special with the landing.

That's what a kid would need to earn +1 on a jump as well. And you don't see many that deserve it from the kids in no-test or prepreliminary competition either.

[Aussie Willy]

I get what you are saying (it confirms what my coach says too), but I agree with hanca that framing the system like this is somewhat unfair to adults. IMHO "good" in this system is predicated on what young competitive skaters can achieve. I know that there are "good" things that should be common to all jumps, e.g. clean and correct takeoff edges, controlled landings, but when the criteria are interpreted to include things like height and speed of rotation, adults, especially older adults, are automatically at a disadvantage. And it becomes *very* discouraging to adults to do elements really well for an adult skater, but then still get 0 or negative GOE because the element is not as good as a younger skater would be able to do it.

Personally I would like to see a separate IJS-type marking system for adults that is more realistic about what adults are generally capable of.

I think there has always been these arguments that adults need to be treated differently because they are not going to have the same ability as the kids. Hey I have been part of this. When I started we didn't even have competitions for adults here so I really appreciate where things have come from. But there are adults out there who would take offence at the suggestion of applying different rules and then you get a group who would like adults to be given more consideration. You just can't win.

I think going back to a 6.0 system, even for adults, is a step backwards in the sport. But being devil's advocate on this, firstly you need someone to develop a system for adults (which takes time and relies on a volunteer workforce to do it). And then you would have officials probably complaining about having to apply another set of rules to another group which they would have to learn (again takes time and you are rely on volunteers). And particularly when the majority of skaters are judged under the same system, that is what they are used to.

And then like all skating judging, you will never ever get consensus or make everyone happy. Having been involved in email discussions with adult skaters regarding judging and the application of the current system, I know it has done my head in.

I also think that the adult skaters who do skate up to what the system expects are going to be very happy with it. Those that can't for one reason or another are not going to be happy.

[overedge]

I agree that with adult skaters having such a wide range of variations of skill and previous experience, no one is going to be happy no matter what is done I also agree that IJS is a lot better for getting feedback rather than one number when it isn't always clear where that number came from. But that being said, I don't think it would require creating a whole new judging system to accommodate adult abilities. I think gkelly's suggestions are excellent - especially the sit spin one. I mean, come on, one year at Canadian adult nationals there were something like 20+ sit spins and only two got called at all. And these were good quality sit spins - a lot better than many younger skaters' attempts IMHO - but they weren't called simply because they weren't low enough. They weren't the half-knee bend with the arms reaching over, they were definitely sits, but they just didn't have the thigh parallel to the ice. There are a lot of other criteria that could be used to judge quality gradations in a sit spin rather than just ignoring the whole attempt because just one criterion wasn't met.

When the standard is such that so many attempts don't get called, IMHO the problem is the standard, not what the skaters are doing.

[Artifice]

There are a lot of adult skaters who can perfectly fulfill IJS criterias. They are working to fit in the sport demand and they won't accept an adjustment on the system dedicated to lower levels.

In adults as well as in young categories there are several competitive levels. This makes possible for each skater to compete with skaters of the same level. So, eventhough a spin is not well rewarded it won't make that much of a difference with the other skaters who will probably have the same deductions.
And that doesn't concern only adults, it works the same for every ages categories.

Also a judging system, especially the current one, is supposed to push the sport forward and not to reward something badly done. Most of adult competitive skaters go forward and train in a sportive way, they would consider an IJS adaptation as a step backward.

The solution for skaters is to compete in the right category corresponding to their level. Often one sees skaters either going into a too high level category for their actual skills, probably because they have a wrong idea of their real level, or skaters who choose a lower category, probably because they expect to win easily.
If skaters go into the right categories there is no feel of unfairness or of elements not judged fairly.
A skater without a correct sit spin can win if he compets in the right category.

I personnaly don't get the point of earning points for something badly done. I prefer to up the ante and get even more satisfaction when I get points rather than getting undeserved points.

[hanca]

hanca, the only thing I can say is to not attempt elements, jumps or spins, that the skater can't master properly, making the attempt in competition too risky.

The goal is not to get points with poor tries. This is not the purpose of the judging system. Poor tries are marked accordingly, with points and negative GOE.

Great, but skaters do fall sometimes. You see them falling on elite level, why should we be any different? Even the jump that you can 'always' do sometimes doesn't work out, so why the price for that one mistake is erasing points from 2 other completely clean jumps? I am not advocating poor tries, I am just pointing out how a little mistake (one fall, or not finishing on time) can be costly. (unproportionately to the mistake, in my opinion).

Also, the sit spin that is not acceptable now, has been acceptable for the last perhaps 30years. So even some World and Olympic champions did not have sit spins as low as it is needed now for it to be counted. (I am talking about sit spin that is low, but it is perhaps an inch or two 'too high'). Why would you expect from adults to be able to do it, if it has been acceptable even for those high level skaters to do it this way all those years? I do understand that they wanted to make it harder on the elite level, but with adults?

Artifice, you say that you personnaly don't get the point of earning points for something badly done. You prefer to up the ante and get even more satisfaction when you get points rather than getting undeserved points. Hmmm, what about going back and checking whether all the champions in the past had sit spin low enough? If not, did they deserve their points? Maybe there was someone at their competition that time who had much better sit spin; they may have deserved more points! Pity that they don't know how poorly they have done!

[Artifice]

Overall, as Aussie willi said, there will always be unsatisfied people whatever the system is and you just can't win all.

Great, but skaters do fall sometimes. You see them falling on elite level, why should we be any different? Even the jump that you can 'always' do sometimes doesn't work out, so why the price for that one mistake is erasing points from 2 other completely clean jumps?

Because a fall is a fall and it affects the program the same way wether you do simple or triple jumps. Falls on triple jumps affect the score a lot as well and the risk taking on other elements at the highest level can cost a lot as well. The more difficulties, the more risk.

Also, the sit spin that is not acceptable now, has been acceptable for the last perhaps 30years. So even some World and Olympic champions did not have sit spins as low as it is needed now for it to be counted.

Skaters under the 6.0 system did low sit spins. It's always been at lower levels that the sit position could possibibly not be reached.
Under the IJS it is allowed to do intermediate positions, a not so low sit spin belongs in this category.
The IJS has been designed to bring objectivity to technical elements. Therefore it was needed to set specific rules for each spin position. Previously it was criticized that the 6.0 system was not objective enough, now that it is objective, some people complain that the judgement is not nice with them. But a judgement is not supposed to be nice, it is supposed to be fair.

Why would you expect from adults to be able to do it, if it has been acceptable even for those high level skaters to do it this way all those years? I do understand that they wanted to make it harder on the elite level, but with adults?

Because adults can do it. Sportive people can do things. Not sportive people shouldn't do competition if they don't want to be judged fairly.

Artifice, you say that you personnaly don't get the point of earning points for something badly done. You prefer to up the ante and get even more satisfaction when you get points rather than getting undeserved points. Hmmm, what about going back and checking whether all the champions in the past had sit spin low enough? If not, did they deserve their points? Maybe there was someone at their competition that time who had much better sit spin; they may have deserved more points! Pity that they don't know how poorly they have done!

The problem with the old system is that one actually never knew what counted and what didn't count in the program. At the time spins weren't given so much consideration, now spins are rewarded highly. And it is a chance for skaters, especially adult skaters who will always have difficulties to perform triple jumps, to get a chance to earn a lot of points with spins. Spins can be great with work, contrary to jumps that requires qualities much harder to get with age. So, if you work well on your spins you will have big points.

The IJS fits adult skaters better than the 6.0 system because of the focus on elements other than jumps. You should take it as a chance to improve and earn (deserved) points.