Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 141 to 149 of 149
  1. #141
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    1,520
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Marco View Post
    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.
    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).
    Last edited by TheIronLady; 07-20-2011 at 05:14 AM.

  2. #142
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,592
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    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).

    re: footwork

    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.

  3. #143
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    11,186
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by TheIronLady View Post
    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).
    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.

  4. #144
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,430
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    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).
    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.

    PE rewards the body positioning and expressiveness while doing the spread eagle;
    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.

    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;
    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.

    In rewards how "into the music" or "into character" the skater is while doing the spread eagle.
    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.

  5. #145

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    53
    Posts
    10,469
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    21476
    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?

  6. #146
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    7,138
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    double post.

  7. #147
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    7,138
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    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?

  8. #148
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,150
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    at least one season of techno/club music for FD

  9. #149

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    3,731
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    6669
    Separate judging panels for TES and PCS.
    improving my ballad- like lines

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678

Posting Permissions

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