Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 149
  1. #41

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,972
    vCash
    1271
    Rep Power
    5546
    Quote Originally Posted by PDilemma View Post
    This is mine!
    This!!! A fast centered spin that looks good, please.

    Also no credit for a flexibility move unless you are actually flexible and able to achieve an aesthetically pleasing position that has something to do with the music. (Sean Sawyer = yes, Robin Szolkowy = no).

  2. #42

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    enjoying the on-season
    Posts
    1,064
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    305
    Falls are disruptive to programs, and since judges don't seem to think so when they judge PCS (well, for certain skaters ), then the automatic deductions for falls should be increased.

    Ex.
    -1 deduction for first fall
    -2 deduction for second fall
    -3 deduction for third fall
    -4 deduction for fourth fall

    There should be a bonus for including each type of jump in one's program.

  3. #43

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    4,381
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by skateboy View Post
    Revising the step sequence rule (levels), so that they don't have to last forever (and at the speed of a tortoise with a bad foot) and do not have to use every turn ever invented. I preferred the pre-COP step sequences.
    Quote Originally Posted by skatefan View Post
    And may I add to that the removal of the full body movement requirement to stop the random bobbing up and down, butt in the air (ladies and men), which imo adds nothing to a programme.
    Quote Originally Posted by barbk View Post
    Yes. And a straight line sequence should go back to being a straight line.
    Yes, all those things. It would be nice if the straightline step sequences went back to being just that, rather than a "meander around the ice while bobbing about" sequence. And the upper body movement in particular is an evil that must be eradicated for the good of skating. Unless one is portraying a drunken pirate it never adds anything.

    I realize what Yags did in Winter wasn't all that hard, but it went with the music, it was fun, and it was memorable. Some skaters today have great edges, but the step sequences themselves are just forgettable.

  4. #44

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    52
    Posts
    10,243
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    10899
    So, serious question (I'll make another thread if appropriate)...

    Suppose we want to encourage and reward skaters for
    1) step sequences that cover the ice with good speed
    2) step sequences that demonstrate good edge quality
    3) step sequences that fit the musical phrasing and choreographic theme of the program
    4) ability to demonstrate variety and difficulty of turns, steps, and other skating skills, in both directions

    If requiring 4) in the step sequences seems to work against also achieving 1) and 3), would it make more sense to make all step sequences "choreo step sequences" and then to reward the skills under 4) with GOE when demonstrated with the choreo sequence, or to reward them with more specific incentives than the current Skating Skills component when demonstrated throughout the program, or to reward them in their own separate part of the competition outside the program by reviving school figures or introducing some other purely skating skill segment of the competition?

    Or should advanced skating skills not be officially rewarded?

  5. #45
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    171
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by shady82 View Post
    Changing underrotations to a GOE deduction instead of a downgrade. This would change so many results for the better, such as Nakano's 2008 Worlds placing.
    In an ideal world, this would work. I would have no problem with this rule in the case of a skater who normally full rotates the jump but happens to make a mistake in competition.

    However, this rule could encourage skaters (and coaches!) to not learn the proper jump technique. With this rule, skaters could actually PLAN to only do a 2.5 Lutz because they would then get the points for a triple with -GOE, which would still likely yield more points than a double jump. I don't see how this could change ANYTHING for the better!

  6. #46

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    5,872
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    3930
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    So, serious question (I'll make another thread if appropriate)...

    Suppose we want to encourage and reward skaters for
    1) step sequences that cover the ice with good speed
    2) step sequences that demonstrate good edge quality
    3) step sequences that fit the musical phrasing and choreographic theme of the program
    4) ability to demonstrate variety and difficulty of turns, steps, and other skating skills, in both directions

    If requiring 4) in the step sequences seems to work against also achieving 1) and 3), would it make more sense to make all step sequences "choreo step sequences" and then to reward the skills under 4) with GOE when demonstrated with the choreo sequence, or to reward them with more specific incentives than the current Skating Skills component when demonstrated throughout the program, or to reward them in their own separate part of the competition outside the program by reviving school figures or introducing some other purely skating skill segment of the competition?

    Or should advanced skating skills not be officially rewarded?
    I'd rather reward a skater's use of variety and difficulty of turns in SS marks rather than ruining step sequences, which is what has happened. Good step sequences in the past reflected power and musicality and variation in speed. Today's skaters too often look like birds incompetently searching for worms.

  7. #47
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Jani-Ayil
    Posts
    3,317
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by essence_of_soy View Post
    What rule would you like created, and what would the penalty be.
    I would propose three (with corollaries), in descending order of likelihood of their being adopted:

    1. End anonymous judging.

    I don't believe it accomplishes its ostensible goal of preventing judges from being bribed or otherwise influenced by their respective federations (or others).

    2. Treat multi-rotation walleys and toe walleys as distinct jumps and award them their own base value.

    Call it Zayak's Revenge. This would probably mean lengthening Men's and Ladies' Free Skates. So be it.

    3. Reinstitute school figures.

    This would require the ISU to set up a system for scoring them according to CoP.

    I would also have the judges be sequestered before and while each skater skates so that the marks of for what is actually out there on the ice, not for a skater's reputation.

    With modern filming techniques, including overhead cameras, this could draw a television audience and also be shown on big screen at the arena during the competition.

    Quote Originally Posted by Skate Talker View Post
    This is a very good idea for a topic. I just hope it isn't overtaken by facetious replies.

  8. #48

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    2,664
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by julieann View Post
    No more tights over the boots unless you are a synchro team.
    Absolutely agree with this!

    (I hate the tights over the boots. )

  9. #49
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Portugal
    Age
    21
    Posts
    14,081
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0

  10. #50

    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Staring at the ocean, anywhere anytime
    Posts
    9,671
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    4440
    I love the Zayak's revenge toe walley rule!!!

    I also would like a rule for what amounts to a TKO:

    -3 falls in any program, and you are assumed to be too injured to continue to skate; leave the ice.

    Having watched several skaters fall many times in the LP, I would really have appreciated it if the ref had escorted them off after the 3rd fall. In hindsight, I bet they would appreciate it too.

  11. #51

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    52
    Posts
    10,243
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    10899
    Quote Originally Posted by shady82 View Post
    Changing underrotations to a GOE deduction instead of a downgrade. This would change so many results for the better, such as Nakano's 2008 Worlds placing.
    Quote Originally Posted by carriecmu0503 View Post
    In an ideal world, this would work. I would have no problem with this rule in the case of a skater who normally full rotates the jump but happens to make a mistake in competition.

    However, this rule could encourage skaters (and coaches!) to not learn the proper jump technique. With this rule, skaters could actually PLAN to only do a 2.5 Lutz because they would then get the points for a triple with -GOE, which would still likely yield more points than a double jump. I don't see how this could change ANYTHING for the better!
    I have a problem with it because there are several possible scenarios.

    To simplify, let's look at three:

    1) Severely underrotated jump landed on two feet with potentially other errors as well.

    2) Moderately underrotated jump landed on one foot with good flow and perhaps extra enhancements.

    3) Fully rotated jump with step out, hand down, incorrect takeoff, or other errors.

    I.e., don't worry about falls, which currently do get an additional penalty.

    Remember that there are only three available grades of negative GOE.

    I would want scenario 1) to be punished the most severely and 2) the least severely.

    1) should get -3 GOE and also a reduction in the base mark.

    3) should get -3 GOE off the full base mark

    What about 2)? If you penalize it only in the GOE, then that doesn't allow you to distinguish between a moderately cheated but otherwise beautiful jump and a moderately cheated jump with multiple and/or severe other errors.

    I hated the complete downgrade for jumps that looked clean or close to clean to the naked eye. In that sense I think that the new-last-year 70% base mark for jumps underrotated more than 90 and less than 180 degrees is a great compromise. (< symbol as opposed to << for full downgrade)

    I would go a little further and say that the GOE for a jump with a < call needs to be reduced by -1 to -3 depending on how severe the cheat looks to each individual judge, but I would want to say that the final GOE does not need to be negative. Therefore, if it looks great in real time and has extra enhancements, a judge could start out thinking it deserves +1 or +2. Then if the tech panel calls the < for underrotation, the judge could think "Well, I didn't see the cheat, so it must have been minor. I'll take off -1." And then end up with 0 or even +1 for the overall quality of the jump, but the base mark would be slightly reduced for the underrotation.

    On the other hand, if the jump is horribly flawed and obviously cheated but not quite by 180 degrees, it could also receive the 70% base mark and -3 GOE, which is a lot less than 0 or +1.

    Look at, e.g., Nakano's triple axel at 2008 Worlds or some of Nagasu's jumps at 2010 US Nationals. If they had received 70% of the base mark and 0 or +1 GOE, wouldn't that seem a lot fairer than base mark of a double jump and negative GOE?

  12. #52
    Loving on babies!
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Twin heaven!
    Posts
    11,654
    vCash
    1570
    Rep Power
    17268
    I would institute a rule that there must be one "classic" move per long program, no levels, just GOE points. Such classic moves being a "classic" layback or cross-foot spin, a single axel in tuck or straight-legged form, etc....some of those beautiful "simple" moves that aren't so simple to actually do right and in good form.
    I am free of all prejudices. I hate everyone equally.~W. C. Fields

  13. #53

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    52
    Posts
    10,243
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    10899
    Quote Originally Posted by Vagabond View Post
    2. Treat multi-rotation walleys and toe walleys as distinct jumps and award them their own base value.

    Call it Zayak's Revenge. This would probably mean lengthening Men's and Ladies' Free Skates. So be it.
    And inside axels!

    I want to see the ladies' free skate lengthened so they can do the same number of jumps as men (probably not the same number of revolutions, but showing other kinds of jumping skills) and still have time for everything else.

    3. Reinstitute school figures.

    This would require the ISU to set up a system for scoring them according to CoP.

    I would also have the judges be sequestered before and while each skater skates so that the marks of for what is actually out there on the ice, not for a skater's reputation.
    Heh. So judge them only on the prints and not the speed, flow, body line, etc.?

    Well, it would certainly be more objective.


    Anyway, my changes -- not sure they can be boiled down into one "gkelly rule":

    Replace the short program with a jump contest and spin contest each judged on base marks and GOEs only, and skating skills contest to music judged only on PCS.

    (Although I could be talked into also including Vagabond's school figures contest.)

    Give separate medals for each of the above, and also use them as qualifiers for the all-around event (free program).

    Ladies and men have the same rules for freeskating:
    Same length of time (4:15 +/- 0:15?)
    Maximum of 8 jump passes, 5 spins, 2 step sequences, 1 each of spiral sequence, field moves sequence, school figures variation
    Minimum of 5 jump passes, 3 spins, 1 step sequence, with certain requirements; no minimum for the other kinds of elements
    Maximum of 13 or 14 elements total

    Make definitions and rules for the new kinds of elements

    And a few changes to the level definitions for existing kinds of elements.

    I'd go back to making spiral sequences leveled, in addition to field moves sequences, but there would be more options for how to achieve the levels so everyone could choose their own kind of level 4 sequence to show off their own best skills

    I'd change the definitions of the features for step sequences so Variety of steps is one feature and Variety of turns is a separate feature. It would be possible to earn level 2 and maybe level 3 by getting credit for variety in only one or the other of steps and turns, as long as there was also credit for another feature or two. For level 4 both would be required. Then maybe the upper body movement feature could be eliminated or modified to discourage excessive body movement just for the sake of earning a level.



    Obviously different changes would be made for pairs and dance. I haven't given those much thought.

  14. #54

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Driving the Han Yan Fan Van
    Posts
    8,831
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by skateboy View Post
    Revising the step sequence rule (levels), so that they don't have to last forever (and at the speed of a tortoise with a bad foot) and do not have to use every turn ever invented. I preferred the pre-COP step sequences.
    Already done for the men's LPs--they now have a "choreographic step sequence." No levels called, just GOE.

  15. #55

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,172
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Macassar88 View Post
    I think the problem isn't the code. It's the fact that skaters aren't trying to do fast step sequences anymore. Remember in 2006 when Sasha and Irina were doing level 3 steps with good speed?
    I think that the slow sequences should result in lower PC's in composition and skating skills (since part of skating skills has to do with speed across ice)
    The requirements for footwork were completely different and much simpler back in 2006. They are way too convoluted now.

    I find it interesting that people are still advocating for a removal of the downgrades/underrotations. I'm just curious for those of you that support this: have you ever tried triples? Because a cheated triple is NOT the same as a clean one. A clean fall is actually harder than a cheated landing for most people. In fact, that was one of the complaints about 6.0, that cheated jumps were ignored as long as you didn't fall. Anyone remember a skater called Sarah Hughes, whose "triple-triples" won her the OGM? What about some of the "triple-triples" Irina used to do? Do you really think those combinations are equal to say, those that Yu na or Carolina (when she's on) do?

    A case could be made for Yukari Nakano placing third, but not on the basis that she landed a triple axel. She didn't. She had a fantastic attempt at it, but a triple axel it was not, and it rightfully didn't get full credit.

    I agree with whoever said that if you get rid of the downgrades, coaches and skaters won't put in the effort to get clean jumps. I'm not a huge fan of COP, but one thing it gets right is it forces skaters to actually work on rotating their jumps and taking off from the right edges, two things that were basically ignored under 6.0. Yes, sometimes the judges go overboard, but generally I think they get it right, and the attention to correct rotation and technique is a good step for the sport. Remember, we haven't really seen any skaters raised under COP yet, it will be interesting to see what skating will look like in 5-10 years.

  16. #56

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Overjoyed for Evan
    Posts
    8,651
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    1341
    Once you compete at a senior ISU international event (GP, ISU champs, whatever), you cannot then compete at a junior ISU international event (JGP, Junior Worlds). I'd call it the No Backsies rule.
    The Junior Grand Prix: Where skaters who "come out of nowhere" come from.

  17. #57
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Jani-Ayil
    Posts
    3,317
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    And inside axels!
    Absolutely.

    Maybe boechels too.

    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    Heh. So judge them only on the prints and not the speed, flow, body line, etc.?

    Well, it would certainly be more objective.
    Exactly.

    A possible alternative would be not to sequester judges but to have Element Scores for the prints and Components Scores for speed, flow, body line, etc.

  18. #58

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    52
    Posts
    10,243
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    10899
    Quote Originally Posted by triple_toe View Post
    Anyone remember a skater called Sarah Hughes, whose "triple-triples" won her the OGM? What about some of the "triple-triples" Irina used to do? Do you really think those combinations are equal to say, those that Yu na or Carolina (when she's on) do?
    I don't think you can make a meaningful comparison between Hughes's and Slutskaya's triple-triples on the one hand and Kim's and Kostner's on the other. The former two almost always did triple loop as the second jump, which by nature is going to have less flow and cover less ice on the landings combinations than triple toe as the second jump.

    (Slutskaya's 3T-3t here is the best she achieved with a toe loop as the second jump, not up to Kim's and Kostner's best but less to complain about than her loop combinations.)

    It would make more sense to compare to triple loop combinations by Ando or Asada.

  19. #59
    Awaiting Validation
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Northern Kentucky
    Posts
    655
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by her grace View Post
    Falls are disruptive to programs, and since judges don't seem to think so when they judge PCS (well, for certain skaters ), then the automatic deductions for falls should be increased.

    Ex.
    -1 deduction for first fall
    -2 deduction for second fall
    -3 deduction for third fall
    -4 deduction for fourth fall

    There should be a bonus for including each type of jump in one's program.
    I like this, I have always thought falls do not receive enough deductions...even under the old system.

  20. #60
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    LEAVE EDMUNDS ALONE!!1!
    Posts
    20,095
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    1. Flying Upright banned from the SP

    Honestly...

    2. Spin values varied much more.

    Camel is much more difficult than sit, which is much more difficult than upright.

    3. Loop combos valued more.

    A small factor should have been introduced to the combos featuring a loop jump, as they are much harder to perform than those featuring a toe-loop.

    4. Technical panel calling "s" on SP jumps with no steps

    Because otherwise, we'll NEVER get the judges deducting for that (look how it was with flutzes and lips until we got "e").

    5. Doing both Junior and Senior GP in Pairs as well as doing 3 GP events NOT allowed

    There are few spots available as it is.

    6. Judges told they need to vary their components or they will get slowly tortured to death.



    Factoring combos

    As pointed out already, 2toe/3toe is harder than 3toe/2toe.

    But I can't imagine how that could be balanced. I don't think that could really work.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lanna View Post
    Once you compete at a senior ISU international event (GP, ISU champs, whatever), you cannot then compete at a junior ISU international event (JGP, Junior Worlds). I'd call it the No Backsies rule.
    I think that should be taken into consideration.

    Junior-eligible skaters can take advantage of much more opportunities to get ISU ranking points.

    And doing both Junior and Senior events (having that many competitions in one season) increases the risk of injury.

    Quote Originally Posted by her grace View Post
    Falls are disruptive to programs, and since judges don't seem to think so when they judge PCS (well, for certain skaters ), then the automatic deductions for falls should be increased.

    Ex.
    -1 deduction for first fall
    -2 deduction for second fall
    -3 deduction for third fall
    -4 deduction for fourth fall
    You would end up with skaters taking much fewer risks and skating much safer programs. Programs would probably get even more front-loaded too.

    Which is the last thing skating needs.

    And falls don't necessarily have to be disruptive. If a skater returns to his program immediately and doesn't let the fall affect it, then they certainly shouldn't be penalised any more because it's an extremely difficult feat to accomplish.
    Last edited by Ziggy; 07-15-2011 at 01:26 AM.

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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