Cross-decade judging game: Battle of the Bronze

[gkelly]

Since we often get discussions of which era of skating produced the best or most memorable skating, I thought I'd set up an artificial opportunity to compare examples from the last 30 years of skating history.

How would you rank these performances?

I've chosen to use bronze medal freeskates -- not always the third-place freeskate depending on short program and/or figures placement -- because for the most part they will be pretty good performances and readily available on youtube, but generally not historic iconic performances.

These are ladies from Worlds in odd years only -- to keep the number manageable. If you want to try this but find the number of programs still too large, choose every other one listed.

Obviously we see an increase in technical difficulty in more recent years. But it's not a steady one-way trajectory, so some earlier bronze-medal programs might be stronger technically than others from later years, especially when you focus on quality. And the presentation criteria can apply regardless of the era.

I suggest trying to judge them by 6.0 and maybe mid-80s-mid-90s rules (Zayak rule applies, no required elements except at least one jump combo or sequence).

Or you could judge them on the second mark only by 6.0 standards. Or even judge them on IJS program components only.

Please let us know what your criteria are along with your rankings.

If we get enough responses, I'll figure out the ordinals and results.

Have fun.

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999 missing (use this or this instead if you like, or just skip it)

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

2011 (repeat by a skater already seen; skip one if you like)

[Vagabond]

1999 missing (use this or this instead if you like, or just skip it)

Poor Julia Soldatova! Dissed again!

(((((Julia)))))

[Maofan7]

Julia Soldatova - Long Program - 1999 World Championships

[gkelly]

Thanks, Maofan7!

[alchemy void]

Thank you, this allowed me to procrastinate an hour tonight. It was desperately needed. ;-)

I watched all the skaters in chronological order (Soldatova and Hughes back to back was quite the endurance test, I almost gave up at that point). I judged to 6.0 tech standards mainly... for presentation, I tried to look at some COP components criteria combined with old skool "artistic impression" standards.

I'm quite at my rankings. I'm not much of a Yuna admirer at all but was blown away by her program. I looooove Bobek but her program might have been the emptiest of the bunch here. Good thing she had her looks!

Feel free to flame away...I'll discuss more tomorrow when I don't have to present at a management meeting (in 6 hours!)...

07 Yu Na Kim 5.4 / 5.8 11.2
'93 Chen Lu 5.7 / 5.5 11.2
'97 Gusmeroli 5.5 / 5.6 11.1
'09 Ando 5.7 / 5.4 11.1
'87 Kadavy 5.3 / 5.7 11.0
'03 Suguri 5.5 / 5.5 11.0
'05 Kostner 5.6 / 5.4 11.0
'11 Kostner 5.3 / 5.6 10.9
'95 Bobek 5.4 / 5.5 10.9
'93 Kerrigan 5.4 / 5.4 10.8
'01 Hughes 5.6 / 5.2 10.8
'99 Soldatova 5.5 / 5.2 10.7
'85 Chin 4.7 / 5.5 10.2
'89 Trenary 4.7 / 5.4 10.1
'81 Kristofics-Binder 4.5 / 5.3 9.8
'83Vordorezeva 4.3 / 5.2 9.5

[briancoogaert]

I love YuNa Kim's LP in 2007.
And Carolina Kostner 2011 LP.
Lu Chen 1993 LP was a really good performance.

[gkelly]

Thanks for playing, alchemy void!

I started doing PCS only and have made it through 1995 so far. When I finish tonight or tomorrow I'll post my results. I expect a mix of different eras in my top, middle, and bottom groups.

[l'etoile]

What an interesting thread! I think I'll definitely need many hours to finish them but I'll try

[Vagabond]

A few thoughts:

I wish I could have given Gusmeroli a higher technical mark, but she should have had a better plan for what to do if she didn't land that planned opening combination.

In actuality (under CoP), Kim got no points for doing a jump combination after falling on two attempts at a triple lutz, but under 6.0, she qouls get a boost for doing three different combinations.

I took the liberty of ranking Malinina, as the initial post invited us to do.

Watching Kerrigan directly after Trenary was a revelation. I could have given Trenary (and Chin) an even lower technical mark compared to Kerrigan -- there was that much difference just over the course of two years. It would not, however, have affected the rankings.

I cannot fathom the reasoning behind Vodorezeva's music choices and cuts.

With that in mind, take the following with a pinch of salt:

'93 Chen 5.6 / 5.8 11.4
'01 Hughes 5.6 / 5.7 11.3
'07 Kim 5.5 / 5.7 11.2
'11 Kostner 5.3 / 5.8 11.1
'05 Kostner 5.7 / 5.4 11.1
'93 Kerrigan 5.5 / 5.5 11.0
'87 Kadavy 5.3 / 5.6 10.9
'03 Suguri 5.4 / 5.5 10.9
‘99 Malinina 5.5 / 5.4 10.9
'97 Gusmeroli 5.3 / 5.5 10.8
'09 Ando 5.5 / 5.3 10.8
'95 Bobek 5.2 / 5.5 10.7
'99 Soldatova 5.4 / 5.3 10.7
'85 Chin 4.7 / 5.5 10.2
'89 Trenary 4.7 / 5.4 10.1
'81 Kristofics-Binder 4.5 / 5.0 9.5
'83 Vodorezeva 4.3 / 4.9 9.2

[gkelly]

As I mentioned, I judged these by PCS only looking with IJS eyes (and considering step sequences and spiral sequences as transitions, since there were no official sequences required in the first half of this date range).

So here's what I came up with. I just added up the PCS without factoring to figure out my rankings. Since I didn't pay that close attention to the technical elements (jumps and spins), I would have had some of these skaters in a different order if I were judging all aspects the programs. I definitely found it useful to separate the different aspects of the "second mark," though.

And I'm surprised that I was less impressed by the program construction of the 1990s programs than I expected to be. I guess that's not what won bronze medals in the odd years.

41.75 Kostner 2011
8.75 7.75 8.25 8.75 8.25

41.5 Kim
8.5 7.75 8.25 8.5 8.5

40.75 Kadavy
7.5 7.75 8.5 8.5 8.5

37.25 Kerrigan
7.0 7.5 7.5 7.75 7.5

36.75 Kostner 2005
8.0 7.25 7.5 7.5 6.5

35.25 Suguri
7.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 7.25

34.0 Hughes
6.75 6.25 7.5 7.0 6.5

34.0 Chin
6.0 7.0 6.75 7.0 7.25

33.75 Bobek
7.5 6.0 7.25 6.25 6.75

32.75 Chen
6.5 6.0 6.75 6.5 7.0

32.0 Gusmeroli
5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.0

32.0 Trenary
6.75 6.5 6.5 6.0 6.25

31.0 Vodorezova
6.5 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.5

30.5 Ando
7.0 6.5 6.0 5.5 5.5

27.0 Kristofics-Binder
6.0 5.0 5.25 5.25 5.5

25.75 Soldatova
6.25 6.5 6.0 4.5 3.5

[l'etoile]

Okay, here we go. My estimated time, a few hours, to do this was terribly off the chart. I think I put much more thought than I expected but AM TOTALLY ENJOYING THIS! I'm not finished with the scoring yet, but I'll try my best to keep it up well and fast. When I'm done, I'll post the total ranks based on TSS

I've been back and forth about whether I would use 6.0 system or IJS system.
Since I'm not really that familiar how 6.0 worked in technical elements, I leaned towards IJS, but then I realized that it is really difficult to compare programs from different era with either of the systems; programs were designed along with the system they were under.
So I came up with my own judging rules, rather simple but possibly illogical at times, of course. However, I thought this way, I could measure up all the programs fairly equally.

So, what I did was:

1. Technical mark
successful solo jumping pass each = 2 points
successful combo jumping pass each = 3 points
non-jumps each = 2 points
GOE = aesthetic aspect only, from the scale of 0 - 1 divided into five grades = +- 0/0.25/0.5/0.75/1

2. Presentation mark = scale of 0-10, quite like IJS's PCS.
Since I'm not able to eloquently explain to others what general idea of SS entails EXACTLY, I set up my own standards of PCS:
speed/
deep edges and quick CoE/
smoothness on ice/
engaging with the audience/
choreography and interpretation/
execution

My scoring for 2003-2011 bronze medalists.

Carolina Kostner 2011

3f= 2 + 0.75 (great height and distance.)
2a= 2 + 0.25 (steady landing but long set-up.)
2a-3t= 3 + 0.75(great height and distance on both jumps but long set-up.)
spin1= 2 + 0.5
spin2= 2 + 0.25 (great speed but traveled.)
3s= 2 + 0.25
1lo-2t= 0 + 0
3lo= 1 + 0 (step out.)
spiral sequence= 2 + 0.5
step sequence= 2 + 1 (Just BEAUTIFUL)
3s-2t-2t = 3 + 0.25
spin3= 2 + 0.25

TES = 28.25
PCS = 9.25
TSS = 37.5


Miki Ando 2009

3lz-2lo= 3 + 0.5 (huge lutz but really small 2lo)
2a-3t= 3 + 0.25 (so much telegraphing but solid execution.)
3s= 2 + 0.5 (sudden entry with decent scale yet short on landing edge.)
spin1= 2 + 0 (started good but traveled and became way slower.)
spiral sequence= 2 + 0.25
3lo= 2 + 0
3lz= 2 + 0.5 (long set-up but great distance with lovely landing step.)
3t-2lo-2lo= 2 + 0 (looooooooooong set-up and dubious rotations on 2lo's)
2a= 2 + 0 (great distance but telegraphing at the easiest jump<_<)
spin2= 2 + 0.25
step sequence= 2 + 0.25 (good energy throughout but shallow edges and rather frantic manner doesn't help much.)
spin3= 2 + 0.5

TES = 29.00
PCS = 6.5
TSS = 35.5


Yuna Kim 2007

3f-3t= 3 + 1 (great height and distance on both jumps, so light.)
2a-3t= 3 + 1 (ina bauer into the jumping pass, great height, distance and easiness.)
spin1= 2 + 0.5 (good centering, reall fast, good layback position minus the feet.)
2a= 2 + 0.25
spin2= 2 + 0.75 (beautiful position throughout, amazing speed.)
step sequence= 2 + 0.5
3lutz fall = 0 + 0.5 (zero point for fall, but the scale of the jump alone is worth this much goe. Both lutzes were prededed by change of edge.)
spin3= 2 + 0.5
3lutz fall = 0 + 0.5
3s+2t = 3 + 0.25
spiral sequence= 2 + 0.25 (great speed but not as much aethetically pleasing positions as it could have.)
2a= 2 + 0.25

TES = 26.75
PCS = 9
TSS = 35.75


Carolina 2005

3f-3t-2lo= 3 + 1 (huge scale and easy.)
3lz-2t= 3 + 0.25 (she really telegraphs)
3lo= 2 + 0.25
step sequence= 2 + 0.25
spin1= 2 + 0
spiral sequence= 2 + 0.25 (positions could be better but pure speed, my God.)
2lo= 1 + 0
2a+1lo+3s= 2 + 0.25 (step out)
3t= 2 + 0
spin2= 2 + 0.5 (I counted her two simple spins as one.)
spin3= 2 + 0.5
2a= 2 + 0 (telegraphed and low.)

TES = 28.25
PCS = 7.5
TSS = 35.75


Fumie Suguri 2003

3lz-2t= 3 + 0 (decent scale but deducted by flutzing and telegraphing.)
3f= 2 + 0.5 (great distance and lightness.)
1t+1t= 0 - 0.25
spin1= 2 + 0.5 (I counted two spins in a row as one.)
3lo= 2 + 0 (long set-up and short landing edge.)
spiral sequence= 2 + 0.25
3lz= 2 + 0.25 (lovely transition and height, but flutzed, telegraphed.)
spin2= 2 + 0.25
step sequence= 2 + 0.25 (really shallow edges, monotonous execution. I considered two separate step sequences as one.)
3s= 1 + 0 (step out)
2a= 2 + 0
spin3= 2 + 0.25

TES = 24
PCS = 7
TSS = 31

[l'etoile]

Ladies from 1991 to 2001

Sarah Hughes 2001

2a= 2 + 0.5
3s-3lo= 3 + 0.25 (Wow, the lightness blew me away but weak landing.)
3lo= 2 + 0.25 (such a telegraphing!)
3lz= 3 - 0.25 (flutzing and poor quality on 2t.)
(spin-judging included in spin1)
spiral sequence = 2 + 0.5
3f= 2 + 0.25
step sequence= 2 + 0.25
spin1= 2 + 1
3lz= 2 - 0.25 (flutzing deducted the good distance and height.)
3t= 2 + 0.25
spin2= 2 + 0.5
spin3= 2 + 0.25

TES = 29.75
PCS = 6.5
TSS = 36.25


Julia Soldatova 1999

3s-3t= 3 + 0.25 (That was a surprise!)
3lz-2t= 3 + 0.25
spiral sequence= 2 + 0
3f fall = 0 + 0
3lo = 2 + 0 (such a hasty landing and she had to turn half the rink for this jump)
2a-1lo-2t= 3 - 0.25 (Not so much flow at all.)
spin1= 2 + 0.25
3lz= 2 + 0.25 (Good scale but countless Xovers and telegraphing made me dizzy.)
3s= 2 + 0.5
spin2= 2 + 0.25
step sequence= 2 + 0
spin3= 2 + 0.25

TES = 28.25
PCS = 6.0
TSS = 34.25


Vanessa Gusmeroli 1997

3f< = 1.5 - 0.5 (UR, two-footed and step out.)
3lz= 2 + 0.25 (telegraphed but decent flow and good edge.)
spiral sequence= 2 + 0.75 (so smooth and great positions!)
spin1= 2 + 0.75 (Just brilliant!)
2lo= 1 + 0
step sequence= 2 + 0
2a= 2 + 0.25
3t= 2 + 0
spin1= 2 + 0.75 (beautiful positions with the speed kept steady.)
3f-2t= 3 + 0 (No flow at all)
3s= 2 + 0 (telegraphing and short on landing)
3lo-1lo= 3 - 0.5 (she's really weak at combos.)
spin2= 2 + 0.25

TES = 28.25
PCS = 6.5 (I really enjoyed the choreography but her interpretation wasn't as engaging as the choreo. Only if she has deeper edges throughout.)
TSS = 34.75


Nicole Bobek 1995

3lz-3t= 3 - 0.25 (flutz and whacky landing flow but good enough height.)
3f-2t= 3 + 0
spin1= 2 + 0.25
3lo= 2 + 0.5 (split into it, wow.)
2a= 2 + 0.25
spin2= 2 + 0
3lo fall= 0 + 0 (OMG I thought she was just skating around, not performing, leading into the jump and then she fell)
spin3= 2 + 0.5
spiral sequence= 2 + 0.5
1a-3s= 2.5 + 0 (I thought she was going for lutz or flip after that endless set-up.)
step sequence= 2 + 0
2a= 2 + 0

TES = 26.5
PCS = 6.5
TSS = 33


Chen Lu 1993

spin1= 2 + 0
3lz+2t= 3 + 0 (It took forever to do the lutz...)
2a= 2 + 0.25
3s= 2 + 0.5
3lo= 2 + 0.5 (great flow in and out.)
spin2= 2 + 0.5
step sequence= 2 + 0.25
3lz= 2 + 0.25 (telegraphed, but good enough height.)
3t= 2 + 0.5
spin3= 2 + 0.25
2f= 1 + 0
3f-lo-2a= 3 + 0.25 (Wow, this combo at the last moment.)

TES = 28.5
PCS = 7.0
TSS = 35.5

[semogal]

Time for new glasses: read the title of this thread as "cross-dressing judging game". Who wants to play?

[aftershocks]

Just for the fun of it I tried this out. Of course it doesn’t have much relevance particularly due to the differences in eras and judging systems. Still it’s entertaining to try it out, and it does show how difficult judging can be. I used the 6.0 system and looked at each skate chronologically. I’m posting my results prior to looking at other’s scores and scoring criteria. When it came to ties, I ranked according to sp if I could find them, along with equal parts my heart and my overall impressions of each skater:

I think Miki has a very slight edge technically over Yu Na re the actual performances although I tied them on technique. I scored Yu Na ahead on presentation (although I think Miki and Yu Na were somewhat on a par presentation-wise re the actual performances). Yu Na wins on the presentation mark, although I think Yu Na even today still has a lot of work to do in order to truly break through her reserve, plus if she could just push herself to extend and stretch more and point her toes, she could be absolutely exquisite.

Because of the three-way tie between Kadavy, Chin and Kostner, I looked at the sps that I could find, and rated Kadavy and Kostner equal on technique again, but gave Kadavy the edge in presentation. I marked Hughes slightly ahead of Kostner technically, and Kostner ahead on presentation. In addition, Tiffany Chin (although tied with Kadavy and Kostner), I think she is/ was generally an all-around better skater than Kostner, especially technically. Chen Lu is in front of Kadavy, Tiffany and Kostner. At her best, Tiffany Chin should probably be ahead of Lu, Kadavy and Kostner on technique. The way Kostner is skating today, I’d probably rate her over Kadavy and Tiffany now, in terms of presentation. I think Trenary was a much better skater than she showed at Worlds 1989 (e.g., better than Kerrigan and Hughes, especially presentation-wise, and on a par with Kostner in some areas technically, but slightly better than 2005 Kostner presentation-wise).

Nicole Bobek was obviously completely over-scored at 1995 Worlds. No question, Michelle Kwan should have won Bronze at that competition instead of Bobek. And, I also think Michelle should have won Bronze in 2005 too, over Kostner! Funny how it all comes back to Michelle, even though she isn’t part of this judging game.


Yu Na Kim 59 / 58
Miki Ando 59/ 57
Chen Lu 57/ 57
Caryn Kadavy 56/ 57 sp: 57/ 58
Tiffany Chin 56/ 57 Couldn’t find her sp
Carolina Kostner 56/ 57 sp: 57/ 57
Sarah Hughes 57/ 56
Nancy Kerrigan 55/ 56
Jill Trenary 54/ 56
Julia Soldatova 55/ 55
Nicole Bobek 54/ 55
Vanessa Gusmeroli 53/ 55
Elena V. 52/ 54
C. Binder 52/ 52

[Vagabond]

Because of the three-way tie between Kadavy, Chin and Kostner, I looked at the sps that I could find, and rated Kadavy and Kostner equal on technique again, but gave Kadavy the edge in presentation. I marked Hughes slightly ahead of Kostner technically, and Kostner ahead on presentation. In addition, Tiffany Chin (although tied with Kadavy and Kostner), I think she is/ was generally an all-around better skater than Kostner, especially technically. Chen Lu is in front of Kadavy, Tiffany and Kostner. At her best, Tiffany Chin should probably be ahead of Lu, Kadavy and Kostner on technique.

Did you read the initial post?

The challenge is to compare the actual bronze-medal Free Skates at specific World Championships, not to compare skaters' overall ability or any other specific skates.

I lurves me some Tiffany Chin, but her 1985 Worlds Free Skate had just two triple jumps (both toe loops) and comparatively simple spins and step sequences. If that skate and either of Kostner's Free Skates from the original list were compared side by side, there's no way Chin could have placed higher than Kostner on the technical mark.

[aftershocks]

^ ^^ Right you are! I'm not a very good judge on the numbers (or in reading the challenge criteria). Still I think Chin displayed better jumping technique than did Kostner, despite the actual head-to-head performance number of jumps completed. Today's skaters are required to do a great deal more in terms of spins and footwork, but I don't really think doing more spins and step sequences means the overall quality is better. There was obviously a different criteria or expectation for number of triple jumps in a fp back in 1985 than there was in 2005.

I think this challenge points out that there are so many different ways of viewing and judging performances and that judging across eras is not really feasible because of the different requirements, expectations, and scoring systems. Let's say that Chin was skating in Kostner's era and had the opportunity to train all the triples as Kostner does... I think that with the quality of Chin's skating, she would be on a par with or better technically than Kostner. Although as I said, I think Kostner has greatly improved since 2005, especially in presentation, plus her speed and ice coverage has always been good. However, her technique on jumps has tended to be fairly inconsistent over the years.

[gkelly]

So, difficulty of the jumps (or spins) aside, which of these skaters show the best quality to the elements they did do, the best quality to the skating skills, program construction, performance quality, musical interpretation, etc.? Do the criteria for those skills change significantly over the decades?

[Vagabond]

So, difficulty of the jumps (or spins) aside, which of these skaters show the best quality to the elements they did do, the best quality to the skating skills, program construction, performance quality, musical interpretation, etc.? Do the criteria for those skills change significantly over the decades?

It's easier said than done, especially with respect to the elements. Each skater's performance was a product of the era in which it was skated.

Do you treat Gusmeroli's second triple flip as a solo jump that violates the Zayak Rule, a valid and well-executed solo triple flip, the start of a badly executed 3F+2T sequence, or the start of a very badly executed 3F+2T combination? Do you follow CoP and give Kim credit for two fully rotated triple lutzes, with one as an uncompleted sequence, or do you simply ignore them for purposes of the technical mark, as would have happened under 6.0? And how do you even rate the quality of Chin's double axel out of an Ina Bauer without also considering the difficulty?

For what it's worth, when I originally marked these skaters, I didn't give Gusmeroli any credit for that flip or Kim any credit for the lutzes. I'm such a meanie!

Chin's double axel, on the other hand, made me