Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 73
  1. #41

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,967
    vCash
    1271
    Rep Power
    5546
    Well there you go. I didn't know they did a public ceremony for the individual event winner. I've also never heard an individual event medalist referred to as an Olympic or World medalist. When Ten's placement came up on the scoreboard it didn't show his long program placement (1), but only his overall placement (2) as if that was the only placement that matters, which is pretty much the case in skating.

  2. #42

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    52
    Posts
    10,237
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    10899
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    ^ It was the 2000 Grand Prix Final. There was a short program and a long program and then first and second had a skate-off (another long program) for first, third and fourth had a skate-off for the bronze medal, and , and fifth and sixth had a skate-off for fifth.

    Irina beat Michelle in all three segments. Michelle did the Red Violin as her first LP, then reprised the previous year's Ariane in the skate-off. This format did not go over well, and the ISU never used it again.
    There were three years of the three-program Grand Prix Final.

    In 1999-2000, after the short program and first long program, the 5th and (for singles) 6th place finishers were eliminated. The 3rd and 4th place finishers skated against each other for bronze. The 1st and 2nd place finishers skated against each other for gold and silver.

    2000-2001 was as you describe -- three rounds with all. The 5th and 6th place finishers (now 6 qualified in all disciplines including pairs and dance) were not eliminated and got to skate the third program they had prepared against each other, although they were not in medal contention.

    In 2001-2002 all six finalists in each discipline skated against each other for all three rounds.

    In the ladies' event, the factored placements were:

    1 Irina Slutskaya Russia 2.0 1 1 1
    2 Michelle Kwan United States 4.4 3 2 2
    3 Sarah Hughes United States 6.4 4 3 3
    4 Maria Butyrskaya Russia 7.2 2 4 4
    5 Yoshie Onda Japan 11.0 6 6 5
    6 Tatiana Malinina Uzbekistan 11.0 5 5 6

    I think the factors were 0.4 for the short, 0.6 for the first freeskate, and 1.0 for the final freeskate.

    (Slutskaya made more mistakes than Kwan in the final freeskate, leading many fans to argue that Kwan should have placed ahead in that program. Hughes had the cleanest final freeskate so there were also arguments that she should have won that round.

    Yes, programs with several visible errors did sometimes beat cleaner programs under 6.0.)

  3. #43

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Age
    47
    Posts
    17,724
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    15381
    Okay I have an idea. Elements should only get value for the amount of time it takes to do them, ie the percentage of program time.

    As jumps only take .08 of a second they shouldn't be worth much because they hardly take any time to do. Although you would probably need to take into account the entry and landing. Although do telegraphed jumps get more value because they mean more of the program percentage is related to jumps?
    As step sequences take the longest to do out of all the elements they should be worth the most.
    The longer a spin the more value it is worth.

    Everything else in between are the PCS.
    When you are up to your arse in alligators it is difficult to remember you were only meant to be draining the swamp.

  4. #44
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    2,424
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    The Gp with two lp's was the one where Michelle's first lp was the "Black Swan" and her second lp was "the Miraculous Mandarin", which was skated below her usual standards. The latter could have been another masterpiece for her imo, but she never skated again.


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWarys9kuzM
    Last edited by Iceman; 03-25-2013 at 11:04 AM.

  5. #45

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    52
    Posts
    10,237
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    10899
    Again, there were THREE Grand Prix Finals with two long programs: 1999-2000, 2000-2001, and 2001-2002.

  6. #46
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,043
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Figure skating is a sport with inherent contradictions, unlike, say, track and field. I am not convinced that it is possible to create a set of rules or circumstances to keep all parties happy: casual fans, long-time fans, judges, skaters, coaches, skating parents, ISU and federations, etc. To satisfy one group would necessarily lose some others. That's just the nature of the sport.

    So the question is, who are the most important group in the survival and viability of figure skating as a sport that should be satisfied FIRST? I think it is the skaters. Without the thousands and thousands of skaters who spend their (parents'?) money and time and sweat and tears on ice must have the most important and loudest voice. Without them there will be no judges, no audience, no ISU. I have no idea whether skaters are happy with the current rules and, if not, what they want to change to make them happier. I don't mean that we should do away with things like penalties for underrotated jumps, because I don't believe skaters who can fully rotate jumps want to see those who cannot be rewarded.

    Of course, here you run into conflicts among skaters. Some love skating skills or spins more than jumps. Others want to be rewarded for being a great jumper. Still others love to express themselves. However, I am fairly convinced that the vast majority of skaters, if they are given the opportunity to think about what is good for the sport --- not whether "I will win OGM next year" --- would come up with reasonable requests. I also think (haven't asked any skater) that they want a set of rules that reward good skating, good techniques, FAIRLY AND CONSISTENTLY APPLIED. Perhaps we should ask retired skaters to think about this objectively and average their answers, which, I bet, would be good for the sport.
    Last edited by Jun Y; 03-25-2013 at 02:37 PM.

  7. #47

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    52
    Posts
    10,237
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    10899
    Yes, I agree that it would be best to get as close a consensus as possible among current and former skaters (including those now working/volunteering as coaches and choreographers, judges and other officials, commentators, performing pros, etc.).

    And after there's agreement on what the goals of the rules and scoring procedures should be, then the challenge is to figure out the best processes to achieve those goals.

  8. #48
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    81
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ltnskater View Post
    Under the current system, perhaps not so harsh and start with the first fall getting 1 point deduction, then the 2nd fall getting 2, and the 3rd getting 3.
    I like this idea. The more falls, the bigger bite gets taken out of the score. Though I would feel really bad for those who fall 4 or 5 times.

    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    1) The short program was supposed to be worth approximately half as much as the free skate, one-third of the total score, but in practice it's often a bit more than that. For example, currently there are 7 scoring elements in the SP and 13 for men/12 for ladies in the FS.

    So one solution could be to delete one of the elements from the SP -- I would suggest cutting down to two spins and either rotating the requirements from year to year or else defining them as "combination spin with one change of foot" and "spin in one basic position" and requiring a flying entry to one or the other but not both.

    And/or add another element to the free program (for the ladies, add two more and add 15-30 more seconds). I would make these free choice for the skaters except I would not allow a 9th multi-revolution jump element for men. If they introduced my dream of a leveled small-jump sequence, that could be an option.
    I would like to see 6 elements in the SP and 12 in the FS for men, ladies and pairs.

    Singles SP: 3 jump elements, 2 spins, 1 step sequence
    Pairs SP: same elements as previously, minus the death spiral

    Singles FS: Men do the same number of jumps as ladies. Why? So that men are encouraged to perform quads, and still be able to skate cleanish programs. Too much is required of the men these days. I think that is what is harming the men's event in particular.

    Fewer elements would also allow more room for the performance aspect, which many think is lacking under IJS (I'm not one of them).

  9. #49

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    52
    Posts
    10,237
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    10899
    Quote Originally Posted by patinage View Post
    I would like to see 6 elements in the SP and 12 in the FS for men, ladies and pairs.

    Singles SP: 3 jump elements, 2 spins, 1 step sequence
    Pairs SP: same elements as previously, minus the death spiral

    Singles FS: Men do the same number of jumps as ladies. Why? So that men are encouraged to perform quads, and still be able to skate cleanish programs. Too much is required of the men these days. I think that is what is harming the men's event in particular.

    Fewer elements would also allow more room for the performance aspect, which many think is lacking under IJS (I'm not one of them).
    That could also work.

    I think if the total number of jump slots is reduced, we'll end up seeing more men who leave out at least one of the basic jump takeoffs.

    There are always tradeoffs.

  10. #50
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Age
    27
    Posts
    2,476
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    Again, there were THREE Grand Prix Finals with two long programs: 1999-2000, 2000-2001, and 2001-2002.
    Four 2002-2003 also had the two-free skate system.

  11. #51
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,002
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    What can be done about what has happened to spins? Between the repetitive way they are used from program to program and the hideous piling on of variations until the skater looks like a golf ball slowly, eeh-eeh-eeh-UGH squeaking away from the hole, I can't believe they are doing anything but contributing to the sport's decline. Spins (like everything else in skating IMO) should convey a sense of exuberant, breathtaking freedom. Anything that encrusts them and slows them down is bad. Remember when speed was good?

  12. #52
    Corgi Wrangler
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Not Wearing Enough Sparkles
    Posts
    6,334
    vCash
    510
    Rep Power
    2354
    Quote Originally Posted by Spun Silver View Post
    What can be done about what has happened to spins? Between the repetitive way they are used from program to program and the hideous piling on of variations until the skater looks like a golf ball slowly, eeh-eeh-eeh-UGH squeaking away from the hole, I can't believe they are doing anything but contributing to the sport's decline. Spins (like everything else in skating IMO) should convey a sense of exuberant, breathtaking freedom. Anything that encrusts them and slows them down is bad. Remember when speed was good?
    *imaginary like button*

    Recently in pro Latin dancing, a lot of events, including Worlds, have added a requirement that in a particular dance, usually Rumba, the dancers have to do certain basic figures, the kind of stuff you'd see at low-level syllabus but which are the foundation of learning the dance. They're judged in part on who executes those figures best. It's a response to some of the dances getting so far into tricks and showmanship they weren't looking like the dances. I would love to see something like this required for spins--yes, it's impressive someone can do four different positions in a single (painfully slow, awkward-looking) spin or that girls are getting increasingly triple-jointed to try and do as many (weird, somewhat disturbing) bendy positions as they can, but why not require that one spin be a single position (offer a choice between basic ones with no variations allowed--sit, camel, layback in their basic positions--to avoid point-racking with Beilmans, catchfoots, butt-in-the-air, etc) and judge it purely on position, speed, and centeredness.

  13. #53
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    10,383
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    I would like to see the short program have required elements- you must do a triple loop, you must do a basic camel with 8+ revolutions, etc. Then the free program can be slightly more free in comparision. I do think the choreo step sequence was a good move.

    Otherwise, what is the point of two programs? They are essentially the same thing. One just requires more stamina.

    I personally find most free skates boring- they are just way too long for my attention span. I love watching short programs, even of low ranked skaters.

  14. #54

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    52
    Posts
    10,237
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    10899
    Quote Originally Posted by Spun Silver View Post
    What can be done about what has happened to spins? Between the repetitive way they are used from program to program and the hideous piling on of variations until the skater looks like a golf ball slowly, eeh-eeh-eeh-UGH squeaking away from the hole, I can't believe they are doing anything but contributing to the sport's decline. Spins (like everything else in skating IMO) should convey a sense of exuberant, breathtaking freedom.
    Well, maybe everything else in freeskating. Precise tracing was more important than freedom when it came to school figures. But even there executing them with speed and ease was a plus.

    Anything that encrusts them and slows them down is bad. Remember when speed was good?
    I would guess that the average speed of all spin revolutions in a 2013 program is higher than the average speed of all spins in a 2003 or 1993 program. It's not as if, e.g., Kurt Browning or Michelle Kwan, or Angela Nikodinov, were known for the speed of their spins.

    What we do have a lot more of is spins that start fast and then slow down noticeably, which introduces emotions of disappointment and annoyance into watching a program that wouldn't be there if the spin started relatively slow and ended soon. Especially if the quality of the positions and/or centering also decreases.

    Quote Originally Posted by Skittl1321 View Post
    I would like to see the short program have required elements- you must do a triple loop, you must do a basic camel with 8+ revolutions, etc. Then the free program can be slightly more free in comparision. I do think the choreo step sequence was a good move.
    Well, not every senior-level skater can do every triple jump. It's not really realistic to require it.

    What could be done is to require a certain takeoff -- either double, triple, or quad -- that rotates each year, similar to the way the required junior solo jump specifies either double or triple.

    When specific takeoffs were required in the short program in the 1980s, they were always double jumps. Average jump content has increased enough since then, especially for ladies, that it would make sense to allow and encourage triples. But for non-world-class seniors, just doing any two different triples in the SP is a challenge -- specifying which ones, especially the harder ones, each year will mean that certain skaters will be at a significant disadvantage one year and maybe have a much bigger advantage the next year.

    Even at the elite level, requiring a certain jump will mean that some potential medal contenders will always have to dig themselves out of a short program hole for the whole season, whereas the next year the jump selection may give them an advantage over their closest rivals. Even if the rotation is determined completely randomly, people would complain about politics in the required jump choice during an Olympic year.

    Otherwise, what is the point of two programs? They are essentially the same thing. One just requires more stamina.
    The way things stand now, that is very true.

    Which is why I think it may make more sense to divide things up so that one program privileges difficulty in the form of level features and the other privileges quality. I can think of a couple of different ways to define the two different programs.

  15. #55
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    10,383
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    I'd be fine with the required jump changing each year like it does for juniors and the number of revolutions being left to the individual skater. Heck, require two specific jumps, one an edge jump and one a toe jump each year. Yes, there will be complaining, but elite skaters should have mastered all the jumps to at least doubles. If they can't do triples, they need to find the points elsewhere.

    There was an interesting blog article recently about how edge calls for flip and lutz basically allow skaters a work around of the Zayak rule for their prefered jump- do 2 flips and then get an edge call on the lutz. But if you did 3 toe loops, one doesn't count for anything, but an edge call on a flip or a lutz still gives you more points than doing an easier jump like toe or sal. That was a really interesting point, and I wonder if the ISU will ever address this, or if they think edge calls are doing their job well enough.

  16. #56
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,002
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    ^^ Gkelly, you are right about the loss of speed within a spin being the worst offender. Re: average speed of spins, who knows, but even scratch spins (rare as they have become) are slow now. Where is our Ruh, Lambiel... or Nepala? I am more concerned about the last two flights of skaters than the average of novices through seniors. Not saying mine is the only criterion but the popularity of skating depends more on the top skaters than the junior ones. JMO.

    ETA: Sorry, mistake about Nepela. I have a recent image of a blindingly fast scratch spin in my memory and thought it was his, but it wasn't. Hmmm.
    Last edited by Spun Silver; 03-25-2013 at 06:11 PM.

  17. #57

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    52
    Posts
    10,237
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    10899
    Quote Originally Posted by Skittl1321 View Post
    I'd be fine with the required jump changing each year like it does for juniors and the number of revolutions being left to the individual skater. Heck, require two specific jumps, one an edge jump and one a toe jump each year. Yes, there will be complaining, but elite skaters should have mastered all the jumps to at least doubles. If they can't do triples, they need to find the points elsewhere.
    Yeah, I would be fine with that also.

    There was an interesting blog article recently about how edge calls for flip and lutz basically allow skaters a work around of the Zayak rule for their prefered jump- do 2 flips and then get an edge call on the lutz. But if you did 3 toe loops, one doesn't count for anything, but an edge call on a flip or a lutz still gives you more points than doing an easier jump like toe or sal. That was a really interesting point, and I wonder if the ISU will ever address this, or if they think edge calls are doing their job well enough.
    I can't speak for the ISU, but I'm relatively happy with the current details.

    If you want to do two flips and one flutz, you have to make sure that the tech panel will identify your lutz attempt as such. Which probably means going into it on a back outside edge curving (however shallowly) opposite to the jump rotation and then changing at the last second. Which is a different technique than turning into it like a flip. So you're still showing different jump-approach skills, even if your lutz takeoff technique is flawed. Because of GOE reductions, the flutz will still be worth no more than a flip or otherwise comparable quality, and likely less.

    With toe loops, the obvious comparison would be doing two toe loops and one toe walley, which wouldn't be allowed even if you do the toe walley correctly from the inside edge. But the attempt at counterrotation is much less obvious for toe walleys because they're usually done from a natural direction three turn and a step to the back inside edge. If there were a clearly counterrotated approach to the toe walley, it would probably have remained legal as a distinct jump from the toe loop.

  18. #58

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    52
    Posts
    10,237
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    10899
    Quote Originally Posted by Spun Silver View Post
    Re: average speed of spins, who knows, but even scratch spins (rare as they have become) are slow now. Where is our Ruh, Lambiel... or Nepala?
    Or Ronnie Robertson?

    Ruh and Lambiel were hardly known for their forward scratch spins, which were pretty much gone from the typical high-level skating repertoire long before IJS. Back scratch especially at the end of a combination and/or with variations like headless position were more common.

    If we want to see fast simple scratch spins, forward or backward or skater's choice, make it a required element in the short program.

    I am more concerned about the last two flights of skaters than the average of novices through seniors. Not saying mine is the only criterion but the popularity of skating depends more on the top skaters than the junior ones. JMO.
    Well, juniors and novices already have some rule differences, and there could be even more.

    But you can't have different rules for the seniors who are going to be top 12 in the world and the seniors who don't have a hope of reaching that level. Because in between there are a lot of skaters who do have a hope of getting to Worlds, of qualifying for the freeskate, and who on a good day might even crack the top 12 in the short.

    At their nationals (and domestic qualifying competitions if relevant), at Grand Prix and senior B events, at Europeans and Four Continents, and in the Worlds short program, they all need to compete under the same rules. The skaters who could end up anywhere from 10th to 30th at Worlds have to compete against everyone else in that category, as well as the other senior skaters who aren't quite as good but could beat them on a good day if our elite-hopeful skater has a bad day, and also the same rules as the previous medalists that the elite hopefuls hope to challenge.

    Not to mention that the top 12 skaters in the world more likely to be the very best skaters or the very best jumpers, but not necessarily the best spinners. There just aren't enough spin points available in the current format -- or the 6.0 well-balanced program format -- to lift an average skater or jumper with great spins into the elite category. Even Lucinda Ruh made it to top 12 only once, and Nathalie Krieg never did.

    So if you're looking for rules that will allow the elite skaters and jumpers to look less painful when they're spinning, you'll probably be putting the great spinners who are average skaters/jumpers (e.g., Alissa Czisny) at even more of a disadvantage.

  19. #59
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    11,068
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    I am actually fine with the way COP made skaters work on spins. They used to be such throw away elements (Baiul and her non-spins!!!) but now every skater has to hold their spins. And because skaters are essentially doing harder spins, they have to become better spinners to even keep up with their spinning quality.

    However, I just hate that all the spins look the same now because all skaters look for the same short cut to get to level 4. If there are more features (or if features can count twice again) or less levels, we will probably see more varied spins.

  20. #60
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,043
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Everyone (even insiders) has a different idea about what is "good skating", and "difficulty" is not always easily measured in figure skating. For example, is it more difficult to achieve 4 different positions in a spin or hold 16 revolutions in a basic position without losing speed ... much?

    I am the kind of person who believes an effective and friendly system needs to embrace simplicity. The endless and ballooning patchwork in the judging rules does more harm than good. I would rather implement something simple but elegant and effective, and definitely not micromanagement.

    I want to see the free program be extended in length in both men's and women's competition, with the same or FEWER "required" elements. This would really separate skaters in terms of skating skills, stamina, transitions, but also allow skaters determine their own strategy (rather than having the program layout dictated to you by the rules). Wasn't the men's free program 5 minutes at some point?

    I think a simple change like this can introduce diversity in strategy and program construction and reduce the monotony. We'll see some bad programs, I'm sure, but we will always see some bad programs. That's how competitions work --- separating the good from bad into various ranks.
    Last edited by Jun Y; 03-26-2013 at 09:52 PM.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 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
  •