Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 141
  1. #61
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    12,332
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    I just want the SP to be different than a short Long Program.
    I want a Technical Program back. With 0 point for an ommission on a required element.

  2. #62

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    53
    Posts
    10,452
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    20970
    For both spins and sequences where spirals (and other sustained glides) can gain levels, I think it's important that not all features rely on flexibility -- that at least four different options can be earned by showing command of blade-to-ice skills with the body position just showing the minimum level of flexibility required to meet the definition of the position (e.g., spiral, camel, layback).

    Of course some skaters won't be able to do all four of the other features or any of the flexibility features and won't be able to earn level 4.

    Then we get into the question of aesthetics.

    By the time they reach the upper skill levels, skaters who have the right kinds of natural flexibility and body proportions and who have also worked since childhood on their flexibility, extension, and alignment along with the relevant edge and spinning skills will be able to both basic positions and difficult variations and make them look beautiful.

    Skaters who are less naturally gifted in those ways and/or who started working on flexibility skills later in life will look less attractive in both basic and difficult positions.

    Skaters who lack flexibility will be more likely to eschew features that their bodies can't achieve, and more likely to take options that allow them to earn higher levels without flexibility-based difficult variations.

    Some bodies are never going to look beautiful no matter what variations they attempt. And any new skill that skaters attempt to add, to move up from level 2 or 3 elements or to accommodate new rules that don't let them repeat the features they can do best, will look awkward when they first start attempting it -- it may take a few years to make it look good. And a few years for other skaters to learn new options at all.

    I think we need to cut the less flexible, and less classically proporitioned, skaters some slack -- in the rules, and in fan commentary, and maybe in judges' assessments of GOE and Performance/Execution -- for trying alternative blade-based skills instead of difficult position variations.

    I've heard people refer to Biellmanns and A-frame spins and "hydrant" spirals as ugly by default. IMO, I've seen beautiful and ugly attempts at each, and the full range of quality in between. IMO, by all means punish poor aesthetics with lower GOE (and lower P/E where there are many moments of ugliness in a program). But I do like seeing them from skaters who can make them look good.

    For those who can't, for those who can't do any catch-foot or full-split positions, some other spin options that less-flexible skaters have made use of include backward-entry layback, change of edge (now counts only in camel, forward sit, and difficult upright variations including layback), change of direction spins, flying upright. When skaters first try these variations, often they're not beautiful. Some may be more difficult than catch-foot positions -- and certainly more reliant on blade-to-ice skills. Since they're still rare, I like to applaud them for originality even if aesthetics are not their strong point. And with enough practice, the aethetics will improve over the years. I'd rather see skaters take these kinds of creative risks than contort themselves into difficult body positions that will never look good on them and are more likely to cause injury.

    If leveled spiral sequences are to be required again -- or offered as an option -- I have some suggestions for difficult edge-based features that would allow technically skilled but less flexible skaters to achieve higher levels using only basic spiral positions. And then the attractiveness of the positions, even at just over 90 degrees, could be considered in GOE and the P/E component.

  3. #63

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,219
    vCash
    5550
    Rep Power
    17276
    Quote Originally Posted by briancoogaert View Post
    I just want the SP to be different than a short Long Program.
    I want a Technical Program back. With 0 point for an ommission on a required element.
    A true omission of a required element already gets 0 points.

  4. #64
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    2,465
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by RFOS View Post
    Should the names of the coaches who taught them technique not be made public either?

    I've heard the argument before that choreography is the coach's/choreographer's mark and it annoys me every time. The skaters are only judged on the movements they execute, where on the ice and in the span of the program they execute, the ice coverage they demonstrate (being the ones actually skating on the ice), etc. Regardless of where the skater "learned" those things, they are part of the judging criteria just as jumps and spins are (which the skater also had to learn to do from somewhere or someone, who might have taught them good or bad technique).
    That is not true: for example, idea, concept and vision are judged and those usually come from the choreographer not the skater.
    Choreography/Composition
    Definition: An intentional, developed and/or original arrangement of all types of movements according to the principles of proportion, unity, space, pattern, structure and phrasing.

    Criteria:
    Purpose (idea, concept, vision)
    Proportion (equal weight of parts)
    Unity (purposeful threading)
    Utilization of personal and public space
    Pattern and ice coverage
    Phrasing and form (movements and parts structured to match the phrasing of the music)
    Originality of purpose, movement and design
    Shared responsibility in achieving purpose (pairs, ice dancing and synchronized skating)

  5. #65

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    53
    Posts
    10,452
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    20970
    Quote Originally Posted by Iceman View Post
    That is not true: for example, idea, concept and vision are judged and those usually come from the choreographer not the skater.
    Depends on the skater, and the choreographer. Some skaters are highly involved in choosing and putting together their own programs; others, especially younger skaters, may just do whatever their coaches and choreographers tell them to.

    But even for those who contribute no original ideas of their own, what the judges score in terms of the idea/concept/vision is what they see on the ice. So the skater has to actually "get" the concept/vision that the choreographer is aiming for and embody it on the ice in order for the judges to get it as well. If the choreographer had a great idea but the skater just goes through the motions with no evident understanding, it won't score well.

    Maybe a blank-faced performance with halfhearted moves that judges can see was supposed to mean something specific even though the skater isn't achieving it will score slightly higher than a blank-faced performance with halfhearted moves in which the judges can see no specific intent. But not by much.

  6. #66

    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Petaluma, CA
    Posts
    5,616
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    7222
    Quote Originally Posted by SLIVER View Post
    I have an amazing idea for cop! Burn it and destroy it in the same way that it has destroyed this sport and made it into the robotic snoozfest that it has become
    I don't think those two are causally related. I think CoP did some good things.........my favorite is rewarding elements other than jumps so people like Alissa could be atop the podium.

    I think...
    1. Mixing Pro and Illegible competitions kept the worst of both, and eliminated the best of each. The artistry of the pros couldn't compete against the jumps in illegible programs.
    2. GP's way to frantic. Every week. Same program. That is where my husband (who introduced me to the sport) checked out. He just kept seeing the same thing over and over and over.

    I think both systems are flawed. And, since this is a judged sport, it will always be unfair, incomprehensible, and debated.

    And, with internet access, coupled with network delays, the drama and suspense is gone from watching on tv...meaning less viewers, less sponsors, less...less...less. And no Dick Button! That is the corker
    DH - and that's just my opinion

  7. #67

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    494
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by VIETgrlTerifa View Post
    Yeah, but aren't Triple Loops being put in SPs that have 3/3s? I don't know if that's regression. Also, I know the Triple Flip is technically more difficult than a Triple Loop in the books, but the Triple Loop isn't that far behind in base value. I do know that I had wished Maria Butyrskaya kept the Loop as her solo jump rather than the Flip just based on aesthetics.
    Well, that is true about the 3-3s. But I still kind of cringe to see a short program without either a lutz or a flip, which is possible if the 3-3 is a 3T-3T.

  8. #68

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Age
    48
    Posts
    17,933
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    33055
    Quote Originally Posted by manhn View Post
    The worst was when judges suddenly expected male pairs skaters to be uber flexible. I never care to see Stanislav Morozov do that ugly skate to head on the side spiral (or whatever the official name of it is).
    I don't think anyone, including judges, expected male skaters to do that. That is what skaters were doing to try and maximise points.
    When you are up to your arse in alligators it is difficult to remember you were only meant to be draining the swamp.

  9. #69

    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Petaluma, CA
    Posts
    5,616
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    7222
    Quote Originally Posted by giselle23 View Post
    Well, that is true about the 3-3s. But I still kind of cringe to see a short program without either a lutz or a flip, which is possible if the 3-3 is a 3T-3T.
    I would like to see the lutz or flip required, and not counted if done on the wrong edge! IMO you either do the right jump or you don't.
    DH - and that's just my opinion

  10. #70
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,416
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Allowing more skaters the chance at being in contention after the SP would be a major plus for the sport. The fact that someone with such beautiful skating skills as Nikodinov would be buried under COP under COP isn't right.
    I like some of your ideas about requiring skaters to demonstrate more spin positions and balance between toe and edge jumps, but I think you mistake the purpose of the SP. It is not to measure basic skating skills nor to leave half the field in contention. Leaving aside the early purpose of the SP to devalue figures and let the best freeskaters rise to the top, the practical purpose of the SP after elimination of figures was, basically, to separate the wheat from the chaff. More specifically, it served to separate the men who could do triple axels (preferably in combination with 3 toe) and "ladies who lutz" from those who couldn't. Your memory is playing tricks on you if think back to the short programs of the 80s and 90s and imagine they were about balanced basic skating skills. In those days, spins and FW were kind of pass-fail elements for men, with the tech marks being mostly about the jumps. Spins and the spirals were worth more for ladies, but still, ladies who had clean SP with a 3Lz combination would generally be ranked ahead of the triple loop ladies with lovely edges and killer fw or spins.

    I don't feel any real need to alter the basic format and premise of the SP and FS. To me, the biggest problem with the current system is that it has totally devalued the concept of a clean program. I would address this two ways.

    First, I would change the GOE values from absolute points to percentages, with -3 GOE being valued at -100% of the element base value (after application of any other modifiers like the UR or second half bonus). This means if a skater falls on a jump, it earns zero points minus 1 for the fall. A jump that is only seriously messed up earns zero points. They could take different approaches with -1 and -2 GOE. I think I'd go with 25% deduction for -1 and 50% for -2, but arguments could be made for 1/3 and 2/3 as well. On the plus side, I would keep +3 GOE at about a 30% bonus. The simplicity of this approach is that it would eliminate any need for those large tables where they translate the different GOE into hard numbers for the different elements.

    Second I would revise the instructions on how to score PCS to incorporate assessment of the program as a whole, giving judges more places to reflect disruptions for falls and other errors. (Actually, my first preference would be to revamps the PCS altogether, de-valuing those which are really more points for technical skills (skating skills, transitions) and increasing the relative value of the ones that more nearly reflect qualities from the old presentation mark. Under the current system, the "presentation mark" aspects are only worth maybe about a third of the skater's scores, and I think there is a correlation between that and the complaints that skating seems so much less entertaining as a performance.

    But even for those who contribute no original ideas of their own, what the judges score in terms of the idea/concept/vision is what they see on the ice. So the skater has to actually "get" the concept/vision that the choreographer is aiming for and embody it on the ice in order for the judges to get it as well.
    The flaw in this argument is that the skaters' interpretation of the choreo is already expressly scored under the Interpretation component plus to some extent under Performance/Execution. They really do not need a third place to do this, especially when this mark really is predominantly about the choreography itself. It just seems fundamentally wrong in any sport for points to be given over who has money and access to get the best choreographers.
    Last edited by Susan M; 01-30-2014 at 10:24 PM.

  11. #71

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    53
    Posts
    10,452
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    20970
    Quote Originally Posted by AxelAnnie View Post
    I would like to see the lutz or flip required, and not counted if done on the wrong edge! IMO you either do the right jump or you don't.
    Like in juniors, where the jump is required but they have the option of doing either double or triple?

    Would allowing double jumps in the senior short program -- and occasionally having medalists who play it safe with a double -- send up

    Or do you want to require all senior ladies to attempt triple flips and lutzes and turn a middle and lower profile senior ladies' event into even more of a splatfest than it would have been with any triple as the requirement?

  12. #72
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,416
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post

    Or do you want to require all senior ladies to attempt triple flips and lutzes and turn a middle and lower profile senior ladies' event into even more of a splatfest than it would have been with any triple as the requirement?
    I agree. I sympathize with the goal, but don't see any fair way to specify SP jumps (and, to be honest, have never quite understood why they do this for juniors). If the SP had 6 jumps in it, then it would be easy to require one of each, whether double or triple or quad. (I would, however, like to see them do that for the FS.) Since there are only 4 jumps in the SP, though, selecting required jumps by rule would be a huge place to play favorites. If a country's best lady has a good lutz, their reps would lobby for that jump especially if her rivals had edge issues. If you want to beat Kim Yu Na, who has reliable toe jumps but avoids edge jumps, then you lobby for loops and salchows to be required. I don't think skating needs more of that.

  13. #73

    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Petaluma, CA
    Posts
    5,616
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    7222
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    Like in juniors, where the jump is required but they have the option of doing either double or triple?

    Would allowing double jumps in the senior short program -- and occasionally having medalists who play it safe with a double -- send up

    Or do you want to require all senior ladies to attempt triple flips and lutzes and turn a middle and lower profile senior ladies' event into even more of a splatfest than it would have been with any triple as the requirement?
    If I were designing the world, or at least this part, Ladies would not move up to seniors unless they could demonstrate proficiency with all the jumps. And, no, it should not be a splat fest. It should be an event with required elements that are actually required. I have always thought that if flutzes were not counted, we would see true lutzes all over the place in the space of a couple of seasons.
    DH - and that's just my opinion

  14. #74

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    53
    Posts
    10,452
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    20970
    Quote Originally Posted by AxelAnnie View Post
    If I were designing the world, or at least this part, Ladies would not move up to seniors unless they could demonstrate proficiency with all the jumps
    So no international age limits on "juniors"?

    And, no, it should not be a splat fest. It should be an event with required elements that are actually required.
    Required elements have to be elements that everyone can do.

    Will you also require triple axels for all senior men?

    Why not require other skills that are common among top contenders and rare among the vast majority who don't make it to the TV broadcasts?

    I agree with Susan M -- finding a way to require or at least reward 6 different correct jump takeoffs in the long program, with doubles triples or quads meeting the requirement, makes much more sense than requiring jumps in the short program that most skaters ARE NOT PHYSICALLY CAPABLE OF.

  15. #75
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    163
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Gkelly and Susan: what are your thoughts on the PCS as I defined them in the original post? I included a "overall strength" component which would benefit those who showed the complete range of triples and mastery of at least a good majority of spins. Susan, I know you'll think I have included too many technical components, but the ones I did I feel are essential when grading the overall performance and are not measured appropriately under TES.

    Susan: I think you are mixing up the SP's purpose from what it eventually became. There's a reason ladies could only do double jumps, or 3-2 combinations, and that quad weren't permitted until 1999. Regardless, as it stands, the SP proves nothing different than the LP. In each, TES and PCS are judged the same and the skater with the highest total wins. You don't see any benefit to using 2 programs to assess 2 different pieces of skating- pure technique vs. difficulty? And, no, 6.0 didn't care to ensure all skaters had a chance after the SP, but it did give the top 3 an equal chance at gold, and the top 6 or so an equal shot at a medal. Under COP, these huge discrepancies can suck the life out of a competition. There's a very good chance that Chan, Kim, V/T and D/W will have won the Olympics after the first program, and I just don't think that's a beneficial use of the 2 programs or a way to keep the sport interesting for even casual fans.

    Kwanfan: I feel mens' and ladies' skating are different disciplines, as are ice dance and pairs, and see no reason why the requirements can't differ. Men have always able to compete higher rotation jumps in their SP than the ladies, for example. The basic spiral sequence shows a skill I feel all elite ladies should have and would choose to still include it in the SP. Those who excell in other areas have options in the LP.

    Gkelly: I very much agree that flexibility should be one of many ways to increase an elements' level and that there js tkk much of a weight on it currently. For starters, I think the 8 revolutions feature should be unlimited. I also wouldn't mind going down to 3 levels.

  16. #76

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    BC
    Posts
    9,135
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    33672
    Don't skaters already have to do a required jump in the SP--the axel?

  17. #77

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    17,017
    vCash
    1561
    Rep Power
    4990
    Susan: I think you are mixing up the SP's purpose from what it eventually became. There's a reason ladies could only do double jumps, or 3-2 combinations, and that quad weren't permitted until 1999. Regardless, as it stands, the SP proves nothing different than the LP. In each, TES and PCS are judged the same and the skater with the highest total wins. You don't see any benefit to using 2 programs to assess 2 different pieces of skating- pure technique vs. difficulty? And, no, 6.0 didn't care to ensure all skaters had a chance after the SP, but it did give the top 3 an equal chance at gold, and the top 6 or so an equal shot at a medal. Under COP, these huge discrepancies can suck the life out of a competition. There's a very good chance that Chan, Kim, V/T and D/W will have won the Olympics after the first program, and I just don't think that's a beneficial use of the 2 programs or a way to keep the sport interesting for even casual fans.
    While I agree at times it can be a problem if someone has a huge lead after the short.. I still say what if you have six people who skate great shorts? Why shouldn't six people have a shot at winning. I think that does make things more exciting.

    I just think mistakes need to be penalized more....

  18. #78
    I <3 Kozuka
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Vancouver/Seattle
    Posts
    19,179
    vCash
    730
    Rep Power
    43796
    Quote Originally Posted by JJS5056 View Post

    Kwanfan: I feel mens' and ladies' skating are different disciplines, as are ice dance and pairs, and see no reason why the requirements can't differ. Men have always able to compete higher rotation jumps in their SP than the ladies, for example. The basic spiral sequence shows a skill I feel all elite ladies should have and would choose to still include it in the SP. Those who excell in other areas have options in the LP.
    I disagree: I think that singles are different than ice dance and pairs, and that the requirements and limitations for male and female singles disciplines should be the same. I think the FS program lengths should be the same, and the maximum jump passes the same, although I think the well-balanced requirements that pre-dated CoP should be changed significantly and the Zayak rules abolished for the second (and third) jumps in combination.
    "The team doesn't get automatic capacity because management is mad" -- Greg Smith, agile guy

  19. #79
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    473
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by JJS5056 View Post
    The fact that someone with such beautiful skating skills as Nikodinov would be buried under COP under COP isn't right.
    I think such a claim is misleading because we really don't know how Nikodinov would fair with CoP elements at her prime. When she was competing under CoP in 2005, her skating was definitely at the level that it was at in 2001-02 when she was at her best. All of the skaters in 2001 had mostly level 1 elements anyways. If Nikodinov wouldn't do well, in 2001 would have done better than her? Volchkova? Suguri? I doubt it.

  20. #80

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    53
    Posts
    10,452
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    20970
    Quote Originally Posted by JJS5056 View Post
    Gkelly and Susan: what are your thoughts on the PCS as I defined them in the original post?
    Let me see...

    Quote Originally Posted by JJS5056 View Post
    Program Components
    The goal of condensing the PCS is to allow the judges to make more accurate assessments, by combining areas that might seem duplicative on the surface. Including "overall impression" is aimed at providing an area within IJS to account for the performance as a whole. Ideally, each component would show up, and the judge would enter a score for each skill within the category. The would be averaged, but all numbers would be shown on the protocols. This is to ensure judges fully understand how each component is defined.

    Skating Skills
    [ 7 ] Blade Work: minimal scratching, use of deep and correct edging
    [ 8 ] Speed: ability to generate and control speed with little pushing or pumping
    [ 7 ] Form: correct posture, competent stretch and flexibility, tight legs during jump elements
    [ 8 ] Overall Strength: ability to complete jumps and spins of the highest level from all traditional entries and positions
    TOTAL AVERAGE: 7.5
    I don't understand what you're doing with the 8s and 7s here. Is that a sample of the scores that one judge might give to one skater for this component?

    It would take more time for judges to fill out their scoresheets (on screen, or paper for some local events), but it could be informative to have judges score each criterion separately and then take an average, as part of judge training for sure. For real, only if each judge has fewer components to mark or are not scoring elements as well.

    I don't think this particular selection of criteria is an improvement over what's currently in the criteria for this component.

    http://isuprod.blob.core.windows.net...planations.pdf

    What's wrong with the existing criteria?
    Balance, rhythmic knee action, and precision of foot placement
    Flow and effortless glide
    Cleanness and sureness of deep edges, steps, and turns
    Varied use of power/energy, speed, and acceleration
    Multi directional skating
    Mastery of one foot skating
    Pair Skating and Ice Dancing: Equal mastery of technique by both partners shown in unison

    Sure, they could be worded differently, or the explanations could be expanded to help get not only judges but also skaters/coaches and interested fans on the same page as to what the Skating Skills component is about.

    Some of the criteria that you have left out are fundamental to the appreciation of basic skating quality by experienced judges, even if TV commentators tend not to bother viewers with mentioning subtleties that are difficult to see (or hear) on TV.

    Also, your "Form" and "Overall Strength" examples are not really about the actual skating so much as about the elements. What does "tight legs during jump elements" have to do with blade-to-ice skating? "Ability to complete jumps and spins of the highest level" would apply only to skaters at the highest level. How would you define the criterion for middle and lower skill levels?

    This seems very element-centric, ignoring all the fundamental techniques of actual skating between the elements. How would it apply to ice dancing and synchronized skating, where actual skating is even more important and there may be no jumps or spins at all?

    I think what you're trying to get at with your Form and Overall Strength criteria are pretty much different names for the Carriage and Clarity of Movement criteria currently under Performance/Execution. And I think they would also apply to qualities like lift positions, which have zero relation to what the lifted skater's blades are doing on the ice. So they do not belong in the Skating Skills component. I think they belong more under your Performance & Overall Impression component.

    Choreography
    [ 6 ] Ice Coverage: use of entire ice surface, setting jumps with adequate space before the boards
    Ice coverage does belong under Choreography, but it deserves a much broader definition -- no need to single out jump placement unless you're also going to talk about everything else that could be considered in relation to use of the entire ice surface.

    [ 5 ] Range of Motion & Balance: use of entire body and utilizing skills that make use of all levels and planes, placing elements consistently throughout the program, minimal clustering of similar elements
    This seems to be two or three different things -- use of the body in space, and distribution of elements in time and space. So they should probably be listed in different criteria.

    [ 5 ] Transitions: little use of stroking or 2-foot skating between elements, using MITF and connecting steps to transition between elements, placing spins or unlisted jumps directly before/after jump, unexpected or difficult entry into elements, minimal break in choreography to prepare for elements
    So the Variety, Difficulty, Intricacy, and Quality (and Balance of workload and Variety of dance holds) would all be subcriteria subsumed into this one criterion under Choreography? That's going to make everything that happens in between the elements numerically much less important than the elements themselves. That would make me sad. :

    [ 5 ] Timing & Movement: use of choreography that fits the selected music, accuracy of choreography within a defined theme (ex: tango), appropriate use of arms, placing elements and choreography in time with the music, use of tempos to create highs an lows within program
    TOTAL AVERAGE: 5.25
    You've also left out Purpose and Originality. So there would be much less incentive to try to do anything artistic with the choreography.


    Performance & Overall Impression
    [ 5 ] Interpretation: ability to perform choreography in time with the music and evoke an an appropriate interpretation, connection with audience commitment to choreography and/or selected theme (ex: waltz) or character
    [ 4 ] Continuity: completion of program from start to finish without interruption due to error or rest stops, stamina from beginning to end of program
    [ 4 ] Cleanliness: ability to complete planned content at the highest quality
    [ 5 ] Timing: placing and completing elements and choreography in time with the music, use of tempo to create highs an lows within program
    TOTAL AVERAGE: 4.5[/QUOTE]

    "Ability to complete planned content at the highest quality" is problematic wording. Skaters who can complete all of their content (both elements and transitions/in-between skating), irrespective of difficulty, at the highest quality will be few and far between. That wording implies that if you don't deserve +3s for all your elements and 9+ on a scale of 10 the program as a whole, you haven't met that criterion at all. Better to reword it to allow for the fact that judges will score according to the actual level of quality demonstrated in the program, not either/or highest or not.

    I do think there's value in adding written criteria for what you're calling Continuity and Cleanliness. And that they would go under Performance/Execution component in the current breakdown.

    But I don't see the advantage of rearranging some of the current criteria into a different configuration of three rather than five components, or of eliminating or devaluing some of the current criteria. And I definitely think the explanations or examples need to be more comprehensive (than the current explanations as well as than what you supply here). and more focused on the whole program, less on the elements -- especially under Skating Skills.

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... 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
  •