Page 15 of 21 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 ... LastLast
Results 281 to 300 of 404
  1. #281
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Havering-atte-Bower
    Posts
    3,483
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Rae35 View Post
    All the free programs are too long. What is the point of repeating the same jump and same spins? From a television standpoint, a 4.5minute program with the intro, kiss and cry and wrap up takes approx 6 minutes. That's a lot of television in this day and age and if, like in the Sochi men's free, when the skaters mop up the ice, not a great look for the sport to casual viewers. Plus it can be boring viewing. Even evidence on these boards suggests that supporters don't watch entire events and it's not unusual to see the stands become more full after the first two groups.

    If the free programs were shorter and elements could not be repeated, there could be two more skaters in a group (they mostly practise with more than six singles on a session because it's not viable for a rink to do otherwise), the audience wouldn't be sitting through a marathon event and more competitors would be in a final.
    Bless your soul.

    If you ask me, the Men's competition was much more interesting when the Free Skate was five minutes long.

    In his Free Skate at the 1979 World Championships, for example, Charles Tickner did all sorts of moves in the field, non-listed jumps, and linking footwork that you seldom see today.

  2. #282
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,417
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Vagabond View Post
    If you ask me, the Men's competition was much more interesting when the Free Skate was five minutes long.

    In his Free Skate at the 1979 World Championships, for example, Charles Tickner did all sorts of moves in the field, non-listed jumps, and linking footwork that you seldom see today.
    I think the problem is not so much that the program is too long but that there are too many scoring elements allowed in it. I'd like to see them get rid of 1 fw and one or two jumps. That would leave a lot more time for some real choreo and those smaller moves that we have been missing or seeing only in little bits here and there.

  3. #283
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,417
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    (duplicate - sorry, the board was glitchy today)

  4. #284
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,417
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    What is the business of the ISU?


    Is one purpose of the ISU to design and market its most audience-attractive product (high-level figure skating) as successfully as possible to earn enough profit to subsidize participant-oriented skating activities?

    What the business model should be would depend a lot on what the primary mission is.
    I've clipped for length but I think several of the purposes you list are valid but disagree it is necessary for the ISU or any organization to define a single over-riding purpose. If you look at mission statements these days, they usually incorporate multiple ideas and purposes.

    I don't think it really matters which of the sporting purposes you care about most, one critical objective of the ISU, or any organization, has to be financial solvency. Warning bells need to go off when an organization starts seeing significant revenue slippage.

    In the case of any Olympic sport, increasing participation and interest worldwide is part of the equation by definition. IMO there have been some good things in terms of expanding international participation (though I'm not sure how much this was the result of ISU efforts or other forces). Still, by any measure, to have basically lost one of their largest and most lucrative markets has to be seen as a major failing.

  5. #285

    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Greater Boston, MA
    Posts
    637
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    For anyone who hasn't seen it yet, there's a new Save the Short program group on Facebook, which you can like/share:

    https://www.facebook.com/savetheshortprogram

  6. #286
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,417
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by clairecloutier View Post
    For anyone who hasn't seen it yet, there's a new Save the Short program group on Facebook
    Does anyone really think the federations would support elimination if the SP?

    As I understand it, this idea came out of a rambling and disordered personal letter Cinquanta sent to various ISU officials. It is not part of any actual proposal and I just can't imagine any federation thinking this is a good idea. The networks that broadcast the Winter Olympics sure won't like it, for starters.

  7. #287

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Some place competitive and athletic, but ultimately more like an audition than anything else.
    Posts
    7,781
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    19086
    Quote Originally Posted by Rae35 View Post
    All the free programs are too long. What is the point of repeating the same jump and same spins? From a television standpoint, a 4.5minute program with the intro, kiss and cry and wrap up takes approx 6 minutes. That's a lot of television in this day and age and if, like in the Sochi men's free, when the skaters mop up the ice, not a great look for the sport to casual viewers. Plus it can be boring viewing. Even evidence on these boards suggests that supporters don't watch entire events and it's not unusual to see the stands become more full after the first two groups.

    If the free programs were shorter and elements could not be repeated, there could be two more skaters in a group (they mostly practise with more than six singles on a session because it's not viable for a rink to do otherwise), the audience wouldn't be sitting through a marathon event and more competitors would be in a final.
    Given that there is even more bandwidth today than in the past, it is not that much TV.

    Any bad event it bad to watch.
    -------------------------------------------------------
    The event organizer could install those moving sidewalks, and transport skaters on and off the ice with greater efficiency that way. Instead of a Kiss and Cry, they could have a Victory March and Walk of Shame.

    Also, multiple singles skaters could use the ice at the same time. This works because everybody skates to Carmen anyway.

  8. #288
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    54
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Although the short program has required elements, I think it would be more interesting to make the solo jump be a different required jump each season. The specific elements would therefore distinguish it more from the free program. The total number of points that one could get each year would differ depending on the difficulty of the chosen triple jump. Thoughts?

  9. #289
    recovering Oly-holic
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    In the frozen, snowy north
    Posts
    1,259
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    3166
    Quote Originally Posted by bardtoob View Post
    ]The event organizer could install those moving sidewalks, and transport skaters on and off the ice with greater efficiency that way. Instead of a Kiss and Cry, they could have a Victory March and Walk of Shame.

    Also, multiple singles skaters could use the ice at the same time. This works because everybody skates to Carmen anyway.
    Dump Cinquanta and elect bardtoob as ISU President!!!

    ETA: how do you get Diet Coke off your keyboard after a spit take??

  10. #290
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    New England
    Age
    31
    Posts
    537
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Arianne View Post
    Although the short program has required elements, I think it would be more interesting to make the solo jump be a different required jump each season. The specific elements would therefore distinguish it more from the free program. The total number of points that one could get each year would differ depending on the difficulty of the chosen triple jump. Thoughts?

    THIS!

    I agree and have been saying this for many years now. I want a required solo jump, a required either loop or toeloop in the combination, required flying spin (bring on the flying reverse change sits!), and circular or serphantine or straightline footwork... this is like in the 80s and I loved it! I also feel spins like the layback should only include the layback position and ONE variation-- the biellmann has nothing to do with the layback.

  11. #291
    I <3 Kozuka
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Vancouver/Seattle
    Posts
    19,181
    vCash
    730
    Rep Power
    43796
    I think that the SP required elements should be truly required, and that missed elements in the SP should get zero: A fall on a quad. A double or single solo jump. Wrong/illegally repeated jump. An << jump. A spin that doesn't meet the requirements/is repeated. Lacking minimum steps before the solo jump. Not completing the footwork pattern. This is the one feature of 6.0 that I think is worth re-introducing, and IJS gives a way to measure that it's being done.

    A < jump or GOE below zero would be considered a flawed element, and should get the GOE as if in the FS.
    "The team doesn't get automatic capacity because management is mad" -- Greg Smith, agile guy

  12. #292

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,219
    vCash
    5550
    Rep Power
    17276
    Quote Originally Posted by kwanfan1818 View Post
    I think that the SP required elements should be truly required, and that missed elements in the SP should get zero: A fall on a quad. A double or single solo jump. Wrong/illegally repeated jump. An << jump. A spin that doesn't meet the requirements/is repeated. Lacking minimum steps before the solo jump. Not completing the footwork pattern. This is the one feature of 6.0 that I think is worth re-introducing, and IJS gives a way to measure that it's being done.

    A < jump or GOE below zero would be considered a flawed element, and should get the GOE as if in the FS.
    Illegally repeated jumps and spins already get 0 points (it doesn't happen too often at the elite level though there have been a couple of cases in men's SPs this season that I recall, namely Machida at the GPF and Majorov at Worlds when an intended 4T was popped into a 2T which was later also executed in the jump combination).

    Under 6.0 there were degrees of deductions from the overall score for various errors (from 0.1-0.4 for failures from at least 1998 onward, though I'm pretty sure it was more than that in earlier years). It would be impossible to determine how many tenths the element that was failed still got because I don't think most judges thought in those terms, but skaters who attempted more difficult elements and failed at them (especially if they were close) generally got more technical points than skaters who failed at easier elements (and sometimes even more than skaters who succeeded at easier elements), so I think the attempt still would've given the skater some net points (especially because an omission was a bigger deduction than a worst failure). So I don't see failed elements getting some points as something that's different between IJS and 6.0 at all.

  13. #293
    I <3 Kozuka
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Vancouver/Seattle
    Posts
    19,181
    vCash
    730
    Rep Power
    43796
    Quote Originally Posted by RFOS View Post
    Illegally repeated jumps and spins already get 0 points (it doesn't happen too often at the elite level though there have been a couple of cases in men's SPs this season that I recall, namely Machida at the GPF and Majorov at Worlds when an intended 4T was popped into a 2T which was later also executed in the jump combination).
    Yes, and I think all of these errors -- missing a required element -- should be treated the same.

    Quote Originally Posted by RFOS View Post
    Under 6.0 there were degrees of deductions from the overall score for various errors (from 0.1-0.4 for failures from at least 1998 onward, though I'm pretty sure it was more than that in earlier years). It would be impossible to determine how many tenths the element that was failed still got because I don't think most judges thought in those terms, but skaters who attempted more difficult elements and failed at them (especially if they were close) generally got more technical points than skaters who failed at easier elements (and sometimes even more than skaters who succeeded at easier elements), so I think the attempt still would've given the skater some net points (especially because an omission was a bigger deduction than a worst failure). So I don't see failed elements getting some points as something that's different between IJS and 6.0 at all.
    That would be true if there was any way to establish what base score each judge started with. The only time this was the case was when the final technical ordinal equaled 6.0-required deduction, or where 6.0-required deduction was < ordinal given, in which case the judge did not take the required deduction. While the technical ordinals of programs with difficult jump content tended to score higher, so did the technical ordinal for top skaters who had standard but not overly difficulty technical content, for example, fell on a jump, and received 6.0-required deduction or one tenth less, when the same program performed during the season but without the fall and with a good landing on the jump received 5.8. Sometimes failed elements got some points, sometime failed elements didn't get some points, sometimes a failed element would result in an ordinal that reflected more than the required deduction from from what the skater received when the program was performed otherwise equally without the fall, and some programs with failed elements had inflated ordinals because of who was skating. There was no way to know from judge to judge or from skater to skater by the same judge. Also, the difference between the loss of .4 from a base of 5.9 and the loss of .4 (last fall deduction) from a base of 5.0 is ~ 3.2%, not a substantial difference, if applied equally across the board; it could also be made up fairly easily by inflating the presentation ordinal and skewing the proportion between the technical and presentation ordinals, which was a failure of 6.0.

    What it did do was if implemented properly, make a SP element failure costly. I think that should be the case with IJS.
    "The team doesn't get automatic capacity because management is mad" -- Greg Smith, agile guy

  14. #294
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,417
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by bardtoob View Post
    Also, multiple singles skaters could use the ice at the same time. This works because everybody skates to Carmen anyway.
    I always thought it would be fun to see this with compulsory dances. Start two teams at the same time on opposite sides of the rink.

    Then I remembered somebody was going to have to judged them both.

  15. #295

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Some place competitive and athletic, but ultimately more like an audition than anything else.
    Posts
    7,781
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    19086
    Quote Originally Posted by Susan M View Post
    I always thought it would be fun to see this with compulsory dances. Start two teams at the same time on opposite sides of the rink.

    Then I remembered somebody was going to have to judged them both.
    Since the ISU apparently has enough judges to use two different panels for the same event, like in Sochi, maybe both panels can judge at the same time rather than conveniently switching them out.

  16. #296

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,219
    vCash
    5550
    Rep Power
    17276
    Quote Originally Posted by kwanfan1818 View Post
    Yes, and I think all of these errors -- missing a required element -- should be treated the same.


    That would be true if there was any way to establish what base score each judge started with. The only time this was the case was when the final technical ordinal equaled 6.0-required deduction, or where 6.0-required deduction was < ordinal given, in which case the judge did not take the required deduction. While the technical ordinals of programs with difficult jump content tended to score higher, so did the technical ordinal for top skaters who had standard but not overly difficulty technical content, for example, fell on a jump, and received 6.0-required deduction or one tenth less, when the same program performed during the season but without the fall and with a good landing on the jump received 5.8. Sometimes failed elements got some points, sometime failed elements didn't get some points, sometimes a failed element would result in an ordinal that reflected more than the required deduction from from what the skater received when the program was performed otherwise equally without the fall, and some programs with failed elements had inflated ordinals because of who was skating. There was no way to know from judge to judge or from skater to skater by the same judge. Also, the difference between the loss of .4 from a base of 5.9 and the loss of .4 (last fall deduction) from a base of 5.0 is ~ 3.2%, not a substantial difference, if applied equally across the board; it could also be made up fairly easily by inflating the presentation ordinal and skewing the proportion between the technical and presentation ordinals, which was a failure of 6.0.

    What it did do was if implemented properly, make a SP element failure costly. I think that should be the case with IJS.
    The "ordinal" refers to the overall placement of the skater in the segment (i.e., 5th place), not the required elements (now technical elements) mark and presentation (now program components) mark out of 6.0, which when taken together and compared to the marks given to other skaters determined the skater's ordinal.

    As it is under IJS, *certain* "failures" are more costly in the short program than the free skate (doubling a jump, which would be a -3 in the SP if a triple is required but could get a + GOE in the free skate), but others aren't (i.e., falling on a jump, will be a -3 reduction and a 1 point deduction in either program) in terms of points lost. I'm not totally opposed to the idea of making failures at elements more costly in the short program to increase the importance of hitting the required elements, but I do get wary about having zero points for certain errors of execution but others being considered a quality issue because there could always be gray areas. For example, you suggested < being a quality issue but << getting no points. You said a fall would be zero, but what about a step out? Step out with hand down? etc. I'm very much a gray area thinker and generally support using a continuum to assess errors rather than having things be black or white (except in the case of an illegal or unprescribed element, because there's little or no possibility of a gray area there). Also awarding zero points for failures on elements would probably decrease the amount of risk taken in general in the short program. Almost certainly fewer men would attempt quads, even men who CAN do them but aren't consistent enough with them to take the risk. Is that something you'd be OK with happening?

  17. #297
    I <3 Kozuka
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Vancouver/Seattle
    Posts
    19,181
    vCash
    730
    Rep Power
    43796
    Quote Originally Posted by RFOS View Post
    The "ordinal" refers to the overall placement of the skater in the segment (i.e., 5th place), not the required elements (now technical elements) mark and presentation (now program components) mark out of 6.0, which when taken together and compared to the marks given to other skaters determined the skater's ordinal.
    That's not all it did, especially in the SP. Each judge was supposed to start with a base tech ordinal, lower it by required deductions, and increase for quality. Skaters who had the säme tech content were supposed to start withe the same base score. If all Ladies with 3Lz/2T, 3F, and 2A, plus the basic three spiral positions, and similar spins and FW of the same difficulty, were supposed to start with 5.7, that 5.7 was supposed to be the starting point for each competition. Two SP's with a base of 5.7 with all other things being equal, should not receive a 5.7 without a fall and 5.5 with a fall and a -.4 mandatory deduction, nor should it receive 5.7 without a fall and 5.2 with a fall. In actuality, this wasn't unusual, particularly among the top skaters, and the ordinals were highly focused on jump content. Michelle Kwan, for example, traveled to Moscow and back on one of her 2004 (Dortmund) SP spins, but didn't suffer much for it.

    Each judge was supposed to be doing all of the IJS calculations in his or her head and applying them equally across all skaters.

    Quote Originally Posted by RFOS View Post
    I'm not totally opposed to the idea of making failures at elements more costly in the short program to increase the importance of hitting the required elements, but I do get wary about having zero points for certain errors of execution but others being considered a quality issue because there could always be gray areas. For example, you suggested < being a quality issue but << getting no points.
    A < is given the base of the number of revolutions less a % penalty. A << is given the base of one revolution below. I think that's a straightforward way of saying that the < was a flawed [quad/triple/double/single] and a << is a different jump on revolution less. In the FS, that's a missed opportunity. In the SP, I believe it should get no points for not meeting the requirement.

    Quote Originally Posted by RFOS View Post
    You said a fall would be zero, but what about a step out? Step out with hand down? etc. I'm very much a gray area thinker and generally support using a continuum to assess errors rather than having things be black or white (except in the case of an illegal or unprescribed element, because there's little or no possibility of a gray area there).
    I thought I was very clear in saying that, aside from falls, a flawed element would be treated as a flawed element -- base less deductions -- as long as the element was "called" as the required element; I never said that the skater should have to receive average GOE of 0 or above for an element to count. (I think the tech panel should be determining whether steps into the required jump in the SP meet those minimum standards, as they are already determining footwork levels.)

    Quote Originally Posted by RFOS View Post
    Also awarding zero points for failures on elements would probably decrease the amount of risk taken in general in the short program. Almost certainly fewer men would attempt quads, even men who CAN do them but aren't consistent enough with them to take the risk. Is that something you'd be OK with happening?
    Yes, absolutely, for the SP. I'm not on the "quad uber alles" train.
    Last edited by kwanfan1818; 04-04-2014 at 05:44 PM.
    "The team doesn't get automatic capacity because management is mad" -- Greg Smith, agile guy

  18. #298

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,219
    vCash
    5550
    Rep Power
    17276
    Quote Originally Posted by kwanfan1818 View Post
    That's not all it did, especially in the SP. Each judge was supposed to start with a base tech ordinal, lower it by required deductions, and increase for quality.
    There's no such thing as a "base tech ordinal." There was a technical merit or required elements base mark but not a "base ordinal." The only time the term "ordinal" is used is to reflect the overall placement that is determined by the two marks in relation to those of the other skaters.

    Skaters who had the säme tech content were supposed to start withe the same base score. If all Ladies with 3Lz/2T, 3F, and 2A, plus the basic three spiral positions, and similar spins and FW of the same difficulty, were supposed to start with 5.7, that 5.7 was supposed to be the starting point for each competition.
    The judges of course should be consistent in the marks among skaters with similar quality within a competition, but they were essentially placeholders and there's no requirement that the marks themselves be consistent across competitions (especially over longer stretches of time than a single season, when the general expectation of content increased, etc.). It didn't matter if you gave that program a 5.7 in one competition and a 5.4 in another competition, and sometimes it might even be necessary to give different marks depending on skate order and what marks were left to use to get the desired ordinal. I always enjoyed coming up with systems myself to come up with consistent marks in the SP, but they did have to be recalibrated from time to time when overall content and quality increased. Likewise for the conversion systems I'm come up with to convert from IJS to 6.0 scores.


    Two SP's with a base of 5.7 with all other things being equal, should not receive a 5.7 without a fall and 5.5 with a fall and a -.4 mandatory deduction, nor should it receive 5.7 without a fall and 5.2 with a fall. In actuality, this wasn't unusual, particularly among the top skaters, and the ordinals were highly focused on jump content. Michelle Kwan, for example, traveled to Moscow and back on one of her 2004 (Dortmund) SP spins, but didn't suffer much for it.
    A skater reasonably could get a 5.7 with a fall and a 5.2 with a fall, even though the official deduction was 0.4. The judge could decide to lower the base mark also if the jump was for example cheated before the fall. I had systems like this built into my 6.0 mark systems that reflected the fact that falling on a 1/2 turn cheated jump was worse than slipping off the edge on a good jump, and singling a jump was even worse than doubling a jump. (And I still feel that should be reflected under IJS, and is under the current formulation, but under your system they would all be failures and treated equally. You're of course free to feel that way but I personally disagree).

  19. #299
    I <3 Kozuka
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Vancouver/Seattle
    Posts
    19,181
    vCash
    730
    Rep Power
    43796
    Quote Originally Posted by RFOS View Post
    There's no such thing as a "base tech ordinal." There was a technical merit or required elements base mark but not a "base ordinal." The only time the term "ordinal" is used is to reflect the overall placement that is determined by the two marks in relation to those of the other skaters.
    Sorry, but it wasn't as pure as that, or the mandatory deductions would not determine the top ordinal a skater could receive. In the SP especially, 6.0 was a hybrid system of both comparative and absolute(ish) judgements. Many judges have said that they would not give a 6.0 if they felt the skater was less than perfect, even if that skater was better that a skater to whom they'd given a 5.9.

    Quote Originally Posted by RFOS View Post
    The judges of course should be consistent in the marks among skaters with similar quality within a competition, but they were essentially placeholders and there's no requirement that the marks themselves be consistent across competitions (especially over longer stretches of time than a single season, when the general expectation of content increased, etc.). It didn't matter if you gave that program a 5.7 in one competition and a 5.4 in another competition, and sometimes it might even be necessary to give different marks depending on skate order and what marks were left to use to get the desired ordinal. I always enjoyed coming up with systems myself to come up with consistent marks in the SP, but they did have to be recalibrated from time to time when overall content and quality increased. Likewise for the conversion systems I'm come up with to convert from IJS to 6.0 scores.
    Quote Originally Posted by RFOS View Post
    A skater reasonably could get a 5.7 with a fall and a 5.2 with a fall, even though the official deduction was 0.4. The judge could decide to lower the base mark also if the jump was for example cheated before the fall. I had systems like this built into my 6.0 mark systems that reflected the fact that falling on a 1/2 turn cheated jump was worse than slipping off the edge on a good jump, and singling a jump was even worse than doubling a jump. (And I still feel that should be reflected under IJS, and is under the current formulation, but under your system they would all be failures and treated equally. You're of course free to feel that way but I personally disagree).
    What is it about "all other things being equal" that isn't coming across? Of course a fall + other errors should get a lower mark than a fall on a slipped edge.

    However, if you maintain that ordinals are just placeholders, and a 5.2 means that the skater is ranked between a 5.3 tech skater and a 5.1 tech skater, why are you even trying to justify a 5.7 program getting a 5.2 with a fall?
    "The team doesn't get automatic capacity because management is mad" -- Greg Smith, agile guy

  20. #300

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,219
    vCash
    5550
    Rep Power
    17276
    Quote Originally Posted by kwanfan1818 View Post
    Sorry, but it wasn't as pure as that, or the mandatory deductions would not determine the top ordinal a skater could receive. In the SP especially, 6.0 was a hybrid system of both comparative and absolute(ish) judgements. Many judges have said that they would not give a 6.0 if they felt the skater was less than perfect, even if that skater was better that a skater to whom they'd given a 5.9.
    Mandatory deductions do NOT have anything to do with the ordinals a skater could receive. A skater could receive a 1st place ordinal with lots of errors if they were still the best in the event. However, you're right that it was sort of a hybrid. And the judge might not want to give a 6.0 to a skater they felt was less than perfect, but if they did think the skater was better (overall) than another whom they'd given a 5.9 to then they should give the skater a higher ordinal. Hopefully they left enough room at the top to do so without giving a 6.0, but if not, it might be necessary to give a 6.0 to get the ordinal right. I definitely think IJS is a better system because it eliminates the need to save room and worry about where you are placing skaters, and is much more objective in its way of calculating the results (though there is and always will be subjectivity in giving GOEs and PCS marks).

    What is it about "all other things being equal" that isn't coming across? Of course a fall + other errors should get a lower mark than a fall on a slipped edge.
    OK, but does "all else being equal" mean that the skater didn't fall on the first jump of a combination? Because that could be another reason the base mark might be lower, because the skater with the fall on the first jump wouldn't have a second jump in combo (even if they got up and attempted it, which was allowed, it wasn't supposed to be counted), so that could be a reason for a lower base mark. Also, a fall on a spin could affect the base mark depending on whether it was a slip off the exit or a slip on the entry that invalidated the whole spin. Even if a skater fell on an otherwise good jump, there's still the "otherwise" that makes it not exactly equal, because obviously the landing phase of the jump in with a fall was poor, and you don't necessarily know how good the landing would have been had the skater not fallen. The skater could have held onto it with a beautiful edge, or had a shaky landing, neither of which would require a mandatory deduction but would have affected the base mark.


    However, if you maintain that ordinals are just placeholders, and a 5.2 means that the skater is ranked between a 5.3 tech skater and a 5.1 tech skater, why are you even trying to justify a 5.7 program getting a 5.2 with a fall?[/QUOTE]

    Because the listed deductions existed for a reason and SHOULD reflect a reduction from the determined base mark (however that base mark is determined, which can be complicated as explained above). I liked the mathematical system I came up with and trusted it to help me come up with technical marks that were as consistent as possible, and used those marks, plus the presentation marks, to come up with an ordinal that I personally thought was more fair than trying to finagle the marks to fit an ordinal that just seemed right for some reason not based in such specific criteria. I prefer to have as much objectivity in my assessments as possible. However, there might be cases where things would have to be fudged a little bit to not result in a tie, and there was no way to really prevent more "fudging" of the base mark to get the "right" ordinal. I definitely prefer the increased objectivity that IJS brings, where the marks themselves and there isn't any legitimate reason to save marks or fudge marks due to placement concerns, the system itself will take care of the result based on the assessments of the parts.

Page 15 of 21 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 ... 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
  •