I would support any system where an element can get graded on GOE and levels on their own terms where we can see a high GOE mark on a lower level element that can actually score higher than a higher level element that isn’t executed well. Theoretically, we have that already but I don’t really see it in practice for like the 12 years IJS has been around.
Two separate issues there:
1) Is the Scale of Values arranged so that increasing the GOE of an element is worth more points than doing a higher level element?
2) Are judges willing to give higher GOEs to lower value elements?
The rewards have to be built into the SoV in order for skaters to focus their training on increasing quality before adding difficulty.
If most of the strong skaters (strong spinners, etc.) are doing the higher level elements because they know they'll earn more points, then we'll only see lower value elements from skaters who can't do the harder ones at all successfully. Or from stronger skaters making mistakes. Thus not too many examples of simple elements worth high GOE.
I think that's one purpose the Choreo Sequence was intended to fulfill, but too many skaters seem to use it as a throwaway rest period. Those who do chase the higher GOEs tend to include more content as well.
I also wish GOE didn’t have a bullet point checklist that serves as near mandatory minimums if a skater checks like 3-4 boxes. I rather it just be a list of things to look out for (like suggestions) and let the judges make their own discretionary decision.
In practice, that is pretty much the case. There are no actual boxes for judges to check, just guidelines. And each judge has their own cutoff for deciding when an aspect of an element is good enough to qualify as "good" for a qualitative bullet point, or how much to reduce for errors with a range of specified reductions, and also for how to handle elements with odd numbers of positive bullet points or which errors might cancel out all positive qualities vs. just being subtracted from a positive starting point.
Some fans want more of a check-box approach so that the thought processes could be captured in the computer and conveyed to audiences. And here you want a more holistic assessment of positives and negatives. Can't please everybody.
Transitions are already reflected, in part, in the GOE's of the elements. Skaters are fulfilling the checkboxes for higher GOE by including steps into and out of jumps, and using unusual entries into spins, etc. Where does the transition stop and the element criteria start? I think the judges are rewarding both categories (GOE and transition mark) for the majority of the same things.
Sometimes, yes. But some things that go into the Transitions score cannot be captured by GOEs at all. E.g., skater P does a beautiful spread eagle directly up into a 3A. That can be rewarded in both TR and GOE. Skater Q does a beautiful spread eagle, then a couple of crossovers, then sits on a back outside edge for a couple of seconds before stepping up into a 3A. That spread eagle should get some credit for the variety and quality aspects of the TR score, but it shouldn't add anything to any GOE because it wasn't connected to any element.
Skater R could do a beautiful spread eagle into a 3A< with a fall. Credit in TR for variety and quality of the spread eagle and for connecting it directly to an element, but after reducing for both the underrotation and the fall the GOE of the element is going to be -3 regardless of the entrance.
So to me it does make sense to reward Skater P twice for that transition, but Q and R only once.
The issue is the public doesn't get it. They can't rationalize the marketing because they look at all performances through the lens of an artistic performance.
Well, there are different segments of the public. Some casual viewers are all about the artistic value. Others are all about the jump content attempted or landed successfully (but not really about quality issues that aren't visible to the untutored eye).
Again, if for marketing reasons the artistry gets played up more, to the point that skaters stop risking high-value jumps, then sports fans who are already dubious about whether skating is a sport or belongs in the Olympics will lose what interest they have. On the other hand, if artistry gets played down and technical content played up to the point that skaters don't bother much with trying to be artistic (or those who do don't win and rarely get on TV), then the arts fans will lose interest.
Both camps of casual viewers probably want falls and other obvious errors to have more of an impact on final results. But if remaining upright is the most important determinant of the results, then skaters will scale back on attempting the risk elements. And skaters themselves, and the fans who have made the effort to educate themselves about technique would not like seeing weaker skaters with cautious performances win just by avoiding falls.
Can't please everybody all of the time. Can we balance the rewards that appeal to different constituencies so everyone's favorite types of skaters win sometimes?
Actually, it's pretty laughable that the same amount of weight is put into the transitions as the skating skills in a short program where there is very limited time to do anything aside from the required elements. The long program isn't much better, but I really think they just need to go away.
The factors could change, so that Skating Skills could be worth a lot more than Transitions despite being graded on the same 0-10 scale.
Also, some skills do factor into both components in different ways. E.g., a skater does one jump at the west end of the ice then skates to the east end for another jump. The skater who uses only crossovers and mohawks to get from one end to the other is not demonstrating the same level of one-foot skating or multidirectional skating (SS component criteria) as the skater who uses counters and choctaws and power pulls to get there. They're also probably not demonstrating the same difficulty or variety of transitional moves (TR component).
But if the skater with the weaker skating skating skills also uses a lot of unlisted jumps and spirals and lunges and stars into spins and upper body movement, but the stronger skater uses only difficult turns as their only type of transition, then the former would deserve credit for more varied transitions. (Not necessarily for quality. But maybe those split and spirals are beautiful.)
