1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi all! No longer will threads be closed after 1000 (ish) messages. We may close if one gets so long to cause an issue and if you would like a thread closed to start a new one after a 1000 posts then just use the "Report Post" function. Enjoy!

Alexander Lakernik interview "Going into details, we have gone too far"

Discussion in 'Great Skate Debate' started by quiqie, Feb 10, 2012.

  1. Bournekraatzfan

    Bournekraatzfan Well-Known Member

    1,752
    126
    Thank you for the translation, quiqie. Interesting analysis.

    I agree with Tak and Zemgirl on the PCS categories.
     
  2. gkelly

    gkelly Well-Known Member

    13,008
    6,284
    Can you give some examples (here, or start a new thread in the Trash Can) of performances that you think show big differences between the skating skills and the interpretation skills, for example? Or between other components.

    I say "performances" rather than "skaters" because sometimes the same skater can be really into the music or completely off the music on different occasions, for example (or show significant differences in other components from one performance to another). Maybe depending on how new the program is, how well the jumps are going, fighting health limitations, etc.

    It might be interesting to discuss in detail why we each think certain performance have great interpretation or great choreography. I wonder how much we will agree with each other, let alone agree with the judging panels.
     
  3. barbk

    barbk Well-Known Member

    6,468
    1,237
    What a refreshing commentary on COP -- thank you very much for the translation. Really, my only quibble with what he said was in counting combinations. I don't see any good reason for penalizing a skater for doing an extra combination -- why not just grade and score the first jump, and ignore the rest as if it never happened.

    And all I can say about his comments on step sequences is that I hope others on the technical committee are of like mind: "Another sad fact is that there is no harmonious interaction judging and technical panels. For example, recently we made performing of half of the step sequence on one leg a level feature. And immediately coaches made the athletes perform one leg step sequence, even those who can barely stand on two legs. And so they are sweating, swinging from side to side, crawling completely out of the music and so on. Many people now ask me to remove this feature, because it is impossible to look at."
     
  4. kittyjake5

    kittyjake5 Well-Known Member

    3,120
    2,640
    Thank you for the translation. Very good analysis of the the COP Judging System.
     
  5. elif

    elif Well-Known Member

    716
    428
    Wenjing SUI / Cong HAN

    Skating Skills 7.46 :rolleyes:
    Transitions 7.04
    Performance/Execution 7.79
    Choreography 7.46
    Interpretation 7.46
     
  6. Tak

    Tak Well-Known Member

    2,604
    433
    Just off the top of my head - for transitions for example just look at almost any Del/Sh program - loaded with difficult transitions which were not reflected in their marks. Especially compared to what other teams got.

    Another example is Khoklova/Nov - Night on Bald Mountain. I tried to find the thread about this [about 5 years ago?] so I could just copy my comments - but I cant find it. But in that post I copied out the section of the rules explaining the marking criteria [I think it was for Ch/Int and Performance] that was in use in that year so that people could see what judges were supposed to be marking on. Regardless of their other marks, this program should have gotten 9s in that category.

    Sphil/Z choreography in general contains very few transitions - apart from the elements, their programs are relatively empty. In fact, I think even some of their fans were commenting on this. I read some comments about V/M new version SD - they took the lift out of the Temptation part of the music and now people were commenting on how empty that part looked. LOL! This is what some of us have been saying for years. Take the elements out of a S/Z program and there is almost nothing left - yet the transition mark for S/Z teams never reflects this. It should be 5-6 IMO.

    I also remember thinking several teams had timing issues in parts of their programs, but I would have to watch them all again to tell you exactly where. One I remember because it was so bad was CoC Shibutanis - I think FD - where large sections of that program looked off the rhythm to me - esp during one of the step sequences.

    I thought C/J FD this year was terrible - if their movements had any relation whatsoever to the music I couldnt see it. They could have been skating to anything.
     
  7. gkelly

    gkelly Well-Known Member

    13,008
    6,284
    OK, so how would you have scored the PCS for that performance and why?

    Since you think the gaps should have been bigger, would you have gone higher on some of the components and lower on others?
     
  8. walker23

    walker23 New Member

    1
    0
    This is one of the threads on here that made me sign up to the forum because it appears to be an intelligent debate which is surprising given most forums where it's just petty nonsensical rambling
     
  9. Rock2

    Rock2 Well-Known Member

    2,708
    2,138
    Lots of good stuff here. Picking on one thing:

    What if one of the 'features' to get a level was originality? Could apply to spins, FW, lifts. Something that encourages development of the sport.
    The original move would have to be deemed to have at least some difficulty to it. Yes it would be subjective because it would have to be deemed to be an 'uncommon move' but still...

    Trying to figure out how to pull this concept into the marking system.
     
  10. gkelly

    gkelly Well-Known Member

    13,008
    6,284
    It would be impossible to implement fairly.

    Tech specialist: I've never seen that variation before. I give her the originality feature.

    Assistant tech specialist: No, it's pretty common in my home country/rink. All [hyperbole] the novice girls do it.

    Technical controller: Heck, I used to do that move when I was a girl. It's an old move that fell out of favor and is popping up again now that people hope they'll get extra credit for it.

    FSU poster: Obscure skater Q from small country X did it in the qual round at Worlds 27 years ago, but unfortunately she was never televised.

    Other FSU poster: And Q is listed as the coach of this skater who's reviving her move! So Q is finally getting credit for the move she invented, 27 years later!

    So then why not just reward the difficulty in awarding the levels?

    The original IJS rules allowed for a 2 point bonus to the overall score (not part of levels or GOEs or PCS) for original moves. However, there was still the same ambiguity/subjectivity as what constitutes an original move, so it was pretty much never awarded -- never in international competition as far as I know -- and I think they eventually took that rule off the books.

    I think they intended it to apply to a completely new kind of element, not just a new variation on an existing move. Something that wouldn't be in the scale of values because it never existed before to assign a value to. But this late in the history of the sport, there isn't much room for inventing brand new kinds of elements. Maybe if

    Originality is still one of the criteria under the Choreography component.

    And it's also listed in several of the criteria for positive GOE on various elements.

    So judges have places to reward originality if they're impressed by it. But unlike tech panels they don't have to come to an agreement with each other as to whether an element was original or not, yes or no. They can each individually give large point boosts for what they individually see as extreme originality and smaller boosts for what they see as mildly original moves.

    The levels are based on difficulty.
     
    kwanfan1818 and (deleted member) like this.