Feb 13, 2020: Hersh article about possible ISU changes

Interpretive skating 1998-1999 events all over again. Of course we don't have full details, but the technical side of things in each segment cannot be that different if they are 60% in one program and 40% in the next.

I think the better idea would be to just loosen the free skate requirements and add more 'choreographic' elements like ice dance has- this was one of the best moves probably in the history of IJS. Then we aren't seeing the same things from every skater/team in both programs.
 
Tony Wheeler said:
Interpretive skating 1998-1999 events all over again. Of course we don't have full details, but the technical side of things in each segment cannot be that different if they are 60% in one program and 40% in the next.

I think the better idea would be to just loosen the free skate requirements and add more 'choreographic' elements like ice dance has- this was one of the best moves probably in the history of IJS. Then we aren't seeing the same things from every skater/team in both programs.
Click to expand...
that would be too simple so they won't do that. or, they could study how judges sometimes get carried away and award PCS based on jumps (IMHO).
 
The idea to make each program the same duration (3min30secs) would spell an end to the “short” and “long” programs concept. It will be odd at first.

In the early 1980s we had the so-called Zayak Rule to limit the repetition of specific triples...so, if it passes, will it be known as The Eteri Rule...or Russia Rule?
 
Tony Wheeler said:
. Of course we don't have full details, but the technical side of things in each segment cannot be that different if they are 60% in one program and 40% in the next.
Click to expand...

A 60/40 split wouldn't make such a difference.

I wonder if just doing a bunch of quads in the artistic program would still give a skater enough of a point buffer, even with the down weighted TES to be ahead anyway?

Particularly if the same skater did those same quads in the technical program - but with them worth more?

If a skater loaded both the technical and artistic program with quads, they'd still be ahead of any skater with triples, I would think.
 
Frau Muller said:
In the early 1980s we had the so-called Zayak Rule to limit the repetition of specific triples...so, if it passes, will it be known as The Eteri Rule...or Russia Rule?
Click to expand...

Please,no need to glorify the Russians. They've effectively killed what little interest remained the ladies division. It is now jumping gymnastics with terrible "pop" music.

Also very disappointing,yet not terribly surprising,there is no mention of re-instating school figures.

-BB
 
I'd prefer to see the full details before I make a judgement call, but I find it interesting that this is being extended to pairs* even though the raging discussion on messageboards around the internet focuses strongly on singles. And is there going to be an equivalent adjustment of the RD/FD balance in dance, or is dance going to become even more structurally isolated from the other three disciplines?

*Pairs being the discipline where the effort to restrict the chances of winning on poorly performed high-BV elements has actually had an impact.
 
Using Jason as the poster boy for why the scoring system needs to be changed for men doesn't work. He won silver at Skate America, Nats and of course 4CCs this year. The emphasis on quads has led him to rework all his jumps with wonderful results and no negative impact on his artistry.

The case is stronger with women, partly because there's no Jason type among current women, at least IMO, but likely women just need longer to adjust since their quad/3A revolution only started this season -- it's a very different situation from men's. Well, the 3A has been around a lot longer, but always considered extraordinary until this season.

I think the more needed change is simply to score the PCS appropriately!
 
Perhaps a 3:30 technical program would allow approximately as many jumps as are currently used in freeskates (there are 7 jumping passes in the junior ladies FS, which is currently 3:30), probably with fewer in-betweens for those trying to work in as many quads as possible.

The "artistic" program could be the same length but have fewer jumping slots -- more than the current short program, but fewer than the current freeskate. And more maybe allow for more non-jump elements to earn scores. And harsher penalties for disruptive errors. So successful difficult jumps would still be valuable, but not enough to dominate without also delivering good spins and steps and skating and performance.

Of course anyone who can excel at all of the above would have the best chance of winning.

Curious to see the details...
 
It seems like making the programs the same length would largely defeat the whole purpose of having a cutoff point between the free skate and the short program; the length of the short program segment at ISU championships as a whole would balloon under this.

The funny thing about all this debate is that, per the article, this proposal seems to be thought unlikely to pass, which would make all this kerfuffle especially pointless.:lol:
 
Coco said:
SMH that they are contorting themselves to avoid addressing national bias and bullshit PCS marks.
Click to expand...

And what's going on with the FFSG and with the Zimmermann/Fontana/Cipres situation. It's kind of like how Major League Baseball is throwing out ideas about revamping the playoffs, while ignoring the increasing numbers of revelations about teams cheating. No! Don't look over there! Look at this instead!
 
Last edited:
I speculate that the artistic program will simply have lower value elements, with a higher PCS multiplier relative to the technical program.

I wonder what their "target score" is for program totals ("target" in this instance means assuming parity between the TES and PCS score maxes.) For Ladies, the PCS maxes out at 40 for the SP and 80 for the LP, implying "max" scores target scores of 80 and 160. The same implies 100 for the Men's SP and 200 for the LP.

Does the new PCS max become 40 for the Technical Program, 60 for the Artistic? Then that would imply a TES target max of 60 for the technical program, and 40 for the Artistic. Is it different for men and ladies? Or are they going to unify the scoring system?

I wonder if the number of elements doesn't actually change between the program, just some of the jumps get replaced with spins or scored choreographic elements, which would easily allow for the TES drop between the two programs, but not change the number of elements.

So, what would give 60 TES points for a Technical Program? I tested the following format, with the following layout, assuming a +2 GOE on each element.

1x 3-Jump Combo
1x 2-Jump Combo
3x Solo Jumps
2 Spins
1 Step Sequence

4toe/3toe
3lutz/1e/3sal
3flip
3loop
3axel
Change foot Combo
1 Position Spin
Level 4 Steps

TES is 61.94. Pretty close, and a skater with more than 1 quad and better quality elements could still break the 60 TES barrier. The lower amount of jumps would make it easier to eliminate repetition of jumps 3 revs or higher. This would give an advantage to skaters with more difficult combos as well. Assuming this PCS scale is for ladies, I think it works really well.

For the Artistic, they could remove all the combos and replace both with choreographic elements. The leveled steps could be replaced with a choreo step sequence. They could introduce more un-leveled elements, maybe an un-leveled spin. Requirements could be:

3x Solo Jumps
2x Spins
1x Choreographic Sequence
2x Choreographic Spin or Whatever

4toe
3axel
3lutz
Change Foot Combo Spin
1Position Spin
Choreo Seq
Choreo Element
Choreo Element

For +2 GOE, I could get it to 40.62 TES if I changed the base value of choreo elements from 3.00 to 0.50. This can easily be done because the base value of un-leveled elements is irrelevant, assuming all skaters manage to complete them - only the GOE matters on choreo elements.

I know this thought exercise was very speculative and is most likely not what they're doing. This is more just a proof-of-concept, that the skeleton of an idea presented could easily be placed on-top of the existing scale of values and +5 GOE system. Obviously, this works for TES, but how this affects the weight of PCS and its effects on results given judges' current inability to score PCS in any real sense is anyone's guess.
 
Colonel Green said:
It seems like making the programs the same length would largely defeat the whole purpose of having a cutoff point between the free skate and the short program; the length of the short program segment at ISU championships as a whole would balloon under this.
Click to expand...
That's why I think it's the poison pill.
 
Tony Wheeler said:
Interpretive skating 1998-1999 events all over again. Of course we don't have full details, but the technical side of things in each segment cannot be that different if they are 60% in one program and 40% in the next.

I think the better idea would be to just loosen the free skate requirements and add more 'choreographic' elements like ice dance has- this was one of the best moves probably in the history of IJS. Then we aren't seeing the same things from every skater/team in both programs.
Click to expand...
I agree about the choreographic elements in ice dance. It focuses on quality but helps make the programs interesting. So maybe they need to bring in some elements like those.

On the other hand, whatever happens, I guarantee there will never be consensus and some who will love it and others who think it will suck.
 
Not crazy about this proposal and hope it dies.

Echoing comments above, I'd love to see a choreographic spin option (every spin is the same now) and an expansion of leveling requirements for spin elements.

Also changing up the requirements for the SP in the way that it changes for dance every season would keep things fresh.
 
gkelly said:
Perhaps a 3:30 technical program would allow approximately as many jumps as are currently used in freeskates (there are 7 jumping passes in the junior ladies FS, which is currently 3:30), probably with fewer in-betweens for those trying to work in as many quads as possible.

The "artistic" program could be the same length but have fewer jumping slots -- more than the current short program, but fewer than the current freeskate. And more maybe allow for more non-jump elements to earn scores. And harsher penalties for disruptive errors. So successful difficult jumps would still be valuable, but not enough to dominate without also delivering good spins and steps and skating and performance.

Of course anyone who can excel at all of the above would have the best chance of winning.

Curious to see the details...
Click to expand...

I think this was discussed a while back on GS, wasn't it? That instead of the SP becoming the technical program and the FS the artistic, as the assumption is right now, it goes the other way around: 3 jumping passes, spins, steps and maybe the choreographic sequence in the artistic program (ie it's based on the SP) and 7 jumping passes, spins and steps only (ie the current junior FS requirements) for the technical. I could get behind that, especially if there were some more elaborated non-jumping elements required for the artistic program, similar to the choreo elements in the current free dance set up.

It would also help if the step sequence in the artistic program were something closer to a 'footwork' sequence, rather than being so closely tied to 'this person has done this many types of steps and turns in a single sequence'.
 
If they were going to do all that mambo jambo like making the programs all the same length of time then maybe they should just change it all up. Just have a jumping competition for quads, triple axels and other triple jumps, etc. etc. etc. If they wish to add extras like Shoot The Duck right before the jump, that could be extra points or whatever.

The Artistic/Presentation competition could include all Spins, Spirals, Biellmann Spiral, Charlotte Spiral, footwork, falling leafs, Ina Bauer, etc. etc. etc. This, of course, would include the number of required revolutions on the spins. Excuse me. I meant rotations on spins, not revolutions.

For the Team Event, they could bring back Compulsory Figures. Alrighty then, I like a lot of the other ideas and suggestions I'm seeing, too.
 
Last edited:
Also, for those of you saying 'score the PCS correctly' - I hear it, but I doubt you're going to get the result you want even with that. We aren't going to see top-tier skaters ever drop down into the 6's or 5's, because in all honesty, they 99% of the time really don't deserve scores that low. It may seem like it, but this scale is in place for ALL levels of skating- even the ones we don't (often) see in international competition, even at the junior level. Even if you drop down a top-level skater from say an 8.00 average to a 7.00 average, in the ladies free skate that's only 8 points difference and not what I think most of you are expecting. (ETA here- the 'jumpers' are way further ahead than 8 points technically).

The phenomenon of scoring the later-skating athletes higher on GOE isn't likely to ever go away, either, so I think revising the programs (well, the free skate as it is now) to have more open elements or maybe a list of non-jump elements that can be selected/interchanged with the higher GOE scoring, as ice dance does, is a better answer.

And really, if the programs are the same length and have 60-40 and 40-60, in the end it's still more-or-less the same idea that we have now.
 
Tony Wheeler said:
Also, for those of you saying 'score the PCS correctly' - I hear it, but I doubt you're going to get the result you want even with that. We aren't going to see top-tier skaters ever drop down into the 6's or 5's, because in all honesty, they 99% of the time really don't deserve scores that low. It may seem like it, but this scale is in place for ALL levels of skating- even the ones we don't (often) see in international competition, even at the junior level. Even if you drop down a top-level skater from say an 8.00 average to a 7.00 average, in the ladies free skate that's only 8 points difference and not what I think most of you are expecting. (ETA here- the 'jumpers' are way further ahead than 8 points technically).

The phenomenon of scoring the later-skating athletes higher on GOE isn't likely to ever go away, either, so I think revising the programs (well, the free skate as it is now) to have more open elements or maybe a list of non-jump elements that can be selected/interchanged with the higher GOE scoring, as ice dance does, is a better answer.

And really, if the programs are the same length and have 60-40 and 40-60, in the end it's still more-or-less the same idea that we have now.
Click to expand...

Actually changing up the skating order may do more to improve pcs scoring than devising a new system. But strategizing to get a late skating order is now part of the game too, so...
 
jlai said:
Actually changing up the skating order may do more to improve pcs scoring than devising a new system. But strategizing to get a late skating order is now part of the game too, so...
Click to expand...

It will never happen (or go back to what it once was). It's better for television, it's better for audiences that want to watch events on television because we get all of the top names together, and it's better for the excitement in the arena and building the energy.
 
Tony Wheeler said:
it's better for the excitement in the arena and building the energy.
Click to expand...

To be honest, at Euros, when the competition reached the final groups and the point where the outcome was supposed to be 'at stake', 'exciting', 'the point of the competition' or whatever the people who run the things like to think of it, that was the point where, especially in singles, my interest, excitement and energy vanished. Turns out I am way more interested in whether X, Y or Z skaters will make the free than I am in which of ABC will get which medal. To the point where I walked out of the ladies SP and FS before the final group, and the men's FS likewise. So it may work that way in theory/in general, but it doesn't always apply to every individual audience member!
 
Tony Wheeler said:
Also, for those of you saying 'score the PCS correctly' - I hear it, but I doubt you're going to get the result you want even with that. We aren't going to see top-tier skaters ever drop down into the 6's or 5's, because in all honesty, they 99% of the time really don't deserve scores that low. It may seem like it, but this scale is in place for ALL levels of skating- even the ones we don't (often) see in international competition, even at the junior level. Even if you drop down a top-level skater from say an 8.00 average to a 7.00 average, in the ladies free skate that's only 8 points difference and not what I think most of you are expecting. (ETA here- the 'jumpers' are way further ahead than 8 points technically).

The phenomenon of scoring the later-skating athletes higher on GOE isn't likely to ever go away, either, so I think revising the programs (well, the free skate as it is now) to have more open elements or maybe a list of non-jump elements that can be selected/interchanged with the higher GOE scoring, as ice dance does, is a better answer.

And really, if the programs are the same length and have 60-40 and 40-60, in the end it's still more-or-less the same idea that we have now.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think 'scoring the PCS correctly' would have a pretty dramatic impact. Let's use the example of the 8.00 to 7.00 average skater - that's a 12 point difference in the TSS in PCS alone. At 2019 Worlds, the 2nd through 7th place finishers in the Ladies competition were separated by 11.29 points. Even though the jumpers have a large advantage in the TES, they also have room to make mistakes due to their relatively high PCS. If they make costly errors (such as multiple falls on quads), then the PCS difference could determine the podium.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Similar threads

Sylvia
  • Sticky
2024/25 ISU Technical Panel Handbooks, Scale of Values documents, PCS charts
Replies
0
Views
4K
Sylvia
Sylvia
Karen-W
  • Sticky
2025 ISU Championships - Minimum Combined Total Element Scores (CTES) and Multiple Entries
3 4 5
Replies
126
Views
28K
Karen-W
Karen-W
ice coverage
ISU Code of Ethics 2024 (published Jun 28)
Replies
2
Views
2K
Andrea82
A
Sylvia
"Legacy on Ice" benefit show in D.C. (March 2, 2025) and ways to help those affected by the air tragedy over the Potomac River
15 16 17
Replies
499
Views
60K
paskatefan
paskatefan
Sylvia
2024 Art on Ice, Feb. 8-17 in Switzerland / ISU Skating Awards on Sunday, Feb. 11, 2024
Replies
8
Views
3K
skatingguy
S
Back
Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information