ISU rules changes proposals & reaction

[alchemy void]

This is a complicated topic that actually needs to be discussed in a serious way, rather than in a condescending, 'support the status quo or else' rah rah way.

Like I said before, @aftershocks, I do and can acknowledge the ISU's faults. I really don't think many on FSU are exactly ISU sycophants. However, I just don't see the JGP, Ted Barton's commentary, or low-level skaters as an issue. On the contrary, I feel the JGP is definitely an example of the ISU doing something right and with vision.

I don't think the current competitive structure truly works for the benefit of all athletes. There are more effective ways to at least try to explore for athletes to be trained and to improve in this sport. The current system doesn't work well for athletes at a higher skill level, much less for the steady and efficient progress of lesser skilled athletes.

Just as there needs to be given more thought to proposed rules changes, there needs to be more thought expended across-the-board to provide increased opportunities for the development of athletes at every level.

I think these are interesting points and would make for an interesting discussion, as I would be interested to learn about what else the ISU does to foster the development of the sport. Off the top of my head, I know there are ISU camps around the world in the summertime (I know Grm assisted with one in Slovenia), but I'm not sure of the full extent of their efforts.

However, this is a VASTLY different topic than what we were discussing here.

Another thread turning into mess status?

Everyone should relax by listening to the Sabrina the Teenage Witch soundtrack as soon as possible!

 

[alchemy void]

The original interview is here: http://hunskate.hu/mukorcsolya/otven-eve-biroi-szekben

Thank you so much for sharing.

I don't understand the logic behind allowing vocals for the artistic program, but not the technical. I guess the implication is that skaters could be more "artistic" with vocals than instrumental? Not sure I agree with this at all. Vocals have been here, for what, 6 years? Banning them in one program doesn't make sense.

Marco's proposal aligns well with the vague guidelines Lakernik mentions here.

Interesting. I also wonder if this is a good opportunity to finally have separate TES and PCS panels.

I would be so on board for this, if the separate PCS panel could actually judge and vary the PCS criteria as written. If not, I still think the PCS categories need to be re-worked.

Unfortunately, I'm not optimistic this will ever happen, because (a) it was tested at Nebelhorn years ago and the judges didn't like it, and (b) it would increase costs and create logistical issues by increasing the number of judges required at each event.

 

[thvu]

Are you the arbiter of what is serious and what's a condescending and rah rah way?

As we all know, self-awareness and self-reflection are not @aftershocks strengths. That strength is crafting a narrative and then pigeon-holing facts and details to fit it, much like a high school student writing a book report.

 

[Marco]

Marco's proposal aligns well with the vague guidelines Lakernik mentions here.

I am Lakernik

 

[Aussie Willy]

I think these are interesting points and would make for an interesting discussion, as I would be interested to learn about what else the ISU does to foster the development of the sport. Off the top of my head, I know there are ISU camps around the world in the summertime (I know Grm assisted with one in Slovenia), but I'm not sure of the full extent of their efforts.

Well one example is the Oceania Novice competition that has been held in Melbourne the last two years. While Ice Skating Australia runs the event, the ISU does contribute financially to assist with putting the event on. And there are probably many other competitions that the ISU would assist with as well.

 

[Marco]

I am Lakernik

Would't it be great if I was. There are so many rules I want to change / add.

 

[aftershocks]

As we all know, self-awareness and self-reflection are not @aftershocks strengths. That strength is crafting a narrative and then pigeon-holing facts and details to fit it, much like a high school student writing a book report.

Hmmm, I would never presume to try and sum up your strengths, especially since a user name and random aggressive posts by you tell me absolutely nothing about you. Vice versa is true as well. You might be better served by spending time reflecting on what your actual strengths are, instead of assuming and projecting. But what the hey, it's an online message forum where battlin' egos are the order of the day, and never fail to be on display, especially in particular threads. Tiresome much, but carry on, as you will.

Apologies to all so offended by my passion and by my honesty, whether you see it as such or not. As usual, life continues, until it doesn't...

 

[Holy Headband]

Hang on... I opened this thread expecting to see people hotly debating the ISU's reported plans to scrap the SP/FS format and instead saw some rant about Ted Barton mentioning Yao Bin... Am I in the right place?

 

[overedge]

You might be better served by spending time reflecting on what your actual strengths are, instead of assuming and projecting

I know you are but what am I

m.youtube.com

 

[Vagabond]

Hang on... I opened this thread expecting to see people hotly debating the ISU's reported plans to scrap the SP/FS format and instead saw some rant about Ted Barton mentioning Yao Bin... Am I in the right place?

You must be seeing things that I can't.

 

[sleepingsleeping]

Communication No. 2254

IV. Updated Additional Remarks for Program Components and GOE

Program Components

If a program contains a Fall or a Serious error, the maximum scores are listed below:
Skating Skills, Transitions, Composition:　Maximum score 9.75.
Performance and Interpretation: 　　　　　　Maximum score 9.50.

If a program contains Falls or Serious errors, the maximum scores are listed below:
Skating Skills, Transitions, Composition: Maximum score 9.25.
Performance and Interpretation:　　　　　　　　Maximum score 8.75.

Serious errors are interruptions during the program and technical mistakes that impact the
integrity/continuity/fluidity of the composition and/or its relation to the music.


What is “Serious error”?
It is clearly distinguished from “fall” .
Perhaps “stepping out of landing, ” is a typical example of “Serious error”.
I think ISU should give a concrete example of “Serious error” and define it more clearly.

 

[clairecloutier]

It's reported today in the Russian press that the ISU has created a new working group to look at how to improve the judging of program components in figure skating. The working group includes members from Russia (Alla Shekhovtsova), Canada (Leanna Caron), America (Karen Wolanchuk), and Italy (Paolo Pizzocari).

Shekovtseva is proposing to reduce the number of program component categories from the current 5 categories (Skating Skills, Transition, Performance/Execution, Composition, Interpretation) down to 3 categories, which, based on the article, would be roughly equivalent to something like Skating Skills, Program Composition, and Performance Quality.

Группа ISU рассмотрит вопрос сокращения компонентов в судействе фигурного катания

Решение о создании данной группы было принято по итогам заседания совета ISU, прошедшего 11-12 октября в Женеве

tass.ru

 

[Tinami Amori]

Shekovtseva is proposing to reduce the number of program component categories from the current 5 categories (Skating Skills, Transition, Performance/Execution, Composition, Interpretation) down to 3 categories, which, based on the article, would be roughly equivalent to something like Skating Skills, Program Composition, and Performance Quality.

Группа ISU рассмотрит вопрос сокращения компонентов в судействе фигурного катания

Решение о создании данной группы было принято по итогам заседания совета ISU, прошедшего 11-12 октября в Женеве

tass.ru

Actually it is between 3 and 4, and there are other ideas that came up earlier but has not yet been addressed.

I am all for it. I could not understand the need to separate "PE" and "IN", as one issue.

 

[aftershocks]

I could not understand the need to separate "PE" and "IN", as one issue.

Yeah, it's probably true that such separation is of no benefit when the judges don't understand how to judge these categories, especially when the meaning of the different categories aren't clearly explained in the rules. Performance Execution to my mind means how well each move was executed to achieve an overall impact. Interpretation is as I understand it, more about skill and ability in expressing the music and captivating the audience by telling a story through expressing the music. Some skaters simply skate over the music, while others pay some attention to the music but then drop their artistic focus to concentrate on completing the jumps.

The problem is that those in the skating community (Joe Inman, et al)* who originally put COP/IJS together were not given a chance to fully complete the process of working on the new judging system. As a result, the rushed-in system has constantly had to be tweaked, changed, reviewed, put up with, etc. PCS has never been properly assessed or accurately scored. So I guess scrapping some of the categories is their next resort. I'm not sure that's going to resolve the ongoing PCS manipulation scoring practices.

* There was footage of Inman and others discussing their work on the scoring system that was filmed by David Barba and James Pellerito (in the lead-up to the filmmakers eventually focusing on completing a documentary on Johnny Weir instead, Pop Star On Ice, 2009). There was other wide-ranging footage that included interviews with Robin Cousins, in addition to Inman, et al. All of that figure skating 'research interview' footage was handed over to none other than TSL's Jenny Kirk and David Lease, for safe-keeping.

On TSL's old site, the filmed interviews given to them by Barba & Pellerito used to be readily accessible for viewing. That's one of the reasons why I've always said that the TSL platform is valuable (the archives contain a lot of great interviews that are worth much more than the This 'n That gnarly crapola).

 

[jiejie]

Three categories under PCS is what I've always thought made sense:
1) Skating Skills
2) Composition (Transitions goes under this)
3) Performance/Interpretation (any separation of these is a silly artifice)

4) Speed could be an explicit category of its own, or go under skating skills.

That said, if judges aren't given clear directives that these are separate, and guidelines for what a 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 should be, any change is all for nought. They'll just bunch up the numbers so the components are equalized for a given skater and with a healthy dose of reputation-scoring in the mix. Even if the skater is a 6-ish Skating Skills but 8-ish performance/interp (or vice versa).

 

[Willin]

I mean, it's not like the judges judge PCS correctly anyways, so I don't think this is going to make any difference. Of course they're subjective but almost every skater but Jason Brown is greatly overscored on PCS and skating skills don't matter. In fact, do the judges even know what consitutes great skating skills anymore? Because good jumping ability doesn't mean you have them. At all.

For instance, most of the Eteri girls would be 6-7 on skating skills, 8ish (maybe 9 for a few select programs) on composition, and 6-8 (depending on which skater and which program) on performance and interpretation. Alysa Liu would be around 6, 7, and 7. Bradie Tennell should be 8, 7-8, and 7. Boyang Jin would be around 7, 6, and 6-7. Vincent Zhou would be around 7, 7, and 7-8. But will they get those marks? No, they'll get a lot higher, just as they currently do.

 

[alchemy void]

YES. I've been advocating consolidation of the PCS categories for years. There are too many skaters and too many PCS categories and too many scoring possibilities. It becomes to difficult for any human to judge 5 redundant categories accurately over the course of a 4 hour competition.

3 well-defined PCS categories of Skating Skills, Composition, and Performance are all that's needed. Additionally, I'd like to get rid of the 1-10 scale with increments of 0.25. I have no evidence for this, but I feel like psychologically, having such a range of scores actually encourages judges to score their components within the corridor. It's just too many options and is too overwhelming.

Maybe use the 10.0 scale, but only in increments of 0.5. Make the judges actually THINK about how they're applying the scores to these components. Being able to score a 7.75 is so wishy-washy. It's either a 7.5 or an 8.0.

Or if we can to go old school, make the 3 components scored out of 6.0 and factor it out mathematically. Judges already have a reference point with the 6.0 scale, and I think it could simplify and encourage more accurate component scores. For example, a skater with poor basics and not much speed, mediocre tech, but performs the hell out of her voidy program could be scored something like 5.1/5.5/5.6. So much easier to manage than 5.75/5.50/7.50/7.00/7.25.

 

[Tinami Amori]

2) Composition (Transitions goes under this)

3 well-defined PCS categories of Skating Skills, Composition, and Performance are all that's needed.

How does everyone understands "Composition"? To me this word means the same as "Choreography" - something in the programme that is "composed", and that can only mean "choreography". Musical composition, photographic composition, balletic composition... something one composes.

Skaters don't compose, they execute (and that's why i don't understand how Transitions can be linked to Composition. Transitions are executed. Composition is something composed).

Honestly? i really don't understand how something the skater does not execute on ice can be judged.. Composition/Choreography is something that is created by another person.

Now....... if there was a type of competition, where each skaters had to draw randomly a piece of music, just before the skate, and had to improvise to this piece, right there and then..... Then it measures skater's ability to compose and to choreograph...

 

[tony]

How does everyone understands "Composition"? To me this word means the same as "Choreography" - something in the programme that is "composed", and that can only mean "choreography". Musical composition, photographic composition, balletic composition... something one composes.

Skaters don't compose, they execute (and that's why i don't understand how Transitions can be linked to Composition. Transitions are executed. Composition is something composed).

Honestly? i really don't understand how something the skater does not execute on ice can be judged.. Composition/Choreography is something that is created by another person.

Now....... if there was a type of competition, where each skaters had to draw randomly a piece of music, just before the skate, and had to improvise to this piece, right there and then..... Then it measures skater's ability to compose and to choreograph...

It used to be called choreography. Now it is composition but many of the details are the same.
Composition: the nature of something's ingredients or constituents; the way in which a whole or mixture is made up.

Transitions are part of the composition of the program. You can have strong transitions but you may be skating through everything without any presentation (or shall we say, feeling). Same with choreography-- it might be there in terms of filling out the program, but are you actually believing in it and using it effectively? We've surely seen skaters in both situations, but usually it leans toward a completely empty program that a charismatic skater can sell the hell out of).

I would actually dump some of the bullet points on the GOE's that are obviously throw-away to top skaters ('matches the music' for example-- I mean, if it's a slow piece of music it's probably going to match in some way) and put that more into a component. The unique entries and exits to elements basically get double-rewarded in transitions and GOE. But then you have the problem of moving all of these nuances over to the second mark, and you don't have enough criteria for getting up to a +5 with GOE.

I hope they at least really think it out well. And I do think especially with a -5 to +5 system (11 possible inputs) that marking everything accurately AND having to watch any components at all is a big ask, and I think most judges would tell you it's too much to do in the short amount of time they have to actually make it as accurate as it should be.

 

[aftershocks]

3) Performance/Interpretation (any separation of these is a silly artifice)

I agree with your stab at figuring out what to do with PCS scoring, even though fans have no say/sway with the ISU.

IMO, part of the problem is clarifying what is meant. For e.g., Performance by itself can mean choreo moves as well as the expressive way the the skater visually and physically inteprets the music. But Performance execution to me means how well the program was executed, which includes the jumps (albeit that jumps are specifically dealt with under TES). Still, the jumps along with music interpretation are essential to overall 'execution' of the performance.

 

[Vagabond]

Sometimes I think that Skating Skills should be part of the technical score.

 

[MacMadame]

Sometimes I think that Skating Skills should be part of the technical score.

I've been thinking about this and think it can go both ways. It is the Technical Elements Score and skating skills are not a distinct element. But they are technique and not really Presentation (which is what people think of the PCS as being even though they aren't technically that).

In the 6.0 system, it seemed like skaters with good skating skills got over-rewarded -- judges would say "but they skate so big, move so fast, have such deep edges, etc. as if the elements they didn't do (compared to others) didn't matter -- so I like it being one single mark instead of inflating every mark. Granted this was mostly in ice dance. But it definitely happened in singles as well.

 

[AngieNikodinovLove (ANL)]

Sometimes I think that Skating Skills should be part of the technical score.

THIS. If PCS it's supposed to replace the artistic Mark then skating skills needs to be within the technical portion

And I want to see PCS truly be that... artistry, choreography and interpretation and that means these quad jumping beans aren't getting these ridiculous high scores at the age of 16. Artistry and interpretation isnt automatically assigned to you just because you have quads

 

[gkelly]

THIS. If PCS it's supposed to replace the artistic Mark then skating skills needs to be within the technical portion

And I want to see PCS truly be that... artistry, choreography and interpretation and that means these quad jumping beans aren't getting these ridiculous high scores at the age of 16. Artistry and interpretation isnt automatically assigned to you just because you have quads

PCS were never "supposed to replace the artistic mark."

Commentators may have said so as a shortcut to explain to casual fans, but the ISU has never said that.

PCS are "supposed to" be scores for the program as a whole as opposed to scores for individual elements.

If the ISU really wanted to separate technical from artistic scores they could report three overall scores instead of two: technical elements, technical components, and artistic components.

But program components in general include both technical and artistic criteria. In some cases within the same component.