A ChSq should be a Level 1 +3 at worst, IMO, though I would never put that into official writing.
Not sure what you mean here. All choreo sequences are level 1. Or rather, they are all worth the same 2.0, which is closer in base value to a level 1 step sequence (1.8 in the current Scale of Values) than any other level. The only difference in base value between sequences, the only job the tech panel has to do, is the distinction between "Meets the basic requirement and gets those 2 points" vs. "Doesn't meet the requirements or the attempt wasn't even identifiable, and therefore gets no points."
And then their positive GOEs are the same size as for level 4 step sequences, which is where the strong sequences can really distinguish themselves and earn points.
Do you mean that the minimum requirements for what the skaters need to accomplish to get the sequence called at all should be more stringent? Or are you talking about the scoring?
@gkelly - do you think judges considered Skating Skills when evaluating the 2nd mark of the 6.0 system?
I think they did, in a couple of ways, but it varied depending on the era and the rules at the time, and also individual judges may have given it more or less weight according to their own priorities.
I have access to a couple of judging guidelines documents for examples.
In the 1960 USFSA rulebook, the second mark, at that time called "Manner of Performance," has very detailed explanations of what was expected for carriage and arm positions. These guidelines also include
d. The skating knee should be used with great flexibility, continuously straightening and bending to give that beautiful easy glide and effortless "run" that is the essence of skating....
h. Speed should be gained as inconspicuously as possible, and maintained without "pumping the arms, bending from the wait, or scrambling with the feet.
Later, most of what we would consider relevant to skating skills and transitions was considered under the first mark. However, a judging guideline document from the mid-90s includes "speed" and "utilization of the ice surface" under Presentation for the freeskate and for the short program notes that the criteria should be the same but also that "difficulty of the connecting steps" should be considered under Presentation.
By the 2003 USFSA rulebook, "Speed" and "Difficulty of the connecting steps/movement" are listed under the first mark even for short programs and "Variation of speed" under the second.
"Utilization of the ice surface and space" remained a second mark criterion. Most of that relates to choreographic choices about how to lay out the program on the ice surface (what would be considered under the Composition mark in IJS), but fuller use of the ice surface can be accomplished with deeper edges and stronger speed.
Also, then as now, anything performed with more security and effortlessness (as a result of stronger skating skill) would make a better overall impression and at least subconsciously influence judges' perceptions of the performance quality even if the official rules ascribed those aspects to the first mark, or didn't specify them explicitly at all.
URs, edge violations, levels on spins and footwork.. aren't these all indicators of a skater's skills?
Those are more jumping and spinning skills than skating skills. There may be some overlap, but what happens during the elements doesn't even come close to encompassing the overall quality of the skating throughout the program -- which, I would argue, has always been the most important thing being evaluated during a skating performance, more than any discrete elements, especially in a free skate, and more than any artistic flourishes skaters may add in addition.
(Some judges' mileage may vary)
What is the rationale for double-rewarding/penalizing skaters by including a component that is impacted very little by an individual program or performance?
I don't know how the IJS designers would answer. But I would say because the fundamental skill that is being evaluated in a figure skating competition is the quality of the figure skating, the control of the blade edges on the ice through the use of the body. Without the skating, none of the other skills matter.
I don't necessarily have an opinion whether or not to remove it entirely,
If you removed skating skill from a skating competition, you would no longer have a skating competition. You might as well do it on a floor, or a trampoline etc. if you want the in-air rotations.
but it and TR are clearly different from CH, IN, P/E in that the latter 3 fit the more wide-held definition of what the non-technical score should measure. They will vary from program to program, performance to performance.
As with many things, I think maybe a good solution would be to measure SS outright in one program and focus on the other 3 in the other? I am also fine with them 'living' on their own (them = SS, TR) and perhaps factored less.
Obviously, I want SS judged. But, I think the IJS does that well enough already that a PCS for it is seemingly redundant.
First of all, "Program Components Scores" refers to all the aspects/components of a program that apply throughout the whole program, as opposed to the technical elements that earn base values. They're not intended to be technical vs. artistic. And if you look back at the 6.0 criteria for the two marks, the division wasn't always strictly technical vs. artistic either.
The only elements that actually focus on skating skills are step sequences. But there are plenty of skating skills being demonstrated outside the step sequences. The quality of the crossovers counts, for example, but where else would you consider that outside of a Skating Skills performance. Where would you consider speed and edge depth and balance/security and one-foot skating, etc. without that component?
And Transitions by definition are what happens between the elements.
Three of those whole-program components could be considered "artistic." But that doesn't mean that the whole-program components that are more technical but not tied to elements are unimportant. As I said, I would argue they are the
most important thing.
So would it make sense to have three sets of scores?
1) Technical Elements
2) Skating Skills (which would include transitions), or maybe call it Technical Program Components
3) Presentation, Composition, and Interpretation grouped under a heading such as Artistic Program Components
I'd be happy with that if those three sets of scores were balanced approximately equally to each other.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eENh7cMpktk
