Unbalanced Performances

https://youtu.be/iVhIyucC2_s?t=225

So check out Medvedeva's ChSq here: a skid spiral in which the forward edge rocked uncontrollably and the back edge was held for less than a split second, and a one second ina bauer in which she didn't even seriously try to lean back. What's the GOE you ask? Right, +2s and +3s across the board.

My biggest concern is the forward edge. The judges, and by extension ISU, are not being good caretakers of the sport if they are not marking down for this in an element that is most fundamental to "skating".

As you know and I have said countless times, "skating" is the blade in relationship to the ice controlled at the nuance level below the ankles, not body positions above the ankle.
 
I agree, but . . . look at the differences between the positive bullet points for Step Sequences vs. Choreographic Sequences:

Step Sequences
1) good energy and execution
2) good speed or acceleration during sequence
3) use of various steps during the sequence
4) deep clean edges (including entry and exit of all turns)
5) good control and commitment of the whole body
maintaining accuracy of steps
6) creativity and originality
7) effortless throughout
8) element enhances the musical structure

Choreographic Sequences
1) good flow, energy and execution
2) good speed or acceleration during sequence
3) good clarity and precision
4) good control and commitment of whole body
5) creativity and originality
6) effortless throughout
7) reflecting concept/character of the program
8) element enhances the musical structure

For better or worse, judges aren't asked to evaluate the edges as such in the choreo sequences.
 
For better or worse, judges aren't asked to evaluate the edges as such in the choreo sequences.

Then the ISU Technical Committee is a POS that has completely lost sight of what skating is.

I agree it is not the judges fault if the ISU Techical Committee does not include it in the criteria because they DO NOT CARE ABOUT SKATING.
 
However, judges should see the edges during choreo sequences as well as the rest of the program and consider them in evaluating Skating Skills.

One edge out of a whole program won't necessarily make a noticeable difference in the scores -- even the best skaters can make mistakes, hit a bad piece of ice, or have wobbles on challenging moves. But if there's a pattern of weak edges on transitions and stroking and jump and spin entries and exits and in step sequences and choreo sequences, then I would expect lower scores for Skating Skills.

Which is more relevant to this PCS-focused thread anyway.
 
Choreographic Sequences
1) good flow, energy and execution
2) good speed or acceleration during sequence
3) good clarity and precision
4) good control and commitment of whole body
5) creativity and originality
6) effortless throughout
7) reflecting concept/character of the program
8) element enhances the musical structure

For better or worse, judges aren't asked to evaluate the edges as such in the choreo sequences.

I feel like items 1, 4 and 6 were somewhat affected by that rocky edge. It's not precisely the edge that the judges should look at perhaps, but the fact that there is a visible mishap, a flaw in execution should have been reflected in GOEs.

Also, I take huge issue that neither field move was held for a reasonable amount of time but I suppose this again isn't required in the criteria?
 
What about Sasha Cohen and Kostner pre-2011? In Sasha's case, were her SS not inferior to her IN or did she improve on them enough after SLC? I never heard any chatter about deeper edging and such, so I think it would have likely been deserved.

I always thought Sasha was lacking in edges and it used to really bother me that it was overlooked because she struck such picture-perfect positions all the time.
 
I feel like items 1, 4 and 6 were somewhat affected by that rocky edge. It's not precisely the edge that the judges should look at perhaps, but the fact that there is a visible mishap, a flaw in execution should have been reflected in GOEs.

Also, I take huge issue that neither field move was held for a reasonable amount of time but I suppose this again isn't required in the criteria?

I actually re-wound the clip you posted thinking - there must be other steps or movements before the turns into the skid spiral, but there were none!!

Is that even long enough to satisfy the criteria for a choreographic sequence? Are there any criteria? That seemed so short and throwaway, other skaters do so much more with the choreographic sequence.
 
According to the Technical Panel handbook:

A Choreographic Sequence consists of any kind of movements like steps, turns,
spirals, arabesques, spread eagles, Ina Bauers, hydroblading, any jumps with
maximum of 2 revolutions, spins, etc. Listed elements included in the Choreographic
Sequence will not be called and will not occupy a box. The pattern is not restricted,
but the sequence must be clearly visible.
The Technical Panel identifies the Choreographic Sequence which commences with
the first skating movement and is concluded with the preparation to the next element
(if the Choreographic Sequence is not the last element of the program). It can be
performed before or after the Step Sequence.
 
Can we think of examples in which Performance, Composition, and Interpretation do not all deserve to be within the same close range?

I just watched Emmy Ma's unbelievable short program at Eastern Sectionals. After 2 JGP performances, this program still gives me the chills. I think Composition-wise the program isn't particularly extraordinary, but her Interpretation is quite possibly one of the best in this season, surpassing most top international ladies --- I'm talking purely about interpretation here.

I also recently rewatched a couple of Matt Savoie's old programs on YouTube, as I do every so often. One could argue that his posture and extension and introverted expression (lack of projection?) would hurt his Performance score. On the other hand, the Composition/Choreography is some of the all-time-best, in my opinion.

Nevertheless, I agree that PE, CO, and IN can and should be wrapped into 1 score and be considered in a holistic way. There is no right or wrong way of doing it, but I believe the overall benefit of this approach outweighs the current approach of 3 separate components.
 
Last edited:
I just watched Emmy Ma's unbelievable short program at Eastern Sectionals. After 2 JGP performances, this program still gives me the chills. I think Composition-wise the program isn't particularly extraordinary, but her Interpretation is quite possibly one of the best in this season, surpassing most top international ladies --- I'm talking purely about interpretation here.

She is so convincing that I kept on thinking during the program "How does a 16 yo have enough experiences to tap into that pain from a lifelong of unrequited love?"
 
I actually re-wound the clip you posted thinking - there must be other steps or movements before the turns into the skid spiral, but there were none!!

Is that even long enough to satisfy the criteria for a choreographic sequence? Are there any criteria? That seemed so short and throwaway, other skaters do so much more with the choreographic sequence.

Well there's the split second long ina bauer that followed the skid spiral.
 
I actually re-wound the clip you posted thinking - there must be other steps or movements before the turns into the skid spiral, but there were none!!

Is that even long enough to satisfy the criteria for a choreographic sequence? Are there any criteria? That seemed so short and throwaway, other skaters do so much more with the choreographic sequence.

I wish the ISU had kept some of the criteria it had used for the short-lived ChSP sequences when it switched to the ChSq. Wagner's half-Charlotte is a disappointing display of moves in the field when we know what she can do in terms of spirals, split falling leafs, spread eagles, etc. I think something like "two moves, 1 which is held for 2 seconds or more, connected through clear, interpretative steps with changes in edge, direction, and complexity." Kind of cumbersome, and I almost want to just put back the 2-sec spiral requirement, but this allows for a nice Ina Bauer connected to a held spread eagle, etc. And, clearly, the GOE bullets need refining as overall, non-leveled elements should be held to the highest standards when judging a skater's quality of skills IMO. A ChSq should be a Level 1 +3 at worst, IMO, though I would never put that into official writing.

@gkelly - do you think judges considered Skating Skills when evaluating the 2nd mark of the 6.0 system? I doubt it and we now have a system where every move a skater makes is evaluated and assessed based on their skating skills... URs, edge violations, levels on spins and footwork.. aren't these all indicators of a skater's skills? 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 necessarily have an opinion whether or not to remove it entirely, 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.
 
I just watched Emmy Ma's unbelievable short program at Eastern Sectionals. After 2 JGP performances, this program still gives me the chills. I think Composition-wise the program isn't particularly extraordinary, but her Interpretation is quite possibly one of the best in this season, surpassing most top international ladies --- I'm talking purely about interpretation here.

Link?
 

Videos of the Sectionals are behind Ice Network's pay wall. This is her performance at JGP Riga.

It's one thing to address musical accents with choreographed movements, eg, a flick of the wrist or a toss of the head, but another to actually convey emotional depth to the audience. Many can do the former but only a rare few can do the latter.
 
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. ;)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information