Artistry under CoP

[Meoima]

There are some aspects of CoP that I completely agree with though. I like the emphasis on transitions today and feel that CoP has it right in that regard. Especially directly following the elements. Excessive crossovers and full rink set ups for jumps would be graded negatively on my score sheet. And there really is something to be said of landing a jump and seamlessly weaving it directly back into the Choreography. I'm sure it was always rewarded under 6.0 but now it's actually spelled out for skaters and visible in their scores.

totally agree but if the bold part were applied I am wonder where should we give the punishment? in the GOE or PCS?
I also think the levels in Stseq make it hard for me to appreciate the programs. I have no issue if they ditch that Stsq and put Spiral + spread eagle there instead.

 

[Sam-Skwantch]

totally agree but if the bold part were applied I am wonder where should we give the punishment? in the GOE or PCS?
I also think the levels in Stseq make it hard for me to appreciate the programs. I have no issue if they ditch that Stsq and put Spiral + spread eagle there instead.

I'd definitely take it out of PCS. To me it's wasted time and makes most jumps look predictable. The only way it would affect GOE for me I guess is the skater likely won't receive a creative/unexpected/difficult entry but there are enough other bullets to score positive GOE that a +3 is possible still.

 

[Meoima]

I'd definitely take it out of PCS. To me it's wasted time and makes most jumps look predictable. The only way it would affect GOE for me I guess is the skater likely won't receive a creative/unexpected/difficult entry but there are enough other bullets to score positive GOE that a +3 is possible still.

Well they said quad that is not jump out of steps should get - GOE. So I wonder if a jump pass that needs 7-8 crossovers before should get -GOE or not. If we don't punish their GOE but in PCS, maybe there might be this case when PCS is 70 but TES is 90.

 

[Blades of Passion]

Many of these programs seem like 6.0 programs done in the CoP era. Tomas Verner's gem, for instance --

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcSuqbRN4nY

That isn't a 6.0 program at all to me. He has several ugly spin positions which are there only because of CoP, nobody would have done crap like that in 6.0. The footwork sequence is in a random pattern all over the ice and doesn't create a clear vision; in 6.0 there would have been two fast footwork sequences instead and they likely would have worked better with the banjo.

 

[gkelly]

totally agree but if the bold part were applied I am wonder where should we give the punishment? in the GOE or PCS?

Excess crossovers between jumps would be reflected in the program components, unless individual jumps were so badly telegraphed to reflect lack of mastery of the jumps themselves. But it's usually not the crossovers themselves so much as the break between the crossovers and the takeoff that detracts from the jump.

Well they said quad that is not jump out of steps should get - GOE. So I wonder if a jump pass that needs 7-8 crossovers before should get -GOE or not.

Not sure what you're referring to here.

In the short program, the jump that is not the solo axel and is not the jump combination must be preceded by steps. So in that case only, lack of preceding steps requires GOE reduction. In a freeskate, or for the SP jump combination, they're not required and there's no penalty for a simple setup. Also no reward, but if the jump is good in other ways it can earn positive GOE.

That isn't a 6.0 program at all to me. He has several ugly spin positions which are there only because of CoP, nobody would have done crap like that in 6.0.

Oh, there were ugly spin positions under 6.0. Including in winning programs and/or by skaters that would otherwise be considered "artistic." Sometimes because the skater just didn't make a priority to work on flexibility and body line, or on spins, because they believed, probably correctly, that they'd be better rewarded for spending the time on other skills. Plenty of unattractive back sitspins that wouldn't count under IJS. Or because the skater the skater wanted to show off some difficulty or creativity in hopes they would be rewarded for it. Hard to know sometimes what the intentions were.

Sometimes the creativity did make it worthwhile IMO. And usually the spins, or at least the ugly parts, were brief enough that they didn't add many seconds of ugly spinning to the program.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJm0o3XKf_s&t=3m50s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXHM5lzNR-E&t=2m35s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARd8UsQj_Ag&t=5m55s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GY0H__gqgQ&t=7m40s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXHM5lzNR-E&t=3m35s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUS1FUzQj5M&t=4m40s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lDEGE4I-_U&t=3m35s

The footwork sequence is in a random pattern all over the ice and doesn't create a clear vision; in 6.0 there would have been two fast footwork sequences instead and they likely would have worked better with the banjo.

It works for me. Different strokes.

My thoughts in general:

There is disagreement about what constitutes artistry. We had a thread on that topic several months ago IIRC. I give credit for artistic purpose and creativity as well as to good body line and musical phrasing, so I can enjoy and consider artistic some skaters who are strong in some of those areas and weaker in others. I don't consider skating with confidence and projecting to the audience "artistic" in themselves but those qualities do enhance the aesthetic impact of a performance and are often correlated with being artistic in other ways.

I think there was a lot of boring skating under 6.0, with occasional artistic touches in the boring programs, and also a fair number of programs that aimed and often succeeded to be artistic throughout. The most artistic skaters didn't always win. I think the same is true under IJS.

There are 6.0 programs that I love and there are IJS programs that I love. And in both cases they're a minority of all programs from the era.

I've always liked complex programs as part of my aesthetic preference. I can appreciate simplicity done well, but even masterpieces with that approach tend not to be my personal favorites.

I think there is room for difference of opinion, different preferences.

If some posters hate IJS so much that they have negative emotions about everything connected with it, even details they would have liked in a 6.0 context, that's their loss.

Of course, if some posters think their opinions are true and everyone who disagrees is wrong, there's not much room for discussion.

 

[Meoima]

^ I referred to the solo jump in the SP that is usually the quad. Many skaters didn't have preceding steps and they didn't gat -GOE

 

[gkelly]

^ I referred to the solo jump in the SP that is usually the quad. Many skaters didn't have preceding steps and they didn't gat -GOE

Then the judges were incorrect in not giving them negative GOE, in the years when that problem in the SP was in the "Final GOE must be negative" column.


As of this year the rules have changed so that there isn't a requirement that the final GOE be negative for anything.

But the GOE reduction for "SP: No required preceding steps/movements" is -3 off whatever the GOE would have been otherwise. So even if the jump was beautiful, perfect, enhanced with at least 6 positive bullet points, the GOE still shouldn't end up as higher than 0.

In some cases, the judges may have just been generous in counting connecting moves that were not directly preceding the solo jump.

The reduction is -1 or -2 for a break between the preceding movements and the jump.

 

[Mathman]

But the GOE reduction for "SP: No required preceding steps/movements" is -3 off whatever the GOE would have been otherwise. So even if the jump was beautiful, perfect, enhanced with at least 6 positive bullet points, the GOE still shouldn't end up as higher than 0.

In some cases, the judges may have just been generous in counting connecting moves that were not directly preceding the solo jump.

What happens in the case where a man plans 4T+3T, then 3Lz out of steps, but bails on the first combo and instead tacks a 3T onto the Lutz? Does the 3Lz+3T count as the required combo (possibly with bonus GOE for preceding steps), while the solo 4T gets a -3 GOE hit for no preceding steps? Do skaters ever try to guard against this by putting in a little minimal step or move heading into the combo, just to be on the safe side?

What if the skater (in error) does not do a combination at all, but does two solo jumps. Do the judges automatically count the one with the fewest preceding steps as the failed combo? Do you still get base value credit for the first jump of an intended combination, even if you can't pull off the second?

 

[Blades of Passion]

Oh, there were ugly spin positions under 6.0

Nobody in 6.0 tried to do a flying upright spin where they immediately hunched forward into a half-assed pike position. People sometimes messed up a spin or didn't have a great position, but they weren't trying to contort themselves into these kinds of off-putting positions and/or spend so much time doing it.

And usually the spins, or at least the ugly parts, were brief enough that they didn't add many seconds of ugly spinning to the program.

Yes that's an important part. People weren't holding every attempted position for 2-3 revolutions. It made spins more seamless with the entire choreography.

 

[gkelly]

What happens in the case where a man plans 4T+3T, then 3Lz out of steps, but bails on the first combo and instead tacks a 3T onto the Lutz? Does the 3Lz+3T count as the required combo (possibly with bonus GOE for preceding steps),

Yes.

while the solo 4T gets a -3 GOE hit for no preceding steps?

Yes, if there were in fact zero preceding steps.

Do skaters ever try to guard against this by putting in a little minimal step or move heading into the combo, just to be on the safe side?

Yes.

What if the skater (in error) does not do a combination at all, but does two solo jumps. Do the judges automatically count the one with the fewest preceding steps as the failed combo?

The technical panel decides which one to call as +COMBO and which to call as the solo jump.

From the Technical Panel Handbook:

If there is no second jump in a jump combination, the Technical Panel
identifies the intended combination during or after the program. If there is no clear way to identify the combination or the solo jump preceded by steps (steps or no steps in both cases), the Technical Panel will decide which one is the solo jump and which one is the combination in favour of the skater.

The judges are supposed to award the GOEs based on what the tech panel calls. But the final decision might not be made until after the the reviews at the end of the program, and the judges might have entered a GOE during the program based on how they understood the element in real time and then forgotten to go back and change it.

Most of the time, however, if a skater does no combination it's because there was a fall or bad landing on the first jump. So the GOE for that element should be negative already for that reason, and then further reduced either for lack of preceding steps (unless the skater did in fact include some) or for lack of combination. So chances are the correct GOE would be -3 regardless of the call (bad landing and no preceding steps or bad landing and no second jump).

Do you still get base value credit for the first jump of an intended combination, even if you can't pull off the second?

Yes.

And also, "SP: Combo of one jump final GOE must be -3"

 

[jenaj]

Under 6.0, the technical elements, like steps before a jump, were part of the short program. The tech score in the free skate was mostly jumps. Maybe that should have been addressed, but not to the extent that it is under the IJS. Things like number of spin revolutions, transitional steps, doing steps in both directions in a step sequence, different spin positions, should not be required in a "free" program. What is the point of having two technical programs?

 

[Mathman]

Thanks for the reply, gkelly.

 

[gkelly]

What is the point of having two technical programs?

I think there could be two approaches to addressing that, within a general IJS framework. (I have no expectation that the ISU is interested in either of them.)

1) Technical short program: Basic elements must be performed to strict requirements, with no extra credit for variations and perhaps with no variations from the classic spin positions allowed. No levels on spins or steps -- the emphasis is on pure quality, and it's easier to lose points for errors or rule violations than to gain points for high quality or enhanced elements. Step sequence or edge element requirements might have more specific requirements than just "a step sequence," to vary each year. Different specific jumps and spins could also be required each year, similar to the 1970s-80s requirements or the current junior (and pair) requirements.
Freeskate: Here's where skaters get to show off a wider range of skills including their own unique specialties. They have a limited number of total elements they're allowed to get points for -- perhaps with minimums and/or maximums of each kind of element for some attempt at keeping programs well balanced, but probably not requiring an axel and a flying spin and a combo spin and a spin in one position -- but there is more flexibility in the exact number of jumps, spins, and sequences a skater can earn points for. There would be other kinds of sequences besides "step sequence" each with their own rules for earning levels, and there would be a wider range of skills that qualify as features, so skaters could take completely different approaches in how to include level 4 elements. Also, increasing the GOEs would clearly be worth more than increasing the level, so it would be a valid strategy to choose to do simpler elements exceptionally well.

2) Technical program: Full-length long program according to the current well-balanced program rules, with the current freeskate requirements plus perhaps a requirement to attempt all six jump takeoffs and at least one jump combination or suffer a penalty. Free skate: There's a time limit. There's a limit on the maximum number of each type of element that can count for points: if you do more of a given type of element than allowed, you get credit for the highest scoring ones up to the maximum number, regardless of which you did first or last. All spins and sequences are "choreo" elements -- identified as Yes or No by the tech panel with the same base value for all Yes elements regardless of content, and then scored on GOE by the judges. There could be room for more than 3 positive grades of execution so that judges can reward well-performed difficulty in these elements in addition to quality and "enhancing the musical structure," but there would be no automatic base value reward for including a variation -- judges will only reward it in GOE if it is effective.