Can someone show the judging criteria for the performance score, perhaps you, CandianSkaterGuy, as this is a result of your posting? I didn't think execution of the jumps was a part of that, as the judging of that has already occurred with the points given for the jump. For me, including that in determining the performance score would be akin to double jeopardy/double penalty.
Worlds: Mens SP
- Thread starter Interspectator
- Start date
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2012
Yes, that we tend to forget.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
https://www.isu.org/figure-skating/...96-program-component-chart-id-sp-2018-19/file
Under the PCS guidelines for Performance:
- Physical/emotional/intellectual involvement. When a skater pops a jump or falls or commits another error, this is a departure from the performance being as good as it can be.
- Projection. A pop/fall/stumble is an error that adversely affects the skater's ability to properly project the feeling/choreography/etc. of the program. It "breaks the spell" if you will, and is jarring to someone in the audience that the skater is trying to establish a connection with through their movements..
-Carriage and clarity of movement - a pop/fall is an ugly thing to see, no matter how you put it. It is a form break, and it definitely is a failure to clearly execute what is an intended movement (a triple/quad) by producing something less than what is intended (a single or double).
Even if you don't know PCS guidelines... the whole concept of "Performance" in laymen's/basic terms means, how good was the Performance? And if there is a serious flaw in the program, it stands to say the performance cannot be considered perfect or even close to perfect (which it could be if there's a minor flaw or flaw that is not so obvious like a UR). A pop or fall or stumble plain and simple compromises the performance (referring to the PCS category, or even the general definition of "performance"). A program with visible error(s) simply does not have the same impact or level of performance compared to the same program being executed flawlessly (I mean, that's stating the obvious).
An error (especially a major one) is also a lapse of other PCS categories, not just Performance:
- skating skills... if a skater fails to execute a jump properly (e.g. the timing is off, they pop it, the landing isn't good or scratchy), this can be considered a lack of "precision of foot placement", lack of "balance", and/or lack of "flow and glide". After all, it takes skating skills to execute jumps and poor jumps are due to a lapse in skating skills. It's not to say a skater LACKS the skills (they could land the jump perfectly another time) but it's about what you put out on the ice THAT time.
- transitions: if a skater falls on a jump (especially one they normally do transitions out of), that should be reflected in transitions. Let's say a skater has 7 jumps all with exit transitions - if they do each perfectly in one runthrough, and then fall on each one in a second runthrough, the transitions score in second one should be lower, right? If they dumb down their content from one runthrough to the next, then their transitions are not as "difficult" because transitions are easier to execute when they go into easier jumps.
- interpretation: obviously, a form break or major error interferes with the skater's "expression of the music's character/feeling and rhythm"
- composition: a major error affects the intended purpose that a program strives to create (e.g. if a skater is trying to present a calm, elegant, refined program, a fall or pop contravenes the purpose of the piece -- and often such errors compromise the intended choreography and composition as well)
People like to separate elements and PCS but the reality is, they are intimately connected. A spin, for example, can have interesting arm positions that lend itself to better interpretation (I think back to Kostner's arms in her layback in her Celine Dion short program last year). A jump/throw that correlates with a climax in the music is aesthetically more pleasing than the same jump/throw executed randomly in the music (while this is a GOE bullet - element matching musical structure - it's also a PCS point reflecting the character/rhythm of the music in Interpretation).
PCS is PROGRAM components and that should constitute everything the skater does from the moment they start to the moment they finish - including the elements executed in between.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
That's pretty risky though - because if he messes up the 2nd quad there's no combo. But it could have bigger reward with the bonus (personally, I think it's kinda foolish for a skater to not create a failsafe in their program... you could gain 1 or 2 points in bonus, but if you run out of jumping passes to do your combo because you decided to do it later, it could cost your 5 or 6 points).
I didn't realize he was sick though - he sure looked healthy here, posting his best SP of the season, although there's still room for improvement on the quality of his jumps and they weren't quite as good as we've seen from him.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
I don't know, though. You don't really want to plan for failure. That might make it more likely.
Plan your skate, skate your plan. (But Keegan cold have tacked on double toe to his Lutz.)
Last edited:
He’s been doing his combo for his last jumping pass the whole season, whether planned or unplanned. It can be risky though - it didn’t work out for him at GPF.
I think he lost some training time since Nationals due to being sick. And he was more focused on school (midterms etc.)
I would like Junhwan to give his everything to Junliet (I really felt for him today)
Plus I really enjoyed Shoma's performance even with the fall. His steps! He seemed fairly happy too.
I hope that Mikhail, Andrei and Alexander can free skate without putting too much pressure on themselves!
Plus I really enjoyed Shoma's performance even with the fall. His steps! He seemed fairly happy too.
I hope that Mikhail, Andrei and Alexander can free skate without putting too much pressure on themselves!
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
Yeah totally... so much potential. Give him a second quad and he's an even greater contender. He could even spoil for a medal here but might need a bit of luck and for the judges to give him his due if he goes lights out, too.
There is a lot to address here so this may be long, apologies in advance
First, thank you for bringing this here but it would have been better if you didn't inject your own opinion and interpretation into the official rules. This makes it sound like it is how things are but that is not true. The judges and the ISU may and probably do have a different opinions than yours.
Second, you neglected to mention that there is an explicit rule about PC penalty that says
This is the only mention of a PC punishment for mistakes and if we apply it to the scoring in the mens event, you want find any problems in the scores.
For example, Hanyu (who you seem to have a problem with) had one mistake so the first part applies to him. He did not get any 10 for that SP and according to the rules that is the only required penalty. everything else is left to the judges to decide.
Third, following your logic about TR scores, skaters should drop all transitions to make sure they do not miss anything if they made a mistake on a jump?!!! Your argument makes no sense and you are actually advocating penalising those who do have more transitions more harshly than those who don't. If that is not your suggestion, please explain how to penalise someone with no transition to or out of a jump when they fall and not just those who do.
Forth, please stop talking about falls and pops as if they are the same thing. a pop can be a simple change in plan or a bad take off that resulted in the skater aborting rotation. They are very different and a pop does not affect transition or SS even in your own weird logic. Also pops are already heavily penalised and the loss of BV (usually there is also -GOE) is big already. Why do you want to double the punishment for the mistake by making it a crime against presentation as well.
Lets see an example here, using Hanyu's 4S:
-The BV for the 4S is 9.70, if he landed it well he would have gotten a couple more points for the +GOE so we are looking at a loss of 10+ points because of the pop
-If this was the free and this was still a legal element he would have received 1.30 points for the 2S (assuming no negative GOE)
-A fall on the 4S would have resulted in a -5 GOE deduction and -4.85 points lost (he would receive 4.85 for it). Add the fall deduction and you get 3.85 points.
Now tell me, how is it okay to punish a skater more for a pop than for a fall. Are pops really worse than a fall? Is it really fair to then punish the skater again in PC for that pop? you say yes,I say no, it is very unfair to do so.
This I agree with, but I don't see it in what you are arguing at all. You talk about mistakes a lot and how they should affect the scores but never acknowledge the good things a skater does of have in their programs (unless it is the skater you are defending). Yes, a mistake takes away from the performance but a brilliant performer can easily recover and make up for it. If you can't get past that one mistake and enjoy a performance then that is your loss. For most people that is fine if everything else was great.
Jumps and being clean is important for PC but for some reason you and many others keep talking as if it is the only thing that matters. Is staying on you feet after jumps really more important for the overall performance than beautiful spins and footwork, which actually makes up the majority of the program time. If a fall (or a pop) must be punished so harshly and a clean program should be rewarded so generously where does everything else fit in? why can't three amazing spins make up for one bad jump when it comes to PC? Why would a fall on a jump take away from a brilliant StSq? It doesn't, because PC is about balance. What you do well should be weighed against what you do bad and that give us the final score. This is why the ISU is leaving it to the judges instead of making strict rules and criteria. Just because some judges use the BV or their own biases to decide PC scores doesn't mean that is how it should work according to the rules or that we should just accept it and defend it. Also, we should stop acting as if PC is a number we are supposed to deduct from because that works only with top skaters who are maxing out the scores and does not apply to others. Any deduction that does not apply to all competitors is discriminatory and must be dropped.
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2014
- Country
-
NO electric performances:eeking:
I know I’m biased but even from more objective observers, Jason produced one of the most electric performances of the entire competition during the men’s short
and I would argue there was more
This was a strange event, but it makes for an interesting free at the very least. It will be hard for Nathan not to win with that cushion, though (and I’m fine with that outcome). While I think his GOEs in particular and some categories of PCS (namely SS and TR) were overscored, he really does perform Caravan well, and is the rightful leader. I’m sure going last when other favorites faltered had an impact on the scoring. In any case, I agree with the top 3, though I would have given Jason the highest PCS. The quality of his elements was undeniable. Yuzuru unfortunately was a little tentative after that popped salchow, but the 3A was exciting as always and the step sequence was lovely. He might be too far behind to win, but I can see him delivering a Helsinki-type performance in the free.
Gutted for Boyang, especially since I love his programs this season so so much. Devastated for poor Keegan too
I’m actually not upset about Mikhail’s skate; the 3T was an unfortunate error, but it could have been a lot worse. I’m glad Kévin and Matteo are in a good position! They have been my revelations of the season.
I still think we’ll see some combination of Nathan-Yuzuru-Shoma on the podium, unless the tech panel goes easy on Vincent.
Gutted for Boyang, especially since I love his programs this season so so much. Devastated for poor Keegan too
I’m actually not upset about Mikhail’s skate; the 3T was an unfortunate error, but it could have been a lot worse. I’m glad Kévin and Matteo are in a good position! They have been my revelations of the season. I still think we’ll see some combination of Nathan-Yuzuru-Shoma on the podium, unless the tech panel goes easy on Vincent.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
Thanks for taking the time, so my response is also long, apologies in advance.
Tell this to every person who complains about pre-rotation which is itself an interpretation of the 'cheated-takeoff' described in the official rules!
I was asked what specifically the PCS guidelines are. And explained - using the actual specific verbiage outlined in the PCS guidelines - as to why I think an error like a fall or pop should adversely affect various PCS categories. Sure, you can say it's my opinion that major errors diminish the overall aesthetics of a program, but I feel like that's an opinion shared by many. People inject their opinion all the time too -- if someone says that a skater jumping off a flat blade on a lutz/flip should lose GOE for a "poor take-off", should we dismiss that as merely an opinion/interpretation of the official rules?Firstly, I've pointed out multiple skaters who should have gotten lower PCS, including Chen, Uno, Kolyada, Samarin, and not just Hanyu. I've said that Brown deserves the highest PCS, and Rizzo deserved higher PCS. I even think Messing deserved lower PCS.
Secondly, Hanyu - or any skater for that matter -does not automatically start with a score of 10.00 for all components and then get deducted from that. If a skater had 7 falls (i.e. "falls or serious errors") and a judge gave them the max of 9.5 on SS/TR/CO and 9.0 on PE/IN /9.0, saying "well, he didn't get any 9.75s or 9.25s, and those scores are fine in accordance with the max-PCS rules" would not justify that judge's scores. You call it a 'required penalty' - no... it is a maximum score that can be given. Such an approach would get (and is getting) abused by judges: "I anticipate giving skater A 8.50 if they go clean. [skater A skates] Oh, they fell 5 times? Well, whatever... I'll give them 8.50 anyways since it's still below the threshold of what I'm allowed to give them."
Call me weird but I think only a perfect program is artistically perfect. When there are errors made, these need to be reflected in the technical scores. If lower tier skaters are fighting to get 8.5, and a top skater can fall 4 times and the attitude is "Oh, well, we subtracted 0.25 for each fall, and 9.00 is within the allowance!", that isn't fair.
Actually, transitions score is a measure of continuity, variety, difficulty and quality. Quantity of transitions is not a criteria of the transitions score (https://www.isu.org/figure-skating/...96-program-component-chart-id-sp-2018-19/file). Maybe by caring about the number of transitions, we're all just injecting our own opinion/interpretation into the official rules!
Scenario 1: a skater skates a clean program in which they do a triple axel with a spread eagle out of it - overall they score 9.00 for TR
Scenario 2: if the skater does the program a 2nd time (everything else is the same) and falls on the triple axel and fails to do the spread axel, should they still get 9.00 TR overall even though this time around they left out a transitional movement (and a difficult one at that)?
Scenario 3: they do the program a 3rd time (everything the same) and pop the 3A into a single, but does the spread eagle still.... should they still be awarded a 9.00 TR overall (given that a spread eagle out of a 1A is an easier transition to execute than a spread eagle out of a 3A - w.r.t. "difficulty" as a transition criteria)?
Now, I know you're going to say "well, judges can't mark down for a transition not being executed, because they would have to know it was going to be executed in the first place." Well, this goes back to my earlier point. PCS is built UP, not deducted down. IMO, a good judge tracks what transitions are being executed, and their TR score progressively increases/decreases in their mind. When they see a nice spread eagle, the transitions score gets better. Went they see a slow spread eagle the score might still stay the same because a difficult transition was attempted but the quality was poor. If they see a stumble on the spread eagle, the difficulty is there but the execution is so bad that the TR score gets lower. And by the end of the program, they should have some idea of the quality/difficulty/variety/continuity of the transitions as executed.
Some people look for different things when it comes to transitions - for example, in Chen's program, somebody asserted there were no transitions in and out, but like, his quad combo transitions directly into a flying spin, which some people might miss if they're only looking to count the number of rocker/counter/twizzles. Some aggrandize easy transitional moves like progressives and chasses which sure, they increase the transition count, but they are not difficult at all according to the actual transition criteria. It's a reason why programs with lots of crossovers generally receive lower TR marks, not because of the lack of transitions, but due to the fact that crossovers are not difficult linking movements. Speaking of crossovers, I remember people mocking someone for remarking on a skater's "quality crossovers". Well, mock away, but that comment correlates with the actual PCS criteria of linking movements. Crossovers, while super basic, are linking movements and, like progressives and chasses, they are not difficult linking movements (and a program with only crossovers should get marked down for a lack of variety and for low difficulty transition), although they can still have quality (depth of edge, speed generation, control).
Of course I know a pop isn't the same as a fall, but each is a major error, and even a casual skating viewer can usually tell that a pop is a significant visible error. What I'm more dismayed by are people who are trivializing major errors/stumbles saying they shouldn't affect the PCS because they don't affect things like the overall quality of the program. I wish people would stop trivializing them "Oh well at least it was a nice huge looking pop"/"Oh at least they got up quickly."
Here's a clean program by Oda at the 2009 GPF: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpdsWiwqCtU
And here's the program at 2010 Worlds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ix-Z2cNReN8
Wouldn't you say that artistically there is a disparity in these performance/impact/interpretation of these programs due to one having every jump well executed and the other having every jump popped? The clean one got 39.85 PCS and the pops one got 33.35. Did Oda deserve 39.85 PCS for his Worlds SP, since pops are just part of TES and not PCS, and are not as severe as falls?
Especially for a viewer who is trying to enjoy the program who knows how many points things are, when a skater pops the performance suddenly is inherently flawed and that seeps into your enjoyment of the performance. When Samarin popped his quad or Kihira popped her axel or Hanyu popped his salchow or Kolyada tripled his quad, I'm sure many watched the performance knowing that a major error had been made and it wasn't going to be as perfect as they were hoping for it to be.
I never said it's the be all and end all. It most certainly is not. And the judges need to consider what the skater has done right, formulate a score and from that deduct for things that they did wrong. A fall on a 3A doesn't magically get nullified by a nice position on a spiral. Also, I highly disagree with the notion trivializing falls as just a blip in a 4-minute program. If a skater erred 10 times in a program, and the errors collectively took a total of 10 seconds, you wouldn't justify it as "Oh, well it's only 10 seconds of a 250-second program"
You bring up the StSq. And this is the perfect argument for why TES should not be considered separate from PCS. The StSq is an element right? Gets TES, etc. So, can a skater have a lifeless step sequence with shallow edges, bland choreography, and poor transitional movements -- and not have it adversely affect their PCS score? I mean, the StSq is a technical element and if TES is to be regarded independently of PCS, then a bad StSq shouldn't affect the overall PCS, right? :sarcasm:
PCS = program components. Elements are part of the program... so aspects of the program components are inherently part of the elements that are being executed - and not just footwork. Like, if a pair skater missed their pivot foot on a death spiral, that is a lack of skating skills because they literally didn't place their foot properly (SS). If a skater leans forward on a jump to touch down instead of a nice extended landing, that is a break in carriage/clarity of movement (PE). If a skater pops a jump that is clearly meant to me a triple or quad... that is a failure to execute the composition of the program as intended which is contrary to the vision and purpose of a program being perfectly executed (CO). A fall on a jump in a program where you're trying to create a beautiful, aesthetic quality (which is every program, pretty much) is a break in the interpretation of the program -- obviously you're not interpreting as you fall, so your involvement in the program (and also the audience's involvement in what you create is diminished).
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2014
- Country
-
NO electric performances:eeking:
I know I’m biased but even from more objective observers, Jason produced one of the most electric performances of the entire competition during the men’s short
and I would argue there was more
I agree - there were some wonderful performances. I think our Japanese men faltered due to home-crowd pressure and nerves, but even they had good skates considering they had errors. Jason was amazing, Matteo Rizzo knocked it out of the park, Kevin A had a good skate, Nathan was stellar, and there are others but I won't mention them all. As always, the Japanese crowd was so "into" it. I'm expecting we'll see even more excitement in the free.
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2003
NO electric performances:eeking:
I know I’m biased but even from more objective observers, Jason produced one of the most electric performances of the entire competition during the men’s short
and I would argue there was more
I just wanted to point out it's really okay that not everyone finds the skater you think to be god as exciting as you believe him to be. For example, I personally think Jason's artistry gets way too much credit especially compared to how much Jeremy Abbott ever got, but I never felt compelled enough to convince every single person on the internet of this particular view of mine.
It seems like we do agree on a lot of things, so thank you for clarifying your position. I still think that you put way to much weight on one or two mistakes and that pops are penalised harshly already, but we both agree that PC should be given for the whole program (technical elements and everything in between), which means everything should have an impact on the score, the good and the bad
I would discuss this further but this is not the place for it and I don't want to go too much off topic so I will leave it here.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
^Totally, and thank you for your opinion and insights on this topic!
I'm just tired of skaters almost matching or even exceeding a PB with a performance with a major flaw(s). I get that a skater legit could have improved their program and overall skating between their personal best and their previous PB. But this is so not often the case and top skater are "saved by PCS" in spite of committing errors. It's bad for the sport, IMO
Agreed to leave the topic for now.
I'm just tired of skaters almost matching or even exceeding a PB with a performance with a major flaw(s). I get that a skater legit could have improved their program and overall skating between their personal best and their previous PB. But this is so not often the case and top skater are "saved by PCS" in spite of committing errors. It's bad for the sport, IMO
Agreed to leave the topic for now.
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2008
- Country
-
For the most part, that is not how PCS are supposed to work, this is a very ridiculous notion. An entry transition itself is not better because of the jump (mentally perhaps, but not in terms of the skating itself). If you do a spread eagle into an axel jump, it's irrelevant how many turns you do in the air afterward, it doesn't change the quality of the spread eagle itself.
It's harder to do a spread eagle + 3Axel sequence because of the jump itself being more difficult, and points are already awarded for more difficult jumps. You can argue a transition out becomes more difficult itself, but again that doesn't change the actual quality of the transition itself, and an exit being more difficult from a harder jump is already covered via that jump receiving more points.
More difficult jumps might make a program more exciting (generally yes), or they might not. The same goes for choreographic/interpretive impact. Jumps of higher rotation can actually be worse in this regard. There are plenty of times where a 3Lutz+2Toe combo for example would actually be better artistically than a 3Lutz+3Toe -- like if the phrasing of the music is becoming smaller during the execution of that jump combo, or if the skater is trying to convey a certain sense of dantiness or gentleness or whatever other idea where a less frantic movement works better.
A skater does not deserve higher PCS solely for more difficult jump content. If someone went out and did a program of all planned doubles - and actually did huge airy doubles and fully committed to the program as such - they should not inherently get lower PCS than if they did all Quads. A program with all doubles would inherently look different visually than a program with all Quads though, so you are making a bad argument. Nobody should be choreographing a program of all planned Double Jumps the same as a program of all planned Quad jumps, and without having actual programs to compare and seeing a skater's ability to execute, it's impossible to say whether Double jumps or Quad jumps would be the better musical interpretation.
Similar threads
