SP and FS replaced by Technical and Artistic programs?

Tavi... said:

I don’t think last season was a good gauge of where Jason’s PCS should be - and hopefully will be - going forward. His FS was not a great program for him, he never once skated it clean, and in fact he frequently (as at Worlds) fell - all of which affects PCS. I would say he was probably under marked in the SP at Worlds but didn’t deserve to be marked higher in the FS bc it was such a mess.

Overall, I think that PCS was pretty reasonable / realistic at the beginning of the season, but it got more and more inflated for certain skaters as the season went on, to the point that it was ridiculous by WTT. And the beneficiaries of that higher PCS were those who jumped the most - and the “hardest” - quads.

I don’t think a new system is necessary. IMO the problem could easily be solved in the current one by training judges better and giving them stricter guidelines. Until that happens, it doesn’t really matter what system is used.

Click to expand...

Agree with all of this. If we're using the framing that Jason should always have higher PCS than a skater like Nathan, that's doing the system some disservice because the quality of programs should matter. "Second mark skaters" don't always have "second mark" programs.

theharleyquinn said:

Agree with all of this. If we're using the framing that Jason should always have higher PCS than a skater like Nathan, that's doing the system some disservice because the quality of programs should matter. "Second mark skaters" don't always have "second mark" programs.

Click to expand...

This is true.

But when “Second Mark skaters” do have great programs, the system doesn’t work when the Quad PCS Bonus is automatically applied.

If the Quad PCS bonus were eliminated, we wouldn’t need to talk about different programs. Sadly, I am not holding my breath

el henry said:

This is true.

But when “Second Mark skaters” do have great programs, the system doesn’t work when the Quad PCS Bonus is automatically applied.

If the Quad PCS bonus were eliminated, we wouldn’t need to talk about different programs. Sadly, I am not holding my breath

Click to expand...

To be honest, if someone with a quad has a program on par with a second mark skater's, why shouldn't they get a bonus for adding a quad that's exciting and well suited to the program? I agree that it shouldn't be automatic, but I'm fine with there being some bonus.

theharleyquinn said:

To be honest, if someone with a quad has a program on par with a second mark skater's, why shouldn't they get a bonus for adding a quad that's exciting and well suited to the program? I agree that it shouldn't be automatic, but I'm fine with there being some bonus.

Click to expand...

I’ve not seen many programs on a par with the second mark skater I’m thinking of; in fact, darn few. But the Quad PCS bonus in scores would have you think differently.

I have no problems with well integrated quads that make sense and fit the program and I clap as loud as the next person when they are landed in front of me. But I don’t find them so exciting and wonderful and artistic that a *PCS* bonus is due.

For me, BV is plenty good enough for that reward.

theharleyquinn said:

To be honest, if someone with a quad has a program on par with a second mark skater's, why shouldn't they get a bonus for adding a quad that's exciting and well suited to the program? I agree that it shouldn't be automatic, but I'm fine with there being some bonus.

Click to expand...

I think that a skater should get credit for what he does and should not get credit for what he doesn't do. Of course a skater should get higher PCSs if his jumps are exciting and well-suited to the program. (Although this is somewhat double-dipping because they already got credit in GOE for elements well matched to the musical structure, etc.)

Tavi... said:

[Jason's] FS was not a great program for him, he never once skated it clean, and in fact he frequently (as at Worlds) fell - all of which affects PCS. I would say he was probably under marked in the SP at Worlds but didn’t deserve to be marked higher in the FS bc it was such a mess.

Click to expand...

No argument there. But the discussion was about the short program. Nathan got higher marks than Jason in Skating Skills, Composition, Performance and Musical Interpretation. This is despite the fact that Jason has a "reputation" for being especially strong in these areas. To me, this casts doubt on the primacy of the "reputation" factor. Jason's "reputation" did not overcome Nathan's stunning quads.

Mathman said:

I think that a skater should get credit for what he does and should not get credit for what he doesn't do. Of course a skater should get higher PCSs if his jumps are exciting and well-suited to the program. (Although this is somewhat double-dipping because they already got credit in GOE for elements well matched to the musical structure, etc.)

Click to expand...

You're right but that's an issue that PCS/TES factoring and the GOE criteria probably needs to reconcile. Jumps are not solely technical elements for the service of the program. I'd argue there's also some double dipping going in the other direction towards GOE when it comes to how skaters with better SS land jumps with nice glide.

I really have no idea how to quantify this, but I really don't have a problem if there is high PCS when a skater delivers a technical masterpiece that has the audience on the edge of their seats throughout, gasping at the end, "That is the most amazing thing I ever saw!"

Other aspects of PCS.

When a skater has a bad day with the jumps, no one cares that his turns were beautiful.

People complain about "inflated PCS" when a skater's mark improves from one competition to another. Isn't that what we expect? And what we want?

Also, people get entirely too bent out of shape over a point or two of PCS, while blithely excusing underrotations and other technical flaws.

Mathman said:

Well, that was kind of my point. Nathan Chen gets higher PCSs than Jason Brown. Yet if you ask people, name a U.S.men's skater who has a "reputation as an accomplished second mark skater," the great majority of fans and also of skating insiders would say, "Why, Jason Brown is the very poster child of an accomplished second mark skater."

Click to expand...

The judges are the ultimate experts and insiders and they say Nathan is a more accomplished second mark skater both as a junior and a senior skater. Hard data trumps anecdotes and impressions. Nathan is a better TES skater and a better PCS skater. His music and ballet training since childhood shows.

Mathman said:

Yet it is the quadster, not the "artist," who gets the higher PCSs. That's just how the IJS works. I think that Lakernik's proposal is an attempt to review this situation.

Click to expand...

It is untrue that having quad(s) will automatically get you higher PCS. Just go ask the 50+ quadsters not named Yuzuru, Nathan, Shoma or Kolyada. You think a few quadsters having higher PCS a problem ISU wants to address with a fundamental change to the sport? Think again. What Lakernik had said last year was that the idea of a new technical and artistic program is to have three Olympic gold medals instead of one for each figure skating discipline.

TontoK said:

There seems to be a lot of angst about something that long time fans have known for ages.

It's really difficult to quantify some of the things that make us love figure skating.

We've go through weighting the segments differently, adding the short program, dropping the figures, moving to IJS... and the issue remains.

A shift to a technical program and an artistic program won't solve the eternal mystery either.

Although, to be honest, I think that the motivation for some is, "What scoring system can we come up with so that skaters with the qualities I love most will win all the time?"

Click to expand...

I thought part of the motivation was if you have a specific artistic and technical program that you can justifiable award seperate medals for it and have it actually mean something. I think the ISU justifiably wants its atheletes to be able to win more medals at the Olympics much like gymnasts have the opportunity to do. This mean a skate could win a technical, artistic, all-around and team medal.

Though it is rare for the leader of the short to also win the long and to also win.

This will push the sport ahead but also allow opportunities for those who excel in only one area.

Tahuu said:

Nathan is a better TES skater and a better PCS skater. His music and ballet training since childhood shows.

Click to expand...

I think the point I was trying to make has been lost. I am not saying who is the better second mark skater. The question is, who has the reputation of being good at what the program components measure.

You think a few quadsters having higher PCS a problem ISU wants to address with a fundamental change to the sport?

Click to expand...

Reserving the right to be wrong ... I think that the balance between TEC and PSC is the primary concern of the people who work on the IJS rules every year. I think that this is the primary reason why the Scale of Values and other rules are revised every season. Is this year's tweaking really any better than last year's, or than that of the year before? I don't know, but I think that they still consider the scoring system to be it a work in progress -- the journey, not the destination.

Personally, I have no dog in this fight. If the ISU thinks they can improve the scoring system by a different slicing of the tech/artistry pie, OK. If instead they they like what they have now ... OK.

And if they just want to give out more medals, that's OK, too. Go Nathan! Maybe he will win 4 Olympic gold medals in 2026 -- tech, artistry, overall and team!

TontoK said:

Also, people get entirely too bent out of shape over a point or two of PCS, while blithely excusing underrotations and other technical flaws.

Click to expand...

Still, I do think that this highlights the main problem with the scoring system.

At the junior grand prix event just finished, Alysa Liu's downgraded solo triple Axel attempt got her 0.65 points instead of 8.00.

In contrast, her PCSs totaled only 3.27 points higher that than her closest PCS rival, Anastasia Tarakanova. Why bother to have a PCS score at all for a lousy differential of only half as much as the skater lost on a single element?

Furthermore Alisa's component scores were 7.50, 7.18, 7.57, 7.50, and 7.54. This follows the ISU's de facto rule of thumb, give the SS scores and then the last three components are the same and the TR is a half-point less.

Formula: Total PCS for a ladies'long prigram = (5xSS-.5)X1.6 = 59.20

Alysa's actual total PCS = 59.66. Why bother with all the bullet points and criteria when the difference comes out to only 0.46 points?

theharleyquinn said:

To be honest, if someone with a quad has a program on par with a second mark skater's, why shouldn't they get a bonus for adding a quad that's exciting and well suited to the program? I agree that it shouldn't be automatic, but I'm fine with there being some bonus.

Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree. There’s nothing in the PCS guidelines that mentions it, and even if there were, I’m not sure how you’d quantify the added value of a quad versus a triple in terms of excitement and choreography. More important, a skater doing only triples is already at a huge disadvantage points-wise to a skater doing quads, not just bc of the higher BV for quads, but bc GOE is awarded as a percentage of that higher BV. So I think whatever added value quads give a program is already accounted for.

As an example, if you compare the maximum total value (BV + Maximum possible GOE) of Jason’s and Nathan’s jumps in their SPs at Worlds, Nathan had nearly a 15 point advantage. I like Nathan’s SP a lot, and it’s clear he really has fun performing it - and I think the judges respond to that. But actually comparing those programs as executed that day? Jason was underscored in both PCS and GOE compared to Nathan.

As to @Tahuu’s argument that Nathan is a better PCS skater than Jason, all I would say is that just because Phil Hersh once wrote an article about Nathan’s ballet training doesn’t mean he’s unique in that regard. I don’t really see ballet and music as a proxy for PCS - neither a dancer nor a pianist has to deal with edges, for example - but to the extent it’s relevant, I personally think Jason’s years of ballet and music training show in his skating more than Nathan’s do. JMO.

ETA Mathman, go back and look at Nathan’s SP at Worlds. His quads weren’t stunning, they were average. And his spins were sloppy. I’d say he got a fun program / quads / World Champion skating last boost that was enough to put him ahead of Jason.

Mathman said:

Well, that was kind of my point. Nathan Chen gets higher PCSs than Jason Brown.

Click to expand...

Which may be exactly the sort of thing the ISU in their hamfisted way is trying to address.

Tavi... said:

I respectfully disagree. There’s nothing in the PCS guidelines that mentions it, and even if there were, I’m not sure how you’d quantify the added value of a quad versus a triple in terms of excitement and choreography. More important, a skater doing only triples is already at a huge disadvantage points-wise to a skater doing quads, not just bc of the higher BV for quads, but bc GOE is awarded as a percentage of that higher BV. So I think whatever added value quads give a program is already accounted for.

As an example, if you compare the maximum total value (BV + Maximum possible GOE) of Jason’s and Nathan’s jumps in their SPs at Worlds, Nathan had nearly a 15 point advantage. I like Nathan’s SP a lot, and it’s clear he really has fun performing it - and I think the judges respond to that. But actually comparing those programs as executed that day? Jason was underscored in both PCS and GOE compared to Nathan.

As to @Tahuu’s argument that Nathan is a better PCS skater than Jason, all I would say is that just because Phil Hersh once wrote an article about Nathan’s ballet training doesn’t mean he’s unique in that regard. I don’t really see ballet and music as a proxy for PCS - neither a dancer nor a pianist has to deal with edges, for example - but to the extent it’s relevant, I personally think Jason’s years of ballet and music training show in his skating more than Nathan’s do. JMO.

ETA Mathman, go back and look at Nathan’s SP at Worlds. His quads weren’t stunning, they were average. And his spins were sloppy. I’d say he got a fun program / quads / World Champion skating last boost that was enough to put him ahead of Jason.

Click to expand...

The PCS guidelines for Performance and Interpretation are not so tightly defined that jumps couldn't impact those marks though.

I don't completely know how you'd quantify it either. I do care about the inequity you and others have mentioned. I just don't know if the answer is to categorically not incorporate the impact of a more difficult jump on the artistic execution of a program.

I thought this sport was invented to morph artistic and technical skills and blur the lines between them, create something elegant, flowy and yet powerful. And now they are suggesting to rip these two siblings apart completely... Uhm, no. Do not touch it, please.

theharleyquinn said:

To be honest, if someone with a quad has a program on par with a second mark skater's, why shouldn't they get a bonus for adding a quad that's exciting and well suited to the program? I agree that it shouldn't be automatic, but I'm fine with there being some bonus.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but... IF the program is good. Not if it's a meh of program with a quad versus program which is exciting from beginning to the end.

theharleyquinn said:

The PCS guidelines for Performance and Interpretation are not so tightly defined that jumps couldn't impact those marks though.

I don't completely know how you'd quantify it either. I do care about the inequity you and others have mentioned. I just don't know if the answer is to categorically not incorporate the impact of a more difficult jump on the artistic execution of a program.

Click to expand...

I agree that none of the components are so tightly defined as to exclude the impact of jumps. But if you actually look at the categories (see link), they articulate specific things judges should look for - and none of the examples include jumps. That suggests to me that jumps shouldn’t play a big role in a judge’s thinking about PCS.

I think falls and poorly executed jumps can often break the mood of a program. But I don’t think the difference between 3 and 4 clean revolutions elicits the same kind of visceral response in us - does it? Well, it doesn’t for me. It’s more that I “know” quads are harder. Or rarer. Or whatever.

Practically speaking, I think judges have so little time and so much to assess that they’re reacting more than analyzing. So a judge who loves quads probably feels more excited and engaged when quads are in the program, perceives the skaters and programs as “better,” and marks them accordingly. To some degree that’s natural. But I think the ISU could help them be more balanced and accurate by regularly training them in what each component actually means.

https://www.isu.org/figure-skating/...96-program-component-chart-id-sp-2019-20/file

Tavi... said:

I agree that none of the components are so tightly defined as to exclude the impact of jumps. But if you actually look at the categories (see link), they articulate specific things judges should look for - and none of the examples include jumps. That suggests to me that jumps shouldn’t play a big role in a judge’s thinking about PCS.

I think falls and poorly executed jumps can often break the mood of a program. But I don’t think the difference between 3 and 4 clean revolutions elicits the same kind of visceral response in us - does it? Well, it doesn’t for me. It’s more that I “know” quads are harder. Or rarer. Or whatever.

Practically speaking, I think judges have so little time and so much to assess that they’re reacting more than analyzing. So a judge who loves quads probably feels more excited and engaged when quads are in the program, perceives the skaters and programs as “better,” and marks them accordingly. To some degree that’s natural. But I think the ISU could help them be more balanced and accurate by regularly training them in what each component actually means.

https://www.isu.org/figure-skating/...96-program-component-chart-id-sp-2019-20/file

Click to expand...

But my point is, having looked at the same categories, that the Performance and Interpretation categories don't specify anything. They are referencing "movement" and "energy." They are talking about, among other things, carriage and clarity, variety and contrast, and physical/intellectual/emotional involvement of the movement. On my read, that could include crossovers and simple stroking, spins, turns, etc. because they are movement and those qualities can manifest through them. If I'm told to judge after having looked at this, why wouldn't I also be thinking about what the jumps are doing? This might be hypertechnical but if PCS isn't supposed to acknowledge jumps, the criteria isn't doing its job to tell me not to. Especially since the judges were judging as you describe during the 6.0 era too.

I really want PCS to be more accurate too. But maybe the criteria itself needs to get more specific about what it's asking for.

el henry said:

But when “Second Mark skaters” do have great programs, the system doesn’t work when the Quad PCS Bonus is automatically applied.

If the Quad PCS bonus were eliminated, we wouldn’t need to talk about different programs.

Click to expand...

Even if there is no PCS bonus for including quads, there are still 2 opportunities in the short program and 5-7 opportunities in the freeskate for a skater who can do multiple quads to rack up so many points on jumps alone that a great skater with no quads would have no way to make up the point difference on GOEs and PCS alone. Especially if the quad-jumping skater is pretty good at those other things, albeit not great at them.

So if we want skaters who are great at jumping and just good at skating and performance to win championships, and we also want skaters who are great at skating and performance and just good at jumping to win championships, then maybe they need to be winning different events with different emphases.

Lachinka said:

I thought this sport was invented to morph artistic and technical skills and blur the lines between them, create something elegant, flowy and yet powerful.

Click to expand...

Well, the sport was invented to showcase the precision of controlling the blades to trace circles on the ice with clean turns and changes of edge . . . and also to showcase edges and turns and jumps and spins and other moves linked together in creative ways at speed without being restricted to perfectly drawn circles.

All were supposed to look graceful, but the 19th-century expectations of gracefulness would be different from what we expect these days.

Music was added later.

The variety of single jumps, and then doubles, triples, and quads . . . and complicated spins or glides requiring great flexibility . . . and expressive moves of various kinds using extreme body positions with off-center upper body alignment . . . all came later.

Freeskating developed into something very different than what it looked like when the sport was invented. And school figures, which had once been the most important part of the competition, gradually became worth less and then went away entirely.

And now they are suggesting to rip these two siblings apart completely...

Click to expand...

Who said there's any suggestion to rip them apart completely?
We don't know what the details of the proposal will be. As I understand it, there will still be music and all 5 program components in the Technical Program, and there will still be technical elements, probably allowing for difficult jumps, in the Artistic Program.

It's just that the balance of the two programs will be different, by changing the numbers of elements in each program and the multiplying factors of the components relative to the technical score.

So both programs will still blend technical and athletic and artistic skills. But the balance of which offer more opportunities for earning points will vary from one type of program to the other.

Exactly what the balance will be, what the numbers of elements and what the component factors will be, remains to be determined.

theharleyquinn said:

But my point is, having looked at the same categories, that the Performance and Interpretation categories don't specify anything. They are referencing "movement" and "energy." They are talking about, among other things, carriage and clarity, variety and contrast, and physical/intellectual/emotional involvement of the movement. On my read, that could include crossovers and simple stroking, spins, turns, etc. because they are movement and those qualities can manifest through them. If I'm told to judge after having looked at this, why wouldn't I also be thinking about what the jumps are doing?

Click to expand...

I think you should be thinking about the jumps in judging those components. But you should be thinking about how the jumps (and other technical elements) fit into the purpose and patterning of the choreography, how they contribute to interpreting the music, how they demonstrate carriage and clarity, variety and contrast, and physical/intellectual/emotional involvement, etc. Not how many times they rotate in the air.

Tavi... said:

I like Nathan’s SP a lot, and it’s clear he really has fun performing it - and I think the judges respond to that.

I’d say he got a fun program / quads / World Champion skating last boost that was enough to put him ahead of Jason.

Click to expand...

Since when are fun programs an advantage though? It has always been my impression that it's the 'pretentious and deep' programs that are the safer choice and tend to score better in terms of PCS or at the least music/a program that allows for a lot of gliding and smooth movements.

Not only because a fun program can be seen as having less substance and therefore being less demanding in terms of (emotional) involvement, but also because the skater might not get the benefits of moving gracefully across the ice, i.e. conforming to the typical figure skater aesthetic. And imo it is also more difficult to skate to something fast-paced or a program requiring quick footwork (how much this is the case would depend on what type of fun program it is, of course).

Which brings me back to the point that I made in a prior post:
I don’t think it’s possible to judge the artistry of a program free of any bias, personal preference or without being swayed by what I'm gonna call window dressing in many skating programs. Which is why I don’t wanna see it given even more weight in judging, even if it’s just one of two programs. Especially when a skater can potentially earn a medal in such a segment.

I would however, love to see the category of skating skills being expanded in some way and having more of an impact, but with more of a focus on the technical side of it.
I do wonder though, if it's maybe more difficult than we think, judging the differences in skating skills within a group of skaters that compete at the same level? Then again, isn't this what they do for Ice Dance? I honestly don't know because I don't follow Ice Dance.
ETA: I mean, I know they judge this for Ice Dance, but is the judging accurate and undisputable, is what I'm asking.

Tahuu said:

Get your math right, Mathman. Your more accomplished "second mark" skater may be a false impression. Nathan has higher PCS than Jason at either Jr or Sr, national or international competitions.

Jr SP PCS at US nationals: Jason 28.90, Nathan 32.57
Jr FS PCS at US nationals: Jason 63.14, Nathan 68.94

Jr SP PCS at ISU: Jason 33.44, Nathan 37.11
Jr FS PCS at ISU: Jason 73.06, Nathan 73.56

Sr SP PCS at US nationals: Jason 47.76, Nathan 48.37
Sr FS PCS at US nationals: Jason 93.34, Nathan 98.50

Sr SP PCS at ISU: Jason 46.15, Nathan 47.26
Sr FS PCS at ISU: Jason 92.08, Nathan 94.78

Click to expand...

Tavi... said:

As to @Tahuu’s argument that Nathan is a better PCS skater than Jason, all I would say is that just because Phil Hersh once wrote an article about Nathan’s ballet training doesn’t mean he’s unique in that regard. I don’t really see ballet and music as a proxy for PCS - neither a dancer nor a pianist has to deal with edges, for example - but to the extent it’s relevant, I personally think Jason’s years of ballet and music training show in his skating more than Nathan’s do. JMO.

Click to expand...

I’m not surprised at those numbers from their Junior days. Whenever I watch some of their old programs it seems very apparent to me, that Jason wasn’t on a par with Nathan when I compare them at the same age.

And for what it's worth, I personally don’t see much of ballet or music training in Jason’s skating, but I do in Nathan’s skating. So here's someone with a totally opposite opinion.

(I can see the effort that Jason puts into moving gracefully and having what’s conventionally considered a ‚good posture‘, but the lines of his arms and to a lesser extent his legs are not exactly what I would call aesthetically pleasing or reminiscent of ballet. Not that this is a requirement just because one takes ballet lessons, although of course it inevitably creates this expectation that such training will bleed into at least some aspects of a person's skating. And for my own pleasure when watching a program, the arms and legs certainly have to look nice, ballet-like or not. )