SP and FS replaced by Technical and Artistic programs?

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? 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.

Click to expand...

All of these criteria are already elaborated upon in more detail during the ISU's actual seminars for judges and officials. The chart is an overview that lists definitions and broad criteria; it's not supposed to be a detailed rundown of every single aspect of PCS. "Carriage and clarity," for instance, basically means to make the effort to execute your movements well and completely, instead of poorly or sloppily, so that they impart their fullest effect on the performance.

gkelly said:

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.

Click to expand...

Actually, having more rotations in the air is usually in corelation with greater physical involvement. Also, quads usually have greater height and distance and more air time than triples and because of that they will always produce bigger wow-efects than triples. That will make Composition of the program more interesting, and as a final result higher Performance mark.
Also, we cant say that PCS is artistic mark and TES is technical mark. 'Technical' and 'artistic' are involved in both of those marks. So artistic program can be based more on GOE of the elements (without element's base values) while technical program more on levels and number of rotations (everything which can impact BV of the elements).

Baron Vladimir said:

Actually, having more rotations in the air is usually in corelation with greater physical involvement.

Click to expand...

Generally true, all else being equal. But often quads are more challenging for the skaters and therefore require all their attention on the mechanics of the jump with little to spare for staying connected to the program on the approach, and of course the landing is more likely to have problems.

Also, quads usually have greater height and distance and more air time than triples and because of that they will always produce bigger wow-efects than triples.

Click to expand...

Especially for axels (triple instead of double, or double instead of single at lower levels), it's not uncommon for skaters to slow down into the harder jump while executing the easier one with ease.

A skater who can do good quads and triple axels is probably a better jumper than a skater who can't and therefore if they each include their own best jumps, the quad jumper may show better speed and physical involvement than a non-quad jumper.

But for any given skater, the jump with which they can demonstrate the greatest physical involvement may not be the most difficult one they're capable of executing.

That will make Composition of the program more interesting, and as a final result higher Performance mark.

Click to expand...

Again, only a skater who is so comfortable with quads that they can integrate it into the rest of the program can make the program more interesting by including quads.

And if a new "artistic program" allows quads with full value, then any skater who can include them with just as much choreography and performance quality as other skaters who are doing only triples will be able to win.

But even skaters who can skate fast around the rink and pull off multiple high-quality quads in a technical program would probably be able to demonstrate more complex and more engaged in-between skating between triples than between quads.

Also, we cant say that PCS is artistic mark and TES is technical mark. 'Technical' and 'artistic' are involved in both of those marks.

Click to expand...

Good point.

So artistic program can be based more on GOE of the elements (without element's base values) while technical program more on levels and number of rotations (everything which can impact BV of the elements).

Click to expand...

That would make sense.

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? 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.

Click to expand...

So, I guess to start out, I would disagree that Performance and Interpretation don’t specify anything. They do, even though what they specify isn’t as clear as you would like it to be. As @Cohen-esque mentioned, seminars for judges explain the components in more detail than what we see on the chart.

I love what @gkelly said:

“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.”

@annajzdf, I’d guess programs where the skater is clearly having fun - as opposed to “fun” programs- have an advantage at the end of a long day, when judges are tired of sitting and watching and concentrating and judging. I think skaters often choose music with contrasting sections precisely so they can demonstrate a variety of movement and skills - a great example of this is Yuzu’s SP, which starts off slow but has a dynamic step sequence that allows him to demonstrate amazing edge control at speed. But just because a tempo is fast doesn’t mean you need to move on every single beat. Look at the beginning of Nathan’s FS. You may be right that it’s impossible to judge programs without bias, but that’s pretty much true of everything in life - you just try to be aware of your bias and do your best to be fair in spite of it. I don’t think people should give up, or not even try, just because something is hard.

Regarding Jason’s PCS vs Nathan’s - regardless of what you think of their relative skills, bear in mind that @Tahuu isn’t exactly a Jason fan, and he sometimes cherry picks scores. Here, for example, he chose not to include scores for GP France 2018, where Jason beat Nathan in the SP, took silver over all, and had total PCS 4 points higher than Nathan - about 2 points for each program.

Finally - I would guess Jason’s lines and movement aren’t balletic because he’s skating on ice rather than a dance floor, he rarely if ever has skated to ballet music, and he’s usually working with Rohene’s choreography, which is non traditional and certainly doesn’t attempt to reproduce ballet on ice. I personally find his lines and movement gorgeous, although I sometimes think he could use his arms better. To me it’s pretty obvious he’s musical, has had quite a bit of dance training - including but not limited to ballet, and has great stretch and extensions.

Tavi... said:

So, I guess to start out, I would disagree that Performance and Interpretation don’t specify anything. They do, even though what they specify isn’t as clear as you would like it to be. As @Cohen-esque mentioned, seminars for judges explain the components in more detail than what we see on the chart.

I love what @gkelly said:

“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.”

Click to expand...

And to that point from you and gkelly, I say fair enough. But if the judges are nonetheless inflating for jumps despite being well instructed on them apparently not being part of PCS...

I also think of a program like Hanyu's SP from the Olympics when he does the 4T3T, and the number of rotations do not feel arbitrary to the performance and interpretation, much in the way @Baron Vladimir described. The quad is mirroring what the piano is doing.

Tavi... said:

I

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...

Ballet is a beneficial foundation for figure skating. But taking occasional ballet lessons at a studio is not the same as Nathan’s rigor training with a renowned ballet company, playing major child roles, some especially created for him, in professional productions, such as Nutcracker, Swan Lake, Gisselle, and The Sleeping Beauty.

Below are a couple YouTube videos showing some ballet positions in Nathan’s figure skating. I came across another video identifying 20-30 classical ballet hand and arm movements in Nathan’s new short program Laboheme but I couldn’t find the link at the moment. If one still can’t see ballet’s influence in Nathan’s skating, I’d say you can’t tell a blind what an elephant looks like.

Nathan Chen ballet glossary
Nathan Chen port de bras collection

Since the thread has, as all threads it seems eventually must, now devolved into the inevitable My Fave Is Superior conversation, perhaps it can be retired until some new, concrete information about the actual ISU proposals becomes available for discussion. :disapp:

I've never commented on this (somehow never clicked on these news), but wow ISU is really trying to destroy any reminiscence of a sport, aren't they?

- First they limited bonus for backloading which like it or not, was still an athletic technical achievement for a skater to perform all jumps of his/her free skate in the second half, and despite people really tried to paint it as "easy if you train it" only a handful of skaters were actually able to do it under pressure. So many skaters said in interviews performing elements such as a quad in the second half is extremely difficult.

- Then they limited the repetition of 2 quads of the same time (you can't have 2 sal and 2 toes anymore) which felt a bit controversial, because it encourages variety but it doesn't reward the amount of quads in a program, so in my opinion it regressed the sport, we could have been closer to quads only programs by now.

I understand where they were coming from, since it felt like the Zayak rule, but i strongly feel in order to reach those 7 triples program we had to go through programs with repetitions.

- Now this, the artistic program, we back in the 6.0 era where Figure Skating hardly felt like a sport.

With that i don't mean artistry should be less relevant, but it should be integrated into the performance. You can see the mastery when a skater can skate and perform through the elements, you shouldn't need "the artistic moment".

Maybe i'll receive some flack for this: i started watching this sport seriously only since 2012-2013 when both men and women started to up their technical contents and get consistent with it, before really the level was a bit poor in my opinion: in men's figure skating only a 3-4 skaters could land a quad consistently, while on the ladies most skaters were a hot mess with the jumps, with again only a couple of exceptions. It was soo boring for me.

These decisions make me feel ISU wants to return to that, which in my opinion will only hurt the popularity of this sport.

Tahuu said:

Ballet is a beneficial foundation for figure skating. But taking occasional ballet lessons at a studio is not the same as Nathan’s rigor training with a renowned ballet company, playing major child roles, some especially created for him, in professional productions, such as Nutcracker, Swan Lake, Gisselle, and The Sleeping Beauty.

Below are a couple YouTube videos showing some ballet positions in Nathan’s figure skating. I came across another video identifying 20-30 classical ballet hand and arm movements in Nathan’s new short program Laboheme but I couldn’t find the link at the moment. If one still can’t see ballet’s influence in Nathan’s skating, I’d say you can’t tell a blind what an elephant looks like.

Nathan Chen ballet glossary
Nathan Chen port de bras collection

Click to expand...

Thanks for your thoughts. I don’t think I ever said that I don’t see any balletic influences at all in Nathan’s skating? But I do think it’s inconsistent - for example, if you look back at his competitions last fall, his posture was pretty poor, IMO. That may have been due to the fact that he was spending a lot of time studying, because it did improve later in the season. I’d also say that even assuming Nathan has a balletic port de bras when he skates, that isn’t something I find particularly meaningful in skating (except in the case of a super balletic program like Alina’s Don Q). The other thing is that for me, at least, Nathan’s movement often lacks precision and clarity, which to me is much more important in skating than port de bras, and is actually a bit surprising given his dance training. Net, net, as I’ve told you before, I think Nathan is super talented and I enjoyed his SP in particular quite a lot this season. He’s clearly a high achiever. But I don’t think he’s a superior PCS skater, either by virtue of his training or what he actually puts out there on the ice. So we’ll just have to agree to disagree on that point.

By the way, as someone who spent several years training in a major US opera company’s young artist development program, I absolutely agree with you that rigorous training in an environment like that is different to training in a studio. But IMO, the difference is mostly relevant to what you do moving forward in that particular career path. So while it’s great that Nathan had roles made on him as a kid and had the opportunity to perform them professionally, I don’t know that it’s particularly meaningful to what he does as a skater, although I’d be interested to hear his own thoughts on that. JMO.

Tolstoj said:

I've never commented on this (somehow never clicked on these news), but wow ISU is really trying to destroy any reminiscence of a sport, aren't they?

Click to expand...

I think that the ISU is all for making figure skating a sporty sport where feats of remarkable athleticism are encouraged. However, in my opinion, the scoring system has drifted out of whack as skaters master more and more revolutions in their jumps (however admirable such mastery may be). The base value for a quad is so large that training and executing any other skill is a waste of the skater's time, point-wise.

Here is an example. Shoma Uno has the overall blades-to-ice skills necessary to present an outstanding program, and he is no shrinking violet in the jumps department. If the ideal is to showcase many different technical skills woven together into an esthetically pleasing program, Uno's your man.

In the long program at 2019 worlds Shoma earned 1.74 points more in PCS than Vincent Zhou. Zhou scored 19.64 points by landing a 4Lz+3T. (Uno made two bad mistakes on quads, but that is not the question I want to raise.)

By how much would we have to increase the weight of the five program components to make up for that one element, if Uno's goal is to catch Zhou for third place? Suppose we said, let's raise the weight of the program components to ten times the TES. Would that do it?

No, that would increase Uno's advantage in the second mark to only 17.4 points -- still below what Zhou earned on one jumping pass. All the choreography and musicality in the world, not to mention all the spinning and footwork in the world, doesn't amount to a hill of beans. It is utterly overwhelmed in the two seconds when Vincent did his spectacular combo.

I do not have a solution. You have to give the most points to the hardest tricks -- that's sport. And yet, the goal in figure skating is always a "balanced program" which highlights many different skills all woven together in a program that stirs the emotions and satisfies the soul. This, in fact, is what makes figure skating unique in the sporting world. I would not like skating to go the route of "extreme sports" like flipping upside down on a bicycle, or doing tricks on a skateboard, or performing sommersaults on skis -- we already have sports like that, no need for figure skating to exist at all.

This is the dilemma that the iSU continues to address by little tweaks around the edges of the current format and scoring system. Maybe it is ncessary for the ISU to to be a little bolder.

Mathman said:

I do not have a solution. You have to give the most points to the hardest tricks -- that's sport. And yet, the goal in figure skating is always a "balanced program" which highlights many different skills all woven together in a program that stirs the emotions and satisfies the soul. This, in fact, is what makes figure skating unique in the sporting world. I would not like skating to go the route of "extreme sports" like flipping upside down on a bicycle, or doing tricks on a skateboard, or performing sommersaults on skis -- we already have sports like that, no need for figure skating to exist at all.

Click to expand...

Well, I wouldn't object to having an "extreme skating" type of competition that's all about high-rotation jumps and other aerial tricks, and maybe other kinds of tricks based on extreme athleticism (perhaps including flexibility).

However, to the extent that what happens in the air outweighs what happens blade to ice, it would not be figure skating -- it would be a different kind of sport. So I'd be happy to see it in addition to "well-balanced" programs (with the exact number and nature of elements and components that constitute good balance up for debate).

Or if it's not possible to balance all in one program on one hand the weight of in-air athleticism that relies on a small subset of blade-to-ice techniques for launching and landing; on another hand the full range of blade-to-ice skills with both high difficulty and high quality on the ice; and thirdly the use of edge-based and edge-reliant skills for purposes of interpreting music and conveying stories and themes, then maybe each emphasis needs its own event with separate medals, or its own phase of a combined event.

Tavi... said:

The other thing is that for me, at least, Nathan’s movement often lacks precision and clarity, which to me is much more important in skating than port de bras, and is actually a bit surprising given his dance training. JMO.

Click to expand...

"JMO" is cheap. Precision and clarity in movements can be reflected in the scoring of stsq. Last season Nathan had the highest stsq scores in both the SP and FS among all skaters, male or female, Sr or Jr. I hope you don't keep spitting out "Nathan’s movement often lacks precision and clarity." It's not true. Congrat to you, Jason tied for 4th in the SP stsq scores but was outside the top 50 in FS stsq scores.

SP stsq:
Nathan 5.74, Jason 5.63

FS stsq
Nathan 5.57, Jason 5.18

Just a reminder that this thread is about changes to reflect technical versus artistic merits of figure skating and not "my favourite skater is waaaaay better than your favourite skater and your favourite skater suuuuuuuuuuucks"

I think many people here are forgetting one simple fact: we already have technical and artistic programs They just called as Short and Free Why I think so? It's easy - just look at PCS weight in each program. Free have 2 times more PCS factor already. It means for the Free artistry and other PCS qualities is two times more important - this system is working many years already. Therefore people who is saying that short is too similar to free and that's a problem - they just don't realize that proposed solution (tinkering with TES-to-PCS ratio) is already in place - therefore it's not gonna solve this "problem" if you tinker it a little bit more. Moreover, it's much more evident for ladies free where they lacked too high TES scores until recently - and PCS factor is really matters. Nevertheless, no amount of artistry was enough to make you a winner - in the end artistry is replaced by reputation.
That said what new rules are gonna do is just under pretext of some revolutionary changes - they are going to add even more to existing disparity between TES and PCS (by increasing PCS weight and lowering number of required elements)- tweaking ratios just even more to level weak skaters with strong ones. It's a long time existing trend already (limiting quads and time bonus jumps, removing extra jump for men, shortening time etc.) with true goals lying in a sphere of commerce and politicking. It has nothing to do with declared idea to support artistry - for example lowering program time is directly contradicts it. And it's not gonna change much between programs too - as similar rules are already existing even now and all athletes can do only so much - there is no way for them to think up something principially new. All known stars still are going to get high scores and outsiders - low scores.. what the new sustem will add is just more corruption and reputation-dependancy.
Don't be deceived people - the new system true goal is money they want to get from IOC for extra disciplines/medals. It has nothing to do with wish to "improve sport"

Tahuu said:

"JMO" is cheap. Precision and clarity in movements can be reflected in the scoring of stsq. Last season Nathan had the highest stsq scores in both the SP and FS among all skaters, male or female, Sr or Jr. I hope you don't keep spitting out "Nathan’s movement often lacks precision and clarity." It's not true. Congrat to you, Jason tied for 4th in the SP stsq scores but was outside the top 50 in FS stsq scores.

SP stsq:
Nathan 5.74, Jason 5.63

FS stsq
Nathan 5.57, Jason 5.18

Click to expand...

@Tahuu, I’m trying to be civil to you even though we disagree, and I’d really appreciate if you didn’t tell me that what I write is “cheap.”

With respect to the substance of your post, I don’t rely on judges scores to tell me what I think about something; rather, I rely on my own judgment. And as to Nathan, my own judgment is that (1) his skating lacks clarity and precision, and (2) his PCS at US Nationals were absurdly inflated. Okay? At this point, we’re way off topic for the thread, so let’s just leave it.

Elucidus said:

I think many people here are forgetting one simple fact: we already have technical and artistic programs They just called as Short and Free Why I think so? It's easy - just look at PCS weight in each program. Free have 2 times more PCS factor already. It means for the Free artistry and other PCS qualities is two times more important

Click to expand...

Not true. Freeskates also have almost twice as many elements, and more than twice as many jump elements.

The intention behind the PCS weightings was for the factored PCS to add up to approximately the same as the TES.

That was before multiple difficult quads became a thing. (Or any quads for junior ladies.)

With today's technical content, it is not uncommon for the top jumpers to earn TES significantly in excess of the maximum PCS points available.

The maximum number of PCS available in a men's free skate is 100. At 2019 Worlds, the top two skaters earned 94.78 and 95.84 in PCS, but 121.24 and 110.26, respectively, in TES.

Even if they had earned perfect 10s in every program component from every judge, their PCS could not come close to their TES. And nor could any other skater who might excel in PCS.

For the record, the top two ladies at 2019 Junior Worlds earned 64.55 and 66.29 in PCS (averaging in the low 8s before factoring) and 86.96 and 80.79 in TES. Again, a hugely disproportionate weight on the TES vs. PCS in the freeskate.

This discrepancy could be alleviated by rejiggering the PCS factors, e.g., instead of 1.0/2.0 for men's short and long programs and 0.8/1.6 for ladies', the factors could be changed to, e.g., 1.2/2.4 and 1.0/2.0, respectively. That would make the points available for elements vs. whole-program qualities somewhat more balanced to today's top tech content.

If you really wanted a program in which the whole-program qualities outweighed the individual elements, then you would have to revalue the PCS factors more significantly than that. E.g., a PCS factor 2.0 for a program with only 7 instead of 12 elements would allow the PCS to outweigh the TES in ways that are not possible with the current weighting.

If the ISU wanted to reward quality (and the attendant aesthetic impact) more than difficulty, they could also increase the values of the positive and negative GOEs relative to the base values. That has already been done for most elements with last year's new GOE rules, but it would be possible to go further if rewarding quality were the goal.

That said what new rules are gonna do is just under pretext of some revolutionary changes - they are going to add even more to existing disparity between TES and PCS (by increasing PCS weight and lowering number of required elements)-

Click to expand...

Well, we're hypothesizing that that's what they might do. We don't know any specifics about what they actually plan to do. And what they're thinking now may be very different and very preliminary compared to whatever will turn up in actual proposals at the 2020 ISU Congress, if anything does.

tweaking ratios just even more to level weak skaters with strong ones.

Click to expand...

I think the goal is to level strong skaters with average jumps to be able to compete on an even playing field against strong jumpers with average skating.

Or anyway, that's what my goal would be if I were in charge.

Anyone who is strong in both areas is still going to win. But the jump experts who don't excel in other areas will be less likely to claim bronze medals ahead of the skating experts who don't excel in jumps. Or who excel at triples but can't rotate quads.

the new system true goal is money they want to get from IOC for extra disciplines/medals. It has nothing to do with wish to "improve sport"

Click to expand...

If the goal of getting more medals is achieved, such that more skaters get to showcase excellence in their own areas of strength and there is room in the sport for a wider range of strengths, such that more excellent skaters can get rewards that make it worth their while to keep training and competing, then I would be heartily in favor. To my mind, expanding opportunities and highlighting the different areas of excellence that figure skating encompasses does improve the sport.

I just don't get the temptation to completely change the system when there are other things that could be implemented that give more weight to "artistry". The ISU is incompetent. Did they even think about changing the base values of spins and step sequences to weight more? Making the difference between levels bigger?? I'm a 22 year old girl who just started following the sport a few years ago why do I feel like I should be in charge??? I am not someone who has the confidence to normally say things like that!

can't wait for robots to take over judging. All that's needed is a system that can identify steps and turns and one that works with a program that identifies speed and ice coverage. That's SS and TR right there! We have ISCOPE which is neat and will hopefully be implemented to multiple uses in a program in the next couple of years, we should just eliminate the human error factor completely, not make a big circus of changing the sport every few years

I think sometimes people think a skater with balletic and/or other dance qualities falls into the "artistic" category of skaters.

Actually, dancers - and ballet dancers in particular - are absolute JOCKS.

Baryshnikov didn't just prance across the stage with nice extension through his fingertips. The guy was an athlete.

tokoyami said:

I just don't get the temptation to completely change the system when there are other things that could be implemented that give more weight to "artistry". The ISU is incompetent. Did they even think about changing the base values of spins and step sequences to weight more? Making the difference between levels bigger?? I'm a 22 year old girl who just started following the sport a few years ago why do I feel like I should be in charge??? I am not someone who has the confidence to normally say things like that!

Click to expand...

Big yes to this. I dislike seeing super-slow, labored spins rewarded with lv4 and positive GOE.
I don't like the idea of splitting programs into an artistic one and a technical one. As others have said, there's already too much subjectivity in FS so the artistic program would probably not be worth watching for me. It's different with the 'unofficial' competitions in interpretation programs, I actually welcome those. I speak as a borderline fan in a way - I love watching FS both live and on TV, but have never studied the technical aspects.