Adjustments to PCS in Skating Skills

[YuBluByMe]

Variety shouldn’t be rewarded because we’re talking types of jumps, not number of revolutions. Example: 3Lz, 2A, 2F, 3Lo/3T+2T, 2S+3T, 2F+1T. All jumps are there, but there’s certainly nothing impressive about that layout. It’s undeserving of a bonus.

But if we’re talking revolutions: *3S, 3A+2T, 3F, 3A/3F+3T, 3Lz+2T+2Lo, 3Lo. This is much more impressive, but shouldn’t be rewarded either because knowing all your 3s should be a basic thing and it is among the ladies (except the 3A). Rewarding a skater for something he should already know is like rewarding a bird for flying.**

*Kihira’s free skate layout
**Unless that bird’s an ostrich. Give that bird all the bonuses.

 

[gkelly]

I don't like the idea of requiring judges to dock a specific number of points for whatever pet peeve the proposer wants to promote.

Rather, to remind judges that X is important, and note which program component(s) if would affect, and then lett each judge weigh that consideration along with everything else that is part of each component to come up with a score for that component.

If there is some aspect of planned technical content that the skating community as a whole agrees should be strongly encouraged or strongly discouraged, then build in a reward or penalty to the TES, or through a bonus or deduction that gets applied to the total segment score.

The reasons I don't like prescribing a specific PCS value for specific errors or omissions or inclusions are

*When it comes to deducting for errors, severity will vary. Therefore I would want judges to have the flexibility to say that one error of a certain type was worth maybe 0.25 of penalty off of one specific component, which might be balanced out by that skater being especially strong in everything else that relates to that specific component, whereas another skater might make the same kind of error much more severely and deserve to lose more points from multiple components as a result.

*Most skaters won't be starting from a base component value anywhere near the maximum of 10, so in most cases in makes more sense to think of skaters building up points rather than starting from a maximum from which points are taken away.

*There should be different approaches to achieving top scores. Not all skaters have identical skill sets, so they will have different strategies for maximizing their scores. I'd rather see that variety of approaches than to decide in advance that one approach is ideal and automatically put skaters with different strengths at an advantage.


When it comes to variety of jump takeoffs, the Zayak rule does discourage some overreliance on the same takeoffs, but less so with skaters who might include both quads/triple axels and triples/double axels from the preferred takeoffs at the expense of other takeoffs. Especially in IJS where building up TES points can be the deciding factor.

But I certainly don't think PCS is the place to enforce variety. Especially if heavily incentivizing skaters to attempt jumps they're less consistent on increases the prevalence of errors/decreases overall quality.

I'd be satisfied if variety of jumping skills (in general) is just mentioned in the detailed guidelines for the Composition component, along with everything else that is considered there.

Or if a firmer more objective measure is desired, I'd propose something like the following:

6 different takeoffs attempted, with at least 1 revolution for each: 1.0 bonus to the TSS (this would reward the effort to plan all standard takeoffs even if one or more attempts are popped, with the attendant loss of base value)

6 different takeoffs attempted, with at least 2 revolutions for each: 2.0 bonus (ditto, and also rewarding skaters who don't have all the triples for including intentional doubles of the missing takeoff/s)

6 different takeoffs with at least 3 revolutions each: 4.0 bonus (possibly allowing 5 different triples plus double axels for ladies, or make the bonus 3.0 if the hardest axel is a double and 4.0 if it's triple)

I'd also reiterate my hobbyhorse of adding double and triple walley and inside axel to the scale of values. If that is done, then takeoff bonuses could include

8 different takeoffs of 2 revolutions or more: 4.0

8 different takeoffs of 3 revolutionsor more: 6.0

Should there be intermediate bonuses for including 7 different takeoffs? (I.e., one but not both of the nonstandard takeoffs?)

I wouldn't add bonuses for including more variety of quads. The more total quads a skater includes, the less attention typically paid to other aspects of program composition. There's already plenty of incentive for adding quads in the base values and the Zayak rule, especially now that only one quad may be repeated. No need to add more incentive for a tiny aspect of composition at the expense of the more important aspects. From a composition perspective, better to include triples or just doubles of the other takeoffs.

 

[Mathman]

Variety shouldn’t be rewarded because we’re talking types of jumps, not number of revolutions. Example: 3Lz, 2A, 2F, 3Lo/3T+2T, 2S+3T, 2F+1T. All jumps are there, but there’s certainly nothing impressive about that layout. It’s undeserving of a bonus.

Actually, I wouldn't mind giving this program a couple of bonus points for demonstrating a wide range of skills. A program with more quads and trpiles would still way outpoint this one, bonus or no, as it should.

But this would be a better program than 3Lo, 3T, 3T+2T, 3S, 3S+2T 2A, 2A+2Lo+2Lo.

I think the goal, at the world championship level, would be something like 4Lz, 4S, 3A, then a bunch of triple-triple combinations working in a 3F, 3Lo and 3T.

 

[Baron Vladimir]

I don't like the idea of requiring judges to dock a specific number of points for whatever pet peeve the proposer wants to promote.

In cases of mistakes in a programme, i don't like that much the idea that marks should be capped at some define number (for the reasons you mentioned). However, deducting points from the score some skater's performance would get without that particular mistake at some define point of time (of some exact competition), i found fine - the thing they did as a recommendation in Skating Skills. The judges mark should still vary from judge to judge, dependable of how every single judge marked skater skills without that mistake. But all the judges have a reminder to deduct same amount of points for a same mistake. I mean, fall from a jump is a same fall for everyone as loss of control is the same for everyone. Now, if loss of control happened in a context where skaters demonstrated higher achievement of observed skills, the final mark of those skills will be still higher than for one who demonstrated average skills without a loss of control. But skater's score should not be the same as when that mistake didn't happen. I think that's the point.

 

[auser]

^^^
I agree that clean performance should be the first thing to motivate skaters programme. But i also think that should be a reward for skaters who can execute all possible types of jumps in one exact performance. I didn't think about is as a rule (which all skaters must follow), but to be something similar as jumping in the second half bonus. The same way skaters who can jump combo in a second half are getting more points, because it is more demanding to do it, it is harder (and more balanced) COmposition in which skaters are able to execute all types of jump instead of one where they are repeating same types of jumps.

Some of us still appreciate skills like spins, footwork, artistry and think there is more to composition than jumps(Shoma's Cantilever move springs to mind).
Just saying .

 

[Elspeth]

Surely the easiest way to get skaters to jump more interesting combos is to reward more interesting combos?

As long as the CoP just adds up the value of jump A and jump B, the risk of doing an x-3Lo combo just isn't worth the reward. They could expand the way combinations are scored by assigning different point values to jumps in combination, similarly to how gymnastics does it.

E.g. (values are just random for the purposes of the example)

4Lz = 14

3Lz = 7.5

3Lo = 5.5

3T = 5

X + 3T = (base value of X + 5.1)


X + 3Lo = (base value of X + 7)

So now, 4Lz - 3T becomes 14 + 5.1 = 19.1.

3Lz - 3Lo becomes 7.5 + 7 = 14.5 (instead of 7.5 + 5.5 = 13, because the CoP doesn't take the difficulty of a combination into account when assigning scores to jumping passes).

Doing this would encourage skaters to try more difficult triple triple combinations, leading to a wider variety in jump layouts.

 

[Baron Vladimir]

Some of us still appreciate skills like spins, footwork, artistry and think there is more to composition than jumps(Shoma's Cantilever move springs to mind).
Just saying .

Of course. All the required elements (including jumps) are part of the COmposition score. So if a skater demonstrates more variety in spins positions, steps and transitional elements, which includes more variety in body positions during those elements as variety in skating patterns, i would up the composition score. I think that is what judges do, too

 

[gkelly]

Of course. My point was that all the required elements (including jumps) are part of the COmposition score. So if a skater demonstrates more variety in spins positions, steps and transitional elements, which includes more variety in body positions during those elements as variety in skating patterns, i would up the composition score. I think that is what judges do, too

There is nothing in the Composition component criteria that explicitly mentions elements at all.

The criteria are Purpose (idea, concept, vision, mood)
Pattern/ice coverage
Multidimensional use of space and design of movements
Phrase and form (movements & parts of the program to match the musical phrasing
Originality of the composition

It's more likely that a program will have more varied pattern and ice coverage if it includes a greater variety of jump takeoffs, but it's no guarantee. A skater who includes all six major jump takeoffs but approaches all toe jumps on straight lines down the center of the rink and all edge jumps on circles in their jump direction, in the same part of the ice (center, or one end) will have very limited patterning into the jumps, whereas a skater who includes only four types of takeoffs but uses creative and complex approaches into most of them would have more varied pattern and ice coverage (an explicit part of the program criteria) than the previous skater, despite using fewer jump types.

 

[Baron Vladimir]

There is nothing in the Composition component criteria that explicitly mentions elements at all.

The criteria are Purpose (idea, concept, vision, mood)
Pattern/ice coverage
Multidimensional use of space and design of movements
Phrase and form (movements & parts of the program to match the musical phrasing
Originality of the composition

It's more likely that a program will have more varied pattern and ice coverage if it includes a greater variety of jump takeoffs, but it's no guarantee. A skater who includes all six major jump takeoffs but approaches all toe jumps on straight lines down the center of the rink and all edge jumps on circles in their jump direction, in the same part of the ice (center, or one end) will have very limited patterning into the jumps, whereas a skater who includes only four types of takeoffs but uses creative and complex approaches into most of them would have more varied pattern and ice coverage (an explicit part of the program criteria) than the previous skater, despite using fewer jump types.

It is not explicitly mentioned, but variety in spins positions and jumps positions (aka tano, rippon) is a part of multidimensional use of space and variety/'originality' in design of movements (at least to me). Placing of those elements on the ice is a part of the pattern/ice coverage and again using of space - if required elements are executed in different parts of the rink more space is used etc As you are saying, there is many things to consider when judging the composition, and i agree that jump take off per se is not a major element in it and what is more important is 'entry and exit' of those jumps.