Directional Twizzles and singles skaters

[gkelly]

There's no good reason regular footwork sequences should be less artistic than this element.

The reasons why leveled step sequences are not primarily artistic are similar to the reasons why spins and jumps (and various pair elements) are not primarily artistic. They are technical elements, whose primary purpose is the demonstration of various kinds of technical mastery.

This is very clearly intentional from the way step sequences have been defined since the beginning of IJS. The technical skills that it is designed to reward include advanced turns in both directions. This is the only element in which those skills are explicitly rewarded.

(They are also rewarded explicitly in the Skating Skills component, and implicitly in the Transitions component, but they are not required anywhere. Except in higher level step sequences. And I think it's pretty clear that the incentive to include these advanced turns and thereby earn the higher levels was written into the rules because so many skaters in the 1990s and early 2000s were giving no evidence during any part of the competition that they actually could execute these fundamental skills at all.)

The only difference in the last couple years with the mandatory bullet points for +4 or +5 GOE are that the "matches the music" bullet point is one of the first three, mandatory ones for step sequences, whereas that bullet point is the last one listed for spins and jumps.

Programs are supposed to be fully cohesive throughout and I don't think the "choreography sequence" should be the one token element between both programs that allows people to have freedom.

It is not.
Skaters have quite a bit of freedom to do whatever they want in spins or step sequences, or even in jump elements, as long as they meet the minimum definitions of the elements.
For leveled elements, there are stricter definitions of how to earn higher levels. But it is not required to earn higher levels -- just rewarded enough that skaters who can do so while also maintaining quality have significant incentive to do so. But incentives are not the same as restrictions.

The current footwork doesn't really have variety though (certainly not as much as we should be seeing).

What kind of variety are you talking about? Variety from one skater to the next, or variety of blade skills by each skater?

The whole point of the variety of steps and turns feature is for skaters to demonstrate that they have mastered a variety of advanced skills. Similar to the Zayak rule, or the limits on repeating spin features introduced a few years into IJS, which encourage skaters to demonstrate a variety of different jumping and spinning skills.

(I personally think there is still more room to reward explicitly even greater variety of jumping and spinning skills, and greater variety of blade-to-ice skills in steps and field moves. That would include more options in step sequences. But I have no problem with reserving Level 4 in step sequences only for those that include the full range of advanced turns. We could brainstorm how rules could be rewritten both to reward those specific skills and to allow for more variation )

Imagine if it was required in footwork to constantly pat the top of your head and rub your stomach as you do it.
Yeah, that takes a specific kind of skill to do, but who cares. We shouldn't have to see it from everyone.

If it were a patting and rubbing competition, then it might make sense to require those two

In a skating competition, it does make sense to offer the highest rewards for the hardest fundamental skating skills.

Novelty skills like toe steps, half jumps, two-foot steps like grapevines, sustained edges emphasizing body positions, knee turns or slides, quick steps on flats, etc., do add variety and creativity, and some of those are quite difficult. And they are rewarded in step sequences, both in some level features and in some GOE criteria. But most of what I have named in this paragraph are not considered fundamental skating skills in the same way that one-foot turns are.

A sequence that consisted entirely of these types of steps, with no turns at all or maybe some threes and mohawks in the preferred direction would not be a good demonstration of advanced skating skills.

I'd classify head patting and stomach rubbing as having more in common with the novelty steps than with the fundamentals of what makes skating skating: gliding and turning on edges.

Professional dance choreographers don't have to throw every type of turn in sequence into every piece they create, why should it be required here? Also imagine if it was required of songwriters to put 6 different octaves in every song they make. That would just be tiresome and overly constricting.

If singers or dancers were competing in a technical sport of dancing or singing skill, the dancers or singers would undoubtedly be required to demonstrate a variety of fundamental technical dancing or singing skills. And if they had to do so within the space of a 3- or 4-minute number, then choreographers or songwriters supporting such competitions would have to provide dances or songs that allow the competitors to demonstrate those skills within the requirements of the number.

Those same choreographers or songwriters would prioritize creativity and communicating with audiences in works created for artistic performances and only include the technical skills that support the particular artistic purposes they're aiming for in each work.

The purposes of technical competitions and artistic performance are not the same.

Similarly, skating choreographers who want to prioritize creativity and communication with audiences over technical skills can do so in skating shows, where they can define the parameters of the programs outside of competitive rules. Or, if you want to compare skating choreography to expectations of artistry in professional dance and song, then something like the Grassroots to Champions Young Artists Showcase would be a more relevant comparison than sports competition.

And choreographers who really want to challenge themselves can choreograph competitive programs with as much artistic content as they and the skaters performing the works can fit within the competitive rules.

 

[eppen]

I think most skaters known for their footwork (Kurt Browning, Stephane Lambiel?), and/or who did ice dance on the side (e.g. Javier Fernandez, Jeffrey Buttle), would be pretty good at twizzling both ways, plus skaters who were made to learn spins/jumps opposite their natural direction, like Satoko Miyahara.

When did Javier Fernández ever dabble with ice dance? As far as I know, never - I think his sister might have tried, but I am not ever quite sure about that. But he does do nice twizzles now that you mention it. Had not really paid attention to that detail in step sequences, so thanks for bringing this topic up.

Also, Hanyu's problem with steps levels could also be his body movement or rather lack of. The most obvious case is from last fall - watch the Skate Canada FS which was a pretty good performabce and then the GPF FS side by side and pay attention how he is almost upright the whole time in the latter case. He said after the GPF performance that the first quadsreally took a lot of energy and you can see that quite clearly.

And if you think about the development of limitations and definitions of content, there is quite a lot of history before the IJS - think of just the spiral sequence which became an element really only in the 1990s and seemingly was controlled quite tightly by the rules (just based on how all the sequences were very similar in structure). Step sequences were limited by number, shape and length well before IJS came along (and length was very much a point of dispute).

Also, I think that there is little evidence to support the "artistic freedom" of the old days. Just watch what skaters were doing before the 1990s and it should be quite clear that artistry was not defined as the kind of freedom to choose styles, themes, etc as is common today. And in the 1990s many of the basic rules controlling the content of the free skate particularly already existed.

E

 

[gkelly]

And if you think about the development of limitations and definitions of content, there is quite a lot of history before the IJS - think of just the spiral sequence which became an element really only in the 1990s and seemingly was controlled quite tightly by the rules (just based on how all the sequences were very similar in structure).

Spiral sequences were first required in the ladies' short program beginning in 1989. I think for most of the time between then and the advent of IJS, the SP rules just required spirals on each foot and both forward and backward. Beyond that, skaters were free to include whatever they wanted and so we did see a fair amount of variety, with some skaters emphasizing held positions on edges and others emphasizing different kinds of transitions between often briefer positions.

When spiral sequences were included in well-balanced program requirements around the turn of the century, there were fewer restrictions.

Then along came IJS, with additional requirements for earning higher levels, or requirements of how long each position had to be held to count at all. And then limits on the total number of spirals that could be included in the sequence.

Because some of the features were much easier to achieve than others, we started seeing those features all the time from pretty much every skater. Meanwhile other rare options that skaters might have been worried they wouldn't get credit for never became popular or seen at all under IJS. And easy skills that skaters used to include in spiral sequences but whose inclusion would have prevented the skater from earning certain features also became rare or no longer used.

When the spiral sequence existed, I had lots of suggestions for how to reward and encourage other spiral-related skills aside from edge changes and pulling the foot overhead, especially more edge-based skills, to allow for more variety of the technical development of this element type. But instead the ISU decided to remove the element from the SP entirely and to replace it with the Choreo Sequence in the freeskate, so my suggestions became moot.

Step sequences were limited by number, shape and length well before IJS came along (and length was very much a point of dispute).

Primarily by shape, and length in the sense that a straight-line or serpentine sequence needed to get near the boards on each end of the rink, the circular sequence needed to get near the boards on the sides.

No real upper limit on number of sequences of steps, as long as one or two sequences that clearly met the minimum requirements were included where required (short program, and in the freeskate when well-balanced program rules demanded them).

Also, I think that there is little evidence to support the "artistic freedom" of the old days. Just watch what skaters were doing before the 1990s and it should be quite clear that artistry was not defined as the kind of freedom to choose styles, themes, etc as is common today. And in the 1990s many of the basic rules controlling the content of the free skate particularly already existed.

The Zayak rule went into effect in the 1983 season. There were some changes in the mid-90s about how many jump combinations/sequences were allowed and also about how many revolutions were expected in FS spins.

I don't know what other rules about freeskating content existed from the mid-80s through early 90s, whether anything was actually required in the free program, as opposed to expected (or not allowed).

Around 1996 the ISU started introducing "well-balanced program" guidelines. At first they were just suggestions about how many jumps, spins, step sequences a freeskating program should contain. Later (late 90s, or 2000), these became firmer rules, with minimum numbers of elements required and judges explicitly supposed to deduct for their absence.

But those actual requirements only lasted for a few years.

Then IJS arrived, at which point the minimum numbers of spins, step sequences, spiral or field moves sequences in the well-balanced freeskate were replaced by maximum numbers of each element type that could earn points. In most cases the various elements weren't required, in the sense that there was no deduction for omitting them, but such an omission would mean foregoing an available opportunity to earn points.

I do think that it would be possible to rewrite the IJS well-balanced freeskate rules to give skaters more flexibility in how many of each element type to include without significantly "unbalancing" the program.

It would also be possible to allow tech panels some more discretion in identifying which element fits in which slot. For example, when the choreo sequence was first introduced it was required to be placed after the step sequence. A few years later the ISU decided that the tech panels could figure out which was which regardless of which one came first, so they removed that requirement.


As you say, though, even when there were no or few written rules about what freeskates (or step sequences) had to include in the 6.0 era, it's not as though a majority of skaters were producing anything that could be considered artistic masterpieces or even especially creative.

There are always memorable exceptions, with either greater or lesser structure required.

 

[Flying Feijoa]

When did Javier Fernández ever dabble with ice dance? As far as I know, never - I think his sister might have tried, but I am not ever quite sure about that.

I thought I'd read somewhere that he'd tried it with his sister just for fun as a child, but I may be mistaken I trawled the internet just now and it seems Laura switched to ice dance only a couple of years before retiring (though that doesn't exclude the possibility of her doing it for tests/recreation while competing singles). Maybe I confused the situation with Jeffrey Buttle, who did dance with his sister as a kid... sorry!

 

[Blades of Passion]

The reasons why leveled step sequences are not primarily artistic are similar to the reasons why spins and jumps (and various pair elements) are not primarily artistic.

Spins were primarily artistic, and various pair moves as well, until the new scoring system bastardized them. Yes, it takes great technical skill to do an excellent spin (all art takes skill to make), but their purpose in the past hadn't been to show off difficulty, but rather to create interesting shapes that had an impact and moved with the music.

The same needs to be said about footwork. For decades, people were not doing footwork sequences in programs as some kind of homogeneous display of showing a specific set of turns and robotic technical difficulty. Footwork had always been about doing something that looks good. If it didn't have an expressive effect, then people wouldn't do it. That is what constitutes artistry. It doesn't matter how difficult it is to mix a set of paints together, only what your painting looks like in the end.

Jumps are by far the most technical-oriented element, but even they used to have more artistic purpose in programs: building with phrases of the music, being thoughtfully placed with respect to choreographic impact, more attention paid to body form and trajectory (again, caring about something that looks good, rather than merely getting the rotations around in whatever spastic manner you can).

In a skating competition, it does make sense to offer the highest rewards for the hardest fundamental skating skills.

Novelty skills like toe steps, half jumps, two-foot steps like grapevines, sustained edges emphasizing body positions, knee turns or slides, quick steps on flats, etc., do add variety and creativity, and some of those are quite difficult. And they are rewarded in step sequences, both in some level features and in some GOE criteria. But most of what I have named in this paragraph are not considered fundamental skating skills in the same way that one-foot turns are.

A sequence that consisted entirely of these types of steps, with no turns at all or maybe some threes and mohawks in the preferred direction would not be a good demonstration of advanced skating skills.

This is only one definition of "fundamental" and "advanced"; I disagree with your notion. I don't consider twizzles or loop turns to be fundamental at all. You could be the best skater of all time without ever doing those moves. There are many moves that are just as difficult or more difficult than a twizzle or loop turn. How many skaters can do an amazing split leap, or an ina baeur with a full back bend, or extremely fast toe steps into a well extended hitch kick with clean body line? Connecting steps and "simpler" turns with fluidity and intricate choreography is an advanced skill of its own as well. There are plenty of sequences that top skaters can not currently do, having focused only on the current type of footwork that gets points.

If singers or dancers were competing in a technical sport of dancing or singing skill, the dancers or singers would undoubtedly be required to demonstrate a variety of fundamental technical dancing or singing skills.

Figure skating is not a purely technical sport; the compulsory figures were removed for good reason. There are all kinds of singing and dancing competitions that happen, and they usually do not have these kinds of pedantic requirements. Look at Julliard solo auditions for example.

Singers are not asked to sing in 5 different octaves in order to be allowed to compete at the highest level or be recognized as one of the best singers in the world, nor one particular octave. They have a wide range of options to pick from and work within, and show technical skill.

Skaters have quite a bit of freedom to do whatever they want in spins or step sequences, or even in jump elements, as long as they meet the minimum definitions of the elements.

They really don't, and this statement is a contradiction in itself. "Meeting the minimum definitions" of doing an element that will score well enough to be competitive, inherently limits and alters what you can do. If you want to do a spin with only 1 revolution in a certain position, to perfectly interpret the music at that moment, you will not get technical credit for that move. There's a limited amount of time that people have in programs to do moves, and music has an exact structure, and moves create specific visual impressions. You're either closely following the music and choreographic concept at all times, or you aren't. The current rules do not lend themselves to giving skaters enough this artistic allowance. The rules demand skaters to break away from a wholly genuine interpretation and choreography, to instead throw in a bunch of moves that probably don't work as well.

Imagine telling Lucinda Ruh that after her mind-boggling layback spin, she then needs to do a sideways position, haircuttuer, and beillmann in order to receive the same credit as other competitors. To add those extra moves would ruin the visual that has been created on the ice, and the timing with the music, and further take time away from other choreography that could have been done instead. There just needs to be a less fascist mentality in the scoring system.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

Spins were primarily artistic, and various pair moves as well, until the new scoring system bastardized them. Yes, it takes great technical skill to do an excellent spin (all art takes skill to make), but their purpose in the past hadn't been to show off difficulty, but rather to create interesting shapes that had an impact and moved with the music.

The same needs to be said about footwork. For decades, people were not doing footwork sequences in programs as some kind of homogeneous display of showing a specific set of turns and robotic technical difficulty. Footwork had always been about doing something that looks good. If it didn't have an expressive effect, then people wouldn't do it. That is what constitutes artistry. It doesn't matter how difficult it is to mix a set of paints together, only what your painting looks like in the end.

Jumps are by far the most technical-oriented element, but even they used to have more artistic purpose in programs: building with phrases of the music, being thoughtfully placed with respect to choreographic impact, more attention paid to body form and trajectory (again, caring about something that looks good, rather than merely getting the rotations around in whatever spastic manner you can).



This is only one definition of "fundamental" and "advanced"; I disagree with your notion. I don't consider twizzles or loop turns to be fundamental at all. You could be the best skater of all time without ever doing those moves. There are many moves that are just as difficult or more difficult than a twizzle or loop turn. How many skaters can do an amazing split leap, or an ina baeur with a full back bend, or extremely fast toe steps into a well extended hitch kick with clean body line? Connecting steps and "simpler" turns with fluidity and intricate choreography is an advanced skill of its own as well. There are plenty of sequences that top skaters can not currently do, having focused only on the current type of footwork that gets points.



Figure skating is not a purely technical sport; the compulsory figures were removed for good reason. There are all kinds of singing and dancing competitions that happen, and they usually do not have these kinds of pedantic requirements. Look at Julliard solo auditions for example.

Singers are not asked to sing in 5 different octaves in order to be allowed to compete at the highest level or be recognized as one of the best singers in the world, nor one particular octave. They have a wide range of options to pick from and work within, and show technical skill.



They really don't, and this statement is a contradiction in itself. "Meeting the minimum definitions" of doing an element that will score well enough to be competitive, inherently limits and alters what you can do. If you want to do a spin with only 1 revolution in a certain position, to perfectly interpret the music at that moment, you will not get technical credit for that move. There's a limited amount of time that people have in programs to do moves, and music has an exact structure, and moves create specific visual impressions. You're either closely following the music and choreographic concept at all times, or you aren't. The current rules do not lend themselves to giving skaters enough this artistic allowance. The rules demand skaters to break away from a wholly genuine interpretation and choreography, to instead throw in a bunch of moves that probably don't work as well.

Imagine telling Lucinda Ruh that after her mind-boggling layback spin, she then needs to do a sideways position, haircuttuer, and beillmann in order to receive the same credit as other competitors. To add those extra moves would ruin the visual that has been created on the ice, and the timing with the music, and further take time away from other choreography that could have been done instead. There just needs to be a less fascist mentality in the scoring system.

Since you this seem consistently be a devils advocate when it comes to how things should be alternately assessed I’m curious to know what rules you would have for the step sequence since you seem to think a standardized means of parameters that skaters can build their footwork around is restrictive or close-minded. Should skaters get lauded more for showing a greater variety of turns or can they do a bunch of quick toe steps without any deep edges and still score the same as someone with deep edges and a variety of turns because it’s choreographically cuter.

Your singer analogy actually perfectly counters your point. No you don’t have to have a 5 octave range to be the best but in a singing competition it is generally accepted that a greater range exhibits more ability because you’re able to control your voice in various registers. The same goes for footwork. If you show the ability to do certain difficult turns well in both directions it is more impressive than just a bunch of toe steps with shallow edges. Twizzles are harder than 3 turns. Non-dominant direction turns are harder than dominant direction turns, etc.

Skaters today have far greater skating versatility and could perform most footwork sequences from 30 years ago. I honestly think even skaters with the best competitive footwork sequences back then would need to practice to execute the competitive best footwork sequences that we see today. The same way I wonder if skaters back then would be able to execute jumps consistently with the transitions and variations we see in jumping today. Skaters back then weren’t even really credited for harder footwork because the focus was on the jumps. Now at least there are guidelines to “tier” step sequences based on specific features.

Put it this way - singers with 5 octaves could hit all the notes that the singers with 2 octaves could. The singers with 2 octaves could still sing better but they certainly couldn’t exhibit the range that the 5 octave singers have. So then you say should a “musical step sequence” show great execution variety of notes or excellent execution of a small set of notes? And how do we define excellent execution - being able to do them fast or with better clarity or...? And with the step sequence it’s important to note it’s not just the range/variety of turns/steps but also the upper body movements and multi-directional skating and of course the quality of the execution which contribute to the points you get.

It’s not just about meeting requirements either ... A poorly executed level 4 step sequence will still score as much as a very well executed level 3 sequence.I think the current system is pretty close to ideal for the step sequence because not everyone can get a level 4 unless they truly exhibit complete versatility and clarity of execution.

 

[Skatesocs]

"fascist mentality", lol.

I do wish levels were made so we could see different combinations of moves and shorter footwork (emphasize speed as a skill in a way). Someone mentioned a loop turn being combined with a toe pick turn - do half a loop turn, 360 degrees on your toe pick at the halfway point of the lobe, and then complete the loop - in the rescore thread, and that sounds interesting and definitely hard. I wish the rules incentivized such things in more than just puny GOE.

 

[1111bm]

In a skating competition, it does make sense to offer the highest rewards for the hardest fundamental skating skills.

Novelty skills like toe steps, half jumps, two-foot steps like grapevines, sustained edges emphasizing body positions, knee turns or slides, quick steps on flats, etc., do add variety and creativity, and some of those are quite difficult. And they are rewarded in step sequences, both in some level features and in some GOE criteria. But most of what I have named in this paragraph are not considered fundamental skating skills in the same way that one-foot turns are.

A sequence that consisted entirely of these types of steps, with no turns at all or maybe some threes and mohawks in the preferred direction would not be a good demonstration of advanced skating skills.

This is only one definition of "fundamental" and "advanced"; I disagree with your notion. I don't consider twizzles or loop turns to be fundamental at all. You could be the best skater of all time without ever doing those moves. There are many moves that are just as difficult or more difficult than a twizzle or loop turn. How many skaters can do an amazing split leap, or an ina baeur with a full back bend, or extremely fast toe steps into a well extended hitch kick with clean body line?

One foot turns are considered fundamental, because they're basically what figures were about, and naturally figures were the beginning and foundation of figure skating. Basically what a skater can do while gliding on curves on those four, possible edges. So no, there's no other definition of 'fundamental and advanced' in terms of pure blade-to-ice skills. In that sense it also doesn't matter if other elements performed on the ice are more difficult (this will also be very individual for every skater of course).

Besides, moves such as split leaps, Ina Bauers, kicks, fully bent backs, toe steps etc. are mostly about things such as flexibility, turn-out, strength, extension and explosiveness. To execute them on the ice, one needs a certain basic skating ability of course, which includes mastery of edges, but that's just the foundation. Those moves are not primarily about displaying one's edge skills. You can do all these moves off ice, minus the glide of course, but there's no equivalent on the floor to edgework on the ice.

ETA:

Also, I think that there is little evidence to support the "artistic freedom" of the old days. Just watch what skaters were doing before the 1990s and it should be quite clear that artistry was not defined as the kind of freedom to choose styles, themes, etc as is common today.

This! Couldn't agree more.

 

[Flying Feijoa]

Someone mentioned a loop turn being combined with a toe pick turn - do half a loop turn, 360 degrees on your toe pick at the halfway point of the lobe, and then complete the loop - in the rescore thread, and that sounds interesting and definitely hard. I wish the rules incentivized such things in more than just puny GOE.

Here I cannot resist mentioning the prettiest footwork move I saw on the JGP last year/the only rendition of that Per Te war foal that doesn't bore me: https://youtu.be/Igs0w0MjdPs?t=123 (this clip is from some Russian domestic competition)

I guess it could be described as a sort of RBO double-three, with a 360 degree toepick turn on the cusp of the FI3 in a low arabesque. I'd be interested to see the loop-toepick move you mentioned, if there is a video around. Will sift through that thread.

 

[Skatesocs]

I think even if we want to say one-foot turns are what make the fundamentals of skating, I don't see why we don't get additional level credits for things like the toe+one-foot turns, or things like flying counters here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6l74FN9ykQE&t=190 These are advanced and don't shirk away that one notion of fundamentals.

It's definitely hard to quantify these properly as levels while still keeping in mind the artistic aspects though. I wouldn't mind two leveled step sequences in the SP with say the 2010-11 rules (but would much prefer if we can have a list of 10 ways to get levels, and each level 4s must use 4 different rules that cannot be repeated, exhausted in order of use), and then two choreography sequences in the LP (which must satisfy a bare minimum requirement to get the level 1, instead of what we usually see with one high kick and spread eagle). Definitely harder to do with choreography sequences, since I would again want to see something like Kurt Browning doing crossovers in a tight circle humourously hwell:

I'd be interested to see the loop-toepick move you mentioned, if there is a video around. Will sift through that thread.

There were no videos, just someone presenting ideas.

 

[eppen]

I thought I'd read somewhere that he'd tried it with his sister just for fun as a child, but I may be mistaken I trawled the internet just now and it seems Laura switched to ice dance only a couple of years before retiring (though that doesn't exclude the possibility of her doing it for tests/recreation while competing singles). Maybe I confused the situation with Jeffrey Buttle, who did dance with his sister as a kid... sorry!

It's fine - you just gave a terrible fright that there might that significant a tidbit on Javi that I did not know Laura's competion career seems to have been limited to singles skating and she quit in 2006. That is the time they were in Jaca, Laura, Javi and their mother, and Laura went back to Madrid to pursue her education, Javi and mom stayed in Jaca for about a year or so after that. This might be the time she dabbled with ice dance. However, it does not seem to have gone to competition level, I could not even find a name for a possible partner. Now that she does work also as a coach, ice dance is part of her repertoire. But I don't think they skated together except maybe for fun - they did a number together in a 2015 show in Spain and Javi skated a number with Celia Robledo in 2019 Revolution on Ice. which elicited a number of jokes about him doing a Daisuke and going into ice dance...

But as to the discussion on artistry and rules, after gkelly's exhaustive list of lack of limitations back in the 6.0 days, it is even more evident that the sport did not need the rules to govern the content and style of skating, convention seems to have been enough. And that it really did not foster a great deal of creativity into the programs. And that is because they are designed to allow for the most difficult technical content.

The current layout and content came about already most common in the mid-1980s and still exists almost unchanged to this day. The jumps are distributed usually distributed fairly evenly in the beginning and end - frontloading and backloading have been passing phenomenons, there still tends to be a slight breathing space in between despite the shorthening of men's program. The jump layout very often stays the same for a skater for a long time and spins/steps can change place more easily. This happened also back in the day - Brian Orser's free started with a lutz and a 3A followed by a camel spin (which really was the same also every season), Petrenko was a major frontloader with most programs with a 5+2 layout.

If you watch programs by the top skaters in the world in the mid-90s, you will soon realize you are watching the exact same approach pattern for the first jumps - 3A and 3Lz for men and ladies respectively. The only question was how long did they have to prep for it - Todd Eldrege took almost 2 lengths to get to his 3A combo, many others did the same with much shorter prep time. But the pattern was always the same, it was not governed by artistic choices, but rather by the technique. This is one thing that IJS has made so much better. The criteria call for variation for entries which has also translated into placing jumps in different parts of the ice, using unusual patterns to enter them etc. That development started in the late 1990s when the new generations started to up the tech ante and could do things differently from the previous skaters - but it was more part of the tech race than any kind of artistic endeavour.

And the spins that should have been primarily artistic? Well, I dunno, I think they were the same ones repeated year in year out as much as they are these days. They were not created specifically to reflect this or that choreography. They were just a whole lot shorter back in the day.

On the other hand, steps were often used to bring a bit of character and style into the program, but were often reduced to a signature style of a skater (think of Plushenko's step sequences) - their motivation on artistic principles can be questioned also IMO.

Body and arm movements as active parts of the vocabulary started to be seen occasionally in the early 1970s - until then it was business under the waistline only in an upright position, arms rigidly on the sides. Which you still see occasionally in the late 1980s programs.

The way the music was put together in the 1970s and 1980s had also relatively little to do with ideas and choreographic concepts. I am sure that many used a lot of time to pick the right bits and pieces, but watching those programs now it is impossible to understand the purpose and logic. Well, other than to show that the skater could do faster and slower bits maybe? Characters and dance styles came about occasionally esp in short programs in the 1970s but even a Carmen choreo back then looks mostly like it could have been skated to any piece of music. This started to change slowly in the 1980s and got more common in the 1990s, but the full bloom of using themes, characters, different styles has occurred only under the IJS. I watched a clip on Kristi Yamaguchi and Sandra Bezic working on her 1992 FS Malaguena and it struck me that they thought using just one bit of music was a cool novelty.

The way music tracks are put together today actually does have a bit to do with the idea behind the choreo, but the track still has to match the technical content of the layout. When Hanyu was doing his Hope and Legacy, he wanted to cut the music to better match his jump cycle and asked even permission to do this. He did not change his technique to match the music, but the other way round. And this has always been the case.

Then the comparisons to dance comps - the ones I have followed tend to have a set of choreos you have to choose from for the preliminary rounds. And these tend to be well-known classical ones with a heavy emphasis on technical ability as well as doing a character. The later rounds tend to include also a modern/contemporary piece that has more to do with expression and interpretation. The technical requirements are not as strict as in FS, but then that is about art, not a sport with an artistic leaning.

E

 

[Skatesocs]

^I don't see it in the lens of most skaters doing this or that and not changing in the 90s. For me that just means that skaters are primarily athletes; I don't think of them as artists. There have been very few who would qualify at all for me.

It is true that in the eras past styles were limited to one or the other, based on cultural standards. In the 60s or 70s, male skaters were seen as "feminine" if they raised their arms above a certain level, and so they avoided that. Of course, as we have progressed through the eras, we see more artistic freedom in terms of expression - but that is simply to be expected, IMO. What I get out of the people who complain about the steps being too technical and whatnot, is that while figure skating is of course subject to such cultural restrictions, and as such restrictions simplify - a male skater being "feminine" isn't that big of an issue anymore as it was in the past - they'd expect the sport to progress with the era, and reflect a much wider range of music and style and dance, especially seeing that dance has advanced a lot since the 60s and 70s.

The kind of requirements for spins and footwork are used to create specific looks on ice via the use of one-foot turns and clusters of one foot turns, but restricts them to those specific looks usually. This can't fit all the music out there unless specifically cut to reflect these turns - which does kill a range of expression and artistry. You also bring up a skater's "signature" footwork - which, whether desirable or not, is also killed with the current rules, and certainly rewards one signature style more than others.

I don't particularly mind this test of skill from a technical point of view (although it is debatable what is fundamental to skating - the technique of these fundamental one-foot turns, or the artistic expression, or the greater variety of movement that can be done on skates whether those were tested in the now-defunct figure era or not, which is what Blades of Passion was trying to say, I'd guess) - though definitely a restrictive, one-dimensional test, since a lot more can be done on one-foot than what is usually rewarded- but I certainly find it amusing when a skater is said to be artistic because they did a nice level 4 step sequence, usually completely devoid of musicality (nor are the turns required to have a particular amount of clarity or quality to really get that level).

I 100% agree that what was going on before the mid 1980s isn't really any sort of artistry in terms of choreography/interpretation - this definition has since progressed. So I'd say some people seeing the current rules as restrctive and an impediment to progress is justified (but I agree it has done some good things). The sport has after all progressed and definitions of fundamentals and what is to be valued have repeatedly changed -even the footwork level requirements have repeatedly changed- so it's not a new debate. It is strange to me that people are as sure as they are about definitions in what several repeatedly claim to be an entirely subjective sport.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

^I don't see it in the lens of most skaters doing this or that and not changing in the 90s. For me that just means that skaters are primarily athletes; I don't think of them as artists. There have been very few who would qualify at all for me.

It is true that in the eras past styles were limited to one or the other, based on cultural standards. In the 60s or 70s, male skaters were seen as "feminine" if they raised their arms above a certain level, and so they avoided that. Of course, as we have progressed through the eras, we see more artistic freedom in terms of expression - but that is simply to be expected, IMO. What I get out of the people who complain about the steps being too technical and whatnot, is that while figure skating is of course subject to such cultural restrictions, and as such restrictions simplify - a male skater being "feminine" isn't that big of an issue anymore as it was in the past - they'd expect the sport to progress with the era, and reflect a much wider range of music and style and dance, especially seeing that dance has advanced a lot since the 60s and 70s.

The kind of requirements for spins and footwork are used to create specific looks on ice via the use of one-foot turns and clusters of one foot turns, but restricts them to those specific looks usually. This can't fit all the music out there unless specifically cut to reflect these turns - which does kill a range of expression and artistry. You also bring up a skater's "signature" footwork - which, whether desirable or not, is also killed with the current rules, and certainly rewards one signature style more than others.

I don't particularly mind this test of skill from a technical point of view (although it is debatable what is fundamental to skating - the technique of these fundamental one-foot turns, or the artistic expression, or the greater variety of movement that can be done on skates whether those were tested in the now-defunct figure era or not, which is what Blades of Passion was trying to say, I'd guess) - though definitely a restrictive, one-dimensional test, since a lot more can be done on one-foot than what is usually rewarded- but I certainly find it amusing when a skater is said to be artistic because they did a nice level 4 step sequence, usually completely devoid of musicality (nor are the turns required to have a particular amount of clarity or quality to really get that level).

I 100% agree that what was going on before the mid 1980s isn't really any sort of artistry in terms of choreography/interpretation - this definition has since progressed. So I'd say some people seeing the current rules as restrctive and an impediment to progress is justified (but I agree it has done some good things). The sport has after all progressed and definitions of fundamentals and what is to be valued have repeatedly changed -even the footwork level requirements have repeatedly changed- so it's not a new debate. It is strange to me that people are as sure as they are about definitions in what several repeatedly claim to be an entirely subjective sport.

You still have to think about creating a standardized system though. If there are 100 ways of earning a level/feature on a spin or footwork, that simply is not feasible for a tech panel to "allow" for all the ways to do something, and then subjectively have to distinguish between whether an error is made or whether a skater is simply doing a conventional movement in a creative way. This is why it's safer to do these "unconventional moves" outside of the actual technical element itself.

As far as a toe movement on a loop while choreographically that's nice, calling it a loop when a loop is a specific technique to execute the turn. All turns have a specific method of execution. Some skaters as transitional movements do "jump" turns where instead of turning on the blade they will jump from the entry edge to the exit edge (I can't find the example but I once saw Chan or someone do a RBI to RFI counter as a transition where he didn't actually turn but jumped it - and I tried it out for myself and it's tricky but fun to do -- however I wouldn't include it in my step sequence because it's not a proper counter turn by the definition of what a counter is - or I could include it but would have to have 2 legitimate counters elsewhere to get the level). Regardless "jumping" a turn is a creative way of doing it, but it shouldn't contribute to the number of turns in the sequence in order to achieve the level (as turns are are supposed to enter and exit while staying on the blade, whether a counter or a loop or a twizzle). If someone wanted to do twizzle where they go up on their pick, that is creative but it's no longer defined as a twizzle nor should it count as one.

A step sequence is intended to convey the ability to do fundamental skating turns and steps - so the skater should showcase how they are fundamentally supposed to be executed. There's plenty of room in the rest of the program (or the sequence itself) to showcase non-traditional turns and steps, but if you are creating a baseline of level 1 to 4 footwork, skaters need to operate within the same parameters otherwise there is no way to concretely assess them. Then it becomes a matter of the tech panel on the spot deciding a footwork sequence should be a higher level simply because it's got untraditional steps and turns, but they can't make that call. There comes a point where creativity should be recognized as just being creative and not actual technique. A "different" way of executing something is fine for positions in spins (like a Biellmann vs a Lipniskaia candlestick), but there isn't a "different way" to execute a turn in terms of what happens on the blade/pick - creativity can still be done in terms of arm and free leg positions, speed of rotation, sequence of turns strung together to match music, etc.

There's nothing to stop a skater from doing an untraditional turn/step in a step sequence. They won't get credit towards the turns/steps required for the complexity level but they could still get credit towards the creativity of the sequence, so the system DOES account for things like BoP's pseudo-loop. And plenty of skaters do movements that don't get credit in a footwork even though they take lots of energy or are risky (e.g. Kevin Aymoz's aerial cartwheel - which counts as just a "toe step"... even though it's way harder than a mazurka or turning on your toe picks -- does that mean though that an aerial cartwheel needs to be added to the list of steps because it's a harder way of executing toe steps? No - it still counts as just a toe step and nothing more. But still the skater is able to enhance the creativity and presentation of the sequence.

 

[Skatesocs]

You still have to think about creating a standardized system though. If there are 100 ways of earning a level/feature on a spin or footwork, that simply is not

-?

As far as a toe movement on a loop while choreographically that's nice, calling it a loop when a loop is a specific technique to execute the turn.

Would you say that the example of sometime doing a 360 degree toe turn on the cusp of a 3 turn -exactly an example as presented- no longer a specific technique with which to achieve a 3 turn? Curious how many think that (and also the loop example).

BUT that wasn't my point. If you want to call it a hybrid turn, and not really a loop, sure - I just think those should be counted for something difficult and worthy of an additional level. Much like definitions of steps have changed repeatedly, I just want the next definition of leveled steps to include cool things like this so more people train them. All you can argue there is that you don't believe it should get level credit, for whichever reason.

Some skaters as transitional movements do "jump" turns where instead of turning on the blade they will jump from the entry edge to the exit edge (I can't find the example but I once saw Chan or someone do a RBI to RFI counter as a transition where he didn't actually turn but jumped it - and I tried it out for myself and it's tricky but fun to do

I linked it in a prior post in the thread...

A step sequence is intended to convey the ability to do fundamental skating turns and steps - so the skater should showcase that.

But this is exactly the point under debate That this definition has been under constant scrutiny. At one point we had three turns counting for level credits (and I believe toe steps), but no longer do. If I'm remembering my facts correctly, the figure era definition for one-foot turns actually fails there, because why are three turns no longer used for higher level credit? And mohawks are two foot turns, and were judged in the figure era (only closed mohawks count as difficult and therefore can be used to get a level higher than B, IIRC). Choctaws are also two foot turns, and are counted for levels. Loops didn't even use to count.

If you want to get technical open mohawks and three turns still count for base level footwork... Lol. COE also were used in figures - not counted for anything more than a base level. We just picked some things and gave them additional credit. Sure. Some can say "no, we should remove these" or "no, we should add these" or "this is fine".

(There's also the superfluous point of how the classification of various steps and turns -ACCORDING TO THE ISU- has changed with different definitions of levels, lol.)

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

-?

Would you say that the example of sometime doing a 360 degree toe turn on the cusp of a 3 turn -exactly an example as presented- no longer a specific technique with which to achieve a 3 turn? Curious how many think that (and also the loop example).

BUT that wasn't my point. If you want to call it a hybrid turn, and not really a loop, sure - I just think those should be counted for something difficult and worthy of an additional level. Much like definitions of steps have changed repeatedly, I just want the next definition of leveled steps to include cool things like this so more people train them. All you can argue there is that you don't believe it should get level credit, for whichever reason.


I linked it in a prior post in the thread...

But this is exactly the point under debate That this definition has been under constant scrutiny. At one point we had three turns counting for level credits (and I believe toe steps), but no longer do. If I'm remembering my facts correctly, the figure era definition for one-foot turns actually fails there, because why are three turns no longer used for higher level credit? And mohawks are two foot turns, and were judged in the figure era (only closed mohawks count as difficult and therefore can be used to get a level higher than B, IIRC). Choctaws are also two foot turns, and are counted for levels. Loops didn't even use to count.

If you want to get technical open mohawks and three turns still count for base level footwork... Lol. COE also were used in figures - not counted for anything more than a base level. We just picked some things and gave them additional credit. Sure. Some can say "no, we should remove these" or "no, we should add these" or "this is fine".

(There's also the superfluous point of how the classification of various steps and turns -ACCORDING TO THE ISU- has changed with different definitions of levels, lol.)

Oh, sorry about that! Didn't see your post, but yes, that's the counter I'm talking about. As a transitional movement it's very effective and original, but in a footwork sequence it shouldn't count towards the required steps/turns for a complexity level. That's not to say it can't be included in the sequence but it is merely a creative choice that hopefully gets higher GOE or overall better PCS, but doesn't actually contribute to the element's base value because it is not how the turn is supposed to be executed in order for it to count. I mean, who knows, a tech specialist might consider a flying counter as still a counter, or a loop on one's toe pick as a loop, but conventionally that's not how turns are supposed to be. Otherwise you could argue that anyone who "jumps" their turns in a sequence instead of turning on the blade is merely making a creative choice and those turns should count as if they were performed on the blade (but really it's improper technique). Bad technique shouldn't be considered creative - like a flip or lutz takeoff on the blade is a "creative way" to do a flip or lutz but that shouldn't get higher GOE for being a creative entry - it should be marked down for being bad technique. An ugly spin position should lessen the GOE not be rewarded for its "originality". A skidded loop is inferior to a cleanly done loop, the same way a skidded axel takeoff isn't a 'creative' axel takeoff even though intentionally doing a skidded takeoff could be viewed as more difficult by certain people who seem to love skidded movements.

If you're going to call it a "leveled step" that's nebulous and at the discretion of the tech specialist to suddenly award a level or not award it based on whether they think it's worthy (which gives them too much power). If it's described in the rules that a toe turn of 360 in footwork is awarded a level (hypothetically because obviously a movement that easy shouldn't garner a higher level) then it would deserve it but it's not. Regardless, the rules say "Types of difficult turns and steps: twizzles, brackets, loops, counters, rockers, choctaws", and this would classify as none of those - and the rules won't get modified to say "twizzles, brackets, loops, counters, rockers, choctaws, 360 turns on toe picks, [insert other creative turn/step that doesn't have a name], etc.".

And yeah the classification of spins and jumps and turns are according to the ISU. People are free to live in their own world view of how elements should be. Some think a triple axel should be worth more than a quad. They are free to think that but the classification is according to the ISU. I still think a 4L is easier than a 4F and 4Z but according to the ISU this year they've decided it's similar difficulty. We don't always have to agree with the ISU, but skaters are competing in ISU competitions so they need to adhere to ISU rules if they want to garner points but still have freedom to do movements that do not garner points. They can do turns that aren't listed as part of the level 4 complexity in footwork. There's nothing preventing that. An ice dance team can perform a 20 second lift if they want - they'll get deducted but they can still do it. A pairs team can do 2 death spirals if they wanted to, even though the second one wouldn't get any points. Medvedeva zayaked her 3T at EC2017 intentionally even though it didn't get her points (cost her points actually).

Regarding 3-turns being higher credit, they shouldn't because they are putatively easier than counters/rockers/twizzles/loops by their very nature. Sure, if you did a Biellmann spiral and then did a 3-turn on that blade, the 3-turn would be harder, but to my earlier point we can't suddenly create all these exceptions to "creative" versions of fundamental steps and award difficulty based on that. Caroline Zhang's pearl spin is incredibly hard, but the level on her layback is still a 4 maximum. A skater has the prerogative to go above and beyond and add 6 features/difficult variations to a spin, but the most they can get is a level 4 because those are the rules standardized for each skater. If a skater wants to do a hard version of a 3-turn, they can but the actual 3-turn itself (same with mohawks) are considered easy. A 360 degree turn on the toe pick of a 3-turn is a gray area - a tech specialist could count it as a toe step. And yes, it shouldn't get level credit but it can still go towards the creativity/originality GOE bullet.

Plus, a skater going above-and-beyond can (and should) always be accounted for by GOE being applied correctly and a judge awarding creativity and unconventional/innovative movements. A flying counter might not get base value points but the transitions score could be higher for an interesting/well-executed transition you don't always see. Of course, there's no way of knowing if a judge accounts for an interesting transition or movement, but not every movement deserves to get a concrete number of points. It's especially a gray area with original movements (IMO, a movement like Aymoz's aerial legitimately deserves a bonus because that's crazy original and difficult and harder than a lot of things that garner points/levels - but should an aerial go into the scale of values? No. -- but the judge shouldn't overlook it and definitely award the creativity/originality bullet).

 

[1111bm]

You still have to think about creating a standardized system though. If there are 100 ways of earning a level/feature on a spin or footwork, that simply is not feasible for a tech panel to "allow" for all the ways to do something, and then subjectively have to distinguish between whether an error is made or whether a skater is simply doing a conventional movement in a creative way. This is why it's safer to do these "unconventional moves" outside of the actual technical element itself.

As far as a toe movement on a loop while choreographically that's nice, calling it a loop when a loop is a specific technique to execute the turn. All turns have a specific method of execution. Some skaters as transitional movements do "jump" turns where instead of turning on the blade they will jump from the entry edge to the exit edge (I can't find the example but I once saw Chan or someone do a RBI to RFI counter as a transition where he didn't actually turn but jumped it - and I tried it out for myself and it's tricky but fun to do -- however I wouldn't include it in my step sequence because it's not a proper counter turn by the definition of what a counter is - or I could include it but would have to have 2 legitimate counters elsewhere to get the level). Regardless "jumping" a turn is a creative way of doing it, but it shouldn't contribute to the number of turns in the sequence in order to achieve the level (as turns are are supposed to enter and exit while staying on the blade, whether a counter or a loop or a twizzle). If someone wanted to do twizzle where they go up on their pick, that is creative but it's no longer defined as a twizzle nor should it count as one.

A step sequence is intended to convey the ability to do fundamental skating turns and steps - so the skater should showcase how they are fundamentally supposed to be executed. There's plenty of room in the rest of the program (or the sequence itself) to showcase non-traditional turns and steps, but if you are creating a baseline of level 1 to 4 footwork, skaters need to operate within the same parameters otherwise there is no way to concretely assess them. Then it becomes a matter of the tech panel on the spot deciding a footwork sequence should be a higher level simply because it's got untraditional steps and turns, but they can't make that call. There comes a point where creativity should be recognized as just being creative and not actual technique. A "different" way of executing something is fine for positions in spins (like a Biellmann vs a Lipniskaia candlestick), but there isn't a "different way" to execute a turn in terms of what happens on the blade/pick - creativity can still be done in terms of arm and free leg positions, speed of rotation, sequence of turns strung together to match music, etc.

There's nothing to stop a skater from doing an untraditional turn/step in a step sequence. They won't get credit towards the turns/steps required for the complexity level but they could still get credit towards the creativity of the sequence, so the system DOES account for things like BoP's pseudo-loop. And plenty of skaters do movements that don't get credit in a footwork even though they take lots of energy or are risky (e.g. Kevin Aymoz's aerial cartwheel - which counts as just a "toe step"... even though it's way harder than a mazurka or turning on your toe picks -- does that mean though that an aerial cartwheel needs to be added to the list of steps because it's a harder way of executing toe steps? No - it still counts as just a toe step and nothing more. But still the skater is able to enhance the creativity and presentation of the sequence.

I agree with what CanadianSkaterGuy is pointing out: No matter how much I personally might enjoy a more creative approach to steps and turns, assessing technical elements needs to still be feasible for the tech panel. And that's no longer the case, when 1) the number of possible manoeuvres which count toward a level is too high and 2) too many possible variations of turns and steps get included in what counts toward a level.

And as is often the case, everyone seems to be just thinking of higher level competitors. But anyone who's ever sat through a step sequence by a lower level skater knows how difficult and tedious it is to sometimes even just identify which turn/step was attempted. With top skaters sure, we can safely assume that they're capable of executing every turn in the 'traditional way' and that they simply chose to go for a variation such as jumping a counter, or rather, the intention is in most cases clear (which is not to say that they never mess up a turn of course, but usually one can tell if that's the case). But again, now imagine a lower level skater jumping a turn. How do we know for sure, if this is what they were going for, or if they just messed up?

And I love jumped counters, or jumped counters with assistance from the toe-pick, and I've certainly attempted them many times and was frustrated and surprised to find out, that they're not in fact always easier then doing a proper counter.

I also like inverted choctaws and mohawks, because you see them less often, so to me they have a more unusual look, but whenever I attempt them, I'm sure most people assume that I'm just messing up a counter/rocker.

Also, apart from possibly impacting GOE and PCS, if I’m not mistaken, such variations of difficult turns or even just 3-turns or double 3s (things such as turning on the toe-pick or a jump/knee fall/lunge/illusion/kick) will still count not only for the rotations feature, but more importantly also the body movements feature, which are both also needed to achieve a higher level. So they’re not exactly in vain or just superfluous embellishments without incentive. And they certainly make for a more interesting look than just your regular 3-turn, which on its own would also count in terms of the rotations feature (I assume?), but why not elevate this supposedly easy turn and use it as a sort of foundation for a nice choreographic detail such as a kick or turning on your toe-pick f.i.?.

 

[gkelly]

I just think those should be counted for something difficult and worthy of an additional level. Much like definitions of steps have changed repeatedly, I just want the next definition of leveled steps to include cool things like this so more people train them. All you can argue there is that you don't believe it should get level credit, for whichever reason.

Currently there are exactly 4 features available for step sequences:

1) Minimum variety (Level 1), simple variety (Level 2), variety (Level 3), complexity (Level 4) of difficult turns and steps throughout (compulsory)
2) Rotations in either direction (left and right) with full body rotation covering at least 1/3 of the pattern in total for each rotational direction
3) Use of body movements for at least 1/3 of the pattern
4) Two different combinations of 3 difficult turns on different feet executed with continuous flow within the sequence. Only the first combination attempted on each foot can be counted.

With the Clarifications

Types of difficult turns and steps: twizzles, brackets, loops, counters, rockers, choctaws.
Minimum variety includes at least 5 difficult turns and steps, none of the types can be counted more than twice.
Simple variety includes at least 7 difficult turns and steps, none of the types can be counted more than twice.
Variety includes at least 9 difficult turns and steps, none of the types can be counted more than twice.
Complexity includes at least 11 difficult turns and steps, none of the types can be counted more than twice, 5 types must be executed in both directions.
Use of body movement means the visible use for a combined total of at least 1/3 of the pattern of any movements of arms, head, torso, hips and legs that have an effect on the balance of the main body core.

So if you want to earn Level 4, you have to achieve all 4 of these features, including the "complexity" level of the first feature.

What if some of these were broken apart and some more options were added, to allow for more variety of different ways to achieve levels?

For example:

1) Minimum variety (Level 1), simple variety (Level 2), variety (Level 3 or 4) of difficult turns and steps throughout
2) Complexity (Level 4) of difficult turns and steps throughout (compulsory)
[keep the existing definitions of variety and complexity, maybe adding back inside threes and (closed?) forward outside mohawks as options to be counted under feature 1)]

3) Rotations in either direction (left and right) with full body rotation covering at least 1/3 of the pattern in total for each rotational direction
4) Use of body movements for at least 1/3 of the pattern
5) Two different combinations of 3 difficult turns on different feet executed with continuous flow within the sequence. Only the firstcombination attempted on each foot can be counted.
OR
6) Covering half (to revive a feature from about a decade ago) or the full ice on on one foot while performing turns, edge changes, hops, etc.
7) Quick changes between turns and steps (to revive another previous feature) or some other way of wording this to make sure that there is real difficulty involved
8) Difficult creative steps (with either definition of specific moves that would count for this feature, or better yet definition of the types of difficulty to be rewarded so that tech panels can look at a creative move they haven't seen before and have clear guidelines to decide whether it qualifies or not)

So you would still need at least the Variety feature 1) to earn level 4, but instead of the extra turns required for Complexity of turns you could choose your additional 3 features from those I have numbered here as 3, 4, 5 or 6, 7, or 8.

There are some moves that might be considered for feature 8) that would really belong better in the a choreo sequence (where the creativity if not specifically the difficulty should be rewarded in GOE), or as part of a leveled Field Moves Sequence assuming such an element were to be introduced, or as transitional moves rewarded in PCS.

If I'm remembering my facts correctly, the figure era definition for one-foot turns actually fails there, because why are three turns no longer used for higher level credit? And mohawks are two foot turns, and were judged in the figure era (only closed mohawks count as difficult and therefore can be used to get a level higher than B, IIRC). Choctaws are also two foot turns, and are counted for levels. Loops didn't even use to count.

Threes were part of figures at the lower levels, though only forward outside threes at the lowest levels, the FI and back threes not until juvenile at least in the US test structure. Double threes continued to the middle and higher levels, a level or two beyond the comparable simple threes, taking into account serpentine and paragraph elaborations.

There were no mohawks in any of the school figures, and choctaw only in the "threes to center" figure #7 (which was the primary reason for me quitting as a kid!).

COE also were used in figures - not counted for anything more than a base level. We just picked some things and gave them additional credit.

Yes, the more difficult skills.
It would also be possible to explicitly count threes and mowahks and edge changes and cross rolls, etc., in determining "minimal variety" and "simple variety" but requiring difficult turns specifically for "variety" and "complexity."

If you're going to call it a "leveled step" that's nebulous and at the discretion of the tech specialist to suddenly award a level or not award it based on whether they think it's worthy (which gives them too much power). If it's described in the rules that a toe turn of 360 in footwork is awarded a level (hypothetically because obviously a movement that easy shouldn't garner a higher level) then it would deserve it but it's not. Regardless, the rules say "Types of difficult turns and steps: twizzles, brackets, loops, counters, rockers, choctaws", and this would classify as none of those - and the rules won't get modified to say "twizzles, brackets, loops, counters, rockers, choctaws, 360 turns on toe picks, [insert other creative turn/step that doesn't have a name], etc.".

Yeah, that's the tricky part with writing rules that tech panels can apply relatively objectively.

For spins they can specify "A difficult spin variation of position is a movement of the body part, leg, arm, hand or head which requires physical strength or flexibility and that has an effect on the balance of the main body core."

Would it be possible to come up with a similar guideline to identify when a creative step/turn or a variation on a standard one would qualify as "difficult"?

 

[Skatesocs]

^ I think one easy thing we could do is specify "difficult body position on turn" and specify a number for each level. I just fear for the kind of things this would do to steps, and the loopholes some skaters might find lol. Or a time limit for body position in turn, but then I fear it will turn into one of those very obnoxious spiral sequences.

I love the idea of killing "complexity" as a hard requirement for level 4. That one's definitely arbitrary (like all the other numbers in the features, but this one is for me one of the main things that makes footwork look unmusical and cumbersome - and nearly everyone tries a level 4 so nearly everyone tries Complexity), and is one of the things that has kept changing. Still needing 4 features, but allowing level 4 with Variety is what I'd love to see, too. Your set of 8 features is something like what I'd love to see.

We did pick the more difficult things, I guess, but we still did exclude some things and include some others. Like the double threes you mention, those can be included in at least the lower level requirements (it's not rewarded at all I think!). There's just some room for improving the rules, like they added the loops in at some point for instance. I agree the simpler things should at least count for levels 1 and 2.

I would try to word the "creativity" requirement in a way that doesn't let the skaters get away with doing something easy or half-baked and still get equal level credit - which I find happens in spins, but I suppose that's on the tech panel. For the record I didn't say "360 turns on toe picks" in itself is worthy of a level, it's the combination of that with turn that I think could be used in some way to obtain an additional level. I agree it's hard to do with "creativity" without making it into something prescriptivist, though. We can try to say "hybrid turns for this number for each level" and then clarify what a hybrid turn is. Or maybe just say "difficult variation of a turn" to combine this with the body position.

 

[karne]

I wonder how many people wanting extra things for levels and calls and more ambiguous features have ever had to actually call a step sequence.

It's no small task. It's the one job on the panel that is literally spread out over three people live - often the TC will count rotations and body, the ATS will count steps, the TS will count turns, etc and that's not including noting all the other little things that need to be observed too such as ice coverage. Step sequences are a huge undertaking already, and you want to make it more complicated for the panel? And bring in more subjective features? We already have crazy fans who slo-mo every single part of a step sequence to argue if something should be counted as a step or not, and you want to add in subjectivity to the mix?

The number of things a TP has to look at to determine levels is already lengthy and complex. Don't make it worse just because you have some aesthetic objection.

 

[Skatesocs]

I wonder how many people wanting extra things for levels and calls and more ambiguous features have ever had to actually call a step sequence.

Yes, the rules should be for the benefit of the tech panel :yes:

Do you want to go back to the 2006-07 rules BTW? Those had some of my favourite steps and definitely a much simpler job for the TP than currently. But the current one has features like "Rotations in either direction (left and right) with full body rotation covering at least 1/3 of the pattern in total for each rotational direction" and "Use of body movements for at least 1/3 of the pattern", which are about the best, most unambiguous ways to the phrase the rules of course, it would be a real loss if we went back to those old ones.

Maybe the TP and the judges can start doing better with what is already present, then. Maybe if they assigned levels and GOE and PCS properly, we wouldn't have aesthetic objections. But I suppose with such a hard job, it's not fair to expect a certain standard of work.

If a tech panelist feels the job is too hard and people shouldn't be voicing aesthetic objections in an aesthetic sport and think their feelings are more or even equally important, they can resign. Their jobs are secondary to those of the skaters and the viewers when it comes to this sport. If you aren't up to the task, bye. Far and away the most useless objection is that the sport should be held at gunpoint to what is easy for the TP to do