Directional Twizzles and singles skaters

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

^ 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.

The funny thing about griping over level 4 footwork being so restrictive and meticulous ... the level 4 complexity just gets you 0.6 higher base value than a level 3 sequence without complexity. So a skater can probably do a step sequence the way they want to and sacrifice that 0.6. A level 3 StSq with +3s across the board will score the same as a level 4 StSq with +1s across the board.

Your creativity requirement is super complicated and so subjective for a technical specialist. As karne said, it's making the sequence more complicated to assess among the hordes of other things the TP has to worry about. And as I said, there is nothing stopping a skater from incorporating a "creative" movement into a step sequence. Not everything a skater does has to earn a base value point or be graded as a feature. Some skaters go above and beyond and do movements outside of the rules. It's like saying skaters should get 0.1 bonus for an ina bauer incorporated into their sequence, or 0.3 if it's hydroblading held for x number of seconds... or saying entry transitions should have a bonus if they're harder - 0.5 for a cantilever, 0.2 for a counter, 0.05 for a bracket, etc. It just becomes a mess to assess.

 

[Skatesocs]

"The funny thing" about a much harder sequence of turns receiving 0.6 higher in BV is more of an argument to rework the footwork rules. It's ok if you want to justify 0.6 = exact worth of the added difficulty (once again ignoring the constant change in definition of Variety, Complexity so on and so forth - apparently no matter what it's nearly always been 0.6 more difficult ) of footwork. I agree it's a funny thing, because it makes me laugh. It's certainly *a* reason, and I said you are allowed those, much like karne is allowed her TP reason.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

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 a 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

They are up to the task. But they are up to the task of assessing based on a finite number of parameters not whims of fans who say more and more aspects of a program need a base value or points attributed to it.

Surely you agree that making the tech specialist’s job easier makes them less prone to making errors.

Why should we help judges by allowing them to replay an element? Because it makes their job easier and less prone to making errors. Telling them “oh well they shouldn’t need a replay and if they need to rely on that then they should resign” “oh well they should be counting every transition otherwise they’re incapable of giving a proper TR score and should resign.” Etc. is contrary to them being able to undo their job. They aren’t robots. Tech specialists need tons of training as it is and need to constantly update their knowledge. And now new rules are added like “q” rotation on jumps. Adding points for random creative movements just makes their job harder.

You think a tech specialist having to assess something as trivial as a creative toe pick movement is feasible along with the many other things? Sure they can do that but not sure if having 10 minutes to scrutinize every movement that could earn a few tenths more is simply impractical. Tech specialists do not have the hours of time that fans have to dissect performances step by step and frame by frame. Part of their job is being able to do it efficiently and adding additional assessment hurdles is contrary to them doing an efficient job.

 

[Blades of Passion]

That's just another reason why panels should be split between Tech and PCS, with all tech judges weighing in on calls. Each tech judge can be given 1 footwork criteria to look for. As for your question about what the criteria could be, I've written about it many times before - The Complete Guide to Fixing the Scoring System (scroll down to 2nd post of the thread for the Footwork section).

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.

Ice skating = moving on the ice with skates in any way that you possibly can. Figures were not the foundation of ice skating. People inventing metal attachments to put on their feet in order to travel across frozen surfaces was the impetus of where it all began.

Loops and twizzles have 0 real purpose in moving across the ice. If you are trying to travel somewhere or transport goods across a frozen body of water, they offer nothing of value. Learning to stand/move/run on your toepicks offers more use than those "one foot blade-to-ice" turns.

Obviously many things in figure skating don't have "practical" application, but I don't see any reason to have a myopic viewpoint on what should be considered valuable, nor do I feel loops and twizzles should be required. They are just a certain thing a skater can do.

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.

I'm not sure how you can say this, there were many different styles being displayed at the time. There may have been a societal attitude that made people be somewhat safer, but people were still skating to modern popular music, avant garde, and classical. More importantly, people potentially had the room to do skate in a way that just isn't valued right now. There weren't constrictive rules in the 90's for LP's at all, just the normal limitations for jump repetitions and needing to show some spins/footwork, with no specific requirements.

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

Spiral sequences weren't similar in structure before IJS though? People used all kinds of different moves and patterns. Doing very "dance like" spiral sequences with brief positions was very common in the 90's. Footwork sequences weren't limited by anything except needing to do a general shape in the SP, which was fine. A clear choreographic pattern is more often preferable to the discombobulated kind of footwork we see these days.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

Lol, I’m not sure the point of comparing the original purpose of ice skating to figure skating. In the original functional purpose of ice skating you also didn’t do deep edges if you were trying to get to your destination faster. You also didn’t do jumps or spins.

As for a twizzle and loop being requirements it is literally a couple of turns to get potentially 0.6 more. It is a fundamental skating turn whether you like it or not. So in a step sequence which is an element where the skater exhibits their fundamental skating it stands to say that showing these turns helps the judges assess whether a skater has true mastery over the typical difficult skating turns. And these turns aren’t even hard to execute - certainly not for an elite skater.

 

[Skatesocs]

I think the problem with criteria -which I've acknowledged- will turn what some believe is an art, into something prescriptivist, as it already has. I just want some fun combinations like the toe turns + steps and flying turns to count for something additional, and to nix complexity as a hard requirement for level 4 What gkelly suggests is good to me.

I'll also say that it doesn't matter all that much if skating isn't too artsy for me. If some are fine with the current criteria because they're a good test of athleticism, okay. I'm fine with it being more sporty, or even just sporty. But I don't think most would find what is happening artistic in the level fours. Not most fans of true arts anyway. They're all well and good to show a certain technique. But they are just a drag, and skating and its fans equating skating technique in and of itself with artistry isn't really a thing that happens anywhere else. As I pointed out elsewhere some feel jumps in and of themselves are unartistic and spins and spirals and steps no matter how they look and where they are placed are inherently art. Meh. Until it moves away from this - apart from the very brief respite in the mid to late 90s with Chen Lu and Kwan and only very few since - most people won't take it seriously as an art. Sport though, maybe, if the judging at least is fixed...

 

[Harriet]

I think the problem with criteria -which I've acknowledged- will turn what some believe is an art, into something prescriptivist, as it already has.

Sonnets and villanelles also have prescriptive criteria. Tell me poets from Shakespeare and John Donne right up to Neil Gaiman haven't had fun making art not just within but from those criteria.

A skater who's good enough, working with a choreographer who's good enough, should be able to take prescriptive criteria and turn the fulfilment of them into art. Maybe there won't be many, but then, there are an awful lot of comparatively uninspired sonnets and villanelles out there too. There's no rule that every skater or every poet must achieve art every time.

 

[Skatesocs]

Sonnets having a prescriptive criteria isn't the point. Sonnets are a form of poetry - and there's a lot of poetry which isn't just sonnets out there. I get the feeling you think I don't believe there is art out there which has some sort of structure it adheres to. Which isn't what I'm saying. It's that everyone is supposed to do a sonnet, when they'd be better at rap, and place that sonnet out of context in a play. Not getting into the quality of the sonnet even.

The point about structure is exploited with spins and spirals inherently being art. It's like saying Shakespeare could have placed any sonnet anywhere with little attention to meaning and we'd still clap our hands at the sonnet and call it art.

ETA: People aren't stupid. There's a theory to music and why it creates certain feelings in the human mind. Movement would ideally exploit this. Saying any random old sequence of turns can be pasted to any music and no one will notice. Well. Look at how many follow the sport for artistry currently. I'm 100% with the Eteri stans who are here for the jumps.

 

[cohen-esque]

Sonnets and villanelles also have prescriptive criteria. Tell me poets from Shakespeare and John Donne right up to Neil Gaiman haven't had fun making art not just within but from those criteria.

A skater who's good enough, working with a choreographer who's good enough, should be able to take prescriptive criteria and turn the fulfilment of them into art. Maybe there won't be many, but then, there are an awful lot of comparatively uninspired sonnets and villanelles out there too. There's no rule that every skater or every poet must achieve art every time.

But no one is forcing poets to write sonnets or villanelles only, no matter what, aside from undergrad professors. They’re free to pick whatever structure they like; they have the luxury of deciding if their concept can best be expressed with a sonnet, or something else, including a free verse structure.

 

[Blades of Passion]

As for a twizzle and loop being requirements it is literally a couple of turns to get potentially 0.6 more. It is a fundamental skating turn whether you like it or not. So in a step sequence which is an element where the skater exhibits their fundamental skating it stands to say that showing these turns helps the judges assess whether a skater has true mastery over the typical difficult skating turns. And these turns aren’t even hard to execute - certainly not for an elite skater.

Twizzles were never even tested until recently in the sport, they are hardly fundamental. Essentially they are just a more rigid way of doing turning 3's. Loops are not fundamental because there's really no change happening in the turn; nothing that's needed to go another direction. Counters, brackets, 3-turns, rockers -- these actually serve a purpose in moving the skater in another direction.

The problem with the rules is not just the requirement to do all of these specific turns, but in the opposing direction too. Going from Level 3 to Level 4 in a footwork sequence could require a total of 6 new turns that need to be incorporated. Even doing a Level 3 sequence still requires 5 of these specific types of turns, which is just unnecessary. A single movement that is out of place inherently makes a program worse. Look at how much change can happen with a minor alteration to DNA. You can't just casually be like "well it's not even that hard to execute", because these movements still change the whole thing and represent an amount of time that must be dedicated, which has now been lost.

Even "simpler" things still take a great deal of skill to execute with rhythm and speed and at the highest degree of quality. The back inside 3-turn isn't even necessarily easier, particularly when doing it in your less natural rotational direction. I find it easier to do a rocker in those instances, or to swap edge before turning and do a counter or bracket. It's really a shame that many different types of movement are not valued right now. We deserve to see many different skills being attempted and to see skills that perfectly suit the music and the skater's abilities. The so called "difficult turns" can already be performed throughout a program if the skater wants to show all of them.

 

[Skatesocs]

^About the back inside 3, gkelly brought that up as a higher level figures skill earlier in the thread. It's yet another thing that's not even counted... It's why I'm saying even taking the figure era definition, we still don't count everything properly and assign difficulty properly. Same with double threes vs twizzles and so on. There's a physics (and a physiology to produce that movement) behind every move. Some things are being ignored even now.