What to expect from Caroline?

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Oh, this questiion of what exactly is artistry gets to me. There is the art of plumbing; there is the art of a first basement; there is the art of teaching. In these three examples (there are a zillion more), the plumber, the ball player, and the teacher all execute their respective crafts in an excellent manner.

In the art of competitive figure skating, the skater is expected to have the ability to execute the competitive requirements in accordance with the rules of the game. The rules require a strong technical aspect and a well rounded presentation. I believe many fans confuse the word presentation with artistry.
Of course semantics play a role here. In my case, and in others who are familiar with great artists in many fields, will not consider a high leg spiral, and imitation ballet arms as high art. But they are considered part of the craft of figure skating especially in judging individual technical tricks.

The flow of the performance to the rhythm of the music is what is required for artistic purposes. One can add personal interpretation of the music as well but it must be done with the flow and rhythm.

The skaters in SOI have artistry. The competitive skaters fake it.

Joe

 

[SeaniBu]

The skaters in SOI have artistry. The competitive skaters fake it.

Great, now it is a question of what plane of reality you want to live in. Fumie fakes her expression just as any actor fakes theirs.

But there really is only the reality we know, I guess that is why we like artist to help us escape it at times.

 

[Zuranthium]

Great, now it is a question of what plane of reality you want to live in.

LOL, Joe does that a lot. Which is why we like him.

~Z

 

[feraina]

wtf, an average spin is worth 5 points???? The only way to get 5 points for a spin is if it's a level 4 combination spin and the judges give you +3 for GOE across the board.

I didn't say an average spin is worth 5 points, I said an average spin for CAROLINE is worth 5 points. She averaged 5 points for her five spins at JWC '07. What do you think the average ladies' spin is worth? About 3 points? So Caroline has a 12-point advantage from spins alone.

Caroline strikes me as an unusual case who maxes out the COP on the spins and spirals, and who doesn't have the hardest jumps but hits what she does have very consistently. Can anyone else think of a similar example previously in FS history? Certainly not in the COP era anyway, right? So we have little precedent to guide our expectations just how she would fare under COP.

 

[athlet]

I didn't say an average spin is worth 5 points, I said an average spin for CAROLINE is worth 5 points. She averaged 5 points for her five spins at JWC '07. What do you think the average ladies' spin is worth? About 3 points? So Caroline has a 12-point advantage from spins alone.

You are wrong. Caroline's scores for 6 spins in Jr. Worlds are

LSp2 1.8 + 1 = 2.8
FCSp3 2.3 + 0.5 = 2.8
CCoSp4 3.5 + 1.14 = 4.64
FCSp2 2.00 + 0.29 = 2.29
LSp3 2.4 + 1 = 3.4
CCoSp4 3.5 + 1.43 = 4.93

total = 20.86 average = 3.48

Theoretically, the maximum point for a spin is 5: doing CCoSp4 with all +3 GOE's. Caroline's 4.93 was almost the maximum point. But, she can't add one more CCoSp in her senior program becase she already have a CCoSp in the program. If she adds, say, CoSp4 with all +2 GOE's, it gives her 4 points more. But it would be very hard even for Caroline.

For a comparison let's see scores for 7 spins of top senior ladies at 07 Worlds:

Miki: total 19.55 average 2.79
Mao: total 20.76 average 2.97
Yu-Na: total 22.63 average 3.23
Kimmie: total 21.77 average 3.11
Alissa: total 23.69 average 3.38

Caroline is actually the best spinner right now, but her advantage wouldn't be so big. It would be only 2-4 points.

 

[gkelly]

In SP there is no big difference between junior and senior programs except that junior SP requires a specific jump (flip last season).

Right. And a specified flying spin (sit or camel).

In FS senior program is 30 second longer and have one more spin. Caroline can add a spin with base value 3.0 in her FS (she can't add CCoSp with base value 3.5 since she already had one).

Right.
She could add a FCCoSp, though.

 

[feraina]

Athlet, thanks for the detailed analysis. I clearly went through the scoresheet too quickly, and only focused on her best spins.

She could add a FCCoSp, though.

Her flying camel spin isn't that good though. It doesn't have much "flying", and she's slow on the camel; sometimes she wobbles after the "flying" entry and that worsens her woes. I've heard that camel spins get better when you physically get stronger, is that true? Maybe she needs to put on some muscles in the right places.

 

[feraina]

Miki: total 19.55 average 2.79
Mao: total 20.76 average 2.97
Yu-Na: total 22.63 average 3.23
Kimmie: total 21.77 average 3.11
Alissa: total 23.69 average 3.38

I'm surprised to see Mao being scored much lower than Yu-na, and, to a smaller extent, less than Kimmie. Mao has fast and centered spins. Does she just not get high levels?

 

[Mathman]

Oh, this questiion of what exactly is artistry gets to me. There is the art of plumbing; there is the art of a first basement; there is the art of teaching. In these three examples (there are a zillion more), the plumber, the ball player, and the teacher all execute their respective crafts in an excellent manner.

To me, the issue is more, "does figure skating qualify as a performing art? Like singing, acting and dancing are (as well as novelty endeavors like being a magician or twirling plates on the end of a pole).

I think that a person who makes his living by dancing on stage does qualify for the category "performing artist," even if he is terrible.

So on this basis, I don't have any objection to people who says that figure skating is half athletic competition and half performance art. The fact that there are two separate marks, the "athletic" mark and the "performance" mark reinforces this dichotomy. (If you get low marks in both, that means you are a bad athlete and a bad performing artist, too, LOL.)

 

[Mathman]

Caroline Zhang: total = 20.86 average = 3.48

For a comparison let's see scores for 7 spins of top senior ladies at 07 Worlds:

Miki: total 19.55 average 2.79
Mao: total 20.76 average 2.97
Yu-Na: total 22.63 average 3.23
Kimmie: total 21.77 average 3.11

Caroline is actually the best spinner right now, but her advantage wouldn't be so big. It would be only 2-4 points.

Thanks for pulling these numbers together, Athlet. Very interesting.

Usually when I glance at the judges' protocols after a competition it seems like the jumps are so much more important than anything else that the skaters don't need to bother with spins and step sequences at all.

But if Caroline does seven spins and gets 3.5 points for each, that's the equivalent of seven extra double Axels!

Alissa: total 23.69 average 3.38

Oh, if she could just stay vertical on her jumps!

 

[feraina]

Along this vein of jumps versus spins + spirals + step seq's, I found this careful analysis of Code of Point.
http://www.worldskating.org/news/sonia-cop.shtml

Of course, the CoP has gradually evolved since this article was written, I guess a couople of years ago. But the general concept of how much each type of skill/talent contributes to the total score hasn't changed that much. And in any case, it makes for an interesting read.

One idea to take away seems to be that great spins + spirals and so-so jumps will put a skater behind someone who has amazing jumps and nothing else. However, we also saw thrugh Tim Goebel that amazing jumps alone can only get you so far. I am still curious to see, via Caroline's example, how far one can go with great spins + spirals + good jumps (just not brilliant) -- assuming that she will not pull out a 3/3 next season and hush most of her critics that way.

 

[Mathman]

Well-balanced program

Along this vein of jumps versus spins + spirals + step seq's, I found this careful analysis of Code of Point.
http://www.worldskating.org/news/sonia-cop.shtml

Of course, the CoP has gradually evolved since this article was written, I guess a couople of years ago. But the general concept of how much each type of skill/talent contributes to the total score hasn't changed that much. And in any case, it makes for an interesting read.

Yes, I do think this article is somewhat out of date, plus the author is an inveterate foe of everything CoP. I think many of the points that she raises have been addressed by the ISU, or at least considered, in their many revisions of the scoring system since 2003. The one glaring exception is anonymous judging.

As far as I can tell, the ideal of the ISU judging system is to have the jump elements count for about 2/3 of the tech score, and the tech score to count about one-half of the total. This is for ladies -- men will have a higher jump percentage because they have eight jumping passes instead of seven, and they do quads and triple Axels.

Ms. Bianchetti analyses a fictitious "all time best" program by a man who hits all kinds of quad combos, etc. (4 quads in all) and gets +3 GOE on every element. To me, it is more interesting to see what actually happens in a real competition.

Here are the results for the top twelve ladies' LPs at 2007 Worlds. The first score is jumps as a percentage of tech (it should be about 67%) and the second is tech as a percentage of total (it should be about 50%).

Asada: 72%, 52%
Ando: 73%, 53%
Meissner: 64%, 48%
Kim: 64%, 46%
Rochette: 67%, 54%
Nakano: 69%, 49%
Poykio: 70%, 50%
Meier: 63%, 48%
Kostner: 59%, 44%
Marchei: 64%, 53%
Korpi: 66%, 50%
Czisny: 59%, 47%

Average: 66%, 50%

 

[Mathman]

One idea to take away seems to be that great spins + spirals and so-so jumps will put a skater behind someone who has amazing jumps and nothing else. However, we also saw through Tim Goebel that amazing jumps alone can only get you so far.

I'm not sure what conclusions we can draw from Goebel's career. He "only got so far" because he was up against Yagudin and Plushenko, so it really didn't matter how amazing his jumps were or anything else.

In 2002 he jumped his way to a world silver medal (Yagudin won). In 2003 he won silver again (Plushenko got gold). And in the 2002 Olympics he was third behind the big two. He did not compete under the NJS, except for 2005 Worlds after his career was effectively over.

So I would say he is the poster child for getting splendid results (under 6.0 judging) with nothing but his quad, quad, quad.

In the current senior ladies division, it's another story altogether, IMHO. The leading techies, especially Asada and Kim, also have fine spins, spirals and presentation skills. For Caroline eventually to be competitve at the highest level she will have to bring the full package, too, IMHO.

(Although... it would be interesting to see what would happen if Sasha came back. That would raise the level of expections for the non-jumping side of the sport. :think: )

 

[feraina]

Average: 66%, 50%

Great analysis, what about the juniors?

 

[mizu_iro]

I'm surprised to see Mao being scored much lower than Yu-na, and, to a smaller extent, less than Kimmie. Mao has fast and centered spins. Does she just not get high levels?

She only got a level 1 on her layback. I also thought maybe Mao also got dinged for her mediocre sit spin, but that wasn't the case because both of her sit spins got positive GOE. As far as levels go, Kimmie did the best with all level 4s except for the flying camel, which was a level 3.

 

[Mathman]

What about the juniors?

Top ten at Junior Worlds (LP). First number is jump points as a percentage of TES; second number is TES as a percentage of total component score.

Caroline Zhang: 70%, 56%
Mirai Nagasu: 69%, 56%
Ashley Wagner: 74%, 56%
Jenni Vahamaa: 65%, 53%
Laura Lepisto: 69%, 54%
Rumi Suizu: 67%, 52%
Nana Takeda: 71%, 56%
Satsuki Muramoto: 74%, 59%
Yea-ji Shin: 68%, 55%
Stefania Berton: 62%, 55%

Average for juniors: 69%, 55%

Average for seniors: 66%, 50%

So the relative importance of elements is in the same ballpark for juniors and seniors. The difference in jumps as a percentage of tech score is pretty much accounted for by the extra spin (but no extra jump) that the seniors have.

The second statistic is more interesting. The difference of 55% (juniors) versus 50% (seniors) is highly significant (statistically). It shows that the juniors are relatively closer to the seniors in tech, but lagging bejind in PCSs.

This is not unexpected. The juniors might be jumping beans who haven't worked on presentation skills yet. Another factor is that none of the junior ladies fell on her jumps, while there were quite a few falls by seniors trying to push the envelope.

But to me the most striking feature of these numbers is the consistency with which every junior skater right down the line hit that 55% mark, tech versus PCSs (standard deviation 1.93.) In other words, the PCSs are "tracking" the technical scores in juniors to a striking degree.

 

[Kypma]

Top ten at Junior Worlds (LP). First number is jump points as a percentage of TES; second number is TES as a percentage of total component score.

Caroline Zhang: 70%, 56%
Mirai Nagasu: 69%, 56%
Ashley Wagner: 74%, 56%
Jenni Vahamaa: 65%, 53%
Laura Lepisto: 69%, 54%
Rumi Suizu: 67%, 52%
Nana Takeda: 71%, 56%
Satsuki Muramoto: 74%, 59%
Yea-ji Shin: 68%, 55%
Stefania Berton: 62%, 55%

Average for juniors: 69%, 55%

Average for seniors: 66%, 50%

So the relative importance of elements is in the same ballpark for juniors and seniors. The difference in jumps as a percentage of tech score is pretty much accounted for by the extra spin (but no extra jump) that the seniors have.

The second statistic is more interesting. The difference of 55% (juniors) versus 50% (seniors) is highly significant (statistically). It shows that the juniors are relatively closer to the seniors in tech, but lagging bejind in PCSs.

This is not unexpected. The juniors might be jumping beans who haven't worked on presentation skills yet. Another factor is that none of the junior ladies fell on her jumps, while there were quite a few falls by seniors trying to push the envelope.

But to me the most striking feature of these numbers is the consistency with which every junior skater right down the line hit that 55% mark, tech versus PCSs (standard deviation 1.93.) In other words, the PCSs are "tracking" the technical scores in juniors to a striking degree.

Wow... now I get why you chose "Mathman" as a board name... I got through about half of that... but it's interesting nevertheless.

Kypma

 

[feraina]

But to me the most striking feature of these numbers is the consistency with which every junior skater right down the line hit that 55% mark, tech versus PCSs (standard deviation 1.93.) In other words, the PCSs are "tracking" the technical scores in juniors to a striking degree.

Indeed. But that implies to me that the relatively low PCS (compared to TES) may more be due to the judge's subjective expectations rather than the skater's actual abilities. Can it be that all junior skaters have PCS capabilities that make up exactly 45% of their scores? That is to say, there's no difference amongst the junior skaters in terms of their general skating skills/artistic presentation versus their jumping abilities? That doesn't make sense to me.

 

[feraina]

Indeed, why even bother with a PCS component, when it merely contributes a fixed proportion (45/55) of the TES component?

Was this close tracking also true under the 6.0 system? Certainly from the seniors it felt like some specialized in the technical score, and others in the presentation... But then I didn't pay much attention to the junior scores.

 

[Mathman]

Was this close tracking also true under the 6.0 system?

Yes, I think it was, although we didn't have as many lovely numbers to crunch. It was quite unusual at any level for a skater to get 5.8, 4.3 or vice versa.

But 6.0 judging was a whole 'nother thing because it was based on placements (that is, on non-parametric statistics, LOL.). The numbers that the judges gave out were merely place-holders for ordinals and had little independent significance. What the judges did back then was to decide who they thought deserved first place, second place, etc., then to manipulate the two scores to make it come out that way.

In the New Judging System, in principle the judges are supposed to evaluate each element or component objectively and let the totals fall as they may.

I think it will take a long time -- if ever -- for the judges to train themselves to this new way of thinking. They are still thinking, "well, Plushenko skated the best so he deserves to win, so I'll give him 8.75 in transitions" (what transitions? )