Thursday, June 3

Am I alone in thinking including transitions in the PCS is redundant since there is already a transitions credit in the GoE and a choreography mark for how the program is constructed?

I definitely think that the transitions and choreography mark could be combined. Would we make the four remaining components all equal weight at 25% though? (Skating Skills, Performance/Execution, Choreography/Transitions, Interpretation). I would really have to think about that one. But at the very least, I do think that the two go hand-in-hand most of the time. Strong choreography generally has plenty of transitional moves, and vice-versa. NOT always, though.

As far as GoE, that is for the elements themselves. I understand transitions to be the way the elements are linked. Think of it as if you are seeing a program with a step or two into a triple Lutz, then the skater strokes around the rink doing back crossovers for 10 seconds, and then does a few turns into a triple flip. If all of the elements are looking like they are isolated, then I'd say the skater really doesn't have any transitions EVEN IF there are steps into each of the jumps, etc. But if the skating in between the elements appears seamless and includes a variety of moves in the field/one-foot/multi-directional skating, then I'd say that the skater has good transitions. I hope that makes sense.. this is another one of those answers where I feel a visual aide would help a lot more than my writing!

Ask me a question about figure skating!


Anonymous said...

IMO, Choreography and Interpretation can be combined (not Transitions, which are technical). Interpretation is such a subjective aspect, it dosen't make sense in having it judged separately, unless it means the judges are all psychological experts. Moves, facial expressions and the overall atmoshpere in relationship to the music are all parts of the choreography itself anyway, aren't they??

Tony said...

I agree with you about interpretation being so subjective, but aren't all of the components marks to a lesser extent? ;)

It all somewhat overlaps, in my opinion. Those with better skating skills are probably going to pull off stronger/more difficult transitions (but not necessarily MORE transitions). Those with strong transitions probably also have strong choreography, because if you aren't doing the transitions, you most likely are just skating around the rink doing crossovers. Usually not much choreography there! To fill out this circle-- if your choreography is strong, you generally have good skating skills in order to present the difficult choreography. The performance/execution and interpretation marks also relate. If your performance level is bad, your "interpretation" usually suffers as well.

Anonymous said...

I see what you mean about all the PCS elements being intertwined.

In another light, I've always thought that judges, who are so busy judging the technical sides anyway (GOEs)shouldn't be burdened with having to judge the (fairly)subjectives sides (PCSs) as well. It makes more sense to have separate panels.
1. The technical panel judging the elements
2. Judges to give out the GOEs and
3. different judges for PCs specifically.
(for example, 4 judges for no.2 and 4 separate ones for no. 3).
Wishful thinking, I know....

Tony said...

I don't like the idea of separate panels for the elements/components, because then you are really narrowing the amount of judges for each, and the idea of cheating (let alone holding up/down certain skaters) becomes that much easier.

With all of the ways the ISU is trying to save money, I really don't see a 7-judge panel for both the elements and components as a possibility. The components scores to this day seem to still be all over the map, but I guess if judges were solely focusing on scoring them, it might not be as bad.

Anonymous said...

If the 'anonymous vote' can be abolished, I still think that the above mentioned scheme, ie. separating the judges panel for the GOEs and the PCSs is more realistic than the current structure. It'll take care of the 'cheating' that the reduced no. of judges for the GOEs might cause.
In the current system, judges just don't have the time to rate PCSs for individual programs objectively, thus resorting to 'balancing it' comparatively with other programs (with the skaters' name value becoming an important factor), which seems to be the main cause behind the (sometimes) ridiculous PCS ratings.