 |
| The guilty pleasures of autumn: pumpkins and figure skating. |
Welcome, dear Friends, to this blog on this particular day. Whether you are sitting on masses of candy already, or are still putting on your zombie makeup or brushing your fangs, whatever it is, you have come to the right place. Enter at your own risk and to your own delight...
As many of you may have noticed, my posts are far and few between these days, yet I enjoyed the idea to start of the season with a Halloween post, only it turned out to be quite difficult to come up with a suitable and appropriate topic. My less inspired ideas ranged from a season preview, or what transpired in the first two GPs, or even a video post presenting Halloweeny programmes with a little personal flavour info added.
I had been pondering the subject for this post for quite a while, when suddenly, inspiration hit me, much like Newton's head was hit by a pumpkin, back in the day when there still were pumkin trees.
On Halloween the fabric between this world and the Otherworld grows thin. And, quite possibly, the odd spirit may permeate it and cross over into our reality. Today, the spirits of the posts that I intended to write, were only half written or even only mere figments of my imagination, will manifest themselves in this very post. Drawn here irresistibly by the power of the occasion. And you all, dear friends and followers, all of you shall bear witness to this erratic gathering and afterwards decide if all this was a trick or rather a treat.
If you are easily bored, my advice is to skip everything else and just watch this clip for quick entertainment. I was told it befits the occasion. Be sure to watch until the very end to see Brian and Tigerman singing "Russian songs".
1: Well Balanced Programmes - Pairs' Lifts
Remember, Rose did a post on something similar not that long ago, and for good reason. The post I never finished intended to look at the gradual implementation of 10% bonuses and the subsequent shift in element placement. Pairs programmes are particularly interesting because after the introduction of the jump bonus the lift bonus was added.
As aficionados we are all familiar with the concept of the well-balanced programme. There will always be factors that will influence programme construction, before point incentives these were mainly stamina issues. Now it's both. We have witnessed how the IJS needed to be tweaked in order for programmes to become more balanced again, before becoming even more unbalanced again in the opposite direction. Think frontloading of jumps turning into backloading of jumps. This doesn't only apply to jumps though, it also applies to Pairs lifts. Lifts being the biggest point getters in pairs, we can observe a general shift in the placement of lifts after the introduction of the highlight distribution rule.
In the first row we see the top 10 of the LP from the 2007 Worlds (the year of the jump bonus) and the element number of the lift. Lifts as a 3rd or 4th element clearly would be not in the bonus zone. The 2nd row features the same for 2008 Worlds, the last year before the lift bonus was introduced. The 3rd row shows the 2012 Worlds.
Look at the top 10 from the 2012 Worlds LP. There is only one lift which is not put into the bonus zone. It's from Pang and Tong's skate.
For the fun of getting insights by using dubious mathematical methodology, we can now add up the element placement numbers of each year and compute what I call the Lift Placement Total per annum (LPTpa) for each year.
Hmmm, statistically significant? You be the judge.
In the first row we see the top 10 of the LP from the 2007 Worlds (the year of the jump bonus) and the element number of the lift. Lifts as a 3rd or 4th element clearly would be not in the bonus zone. The 2nd row features the same for 2008 Worlds, the last year before the lift bonus was introduced. The 3rd row shows the 2012 Worlds.
| 2007: | 4,7,13 | 7,9,13 | 4,6,11 | 4,10,13 | 4,5,10 | 6,8,11 | 3,7,12 | 3,7,13 | 4,8,11 | 4,6,9 |
| 2008: | 4,9,12 | 3,7,12 | 3,4,12 | 4,5,9 | 4,9,11 | 2,6,10 | 5,9,10 | 4,9,12 | 4,12,13 | 5,6,10 |
| 2012: | 7,8,10 | 8,9,11 | 6,10,12 | 9,10,11 | 7,9,11 | 3,8,12 | 7,9,11 | 7,10,12 | 9,11,12 | 7,9,10 |
Look at the top 10 from the 2012 Worlds LP. There is only one lift which is not put into the bonus zone. It's from Pang and Tong's skate.
For the fun of getting insights by using dubious mathematical methodology, we can now add up the element placement numbers of each year and compute what I call the Lift Placement Total per annum (LPTpa) for each year.
| 2007: | 230 |
| 2008: | 224 |
| 2012: | 275 |
Hmmm, statistically significant? You be the judge.
The original 10% bonus was introduced in order to promote/encourage a more well balanced programme not to reward stamina and condition. So, in the same spirit and in answer to the above problem maybe a new rule should be introduced.
What about: Only 2 Lifts can receive the 10% Bonus. Or only one element of each of the categories: Lifts, Throw Jumps, and SBS jumps element can receive a bonus. Something along those lines could work, I think.
The question is how can any such system ever achieve the encouragement of truly well balanced programmes that also place the elements for choreographic reasons? It simply cannot. Tangible points advantages will always be more important than choreographic coherence that may or (most likely) may not be rewarded by the judges. The sport feels a bit like the Formula 1 to me, the governing body puts out new rules at the beginning of the season and everyone tries to accommodate to them and find the best way to gain as much point advantage as he can. While a lot of people may find this interesting, I harbor the wish for more continuity and for a sport where the judging system is less the focus of attention than the actual performances. That means for the participants and officials as well as the fans.
Halloweeny Video Interlude:
Probably not all of you remember Krisztina Czakó. Her biggest success was the European silver in 1997, skating to her well received Adams Family LP, including Thing T. Thing impersonations. What makes her special to me is that her 1995 Euros Short Programme was the first skating performance I ever watched on TV. Nice Trivia, eh?
2: The lost Ice Funnies episode
This was supposed to be a funny take on skaters making the odd unfortunate comment in the media. The idea being there was a secret Challenge Cup for such things and skaters were actively vying for it. Basically, Patrick Chan, who has taken a lot of flag for some comments in the past, loses the Cup to Jeremy Abbott but goes on to say that he can have it back in no time if he sets his mind to it. By the time I would have finished it though, the post would have been obsolete.
Halloweeny Video Interlude:
Zombies are quite en vogue again. Be it at the movies, in tv series, or as zombie adaptions of Jane Austen novels, they are everywhere. Skating, of course, is no exception. Zhiganshina and Gaszi had a well received Zombie Free Dance last season. As for the connection to me: I'm German too, and I love green dresses (it's my favourite colour). She actually wears a green one again this year. :)
3: The new new Judging system - or my brilliant amalgamation of IJS and 6.0
For the fun of it, I had been contemplating a judging system that appropriately dealt with the more subjective part of skating. I began to write a post, but then the World Championships happened and lots of forum threads and bloggers began discussing this or presenting their own take on IJS, so it felt kind of pointless to post at the time. Also it included a big rant about embracing the subjective side of the sport, no questions asked, so I wasn't too sure about it. What is special about my method is that a perfect competition is rewarded with a 6 as a total score. Keep that in mind.
This post is based on the assumption that you can’t assess a performance by attempting to
assign numbers against an absolute standard. Let’s not pretend it
can be done. Let’s also not pretend the components we can assign in
IJS cover everything that happens in a performance.
This system in essence awards 4 ordinals for both tech
and performance in both SP and LP. That means two placements 2 in each segment, in the
categories technical and performance. The four numbers are added together and result in a total of which the lowest number will win the competition. (I haven't thought about tiebreackers yet)
In contrast to the Old 6.0 system, this system does
not use arbitrary placeholder marks that will be combined into one
ordinal, that will be factored into a total placement. A further
difference is that we ultimately deal with 4 ordinals instead of just
two, which allows for a broader range of weighing and
differentiation, also: any mark will count and will not be assigned
for the purpose of achieving a certain overall result, i.e. I want
somebody in 4th
I need 5.7/5.9 to put him there, whether it’s reflective of the technical and artistic performance or not.
-If there are two people and one does 5 quads
and the other five doubles, the 1st
one might receive technical placement 1, the 2nd
one technical placement two. Even though the TES scores would be
something like 50 versus 5.
-If you have lots of barely visible
under-rotations you may tank in TES and people may still not
understand why but it won’t affect the “2nd-mark”,
for the sake of this post let’s call it the Panache mark. That's one point difficult to improve upon if you scrutinize the jumps as it is done nowadays.
For the purpose of this exercise we will draw
upon the TES scores as actually given out at the event. Based on
those we will determine the TES ordinals for SP and LP. Remember that
the artistic ordinals will be determined by looking at the overall
intuitive impression
the programme has made on someone. The performances will be ranked in
relation to each other, not in an absolute way. (A tie is possible,
in both segments and marks, but the following ordinal would have to
be skipped in that case, for example: 3,4,4,6,7)
As has been made clear, all these things rely
on subjective perception of the
programme, this system does not require
you to justify your decisions nor to try to put it into numbers or
explain them rationally. You will in most cases, however, have a good
idea about why you like something better than something else, but
this system isn’t occupied with trying to find some kind of common
denominator that will then become the ideal prototype against which
one has to judge everything else.
This system recognises the almost
limitless possibilities and different ways in which a good
performance can be achieved, as long as you can imagine and comprehend them.
Overall, I myself am looking for artistic and
choreographic coherence, engaging presentation and my personal
enjoyment. The skater’s qualities with regard to his movement,
posture, elegance etc. will, of course, affect the programme, but
what I’m trying to end up with is an intuitive
ranking of all programmes, which
reflects my taste of what constitutes a good performance in the sense
of the “2nd
mark”. This mark does not try or pretend to be something or anything like the
programme component scores. It's not half-subjective, half-technical, or half-assed.
This system officially acknowledges human fallacy, bias
(intentional or unintentional) and even downright incompetence (it
can’t be prevented or circumvented). It
doesn’t attempt to remove these factors nor does it pretend that
could be done. It embraces these things in order to embrace the human
element that is necessary to assess the subjective qualities of
figure skating performances.
The lowest point total will win. While the totals also hinge upon the total number of competitors, the
theoretically perfect number is (employing factor 2 for the LP
categories, I will come back to this as some factoring will be needed) if you rank first in all
4 parts of the competition, guess what, it's 6!
So you place first in SP Tech, SP Performance, LP
Tech, LP performance: 1+1+2+2 =6
The Tech ordinals will be computed by using the
technical element scores much we do now. The performance ordinals are
up to the discretion of the judge.
Things this system can’t account for.
-Skaters may win without being the best in any of
the four categories. However, that can easily happen under IJS and
under 6.0 too.
You technical prowess will not help you gain an
insurmountable lead of points by winning the battle for base value.Conversely,
neither will your superior artistry propel you into any higher
position than first in that category.
It will take into consideration a number of factors
but it will not pretend that we can pin them down. It will not be
impressed by the number of quads as such (that’s reflected in the
TES), however, if within the programme the quad as executed fills its
role more adequately than a triple would have done, it will be
counted as a positive effect. If you think a transition serves a
purpose, fine, if you feel it’s detrimental to the choreography,
not so good.
Let’s put it to the test by Judging the 2013
4CC Men’s event:
SP Tes Ordinal
|
Name
|
SP "2nd" Mark Ordinal
|
Name
|
Results
|
Name
|
1
|
Han Yan |
1
|
Yuzuru Hanyu
|
5
|
Han Yan
|
2
|
Richard Dornbush
|
2
|
Misha Ge
|
5
|
Hanyu
|
3
|
Nan Song
|
3
|
Daisuke Takahashi
|
8
|
Nan Song
|
4
|
Yuzuru Haynu
|
4
|
Han Yan
|
8
|
Takahashi
|
5
|
Daisuke Takahashi
|
5
|
Nan Song
|
13
|
Denis Ten |
6
|
Takahito Mura |
6
|
Denis Ten
|
14
|
Dornbush |
7
|
Denis Ten
|
7
|
Kevin Reynold
|
15
|
Reynolds |
8
|
Kevin Reynolds
|
8
|
Max Aaron
|
16
|
Misha Ge
|
9
|
Andrei Rogozine
|
9
|
Andrei Rogozine
|
18
|
Aaron
|
10
|
Max Aaron
|
10
|
Rakamgaliev
|
18
|
Rogozine
|
11
|
Ross Miner
|
11
|
Yi Wang |
18
|
Mura
|
12
|
Yi Wang |
12
|
Takahito Mura
|
||
13
|
Michael Martinez
|
13 |
Ross Miner
|
||
14
|
Misha Ge
|
13
|
Richard Dornbush
|
||
15
|
Jin Seo Kim
|
15
|
Michael Martinez
|
||
16
|
Abzal Rakimgaliev
|
16
|
Chris Caluza
|
||
17
|
June Hyoung Lee
|
17
|
June Hyoung Lee
|
||
18
|
Christopher Caluza |
18
|
Elladj Baldé
|
||
19
|
Brendan Kerry |
19
|
Jordan Ju | ||
20
| Min-Seok Kim | 20 | |||
| 21 |
Elladj Baldé
|
21
|
|||
22
|
Jordan Ju
| 22 | |||
23
|
David Kranjec | 23 |
This is how far I got, but you will get the general idea.
* (Factoring) If we weigh the SP with the factor 1, what factor
should the LP have. I’m still not sure whether 2 may be the right
factor or something slightly lower should be used.
Men - SP/LP/Factor
Jumping passes: 3 / 8/ 2,6666
Jumps: 4 /12 / 3
Spins: 3/ 3 / 1
Step/Chor: 1 / 2 / 2
Duration: 2:40 /4:30-4:20 1,6875-1,625
Ah, hello, congratulations and thank you very much, dear reader! You have either really read the whole thing or you had at least the decency to scroll all the way down here. I hope you have had a nice Halloween, by the time you're reading this, it surely must be over. I also hope to see you again next year, same day, same convoluted wall of text.
Happy Season 2013/2014! :D
No comments:
Post a Comment