Before I begin, I would like to thank Cindy Geltz and Carole Shulman for the opportunity to discuss ISU reform issues with you. In the 15 months that have passed since reform proposals were first announced by the ISU, this is the first opportunity the skating community has been offered to discuss the issues in an open forum in a detailed way.
It is particularly gratifying to me that this is occurring here, before the coaches of the PSA, because you the coaches, more than any other group in skating are the keepers of the flame in this sport. You are the corporate memory.
At the recent World Championships Maribel Vinson was posthumously inducted into the Hall of Fame. When that honor was accepted on her behalf by Frank Carroll and Ron Luddington the though occurred to me how each of these coaches carried in their head over fifty years of knowledge and experience in our sport. And when you combined the memories and experiences of Maribel passed on to them when she was a coach, their corporate memory stretches back over three-quarters of a century. What better group, then, to discuss the future of our sport with, than the group most closely connected to, and aware of, its past.
To start, let’s consider for a moment how we got here.
In February of 2002 a grand international banquet was given in Salt Lake City in the view of the entire world. At that banquet it was discovered to great horror that there were cockroaches in the kitchen, and some of them had gotten into the food. The host of the banquet called the head chef onto the carpet and told him to fix it.
The solution the head chef offers to control the cockroaches is this.
In the future new recipes will be used.
The food will be prepared with the lights turned off.
14 dishes will be prepared but only 9 will be served, and only five of
those will be eaten.
Many people wonder, however, wouldn’t it be a lot simpler to just fumigate the kitchen?
The big issues that now face skating are these. These are three separate issues that unfortunately have gotten all tangled up together, but really should be taken separately. The last of these three has come about because so many people have lost faith in the ISU to deal with the first two.
The future of the ISU was an extremely controversial subject that sucked all the life out of me at the USFSA Governing Council meeting two weeks ago and will not be discussed here.
The ISU approach to the integrity issue consists of using secret judging and random selection of judges, which were introduced this season, and a mathematical process called the double trimmed mean that is a part of the proposed scoring system.
Secret judging has some limited benefits. But its weaknesses far outweigh the benefits – particularly when there are more direct, effective and proven ways of bringing honesty and integrity to the judging of skating.
Judge can misbehave or simply make errors for reasons that have nothing to do with external pressure. Secrecy is no help here.
Judges will continue to be subjected to pressure regardless of secrecy and some will give in. Federations continue to control who gets to be an international judge, holding the power to put forward only those individuals that toe the federation party line.
And in many cases the ISU judges are the federation, or at least so deeply imbedded in the management of their federation that secrecy offers no isolation from pressure.
Secrecy has created an immense image problem, creating the appearance that embarrassing incidents will be swept under the rug. This has been expressed by fans, the media, ISU officials and several ISU member federations.
The public reaction is overwhelmingly negative. The credibility of skating is gone. Even though this is an "ISU" problem, more than water flows down stream, and eventually we in the US will have to deal with the unpleasant consequences if things go south.
If public dissatisfaction leads to reduced event attendance, reduced TV ratings, reduced corporate sponsorship or, worse of all, reduced participation, the economic base of the sport will be severely damaged.
The USFSA lives and dies with the income from the TV contract and sponsorship. There is a real risk that secrecy and other ineffective reforms will lead to fewer people in skating rinks, fewer lessons, and reduced support from a cash strapped USFSA and sponsors.
This is more than a philosophical issue. This is a bread and butter issue. What parent in their right mind would spend tens of thousands of dollars a year in a sport that is coming to be viewed as manifestly unfair, or even rigged. Professional wrestling on skates.
Next we have random selection of judges.
The logic of this completely escapes me.
This concept offers no benefits and has serious negative consequences. The idea my mark might not count is not going to stop me from misbehaving if I choose to, and it is not going to turn an unskilled judge into a skilled judge.
Mathematically if offers no benefits either.
The idea seems to be that if you have a half-gallon brick of butter pecan ice cream but are deathly allergic to the nuts, the way to deal with the nuts is to cut the block up into 14 slices and randomly eat 9.
I think we all recognize, that is not going to work. And it should be obvious; if you don’t want nuts in your ice cream, make sure they are not put in there in the first place. Its easier to keep the nuts out of the ice cream than it is to pick them out after the fact.
If I have my own personal agenda, or I am not too bright (which some people accuse me of), I am going to continue to do my thing anyway and hope my marks count. If they don’t, no harm in trying.
The worst part of random selection of judges is that a significant fraction of the time the places are determined by a flip of the coin.
If the 14 judges favor one skater over another on a 9-5 split, and the five judges in the minority are selected, the minority skater wins. With the proposed point based system, the skater favored 10-4 or even 11-3 will still end up losing some of the time.
When you take into account all possible splits in competitions with typical differences of opinion, about 25% of the time the lower scoring skater will end up ahead.
I am amazed that any governing body for a major international sport would advocate a system of judging where ¼ of the places are determined by the flip of a coin, ¼ of the medals are handed out that way, and ¼ of the World Champions win thanks to a fortunate roll of the dice.
These predictions have been confirmed by results at the Grand Prix this season and at the recent World Championships. Including one gold medal at Wolrds.
Trimmed means and double trimmed means have been considered in scoring system for a long time. They sound plausible, but mathematically they just don’t work very well, and other methods work much better.
Yes. It stops gross bias for 1 or 2 judges who try to put the first place skater last. But it doesn’t help much if the goal is to bump a skater up one place or another down a place.
For more than two like-minded judges it is useless.
Remember, it took several like minded judges at the Olympics to get us here. Not just the one that broke the camel’s back.
It doesn’t work because the high and low judges may be marking everyone up or down a bit (say a quarter point per mark) compared to the other judges and the poor judges are marking in the middle. The best judges may get eliminated and the worst judges may not.
With five judges, one block can control the results.
What is the point of agonizing over the division of geographic blocks – for example five blocks of three judges each – if at the end of the day all the judges from one block end up selected as part of the five judges who’s scores are counted? It will happen some of the time.
With just five judges determining the results, 1 or 2 judges of the 5 can control the results without much difficulty if they want to.
One 1 of 5 judges can do a lot more damage than 1 out of 14. Add a drop of black paint to a thimble of white paint you get gray. Add the same drop of black paint to a bucket of white paint you still have white. You can even add many drops of black paint to the bucket of white paint and you will still have white.
Just like in a poll or an election, the more opinions you include the better the result, particularly when some of the opinions are suspect.
For example, median mark statistics and even ordinal methods all work better than the double trimmed mean. They eliminate bias 80-90% of the time even when up to one third of the panel is biased. Double trimmed means are frequently successful only 10% of the time. This is based on extensive calculations over many years and is not just an opinion.
The double trimmed mean solves no problems and creates others of its own.
Now lets move on to the proposed point system of judging.
The ISU did not begin studying this system to solve the integrity problem, and initially it apparently did not involve secret judging, random judges or voo doo math. Those things were tacked on after the Olympics to sell it as a solution to the integrity issue and to get Jacque Rogge off of the ISU’s back.
But solving the integrity problem is not why this method of judging came about.
Regardless of why it came into being, though, the important question to focus on here is whether this a better way of evaluating skating performances and to judge competitions.
Where did this system come from?
In November or December of 2001, depending on who tells it, Mr. Cinquanta raised the question within a small group at the ISU whether a point based system could be used to judge skating.
But he is not the originator.
He got the idea came from gymnastics which introduced it a few years earlier.
But they are not the originators.
In the course of studying scoring systems & the judging process for many, many years, I began looking at point systems in 1997 and began software development after the controversy at the 1998 Olympics.
But I am not the originator either.
Going back even earlier, the point system actually originated back to the early ‘90s.
The 1890s.
This is the original system used by the ISU where each element (a figure) had a base value and quality values were assigned. Results were determined by the point totals.
It didn’t last very long. One element, one judge, one part of an event can corrupt the results. Realization of this through harsh experience over a long period of time led to the use of ordinals, then the median ordinal (otherwise known as the majority method), and then the ordinalizing of parts of events and the use of total factored places.
This method, in place before OBO and still used in the U.S. is not perfect, but is an exceptionally good system with over 100 years of experience and study behind its development.
At its core, the proposed system is not a step forward into the 21st century. It is a step back into the 19th century. To an era of ragtime, bussles, ankle length skirts and horse drawn buggies.
You can put a laptop computer with a touch screen in the buggy. You can add a GPS receiver and digital surround sound. You can even add an atomic clock to tell you when it is time to feed the horse. But it is still a horse drawn buggy. You still feed it hay and you still will have to shovel the manure.
Here you see the four main areas of concern in the proposed point system
This is just a cartoon of the user interface for the purpose of illustration here and is not the actual screen. Nonetheless, it shows its main features well enough.
There is a real time video display so the judges do not miss the action when entering information. The elements are identified by a new official, and appear in the boxes on the left-hand side of the screen. The judges enter assessments using buttons below the video display and the numbers appear in the second column to the left. There are five additional marks that are entered using the buttons at the bottom of the display and secondary screens that appear. Help screens are also available.
The user interface works well, and it is the feature the ISU touts the most. It is in fact, the best part of the system.
It is also the least important part of the system. The real issue is not whether the judges can enter information. The heart of the matter is what information is to be entered and how is it to be used. In software development the expression is GIGO – which stands for "garbage in, garbage out."
Another important issue is reliability of the hardware and software.
The system is expensive and complex. So much so the ISU is ignoring its rule that requires two redundant systems for its scoring systems.
The system is continuously changing and is not being put together with a rigorous testing and validations process. A recipe for disaster as any 12 year old software developer at home can tell you.
Despite being advertised in March as ready to use, the system continues to evolve and still has many unanswered questions. By the time we get to the Grand Prix next season, the version of the system to be used will be so different from last season it will be effectively untested when put into use. Given the frequency with which we change the rules in skating, that will often be the case.
A great deal can be done to reduce the risk of the system failing, but 100% reliability can never be achieved.
The risk of failing can probably be made fairly small, but how small?
What level of risk is acceptable?
I leave that question to you and the skaters to decide, but the ISU owes you a realistic, technically sound answer, because the competitors will pay for any failures of the system. They owe you that answer now, before the system is used next season.
If the current technology fails, the skaters get to twist in the wind in kiss and cry, and the next skater gets to stroke around aimlessly for a few minutes.
Under the new system, if the system fails there will be hell to pay.
This year I was fortunate enough to witness one of the most magical moments at a World Championship of the past 18 years that I have attended. I am referring to Shen & Zhoa’s free skate in the pairs event. Did you see it? Wasn’t it something they way the audience rose to its feet as they began the last section of the program and cheered thunderously for the last 30 seconds?
Now imaging the system crashing at that point losing all the assessments, and they have to reskate the whole program from the beginning, with Shen skating on a recent injury than nearly caused them to withdraw. Or maybe the assessments aren’t lost but it takes 10, 15, 20 minutes to solve the problem while they wait to finish the last 30 seconds.
Do they still get 6s? Do they still win? Can they even get through the program, or does Shen have to withdraw?
Would this be fair? What level or risk is acceptable to you? You and the skaters must decide. Not me. Not the international judges. Not the USFSA. Not the ISU. The officials and the federations provide a service to you and the skaters. You and the skaters should be speaking out to say what you want.
New officials.
The judges still judge, but their role is more like that of a clerk.
The referee job is split in two.
A new position is created. The Technical Specialist, also referred to as the Caller or Spotter.
A single Caller identifies the elements but can be overruled by the Technical Controller.
The caller also judges the level of difficulty of all elements other than jumps, throws and twist lifts for all disciplines. This includes all the elements in the dance event.
To prepare for competition, the Caller will scout out the practices, and in effect will be pre-judging the competition.
The Caller can award a bonus of two points for an innovative movement, which is enough to move a skater one place and thus decide who wins.
The single Caller judges enough points to move skaters around by several places.
Critical decision that determine the results will be made by this one new type of judge.
In dance, all the elements are judged into levels. This gives the one Caller immense influence on the outcome of dance competition.
The Caller must display an extraordinary perfection of judgement in order not to corrupt the results. Far more than an individual judge. One error can skew the results several places, unlike in the current system. In a 24 person free skate at Worlds, the Caller will have to make approx. 500 decisions without error. Is this likely?
To award the bonus points the Caller must also have an encyclopedic knowledge of skating throughout the world and throughout history. Is that likely? Will the bonus points become nothing more than an abused fudge factor?
At this point there appears not be a defined training program or appointment process, nor a defined accountability system. Which leads to the question…
Who will guard the guards?
Nothing in the current reform plans leads to a warm fuzzy feeling that the new set of officials will function any better than the current set. So what’s the point other than to get rid of the current set of officials?
Now for the main event. The Point Model. What is it and how will it work?
The Technical Merit mark becomes 14 element marks and two subjective technical marks.
The Presentation Mark becomes three subjective marks.
The element marks consist of a base point value for difficulty, plus quality points and deductions for execution.
While originally advertised as a less punitively based system than the current system, the point model relies heavily on deductions, and turns the free skating and free dance programs into 14 element long short programs. That is to say, 14 element required programs.
Jumps executed in the second half of a program get an extra 10% credit. Not difficult spins or fast one-foot footwork though. Just jumps.
Jump combinations earn the sum of the base marks for the jumps plus the execution value for the most difficult jump.
Jump sequences earn 80% of the sum of the base marks of the two most difficult jumps in the sequence plus the execution value for the most difficult jump.
The goal was to create a point system where performances are marked on an absolute, open ended, reproducible point scale that does not involve intercomparison of the skaters or the saving of marks.
Is this humanly possible?
A fundamental change is being made from the current approach of using relative assessment of the skaters, to a system using an absolute point scale.
To do this the judges have to be able to assign marks that are guaranteed to be in error by no more than 1%
Studies of human perception all say this is not possible.
When asked to make an absolute assessment, humans are generally wrong 15 to 25% of the time.
When asked to make a relative assessment, humans are generally wrong only 1 to 2 % of the time.
For example, supposed you were asked to determine which of several sticks was the longest. You could look at the sticks one at a time and assess their length (that’s absolute assessment), or you could intercompare them and pick out the longest one without caring exactly how long it was (that’s relative assessment).
Another human limitation is the inability to quantify any observable thing into more than 4 to 7 bins. That’s because our absolute assessment ability is limited by a 15 to 25% error rate.
Unfortunately at the World Championship level, the difference between two skaters in two successive places is only about 1 to 2%
Suppose for example, you were only judging the average speed of the performances.
You could try to assign an absolute number to the average speed one skater at a time. Just like in the previous sticks example.
You would have a hard time, and many of your places (up to 1 in 4) would be wrong compared to say measuring the speed accurately using a timer.
Yes, you would have the fastest skaters up near the top and the slowest skaters near the bottom, but the individual places would be badly scrambled.
If, instead, you only tried to bin the speed into a few categories, you would find that a lot easier, and nearly all the skaters would be in the correct bin.
The element execution values are divided into 7 bins, triple-plus through triple-minus. This works OK, because that’s the way our brains are wired.
The five subjective marks are divided into 41 bins each. No way a human can do this accurately, no matter how plausible the number generated might look. Our brains just don’t work that way. One way our brains do work, however, is to make up feel like we are doing a good job, when in reality we are not. We can use this system and our brains will fool us into thinking the emperor is wearing beautiful clothes – but he is not.
The point values will define the sport. Competitors are not going to waste their energy on things that earn few or no points and will naturally concentrate on the things that earn the most points.
Where did the point values come from?
Not from current competition standards. Not from previous ISU guidelines. Not from bio-mechanics.
The sport as it currently exits, in all its variety and complexity, has not been used to determine the point model. Instead, the proposed point model redefines the sport.
And so the tail is wagging the dog!
The question for you to consider is whether this redefined sport is the sport you want.
And at this point I can’t help but remark, nobody asked the ISU to redefine the sport. They were only asked to clean it up and make it fair and honest.
Nevertheless. Redefined it is. And if you have a skater going out into international competition next season your main priority is how do you prepare the skater for this new system.
First keep in mind the point values are not consistent among the elements and neither are the quality factors.
That means that there are a large number of quirks and pitfalls in the point model. Gaming the system is essential to maximize the chance for points.
Jumps, throws and twist lifts have strictly defined base values. All the rest (including all of dance) are divided into three levels each. Pick these elements carefully to maximize your points for the least amount of effort.
Many tricks no longer seem to exist, if you take ISU Communication 1207 on face value. Some of these tricks are rarely executed, but that does not mean they should be left out and stricken from the sport forever. It also is a symptom that the full variety and complexity of skating were not taken into consideration in developing the point model.
Other issues and quirks.
There is no such thing as a failed element. A fall can earn up to the full base mark of the element. A fall on triple Axel earns up to 7.5 points – equivalent to about 2-3 places. A fall on quad Lutz (and we’ve seen a few of those) can earn 11 points which is more than an adequately executed quad toe loop and as much as an outstanding quad toe loop. This is a complete reversal of current rules and practices.
No other sport rewards failure. Why is skating going to start now?
A poorly executed triple can earn more points than a well executed double. Also a reversal of current rules and practices. A fall on triple Axel can earn 7.5 points, a well executed double Axel 6.3. Equivalent to a gain of ½ to 1 place.
If you can’t do a triple, 11 double Axels are permitted. That’s just silly. The skater may take a small hit in choreography, but the 70 points earned for the jumps more than make up for it. Eleven double Axels earn many more points than a well balanced variety of all the double jumps.
Badly cheated jumps will now be treated as successful jumps of one less rotation. Another complete reversal of current rules.
In the pole vault, if you attempt 20 feet and go feet first into the bar and knock it down you don’t get credit for 19 feet.
If the Lakers’ game winning 3-point shot bounces around the rim at the closing buzzer, they aren’t given credit for a two point shot.
If a skater completes a badly cheated triple, there is no way of knowing if they are actually capable of completing the double they didn’t attempt, or if that particular attempt would have been successful if they had thrown a double at that time. The scoring system is just making stuff up. Stuff that may prove to be the margin of victory.
Spins combinations are badly shortchanged. Spins that are unequivocally as difficult as a high level triple jump can never earn more than the credit for a double Axel. While most skaters do not attempt spins of that difficulty, some do, but now they have no incentive to try. Rotation in the air is rewarded, rotation on the ice is not.
The definitions of jump combinations and sequences are extremely complex and confusing – and in detail just a wee bit illogical. Skaters must be much more careful when improvising. Certain errors turn a combination into a sequence with a significant reduction in points or the potential loss of an entire element. Other errors can turn a sequence into separate solo jumps which can also lead to the loss of one jump element as an unmarked extra element.
Triple and quads still must be repeated only in combinations and sequences, but on a fall it is assumed a combination was planned and the repetition is counted, unless the combinations/sequences have already been performed.
Thus, for the same elements and errors, the points and rules are situationaly dependent.
Complex sequences of more than two multi-rotation jumps are not fully rewarded for their content, so there is no point in executing them.
Combinations receive the same credit regardless of jump order. For example, 2T3T earns the same credit as 3T2T.
Combinations and sequences earn less credit than the jumps executed as solo jumps.
As an example, consider a triple Lutz and triple toe loop.
As two well executed solo jumps they earn 16.6. In a combination only 13.6 points are received, and in a sequence 10.88.
If I do Lutz step step toe loop I get 10.88 points. But if I do the Lutz here then stroke over to there for the toe loop 16.6.
If I miss the 3T as a solo jump I end up with 10.6 points, but if I miss it in the combination or sequence it doesn’t cost me.
It makes no sense to me.
In addition to the elements, skaters earn two subjective marks for basic skating skill and connecting moves.
The presentation mark is divided up into three subjective marks. Nothing is really changed in what is judged for presentation. It just gets three subjective marks now instead of one. Some judges feel this is an improvement, but from a practical point of view it changes little, though mathematically it tends to produce an excess of ties compared to using one mark.
The subjective marks are scored 0 to 10 in steps of 0.25. That’s a total of 41 bins each. Far beyond the capability of humans to use effectively, but plenty of room for creative judges to play games.
The subjective marks are scored on a fixed point scale, just like the current 6.0 scale. Just like the 6.0 scale marks will have to be saved.
The result is an apples and oranges scoring system. The elements are marked on an open ended absolute scale. The subjective marks are judged on a fixed scale and can only be effectively used if judged on a relative scale.
The elements are divided into 7 realistic bins. The subjective bins are a flight of fancy.
Deductions have been reduced somewhat in value compared to currently, for the free skating.
The impact of deductions is different from event to event since the realistic maximum point values for each event vary from event to event. In fact many of the characteristics of the proposed system are event dependant because of that.
Falls receive a deduction of 3 points. Equivalent to about 0.2 on a 6.0 scale.
The well balanced program requirements have changed. The free skating is now a 14 element required program for senior men and senior pairs, and 13 elements for senior ladies.
In singles the ladies and men have typically done 14 element programs so that is not a significant change, except the number of jumps expected has increased to 10 for the ladies and 11 for the men. Far more than most currently execute.
Senior pairs typically do 15 to 16 elements at the top levels, so the 14 element program has been dumbed down a bit.
The point mix for elements is significantly different and is slightly different from event to event.
For senior men, jumps make up 42% of the score. Almost as much as the entire current technical merit mark. Presentation is a mere 26%. Compared to jumps, spins and footwork are nearly worthless. From a cost-benefit point of view its clear where to put ones effort in training.
Senior pairs is dominated by lifts, throws, jumps and death spirals – 43%. Again spins, footwork and presentation are marginalized.
Event segments will be combined by adding the raw points in this way.
As a part of the total event points, the weighting of the segments will change slightly.
With a qualifying round the short program is about 1/4 the total, reduced from the current 30%.
With such a low value, and with the free skating essentially a long required program with deductions, what is the point now of the short program? Is it worth the competition time? Training time? Money? Energy? Risk of Injury?
Why bother?
By totaling points from the event segments, a skater can place first in the long program and second in the short program and still lose the competition.
With a qualifying round, a skater can place first in the short program, first in the long program and second or third in the qualifying round and lose the competition.
For example. This is the reason total factored places were introduced.
Consider the World Series for a moment. To be champion you have to win four games out of seven.
With a point total system, the teams would play all seven games and the one with the greatest number of runs in total wins. A team could win one game big time, but lose the other six and would still be declared champion.
Again, the proposed system was advertised as complete in March, and was approved by the Council on that representation, but Communication 1207 (the official description of the system) is very incomplete.
Most types of elements are divided into levels. The criteria for these levels are unknown.
How is a 3 point deduction going to be applied to a jump worth, for example, only 1 point? What about falls on spins? In footwork? In connecting moves? Does a fall in footwork wipe out full credit on a 400-foot long serpentine step sequence?
What defines an "innovative" movement? What about things that haven’t been used for 50 years and have been forgotten about?
Does an innovative movement get bonus points only in the first competition it is used in? Several competitions? Until other skaters copy it? When is it no longer innovative?
How will major new or rare elements not built into the point system be accommodated? Make it up as they go along? If I invent something really difficult that deserves 5 or 10 points how do I get credit for it? Is innovation dead?
The nitty gritty of errors in combinations and sequences are not totally clear. Touches of one hand? Two hands? What happens? When does a combination become a sequence, or a sequence two solo jumps? Does a combination with errors become a sequence without errors? Is this reasonable?
What happens when a combination spin is interrupted in the middle. Does it become two spins? Can a spin be retried after a fall entering the spin? On a fall in the jump of a flying spin?
How are side-by-side pair elements handled? He does triple toe, she does double toe. What happens? He falls she lands it. What happens? He does the spin, she falls out of it. What happens? He does two positions and 6 rotations, she does three positions and 12 rotations. What happens?
Do pops of half a rotation count as a jump attempt? What about throwing the free leg but not leaving the ice. Can the jump be retried if the skater does not rotate at least once?
This system is advertised as complete. It is the official scoring system for the most important competitions next season other than the World Championships. Why are there so many unanswered questions? What else aren’t they telling us? What else is going to change?
The answer "this is a work in progress" is unacceptable at this point. People are preparing programs now!
At this point I hope it is also clear that to stay out of trouble in the free skates one will now need and even more detailed knowledge of the rules and special cases than is needed in the current short program. We will all have to become ice lawyers to keep it all straight!
I will close with some potential strategies one might consider in competing under the proposed system.
Keep in mind that as the proposed system continues to change, strategy may also have to change. Also remember these possibilities may only worth what you paid for them, since I have made up this list with the perspective of where the math of the point model drives you. In the end you will have to decide within the context of your skaters' abilities what is the best course of action to take to maximize the points.
That being said, it seems pretty clear. The number one rule is Leave No Points On The Table. All elements must be attempted no matter how badly, to at least earn the falling down points. Each element omitted has the potential to cost you several places in the standings so don’t leave anything out.
If you can get all the way around on a difficult jump (meaning within ¼ of a turn) it is worth attempting, even if you can’t land it, as long as it takes off fast and high and strong and looks good (and you don’t kill yourself in the process).
Take care in improvising. I have already mentioned how errors in combinations or sequences might lead to later elements being ruled extra elements that are not scored. Similar risks exist for combinations spins with certain errors.
You might consider attempting as many of the most difficult jump elements as possible just after the half way point to maximize the 10% bonus while as fresh as possible. Conserve energy as much as possible in the first half to accomplish this. For example, the two step sequences can be used to kill a lot of time in the first half. There is no reason a program cannot be choreographed slow-fast-slow if it increases your point total.
Take care in choosing jump combinations and sequences. Sequences can have an unlimited number of jumps but only two are rewarded. Don’t waste energy on things that will not be rewarded.
In preparing for competition. Three words. Jumps. Jumps. Jumps.
Limit spins and footwork to the minimum effort needed to get +3 execution of Level 3. Apparently that will not be hard to do. And if it later does prove hard to do, it may not be worth the couple of points involved. If the same amount of training time working to max out the spin credit will allow you to acquire a more difficult jump instead, work the jump. It will get you more points.
Be careful counting spin rotations. If you have an artistic spinny movement of three rotations and you go over one rotation or the Caller miscounts it becomes a spin element, and your last planned spin element will become an extra element and receive no points.
If you are short on a spin element and only complete 3 rotations, it is no longer one of the four spin elements. As far as I can tell, nothing at this time says you can’t push in again or reattempt it elsewhere if you want.
In order to insure your elements are judged at the correct level it is important the Callers get to see them in practice in all their glory. Springing a new move on the Caller unseen risks the element being undermarked.
With so little credit given to presentation, set programs for maximum technical merit points not best presentation. A small loss in presentation points can potentially be traded off against a greater number of technical merit points. Gone is the Michelle Kwan second-mark advantage.
Finally, game the system thoroughly.
Thank you again for you interest and the opportunity to present my little rant.
Let me close by adding a disclaimer I think we all should all keep in mind in these exciting time – and should have been more kept in mind at Governing Council (and since). These are just some thoughts on the technical issues. If you strongly disagree, don’t take it personally. I would hope we could all stay friends and work together, and if nothing else simply agree to disagree.
Thank you again.
Copyright 2003 by George S. Rossano