Under the current 6.0 system, the only guidelines that exist for the scores appropriate for various program content are a numeric ranking of the difficulty of all the jumps from single toe loop through triple Axel, a qualitative ranking of pair lifts organized by groups, and a very general qualitative ranking of spin difficulty. For each level of competition in the U.S. there are also specified mid-points and ranges, but these values are not tied to any explicit content standard.
The attempt in CoP to quantify the relative difficulty and value for the various elements of skating, and to finally classify dance lifts, is a welcome effort -- though the conclusions reached in CoP are incomplete and seem completely arbitrary. This is a subject that needs considerable additional work to produce a coherent whole that has some basis in physical reality, but once completed it is an effort that should be applied to a revised 6.0 system -- or even the current 6.0 system.
While a comprehensive effort to quantify the difficulty and value for the various individual elements of skating should be undertaken for several reasons, it is both impractical and unnecessary to have the judges assign marks based on the details of such complex lists (i.e., to do a CoP like calculation in their heads). All that is needed is a standardized set of marks for a small number of typical program contents that span the range of all competitive levels; e.g., two for each competition level. The judges are more than capable of bridging these standardized programs (or identifying programs of equivalent difficulty) to determine appropriate marks for all program content they might encounter. This interpolation is particularly simple if the Technical Merit mark is divided into sub-marks for each type of program element.
The following tables illustrate how standardized program content might be specified, using the singles Short Programs as examples. On the left hand side, the simplest and most difficult jump elements permitted for each of the four USFSA Short Programs are listed. For the Senior Short Program the most difficult contemporary Men's jump elements and Ladies jump elements are both listed. Along the top, the range of difficulty for the spin elements are listed.
To the right of the jump elements, the numbers in red are the contribution to the Technical merit mark from the jump elements, assuming the jumps were of outstanding quality and executed perfectly. Below the Spin elements, the numbers in blue are the contribution to the Technical Merit mark due to the spin elements assuming the spins were executed perfectly. At the bottom of the table are the contribution to the Technical Merit mark due to the sequence elements and connecting moves. The numbers in green are the sum of the jump element scores and spin element scores for the examples in the tables.
It is only claimed that these suggested value are in the right ballpark, and it is accepted that they might not necessarily be the ideal choices and others should weigh in on this subject. Nevertheless, they illustrate the concept, are roughly consistent with the marks judges currently give, and are roughly consistent with the midpoints and ranges currently in use in the U.S., except that the jump scale has been compressed to allow for future development in the sport at the elite level -- which decreases the midpoints by a few tenths in some events.
The following table is for the Senior and Junior Short Programs.
|
Senior and Junior |
Outstanding Deathdrop
Outstanding Change Camel or Layback Combination Spin with three positions on each foot Rotations exceed 3x |
Deathdrop
Superior Change Camel or Combination Spin with two positions on each foot Rotations exceed 2x minimum requirements |
Flying Sit
Change Sit or Layback Combination Spin with three positions total Rotations exceed minimum requirements |
Flying Sit
Change Sit or Layback Combination Spin Rotations and positions just meeting minimum requirements |
||
| 1.5 | 1.1 | 0.8 | 0.5 | |||
| Senior | 3A, 4T, 4S3R | 2.4 | 3.9 | 3.5 | 3.2 | 2.9 |
| 2A, 3F, 3L2T | 2.0 | 3.5 | 3.1 | 2.8 | 2.5 | |
| 2A, 3S, 3T2T | 1.6 | 3.1 | 2.7 | 2.4 | 2.1 | |
| Junior | 2A, 3L, 3A3R | 2.1 | 3.6 | 3.2 | 2.9 | 2.5 |
| 2A, 2R, 3T2T | 1.5 | 3.0 | 2.6 | 2.3 | 2.0 | |
|
Add the following for sequences and connecting moves to the above. |
Two sequences and connecting moves, of outstanding difficulty and quality, executed perfectly | Two sequences and connecting moves, of very good difficulty and quality, well executed | Two sequences and connecting moves, of mediocre difficulty and quality, executed adequately | Two sequences and connecting moves, of limited difficulty and quality, executed poorly | ||
| 1.5 | 1.2 | 0.9 | 0.7 | |||
The following table is for the Novice Short Program.
|
Novice Short Program |
Outstanding Deathdrop or Layback Combination Spin with three positions on each foot Rotations exceed 3x minimum requirements |
Superior Deathdrop or
Layback
Combination Spin with two positions on each foot Rotations exceed 2x minimum requirements |
Flying Sit or
Layback
Combination Spin with three positions total Rotations exceed minimum requirements |
Flying Sit or
Layback
Combination Spin Rotations and positions just meeting minimum requirements |
|
| 1.0 | 0.8 | 0.6 | 0.5 | ||
| 2A, 2L, 3L2R | 1.7 | 2.7 | 2.5 | 2.3 | 2.2 |
| 1A, 2R, 2T2T | 1.1 | 2.1 | 1.9 | 1.7 | 1.6 |
|
Add the following for sequences and connecting moves to the above. |
One sequence and connecting moves, of outstanding difficulty and quality, executed perfectly | One sequence and connecting moves, of very good difficulty and quality, well executed | One sequence and connecting moves, of mediocre difficulty and quality, executed adequately | One sequence and connecting moves, of limited difficulty and quality, executed poorly | |
| 1.0 | 0.8 | 0.6 | 0.5 | ||
The following table is for the Intermediate Short Program.
|
Intermediate Short Program |
Outstanding Camel
Combination Spin with three positions on each foot Rotations exceed 3x minimum requirements |
Superior Camel or
outstanding Sit
Combination Spin with two positions on each foot Rotations exceed 2x minimum requirements |
Sit or Layback
Combination Spin with three positions total Rotations exceed minimum requirements |
Upright
Combination Spin Rotations and positions just meeting minimum requirements |
|
| 1.0 | 0.8 | 0.6 | 0.5 | ||
| 1A, 2F, 2A2R | 1.4 | 2.4 | 2.2 | 2.0 | 1.9 |
| 1A, 2S, 2T1T | 0.9 | 1.9 | 1.7 | 1.5 | 1.4 |
|
Add the following for sequences and connecting moves to the above. |
One sequence and connecting moves, of outstanding difficulty and quality, executed perfectly | One sequence and connecting moves, of very good difficulty and quality, well executed | One sequence and connecting moves, of mediocre difficulty and quality, executed adequately | One sequence and connecting moves, of limited difficulty and quality, executed poorly | |
| 1.0 | 0.8 | 0.6 | 0.5 | ||
These tables span the entire ranges of difficulty that meet requirements for the various Short Programs. Reference to tables such as these while judging an event would insure the judges' marks were awarded using a uniform, reproducible, unambiguous standard. Their use would also greatly reduces the statistical uncertainty in the marks, making competition placements much more accurate and reliable -- far more so than in CoP.