I understand what you are saying, but I think where we differ is that you think these moves are over-the-top hard and I think they are basic.

There's nothing about these moves that's Level 4. In order to achieve even a Level 2 in a step sequence, a skater needs four types of turns and two types of steps, and they need to execute each one twice. Any less, and it's no higher than Level 1, no matter what. Loops and twizzles are turns. They are no harder than rockers and counters -- at least, rockers and counters that are done correctly and not actually three-turns because the skater changes edge at the last second, which sadly is the case a lot of times. Also sadly, skaters who attempt these rockers and counters but do them on the wrong edges will not have those turns counted in their step sequence, and thus they will be relegated to Level 1. So what's wrong with expanding these skaters' repertoire of turns so that they have a chance of achieving a higher level? Loops are actually easier than correctly done rockers and counters, btw. There's a reason they are on a lower figure test (starts at 3rd test) than counters (6th) and rockers (7th).

I understand that you think making these tests harder is going to turn off the masses, but that is where we disagree, and that's mainly because we disagree on how hard these moves actually are. With a little effort, everything is achievable!

i'm not too sure how i feel about these. i do think the juvenile spirals are important. i mean, we do spirals in pre-pre and prelim, and then not til novice? that didnt make too much sense.

the loop pattern seems really difficult. i can do loops, but that pattern seems especially tricky. i definitely want to give it a try when i get back on the ice though.

and, to me, the senior quickstep seems a little excessive. i can't tell how difficult it is, but it just seems unnecessary. i mean, i guess it is important to be able to incorporate different turns into one pattern, but i dont think the MIF test is the place to do it. after all, intricate step sequences ARE required for the FS...

__________________
Youtube Videos

We are having a test session this weekend. I have the judges going out to dinner with our local coaches and one of the gold level/national judges suggested this topic for discussion. I am not going but will find out what was said about the changes.

From what I've seen, I'd say the juvenile spiral sequence is appropriate (the one that was posted last summer was very similar to what I was thinking before that could be useful on the juvenile test; the current version should be easier to maintain flow). The double twizzles, other than maybe forward inside, are too hard for juvenile which is where they were assigned last summer and probably too hard for intermediate, but those patterns with single twizzles could be appropriate for those levels. Then maybe add a double twizzle move OR add single or double twizzles to an existing move at novice or junior but not both, leave the senior quickstep move as it was, and the senior spirals changes and addition of some version of loop figure at that level would be appropriate.

They could also require the currently optional loops in the novice counter move.

The FI twizzles are definitely much easier than FO ones. I agree expecting a good double is asking a bit much at Juvenile. I also think the intermediate backward ones, w/ a pull/change out of them, are very difficult for that level. They should start with singles.

However--I suspect if they do put them in, the judges won't judge them the same way a dancer gets judged on twizzles in a FD--in other words, they may not have to be as good in order to pass.

I don't buy the argument that these are unpassable either. I passed my Junior MIF at 35 years old, and my Senior MIF at 36. Cindy Crouse passed her Novice MIF just last week, and she's in her early 50s! It's doable for sure. I don't think these current MIF are harder persé than the current ones, just more applicable to competitive footwork standards.

__________________
Listen to my Figure Skating Podcast!

Rogue Element, Inc

She's 50, not early 50's yet!!

I agree, just takes a different mindset to do the new ones. I still want to pas my Novice test before they change since I DID put a ton of work into them.

I assume the man demonstrating the Int twizzles is Damon Allen. In one of the clips, the coach asked ppl to "watch out for Damon". Can anyone confirm who he is? In any case, he made mistakes on 2 of the int twizzle patterns. Don't know how relevant this is. Anyone can make a mistake, and we don't know how much he may have practiced those moves before filming. It seems to speak to the difficulty of these moves. The emphasis on twizzles is very pronounced, IMO. Personally, I have never had much luck w any other than FI and BO.

I like the loops. On their own, BI are not very hard, but put in the context of power pulls is another story.

Kay

__________________
Visit my figure skating journal
http://www.skatejournal.com/

I don't think it's relevant at all. As Sylvia posted earlier, the Web page was only meant to be seen by the committee working on the proposal, to give them an idea of what the moves would look like. Given that, it's unlikely Damon, if that's who it is, spent any time practicing them, since the videos aren't for public consumption. (Despite the fact that we are all consuming them!)

I noticed that too. I think it speaks to the fact that they are difficult, and even a very high level skater has to really focus while doing them, or they'll lose it.

I think it speaks to the fact that they take practice and that they aren't handing out a "pass" on a silver platter.

But that's just me.

Daisies-
I can totally see your point. If these do pass at GC, I don't think we'll be seeing 9 and 10 year old kids breezing through their MIF tests anymore. Yahoo! I don't think a 10 year old should (I'm going to say this and the parents/younger skaters on this board can say what they will about this comment) be "given" a pass on the Novice and higher moves just because of their age and the can "do" the moves. I don't see how a 10 year old can generate enough power or give the performance aspect described as part of those tests in the same way that a 9-10 year old passing Gold dances is rare. I guess I am saying I agree with you!

But that is a judging standards issue, not a moves difficulty issue. Many skaters will be able to "do" these new moves, too. No matter what moves are on the test, if a judge will pass a "do" instead of a "master" test, the point of the test is devalued.

Thanks techskater! LOL

One of the great things about figures, as hard as they were, were that they kept kids from moving up in the ranks too soon. Some may view this as a bad thing, because kids might burn out of the sport before accomplishing anything, but I think it was a great thing, because it kept kids from being forced to work on triple jumps that they and their bodies were clearly not ready for and thus becoming injured, potentially chronically. These days it seems kids are plowing through the moves tests, enabling them to take the corresponding FS tests as soon as they can master each test's hardest element -- and we know each test's hardest element isn't what kids are doing in competition, so they end up working on triples before they've really mastered the doubles.

Hopefully, if these new moves are actually proposed and passed, they will help keep skaters from moving up too soon. I still don't think they are that much harder than the current moves, but they seem to be designed to boost edge control and overall skating skills, and that can only be a good thing.

I understand what you're trying to say, but I think it's deeper than that. For example, the passing average on, say, Intermediate is 3.2. If you want perfection, you'd be looking at a passing average of 6.0; "mastering" something would be more on the upper end of the 6.0 scale ... not a 3.2. So as it stands now, "mastery" isn't really required. And it may not be required with these new moves, either, because I doubt they are going to change the passing average.

The point is to get skaters working on these moves that a) they will need to compete under IJS, which will at some point be used in all levels, and b) will boost their edge control and skating skills, as I said in my previous post. One of the most helpful things for edge control is loops, so it's too bad they aren't set to be introduced until senior, but I see the rationale behind the overhaul as a whole.

I see kids move up in moves but not in fs tests. You have skaters at imterm moves that compete prelim all the time.Kids hold back in fs tests, even if they work on harder elements. The new moves will not stop that.

I think the proposed moves are doable and they do seem to reflect the increased difficulty being introduced to the sport.

Daisies,
Regarding the judging of MITF, I've observed that all to often, 'perfect' just gets a skater to the required mark, and no more; 3.2 for example on the intermediate.

On another related topic, why is it that MITF demonstrates the core competence of skating skills and yet in the IJS, such paltry values are assigned to foot work passages relative to some elements that don't take years to develop. A skater gifted with a limber body can pull off extremely 'difficult' spiral sequences with relatively little training. If MITF are going to to be ramped up in difficulty and scrutiny on test ice, shouldn't this added emphasis translate to assigning more value on competition ice?

Well I totally agree. I think it's insane that spiral sequences are valued more than a footwork sequence when (a) footwork is harder to create and maintain flow/speed, and (b) some girls are very naturally gifted in flexibility, which is a huge advantage. I do think that IJS needs to change that.

__________________
Listen to my Figure Skating Podcast!

Rogue Element, Inc

I kinda *like* the new Novice brackets with the twizzles. There's more focus on edge quality instead of trying to do them as fast as possible.

The base values for step sequences and spiral sequences are the same for the same level of sequence. It's just easier to get a higher level on a spiral sequence than a step sequence the way the level definitions are currently set up, especially if one is naturally gifted in flexibility.

Exactly. I don't think there's a whole lot you can do to make spiral sequences more difficult (other than being stricter in applying the requirements for some of the positions, such as the "full split"). To bring the difficulty of footwork and spiral sequences more in line with each other, I'd vote for relaxing the requirements for the step sequence levels.

BTW, Pairman, don't forget that the PCS scores--including skating skills and transitions--are worth half the total score. MIF do more for the program components scores than anything else, I think. Meanwhile, the loops and twizzles on the MIF tests will make it less difficult to achieve the levels on the footwork.

__________________
"You don't have to put an age limit on your dreams." - Dara Torres, 41, after her 2nd medal at the 2008 Olympics

I would too.

BTW, I think the technical callers would, too! It currently takes at least 2 of them to figure out the level of a step sequence!

__________________
"You don't have to put an age limit on your dreams." - Dara Torres, 41, after her 2nd medal at the 2008 Olympics

Wow, you've seen them done perfectly? Often? I've never seen them done perfectly! I need to judge where you do!

Hi Daisies

Well of course perfection is completely subjective and judges preferences vary considerably. I think my point is that the distance between 3.1 score and a 3.2 passing average can be a void virtually impossible to cross for some skaters, so in that context, there can be no true 6.0 in my example for someone skating an intermediate test.

My idea of 'Perfection' is no mistakes, correct edges, and a moderate amount of gracefulness....& maybe a smile too :-)

ps I'm not a judge, but rather an adult that's tested a great deal over the past 10 years, which also lends itself to watching many judges and skaters and observing differences in outcome.