ll
III l I
118 904 THS AN 0‘? EC? WE E§/4\1.?UE\ it??? SYSTEM FG'R JUQGENG ENE SKATING ROUTMES
Thasfs €05 the Begren of I'VE. A. Ht,t'i’:AE‘! CTB” m ““H’ E‘LA'I'EILHE FETZQERME MOW-2E 1857 ‘. u.’ " dun M .. g“; " . ‘2‘ ..._*t \ . "Rig: I f‘ "' Inna/1mm???)my???“unmwuummm - 1 ’ - o J" --'-. 28 2093 , L‘fiCthah if“; . 3'- Umvmkty
AN OBJECTIVE EVALUATION SYSTEM FOR
JUDGING FREE SKATING ROUTINES
By
Kathleen Fitzgerald Moore
A THESIS
Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
Department of Health, Physical Education and Recreation
1967 Jr 3/
.35/ ’ ,/,.: L / H / /rx4“' I“. ~"' To
under whose guidance I learned the fundamentals of figure skating and thereby grew to love the sport. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to express my appreciation to Dr. William
Heusner for his guidance throughout the study.
A special thank you goes to Mr. W. H. Bainbridge, Mr. Donald
Jackson, Miss Beryl Williamson, and Mr. and Mrs. Hayes Jenkins for their participation in the judging of the skating routines used in comparing the proposed evaluation system with the system currently in use.
Thank you also to the people who helped me understand and analyze the related judging systems for synchronized swimming, diving, gymnastics, and roller skating.
I would also like to thank my typist, Miss Susan Foster, for her help in the preparation of this manuscript.
iv ABSTRACT
AN OBJECTIVE EVALUATION SYSTEM FOR JUDGING FREE SKATING ROUTINES
by Kathleen Fitzgerald Moore
This thesis develops and tests an experimental objective evaluation system and compares it to the present system used for evaluating the free skating routine portion of figure skating competitions. An attempt is also made to determine the best method for deciding final placement of the skaters after the individual judges' scores have been awarded.
Eight filmed senior ladies' programs are evaluated by five judges under four different conditions. Scores are an- alyzed and conclusions are drawn. TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... iv
LIST OF TABLES ...... \riii
LIST OF APPENDIXES ...... ix
Chapter
I INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM ......
Introduction Need for the Study Statement of the Problem Objectives of the Study Limitations of the Study
II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ......
Figure Skating--Amateur Figure Skatinga-Professional Roller Skating Synchronized Swimming Women's Gymnastics Men's Big Ten Gymnastics--l96#-l965 Diving ' Comparison of Methods of Judging
III METHODOLOGY ...... 50
Acquisition of Films Selection of Skaters Selection of Judges Testing Equipment Testing Procedure Present System Experimental System Determination of Final Placement
IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...... 1+1
Analysis of the Data Summary
vi TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED
Chapter Page
V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . #4
Summary Conclusions Recommendations
APPENDIX C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 [+8
BIBLIOGRAPHY
vfi LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Comparison of Evaluation Systems ...... 28
2. Penalties for Errors ...... 35
3. Level Of Difficulty O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O 38
viii LIST OF APPENDIXES
Appendix Page
I Placement Determination for Roller Skating . . . . #8
II Master Score Sheet for Synchronized Swimming Contests ...... 50
III Example of Figure Skating Placement System . . . . 51
IV Test Program Content ...... 53
V Rho Correlations ...... 57
ix CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM
Introduction
Each year skaters spend hour after hour, day after day
preparing themselves for competition. The child must skate
when the ice is available. If the child is in earnest about
competing, this can mean skating an hour or two before school
every morning, arranging the school class schedule so as to be
out early in the afternoon, or even spending time on the ice
during the day.and being tutored in the necessary subjects.
Parents must often drive the child to and from the ice arena as public conveyances are not usually convenient to schools, homes and arenas.
Parents of the serious competitor spend between $2,000 and $10,000 every year on skating. (Z’P'BS) This figure in-
cludes the fee for joining a club; renting ice; paying for
lessons; buying boots, blades, and skating clothes; transport-
ing skaters to and from competitions; paying entry fees; and many other smaller, but none the less necessary expenses, such as skate guards, skate bag, records, and record case. Included~ in the expenses, also, is the summer training necessary for
the serious competitor. Here the skaters practice between five and seven hours a day depending upon their level of achievement. 2
From this it can be seen that a great amount of time, energy and money is put into the training of the competitive skater.(2’p'86)
Judges who evaluate these skaters are selected from the official United States Figure Skating Association (hereinafter referred to as the USFSA) list of all judges and referees. The requirements for USFSA national judges are quite broad. They include recommendations by the candidate's club president and sectional vice-chairman of the Figure Judging Committee. The national judge is then appointed by the Executive Committee on the basis of
A. Actual figure skating experience and knowledge
B. Judges' schools attended and/or conducted
C. Judging of all official figure and pair tests
D. Adequate trial judging record of Gold Pair and Eighth Tests
E. Official judging or refereeing at USFSA sanctioned competitions
F. Adequate record of trial judging of free skating.(7’p'll9)
The judge, after completing this training and meeting these re- quirements,should be prepared to judge free skating programs. He is not, however, and could not possibly be expected to be able to judge the complex routines. The background he has received con- sists of reading a short twelve page section from the end of the revised Evaluation of Errors in Figures published by the USFSA in 1959. This in itself is ridiculous as the first 118 pages of the book are spent laboring in great detail how to judge figures. Also included in this book is a table which lists 25 jumps and 14 spins. The authors themselves say the lists were made up many years ago.(8’p°3 ) This is certainly true and the 5 lists have never been revised as some 48 jumps and 50 spins can now be listed. From the material in the rule book, plus informa- tion obtained at judges' schools, the USFSA expects to produce judges knowledgable in the area of free skating. The problem becomes serious when it is realized that material distributed at judges' schools is either taken directly from the free skating section of the Evaluation of Errors in Figures book or is some- one's own interpretation of the method which should be used to judge. The problem is then compounded by the theory that the mark for free skating is built up by observation of its good qualities and by the fact that the rule book vaguely gives guide- lines of techniques to be included in the programs, but does not indicate what the penalties are for failure to effectively dis- play skill in the prescribed areas. (8,p.122) How can judging possibly be consistent throughout the United States if there is no precise guideline for judges to follow?
Need for the Study
Skaters may loose competitions by one one-hundreth of a point. (69P046) Can this be justified if the tool used for evalu- ating the performance does not measure that precisely? In other sports there are standards which must be met. The performance is evaluated in terms of whether the standard is made or missed, or how close the performance comes to meeting the standard. For example, the basketball player knows that his worth to the team is judged by his ability to make baskets. The track star knows his ability to run is measured in seconds, and he must run a specific distance faster than his opponents to win. The masculine gymnast 1+ knows a minimum level of difficulty must be included in his routine and certain compositional requirements must be fulfilled.
He is also aware of the amount deducted from his score for errors
in execution. From this information he can put a program together that will fit both his ability and the judging standard. In ice skating, however, the picture is different. When the skater skates the free skate routine he is not sure what standard is being used to mark him. What is worse is the fact that the judge does not know either,as his system is entirely subjective and may easily change from skater to skater. Also, the judge has no com- mon basis upon which to compare skaters. Without this basis for comparison, how can skating be called a sport?
Statement of the Problem
The purpose of this study is to develop and to test an objective evaluation system for judging free skating routines.
Methods for determining the final placement of skaters will also be analyzed.
Objectives of the Study
One objective of the study is to determine whether the subjective system of weighting which judges currently give to the components of a routine is the same as, or different from, the weightings given in the experimental system. Secondly, an attempt will be made to determine which system is more effective.
A third concern of the paper is to determine the best method for deciding final placement of the skaters after the individual judge's scores have been awarded; that is, should placement be 5 based on the scores of the top three judges, the bottom three judges, the middle three judges, all five judges or a majority ordinal system?
Limitations of the Study
Outstanding professional skaters in the United States and
Canada were engaged to test and retest the two systems of judg- ing. Since their time was limited, the testing had to be done at their convenience. It was necessary, therefore, to limit the study to eight 4-minute routines because each routine had to be tested four times; that is, tested and retested using both systems.
The judges, although well trained teachers and/or performers, were not accustomed to using either the experimental or present judging systems.
Films with sound tracts were not the most satisfactory means of transmitting aesthetic beauty or style; however, to enable the judges to judge and rejudge the systems, they were the best method available. CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Figure Skgting--Amateu;
In the United States Figure Skating.Association, competitors
are judged first on their performance of compulsory figures which
constitutes 60 per cent of the final score, then on a free skating
routine which represents the remaining #0 per cent.(2’p°68) In this
thesis the compulsory figures will be discussed only as they
directly affect the final scoring and placement of the competitor.
The main emphasis is placed on the present free skating evalu- ation system.
The free skating routines are judged by five judges on a scale
from zero to six in tenths of points with a score given for techni-
cal merit and for style and composition. Technical merit includes
difficulty, variety, and clearness and sureness. Composition and style includes harmonious composition, conformity with music, utilization of ice surface, carriage, and easy movement and sure- ness in time to the music.(8’p'120)
At present, the scoring is done in terms of raw scores con- verted into ordinal scores. The skaters who received the eight
top scores in compulsory figures skate their routines. Competi-
tors skate in two groups with those who placed lower in the com-
pulsory figures skating first. Their places within the group are
drawn by lot.(7’P'18)
Calculation of the ordinal numbers is done in the following manner; Each judge totals the scores he awards for compulsory
6 7 figures and divides that sum by a free skating factor. To this he adds his marks for technical merit and for composition and style. This total is then converted into an ordinal number with the highest score being given the ordinal one. If there is a tie, the skater receiving the highest sum of products for compulsory figures is awarded the lower ordinal. If the totals for com- pulsory figures are also equal, the lower ordinal is given to the competitor with the higher mark for technical merit in free skating. If the marks for technical merit in free skating are also equal, the skaters are given the average of the ordinal numbers so tied. When figuring placement, all half numbers are counted as the next higher ordinal. In ordinal additions, how- ever, the fractional ordinal numbers are used at their actual .ZA 2 values, such as 1% and 2%.(7’pp ’ 6)
The following principles are applied in sequence to deter- mine the placement of skaters in the competition.(7’pp 02 5 -2 7)
l. Majority Principle--Starting with first place, the ordinal scores of a majority of judges are used to award the place to a skater.
2. Subsequent Majority-~If no one has a majority, the place is awarded to the skater with the majority ordinal for the next place.
3. Greater Majority--If a tie results, it is broken by awarding the higher place to the skater who is placed in that position by the greater number of judges.
#. Total Ordinals of Majority--If Greater Majority does not break the tie, the skater receiving the lower total of ordinal numbers given by judges forming the majority is awarded the place.
5. Total Ordinal--If there is still a tie, then the ordinal numbers from all judges are added. The skater receiving the lowest total of ordinal points is awarded the place. 8
6. Total Points--If the Total Ordinal does not break the tie, the skater receiving the highest total number of points from all judges is awarded the place.
7. Total Marks in Figures--If the Total Points are tied also, the winner of the higher place is deter— mined by the skater receiving the highest sum of products for compulsory figures from all judges.
8. Total Marks for Technical Merit--If the Total Marks in Figures does not break the tie, the skater with the higher mark for technical merit from all judges is awarded the place.
9. If a tie still results, declare it so. If there is a tie for second place, there is no third place awarded and fourth place is the next place given. Duplicate trophies are to be awarded in case of a tie.
An example of this system of place determination is given in
Appendix I.
Judges must have amateur or restricted amateur statis in the USFSA. Judge appointments are given for low test, inter- mediate test, high test, national, international and world levels. In order to qualify for an appointment, candidates must summarize their qualifications (that is, actual figure skating experience and knowledge, judging experience, proper judicial temperament, judges' schools attended, age, etc.), be recommended by their club, and have an adequate trial judging record demonstrating ability to judge skaters at whatever level the candidate aspires to judge.(7’p‘119)
The USFSA list of judges is revised every year. If a judge has not judged two tests within the last year, he is deemed inactive and may be moved into the next lower classification for judging. Sufficient cause for removal or demotion would be partiality, consistent and repeated marking which indicates bias, 9 lack of ability, errors or marked divergencies, lack of judicial temperament, repeated actions unbecoming a judge, or ineligibility under the rules of the USFSA.(7’pp'121’122)
Figure Skating-~Professional
The International Skating Association, which holds the annual world professional skating championships, uses a method of judging quite different from the system used to evaluate amateur skaters.
In the international professional competition, only free skating routines are evaluated. Each of the five judges evaluates on a scale from zero to ten and each scores only one aspect of the performance. The five specific catagories evaluated are spins, jumps, steps, general performance and musical interpretation.
Each of the judges awards are then added together. The skater with the highest total points wins the competition. (99PP04EQA5966)
Roller Skating
The United States Federation of Amateur Roller Skaters
(USFARS), in co-operation with the Society of Roller Skating
Teachers (SRSTA) and the Roller Rink Operators Association of
America (RROAA), has produced the rules which govern amateur roller skating in the United States. The roller skating free skate championship is separate from the figure skating cham- pionship. In this section of the paper, the concern will be only with the free skating routine, the manner in which it is judged, and the way the placement of the skaters is determined.
It is interesting to note that when the USFARS was formed, it used the same rules as did the USFSA. Since then, however, research has been done and rules have been modified or changed 10 to better fit the sport of roller skating.(20)
The participants who skate in the national competition must first qualify at a state and/or regional meet. Qualification is determined by finishing in one of the top three places. If there are nine or more participants in a division in the national
competition, elimination rounds are held.(19)
The competitors skate their routine before a panel of five
or seven judges. The skater's number is announced. These judges
judge the performance in terms of content and manner of perfor— mance, each of which constitutes 100 of the total 200 possible points. Content includes variety and difficulty of the moves in the program. Form, virtuosity, interpretation, and arrangement constitute the manner of performance. There is no level of difficulty required, programs are not listed as they are for
tests, and there is no table for deductions for errors in exe- cution.(l9)
Judges convert their raw scores into ordinal numbers with the skater receiving the highest sum being awarded the ordinal one. If there is a tie, both skaters receive the ordinal of
the place in question and a place is skipped before announcing the next ordinal.(u)
Final placement of skaters is determined using the follow- ing rules: (4)
Rule 1 The HIGHEST OPEN PLACE shall be awarded to the skater with the lowest MAJORITY ORDINAL of the unplaced skaters.
Rule 2 If step 1 cannot be used to award the final placement and if two or more skaters have the same Majority Ordinal for the highest Open Place, then the skater or team with the lowest TOTAL MAJORITY ORDINAL shall be awarded the place in question. 11
Rule 3 (A) If two (only)skaters remain tied for application of step 2, then the original ordinals of the involved skaters or teams shall be set aside, and their sums (or ordinals) shall be re-ordinalled as if the involved skaters or teams had competed in a separate contest, and the place in question awarded to the skater with the greater number of ordinal 1's. Where THREE OR MORE skaters or teams have the same Majority Ordinal and Total Majority Ordinal and are therefore tied after rule 2, then go to rule A. (B) If a tie remains after re-ordinalling (3A), then the skater with the Lowest Total of Ordinals (from all judges) of the involved skaters shall be awarded the place in question.
(0) If a tie still remains between 2 teams after rule 5B, then the individual manner of performance of Singles shall be ordinalled for all judges of the involved skaters and the placement shall be awarded to the skater with the greater number of ordinal l's.
(CC) And if rule SC will not award the place, then the skater with the lowest total of ordinals of rule BC shall be awarded the place in question.
(D) If a tie still remains between 2 skaters after the foregoing rules, then the skater with the Highest Point Total of the involved skaters shall be awarded the place in question.
Rule 4 If THREE OR MORE skaters have the same Majority Ordinal and Total Majority Ordinal, then the original ordinals of all judges of the involved skaters shall be added for a TOTAL ORDINAL.
(A) The skater with the lowest total ordinal of the involved skaters shall be awarded the place in question.
(B) If 2 skaters are tied for Lowest Total Ordinal and one or more skaters have a higher ordinal total, then the skater with the Highest Total Ordinal shall be set aside or eliminated from consideration for the placement and the two skaters with the tied Lowest Total Ordinal shall be awarded the place in question after application of rule 5A.
Rule 5 (A) Should a tie occur which would affect the award- ing of a medal or which would throw the deter- mination of semi-finalist or finalist in doubt, 12
the skaters involved in the tie only shall re-skate under rules for their division and class of compe- tition.
(B) Skaters involved in ties not affecting the semi- final or final or medal place shall remain tied for the place involved.
(C) The results of any re-skating shall have no bearing on the placement of skaters not involved in the tie.
Judges for the USFARS may have either amateur or profes-
sional status. In a competition, however, the majority of judges
must hold amateur status. Amateurs are given first preference
when selecting judges. If amateurs are not available, then pro-
fessionals may judge. The professionals may not judge their own
students.(20)
In order to receive a commission which would enable one to
judge, the candidate must first join a judges panel advised by
either the rink operator or professional. The panel meets once
or twice a month for informal discussions to prepare judges for
commissions. Each panel helps to prepare the candidate for
taking the written commission examination and makes arrangements
for the candidate to take the skating proficiency test which
will enable him to judge tests or competitions at the level to
which he aspires. The panel also arranges for trial judging. If
the candidate receives a grade of 85 per cent or over on the formal
written examination; passes the proficiency test; and is accepted
by the panel, Operator, and panel advisor of his home rink, he is
granted his commission. This commission is automatically re-
newed every year as long as the judge remains active. There is
no difference between a professional judge and an amateur judge except the professional judge must be authorized by the SRSTA to 13
take the examination. The proficiency test requirement may be
waived for the professional candidates if circumstances in an
individual case should justify. Both the amateur and the pro-
(39PP°759769 fessional write the same formal commission examination. 78 80)
Synchronized Swimming
Amateur Athletic Union synchronized swimming competitions
are judged on preliminary routine,stunts,and final routine per-
formances. In the preliminary presentation of the routine, the
judges judge in terms of style and execution. The number of
participants is then limited to the top seven or ten competitors
depending upon the time available for additional judging. These
remaining competitors perform three compulsory and three cp-
tional stunts which are graded in terms of execution times dif-
ficulty. The preliminary routine score is then drOpped and the
competitors repeat their routines.(l’pp°7’12)
The final total score is composed of three parts: sum of
stunt scores, execution of the final routine, and style of the
final routine. From this total the referee subtracts his pen-
alties. (1.pp-12.13) The routine score contributes about 70 per
cent and the stunt scores, about 50 per cent to the final total
score. (Appendix III)(2h’p'lO)
Stunts are scored individually with an execution score from
one to ten given on each of the six stunts. The execution score
is multiplied by the difficulty rating for each stunt, then divided
by ten. The stunt score is then derived from the scores of the middle five judges.(l’p°l2)
The execution of the stunts is judged by the following principles:(l’p'lo) 14
"Stunts sho pld be executed and judged on the following principles: ,p.lO
A. The Starting Positions
1. Front Layout
8. Body extended b. Head and heels at the surface of the water c. Position of arms optional
2. Back Layout
a. Body extended b. Head (ears specifically) in line with body c. Face, feet, and thighs close to surface of water d. Position of arms optional
B. Basic Principles
1. Design
a. Horizontal body position b. Vertical body position--body extended, head in line with body Co Circle, starting at the surface
2. Control
a. Full body extension b. Smooth transitions within the stunt c. Compactness of tucks and pikes d. Confident, seemingly effortless execution e. PrOper elevation of body in relation to the surface of the water
C. Traveling
Stunts are to be performed in a relatively station- ary position unless otherwise called for in the rules.
D. A stroke may not be taken prior to the execution of the stunt."
Stunt marking is done on a scale from zero to ten in half points. The scoring is done as follows:(1’p°11) 15
"Very Good 9 - 10 At peak of grade; perfection with seemingly effortless performance.
Good 7 - ET Essentials of good technique are present. Design and controls are above satisfactory.
Satisfactory 5 - 6% Elements of required movements in execution of stunt are there. Control is mediocre.
Deficient 3 — 4% The stunt is executed but defi- ciencies are general throughout the performance.
Unsatisfactory )6 - 2% The stunt is merely recognizable. Faulty sequence of execution and major deficiencies in technique are present.
Completely Failed 0 Completely unrecognizable as the listed stunt."
"Breakdown of Stunt Competition Scoring(1’p'1l)
Design:
The vertical, horizontal, or circular lines, or combinations thereof from the starting to the finishing position in relationship to the water. (5 points)
Control:
Tightness of tucks--extension--confidence-— seemingly effortless execution--smooth transition within the stunt--proper elevation of the body in relation to the surface of the water. (Traveling is included in this section.) (5 points)"
Before the competition begins, a typewritten routine sheet to be used by the referee must be turned in. It must list in their order of performance five stunts chosen by the competitor.
The award for the difficulty of the routine is obtained from l6
averaging the degrees of difficulty of the five stunts. The
difficulty award cannot exceed 1.7 (1,p.9) The routines are judged
on execution and style with the following being used as a guide:(1’p'12)
"Execution Execution covers the performance of all stunts and strokes and/or parts thereof from the stand- point of perfection.
Style Style includes synchronization of the swimmers, one with the other and also with the accompani- ment; construction of the routine and inter- pretation of the accompaniment and theme of the routine by the utilization of stunts and strokes to form a flowing pattern; apprOpriateness and interpretiveness of costuming; manner of presen- tation; spectator appeal; and originality.
Breakdown of Style Scoring Team & Solo Duet l. Synchronization 2 points E points 2. Construction # points 3 points 3. Appropriateness, inter- A points 3 points pretiveness. . ., manner of presentation; spec- tator appeal; and originality"
No specific guide is used for deducting points for errors in the
execution of the stunts.(2h’p'12)
As in stunt judging, scores are awarded on the half point
scale from zero to ten for execution and style. The score for execution is figured by adding the middle three of five judges'
scores and multiplying that sum by the average degree of dif-
ficulty of the routine. However, the award for style is deter- mined by merely adding the middle three judges' scores. The
scores for execution and style are then added and from this sum
the referee subtracts any penalties. To this total is added the
award from the stunt competition. All numbers are carried out
four decimal places. The winner is the competitor with the 1? greatest number of points. If two competitors receive exactly the same number of points, the tie stands.(l’pp'l2’13)
The synchronized swimming judges may have either amateur or professional status. They must have passed through the following program before attaining a national rating.(2#)
l. A written test must be passed with a grade of 90 per cent or better.
2. A 20 stunt recognition test given at senior national competition must be passed with a grade of 90 per cent or better.
3. The examines must judge one junior national com- petition and trial judge two senior national meets.
h. The examines must then pass an oral examination of which part is judging and awarding scores for routine style and execution.
S. This rating must be renewed every two years by repeating steps one and two. If the rating expires for more than one year, the entire pro- cedure must be repeated.
Women's Gymnastics
The national Amateur Athletic Union women's gymnastic cham- pionship is decided on the basis of two performances. The first is the compulsory routine which everyone must perform; the second is an Optional routine. Both are judged on a scale from zero to ten in tenths of points.(5’pp'5’h)
Performances of the compulsory routine are judged solely on execution. After the first compulsory routine is performed, the judges confir so they have a common standard upon which to base the contest. The first performer then has the option of taking 18
the score from her first performance or repeating the routine
at the end of the compulsory competition and taking that score.
Each judge writes his score after each routine is performed.
Before the scores are flashed, the referee walks behind the
judges to make sure that there is not more than a
.3 difference among judges if the score is 9.0 - 10.0
.5 difference among judges if the score is 8.0 - 8.9
1.0 difference among judges if the score is below 8.0.
The judges are required to conform, then the scores are flashed.
The high and the low scores are then scratched and the middle
three scores are added. This is the judges' award for the com-
pulsory routine.(5’p°3)
The optional routine is evaluated using the following guideline:(5’P'“)
3 points for difficulty
2 points for composition (sequences) and technical value of the exercise (general value of the sequences and the difficulty)
5 points for execution and general impres- sion
"The optional exercise must contain five elements of dif-
ficulty, one of which must be of superior difficulty. For the
sake of general beauty of movement. . ., it is recommended not
to exceed this level. Io(59p'5) Although there is this required
level of difficulty to be included in the routine, there is no
where found a definition for the level of difficulty of the
stunts. The classification from the women's section of the
International Gymnastics Federation (FIG) Code of Points is only
to basic and international groupings. (17) 19
Composition is based upon the following principlesz(5’p'5)
"Any exercise showing force or strength is considered undesirable. Exercises showing swing must predom- inate.
Movements must be carried out in a continuous manner, without repetition, with original connections.
The entire exercise must have a technical value cor- responding to the level of competition. This tech- nical element as well as difficulty shall be adapted to the make up of each individual gymnast in order that the execution be free and graceful."
A table of penalties for faults in execution of moves is written and well defined. The actual penalties are as follows:(5’pp° 6.7) Small faults .l - .2
Medium faults .3 — .5
Serious faults .6 - up
The award for execution of the compulsory exercise is added
to the award given for the optional exercise. The performer with
the highest point total wins the competition. Tie scores stand.(16)
Five women judges are appointed by the Women's Technical
Committee. They must pass a written examination the day before
the competition begins. In addition, they must attend and practice
judging the demonstrations of the compulsory exercises on the various pieces of equipment. The exact manner for execution of the compulsory exercises is then discussed. (16)
Men's Big Ten Gymnastics-:1964-l965
The Big Ten gymnastics judging rules for men for the season
1964-65 were developed by Mr. George V. Bauer, the University of
Wisconsin gymnastics coach. The judging basically follows as closely as possible the International Gymnastics Federation 2O regulations. The scale ranges from zero to ten with the points distributed as follows:(ll’p‘1)
A. Composition (combinations) 1.6
B. Difficulty 3.4
C. Execution (performance- 5.0 presentation)
Judges 1 and 2 observe and rate the composition and difficulty
of the routine. The maximum score attainable for composition and difficulty is 5.0 points. Judges 3 and 4 observe execution
(performance and presentation) of the gymnast's routine. The maximum score attainable for execution is 5.0. The scores of the four judges are totaled, then divided in half to determine
the performer's score.(11’p'1)
The following procedure is used(11’p'lo)
1. One of the two composition-difficulty judges is
designated the superior judge by the host coach.
2. The scores of the two execution judges may not exceed
a difference of:
.2 of a point when the scores are between 4.5 and 5.0
.3 of a point when the scores are between 3.5 and 4.45
.5 of a point when the scores are between 2.0 and 3.45
1.0 point when the scores are between 1.0 and 2.0
When the execution judges scores do not fall within the above range, it is the responsibility of the superior judge to call a conference between the two execution judges to resolve the dis- crepancy in the range.
Composition
Composition is the ability of the gymnast to perform 21
specific types of moves in the event in a specified manner. Each
event has four compositional requirements, each valued at .4 of a
point. The requirements for the floor exercise are as follows:(11’p‘2)
1. Performance of tumbling feats. The tumbling must consist of two or more stunts in succession with at least one of them being "B" difficulty or better.
2. Performance of at least one strength feat of "B" difficulty or better. 3. Performance of feats (more than one) of balance, (inverted or otherwise).
4. Performance of a feat of suppleness.
For each one of these requirements which is not attempted, .4
is subtracted by the judge in figuring the award.
Difficulty
Each of the credited stunts has a classification with a
specific numerical value.(ll’p'3)
"A" stunts .2 of a point
"B" stunts .4 of a point
"C" stunts .6 of a point
To obtain the maximum score, the routine must be composed of at least eleven parts with the following sample as a minimum:(ll’p'4)
6 principle "A" parts
4 difficult "B" parts
1 of greater difficulty "C" part
The deductions for missing "A", "B", and "C" parts are as .4 follows:(11’p )
For each "A" part missing, deduct .2 of a point
For each "B" part missing, deduct .4 of a point
For each "C" part missing, deduct .6 of a point 22
If a "B" is substituted for a "C" or "A" is substituted for a "B" part, deduct .2 of a point
"A" parts cannot be substituted for "C" parts.
The gymnast starts out with a 3.4 difficulty rating. Points are
then deducted for parts missing or substituted. Difficulty
beyond the minimum required cannot increase the gymnast's dif- ficulty score. A part or connecting movement recognized as "A",
"B", or "C" difficulty will count only once within the sc0pe of
the routine. The movement may count two or several times pro- viding the part which precedes or follows it is of a different nature. When two moves are combined to make a "C" part in a routine, the combined moves shall have a value of only one of
the eleven parts.(11’p°h)
Execution
Execution is defined as form, smoothness, style, continuity, ingenuity, and aesthetic presentation of the gymnast's routine.
At the conclusion of the gymnast's performance, the deductions
for execution are subtracted from a score of 4.5 points. If the
presentation was highly artistic, free flowing, with unusual or original combinations, .1 to .5 points may be added to the gym- nast's score. The point value deductions for infractions are written out and well defined.(ll’p°6)
The reasons the Big Ten coaches voted to discontinue the use
of this system after the one-year trial period were that:
1. They felt with some judges judging one part of the
routine and some,another part, the idea of the unity
and over—all impression of the performance was lost.
2. They did not like the idea that all the judges' scores 25
counted; therefore, they voted back in the system
in which the high and low scores were drOpped and
the middle scores were averaged.
3. They felt a good judge was capable of judging the
entire routine effectively and with good results. (26)
At the national Amateur Athletic Union diving championships, contestants are required to qualify for entering diving compe- titions by being a finalist from the year before in either indoor or outdoor competition, being a finalist in the national inter- collegiate competition, or qualifying in the pre-qualifying meet held two days before the championship competitions start. The diver must qualify in the event in which he wishes to compete.(25)
Five required and six optional dives are performed by the competitors in the following sequence. All contestants perform the required front, back, and reverse dives, plus Optional inward and twist dives. The sixteen competitors with the top scores then perform the inward required dive and two Optional dives.
The field is out again, this time to twelve divers who perform the remaining half twist and two Optional dives. These divers then must choose their six Optional dives to cover each of the five types of dives.(25)
Judges are stationed on both sides of the pool if possible so as to have a profile view of each diver. They award scores on each dive ranging from zero to ten in half points. There are no standard deductions for errors in execution. Each dive is marked on the approach and hurdle, form in the air, and entry 24 into the water. The highest and lowest awards are deleted; then the middle three scores are added and multiplied by the degree of difficulty of the dive. The scores are carried out two decimal places. The degree of difficulty varies from 1.0 to
2.9. Scores for each of the twelve divers are added together.
The winner is the competitor with the highest score. Ties remain.(25)
To assign judges, a list of ten judges for the national championships are chosen by the Diving Chairman of the AAU.
The coaches then get together and if there are any of the judges to whom they object, they tell the Diving Chairman and that name is scratched from the list. Five judges who will judge the competition are then chosen by the Diving Chairman from the re- vised list. No rating is necessary. Professionals, as well as amateurs, may judge. A coach may judge his pupils if they are (25) competing.
Comparison Of Methods
of Judging
There is no system for the evaluation of difficulty in womenls gymnastics, roller skating or ice skating. However, a definite system exists for its evaluation in diving, synchronized swimming and men's gymnastics with seemingly good results. Given the level or degree of difficulty of different stunts or movements, all of the judges have the same basis from which to work and can more easily evaluate the performance.
In synchronized swimming, men‘s and women's gymnastics and diving, moves of certain difficulty are required. This gives the competitors a common base from which to work and also gives the 25 judges a guideline to help them evaluate the performance. The performer then knows precisely on what he is being evaluated and the judge knows exactly what to look for in evaluating the pro- gram. No such standard is present in roller or ice skating.
Although no sports except the men's gymnastics has a system for evaluating the composition of the program, all sports feel it is important and include it in the scoring. NO mention is made of how to measure it; whether it is in fact present or not; and if it is, to what extent it is present. Only men's gymnastics defines requirements for the composition of routines.
Only gymnastics, men's and women's, has a table of faults which gives infractions and penalties for them. This enables execution judges to award the scores consistently. It also pin points the infractions and penalties so the competitor can know exactly how much will be taken off for each fault, thus helping him to make a more thorough self-evaluation.
In all of the Sports compared except diving, the judge sees the routine without knowing what moves are going to be in the routine until he sees them performed. This means the judge must decide what the stunts are and how well they are performed. If the programs were written out, it would eliminate the need for this decision.
Of all the investigated sports, ice skating was the only one requiring their judges to hold an amateur standing. For compe- titions the majority of judges judging roller skating performances must hold amateur status and judges with amateur status are given first preference when choosing the panel, but professionals are commissioned and do judge when amateurs are not available. It is 26 felt, however, in the other sports that the professional has the best background and knowledge for judging performances. Profes- sionals may even judge their own students in synchronized swimming, women's gymnastics and diving. It is here that professional ethics play a large part.
To judge diving, no training is required. Judges are selected very carefully from among the most knowledgable men in the sport.
Women's gymnastics judges are selected in the same manner except the judges must pass a thorough written examination taken a day or two prior to the meet. The judges must also attend the discussion and demonstration sessions on the performance of the compulsory exercises.
Synchronized swimming, women's gymnastics and diving all
cancel the high and low scores given and either add or average the middle awards. Ice and roller skating, because of their or- dinal systems of scoring, use a complex system for determining placement starting with the majority ordinal. Synchronized swim- ming, diving and men's and women's gymnastics use raw scores for determining final placement. It is felt that each judge should be given equal voice in the determination of the winner. Also, judges can make the judgment of what the placement of the skater is, but not how much he is ahead of the skater below him or how much he is below the skater above him. The use of ordinals has made the deve10pment of an elaborate system necessary for break- ing ties. If raw scores are used, however, ties very rarely occur and when they do, they stand.
Figure and roller skating judges must trial judge, as well as
receive an appointment. In addition, the roller skating judge 27 must have passed the required proficiency test for the level he aspires to judge and must pass a written examination. Synchro- nized swimming judges must pass written and practical tests, must trial judge and must receive an appointment.
Since no rating is required in gymnastics or diving, there is no re-rating. In roller skating and figure skating, a judge keeps his rating if he remains active. However, the judge must be re— rated every two years for synchronized swimming.
Although the next two points do not have much bearing on the thesis, they are nevertheless interesting.
1. All the investigated sports except roller skating an-
nounced the name of the competitor before his performance.
2. It is not necessary to qualify for the synchronized swim-
ming or women's gymnastics national championships. TABLE 1
COMPARISON OF EVALUATION SYSTEMS
Men's Figure Roller Synchronized Women's Gymnastics, Swimmi ng Gymnastics Big Ten 1964-1965 Diving 312121.112. M
Evaluation of None None Degree of Basic and Level Degree of difficulty difficulty International difficulty
Required degree No No Yes Yes Yes Yes or level of difficulty
Evaluation of Nebulous Nebulous Nebulous Nebulous Yes 28 composition
Compositional Nebulous Nebulous Nebulous Nebulous Yes Yes requirements
Execution No No No Yes Yes No defined
Written program No No No No NO Yes available for judges
Competitor's name Yes No No - Stunts Yes Yes Yes announced Yes- Routine TABLE 1 CONTINUED
Men's Figure Roller Synchronized Women's Gymnastics, Skating Skating Swimming Gymnastics BigTenl 1964-1965 Diving
Judges' status Amateur Amateur Amateur or Amateur Amateur or Amateur or Pro. Professional or Pro. Professional or Pro.
Method of scoring Ordinal Ordinal Raw Raw Raw Raw and number of judges 3 of 5 3 of 5 5 of 7 3 of 5 All 4 3 of 5 Majority Majority Minus high Minus high Minus high ordinal ordinal and low and low and low
Method of Ordinals Ordinals Raw scores Raw scores Raw scores Raw scores breaking ties Complex Complex Ties stand Ties stand Ties stand Ties stand m) \f;
Requirements for T.J.* Wr. Prof.* Wr. Prac.* Wr.* None judges' ratings App't T.J. App't T.J. App't Pre-Comp.
Re-rating None if None if Every two None None requirements active active years
Able to judge No No Yes Yes Yes own students
Qualification Yes Yes No No Yes for nationals
*Wr. Written test Pr. Practical test T.J. Trial Judge App't Appointment Prof. Proficiency test Pre-Comp. Pre-competition test CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
Acquisition of Films
The free skating programs used in this study were acquired through the USFSA. The association maintains in its film library the programs of skaters finishing in the tOp three places in each of the senior divisions of competition: Senior Men, Senior Ladies,
Senior Pair, and Gold Dance. (18)
Selection of Skaters
The eight programs chosen for this study are from the national Senior Ladies division competitions between 1958 and
1963. All of the skaters placed in the top three of their divi- sion the year of their competition. The programs selected were from the most recent films available such that there are eight different girls skating programs. The names were purposely deleted from the films. The programs used were
1. Lynne Finnegan 3rd place 1958 2. Rhode Lee Michelson 3rd place 1961 5. Karen Knowland 5rd place 1965 h. Laurence Owens 5rd place 1960 5. Lorraine Hanlon lst place 1965 6. Stephanie Westerfield 2nd place 1961 7. Christine Haigler 2nd place 1963 8. Barbara Ann Roles 2nd place 1960
30 51
Selection of Judges
The judges selected to evaluate the free skating routines
were chosen because of their experience with the sport of ice
skating. All of them were either champion amateur skaters or
have students who are. The judges were
Walter H. Bainbridge, Jr. Gold Dance Champion 1947-49 Donald Jackson World Champion 1962 Carol Heiss Jenkins Olympic Gold Medalist 1960 Hayes Alan Jenkins Olympic Gold Medalist 1956 Beryl Williamson Western Canada Senior Ladies Champion
Testing Equipment
The equipment used included a 16 mm film projector, three
sample films, and eight test films with sound. Each film lasted
four minutes. The eight test films were spliced together for
ease of administration.
TestinggProcedure
The order the films were shown was determined by chance
before the films were spliced together. All five judges evalu-
ated the eight programs four different times in two sittings.
Before using the experimental system, the judges trial judged
three sample films. Three of the judges evaluated the programs using the Present then Present retest methods first; two of the
judges evaluated them using the Experimental then Experimental
retest methods first. The time between the two sittings varied
between 32 hours and two weeks depending upon the availability
“0 of the judges. After judging the films four times, the judges were asked to make a final subjective judgment as to the placement 52
of the skaters. The systems used were the Present system and the
Experimental system.
Present System
"Marking
A. Free skating is marked as follows: 1. For technical merit 2. For composition and style 5. The marks for each to be on the scale of O to 6 with the same significance as for compulsory figures. A. The final total score is obtained by add- ing the judges' awards for technical merit and for style and composition.
B. No movement shall be marked if marred by a fall. An involuntary touchdown shall be re- flected in the marking according to its serious— ness. A fall, in itself, is no bar to winning or passing. If a skater falls through his own fault, it must be reflected in the mark of technical merit and also in the mark for com- position and style of the program if thg gagl) interrupts the harmonious composition. ’
"The mark for technical merit represents a complete appraisal of the athletic elements of a skater's program and how well they are performed, and the mark for com— position and style represents a complete appraisal of the aesthetic elements and their degree of perfection. To put it another way, technical merit covers the tan- gible parts of a skater's program--the jumps, the spins, the dance steps—~and composition and style covers the intangibles--beauty of movement, expression, composition, etc.
The very best skaters will earn high marks in both categories. This method of marking makes it possible for a judge to differentiate by his marks between the skater who may be a good athlete, able to execute good jumps and spins and steps, but weak in expression and style, and the skater who presents a pleaigng gerfor- mance but is weak on athletic maneuversl' ’ °
"Technical Merit
A. Difficulty. Relative standards of difficulty should be applied to the program as a whole, and not merely to obvious highlights such as jumps with many revolutions (singly or in 35
sequence) and certain types of combinations of spins. A program so planned as to permit the skater to gather speed without visible effort (through dance steps, etc.) should be given a higher rating for difficulty than a similar program which employs running steps and other extreme pushing movements. A pro- gram in which transitions are smooth and har- monious should receive higher marks for dif- ficulty than a similar program in which the transitions are labored. A program planned and skated in time to the music should re- ceive a higher rating for difficulty than a similar program to which the music is inci- dental, provided all the above requirements are also met. Difficulty should be disre- garded where the attempted move is obviously beyond the skater's ability or is missed.
Variety. Variety should cover more than just the different types of figure variations, dance steps, spirals, spins, jumps, etc. It should also include changes of pace, changes of degree of lean on edges, changes of rhythm and accentuation of the beat within the limi- tations of the music, and also surprise moves. The use of many different jumps and spins does not in itself constitute variety.
Clearness and Sureness. The program is su- perior when the skater does not attempt movements beyond the skater's ability, and in the case of jumps attention should be given to a clean spring from a true edge to a clean landing without loss of control at the landing, and in the case of spins to a smooth beginning, good centering, and a sure and pleasing finish.
Composition and Style
A. General. Free skating programs should con- tain dance steps, jumps, spins, turns in the field (viz.: spirals, spread-eagles, compulsory figure variations, one-foot pro- gressions, etc.) Runs for the acquisition of speed should be avoided as much as pos- sible.
Harmonious Composition and Conformity with Music. Successive parts of the program should be linked together logically and naturally in an interesting and varied man- ner, and the program as a whole should be in conformity with the music chosen. It 34
should not give the impression of being a succession of isolated special moves.
C. Utilization of Space. Programs should cover the whole skating surface (normal indoor rink size), and high points should be placed in different locations and not concentrated in any one area of the ice surface.
D. Easy Movement and Sureness in Time to the Music. Everything angular, violent or stiff should be avoided. There should be no visible strong effort and the impression should be given that the entire program is executed with ease. So far as possible, the high points in the prOgram should be placed so as to coincide with the high points in the music chosen. Rhythm and easy movement in time to the music should be observed.
E. Carriage. The general carriage, except in planned positions, should be erect, but with- out stiffness. The head should follow out the line of the back. The free leg should be car- ried as gracefully as possible, moderately extended and controlled, without stiffness, knee and hip turned out, toe pointed down and out. It should swing freely to assist the movement, but at all times with control. The skating knee should be used with great flexi- bility, continuously straightening and bending to give that easy glide and effortless run that is the essence of skating. The arms should be held easily; like the free foot, they can be used to assist the movement. In general, they should be held out on a line with the waist of the skater. The elbows should be softly curved, never bent outward in 'akimbo' position, nor should the shoulders be raised. The hands should follow out the line of the arms, palms generally toward the ice, not being allowed to dangle, dr00p or curve sharply in a stereotyped or affected manner. The fingers should be held easily, not spread, clenched or held rigidly straight. Speed should be gained as incon- spicuously as possible and maintained without pumping the arms, bending from the waist, or scrambling with the feet."(7,pp.6-8)
Experimental System
The experimental judging system was based on a 12 point scale. Each judge gave scores for execution, composition, 35
style, and extra content. These awards were then added. The
twelve points were distributed in the following manner:
5 points for execution
3 points for composition
5 points for style
1 point for extra content
The penalty for not including the minimum level of difficulty in
the routine was subtracted from this sum to give the final total
score.
Points for errors in execution of moves were deducted from
the allotted five points. Errors were catagorized as major, medium, and minor. Table 2 presented below was used for calcu—
lating the execution penalties.
TABLE 2
PENALTIES FOR ERRORS
Minor Medium Major
01 ' 05 eh‘ " s6 07 " 100 Moves .2 .5 .8
Jumps Slight loss of Hand on ice Fall balance Cheat take off 2 foot landing Cheat landing Put 2nd foot down after landing
Spins Travel slightly Travel extensively Fall
Footwork Falter slightly Bad falter Fall
General Foot not pointed Trunk or torso or ---- Hands not extended head bent Arms or legs bent
The composition of the program received a possible three
points of the total twelve points. The three points were dis- tributed as follows: 56 5.2222
1.0 A. Variety of
1. Moves in program
2. Specific moves in relationship to the
unified whole program
5. Level
a. Moves performed close to ice
b. Moves performed standing
0. Moves performed leaving ice surface
1.0 B. Movement to music
1. Movement to rhythmic pattern
2. Movement to underlying beat
1.0 C. Unified whole program
1. Clear transitions
2. Use of entire ice surface
Three of the twelve points were also-allotted for the style of skating the program. This component is the most difficult to define and to judge. The judge decided the proportion of the three point award the skater earned in terms of the following criteria. Asia
5.0 A. Surprise moves
B. Sureness of edge, lean flow
C. Gathering speed without visible effort
D. Communication with audience--showmanship
E. Originality
For each level of competition, a different difficulty re- quirement would be used. The more advanced the skater, the 37 higher is the minimum level of difficulty required in the routine.
For the Senior Ladies routines in this study, the following mini- mum level was used. Level "A" is the easiest and "C", the most difficult. "B" and "C" moves may be substituted for "A" moves and "C" moves may be used instead of "B" moves in fulfilling the minimum level requirement.
Jumps Spins Footwork
2 level "A" 2 level "A" 4 level "A"
2 level "B" 2 level "B" 2 level "B"
5 level "C" 1 level "C" 1 level "C"
Table 5 on the following page lists jumps, spins, and foot- work with their levels of difficulty. The jumps and spins are self-explanatory except as used in combination. Combinations were purposely not dealt with in this thesis as the problems in- volved became very complex and need a solution unto themselves.
Footwork was not analyzed except as specifically performed in the free skating routines or as very generally listed in the table.
Programs were written out in brief form with moves in their respective order of performance (see Appendix 5). This paper was given to the judge before the routine was shown. Also given on the typed routine sheet were the annotations "A", "B”, or "C"
(denoting the level of difficulty of the move) in combination with
"J", "S", or "F" (denoting whether the move is a jump, spin, or piece of footwork). A program resume was also included to show the level of difficulty and distribution of the moves within the program. 58
TABLE 3
LEVEL OF DIFFICULTY
Jumps
Level A Level B Level C
Three Jump* Axel Double Flip Bracket Jump* One Foot Axel Double Loop Mohawk Jump* Split Flip Double Axel Half Flip Split Lutz Double One Foot Axel Mazurka Toeless Lutz Double Inside Axel Waltz Jump One Foot Lutz Reverse Axel Toe L00p Double Toe L00p Delayed Axel Lutz Double Half Loop Double Salchow** Stag Double One Foot Salchow Wally Double Toe Wally Back Split Double Lutz One Foot Salchow Double One Foot Lutz Half Split Lutz Double Toeless Lutz Toe Wally Split Toe Loop Toe Salchow (Flip) Choctaw Jump* Rocker Jump* Counter Jump* Half Lutz Bunny Hep Ballet Jump Salchow Loop Split Inside Axel **Move to Level B in Half Loop future studies.
Footwork
Mohawk Choctaw L00ps Mohawk Jump* Choctaw Jump* Series of A and B moves Three Turn Bracket performed quickly. Three Jump* Bracket Jump* Pick Steps Rocker Arabesque Rocker Jump* Lunge Counter Pivot Counter Jump* Drag Spread Eagle Spiral (Inside and Out) *Can be considered Cantilever either jumps or footwork. 39
TABLE 5 CONTINUED
Spins
Level A Level B Level C
One Foot Spin Flying Camel Layback Combination Forward and Back Flying Sit Camel Sit Camel Fake Crossfoot Camel Jump Camel Sit Change Sit Jump Sit Spin Crossfoot From Broken Leg Sit Spin Camel Forward and Two Feet Axel Sit Spin Back Layover Camel Camel Layback Camel Sit Spin Sit Change Sit Crossfoot Spin From One Standing Change Flying Camel, Foot Foot Jump to Forward Camel Layover Combina- Flat Foot Spin Sit tion Change Camel Layback Up-Down Spin Camel Sit Slow-Fast Spin Low Open Sit Spin Crossover Hold Spin Broken Leg Spin
40
Penalties for not meeting the minimum level standard are
For each "A" level move missing -.2
For each "B" level move missing -.4
For each "C" level move missing -.6
The total penalty is subtracted from the final raw score.
If the difficulty of jumps, spins, and/or footwork within the program is outstanding, the judge may award all or a portion of the one remaining point. The judge makes the award for out— standing, difficult moves above and beyond the minimum level required.
The judge then adds the marks he has given the skaters for execution, composition, style, and extra content and subtracts the penalty for not fulfilling the required minimum level. This total is the score for each individual judge. The raw scores are then totaled for all five judges. The skater with the highest total number of raw-score points is declared the winner. If a tie occurs, the skaters will remain tied and the next place will be omitted.
Determination of Final Placement
Using the Rho correlation, the reliability of the experi- mental and present systems was checked. A final placement com- posite ultimate criterion was then established based upon the retest of both the present and the experimental systems. With this composite ultimate criterion, the validity of the two systems was compared. Also tested was whether it was better to use raw or ordinal scores and whether all five, top three, bottom three or middle three judges were best to use in deter- mining final placement. CHAPTER IV
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Analysis of the Data
Determination of the Composite Ultimate Criteria
After the raw data was collected under each of the four con-
ditions: experimental test, experimental retest, present test, and
present retest, the data was analyzed to determine which system
was most reliable and which system was more valid. It was also
the purpose of the study to determine what number and combination
of judges was most competent in the determination of final place-
ment. Placement was determined using each of #1 methods. These
methods were combinations of the present or experimental systems
or subjective rating, raw or ordinal scores, and placement deter-
mined by using either the t0p three judges, middle three judges,
bottom three judges, all five judges, or a majority ordinal
system. The ordinal numbers each skater received from all methods
were then added and a composite ultimate criteria drawn. The
skater receiving the lowest total points was awarded first place.
Rho correlations were then computed, (lO,p.12#) comparing each in-
dividual method of scoring to the composite ultimate criteria. (See Appendix 5).
Reliability
Reliability of the methods was first tested. Rho correlations Al 42 were computed. (See Appendix 5). The average rho for all present method combinations was .985; whereas, the average rho for the experimental method combinations was .919. Thus it was found that the present system was more reliable than the experimental system using the test-retest method. This is understandable as the judges were not so accustomed to working with the experimental system.
Validity
To determine which method of scoring was more valid, each system's retest average rho scores based upon both the rank and raw scores were compared to the composite ultimate criteria. The average rho for the present system was .974; while the average rho for the experimental system was .952. This is possibly explained because the weighting given difficult moves and the penalties given for errors in execution were not equal in both systems.
Number and Combination of Judges
After determining that the present system in this case was a more reliable and a more valid measure, judgment had to be made as to whether it was better to take the scores of the top three judges, the bottom three judges, the middle three judges, all five judges, or if ordinal numbers should be used. The average rhos for the combined present and experimental systems raw and rank scores are as follows:
T0p three judges .926
Middle three judges .985 Bottom three judges .988 All five judges .987 Majority Ordinal (USFSA) .952 ordinal scores only #3
From this we can see that either the bottom three scores or scores from all five judges agree best with the composite ultimate cri- teria. It would seem, however, that if the bottom three scores were a good measure, the top three scores would also be good.
Further research is necessary in this area. The USFSA method for determining placement has a relatively low correlation with the composite ultimate criteria.
Placement Determined by Bank or Raw Scores
It was further noted that the agreement of scores against the composite ultimate criteria was greater using the raw scores (Rho = .986) than the rank scores (Rho = .981). It should be especially noted that with the use of scores of all five judges, the average rho was the highest.
Summary
Thus, it was shown that the most competent measure in terms of agreement with the composite ultimate criteria was using the present system of judging, the second time the program was viewed, and taking the raw scores from all five judges or the bottom three judges. This is further substantiated by the Rho correlation, for both the bottom three judges and all five judges were .97#, which is very high. There was only one individual example of a higher rho--although some others were equal. CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
A great deal of time, energy, and money is put into the training of a competitive skater. Although they have gone through a rigorous training program, the judges who evaluate these skaters cannot judge to the precise degree expected of them because the evaluation system they are using does not measure as accurately as might be desired.
It was the purpose of this study to deve10p and to test an objective evaluation system for judging free skating routines.
The methods for determining final placement of competitors were also analyzed.
The author was unable to find any research done in the area of free skating evaluation systems. Therefore, judging systems for related sports were analyzed and then compared.
An objective system was developed, tested, and compared to the present system for evaluating free skating routines. Films of eight of the most recent available Senior Ladies free skating programs were acquired from the USFSA film library. These were on 16 mm sound film. The five judges were chosen for their ex- perience in the sport of ice skating either as a competitor or
41+ 1+5 as a coach. Each of the five judges evaluated all eight pro- grams four times in two different sittings. Before using the experimental system, the judges trial judged the three sample films. Three of the judges evaluated the programs using the present, then present retest methods first; the other two used the experimental, then experimental retest methods first. The time between the two sittings varied between 32 hours and two weeks depending upon the availability of the judges. The judges also made a final subjective judgment after the four viewings of the films as to the final placement of the skaters.
Final placements of skaters were compared using both present and experimental systems, raw and ordinal scores for all five judges, the tOp three judges, the bottom three judges, and the middle three judges. The USFSA method of determination of final placement was also included in the comparison. Conclusions were then drawn from the data collected.
Conclusions
The following conclusions have been derived from this study:
1. The present test and retest methods of evaluating skaters
are more reliable than the experimental test and retest
methods. This was to be expected.
2. The present method is more valid.
5. The present method is a more competent method than the
experimental method with the application of the experi-
mental weighting assigned in this study. Perhaps another
experimental weighting should be tried. 46
If only three judges are to be counted, the bottom
three are better than either the t0p or middle three.
In fact, the top three were the worst.
However, counting all five judges was just as good as
considering the bottom three.
The USFSA method is not adequate.
Raw scores are better than rank scores for determining
the placement of the skaters.
The best over-all method to use would be the present sys-
tem considering the bottom three or all five judges‘ raw
scores. In checking, a rank order correlation of .974
was found for both of these with the composite ultimate
criteria.
Recommendations
Based on the foregoing conclusions, the writer makes the following recommendations for further study:
1. This study should be repeated using the same minimum
requirement, but placing the double salchow at level "B"
instead of level "C". This would slightly increase the
minimum standard for jumps.
The judges should be required to complete an entire
training program and rejudge the films using the ex-
perimental system before beginning the actual experi-
ment. Possibly not telling them that it was a training
program would keep them from being impatient.
Clarifications need to be made in the table of errors, 1+7
making it more specific. The penalties for errors in
execution should be changed to:
Minor error .2 point penalty
Medium error .9 point penalty
Major error .6 point penalty
A better method to evaluate style needs to be developed.
A more elaborate system should be developed for evalu-
ating the difficulty of footwork. This might possibly
be derived from Mary Maroney's "Maroney Skating Ladder".(1a)
Additional score data from national and sectional com-
petitions should be evaluated to determine which scoring
system-~raw or ordinal--is better to use in assigning
the final placement of the competitors. This data can
also be used to decide what number of judges' scores
should be included in determining this placement.
When the proper weighting has been determined for all
areas, a study with specialization of judges should be
tried. Two judges would judge style and composition;
two judges would judge execution and extra content;
and one judge could check that the minimum level re—
quirements were met in all areas.
8. A study should be conducted with experienced national
judges using the system. APPENDIX I
Placement Determination for
Roller Skating
A .79. .13..__¥._ __C_ _.)_L __D_ _w 3.". Judge 1 1 9 2 4 1 6 2 6 2 5 l 6 5 10
Judge 2 l 4 5 2 l 3 2 6 1 8 2 6 9 10
Judge 3 7 2 4 3 l 6 2 8 2 1 l 5 9 10 Judge 4 1 6 4 10 2 4 1 1 6 2 e 2 9 Judge 5 7 1 5 s 2 2 1 3 1 6 2 5 9 9
Majority Ordinal l 4 4 4 4 6 6 6 9 10
Total Majority Ordinal 7 9 9 9 l2 12 16
Total Ordinal 18 27 21
Place 1 2 5 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
By Rule 1 2 4a 3a 1 5a 2 1 l 1
let Place "A"--Rule l--Lowest MO of unplaced skaters or teams. 2nd Place Four skaters or teams (ZBYC) have the same low M0 for place in question. When (Rule 2) Th0 were assigned, Z had the lowest TMO and was awarded highest Open place by Rule 2.
3rd Place Three skaters or teams (BYC) have same MO and TMO so we must go to rule 4 to break the 5—way tie (or break it down to a tie between 2) of the above skaters or teams, and B was awarded the place in question with LTO (Rule 4A) of the involved skaters.
4th Place 2 teams only (Y and C) have same MO and TMO so rule 1
48 49
and 2 cannot be applied; we must try to apply rule 5A. By application of rule 3A, skater or team Y was awarded the place in question by having a greater number of 1's over skater C.
5th Place C--Rule l--lowest MO.
6th Place 5 teams (XDW) have same M0 for place in question, after applying rule 2 there are 2 teams (XD) with the low TMO, and therefore we must apply rule 3A, and after applica- tion of 3A the place in question was awarded to X, who had three l‘s against two 1's of D.
7th Place 2 teams (D and W) have same M0 for place in question and by applying rule 2 the place was awarded to D with lowest TMO.
8th Place 9th Place were placed by rule 1. 10th Place 50
APPENDIX II Michigan A.A.U. Age Group TEAM, DUET, AND SOLO Competition
MASTER SCORE SHEET FOR SYNCHRONIZED SWIMMING CONTESTS
[TEAM ] DUET f SOLO J ORDER MARK x ACROSS PROPER SQUARE
TEAM REPRESENTING PLACE No. on TEAM Names:
TITLE OF MEET MEET LOCATION 1.
2.
3 THEME DAY MONTH YEAR 4.
5.
6. TITLE OF RECORD NAME AND NO. OF RECORD OR
7. DENOTE ORIGINAL 8.
NAME OF STUNT, STROKE OR HYBRID MARK DEGREE IN ORDER OF EXECUTION COMP OF X DIFF places)
the
of 1.7
decimal multiples
four exceed
to
difficulty
to
not difficulty
(Figure
average
of
at
allowed
sum
(5)
5
arrive
to
routine
by Average Divide
JUDGE NO. TRIALS 4 5 Total X Average Difficult AWARDS FOR EXECUTI AWARDS FOR STYLE BONUS POINTS
PENALTIES STUNT SCORE SCORE IN TRIALS
JUDGE NO. FINALS 2 3 4 5 Total X Average Difficulty AWARDS FOR EXECUTION fl AWARDS FOR STYLE fl
BONUS POINTS PENALTIES STUNT SCORE
SCORE IN FINALS
APPENDIX 111
Example of Figure Skating
Placementg§ystem
Total Total Judges Total Total Figure Technical Skater V _fl__X Y _Q Ordinals Points Marks Merit Place
A 1 6 4 l 1 l5 1 B 10 l l 2 6 20 2 C 2 2 2 6 5 15 5 D 5 5 6 5 10 25 4 E 5 7 6 4 4 26 108.9 5 F 4 4 6 5 7 26 107.5 440.6 6 G 6 5 5 7 5 26 107.5 452.9 7 H 9 8 ll 10 8 46 104.9 427.5 24.7 8 I 8 9 10 8 ll 46 104.9 427.5 24.1 9 J 7 10 12 9 9 47 10 K 12 12 8 ll 2 45 11 L 11 ll 9 12 12 55 12
A is the winner because he has received a majority for first place.
B is second because, while both B and C have received a majority of second places (B's first places being counted as seconds in calcu- lating the majority), B's total of the ordinals constituting the majority are 2 plus 1 plus 1 or 4, while C's similar total is 2 plus 2 plus 2 or 6.
C is third because he is the only remaining skater after a broken tie for second place.
D is fourth because he is the only skater with a majority of fourth places.
E is fifth because, although E, F, and C have each received a majority for fifth place, have the same number of fifth place or- dinals, have the same total ordinals from the Judges constituting the majority and have the same total ordinals from all five judges, E has the highest number of total points from all Judges, 108.9.
F is sixth because, although F and G are the remaining skaters after a broken tie for fifth place and must be awarded the succeeding
51 52
places, F and C have the same majority for fifth (5), the same total ordinals of the Judges forming the majority (15), the same total ordinals of all the Judges (26), the same total of points from all the Judges (107.5), but F has the higher total of marks for compulsory figures before dividing by the free skating factor.
G is seventh because he is the only remaining skater after a bro- ken tie for sixth place.
H is eighth because, although no skater has a majority of eighth place ordinals, H, I, and J have a majority for ninth place, have the same number of ninth place ordinals, and have the same total of ordinals from the Judges constituting such majority. J drops from consideration since he has an ordinal total of 47 compared to H and I with an ordinal total of 46. H and I have the same total points, and the same total of points for compulsory figures only, but H has the higher total of marks for technical merit only, 24.7 vs 24.1.
I is ninth because, although I and J are the remaining skaters after a brbken tie for eighth place and must be awarded the succeeding places, both I and J each have a majority of ninth place ordinals, have such ordinals from the same number of Judges and the same total ordinals from the Judges constituting this majority, but I has the lower total of ordinals from all five Judges, 46 vs. 47.
J is tenth because he is the only remaining skater after a broken tie for ninth place.
K is eleventh because, although both K and L have a majority of ordinals for eleventh place, have such ordinals from the same num- ber of Judges (5), K has a lower total of ordinals from the Judges constituting such majority, 21 vs. 51.
L, being the remaining skater, is twelfth. APPENDIX IV
TEST PROGRAM CONTENT
Program 1 Prom
CJ Double salchow AF Footwork CJ Double flip CJ Double loop BJ Axel CJ Double salchow CS Flying camel, jump, sit spin AF Footwork AF Footwork BJ Double toe loop BJ Axel AJ Split jump AF Footwork BJ Axel BF Footwork BF Footwork BJ Double toe loop BS Camel layover AS Sit spin AF Back pivot AF Crossover hold AF Spiral combination AF Footwork AF Arabesque BS Layback spin AF Footwork AF Arabesque variation BS Spin, change, back spin AJ Walley CJ Double axel CJ Double loop CJ Double axel AJ Lutz AF Lunge BF Footwork AF Spiral combination AS Spin CJ Double lutz AJ Split AF Footwork BJ Axel CS Camel, layback, camel BS Flying sit spin BJ Axel AJ Mazurka BJ Double salchow BJ Walley, walley BS Layback, spin
Level/Moves Jumpg Spins Footwork Level/Moves Jumps Spins Footwork A 5 2 5 A 2 0 9 B 2 2 2 B 4 5 1 C 3 1 0 C 4 1 0 54
APPENDIX IV CONTINUED
Program 5 Program 4
AJ 5/4 axel AJ Mazurka variation
11 Stag AJ Front stag CJ Double lutz BJ Split lutz BS Flying camel, layover AF Spiral BF Footwork CJ Double salchow C Double salchow AJ Stag C U Camel variation CJ Double lutz AF Footwork AF Footwork BJ Split toe loop AF Back spiral BJ Double toe loop CJ Double loop CJ Double axel CS Layback and reverse layback AJ Walley variation CJ Double flip AF Back arabesque AF Spiral combination AJ Waltz jump '1 J. Inside spread eagle BJ Axel 35 Layback CJ Double axel AJ Mazurka AF Footwork CJ Double loop AJ Mazurka BJ One foot axel AF Footwork BF Footwork BJ Double toe loop CS Flying sit spin BS Flying camel, layover AJ Split, split BF Footwork BF Footwork BS Camel Spin variation BJ Double toe lOOp AF Back pivot, layback BJ Axel CJ Double flip BJ Axel \ I“ :5 Spread eagle, open loop 0 Axel sit spin AF Drag AF Footwork AF Arabesque BS Back spin, cross foot AF Split, split BJ Walley, walley CS Jump, sit spin
Level/Moves Jumps Spins Footwork Level/Moves Jumps Spins Footwork
A 5 0 4 A 7 0 9 B 4 5 5 B 4 5 2 C 5 2 0 C 5 2 O 55
APPENDIX IV CONTINUED
Prograg:5o Program 6
AJ Split 1/2 loop BJ Axel BJ Split flip AF Arabesque BS Travel camel into camel, CJ Double axel layback AF Footwork AF Arabesque AJ Flip BJ Double toe loop BS Flying camel, jump, sit spin BF Footwork BF Footwork BS Layback AJ Three jump AF Footwork CJ Double salchow AJ Flip AF Footwork CJ Double flip AF Back spiral BF Footwork BF Spread eagle, in and out CS Camel variation BJ Double toe loop AF Footwork AF Arabesque AJ Salchow AJ Loop AJ Bunny hop AF Back pivot BJ Axel BF Footwork BS Flying camel, sit spin CJ Double axel AF Footwork CS Axel sit CS Axel sit spin BF Ina Bauer spread eagle AJ Mazurka CJ Double salchow BF Footwork AF Drag AS Spin variation AS Back camel spin AJ Split jump AF Drag BS Spin, change crossfoot spin BF Footwork BJ Axel AJ Walley AJ Split jump AJ Toe loop split BJ 1/2 flip, 1-1/2 toe loop, double salchow AS Spin
Level/Moves Jumps Spins Footwork Level/Moves Jumps Spins Footwork A 6 l A 5 2 5 B 5 4 3 B 3 1 5 C l 2 0 C 2 l 0 56
APPENDIX IV CONTINUED
Program_] Program 8
CF Footwork AJ Mazurka AJ Split toe loop BF Footwork BJ Axel AJ Closed waltz jump BS Camel layover Footwork CJ Double salchow BJ Double toe loop AF Footwork BF Footwork CJ Double loop BJ Inside split BF Footwork Footwork AJ Split toe loop CJ Axel, double loop BJ Double toe lOOp BJ Walley, walley, walley BF Spread eagle combination AF Footwork BS Camel, spin, camel CJ Double flip AF Inside spread eagle variation BJ Axel AF Back pivot CJ Double axel AF Footwork BS Camel variation, bent leg AJ Flip BF Footwork CS Sit spin, up and down CS Camel combination AF Spiral AF Footwork BS Layback AF Mazurka, drag AF Footwork CF Fussian loop footwork AF Footwork CS Axel sit spin AJ l/2 loop BS Flying camel BJ Double salchow AF Arabesque BF Footwork BF Footwork AS Spin AF Spiral Footwork AF Drag BF Ina Bauer spread eagle CS Layback combination BS Flying camel AJ Lutz AF Footwork AF Back spiral AJ Split BS Layback combination BJ Axel AJ Split jump AJ 1/2 flip CJ Double loop CJ Double salchow CS Jump sit spin, spin
Level/Moves Jumps Spins Footwork Level/Moves Jumps Spins Footwork A 4 1 8 A 5 0 7 B 2 4 4 B A 5 4 C 2 l 1 c 5 4 l APPENDIX V
RHO CORRELATIONS
Reliability
Present 1 vs. Experimental 1 vs. Present 2 Experimental 2
Composite raw .974 .974 Composite rank .974 .877 Composite rank and raw 1.000 .905 Average Rho .985 .919
Validity
Present 2 vs. Experimental 2 vs. Composite Ultimate Composite Ultimate Criterig, Criterig
Raw .974 ~97lt Rank .974 0929 Raw and rank .974 .952 Average Rho .974 .952
Competency
Where: Pr = Present; Ex = Experimental; CUC = Composite Ultimate Criteria.
Top 5 Pr2 and Ex2 Top 5 Pr2 vs. CUC vs. CUC
Raw ~952 -929 Rank .905 ~905 Raw and rank .929 .955 Average Rho .929 .925
Top 5 Grand Average Rho .926 Top 3 Ex2 vs. CUC (raw) .929
57 58
APPENDIX V CONTINUED
Middle 5 Pr2 and Middle 5 Pr2 Ex2 vs. CUC vs. CUC
Raw 1 e 000 097,4’ Rank .974 .961 Raw and rank 1.000 .974 Average Rho .991 .970
Middle 5 Grand Average Rho .985 Ex2 vs. CUC (raw) .974
Bottom 5 Pr2 and Bottom 5 Pr2 Ex2 vs. CUC vs. CUC
Raw .989 .974 Rank 1.000 .974 Raw and rank 1.000 .989 Average Rho .996 .979
Bottom 5 Grand Average Rho .988 Ex2 vs. CUC (raw) .974
All 5 Pr2 and All 5 Pr2 Ex2 vs. CUC vs. CUC
Raw 1.000 .974 Rank 1.000 .974 Raw and rank 1.000 .974 Average Rho 1.000 .C74
Grand Average Rho .987 Exg vs. CUC (raw) .994
USFSA
Exg and Pr2 vs. CUC Rank .994
Pro vs. CUC Rank .929 Ex vs. CUC Rank .952
59
APPENDIX V CONTINUED
Raw Scores
Present 1 .948 All 5 .974 Present 2 .965 Top 5 .916 Experimental 1 Bottom 5 .945 Experimental 2 .968 Middle 5 .965
Raw
All Pr2 and Ex2 vs. CUC 1.000 All Pr2 vs. CUC .974 All Ex2 vs. CUC .974 Pr2 and Ex2 vs. CUC (A11 5) .994 Pr2 vs. CUC (All 5) .974 Ex2 vs. CUC (All 5) .994 Average Rho .986
Rank
All Pr2 and Ex2 vs. CUC 1.000 All Pr2 vs. CUC .974 All Ex2 vs. CUC .929 Pr2 and Ex2 vs. CUC (All 5) .974 Pr2 vs. CUC (All 5) .974 Ex2 vs. CUC (All 5) .952 Average Rho .981
60
APPENDIX V CONTINUED
SYSTEMS VS. COMPOSITE ULTIMATE CRITERIA
Rho Values
§18t€E; Raw Scores Rank Scores
Present 1 All 5 .974 .961 TOP 5 ~929 .929 Bottom 5 ~85} -970 Middle 5 .952 .929 USFSA -- .929 Composite .952 .929
Present 2 All 5 .974 .974 Top 5 -929 .905 Bottom 5 .974 .974
Middle 5 097’" .961 USFSA -- .929 Composite .974 .974
Experimental 1 All 5 .952 .929 TOP 3 .877 .899 Bottom 5 .970 .929 Middle 5 .952 .921 USFSA -- .952 Composite .952 .929
Experimental 2 All 5 .994 .952 Top 3 .929 .881 Bottom 5 .974 .974 Middle 5 .974 .889 USFSA -- .952 Composite .974 .929
Subjective Rating All 5 .961 Top 3 .805 Bottom 5 .974 Middle 5 o989 USFSA -974 Composite .974
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
Amateur Athletic Union of the United States. Official Synchronized Swimming Handbook. U.S.A.: Amateur Athletic Union, 1965.
Lindsay, Sally. Figure Skating. Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1965.
Roller Skating Rink Operators Association. Roller Figure and Free Skating. Fourth Edition. Detroit: Roller Skating Rink Operators Association of America, 1962.
Roller Skating Rink Operators Association. What's the Score? Detroit: Roller Skating Rink Operators Association of America, 1954.
Technical Committee, Women's Section of the International Gymnastics Federation. Code of Points. U.S.A.: Amateur Athletic Union, 1964.
United States Figure Skating Association. The Official USFSA Competitions Annual 1965. Boston: United States Figure Skating Association, 1965.
United States Figure Skating Association. USFSA Rulebook. 1965 Edition. Boston: United States Figure Skating Association, 1965.
United States Figure Skating Association Revision Committee. Evaluation of Errors in Figures. Fifth Edition. Boston: 1959- WiWorthy Contest for Paid Skaters", Winter Sports. (London) pg. 44.
10. Garrett, Henry E. Statistics in Psychology and Education. Fifth Edition. New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1964.
61 62
Unpublished Material
ll. Bauer, George. "Big Ten Gymnastics Judging Rules for Men 1964-65".
12. "Judges Training School Manual". Detroit Skating Club, November, 1962.
15. The Judging Standards Committee of the United States Figure Skating Association. "The Marking of Free Skating".
14. Maroney, Mary. "Maroney Skating Ladder". Private Printing,
U.S.A.’ 1966.
Interviews
15. Bainbridge, Walter. Professional, East Lansing Figure Skating Club, East Lansing, Michigan. February 25, February 25, 1966. Judge for this study.
Bowers, Carolyn. Women's Gymnastics Coach, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. October 5, 1966-
17. Carter, Ernestine. Women's Gymnastics Coach, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. February 4, 1966.
18. Ellis, Robert Y. United States Figure Skating Association Business Manager, Boston, Massachusetts. February 9, 1966.
19. Eng, Herbert. Roller Skating Rink Operators Association Staff Member, Detroit, Michigan. January 14, 1966.
20. Irwin, Robert. Roller Skating Rink Operators Association Member, Chicago, Illinois. August 25, 1966.
21. Jackson, Donald. Professional, Ice Follies, Oshawa, Ontario, Canada. February 19, February 20, 1966. Judge for this study.
22. Jenkins, Carol heiss. Olympic Gold Medalist 1960, Women's Figure Skating. February 20, March 5, 1966. Akron, Ohio. Judge for this study.
25. Jenkins, Hayes Allen. Olympic Gold Medalist 1956, Men's Figure Skating. February 20, March 5, 1966. Akron, Ohio. Judge for this study.
24. Mason, Donna, Coach of the Lansing Sea Sprites, girls' synchro- nized swimming team, Lansing, Michigan. January 6, 1966.
25. Narcy, John. Men's Diving Coach, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. April 15, 1966. 63
Szypula, George. Men's Gymnastics Coach, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. March 2, 1966.
Williamson, Beryl. Western Canada Senior Ladies Champion and Professional, East Lansing Figure Skating Club, East Lansing, Michigan. February 25, March 2, 1966. Judge for this study.
28. Wright, Benjamin. Chairman, Rules Drafting Committee of the United States Figure Skating Association, Belmont, Massa- chusetts. February 26, 1966.