System Fg'r Juqgeng Ene Skating Routmes
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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 M .. g“; " dun ‘. " . u.’ "' Inna/1mm???)my???“unmwuummm ‘2‘ ..._*t I \ . "Rig: 28 o 2093 , J" --'-. - 1 ’ - f‘ 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 Mr. Montgomery Wilson 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.