The Tea-Time Foxtrot: An In-Depth Analysis

The 2019-20 season in figure skating has officially come to an abrupt end, and even though this is a season that did not conclude in the greatest of circumstances, I'd like to look back at something I found particularly interesting this season: the introduction of the Tea-Time Foxtrot as a competitive pattern dance. This dance, the required pattern every junior couple had to execute during their rhythm dance, was expected to be quite the challenge, as it features many difficult turns for each partner and unusual partnering that a couple with limited experience may struggle with. It's a dance that my coaches have actually described as more of a step sequence than a pattern, partly because it is much more compact than some other dances in which the couple seems to fly down the length of the ice. Considering this dance was essentially created as a step sequence, this makes a whole lot of sense.

So, while I have the time, I thought I would take a look at how teams faired with this dance. I looked back at the scores and levels (for both sections of the dance) for every team who competed at a Junior Grand Prix event, the Youth Olympic Games, or the Junior World Championships. I'd like to see if there's a difference between how well each team did in the first half of the dance (Section 1) and the second (Section 2). I also want to see how often teams are getting each level, and the grades of execution that are being awarded to them from the judging panel. Let's see how the teams did this year with the pattern.

Background

Pattern dances are a staple in the testing and competitive structure of ice dancing, and have been a requirement for junior and senior couples to do within their short dance (now called the rhythm dance) since the 2010-11 season. After the 2014 Olympic season, a new element was introduced to the senior short dance, this being the partial step sequence. In this element, couples would essentially create their own pattern dance, staying in hold and traveling counter clockwise around the ice. While in the first season, levels for this element were based on the execution of repeated steps from the required paso doble pattern, the rules changed for the 2015-16 season so that levels would be determined largely by the execution of difficult turns and steps, choreographed by the couple. This meant that couples had nearly complete freedom to put together their own steps for this element.

That season, Natalia Kaliszek and Maksym Spodyriev of Poland performed their partial step sequence to a foxtrot rhythm, and the ISU liked it so much that they decided to make it a pattern dance that all couples would be able to do. This dance, of course, is the Tea-Time Foxtrot. This is one of three new dances the ISU recently decided to introduce, the others being Piper Gilles and Paul Poirier's Maple Leaf March from the same season and Jayne Torvill and Christopher Dean's Rhumba D'Amour from the 1993-94 season. Initially, the plan was to introduce all three of these dances at some point during the four seasons leading up to the 2022 Olympic Games, but given that the patterns from this past season are now being reused for the 2020-21 season, it's unclear how soon we'll be seeing these other dances.

Even though the Tea-Time was created for a senior team that placed 14th in the short at the 2016 World Championships, this dance was required for all junior couples to perform. This is because Kaliszek and Spodyriev are still competing, and making this dance a requirement at the senior level would obviously give them an unfair advantage. As a result, this dance became a real challenge for the juniors. There are several couples who struggled to maintain the timing of the dance, potentially finishing the pattern two to four beats later than they should, or even more. Also, given the nuanced nature of the dance's timing, it's very difficult to tell when to pick up the dance after a timing issue or an interruption, leading to even more issues with timing. While this certainly wasn't the case for every couple, it wasn't a walk in the park for anyone. Here's how it went down.

Level 4s

There were 14 couples who received a level 4 for the first section (essentially the first half) of the Tea-Time. Their scores are compared here to the benchmark values for grade of execution. For example, a score of 6.55 means the couple got an average GOE mark of +2.

For the second section, only three couples received a level 4, each of them only achieving it once.

81 couples competed across the entire Junior Grand Prix series, the Youth Olympics, and the Junior World Championships this past season. Altogether, that's 170 performances of the Rhythm Dance. Across these competitions, a level 4 was achieved in the first Section of the dance by 14 couples, an overall total of 17 times. The three couples to get a level 4 twice during the season were Elizaveta Shanaeva and Devid Naryzhnyy, Avonley Nguyen and Vadym Kolesnik, and Diana Davis and Gleb Smolkin. In the second Section, only three teams achieved a level 4, each of them achieving it only once. Just two teams, Shanaeva and Naryzhnyy and Katarina Wolfkostin and Jeffrey Chen, received a level 4 for both Sections in the same performance.

The scores of all the level 4 Sections range from 6.78 to 5.65, with all of them receiving positive grades of execution. Nguyen and Kolesnik have the highest-scored section out of these couples, achieving it in Section 1 of the of the pattern at Junior Worlds. Five judges gave them a +2 for GOE, while the other four judges gave them +3s. The highest score for Section 2, 6.70, was achieved by both Nguyen and Kolesnik, at JGP Baltic Cup in Poland, and Shanaeva and Naryzhnyy at Junior Worlds. In both cases, the couples received three +3s, five +2s, and a +1 from the judges.

Out of the 81 junior couples competing in a major international, only 14 received a level 4 on the first Section, or approximately 17.3%, and no couple achieved it more than twice. The 3 couples that executed a level 4 Section 2 make up only 3.7% of the teams. If we base these percentages off of the 170 performances instead of the couples, we would see that a level 4 Section 1 was achieved 10% of the time, while for Section 2, it is only about 1.8%.

What's interesting to note about these scores is how they compare to the scores of couples who received a lower level. For example, the highest score received by a team for a level 3 Section 1 was 5.80, which was achieved by Wolfkostin and Chen, Sofya Tyutyunina and Alexander Shustitskiy, and Loïcia Demougeot and Théo Le Mercier. Out of all 14 couples who got a level 4 throughout the season, only one received a lower score than 5.80. Another couple, Ekaterina Katashinskaia and Alexandr Vaskovich, got a level 4 with a score equal to the highest level 3 score, with a base value of 5.50 and an added GOE score of 0.30. The couples with the highest score for a level 3 all got a base value of 4.75, with an added GOE of 1.05, or an average of +2s from the judges. What this all means is that even though the judging panel thought the sections performed by the couples who got a level 3 were executed better, Katashinskaia and Vaskovich were able to score equally as well by doing all of their key points correctly.

I think this is an example of the imperfections of the current system of evaluation. While the judging panel evaluates the entire pattern and watches for factors like edge depth, effortlessness, flow, holds, and unison, the technical panel evaluates whether or not small sections of steps and turns, these being key points, are executed correctly. As far as the impact on a couple's score, it seems that the key points, and therefore the level, are the biggest deciding factor. While I definitely don't mean to say "This couple should have scored higher than this other couple," I'd like to see the strength of the entire section of the pattern have more of an impact on the score for the element.

Spread of Levels

While looking at the teams who received level 4s, we could see there was a big difference in the number of times they achieved it in Section 1 and Section 2. However, there's also a similar drop for the number of times a team got a level 3. This drop goes from 33 times to 19. What I think is especially interesting is that there is a rather large increase of times a team received a level 2 on Section 2, compared to Section 1. This jump goes from 45 to 71, enough times for almost all 81 couples to receive a level 2 once. From this, we can tell that for the most part, teams had a harder time with the second half of the dance than the first, and with the requirements that have to be met to achieve a high level in the second half, this is not too surprising.

Essentially, the level of a section is determined by the correct or incorrect execution of four predetermined sequences of steps or turns. These are the "key points" the technical panel looks for. For the second section of the Tea-Time, the third key point is the lady's outside bracket. The fourth is the bracket the man does at the same time as the lady, along with his crossover, change of edge, and twizzle. These are arguably the two most difficult key points in the entire pattern, and if neither of the partners in a couple get their bracket called, their second section can not be given more than a level 2. By looking at the protocols from each of these competitions throughout the season, it's clear that the bracket was generally what kept teams from getting a higher level on the second section. In fact, out of the 18 couples who competed at the Junior Grand Prix de Courchevel in France, there was not a single skater who got their bracket called, meaning no couple got higher than a level 2. When comparing this to the levels received for the first section, where levels were somewhat fairly spread out from 1 to 4, the downward shift is obvious.

Comparing the rather evenly distributed spread of level for Section 1 to Section 2 shows a clear difference in how each half was evaluated across the whole event.

Comparing Levels By Couple

Another way to compare the execution of each section is to look at what each team got for levels within the same performance. To do this, We can subtract the level a couple gets for Section 2 by their level for Section 1 and use the result to determine the change. For example, at the Junior Grand Prix Lake Placid in the US, Nguyen and Kolesnik received a level 4 for the first section and a level 2 for the second. If we take their Section 2 level, a 2, and subtract their Section 1 level, a 4, we would have the result of -2. This means that Nguyen and Kolesnik dropped two levels from their first section to their second. Naturally, a positive result would mean that a couple improved their level between sections, and a zero means that there was no change in what their level was. For the purpose of this comparison, a Base level is considered a zero and a no value section is a negative one.

For the most part, each couple had better success with their first section than their second. On average, each team had a drop of about .218 levels within each performance. However, there were still a couple competitions where couples, on average, had a higher level for their second section, which were JGP Lake Placid, JGP Chelyabinsk in Russia, JGP Baltic Cup, and the JGP Final. It should be noted that at two of these events, in Lake Placid and Gdansk, there was one couple at each event who had an uncharacteristic fall in the first section that brought their level down to a base, even though they each received enough key points to get a level 1 or 2.

I also looked at the average change in levels for each couple across the season. Out of all 81 couples, only 38 decreased on average within the program. 21 couples generally had a stronger second section than their first, and the 22 remaining couples received levels that, on average, stayed the same. The greatest increase between each half of the dance was 2 levels, achieved by Anya Lavrova and Maxwell Gart as well as Ayumi Takanami and Yoshimitsu Ikeda. However, each of these couples only competed at one major international this season. 2 other couples, Svetlana Lizunova and Alexander Vakhnov as well as Angelina Lazareva and Maksim Prokofiev, had an average drop of 3 levels from their first sections to their second. Like Lavrova and Gart and Takanami and Ikeda, these couples only competed at one major international.

Whether it be an average increase or decrease throughout the season, most couples did not have a dramatic shift from their first section to their second. There were only 10 couples in total who had an average shift of more than one level. This means that whatever level a team got for the first section, their second section usually got a similar level, and while many teams tended to have a stronger first section than their second, it was not by an overwhelming margin.

That's essentially what I have to say! I originally had a whole lot of information on this pattern that I put together and I'm glad I could condense most of it into a much more graspable summary. What are your thoughts? Do you have a strong opinion on the evaluation of key points in relation to the whole pattern? Do you think the key points for this dance are fair for the junior level? Let me know in the comments!

Wishing all the best to you and your loved ones,
-TJ