Then change the 3A rule when that actually happens, instead of now?
The 2A rule would hurt Mirai, and the 3A thing doesn't help either.
Last edited by tkhm; 05-02-2010 at 01:57 AM.
-saying that what 'artistry' there is resides purely in the choreographer and that the skater is just doing what he/she is told is like saying that Rostropovich was just a cipher and that it was all Prokofiev (who wrote pieces for him). Or, in another aspect, it's like saying it's all the conductor (I suppose one could read "coach" here) and not even partially about the first cellist. Where there is a performance aspect in the arts (as opposed to say, plastic arts such as sculpture), and yes, I do maintain that skating is, and should be, as much art as it is sport, the performer is an expressive artist in his/her own right.
-I do agree that in the main, younger performers, including skaters, are necessarily less artistically developed, but that's exactly what I said in my previous post. If we agree on this, then I'm not sure I fully understand what you mean when you say that there exists a premise that technical is marked higher than PCS to give the little girls a chance for a medal. If anything, I would say that the majority of officials or viewers don't want skating to be dominated by very young jumping beans with, as you say, 'no clue what artistry is'.
-I'm aware of what PCS is. And what is performance/execution, which has to do with the emotional and intellectual involvement of the skater, her style and personality, and projection? Or choreography/composition, dealing with concept and vision, unity and phrasing of performance, and orginality? Or interpretation, referring to the appropriate expression of the music's characteristics, nuance, and facility and ease of that expression? It can be called components, or presentation, but it's artistry pure and simple, to call it by its older and truer name. I think it's reasonable to say that skating skills and transitions/footwork are relatively more amenable to mapping to specific physical skills, but even here I would argue that "artistry" has (a now subterranean) influence. My own view is that this busy slicing and dicing and linguistic pasteurization of the criteria is a fig leaf, guilty of both false precision and intellectual bad faith (although of course the ISU had its historical reasons, hehe).
-An obvious sign that skaters recognize the importance of the impressionistic aspect for scoring is the time and effort put into costumes, make-up, and the widespread choice of those flesh-colored covers to improve line (I'm not a fan of the latter choice, myself). Frankly, it would be more practical to wear those black practice outfits for performances; skaters wouldn't have to be pulling down their skirt flaps all the time in between elements . In no other Olympic sport is this concern over impression considered important. (I remember seeing an old vid of a runner from the Soviet bloc days who, while looking like a miniature Schwarzenegger, incongruously wore eyeliner and earrings. But I suspect the purpose for that was entirely different ). Is this faux art? Then they might as well get rid of the avian-inspired costumes in Swan Lake.
-For me, the most interesting question is whether artistry is simply "in the mind of the beholder", and an "opinion" meaninglessly bandied about. In the context of figure skating, the official skating world has, in my view, bowed to the in vogue assumptions about value relativity and its sometimes ugly stepchild, political correctness (although the proximate cause was the quite justifiable concerns over cheating and manipulation). What's telling, though, is that they couldn't bring themselves to eliminate those (artistic) values entirely, knowing either consciously or subconsciously that such a move would morph figure skating into something quite ordinary and uninteresting. Their solution was to disguise these artistic values in words that sound more specific and objective (at least, more objective than presentation or artistry). Smoke and mirrors.
Why is it that we as figure skating fans sometimes seek to deny the deepest and most intrinsic reason for skating's allure, what makes it unique in sport, and the reason that it has always been the centerpiece of winter Olympic competition? Is it because judgments that do not have to do with physically measurable fact are somehow seen as illegitimate, and therefore makes us unable to hold up our heads in the face of "objective" pursuits such as biathlon? In the classical world, the concept of figure skating would have been understood very well. The drama competitions of ancient Athens were a huge deal in that time, and it's hard to argue with the results when the most frequent winners were Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides. The example may shed some light, I believe, on the conundrum of modern figure skating: putting aside the purely metaphysical question of whether art is/is not merely subjective and in the eyes of the beholder, artistic judgments work in practice where some significant communality of values exists, even when the reasons for those values are not fully articulated or even articulable (a Nietschzean insight). I would argue that this is the reason that the Athenian dramatic competitions worked then, and why figure skating works now. This common "skating culture", inculcated at some level even in the general public through years of watching Olympic competitions, allows for workable, and dare I say even successful judgment (I have speculated on a "wisdom of crowds" theory of figure skating judgment, but that's a separate topic :sheesh.
I agree with you that "artistry" is not the only thing that matters, but my own opinion is that the strange and active chemistry between the athletic and aesthetic is what produces the reactions to figure skating which are almost sui generis; the absence, or the incorrect proportion, of one or the other would, I fear, result in something altogether inert.
Sorry for the extremely long post, but I wanted to explain my point of view more carefully, as I realized that the brevity of my previous post may have given the impression that I was being peremptory in my reply, which wasn't my intention. Because the topic is quite meaningful to me, I would actually greatly appreciate a more detailed view on the opposite side of the issue.
Last edited by Robeye; 05-03-2010 at 07:52 AM.
<<The consideration of this question must takes into account the amount of risks taken by the skater already, which has not been analyzed and cannot be revealed using the Base Value Comparison methodology. In other words, a skater who achieves a total BV of 74~75 without using a Quad is generally considered less risky than one who has to do 1, if not 2 Quads in a program. If Lambiel doesn't have a Triple Axel in his program, he will end up having a lower BV than Patrick Chan even if the Swiss includes two Quads and the Canadian, none.>>
Along these lines, my thinking is the replacement of the 2A+3T by 3F+2T seems like a reasonable work-around on paper and I applaud your creative thinking. My intuition tells me such alternative would make Brian Orser somewhat uncomfortable. While the value of 3F+2T is lower than 2A+3T, from the standpoint of Yu-Na Kim, the 3F is a much harder jump for her than the 3T or the 2A. Her success rate on the 3F is much lower than either the 2A or 3T. I notice that Japanese skaters in general seem to focus almost exclusively on the math of the TES but failed to consider the practicality of their elements or the relative strengths/weaknesses of the skaters in question. For example, doing a FCCoSp4 gets 0.5 more than doing FSSp4, then you would see the Japanese skaters aiming for that even though almost no one else do it in the LP. This is why the flip side of the coin in IJS, aside from the math, is to properly manage the risks. See the discussion here: http://www.icenetworkincrowd.com/topic/537?page=1
<<The base value analysis is revealing to a certain extent but one of the flaws of these numbers is they don't tell us how these men acheive their base value listed above. In other words, the numbers above express the rewards for completing all their 13 elements but they tell us little about the risks borne by these men. Take example of Brian Joubert, who has a base value of 76.30 - sounds good on paper but this number in facts assumes that Brian lands two Quads, one Quad Toe and one Quad Salchow. Brian has not landed a Quad Salchow in the last two years. Compared this to someone like Patrick Chan who can get 74.83, only about 1.5 BV behind Joubert without a single Quad, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that Joubert is taking on much more risk, meaning he has a greater probability of failing to complete all his elements cleanly.
Skaters need to a do a realistic assessment of what they can reasonably do in a competition while maximizing their base value without compromising on the GOE or else, what sounds good a paper will fall flat in competition. Some of these men have programs that look good on paper but not very realistic in the context of the Olympic Games. Plushenko's success is due in part to his rather smart planning and balancing of difficulty and execution, unlike what many people have imagined, the Russian-Olympic Champion DOES NOT take on excessive risks, unlike some of his competitors. The Olympic Men's Champion in 2010 will have to be someone who understands this and play it smart, I have no doubt about this. >>
Notice, this was written in January 2010. It turned out, the eventual winner of the Olympic Gold did just that - the winner ended up being the guy who managed the risks properly as opposed to someone who tried to shoot the moon and fell.
Along these lines, I am a little concerned that the 3F+2T comes at too much of a risk for Yu-Na Kim. The BV on paper didn't drop by much but the overall risk level of her program probably went up quite a bit. This means lower return for higher risk - still a less than desirable outcome but probably better than having to reintegrate 3Lo back into her FS as her success rate on the 3Lo is even less than the 3F.
ETA: In fact, out of 10 attempts over 5 competitions this year, she only missed it 3 times (TEB LP, SA LP, GPF SP)
Last edited by yunasashafan; 05-02-2010 at 02:21 AM.
indeed. if she still has a mental "thing" about the flip next season as she did this season, getting past one in each program is hurdle enough. Doing two, with one presumably in the second half of the program, in combonation seems even more daunting. That said, Yu-na will have much less pressure to be perfect as she had last year and let's face it, she could pop/double the flips and still beat everybody else easily.
In other words, two skaters with the same base value in their TES may end up having very different risk profile, hence the example used above between Patrick Chan vs. Brian Joubert. If Chan matches Joubert's TES without a Quad while the Frenchman is forced to have two in order to stay with the Canadian, then one can reasonably conclude that Joubert's overall probability of completing all his program cleanly will be lower than the Canadian. That's also why complaining about the obvious unfairness of the IJS in treating some combination of easier elements (e.g. 2A and 3T) to equal or greater than obviously hard elements (e.g. Quads) is pointless. TES was never been advertised as who has the most risky or difficult program. Rather, if a said skater and his/her coach wants to be stupid and get a poor return / risk ratio, it's their problem. The smart one will do the best to minimize risk and maximize return, that's what it takes to gain an edge under CoP and one of the essence of the new system.
Last edited by wallylutz; 05-02-2010 at 02:35 AM.
How about having a 3S+2T or a 3T+2T then? those would net her a loss of 1.7 or 2.2 points in BV, the combination bonus notwithstanding.
Doing another 3T combo is obviously a safer bet but at this point, the deficit in base value starts to add up. Difference of 2.2 is not trivial. If she wants to play it safe, depending on her postion after the SP, this may be workable if her lead is large. If she is going to do a 3T combo, she can probably upgrade it to 3T+2Lo since the first jump is easy enough for her that the 2Lo shouldn't change the risk profile of the element too much.
Re: loop combo vs. toe combo
Miki Ando 2007 Worlds SP 3lutz/3LOOP, receiving GOE+0.86 (11.86)
Yu-na Kim 2007 Worlds SP 3flip/3toe, receiving GOE+2.0 (11.50)
*Obviously Yu-na's wonderful 3flip/3toe has so much height in both jumps, speed in and out, etc. I'm just saying it must be much more difficult ('by nature' like I said above) to do the same with a loop combo.
Last edited by hikki; 05-02-2010 at 06:48 AM.