Serious Question about Patrick Chan's skating ability compared to other skaters | Page 9 | Golden Skate

Serious Question about Patrick Chan's skating ability compared to other skaters

seniorita

Record Breaker
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Or the way a clean Joubert can get very high pcs even though casual skating fans can see Jeremy's CH, IN and TR is more substancial and intricate. Of course I am offering thoughts that are subjective.

I wanted to say fs audience is a bit snobish (i speak for myself not you jntfan :D). We tend to like at the end to pick and appreciate the more subtle artistic skater because this means quality but if it wasnt for people like Joubert who have huge presentation and draw attention the first minute (and I think he has as much quality by the way), I wouldnt have the luxury to know Abott... neither GS probably.:biggrin:It has gone for many fans this way, especially when you get zero info about fs around you. The recent years is the trend but how many people were thinking superirly about Savoie 5 years ago? (he is of my favs to watch on youtube)

MAthman you mean the brain cant compare more than 6-7 things at the same time? I havent thought about it. But why to do this simulteneously, and not pick an obvious relatively longer one and compare if this stick is longer than its next one or the previous one and so on? Ok I m not sure I make sense but isnt this what judges tend to do in both systems?Why do commentators keep saying that one top skater who happened to skate first in the group sets the tone?
 

janetfan

Match Penalty
Joined
May 15, 2009
Is this something that performing artists with no skating background could learn to apply equally well, after being instructed about the basic possibilities and limitations of the skating medium?

What might be some good guidelines to help define those components better?

The whole post was interesting and informative.

I am not sure about the idea of educating professional dancers and musicians with the purpose of serving as judges.
The possibilty of serving on an additional panel - the "artistic panel" might seem more plausible.

You ask if professionals outside of skating could do a good job judging. Isn't it possible to also wonder how judges, many of whom were never very accomplished skaters - meaning they were never performing on TV at the Olympics or Worlds - and thus hardly have professional level performance experience are so well fit to judge IN, CH and PE?

For instance Tara or Michelle might know more about "performing" at the higest level because they did it. You seem extremely knowledgeable about the rules and technical elements.

Let's make you a judge for a GP event. Assumimg you were able to do a respectable job and keep within the range of the other judges does that make everything OK?

I might ask how much music and Dance training have you ever had? I don't mean it personally and for all I know you may have had alot. But are you or the typical skater who never made it to the elite level of skating really so qualified to tell me how well Joubert is interpreting his music? Or if Jeremy is expressing and showing some outstandind dance movements?

The question is why back away from expertise? You explained very well that tech panel members are picked because they have more knowledge and experience as skaters than the run of the mill judge.

So we are left with these second tier judges deciding Joubert's pelvic thrust counts for as much and sometimes more than a beautiful MIF done by Jeremy after he missed a quad.

If the tech specialists provide a useful service to juding a skating competition why not try and include some expertise for the components. Or as Joesitz has said many times, get rid of the music in the SP, let a tech panel judge required elements - and then let the LP really be free. And with a freer LP - YES, I think Dance and Music experts could add something that is missing - a professional evaluation of a skaters expression to go along with opinions of technical experts.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
I think if we allowed the Judges' names and countries they represent to be known, the reputation of the judges would be at stake.
The only reason we have secret judging is due to The Scandal. That scandal, regardless of the competition results, led to the creation of secret judging and saved Cinquanta's a$$.

We have no way of making the judges do a better job if we do not know their names and what country they represent on the Panel.

I agree 100%.
 

janetfan

Match Penalty
Joined
May 15, 2009
I wanted to say fs audience is a bit snobish (i speak for myself not you jntfan :D). We tend to like at the end to pick and appreciate the more subtle artistic skater because this means quality but if it wasnt for people like Joubert who have huge presentation and draw attention the first minute (and I think he has as much quality by the way), I wouldnt have the luxury to know Abott... neither GS probably.:biggrin:It has gone for many fans this way, especially when you get zero info about fs around you. The recent years is the trend but how many people were thinking superirly about Savoie 5 years ago? (he is of my favs to watch on youtube)

?

You make a good point. Maybe I will surprise you but I think of Joubert as an iconic figure in the skating world. I thought Sasha earned that distinction as well. It doesn't matter if they never won the OGM - they made a mark on skating and were/are very popuar performers.

I just wonder about judging Joubert's best qualities, especially his non-jump elements against a less charasmatic skater like Jeremy. Or judging Sasha against Irina.

I think it is difficult and don't want "snobbery" to be the deciding factor. Nor do I want screaming teenage girls to be the deciding factor either. :)
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
My best suggestion on Scoring is to drop the GoEs and use the scale from 0-10 as it is in real judging sports. No need for GoEs and no need for a Tech Panel. However, I think the Referee should be given more to do than just wait for a skater to come to him with a problem.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
On your first point I have to wonder about weighting your suggested PCS format to being equal with the TES. I get the feeling that ISU does not want them equal. Am I wrong to wonder if it is part of ISU's current philosphical thinking (if such a thing exists) that wants skating to be more of a "real sport" and less about "performance art."

Under the current set-up the ISU definitely has tried to make the TES and PCS come out to be roughly in the same ballpark. The PCSs are doubled for the long program because the TES is expected to be twice as high, having twice as many scored elements. Also, ladies' PCSs are discounted by 20% compared to mens because ladies element scores turn out to be about 80% of men's.

A typical lady might go like this.

Short program: TES = 32, PCS before factoring = 40, PCS after factoring (multiple by .8) = 32.

This gives a total score of 64 for the short program, evenly balanced at 32 for TES and 32 for PCS.

Then in the LP it might be

TES = 64, PCS unfactored = 40, PCS after factoring (multiply by 1.6) = 64.

Total score for LP = 128, evenly balance between TES and PCS.

Note that this is a balance between elements and program, not between tech and performance, like the old 6.0. You are quite right that the ISU wanted to make the sport more sporty and less arty. The balance between sport and art in the CoP is pegged at roughly 70% sport (elements plus SS and TR) and 30% art (P&E, CH, and INT).

The suggestion of combining SS and TR into one score and P&E. CH and INT into a second score would, if weighted equally, change the split to 75% sport - 25% art.

Hard to explain what I mean - but as an example I would suggest Patrick's very busy skating between recognized elements seems to be worth alot more than the way Alissa's spins can feel to be not just a spin - but part of the choreographic concept of her program.

Well, I think that is part of what the controversy is. Patrick's intricate transitions give him deservedly high scores in Transitions. Whether they also contribute to choreography, etc. -- I guess that is up to the judges to decide. Alissa's spins get high base values for level and high GOEs for quality -- so far so good. If she has nice entries and exits I suppose that could count toward Transitions and Skating Skills as well.

Choreography? -- I don't know how the judges feel about that. I quite agree that so-called "technical" elements can also be vehicles for musical expression, even jumps. I agree that this is a place where the CoP needs closer attention.
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Duties of the referee: See pages 43-44.

The suggestion of combining SS and TR into one score and P&E. CH and INT into a second score would, if weighted equally, change the split to 75% sport - 25% art.

Well, you could always give them different factors. E.g., you could multiply the SSTR score x 5 and the PECHINT score x10 or something like that, to get the PECHINT to be worth approximately half.

But putting it all in one score would just magnify the differences between the skaters. If two skaters are close in presentation ability, judges would either have to give them both the exact same PECHINT score, which gives them no opportunity to reflect a slight preference (according to the criteria) for the skating of one over the other, or else they'd have to give 0.25 or 0.10 difference, which would then be multiplied to 2.5 (more than the value of a double jump for each one-increment difference per component) or 1.0 under the factors suggested above.

Plus, putting them all in one mark gives no opportunity to let skaters know e.g., that they expressed the music really well but their posture sucked.

Of course one mark for presentation in the old system gave no way to convey that information either. And even now the P/E mark is kind of a catchall.

So another option would be to divide the PECHINT into more than three marks.

Maybe
Form (carriage and body line) and Clarity
Projection (connection to audience)
Execution (with official criteria to reward a preponderance of well-done elements and to penalize general sloppiness or multiple errors)
Choreography
Interpretation

Then factor those so they're each worth approximately 10% of the score, or the whole group of them worth approximately 50%

Although I don't like the idea of the value of SSPE being negligible compared to elements or artistry -- after all, it is primarily a skating contest
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
I have thought about remarks you have made in the past - when you referred to "musical judges" like Inman and Hoffman. Why were they considered "musical judges" ?

Was it perhaps that they not only valued artistry more than other judges but demonstrated an expertise in this area? What happens when a judging panel has several "musical judges" and several "tech judges"?

Joe Inman is a pianist who makes his living teaching piano. (By the way, Lori Nichol's husband is a classical guitarist.) Jan Hoffmann is a surgeon in real life. I don't know what kind of background he has in music, but he is known as an "artistic" judge because he consistently comes down on the side of beautiful programs over high tech. He voted for Michelle over Tara in 1998, and for Oksana over Nancy in 1994.

As far as the make-up of the judging panel, I guess it's the luck of the draw. Maybe a federation that had a skater who was known for one aspect more than for the other might lobby to get judges appointed who would be expected to appreciate what that skaters has to offer. (?)
 

colleen o'neill

Medalist
Joined
Nov 3, 2006
:biggrin: Boy , this is good ! I'm trying to keep up with this , wrestle with my ice dance and costume angst..and still have a life..oh, dear , oh dear.

gkelly makes a good point about having misgivings about having the non-tech scores be fully equal..first, they have to be skating, after all.
I don't have all the judges guidelines fresh in my memory, or anything..and it seems to me that over the years the ISU may state a particular thing is a no-no..then over time, without actually rescinding their decision, they just stop paying attention to it ( Remember the lady shall not ride on the gentleman's foot in ice dance ?)I don't always mind when these things fade away ( In this case,we would have missed some very nice highlights ),but it makes it very hard to make sense of why some marks are awarded..For example, do the judges actually ever give negative marks for things such as too many ( or too lengthy ) stops to pose or dance on the spot ? Surely, this ought to be a choreography ding, and perhaps an expression ding ,if this is where the skater is doing most of their "expressing". I completely agree with janetfan's point about the relative value of a pelvic thrust vs. a beautiful MIF.

I think everyone, including judges , can see the sense in this, but I don't really see it borne out in the marks.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Well, you could always give them different factors. E.g., you could multiply the SSTR score x 5 and the PECHINT score x10 or something like that, to get the PECHINT to be worth approximately half.

I am OK with the current 70-30 split between tech and presentation. Theproposal that I threw out would be only a slight change, to 75%-25%. That is, the new SSTR and the new PECHINT would be of equal weight to each other, but still toogether they would be only half the score, the TES beiung the other half. TES = 50%, SS and TR = 25%, and PECHINT = 25%.

But putting it all in one score would just magnify the differences between the skaters.

I don't think that would be a problem. A judge now might think that one skater is .25 points better in each of P/E, CH, amd INT, so that puts the skater .75 points ahead. Under the proposal, a .25 point sdavantage in compbined PECHINT would still work out too .75 (or a tiny bit less).

It is true that a judge could not give equal scores in P/E, equal schores in CH, and then favor one skater by .25 in INT. But I think that's OK.

Plus, putting them all in one mark gives no opportunity to let skaters know e.g., that they expressed the music really well but their posture sucked....

So another option would be to divide the PECHINT into more than three marks.

Maybe
Form (carriage and body line) and Clarity
Projection (connection to audience)
Execution (with official criteria to reward a preponderance of well-done elements and to penalize general sloppiness or multiple errors)
Choreography
Interpretation

I am not a big fan of this much micro-managing. If a skater gets 5.75 in PECHINT, that skater's coach can chat with the judges if he/she wants to learn that the judges found the skater musical but with bad posture.

No matter how many mini-bullets we list, the skater will still not learn much of specific value just by looking at the protocols.

Although I don't like the idea of the value of SS[TR] being negligible compared to elements or artistry -- after all, it is primarily a skating contest

The proposal would raise the weight of SSTR to 25% of the total from the current 20%.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
This leads to your second comment which I don't understand. Could you please elaborate on it?

What I was trying to say is this.

The CoP is ballyhooed as a system of awarding points to skaters based on objective measureable standards, not just on judge's whims as in the past. But in the case of the program components, the "yardstick" against which a performance is measured is so finely calibrated that it is out of the question to think of it in terms of objective measurement. To say that a particular performance matches the rule book's definition for a 4.25 in musical interpretation, but does not reach as high as the criteria for 4.50, is a view of CoP judging that cannot be sustained.

Of course, that is not how it works at all. So we should thank the designers of the CoP for rubbing our face in the fact that it couldn't work like that -- like an objective yardstick. This saves us a lot of discussion time.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
MAthman you mean the brain cant compare more than 6-7 things at the same time?

The theory is that the human brain can distinguish among no more than seven absolute categories. That is why, for instance, when you are asked to rate something from very bad to very good there are usually 7 options given: Very bad, bad, a little bit bad, neutral, a little bit good, good, and very good. As Gene Kelly points out, that is exactly why the range of GOES goes from -3 to +3. [GOES goes :) )

If we try to put in an eighth category, say "a little bit better than a little bit good, but not quite as good as good," then we cannot consistently and reliably decide whether something belongs in that category or in the next higher or lower. If there are 41 categories, like there are in PCSs from 0.00, 0.25,...10.00, then it is utterly impossible reliably to say that a performance is a little bit better than a little bit better than...37 times better, rather than a little bit better 38 times on the way to good.

Her3 is a paper about this phenomenon.

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...us-Kb2&sig=AHIEtbStffugCicolQlOT702IB-WtJ8sHw

But why to do this simultaneously, and not pick an obvious relatively longer one and compare if this stick is longer than its next one or the previous one and so on?

That is why pure ordinal judging is the only right way to judge figure skating. Yes, given any two sticks, however close together they are, you can always hold one up to the other and see which of the two is longer. Then go on to the next one -- is it longer of shorter than the first? Is it longer or shorter than the second?

But the trouble with this head to head comparison is that by the end of a long session with many skaters competing, the judges forget what they saw previously. Was the skater that I just saw better or worse than the one who skated second, ten skaters ago? So...you have little cheat sheets that say, "5.4 in tech, 5.6 in presentation," to help you remember. :)

I'm not sure I make sense but isnt this what judges tend to do in both systems?

In ordinal judging, yes, that is exactly what judges tried to do (with varying degrees of success.) In CoP, no, the model and pretense is that skaters are not compared against each other at all but rather each skater is measured against a fixed standard.

Why do commentators keep saying that one top skater who happened to skate first in the group sets the tone?

Actually, I had the same question myself and gk3elly was kind enough to explain it. Under the 6.0 system, after the first skater in each warm-up group skated there would be a short intermission during which the referee would gather the scores (5.4, etc.) of the judges and compute the median marks The referee would then tell each judge what the median mark was and give each judge a chance either to revise his mark to the median, or not. The idea was that it didn't really matter whether you started out with a bench mark of 5.4 and then went up or down from there, or whether you sared at some other point. The only thing that mattered was whether the next skater was better or worse than the first.

I don' t think there is anything like that under CoP. The commentators may just be speaking informally to the audience, saying that this particular panel appears to be stricter or more lenient than usual.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
[Ggkelly asks]if professionals outside of skating could do a good job judging. Isn't it possible to also wonder how judges, many of whom were never very accomplished skaters - meaning they were never performing on TV at the Olympics or Worlds - and thus hardly have professional level performance experience are so well fit to judge IN, CH and PE?

For instance Tara or Michelle might know more about "performing" at the highest level because they did it.

That is a good question, and the answer is far from obvious. The job of a performer and the job of a critic are very different. The film critic for the New York Times is not himself an actor or a director. I doubt if the the guy who writes opera reviews can sing.. But they are "experts" in the sense of having extraordinary insight honed by a lot of trained observation and study.

Michelle and Sasha may not have the foggiest idea of what exactly it was that made their programs "artistic" -- they just just went out there and did it.
 
Last edited:

seniorita

Record Breaker
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
In ordinal judging, yes, that is exactly what judges tried to do (with varying degrees of success.) In CoP, no, the model and pretense is that skaters are not compared against each other at all but rather each skater is measured against a fixed standard.

Yes CoP is not a system of comparisson but I wanted to mean (and obviously I didnt do it well :laugh:) that even in CoP judges do the same as in 6.0 in pcs: If i gave this skater 7.25 then this one should get around 8.00, or with slight less transitions 7.00 etc..;) I meant that human brain usually compares two things even without knowing it(like the two sticks out of ten), otherwise do really judges press delete and forget the previous performance?
I know they cant remember the 3rd skater of second group against the 1st skater of 3 groups later but at least from the same group or previous one they must compare even in CoP (dont we do the same from tv?) especially if athletes of the same level skate clean and are close, if they splat 5 times it is easier for them I guess, they give it to P.Chan:biggrin:(joke)

One good practice to diminish this is to spread the skaters in the groups regardless of their rankings, like they used to do in sp, it will be rather difficult to judge by comparisson even unconcesiously but I know this can be unticlimatic for skaters and audience.

Actually, I had the same question myself and gk3elly was kind enough to explain it. Under the 6.0 system, after the first skater in each warm-up group skated there would be a short intermission during which the referee would gather the scores (5.4, etc.) of the judges and compute the median marks The referee would then tell each judge what the median mark was and give each judge a chance either to revise his mark to the median, or not.
Thanx for this, I never heard it before, this is like the signature that a skater couldnt move much in ordinals, each group looks isolated from the next.
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Actually, I had the same question myself and gk3elly was kind enough to explain it. Under the 6.0 system, after the first skater in each warm-up group skated there would be a short intermission during which the referee would gather the scores (5.4, etc.) of the judges and compute the median marks The referee would then tell each judge what the median mark was and give each judge a chance either to revise his mark to the median, or not. The idea was that it didn't really matter whether you started out with a bench mark of 5.4 and then went up or down from there, or whether you sared at some other point. The only thing that mattered was whether the next skater was better or worse than the first.

Thanx for this, I never heard it before, this is like the signature that a skater couldnt move much in ordinals, each group looks isolated from the next.

Actually, the median mark was shared only for the first skater in the whole event, nto for the first skater in each warmup.

At a tiny event (e.g., Grand Prix Final), it would amount to the same thing.

At a huge event like Worlds short program with 30 skaters, by the time you got to the final warmup group the median mark from the first skater would have been given several hours ago earlier.

I don' t think there is anything like that under CoP. The commentators may just be speaking informally to the audience, saying that this particular panel appears to be stricter or more lenient than usual.

Oh, I think the commentators are almost always just speaking informally to the audience.

But I think "setting the tone" refers (informally) more to what the skater did than how s/he was marked.

A while back a firestorm was created here when a former Dancer presented her views on Yuna and "Mayo."
I forget her name but remember I disagreed with her when she said Mao deserved the OGM because her skating appeared to be more balletic.

It was interesting and I would not be surprised if most Dancers/choreogrpahers thought Mao has better extension/positions and more flexibilty than Yuna. But having better spiral positions is not enough to win a skating competition.

Still, it takes years of training trying to master certain Dance moves and to interpret music on the ice. The thought of adding some real expertise in this area to a judging panel might not be easy to do but philosophically it makes sense to me.

First of all, I don't think outsiders brought in for their expertise in dance or other performing arts should have anything to say about "who should win."

The majority of the scores come from TES and Skating Skills and Transitions scores, and nonskaters without extensive experience studying skating and how to judge it should have zero input into those scores.

At most, they should score the Performance/Execution, Choreography, and Interpretation components only, whether as three separate components or combined as Mathman suggests.

And first they need to be trained as to what to expect given the limitations and possibilities of skates and ice that might be different from their own artforms.

For example, on the extension aspect of P/E, dancers, especially ballet dancers, need to know that skating is almost always done on a bent supporting leg (in most cases, deeper knee bend is better), and toes can only be pointed so far in skating boots. Show them videos of John Curry and Katherine Healy for examples of what a ballet-trained skater would look like, and the likes of, say, Paul Wylie, Sasha Cohen, Gordeeva/Grinkov, Usova/Zhulin, etc., for examples of skaters with excellent extension. Then evaluate the current skaters with that standard in mind, not a ballet standard.

Or for evaluating spatial patterns under Choreography, let these non-skaters know that most skating is and should be done on curves, that most skaters strongly prefer either one direction (clockwise or counterclockwise) but using both directions more equally shows greater skill and is preferred for that reason as well as for the fact that it makes more interesting patterns. That skating in perfectly straight lines and/or on both feet parallel to each other, or dancing/posing in place can all be used judiciously to enhance the choreography, by providing contrast from the curves, but they should be kept to a minimum because they represent easier skating or non-skating. Once armed with that kind of knowledge, a trained choreographer or sculptor or photographer or stage director may be better equipped to evaluate each skater's use of spatial patterns than a technically oriented skating judge.

Then if an "artistry judge" with that training and outside arts knowledge comes to the conclusion that Alex performed/executed well enough to deserve 8 on a scale of 10, but the choreography and interpretation are only good enough for 5 or 6, and Blair deserved 8s in all areas, they can score accordingly. If Alex had better better technical content and better technical execution (of the in-between skills as well as the elements), Alex will still win. But you won't get judges holding up Alex's choreo and interp marks because they're so impressed by the technical skills. The nonskating arts judges might not even be aware of the differences in skating ability and would have no input into how those are scored. But they could give a more attentive evaluation of the arts-related components without those distractions, and with input from their own musical or performance knowledge away from the ice.
 
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
But so much of the Tech also uses performance ratings. In fact there is no real decisive competition for Tech without the performance rating. Even in the SP, the results of a contestant can be at an advantage with high scores because of his performance, more than his quad, etc.
 

janetfan

Match Penalty
Joined
May 15, 2009
First of all, I don't think outsiders brought in for their expertise in dance or other performing arts should have anything to say about "who should win."

The majority of the scores come from TES and Skating Skills and Transitions scores, and nonskaters without extensive experience studying skating and how to judge it should have zero input into those scores.

At most, they should score the Performance/Execution, Choreography, and Interpretation components only, whether as three separate components or combined as Mathman suggests.

And first they need to be trained as to what to expect given the limitations and possibilities of skates and ice that might be different from their own artforms.

For example, on the extension aspect of P/E, dancers, especially ballet dancers, need to know that skating is almost always done on a bent supporting leg (in most cases, deeper knee bend is better), and toes can only be pointed so far in skating boots. Show them videos of John Curry and Katherine Healy for examples of what a ballet-trained skater would look like, and the likes of, say, Paul Wylie, Sasha Cohen, Gordeeva/Grinkov, Usova/Zhulin, etc., for examples of skaters with excellent extension. Then evaluate the current skaters with that standard in mind, not a ballet standard.

Or for evaluating spatial patterns under Choreography, let these non-skaters know that most skating is and should be done on curves, that most skaters strongly prefer either one direction (clockwise or counterclockwise) but using both directions more equally shows greater skill and is preferred for that reason as well as for the fact that it makes more interesting patterns. That skating in perfectly straight lines and/or on both feet parallel to each other, or dancing/posing in place can all be used judiciously to enhance the choreography, by providing contrast from the curves, but they should be kept to a minimum because they represent easier skating or non-skating. Once armed with that kind of knowledge, a trained choreographer or sculptor or photographer or stage director may be better equipped to evaluate each skater's use of spatial patterns than a technically oriented skating judge.

Then if an "artistry judge" with that training and outside arts knowledge comes to the conclusion that Alex performed/executed well enough to deserve 8 on a scale of 10, but the choreography and interpretation are only good enough for 5 or 6, and Blair deserved 8s in all areas, they can score accordingly. If Alex had better better technical content and better technical execution (of the in-between skills as well as the elements), Alex will still win. But you won't get judges holding up Alex's choreo and interp marks because they're so impressed by the technical skills. The nonskating arts judges might not even be aware of the differences in skating ability and would have no input into how those are scored. But they could give a more attentive evaluation of the arts-related components without those distractions, and with input from their own musical or performance knowledge away from the ice.

The Dancer I referred to was offering her two cents on Yuna and Mao and she certainly has every right to express an opinion. It was actually a video clip and I think it is good when people from other areas of the arts (or anywhere else) express an interest in skating. The audience is shrinking in USA last time I checked so any and all types of interest can be viewed as positive, even a mocking Letterman or Leno.

I think the views she expressed make a strong case for what you are saying. Without a healthy dose of training it is doubtful how much an "outsider" could add. And let's face it fans already disagree with alot of the judging we see and I don't think it needs to get worse,

Most of your views which I enjoy reading and learn alot from are centered in the tech aspect whether it be skating or in the last post Dance.

I generally find myself agreeing with you - or after consideration accepting your view as pretty good and very logical. But I still wonder about the artistic or interpretive part of a skating performance and how much weight it should carry. And it's value to the overall health of the sport.

Skating "insiders" seemed to think this way too when the figures were first reduced in value and eventually eliminated.
Talk all you want about skating skills but by themselves they might not interest a large enough audience for the sport to continue, let alone grow.

Would there be room in the current system for a "Toller Cranston"? He did things differently at times and what was looked down upon when he first showed it has today become acceptable as we see his spins and steps still being used.

At the end of the 60's the ISU decided there was too much focus on the pure skating skill/figures and decided that freeskating with it's use of music and Dance was the future of the sport. They saw an opportunity for tremendous growth with TV and the sport was changed forever.

Here we are into the CoP era with it's emphasis focused strongly again on the tech - and what do we have? In N. America we have a shrinking audience.

Coincidence - nah, it is a change that was forced upon the ISU and is not going so well in the traditional markets. When a portion of the fan base looks back longingly for professional skating I think they are saying they like the artistry more than the tech.

That may not be true for all fans but again the sport can't survive with only the "insiders" having an interest.

What we see too often today is skaters with the big tricks getting marked like they are also superior artists. We hear skaters like Jenny Kirk and Jeremy Abbott talking about the quad bringing higher pcs.
In a close competition with the tech fairly equal isn't it important that the components be scored accurately so we can have a fair winner?

This is kind of tough because I respect what you wrote. Are you making an argument for the pureness or "soul" of figure skating? To make it more of a sport?

Because I would ask if skating really is a sport? And if so what does that mean?
Isn't it also entertainment - just like baseball and football exist as we know them for their entertainment values.
 
Last edited:

Bluebonnet

Record Breaker
Joined
Aug 18, 2010
It's a fascinating thread! Thanks to everyone especially thanks to gkelly and mathman! I'm trying to catch up and understand all these.

I'm not a fan of micro-managing on judging either. For the TES, I have no problem of having them break down the elements and measure each of them separately. But how can you measure an art with numbers especially with decimals? What's the difference in P/E, CH, and IN between 7 and 7.04? (A while ago, Mathman gave an example of the way to measure art was by using selling price.:)) Art gave one an impression. An impression is a range of feelings, about a level, not exact a level. It's better to leave it more room. I feel that magnify the difference is actually good. It could help to distinguish the differences between programs. I think mathman's idea is an excellent way of stepping back a little and giving art more room for breathing.
 
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
Art in the sense of figure skating is based on opinions, and it is based only within the millieu of Figure Skating. Nothing wrong with that. We know it is not compared with the Great Artists (Painting, Music, etc.). Problem with figure skating competitions is that the PC scores are determined by 9 judges in a panel set in a competition, and as we recently acknowledged, no two panels are alike. So we can't conclude which of the opinionated PC scores would really show the most artistic skater. We could easily say which skater gave the best presentation of PCs in one particular contest and even another at the season's end.

I doubt an Artistry Judge from Sotheby's would sit on a FS panel, any more than he would sit as a judge for a Pagaent. Joe Inman was a stickler for music (as I am) but I don't know if he is still judging. He was correct. When Plushenko incorporated transitions before his big jumps, the landings were wonky.

I believe most Figure Skating fans love their 'Artistry' moreso than their big tech tricks. Some fans like it as a Sport but far fewer than the 'artistry' fans. I think of figure skating as a form of Dance along with Tap, Character, Modern, Ballet, Acrobatic. and except for opinon, difficult to quantify in terms of scoring. Separate the Tech from the 'Artistry'.
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
The Dancer I referred to was offering her two cents on Yuna and Mao and she certainly has every right to express an opinion.

Well, sure. Everyone has a right to express an opinion. A gymnast or diver might have the opinion that Plushenko or Reynolds should win because of the most twists in the air with the best technique. A speedskater might believe that Kim or Kostner should win on account of maintaining the best average skating speed. An American Idol judge might believe that Nagasu should win because she connected with the audience best. Or whatever.

But if they're only looking at a small piece of what the sport is about, their opinions will only be partial and not as valid regarding the results as those of people who are knowledgeable about the whole sport. We can certainly learn from the outside insights that people with expertise in related areas can bring. But do we want them to contribute to the official outcome of the events? At most, only partially and only within their areas of expertise.

I generally find myself agreeing with you - or after consideration accepting your view as pretty good and very logical. But I still wonder about the artistic or interpretive part of a skating performance and how much weight it should carry. And it's value to the overall health of the sport.
<snip>
Because in a way that is what I feel like I am trying to say as well. Is skating really a sport? Isn't it also entertainment - just like baseball and football exist as we know them for their entertainment values.

That's an important question.

What is the mission of the ISU?

It grew up within the amateur sports/Olympic movement from the late 19th century. Its original mission was to organize and make rules for international competitions in speedskating and figure skating as those sports developed through their amateur practitioners. Speedskating was about racing, and figure skating was about edge control.

For figure skating, that meant establishing standards, based on the knowledge of accomplished skaters/experts and amateur rulemakers among their numbers, of what constitutes good skating and how to determine who delivers the best skating in any given competition. As the top competitors of each era bring new techniques and new standards of performance, the practice of figure skating evolves and so do the rules and expectations by the experts. But fundamentally, figure skating is still a sport based on the control of edges on ice -- twisting in the air or dancing to the music are valued for the ways reflect superior control of the edges on ice, not for their own sake. If you want to enjoy those skills for their own sake without regard to edges on ice, a circus or a dance performance would be more entertaining.

If the mission is it to produce an entertainment product for paying customers and to deliver maximum viewers to paying broadcasters and sponsors, then pleasing the audiences would be of prime concern, and the rules of the sport should be designed to produce the most entertaining events and the participants should train to be able to deliver the most entertaining performances possible, keeping in mind that not only artistic performance but also exciting tricks are entertaining.

Over the decades free skating became more entertaining, and amateur rules became obsolete. But I don't think that meant that the ISU changed its goal for the edges-on-ice-based disciplines (now including ice dance and synchronized skating) from setting and maintaining standards within the Olympic sports movement to producing entertainment extravaganzas for profit. They do want audiences and they do want to bring in enough money to pay the bills and to pay the best skaters. But not at the expense of dumbing down the sport.

I think that pro skating served the entertainment product purpose, but for various reasons there's less of a market for it now, at least in the US, than there was 15 years ago. One of the reasons is that the ISU made efforts to use broadcast rights, eligibility rules, and their own opportunities for elite skaters to make money through ISU events to compete directly with pro events and made them less feasible for outside organizers to support. And lately it seems the way to get audiences to watch pro skating is to team up former elite figure skaters with celebrities from other areas of life and see how well these nonskaters can learn how to skate and to perform on skates.

What's more entertaining to watch? A dancer or actor who's a great performer and who has learned enough easy basic skating skills to translate that performance ability on ice? Or a shy jock who is highly accomplished at technical skating skills but has no interest in the audience?

If skating is all about entertaining audiences, why not find, or develop, good performers with just enough technical skating ability to support their performances and choreograph entertaining shows on ice? That's what the broadcasters aiming for maximum numbers of eyeballs would like, especially if there's also a competitive format to add drama to the show.

But if skating is about technical sport, aiming for faster higher stronger in its own terms, which for figure skating also means greatest control of the edges, then the rules and format can't favor the twisting and the dancing at the expense of the edge-based skills.

The Olympic movement will reject figure skating if it becomes too much about the dancing without technique. There were frequent threats from the Olympic side in the 1990s to get rid of ice dancing because it was too subjective to be a real sport. Officials and fans from other sports who aren't interested in arts might like to see skating be all about difficult tricks and not understand what the edges or the music have to do with anything.

So the ISU needs to balance demands from the jock audience and the artsy audience with the integrity of its own edge-based sport. And I would hope they would do more to encourage audiences to understand the edge techniques and not just be wowed by flashy tricks and dancing.
 
Top