Bradley wants to 'bring home some hardware'

Mathman said:

Yes, it does. Sonia Bianchetti is another expert observer who thinks that the new judging system is harmful to te popularity of the sport.

Personally, I do not think that the scoring system is much of a factor when it comes to the public's entertainment tastes. If the popularity of figure skating really is based on our fondness for sweet girls next door who never kiss on the first date, then maybe SkateFiguring's view is correct. Old figure skating fans are dying out and the present generation spends their entertainment dollar in other ways.

Click to expand...

What is your point here? That the new system may not be as poular as the old system and a diminishing fan base is of no concern? Holy smokes, what a passive view!

I did not make the rules about what it takes to be "Queen of the ice." In fact, I think it was clear enough I don't think it is "cool."

Your comment appears to agree with me even if you missed my point.

I think anonymous judging = which was implemented before CoP is the main culprit for the average joe to be frustrated with the judging system. It's so much easier to blame Canada or Russia for a lowball score when you can see who did it!

Americans love the blame game. Scott Hamilton wrote about the 94 ladies LP and how CBS producers pushed for the commentators to make a big deal about how Nancy lost because of supposed bloc judging. Scott had just found out his father had passed away and then to top it off they wanted him to villify a judge who happened to be a friend of Scott's. He did not give a very positive vibe in that chapter.

While I do believe there can and is politiking going on with the judges, I don't think it was always present in the way the US media portrayed. And the media itself is what killed the interest in the sport in 2002. Bad judging had always been a part of the sport, but the way the media went insane when the Canadians lost to the big bad Russians (and the media BLAMED THE SKATERS as if they had something to do with it). Yes, when it was found out that the judging was fixed there should have been outrage, but the outrage started two days before it was found out that a judge had been pressured/bought to vote one way over the other.

Tonichelle said:

I think anonymous judging = which was implemented before CoP is the main culprit for the average joe to be frustrated with the judging system. It's so much easier to blame Canada or Russia for a lowball score when you can see who did it!

Americans love the blame game. Scott Hamilton wrote about the 94 ladies LP and how CBS producers pushed for the commentators to make a big deal about how Nancy lost because of supposed bloc judging. Scott had just found out his father had passed away and then to top it off they wanted him to villify a judge who happened to be a friend of Scott's. He did not give a very positive vibe in that chapter.

While I do believe there can and is politiking going on with the judges, I don't think it was always present in the way the US media portrayed. And the media itself is what killed the interest in the sport in 2002. Bad judging had always been a part of the sport, but the way the media went insane when the Canadians lost to the big bad Russians (and the media BLAMED THE SKATERS as if they had something to do with it). Yes, when it was found out that the judging was fixed there should have been outrage, but the outrage started two days before it was found out that a judge had been pressured/bought to vote one way over the other.

Click to expand...

Sandra made it clear "something was rotten in Denmark" immediatley and in real time. Not two days later but within seconds of the decision.
She left no doubt and let's not forget she had been very outspoken about the way B/K had been judged.

Comments from B/K along with Isabelle Duchesnay revealing that before she even skated back in '92 she had been told the Gold had been awarded to the Russians.

Sorry, but it happened too many time to be considered a quirky one time thing.

Hernando said:

Was it "cool" when the president of the ISU said publicly that "keeping the judges scores anonymous will help reduce the abilty to cheat." :think:

Click to expand...

No, that wasn't cool, that was stupid. Cinquanta himself knows this, but he was forced to do it by the IOC.

Anonymous judging, however, is a separate question from 6.0 versus CoP. In either system you could have anonymous judging, or not. In fact, the first anonymous judging system was the "interim system" used in the 2002-2003 season. This was just 6.0 judging, with anonymity thrown in.

The question of cheating is also not really relevant to a discussion of which system is better. As you say, you can cheat in both systems, so that's kind of a wash. You can't just say, "I like 6.0 better because cheating can still take place under CoP, too."

What is your point here? That the new system may not be as popular as the old system and a diminishing fan base is of no concern? Holy smokes, what a passive view!

Click to expand...

I do not believe that the change in the judging system had much to do with the diminishing fan base. The diminishing fan base is a concern, but I do not think that changing the scoring system back will have much effect on it.

As to whether the new system is less popular than the old, it seems to me that there are some people on both sides of that question, and that the great majority of casual fans do not really have a strongly held opinion on the subject of the scoring system.

I did not make the rules about what it takes to be "Queen of the ice." In fact, I think it was clear enough I don;t think it is cool.

Your comment appears to agree with me even if you missed my point.

Click to expand...

I do agree with you. I did not miss your point.

Yes, I agree that the girl-next-door/princess-on-a-pedestal has always been part of the appeal of the sport. (Go Alissa! ) However, I think that nowadays this image is valued more by old people than by young. I think that socio-cultural factors of this sort are way more important in analysing the decline of popularity of the sport than quarreling about the scoring system is.

Hernando said:

Sandra made it clear "something was rotten in Denmark" immediatley and in real time. Not two days later but within seconds of the decision.
She left no doubt and let's not forget she had been very outspoken about the way B/K had been judged.

Click to expand...

Yes a Canadian siding with the Canadian team. Original. Bias goes both ways.

Hamilton came out that same week and basically said he and Sandra screwed up by letting their emotions get the better of them. Elena and Anton were not at fault and yet the media and fans (on this side of the Atlantic) all wanted their heads. They were two skaters who had one minor mistake (let's not forget Jamie and David had a fall at the end of their short program and were first after that portion when Elena and Anton skated flawlessly), Jamie and David skated an old favorite (of which I was thankful because I love Love Story and could take or leave Orchid).

I was with Scott and Sandra in the moment, I thought my favorites should be on top of the podium, especially after they skated lights out without a bobble (considering Jamie's jump issues at the time, it was a thing of beauty. And Dave's ice kiss was tear worthy), and to this day I wish that the judging scandal hadn't tainted it.

I never said it was a "quirky one time thing" - I said it happened all the time, and was accepted by commentators and fans alike as "part of skating". We like(d) to complain about it and villify that evil Russian judge (on this side of the pond) or the evil Canadian judge (other side of the pond) or former East German judge versus the evil American... or whatever. But 2002 changed that when the media decided to "expose" that which we as fans already knew.

Hernando said:

Sorry, but it happened too many time to be considered a quirky one time thing.

Click to expand...

All of these scandals happened under 6.0. I do not see how that is an argument against CoP.

Mathman said:

All of these scandals happened under 6.0. I do not see how that is an argument against CoP.

Click to expand...

and that's my point. Scott and Sandra said that the judging needed to change. That the 6.0 system no longer worked. Now they, like so many others, are backtracking and saying "it doesn't work, we have no idea why they changed it!" well, gee, guys lets rewind 9 years and look at that, shall we?

and look at what Stars On Ice did in 1997/98 in their "Fun & Games" program mocking the judges by showing them as all backroom dealing and intimidating each other to give the right scores. As Mathman said - it's not a good argument to show that CoP is worse... :sheesh: It's always been a part of skating. 2002 is what made the change. We all of a sudden no longer accepted it as "just part of the game." (and by we I mean, media, skaters and fans...)

the IOC wanted to boot skating out the door, the ISU had to do something drastic to make them happy. That would have taken skating COMPLETELY off the media map. If it's not an Olympic Sport it's not worth even the little time it's being given now.

Mathman said:

No, that wasn't cool, that was stupid. Cinquanta himself knows this, but he was forced to do it by the IOC.

Anonymous judging, however, is a separate question from 6.0 versus CoP. In either system you could have anonymous judging, or not. In fact, the first anonymous judging system was the "interim system" used in the 2002-2003 season. This was just 6.0 judging, with anonymity thrown in.

The question of cheating is also not really relevant to a discussion of which system is better. As you say, you can cheat in both systems, so that's kind of a wash. You can't just say, "I like 6.0 better because cheating can still take place under CoP, too."



I do not believe that the change in the judging system had much to do with the diminishing fan base. The diminishing fan base is a concern, but I do not think that changing the scoring system back will have much effect on it.

As to whether the new system is less popular than the old, it seems to me that there are some people on both sides of that question, and that the great majority of casual fans do not really have a strongly held opinion on the subject of the scoring system.



I do agree with you. I did not miss your point.

Yes, I agree that the girl-next-door/princess-on-a-pedestal has always been part of the appeal of the sport. (Go Alissa! ) However, I think that nowadays this image is valued more by old people than by young. I think that socio-cultural factors of this sort are way more important in analysing the decline of popularity of the sport than quarreling about the scoring system is.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your reply which is not so hard for me to agree with.
You and a few others make an assumption that I want 6.0 back. I think you will have to look long and hard to find such a statement.

I am with Joesitz and maybe BOP on this. I think the CoP is terribly flawed. The fact that they have to keep changing so many rules each season (granted, some are obviolusly political :disagree makes this hard to ignore.

Maybe not a big deal in itself but I always believed when you replace something the goal is to be clearly better and not just as good or different.

I think we all know how Brian B feels about the CoP as well as Button and Scott.
Too many statements from coaches like Carroll, Mishin and even Morozov have poked such big holes in the CoP it takes a tremendous leap of faith for me to believe people like you, Pogue and skatefiguring know more.

If it means I am too old to believe acknowledged experts and not GS posters well then I think I prefer being old because TRUE expertise is something I respect.

Hernando said:

Was it "cool" when the president of the ISU said publicly that "keeping the judges scores anonymous will help reduce the abilty to cheat." :think:

Click to expand...

Nope, and anonymous judging is a mistake.

That's a statement most who worship on the altar of the CoP will never respond to.

Click to expand...

I don't worship at any altars. My admiration of COP comes from the fact that it encourages excellence in all areas of skating and does so in such a way that allows a variety of terrific programs to be seen. I love the idea of parts of figure skating being given weight along with the whole, as opposed to nebulous wholes without meaning being given the full weight.

I really can't blame them for that because most people find cheating in sports or most other things not to be "cool" but reprehensible.

Click to expand...

True.

Am I the only person who felt saddened when Speedy said "suspending Didier for three years was a painful decision?" :sheesh:

Click to expand...

I would have to learn more about the context (I mean the actual context, not the media-driven one) before actually judging the appropriateness of his comment.

For me it was and remains a painful decision that he was not given a lifetime ban. I felt sad when ISU decided it was easier to go with anonymous scores rather than making an honest attempt at ridding figure skating of the most problematic manipulators and cheaters.

Click to expand...

I wish that a full investigation had been done at the time. I wish they hadn't gone for anonymous scoring.

Or do some of you really think sweeping it under the table was "COOL"?

Click to expand...

Ah, the "some people said" syndrome.

Tonichelle said:

Yes a Canadian siding with the Canadian team. Original. Bias goes both ways.

Hamilton came out that same week and basically said he and Sandra screwed up by letting their emotions get the better of them. Elena and Anton were not at fault and yet the media and fans (on this side of the Atlantic) all wanted their heads. They were two skaters who had one minor mistake (let's not forget Jamie and David had a fall at the end of their short program and were first after that portion when Elena and Anton skated flawlessly), Jamie and David skated an old favorite (of which I was thankful because I love Love Story and could take or leave Orchid).

I was with Scott and Sandra in the moment, I thought my favorites should be on top of the podium, especially after they skated lights out without a bobble (considering Jamie's jump issues at the time, it was a thing of beauty. And Dave's ice kiss was tear worthy), and to this day I wish that the judging scandal hadn't tainted it.

Click to expand...

Tonichelle, S/P were second in the SP to B/S. It was a 7-2 split on the judging panel.

Tonichelle said:

(let's not forget Jamie and David had a fall at the end of their short program and were first after that portion when Elena and Anton skated flawlessly)

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that Berezhnaya and Sikharudlidze were ahead after the Lady Caliph short program -- the greatest pairs SP of all time.

You and a few others make an assumption that I want 6.0 back. I think you will have to look long and hard to find such a statement....

If it means I am old to believe acknowledged experts and not GS posters well then I think I prefer being old because TRUE expertise is something I respect.

Click to expand...

I think that all the experts that you named do want 6.0 back. Certainly that is what Christine Brennan is arguing for in the article that you posted.

Mathman said:

I'm pretty sure that Berezhnaya and Sikharudlidze were ahead after the Lady Caliph short program -- the greatest pairs SP of all time.

Click to expand...

My memory of the SP is probably flawed, but still, they were placed above others that were without flaws. how is this any different or better?

I think that all the experts that you named do want 6.0 back. Certainly that is what Christine Brennan is arguing for in the article that you posted.

Click to expand...

and really if not wanting CoP then what would one propose? In theory the CoP should work, however you still have a handful of individuals who have personal/professional/national bias, who are human and make mistakes or poor decisions... there will never be a perfect program. The CoP's tweaking each season makes that clear. It's going to take a lot of growing pains. A baby does not get up and run two seconds after birth, nor does an entirely new system take 4 months to make work... Growing pains will happen. It's at times frustrating, but when it works - and it has in many competitions over all - it's pretty appealing.

Personally I don't care if it's 6.0, CoP, or the 10 point system from pro skating competitions... as long as I come away feeling satisfied - and there hasn't been a competition where I've been completely unimpressed - that's all that matters. I don't get so worked up over the judges names or nationalities. They're just a bunch of ol' fuddy duddies who have opinions just like me. They may know more about what we're all watching than I do, but I don't watch skating to have lectures or math lessons (and even with the extra math CoP make so much more sense to my way of thinking than ordinals) I watch it for those special moments.

ImaginaryPogue said:

Nope, and anonymous judging is a mistake.



I don't worship at any altars. My admiration of COP comes from the fact that it encourages excellence in all areas of skating and does so in such a way that allows a variety of terrific programs to be seen. I love the idea of parts of figure skating being given weight along with the whole, as opposed to nebulous wholes without meaning being given the full weight.



True.



I would have to learn more about the context (I mean the actual context, not the media-driven one) before actually judging the appropriateness of his comment.



I wish that a full investigation had been done at the time. I wish they hadn't gone for anonymous scoring.



Ah, the "some people said" syndrome.

Click to expand...

You had me until the "some people syndrome" remark. Such pickiness about semantics feels more like a concession than a good argument. Would that statement mean more if I listed you and 3-4 other GS posters by name?

I think not.

Toni raised a good point about how we feel about judges' decisions over the years. For sure I agree with her and admit I see it through N. American eyes.
Doesn't mean I can't sympathize with Euro fans or those that grew up in the Eastern bloc countries.

Perceptions are really different here. If you were to ask me if Patrick has better "skating skills" than Yagudin I would have to qualify it further.

Chan has landed what, maybe 4-5 quads in his career? Yags did that in a competition or two. As to these "skills" I find Yags still the best guy I have seen to get on the ice and deliver a program that can make people think they saw something special.

Patrick may get there, but at this point why do Istill feel like he is "skating by numbers" and showing choreographed smiles?

That is subjective and it is cool for some of us to disagree about "artistry" in skating.

When we discuss the decline of popularity of figure skating, we are talking about the US. CoP is not an issue in nations where skating is still quite new and the fans learn or want to learn about the scoring. It's simply accepted.

In the US there is still nostalgia by older fans and there is something to compare the new system to. It might seem like there was little controversy about 6.0 but 1) there was nothing else to compare the scoring system to, besides the changes in relative importance assigned to figures, technical and free programs, 2) there were no online forums for masses of fans to meet and debate the vast arrays of opinions and preferences, and 3) 6.0 was rather straight forward judges' opinion on ordinals, with no breakdowns of how these opionions were derived. CoP quantifies elements and components with detailed point system which provides a great base for scrutinies and interpretations as points and arsenals for arguements, particularly fitting for enthusiastic geeks, of whom there seem to be many in this fandom. :

So there are all these debates about CoP whose nature invites them. That's a good thing. Yes there are changes and there will always be because there is provision in the system for easy changes for various purposes, to make it fairer or appearing more so, more appealing to fans and public, more relevent to the times, to reflect and promote certain policies, or simply to appease fans!

Debates are healthy and allow for expressions of opinions. Having discussions and even controversies don't make a system worse than one which offers few chances for them.

All that said, I don't believe the scoring system accounts for the decline of popularity among casual viewers and public at large in the US. Unlike intense fans online, they don't focus on the scoring system, analysing, comparing and weilding each skater's detailed scores like lethal weapons. Their attention may be attracted more by interesting/controversal news concerning skaters, stunning beauty or victory of a particular skater, nationalism, etc. I think figure skating has to make them feel good. The question is how? In any case, their attention has to be competed for against everything else happening in the world.

Hernando said:

You had me until the "some people syndrome" remark. Such pickiness about semantics feels more like a concession than a good argument. Would that statement mean more if I listed you and 3-4 other GS posters by name?

I think not.

Click to expand...

I disagree. It would have, because I tend to find you a little too elusive when actually debating. Plus I really dislike "some people said" - it's too Fox-newish for me.

SkateFiguring said:

It might seem like there was little controversy about 6.0....

Click to expand...

Actually, I believe that there have been a number of controversial issues surrounding ordinal judging. Things came to a head at 1997 Europeans, where the final men's ordinals turned out so screwy that the ISU scrapped the whole "majority of ordinals" system and wen to OBO (one-by-one).

This was supposed to prevent "flip-flops" (technically, violations of the "Irrelevance of Independent Alternatives" condition.) But it didn't. In both systems, it remained possible for number #18 to beat #17, thus causing the #1 skater drop to #2 (1 and 2 having already skated).

Here is an article about it by Sandra Loosemore.

http://www.frogsonice.com/skateweb/obo/score-obo.shtml

The controversy continued up through the 2002 Olympics, The USFSA stuck with majority of ordinals, while the ISU used OBO for international competitions. Michelle Kwan won the 2002 U.S championship under majority of ordinals. At the 2002 Olympics, U.S. judge Joe Inman placed Kwan thrid behind Slutskaya. The New York Times ran an article blaming Inman for being the sole cause of Michelle not winning the gold medal.

The New York Times was wrong, howver. This would have been true under majority of ordinals, by not under OBO.

wallylutz said:

Well, the real podium should have only one medal - at least that's how the Olympic sports started over 2,500 years ago. Only the victor has glory, no 2nd and no 3rd place. Coincidentally, that's still the ways many countries look at sport results, especially Olympic sports.

Click to expand...

I can't believe you ever competed in a competition. How many countries have you polled on your One medal theory? It's a competition prize and it can change the next time there is a similar competition. Only Sonia Henie became the richest woman in the world because of her 3 gold medals.

ImaginaryPogue said:

I disagree. It would have, because I tend to find you a little too elusive when actually debating. Plus I really dislike "some people said" - it's too Fox-newish for me.

Click to expand...

Fox newish

I assure you I am an MSNBC guy all the way.

Thank the gods that Gen Borg/Beck, the greatest embarrassment in USA news journalism history, has been given his walking papers by Fox Noise. (JMHO)

There could be no greater insult to me as an American than to think I ever believed anything that slug at the bottom of the algae pond ever reported. :sheesh:

I was serious about some of your debating tactics. If I pose questions which you choose to pass over with your own questions don't be so surprised when I don't answer.

As to semantics, and picky points that avoid the real issue, well I have little interest in that either. You seem way too smart to corner yourself with a question that is not interesting to answer.

Now I think I raised a good point about Yags and Chan which you chose to ignore.

Who do you think at this point is the greater skater, the one closest to blending technique and artistry to create a spellbinding moment on the ice?

I will concede Patrick for once was great at Canadian Natls. Yags was so special and esteemed he used to pass up his own Natl event because the World stage was his pallete.

I think Patrick has quite a way to go before he can overtake Yagudin. Not abig deal and just my opinion.
But it does resonate in my mind Yags was a 6.0 skater and has been retired for quite a while. I don't think a CoP male skater has passed him by yet.

All right. Pose the questions you think I overlooked and I'll try to answer them.

Yags vs Chan? Yagudin is better. I think he's the better skater. I think he's closest to blending technique and artistry to create a spellbinding moment on the ice. I'll go even further. If I were to ever call modern (post-figures), competitive figure skating an art form, he'd be my go to guy (Lambiel and Takahashi would be the other two). I think Chan has a long way to go before he overtakes Yagudin (and that's an if he overtakes Yagudin). I don't think a COP male skater has passed him by yet.

As for semantics, make no mistake. I am interested in answers to all my questions, even if they seem stupid. I am interested in semantics in general (because what's labeled semantics often isn't) and I tend to be a bit of a pedant (my friends hate me for correcting their grammer in conversation. And I will hit people who say "irregardless").

The Fox Newish... "some people say"

Marhman, my point wasn't clear on 6.0 controversies. Obviously there were those, including the final blow-up resulting in a brand new scoring system, which was overdue. The 2002 judging controvery simply gave the impetus to finally overhaul the system.

The controversies I wrote about referred to the the big heated arguements among fans amidst all the constant bickerings. Such continual debates and fights bring on incremental changes in the system, hopefully for the better, at least over all in the long run. The 6.0 in itself and in its time didn't provide for the constant debates among fans, so the dissatisfactions and resentments built up till it exploded. And its structure was too inflexible to "fix" piecemeal.

Interestingly, I would think CoP, compared to 6.0, should appeal more to the Americans, who are used to and proud of the law based, democratic system which gives voices to the people, and the dicision makers are supposed to account for their decisions, often needing to "sell" their position to the populace.