Seeking The Perfect Combination Between Sport And Art

Bluebonnet · Nov 11, 2011

Inspired by what Prettykeys said in Patrick Chan's thread, I'm thinking I should start a new thread on this topic so everyone could share his/her wisdom. And it chould give opportunity and place to the people who feel boring to rant too.

I'll start first. Difficulty, even making mistakes, is exciting. Once many years ago, a viewer told Dick Button that her three year old son loved watching figure skating because he loved to see them fall.

I think it says a lot. That's the spirit of watching sports, any sports - exciting. I'm sure most of the fans who love figure skating value the spirit of the sport. Figure skating is more satisfying than many other sports for many fans is because it has, in the meantime, satisfied these people with the combination of artistry. Safe is not the solution for a sport. Seeking the artistically perfected skating to the point that it would undermine the basic value of the sport, such as stronger, higher, faster, will never do.

I agree with Prettykeys that the system could be adjusted more in the direction of seeking clean skating without hurting difficulty of the skating. Then what is it and how? In the men's LP in Skate Canada folder, Bruin714 has listed a deduction for the falls. But many have said it's not necessary or it'll bring more trouble than rewarding.

Is the current IJS has perfectly combined sport and art?

gkelly · Nov 11, 2011

Hm.

A lot to think about. Not sure that a "perfect" combination that will satisfy everyone would ever be possible.

I guess my first question is, should the goal be a system that allows and encourages art within what is basically a technical sport? Or should the goal be to make artistic qualities, both related and unrelated to skating technique, at least equal to the sporting aspects of a performance?

I.e., given a well-constructed, error-free, musical, emotional performance that is emotionally satisfying for the spectators, and several other performances that may be weaker in the Performance/Execution, Choreography, and Interpretation component areas and/or that contain visible errors, but that include more difficult technical content or are executed with greater athleticism and/or basic skating technique . . . should we be happy if the most artistic, most emotionally satisfying performance finishes fifth? Or do we want the system to ensure that the most artistic and most emotionally satisfying = win?

Bluebonnet · Nov 11, 2011

gkelly said:
Not sure that a "perfect" combination that will satisfy everyone would ever be possible.

Probably not. The purpose is not to reach an agreement. It's to talk about it and to share your thoughts and wisdoms.

gkelly said:
I guess my first question is, should the goal be a system that allows and encourages art within what is basically a technical sport? Or should the goal be to make artistic qualities, both related and unrelated to skating technique, at least equal to the sporting aspects of a performance?

To me, I think it should be in between but closer to the first one. Allow and encourage probably mean that it's not necessary. You can have it and you don't have to have it. That means that you could do less than what we've been seeing now. I'm sure that's not what we all want. However, over emphasize artistic qualities will be for sure undermine the athleticism. Many are seeking that artistic qualities in figure skating so much so that they don't even care for the hardest jumps. If artistic qualities are so important to some people, why don't those people go to watch SOI, DWTS, and anything but skating competitions?

gkelly said:
should we be happy if the most artistic, most emotionally satisfying performance finishes fifth? Or do we want the system to ensure that the most artistic and most emotionally satisfying = win?

Neither. But emotionally satisfying is subjective. One performance could be emotionally so satisfying to some but completely dull to others. I feel Patrick Chan's Aranjuez's Adagio is beautifully choreographed and skated, at least at Japan Open, emotionally satistying. Even though he has focused more on technics and less on artistics, his SC performance was still somewhat more satisfying in this regard than many other programs. Unlike many, I think Abbott's new LP could use two words to describe - "beautiful" but "plain". I missed his masculine artistic beauty, his strength and determination beneath his gentleness in the movements in his programs which he has shown in the last two seasons. He should win CoC, but it was not emotionally satisfied. Now when I'm thinking of it, doesn't "the most emotionally satisfying" mean "your favorite"? Then what is the standard if everyone is seeking their own emotionally satisfying character to win?

gkelly · Nov 11, 2011

Bluebonnet said:
But emotionally satisfying is subjective. One performance could be emationally so satisfying to some but completely dull to others.

Exactly. And I'm sure there are other fans who feel the exact opposite about Abbott vs. Chan than you do. So if they compete against each other with similar jump content, whatever the results are someone's not going to agree.

This question made me think of a couple of examples from earlier in my skating fan experience, when I had a clear preference emotionally and artistically but understood exactly why the results of the sporting contest came out as they did:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wulzC1rx4oA vs. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSXT8HsDazQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpRVb-BqT-Q vs. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GkLbzBQitg (free skate specifically -- factored placements including the short program increased the distance in final results)

I might also include http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_rU6RsJRy8 vs. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7qlWNiR4pw -- better skating quality and program construction vs. historic jump content -- the difficulty is exciting on its own merits

Mathman · Nov 11, 2011

^ An interesting selection. :clap:

But thought-provoking, too. What is "technique" and what is "emotionally satisfying?"

1. Rahkamo & Kakko versus Krylova & Federov. Which team was better in terms of difficulty and high tech? I did not find R&K inferior to K&F in terms of technical difficulty. R&K did some outstanding and very difficult unison and in-hold work. K&F skated to peppier music (they were not fast by today's standards, however). They did not do anything special in terms of technical content that I could see.

I liked R&K better on both the first mark and the second.

(Angelika Krylova is the most beautiful women in the history of skating, but that's a separate category.

)

2. Bobek versus Lipinski. First, this was 1000 times better than what Alissa, Mirai, Rachael, Ashley, etc., showed at 2011 U.S. Nationals. But that, too, is a separate question.

For me, this one also is a no-brainer. Nicole's performance was a delight. But IMHO Tara won handily on both marks. Granted, not everyone likes tiny 14-year-old jumping-jacks. But Tara worked the music, worked the crowd, and built up the emotion to a rousing crescendo.

3. I guess this is why we should all welcome the CoP. By modern standards, Elvis' program was a technical disaster. No skating skills, no transitions, no footwork, no spins. Eldredge was better on both tech and artistry.

I am a GOE man, myself. Doing something hard badly should not be the goal of the sport. There are lots of things that a person could do that are hard. A skater could try to balance a glass of water on his head while doing his serpentine footwork. This would be very difficult. If he made it three-quarters of the way before the water fell off, that would also deserve some partial credit for attempting such a difficult element.

Note how effective Eldredge's and Tara's final (level 1) spins were, in the context of the program as a whole.

doubleflutz · Nov 11, 2011

Mathman said:
3. I guess this is why we should all welcome the CoP. By modern standards, Elvis' program was a technical disaster. No skating skills, no transitions, no footwork, no spins. Eldredge was better on both tech and artistry.

I am a GOE man, myself. Doing something hard badly should not be the goal of the sport. There are lots of things that a person could do that are hard. A skater could try to balance a glass of water on his head while doing his serpentine footwork. This would be very difficult. If he made it three-quarters of the way before the water fell off, that would also deserve some partial credit for attempting such a difficult element.

I agree with a lot of this, but I think also that the question of Difficulty (levels) vs Execution (GOE) is muddied by the fact that the COP levels don't necessarily accurately reflect the difficulty of the elements they are grading at all.

What's so difficult about the catchfoot positions in the lifts in pairs? The way most of the ladies do it, I can't see how it changes their center of gravity and the balance of the lift enough and in a way that makes it all that much more difficult, or requires more core strength on the part of the lady. Donut spins and catchfoots/half-Biellmanns/Biellmanns, either: flexibility is impressive, but they're easy to center and get around quickly than a basic camel. Steps are a complete mess for singles, because all the different steps required mean a sequence of any given level can be an order of magnitude easier than a different one of the same level. They need to completely re-write the level criteria. Last night in the Ladies SP at NHK, Elene Gedevanishvilli and Alena Leonova got the same levels on their footwork, which is such a joke. Alena wasn't even skating for most of hers, and receieved higher GOE as well. A lot of that seemed to be bad judging, Alena was very overscored in general, but a system that evaluates both those sequences as being of the same difficulty is a bad system.

I feel like many of the problems of "difficulty for difficulty's sake" and "difficulty over execution" would go away or be lessened if there was a coherent basis for what defines "difficulty" overall in the sport. In a lot of ways, it feels like some skater somewhere did something that looked cool (like Biellmann's Biellmann, or Oksana's donut, or Yagudin/Morozov's flashy toe steps), and everyone went "that is the coolest thing ever! It must be hard!". Or, in the case of change of edge spins or the catchfoot positions for pairs ladies in lifts/death spirals, they just went "oh crap, we need more level criteria, quick somebody think of something! Must have enough features so that they can potentially get up to level 4!".

You can't properly balance Sport and Art before you have a fundamental idea of what the technical part of the sport is all about, and the COP in many ways is a confused mish-mash. It's getting better, but there's still a lot of work to be done.

Violet Bliss · Nov 11, 2011

It seems one way to discourage ugly executions of difficult moves would be to increase the GOE values such that a poorly done higher level is worth less than a well done lower level. This is already the case with some elements but some skaters and their coaches are gung ho on raising the level of an element before the easier level is mastered.

Are they too lazy to really think, evaluate, and strategize?

doubleflutz · Nov 11, 2011

SkateFiguring said:
This is already the case with some elements but some skaters and their coaches are gung ho on raising the level of an element before the easier level is mastered. Are they too lazy to really think, evaluate, and strategize?

1. In most cases, higher levels = more points over all, plus judges have often seemed to be more generous with the GOE to high level elements. The coaches want to win and their athletes want to win, or at least improve their placements. They are thinking and strategizing correctly, given the system at play.
2. Lots of people, especially young skaters but really most athletes, tend to like learning or "getting" new skills over the tedium of polishing existing ones. It's human nature, and it's true in most skill-based sports. Not everyone will care, but having concrete goals like "get a level 4 on all the spins" helps many skaters get out of bed in the morning when it's still dark out to go drill the same things over and over in a freezing rink, instead of going "ugh, why am I doing this again? they'll just give good PCS to the skaters they like, I'm going to stay in bed". From the point of view of training, most athletes are helped by having some kind of concrete goal and benchmarks to their training. If working on getting a higher level (or new jump, new [insert number or goal here]) means the skater is engaged in the training instead of "ho hum, time to do the same spin I have been doing since I was 9 years old for like twenty minutes", it's a smart coach who goes for the higher level. And it's not like there is a shortage at World/Olympic level training of "ho-hum, time to do the same thing over and over and over again for hours at a time".

gkelly · Nov 11, 2011

doubleflutz said:
judges have often seemed to be more generous with the GOE to high level elements.

I can think of a few reasons why that might be.

Judges don't know what the levels are, though.

Are you estimating that judges seem to be more generous to high-level elements from the levels on the protocols or from watching the elements and noting the number of features attempted?

Looking at the protocols, we'll probably see a bunch of elements that received both low levels and low GOE even though the skater attempted several features, because the execution wasn't good enough for all the features to count. So the judges penalized the execution and the tech panel didn't reward the element, but we can't tell just from the protocols whether it was trying to gain a higher level or whether the skater was so weak in that area (in general, or at that particular point in that particular performance) that s/he didn't even try to earn features.

Looking at the elements themselves, there may be high-level elements that earn high GOE because the skaters are skilled enough to perform most of the difficult element successfully. Even if there's one little balance break or awkward position in the middle of a long step sequence or spin, everything else may be high enough quality to earn positive GOE in addition to getting full credit for the features attempted.

If the skater is less skilled and less able to attempt 3 or 4 features in the same element, then even without mistakes a less ambitious element may not show as high quality overall.

I.e., the skaters who are able to earn +GOE on simple elements are also usually capable of adding more features than the skaters for whom two features is a challenge.

2. Lots of people, especially young skaters but really most athletes, tend to like learning or "getting" new skills over the tedium of polishing existing ones. It's human nature, and it's true in most skill-based sports. Not everyone will care, but having concrete goals like "get a level 4 on all the spins" helps many skaters get out of bed in the morning when it's still dark out to go drill the same things over and over in a freezing rink, instead of going "ugh, why am I doing this again? they'll just give good PCS to the skaters they like, I'm going to stay in bed". From the point of view of training, most athletes are helped by having some kind of concrete goal and benchmarks to their training. If working on getting a higher level (or new jump, new [insert number or goal here]) means the skater is engaged in the training instead of "ho hum, time to do the same spin I have been doing since I was 9 years old for like twenty minutes", it's a smart coach who goes for the higher level. And it's not like there is a shortage at World/Olympic level training of "ho-hum, time to do the same thing over and over and over again for hours at a time".

Yes, I think this is true. It's a more clearcut goal. You can know even in practice whether you can execute the features above the minimum to get credit for them, whereas executing well enough to earn positive GOE is more dependent on the subjective perceptions of whoever happens to be on the judging panel at each competition. The skater or the coach may believe if s/he execute with "this much" quality in competition, the element should deserve at least +1, but there's less guarantee the judges will agree. Whereas if the skater executes the features clearly, no gray areas, they're pretty much guaranteed to get the level.

doubleflutz · Nov 11, 2011

gkelly said:
Are you estimating that judges seem to be more generous to high-level elements from the levels on the protocols or from watching the elements and noting the number of features attempted?

The latter. Mostly I'm thinking of a bit earlier on in COP, when level 4s for spins and especially steps were very rare, and then you'd skaters who were known to be aiming for that level 4, where they'd get +GOE that I thought was unjustified/inflated. Brian Joubert and Evan Lysacek on their step sequences, for the biggest examples, but there were some others. Ladies too. Plus, I never understood the spin +GOE back in the very early days of COP, especially in the year or two when you had the men doing the bad Biellmanns and such. There were quite a lot of "so it's okay to travel a thousand miles veeeery sloooowly if you dislocate your spine while doing it? huh?" moments for me. Also, I like Stephane Lambiel very much, but I felt like he sometimes got a "spinning while named Stephane Lambiel" bonus in the final season or two before he retired (before his Vancouver comeback), maybe for similar reasons.

OS · Nov 12, 2011

Thanks Bluebonnet for starting this thread, I am looking forward to what everyone's though on this and here's my random (and embarrassingly long) rants again

I am no means an expert in this sport so feel free to chime in and disagree.

As much as my love for art (I grew up mostly in the country that produced the likes John Curry, Robin Cousins, Torvill and Dean, and generally I am highly critical on the role of arts used in society and it s credibility to reflect who we are.) I agree Figure Skating is primarily a sport first therefore a degree of risk taking, pushing the athletic capabilities to be faster, higher, bigger, further, more precise, more attack, more difficult, more perfect, etc should be all be the primary goals here and are absolutely necessary for it to thrive as a credible sport.

Trouble is while the men got it right at the moment, this doesn't seem to be a priorities for the ladies. These past 2 years, they rarely attack their programs (Except yesterday Akiko went for her 3:3 and succeed at age 26! Simply Amazing! :thumbsup

or go after the harder sporting challenges. This sport then becomes a tentative endurance sport of playing Chicken (ie/I dare you to make a mistake first), with pretty packages and accessories capable to hide deficiencies they have; be it speed, control, flow, or ability to interpret music, all can be 'sheltered' or 'enhanced' by a clever choice of 'complementary' music, with a clever designed routine where they don't need to work as hard. Less technical content can be compensated by dollops of 'faux art' act as distraction, yet with little actual effort, preparation or thoughts into presenting new improvements, new ideas. It rely on what the skater already have and ends up simple case of maintenance rather than advancement. I also question the scale of values which present by the COP system that measures some of the athletic achievement aspect of the sport.

Scoring the sports correctly, the scale of value and variables

I have always wondered why a big beautiful 2A + 3T going at full speed that has maximum height, distance vs another who performs a beautiful but smaller and conservative 2A + 3T at slower speed, the degree of difference in GOE is absolutely miniscule compares to the amount of effort that actually goes into maximise the elements (years of training, overall energy consumption, technical skills, risks etc..). While it is also 'somewhat' awarded in the PCS, but it is not exactly accountable and is entirely a by product of the overall performance. Had they messed up their routine, does it discount the credibility of the said big beautiful jump landed perfectly? If it is more or less the same, then no wonder the ladies rarely push themselves harder to be more athletic. The same smaller 2A + 3T executed in the 2nd half has a default base value of 0.74 higher than the better jump, therefore more than beat the +GOEs of the first bigger jump. While it is more difficult to land one in the 2nd half, but does the difficulty landing small jump vs the athletic effort to train for a big jump of higher quality I am questioning. This is not about jumps but the principle affect all areas of skating skills. If someone has covered 500 meters of distance in his/her Freeskate vs someone who only traveled only 100 meters, why arn't they awarded differently if this is still a credible sport?

In ladies for example, taking Uncle Frank's words of wisdom, little girls have little jumps, bigger/athletic girls have bigger jumps. Yet in every other sport, regardless of size, shape, age, the built of the athlete doesn't really matter, it is about who ever jump the highest, furtherest wins. (Except maybe in combative sports? Separated by weight classes) Theoretically if we judge it as a sport, surely because bigger and better performed elements that requires more energy and maturity and effort to sustain and execute, should have bigger reward (difference of .03 or 0.4 seems too small of a margin when weighing the effort).

Technology aid to bring sport into the 21st century? Through Bonuses and Rewards

I am not sure human judgement alone is enough to truly appraise the athletic achievements in an sport like figure skating that encompasses a wide range of complex and intricate skills and measurements. Why not bench mark acceptable minimum standard (speed, distance, height, not remain still on ice for more than 5 seconds etc.) and give bonuses when exceed merit standard?. Perhaps they can consider introduce technology to measure the variables with calculated hard facts and stats that averages speed, height, distance, trajectory for each jump and calculate precision and other tangible facts to award extra bonuses (technology exist in other sports already) and if it goes above a certain level, it justify a 'merit' or a 'distinction' bonus to be added in the end. Have wide ranges and look for opportunities to award bonuses, e.g personal best, seasonable best, biggest jump in the competition, a new jump record, all provide small but important incremental small incentives to encourage skaters best at any level to attack their programs more and strengthen figure skating skills.

All skaters are built differently, talented in different ways, and have likely interest in different area of the sport and what it means to them. Why arn't the system providing them the freedom to explore and develop their interests with the direction they want with bonuses?

Why not allow greater options for the skaters to prioritise what they think will work for them? We should encourage more skaters to become masters of certain skating skills, push for innovation versus what how many are now, master of none! Intead we see many ladies too busily taken care (or hide them) their weaknesses and average balance of proficiency is sometimes more valued than an exceptional performance of an exceptional element. The new bonus reward ways may create polarised effect in the type of choreography programs and performances (Some more athletic, some more artistic) but it will encourage innovation in skating and diversity. If the judges are worried about too much polarising effect, then why not award some massive reward for those who demonstrate the most balanced program that can hit 4 or 5 merit/distinction mark as well? In theory it is about providing quality vs quantity type of approach and reward. Elements and holder of world's best level can attract a more diverse range of fans and type of competitors.

Mad about sport stats

In sports in real terms, I would like to know the ins and outs of everything about a skater, tracking their facts and stats about some aspect of their skating history like average ice coverage covers in FS, speed, success rate per element, height and distance of the jumps, level of difficulties typically in their programs etc. Why arn't those stats available, why can't big jumps achievement be more recognised and recorded to put in the profile of a skater?

If people talk about Chan has an amazing 4T, I want to know in real terms comparatively to Javier just how much better (or worse) it is, supported by real data. I don't want to only rely on the most vocal fans thinks Chan is better. I want to able to back up my argument with concrete facts other than it look lighter, effortless with better flow and more transition. How much more lighter, effortless and better flow? I'd like the stats to support this.

When a skater who performs quad at full speed and has the highest, fastest and furthest distance in the history of ISU, then it deserved to be have a world record in either distance traveled, and height in mid air, the burst of powerful torque in the air being counted, recorded and revered Sporting abilities that makes it unique ONLY in figure skating provde the high thrills many people follows the sport and should be packaged and better in terms of stats, data, and ratified record.

The mess that is PCS

In terms of the arts aspect of the sport, I am actually fine with the 70: 30 quotient of TES: PCS but it is really important to ensure incentives for reward something is not abused at the expense of the advancement of everything else.

The mishandling confusing impression of PCS judging in the name of art is a 2 edge sword. Sometimes it can be spot on, some times so much disagreement among st the judges bring it to ridicule. If the system, the judge, the choreographer, the fans can't agree to it, then what hope is there for the average fans?

According to my impression (correct me if I am wrong) most judges tries to abide to an illusion or relative marking, a general impression of 'norm' through trial and error, bench marking, or careful not to venture too outside the norm taking in considerations of success momentum and predictions etc. Problem is many of these things can be subject to manipulation with regional championships, politicking from federation and RP which has not much to do with what is delivered on the day, and then spend their next competition trying to compensate the skater for it. Maybe PCS ought to be rethinked.

One can almost argue, the system sabotaged itself since its inception when the system architect who obviously are not trained in judging art attempt box and quantify art using numerical values when in the real world, any reputable art academic / professional would likely to find such methods deplorable. How can you deconstruct art by tick boxes, but not consider the quality of the decision how it came to be? Take for instance Robin Cousin who has been critical of the system on air on the BBC several times. It is wrong to objectify and limit art and putting in a box. The moment you do - you stop innovation because you are setting a bench mark on what is possible, what is recognised and awarded, what is not. Stake holders are then just going to follow whatever work best last year then follow suite +1, -1.

COP exploited, reigns of the optimised template programs

The introduction of 10% jump bonuses for example have already resulted in the deterioration of original, creative and balanced choreography and discourage artistic intangibles which the COP is said to encourage, but NOT really awarded in any tangible means. Following a scoring strategy, choreography structure therefore became optimized / templated with just a matter of accessorizing and packaging typifies by most of Morozov's formula programs since Ando's last year, and is seen in Arthur Gachinski, Alena, Florent's program this year. Sad thing is this trend appear to have caught on. We begin to see less detailed and challenging choreography in ladies and some men, and just basic delivering of the required elements with an emphasis to ability to 'complete' and 'lessen risks' as 'effortlessly' as possible.

I generally found Morozov programs artistically and transitionally deprived, and highly 10% bonus incentivised. There are clear segmentation and little attempt of integrating the elements which makes it easier for the skater to focus on during their performances. It usually begin with big open jump(s) followed by lots of slow moving pose-ography and spins that are generally about killing time with little actual ice coverage or speed (therefore lessen the effort to skate and save energy) leading up to the half way mark = the 10% bonus time. Then fire away 5 to 7 jumps (as many as the skater can manage) sequentially one after another at each end of the arena, with little transition or choreography in between. Then finish up everything with footstep sequences then a spin.

It is no longer figure skating when it feature so little effort into actual skating and pushing the boundaries of choreography, artistry and figures, but 100% focussed on skate scoring. Are the skating fans fine with this mass production formula approach? Or this bring the death of art, originality and creativity? Why do skaters need choreographers at all?

Faux art and inequality of Art

Slap a theme, a colour, pick a music that 'complement' (aka hide the skater's fault) then call it art...is this figure skating art these days? Oh no it shouldn't!!!

I actually wish judges give separate marks to award to the level of difficulties and qualities based on a well constructed choreographed program ( difficulty 1-5 stars?) so they can make informed decision, and factoring the difficulties in these performance marks.

It has always been crazy to me how judges can equalize hard and intricately choreographed routine that contains more technically challenged delivery, musicality with good variation of mood, changes in tempo, speed, risk taking that requires greater deal of emotional and physical effort and then compete it to a easier routine with a simple regular structured music that is just about sustain one tone of soft mood throughout and little actual choreography. How is this fair and equal in a sport or art competition?

Propose revise art judging Vs PCS

I personally would suggest (though maybe impractical and controversial), to appoint 20-30 world wide famous art judges/ critics / professionals on stand by as a new art judge force. They could come from all sort of artistic fields dramatic theatre, music, art critic, film critic, dance, retired choreographers, retired skaters, fine artists (all well read, academically trained or professionally qualified, reputable and who are generally well versed in performance art and respected by their peers) that require nomination, election, and recognise it as a prestige position.

Then 3-5 art judges per competition are picked at random before each competition (names not made known until actual competition to prevent bribes), each will have a specialisation including choreography, performance, quality of art (beyond technicality), skating skills etc. They will take part in a constructive art critique discussion after all the skaters have performed, to offering a holistic critical overview of the performances and compile them into rankings. The critique should be structured with highlight on reasons they reward the way they did with an informed opinion on originality, risk taking, effort, innovation, interpretation, aesthetics, quality, artistic credibility, quality of thoughts into choreograph program etc. They will need to give a top down 5-8 minutes public presentation, to present their critique of the performances not unlike those from the studio commentators and panelists, with feedback and be available for Q&A by for their decision. (Personally I wouldn't mind have all the skaters there sitting in a area as their winning name is announced, think of Oscar reactions (including negative reactions when your name is not read out), think of all the Drama!!! Yes the feedback can be controversial and not everyone is likely to be agreed with it, but at least the audience and the skaters would understand why the reason to be and can find ways to improve next time. There could even be celebrity judges that brings in their built in audience from all sort of arts and music field, which can further popularise the sport.

Transparency and Accountability

The bottom line is there must be a level of transparency and accountability and monitoring quality of judging and possible biases (& prevent corruption). With accountability, fresh pair of eyes at different competitions can judge art with greater credibility than the method used current in PCS which can be influenced by past experiences, history, general impressions, reputations which are all subject to influence. It is ultimately the named art judges opinion and reputation that need to be held accountable by the public including their peers.

In judging anything in art, the most important thing is credibility, accountability and the qualification of the judge including their judging history. There's no such thing as 'fairness' but who's opinion matters on the day and the reason they made it such. While every judge may have personal preference or even national biases, but that can't be helped. The current system just make it easier to hide judge's biases, while as the proposed system actually acknowledge biases, but prefer them to be transparent and accountable for it. A day after the competition is over, why not have formal poll do you think the judge team 1,2,3 got it right?. Get more public participation, elect which 'star judge' got it right most out of the year etc (with some of the reputation or monetary incentives) and like wise 'got it wrong'? If the judges are found to be blatantly unfair or biased, they won't get voted or elected again, simply.

So you can have Judge's favourite which the medal is awarded to, but an optional of Audience's favourite etc which would be great for skater's motivation to actually paying attention to their audiences and develop more entertaining and thought provoking programs. It also shoot up the skater's star quotient for skating shows. Imho, ISU should encourage feedback in their youtube channels and invite world wide audience participation. All these judged data should be centralized and consolidated and organised properly so can be analysed properly. If the sport is to be judged and shaped by humans and the global culture it thrives in, then let the people who would claims to be passionate and knowledgeable about this sport (& likely the very same fee paying public) have a hand in determine the direction of the sport and what they want more of. Quads? Spins? Balanced Elements? Fantastic difficult Choreography? Entertainment? Artistic programs? etc...

skatinginbc · Nov 12, 2011

Mathman said:
I guess this is why we should all welcome the CoP....I am a GOE man, myself.

You said it like a new convert in awe of God. Hallelujah. (Just joking, I mean nothing bad.)

Oh, what's the topic again? Seeking The Perfect Combination Between Sport And Art? I already found one: Daisuke.

Mathman · Nov 12, 2011

skatinginbc said:
You said it like a new convert in awe of God. Hallelujah. (Just joking, I mean nothing bad.)

Actually, I think the video that GKelly posted above of Elvis Stoiko's 1997 Grand Prix skate should make a lot of converts to the CoP

In its day, this was hailed as a marvelous performance. He did a quad combo! He did a 3A+3T. He leapt here, he leapt there. Once in a while he stopped to do a martial arts pose. Higher faster stronger.

The only thing he didn't do is skate.

Now I have to set aside the next four days to read OS168's post...

gkelly · Nov 12, 2011

os168 said:
Thanks Bluebonnet for starting this thread, I am looking forward to what everyone's though on this and here's my random (and embarrassingly long) rants again I am no means an expert in this sport so feel free to chime in and disagree.

You make a lot of interesting points. I'm only going to respond to a couple right now. Maybe more later.

Scoring the sports correctly, the scale of value and variables

I have always wondered why a big beautiful 2A + 3T going at full speed that has maximum height, distance vs another who performs a beautiful but smaller and conservative 2A + 3T at slower speed, the degree of difference in GOE is absolutely miniscule compares to the amount of effort that actually goes into maximise the elements (hours of training, overall energy consumption, technical skills, risks etc..).[/quote]

I'm not sure that the 2A+3T is the best element to use for this example. One of the things that even makes that combination possible is having a good running edge on the landing of the 2A. I don't think you'll find many examples of that combination that are small, slow, conservative, and also fully rotated.

The point itself would be valid but more salient in relation to solo jumps or combinations with doubles on the end.

Speed, height, and distance on jumps are each bullet points for positive GOE, so a jump that excels in all those areas should earn 1-2 grades higher (1-2 points for triple jumps) than one that just barely makes the rotation and goes up and down almost in place. Of course, it might get canceled out by something like an edge call, or a lack of preceding steps for the short program solo jump.

That's a larger percentage of the base value for solo jumps than it is for combos. There are more things that can and often do go wrong on combos, so the percentage of jump combos that earn positive GOE at all is probably considerably lower than for solo jumps. When everything does go right on all parts of a combination, does +1 or even +2 seem insufficient reward? Should there be some way to give extra bonuses for doing both jumps extremely well as well as the connection between them? Either by encouraging judges to count positive bullet points twice if they apply to both jumps and feel free to give +3 GOE (simplest solution), by giving separate GOEs for each jump and adding them together, or introducing some new kind of bonus for excellent jump combos?

There may someday, 10-20-50 years down the road, be affordable technology to measure height and distance of jumps and reward those qualities by objective means rather than by relying on human perception.

Keeping in mind that, especially for women, larger skaters tend to jump bigger and smaller skaters tend to rotate faster, would it be appropriate to build in bonus points for height, speed, and distance such that a larger skater could rack up enough bonus points on excellent double jumps to make up for inability to rotate triples? Obviously, the skaters who can do big fast triples would earn the most points of all.

But these differences are often attributable as much to genetic physical characteristics (height, build, muscle fiber composition) as to technique and training. Right now -- really over the last 20-30 years as triple jumps became more important -- the sport favors smaller skaters because it's easier for smaller skaters to rotate three times in the air and land with control. But that happens by default, not by rule decree. How appopriate would it be to build in rules that explicitly favor specific body types when it comes to jumps (or spin and spiral variations, vis a vis flexibility)?

If anything, I'd want to see more emphasis on the edge-based skills that are less dependent on body type.

All skaters are built differently, talented in different ways, and have likely interest in different area of the sport and what it means to them. Why arn't the system providing them the freedom to explore and develop their interests with the direction they want with bonuses?

What kind of bonuses are you talking about?

I've long been saying that the free program should be more free by allowing skaters to pick and choose among a variety of different kinds of elements, and different kinds of features for the leveled elements, along with certain fundamental skills expected from everyone, so they have more freedom to play to their own strengths. But that's not the same thing as the bonuses that you seem to have in mind.

How much more lighter, effortless and better flow? I'd like the stats to support this.

How can you measure lightness and effortlessness to quantify those quality into statistics?

One can almost argue, the system sabotaged itself since its inception when the system architect who obviously are not trained in judging art attempt box and quantify art using numerical values when in the real world, any reputable art academic / professional would likely to find such methods deplorable.

But would any reputable art academic / professional want to score performances for the purpose of deciding which was best, second best, third best, etc.? Art is rarely performed in a context where winning a competition is the primary goal and communicating to the audience secondary.

Since skating competitions are primarily about competition and only secondarily, at best, about communicating with audiences, there's a limit on how applicable the values of pure art can be to evaluating skating. But for those areas where the arts have established values that technically oriented skaters, skating choreographers, judges, and rulemakers can learn from, by all means, let's look for ways to educate the skating world about what the art world already knows.

I think most of the things that are rewarded in PCS (or before that, in the second mark under 6.0 judging) are rewarded because they demonstrate superior control of the skating, not necessarily because they make for better art in a pure art context. In many cases the qualities that make superior skating and the qualities that make superior art overlap, as is more apparent at lower levels of competition, so the best performances end up with the highest scores regardless. But 1) when you get to the highest skill levels where even the inartistic skaters are already pretty good at gliding across the ice smoothly with control and attractive body line and 2) when skaters are close in overall skill and close in technical content, differences is which artistic/PCS skills they excel at can make for honest disagreements over who was better between experts and between fans, with valid arguments on both sides.

Not to mention, sometimes each expert's or each fan's perception of the different programs are colored by personal preferences . . . or personal perceptions dependent on factors such as where they were sitting or which camera angles were used in the broadcast they watched.

I don't think there will ever be complete agreement on the aspects of the scoring that are intrinsically subjective.

It has always been crazy to me how judges can equalize hard and intricately choreographed routine that contains more technically challenged delivery, musicality with good variation of mood, changes in tempo, speed, risk taking that requires greater deal of emotional and physical effort and then compete it to a easier routine with a simple regular structured music that is just about sustain one tone of soft mood throughout and little actual choreography. How is this fair and equal in a sport or art competition?

There are criteria written into the rules to reward all those things you want to see rewarded. But it is true that it doesn't always happen.

Hence, more education of some sort would be required.

I personally would suggest (though maybe impractical and controversial), to appoint 20-30 world wide famous art judges/ critics / professionals on stand by as a new art judge force. They could come from all sort of artistic fields dramatic theatre, music, art critic, film critic, dance, retired choreographers, retired skaters, fine artists (all well read, academically trained or professionally qualified, reputable and who are generally well versed in performance art and respected by their peers) that require nomination, election, and recognise it as a prestige position.

Then 3-5 art judges per competition are picked at random before each competition (names not made known until actual competition to prevent bribes), each will have a specialisation including choreography, performance, quality of art (beyond technicality), skating skills etc.

I'm not sure how practical this is, but I've mentioned it as well as one possible way to bring more knowledgeable aesthetic evaluation to the artistic components.

One obstacle is educating the artistic judges from outside the skating world about skating realities that affect what the skaters are physically able to put out on the ice and what the other parts of the scoring such as TES and Skating Skills rewards that affect what skaters choose to put out on the ice.

These art experts might come into the task completely ignorant about skating technique. That's fine, as long as they get educated about what they need to know first. Just as some obvious examples, they need to know that skating on deep curves is considered better technique than skating in straight lines, so they should expect straight-line skating to be kept to a minimum (used occasionally for effect, or used because the skater is weak on edge-based skills). Similarly, skating on both clockwise and counterclockwise curves is encouraged and should be rewarded, but the majority of skaters will spin and jump in only one direction and their travel paths will usually reflect that preference -- but extra points for switching it up. Stage choreographers should have a better idea about how stamina affects the muscles' ability to perform choreography for 4+ minutes straight, whereas painters, sculptors, filmmakers, and critics of those arts may not have considered the limits of the human instrument to the same degree.

I'm sure there are less obvious points as well. It would be fascinating to take a bunch of experts in other art forms, show them some of the masterpieces of competitive skating, and hear what they have to say about the possibilities and limitations of figure skating as art form.

I think they would each need a lot of training in understanding the specifics of what figure skating involves before I'd let them contribute real scores that determine real results for the skaters. If only money were no object...

They will take part in a constructive art critique discussion after all the skaters have performed, to offering a holistic critical overview of the performances and compile them into rankings, and highlight reasons why they reward the way they did with an informed opinion on originality, risk, effort, innovation, interpretation, aesthetics, quality, artistic credibility, quality of thoughts into choreograph program etc. They will need to give a top down 5-8 minutes public presentation, a constructive critique of the performances not unlike those from the studio commentators and panelists, with feedback and be available for Q&A by for their decision. Yes the feedback can be controversial and not everyone might agree with it, but at least the audience and the skaters would understand why the reason to be and can find ways to improve next time. There could even be celebrity judges that brings in their built in audience from all sort of arts and music field, which can further popularise the sport.

So this wouldn't be arts judges giving scores that figure into the results read in the K&C immediately after each skate?

This sounds like an interesting -- I hate to say gimmick but I'm blanking on a better word right now -- to try out in a context outside the regular competition context. Maybe the ISU could try it on a trial basis on the Grand Prix one year and continue it there if it's popular. Maybe start a separate series of events focused on developing artistic skating, or allow some impresarios to develop one and allow eligible skaters to participate without losing eligibility.

Or do you mean this should be a standard format for all standard junior and senior figure skating competitions, with critique sessions that last longer than the programs built into the scoring that decides the results? That doesn't seem at all practicable. You'd need a heck of a lot more than 20-30 arts experts prepared to travel the world every week in and they would probably expect to be paid a whole lot more than the expenses and hospitality offered to the volunteer judges. For all but the most elite competitions that attract the most outside money (ticket sales, sponsors, and broadcast rights), it wouldn't be cost effective. But if it's an official part of the scoring, that you couldn't ask skaters trying to earn the right to compete at the elite championships to qualify through competitions that do not use this part of the official scoring. E.g., would the US or Japan have to bring in some of these arts experts to judge their nationals? Senior level only? What about the regional competitions, etc., by which skaters qualify to nationals? What about Finnish or French or Thai or Turkish nationals?

The audience-oriented suggestions would be great for a few high-profile, essentially made-for-TV (or internet) events aimed at appealing to audiences and featuring skaters who have already proven themselves in standard competition. But for standard competition itself, including the major ISU championships and all the smaller events that lead up to them, it might be more cost effective to find trained skating judges who already have training in arts and aesthetics in their professional lives, or who want to start learning seriously, and bring in a few experts from various arts field to help train them in how to apply knowledge from the arts to what they already know about skating.

Bluebonnet · Nov 14, 2011

os168 said:
Trouble is while the men got it right at the moment, this doesn't seem to be a priorities for the ladies. These past 2 years, they rarely attack their programs (Except yesterday Akiko went for her 3:3 and succeed at age 26! Simply Amazing! :thumbsup or go after the harder sporting challenges. This sport then becomes a tentative endurance sport of playing Chicken (ie/I dare you to make a mistake first), with pretty packages and accessories capable to hide deficiencies they have; be it speed, control, flow, or ability to interpret music, all can be 'sheltered' or 'enhanced' by a clever choice of 'complementary' music, with a clever designed routine where they don't need to work as hard. Less technical content can be compensated by dollops of 'faux art' act as distraction, yet with little actual effort, preparation or thoughts into presenting new improvements, new ideas. It rely on what the skater already have and ends up simple case of maintenance rather than advancement. I also question the scale of values which present by the COP system that measures some of the athletic achievement aspect of the sport.

Thank you so much, os168! Appreciate it! Very thoughtful post!

I have some general ideas. General because I'm not truly familier with Ladies' skating since after watching men's skating, ladies performances are all less thrilled like juniors' skating. It's like, ok, I've seen it, someone in men's skating did this far better. I think men and women should be different. Say whatever anyone wants even drag it back into the history of fighting for women's rights. I don't care. I say they should be different. I've always hated women's soccer (even though Americans are proud of their women soccer victories), women's hockey, women's weight lifting, and anything that made women look like bulked up men. I think we really need to have separate and different criteria for men's and ladies' skating. I suspect that what you've observed was the effort that IJS did within its range towards making difference between men's skating and ladies' skating. Should we push ladies to have 3A and 3-3 regularly? The necessity of having them is much milder though I do not oppose them. In short, men should skate like men and ladies should skate like ladies.

Now onto studying the rest of your post...

OS · Nov 14, 2011

Bluebonnet said:
Thank you so much, os168! Appreciate it! Very thoughtful post!

I have some general ideas. General because I'm not truly familier with Ladies' skating since after watching men's skating, ladies performances are all less thrilled like juniors' skating. It's like, ok, I've seen it, someone in men's skating did this far better. I think men and women should be different. Say whatever anyone wants even drag it back into the history of fighting for women's rights. I don't care. I say they should be different. I've always hated women's soccer (even though Americans are proud of their women soccer victories), women's hockey, women's weight lifting, and anything that made women look like bulked up men. I think we really need to have separate and different criteria for men's and ladies' skating. I suspect that what you've observed was the effort that IJS did within its range towards making difference between men's skating and ladies' skating. Should we push ladies to have 3A and 3-3 regularly? The necessity of having them is much milder though I do not oppose them. In short, men should skate like men and ladies should skate like ladies.

Now onto studying the rest of your post...

Thanks for the feedback Bluebonnet. I totally agree about women should still be women and actually feminism can be powerful in other ways in this sport.

I often wonder how the sport of figure skating came about in the first place. Given the 6.0 format of judging/relative judging, it might give clues and makes it understandable about the accusation of it being a pageant contest sport. Maybe the sport came about because they want more women take part in sport where were none at the time - when they were not even allowed to show knees beneath their skirt. A sport where women can excel at like presenting an impression of refinement, elegance, femininity. Surely that makes figure skating the most refined sport there is at its inception.

The marks were given out on execution (sporting element) but also general sense of aesthetics, dance and rhythms, elegance, sophistication, sensuality, precision, flexibility, emotion, sensitivity and importantly artistry. Things women are suppose to do better than the men, so where are we now? Where are we from 50 years ago? The 6.0 system might be ok when you have maybe only a dozen competitors world wide doing similar (&simpler) things, so the judges follow a simple system like 6.0 reward to indicate their impression, but it is not adequate where you might have 36 competitors doing increasingly complex things, and there maybe intricacies and credibility that are not humanly possible to be take in in the 2-3 minute windows human judgement is capable of processing. Problem is nor does the COP does it justice.

As the sport get advanced, experience globalisation, the scale of values and the method really seems outdated. Especially when the complexity and its demands on the body is much more than it was before, and actually artistry is really where women should be winning far more than the men, but appears hardly evolved from the time of Janet Lynn. Why? And What can we do to change it, to advance it, to push it? ISU may fix its rules on a reactive basis, but it need to be more proactive in thinking what the sport and the direction of the sport could be in 50 years time, or it could die, or it would remain a niche sport as it is? When there are so many interesting and unique selling point they could do with it bridging fashion, dance, music, theatre, film, performance art.

---------

Reply to GKelly

(Sorry Mathsman.. it might take until Christmas with the way I am going :laugh:

)

gkelly said:
The point itself would be valid but more salient in relation to solo jumps or combinations with doubles on the end.
Speed, height, and distance on jumps are each bullet points for positive GOE, so a jump that excels in all those areas should earn 1-2 grades higher (1-2 points for triple jumps) than one that just barely makes the rotation and goes up and down almost in place. Of course, it might get cancelled out by something like an edge call, or a lack of preceding steps for the short program solo jump.

You are right, I should use something like 3Lz or 4T. I was looking at the protocol containing Mao and Akiko's score which I can use for point comparison.

Given scale of value for GOEs works purely on tick box merits only, it neglected important sporting performance indicators as a world class levels sport. This elementary tick box system might be ok with Novice/Junior level at regional/national level, but at advanced world class level, the very best sporting performance indicators should be still be included and benchmarked irrespective of the genetic physical characteristics of the competitors.

As much as we try to be political correct about it, a +3 in NHK Japan and a +3 in Skate Canada for the same quad element for Patrick Chan is likely to mean different things, same with PCS awarded. It is not suppose to, but it is likely to. If so, just how different? The current system doesn't tell us that, other than some anonymous judges feel it is so without accountability.

As it is, the COP disregard all body types/genetic traits/age to pursue a specific type (narrow range) of the 'ideal skater'. Yet this ideal shifts year by year, propelled by various federations pressures / lobbying / dissent to amend rules, changes the point values for the 'good of the sport'. It ends up being a vicious circle of 'cherry picking' rules at an ad-hoc basis, try to level the playing field in the name of 'good of the sport' (and disregard 'fairness' to some can be 'unfairness' to others).

The implication of such tweaks on an annual basis is actually does not really advance the sport as a whole in the long term. It only benefit a lucky few and hurt the unlucky few. It can affects athletes training methods who just go about their best business doing their best, a sudden change of focus can and have hurt their performance. A skill they work so hard to accomplish and optimise may worth more 1 year, the less next year, or no longer valid. How does this benefit and advance the sport in 5 years, 10 years, 20 years?

Why not have an reward system that actually recognising and award mini peak form of sporting achievements and personal mile stones on top of these basics requirements? Those who are best at something in the world should be rewarded. I am talking about anything and everything that can be possibility rewarded in figure skating skills and measurements with the help of technology measuring tracking key performance indicators. Things like speed, distance, highest, furthest, power, strength, dexterity, flexibility, more perfect more precise, skill etc. are all important mini mile stones in sport and valuable benchmarks in skater's performance history. There should be a long
list of sporting bonuses assigned with a values, say a symbolic value 0.1 to 0.9 assigned based on rarity and difficulty and prestige.

Mroz with his first 4Lz deserve extra bonuses for the first 4Lz ever ratified in the history of ISU and the only men that does them, Mao's 3A deserve extra bonuses in the ladies competition being the only does them. What about the rarity of 2 clean performance? The longest and the most intricate one foot spiral, biggest overall ice coverage, fastest and best positioned level 4 spins, the biggest ratified combination jumps, most powerful torque quads, able to hit 4 'best of' points out of 13 components for points etc. It should be a very long list of things that can be awarded include balanced elements.

Hard data can be collected and accounted, tracked, analysed, and bonuses get awarded. It can be compiled into an interactive knowledge database and be available for public view. It can help to educate new fans of this sport, get to know the skaters, get the skaters to know themselves. It can help competitors to conceive best strategy suited to their assets and skills set, training, developing skills etc.

Sport performance indicators are useful for setting personal goals, gives sport credibility. More importantly, it enable greater opportunities for skaters of all body type to be more competitive, and encourage more diversity to focussed their skating skills. It is about maximise personal sporting performances, get recognised and get rewarded. Than through some touchy feely average impressions from anonymous judges, which has its own sets of problems and distrust issues.

There may someday, 10-20-50 years down the road, be affordable technology to measure height and distance of jumps and reward those qualities by objective means rather than by relying on human perception.

Technology might be already available in bits and pieces sports, maybe missile or game technology (I am thinking angry bird... lol), or motion capture animated technology. While ISU is slow on these things, but it need to be more strategic and find ways to rescue this sport which seems dying in US at least, package it more sexy, back up with credible performance stats, create accountability and recognise commercial possibilities. It need to motivate the skaters not through discipline them and told them what they are allowed or not allowed to do, but through encouragement, motivation, a reward system push for advancement. I agree about the expense issue, they should avoid commercial contracting (Too expensive, and too many middlemen) , but maybe do a trial project with a science university to work with some minor regional competition first and run trial basis.

Keeping in mind that, especially for women, larger skaters tend to jump bigger and smaller skaters tend to rotate faster, would it be appropriate to build in bonus points for height, speed, and distance such that a larger skater could rack up enough bonus points on excellent double jumps to make up for inability to rotate triples? Obviously, the skaters who can do big fast triples would earn the most points of all.

The COP system's current ideal 'perfect skater' likely to exist in certain body types already, therefore by default it is already unfair to others unless you are were born and groomed within these type of physique body shapes and took care of it as best as you can. By opening the system up with NEW bonus reward system, it encourage ALL type of skaters from ALL levels and ALL body types to work on what would be best for them and get rewarded incrementally regardless of their disadvantages, it empower their assets and make their disadvantages an advantage. Whether you are too large, too small, too fast, too tall, too bulky etc. Open the sport up, you might able to attract all sort of interest, and actually bring more money to the sport.

If anything, I'd want to see more emphasis on the edge-based skills that are less dependent on body type.
I've long been saying that the free program should be more free by allowing skaters to pick and choose among a variety of different kinds of elements, and different kinds of features for the leveled elements, along with certain fundamental skills expected from everyone, so they have more freedom to play to their own strengths. But that's not the same thing as the bonuses that you seem to have in mind.

I agree on the emphasis on edge-based skills point, because it is one of the few skills that appears more 'fair' regardless of body type. But at the same time focus mostly on them, may takes away from those who can do something better than edge-based skills have no choice but to improve on edge-based skills because it is what is rewarded on. It is not a bad thing since it is fairer, but it also means limit them in areas of skating they may be able to excel at, being the world best at.

The bonuses principles are additional extra bonus scores on top of the scoring (with help of technology that can mathematically calculate sporting performance element and account for bonuses with benchmarking and collect stats)

Bonuses can be awarded according to different levels.

- personal history based (personal bests, personal mile stones etc)
- competition based (seasonable best, best spin the competition etc)
- world level based (e.g world record of something, world's 1st 4lz etc, world record in ice coverage etc.)

I 100% agree with your view about giving them total freedom in their LP. This is my interpretation of a free program. If someone who want to devote an entire program just showing different quads and forget everything else, then let them show program all be about quads, they just need to know will probably lose out a lot of artistry marks (or currently known as PCS that need rethinking). If they want to make a program just about spins and spirals with great skating skills, then they better ensure it is the best quality for the bonuses and artistry scores, because spirals and spins don't have great base scores.

If there are big bonuses devoted to award most balanced choreography, then some may choose that strategy as well, and they will likely to have great scores both sport wise + artistry + bonuses (especially if they were able to achieve merits in multiple range of skills proposed in my previous post.)

The total Free skate would also fulfil the criteria on my 'want' list. ie/ Be the best in the world with what you can be best at, and the skater should get credit for it.

Art is rarely performed in a context where winning a competition is the primary goal and communicating to the audience secondary.
Since skating competitions are primarily about competition and only secondarily, at best, about communicating with audiences, there's a limit on how applicable the values of pure art can be to evaluating skating. But for those areas where the arts have established values that technically oriented skaters, skating choreographers, judges, and rule makers can learn from, by all means, let's look for ways to educate the skating world about what the art world already knows.
I think most of the things that are rewarded in PCS (or before that, in the second mark under 6.0 judging) are rewarded because they demonstrate superior control of the skating, not necessarily because they make for better art in a pure art context.

See... this is tricky (as with anything is art). Maybe we shouldn't call it ART, as today's system is really more about DESIGN because it has specific set of 'functional requirements' that need in depth knowledge to make sense of (unless we pursue the free program format you are suggesting, then I'd suggest redefine PCS categories with things like SS and TR and Execution may be re categorized instead of lump it with the art judging aspect.)

I dont ever expect this sport to ever follow a pure art perspective (If such was the goal, ISU should not be a part of it) but I do think there certain things professional/field experts can give a better and more credible opinion than expecting it from the the average ISU judges. So why not separate them?

To educating the rule maker is useful but I am not sure how effective it is in theory. It takes years of training, absorbing, 'experiencing art', learning and critical thinking to become an art/creative professional. Just how do you teach someone what is able to dance to the beat to have someone with great musicality, that interpretation is more than exaggerating emoting; artistry is more than just picking the right package and not something fit an ideology; and substitute someone with 30 years of performance arts knowledge and experience (Shakespeare, ethnic music, theatre production, television, fine art, plays, arts theory etc..), or 20 years choreography knowledge? And expect them to all exist in a every member of the ISU judges at the same level? You just can't.

I definitely agree the art field experts need to have skating knowledge, about the skaters, and their program last year, history, type of style etc. May be they should be qualified for this position.

These art experts might come into the task completely ignorant about skating technique. That's fine, as long as they get educated about what they need to know first.

There maybe should be an additional technical consultant available to them highlight unique technically unique on a need to basis and highlight of the program.
Then it is a matter of educating the field expertise with these issue you mentioned. There need to be an examine to pass and get qualified.

So this wouldn't be arts judges giving scores that figure into the results read in the K&C immediately after each skate?

Yeah why not, kind of like the old 6.0 way of marking, except judges with actual faces instead of nationality! Add a dramatic elements to the K&C we haven't seen in ages.

But I think there should be a special distinguished award at the end once everyone has performed as matter of prestige, and given out entirely in merit basis like how Michelin Stars are given out to top restaurants. Nothing is guaranteed. Let's call it S stars argument's skate S stand for Superb or Stars or uh.. Skate.

Proposal for a S Stars or (something) type of distinction award

It is not based on numeric points or in there must be 1x Gold, 1x Silver, 1x Bronze given out in every single competition but an idicator of PURE quality (up to the art judge panel to consider what they mean by quality) irrespective of the level of championship is performed, whether it is the world champion finals, or GP qualifiers. Some competition might have just 2 silver awards per all 4 categories of skating. Some competitions (4 categories) might have 2 gold, 1 silver, 3 bronze, and all of them in the Men's. Some competitions might have Zero awarded, even it is the world championships.

If the art judge team feel the performance was artistically distinguished from others and worth highlight, the team might be obligated to give it a Bronze or Silver, and only very rare occasions they can award the performance a gold.

The award is given out entirely based on the merit of the said performance, and the distinction which the judges feels about the performance, regardless of how it scores, how it ranks, who it is from. It is mark of prestige regardless of rankings and scoring.

The result of their decision are not accounted in the final total mark of the competition rankings, but something all skaters can take away with them to use as a prestigious recognition of their artistic credibility. And you will have certain performances of the same program have more S star than others. Any program perform on any day will may range difference in quality. It is up to the art team on the panel on the day to decide if is extra special, and whether it deserve to be noted.

This means splatt fest/low quality/low artistically credible competitions even at world champion final might have ZERO stars of any colour.

Some high level top notch artistic programs might only deserve Bronze if performed okay, but Gold if the performer skated clean, blended perfect artistry as well as made a world record, ie/ that the performer really reached an level of transcendence (or very close), it is up to the art judge team's discretion to award that performance the gold star.

They also need to take in account of things like what the skater/style/skill sets was last year to consider the merit the event they are judging. It is about quality and merits of artistry. Daisuke's last year program was very different, he didn't have a quad. This year he pursued a new challenging program that was completely different from last year, he showed range, diversity, brought his quad, a more challenging layout, maturity her perfected his technique and went clean. Therefore the artistic merit of his performance should then surpass than say a skater who did the exact same thing as last year who has the same layout (e.g Patrick Chan's Phantom) but only upgraded his jump difficulties, interpretation the same. At the end of the day say Patrick Chan might have managed to have 3 quads in his program and broke the world record. He might have ranked no.1 at the competition, but he deserve no S stars or may be Bronze for his world record. (Sport performance heightened and perfected could be art in itself)

Daisuke's program might not have won a gold in his clean performance, but may have 2 bronze star out of other 4 performances. It depends entirely on the Art Panel that day, and his ability to deliver it. So you will ends up maybe a skater have 1 gold star, 1 bronze star even he performed the same program 5 times in the year all ranked performances. It is all about which performance matters to who and what colour of the S star is credit. It is like that with art.

The panel should present their findings in an open discussion panel to the public, like a top down 5-8 mins presentation after everyone has performed with an open critique and give out constructive comments on why they choose the way they did, and if they need to, they can address the artistically contrived programs, name and shame them (ha!). And finally, if they will award anyone deserved with the coloured star of their choice, or say they won't give out any star because everyone was rubbish! It is a great way to credit skaters to get recognition even though they might not be as technically advanced as others regardless of final ranking, and actually should create a good impression for their future performance to the judges, and to the skating fans for shows. It should shoot up their skating star value. It is about selling the art aspect of the sport, which is virtually its unique selling point in terms of sport marketing.

This sounds like an interesting -- I hate to say gimmick but I'm blanking on a better word right now -- .... Or do you mean this should be a standard format for all standard junior and senior figure skating competitions, with critique sessions that last longer than the programs built into the scoring that decides the results? That doesn't seem at all practicable. You'd need a heck of a lot more than 20-30 arts experts prepared to travel the world every week in and they would probably expect to be paid a whole lot more than the expenses and hospitality offered to the volunteer judges.

Ideally applies to world level competitions only, although at national level can be optional, it is up to the federations and availability of qualified art judges and of course budget. ISU could make this a qualification (applicants take exams, get educated on skating, run seminars) on top of their professional certification regardless of their background. They'd ideally need to be well known expert in their field, the more famous the more reputable the better. The qualification is something they can use to add to their credentials as a value added qualification.

It is about getting the world's best skaters the highest quality of judging possible, with full legitimacy, credibility, trust and accountability.

The art judges are randomly selected like jury service and then will fly in (Only the ones that is going to judge will be flown in) the rest are just on standby where ever in the world they are.

It will need to be presented as a special privilege type of role with almost no money but big prestige and fame, ie/ they judge the world's best. Ideally celebrity judges and well known faces if ISU can eventually entice them. What would an art panel in 2020 consist of Tom Ford, Andrew Lloyd Webber, A Royal Ballet Choreographer, Nastia Liukin, Lady Gaga, Vivien Westwood, Michelle Kwan (might be retired then), Simon Cowell in different set up group make of the WC performance? Yeah they might be biased, but then their professional reputation is at stake.

Outside the competition, they could practically be the sport ambassador for figure skating to their industry bridging industry like fashion, art, musical, dance, culture, stage play and attract more outside interest.. Figure skating have all the beauty and sporting athletics ability to be superstars, they should deserve a system that can make them shine.

The audience-oriented suggestions would be great for a few high-profile, essentially made-for-TV (or internet) events aimed at appealing to audiences and featuring skaters who have already proven themselves in standard competition. But for standard competition itself, including the major ISU championships and all the smaller events that lead up to them, it might be more cost effective to find trained skating judges who already have training in arts and aesthetics in their professional lives, or who want to start learning seriously, and bring in a few experts from various arts field to help train them in how to apply knowledge from the arts to what they already know about skating.

Yeah not sure that would work with live audiences. Scrap that! Sorry when I mean audience, i mean general audience, live + home viewers. But yeah need to think it through.

So to summarize, ways to improve the sport

- Sport Performance Benchmarking + Tracking (with technology)
- A more transparent and comprehensive reward system. (covering all body shapes, levels)
- Knowledge System of competition results, skaters (stats support performance + history)
- Better quality of judging. (Make the subjective aspect of judging more credible, trustful and accountable.)
- A prestige type of award, (mark of quality and artistic credibility to be awarded separately from the rankings.)
- Bring true Free Program back and let the skaters be free.
- Judge the judges
- Fan judging the competition

What other goods way to create unique experience and quality feedback from a more global audiences/fans to shape the sport?

May be ISU would consider a partner project to instigating 3D television, Blu-ray Makers, premium broadcasting companies and consider filming some championships in 3D and charge a premium service for it, and sell them as blu ray disc afterwards with all these data accumulated as an . It should pays (as long as you have superstars). This is such an ideal aesthetic sport perfect for selling lots of 3D TVs/blur-ray and paying channels, and it would be cool if the viewer goes in can zoom in and zoom out and view the same jump from different angles, and at end create a comment, share a thought. Think all those edge/underscore confusion and arguments, it can be seen so crystal clean with details then. (What will we ever argue about then?)

MoonlightSkater · Nov 14, 2011

I really don't understand why so many people want to bring in "arts experts" from various fields to judge figure skating. Artistic impression, though it can be nuanced, is something that is not so difficult to understand and really should appeal to the general population. You don't need to grasp the intricacies of a Van Gough to understand that a Sasha Cohen spiral was well done or that the way Nicole Bobek was able to interpret her music and relay that interpretation to the audience was quite artistic.

Programs can be artistic in different ways. I've seen raging debates about the "Russian style" of ice dance vs. the current "North American style" of ice dance. I don't see why both can't exist side-by-side. The avant garde is not necessarily better than, for example, the Shibutanis' Fred and Ginger approach. They're just different. There will always be those who prefer one to the other. For instance, while I appreciate the skating in the first free dance example above and I understand it was artistically performed, it really wasn't my cup of tea. Others think it is amazing. It's a matter of taste, but it's also not impossible to judge it as artistic even if it's not your favorite style.

If we bring in arts experts, what would they be looking for in a program? Would a devoted modern arts specialist expect all programs to be a bit more abstract? Would a ballet master want them all to be classical? Is beauty in movement really something so complex that you must be an expert to know it when you see it? I'd argue not.

Bluebonnet · Nov 15, 2011

os168 said:
Technology aid to bring sport into the 21st century? Through Bonuses and Rewards

I am not sure human judgement alone is enough to truly appraise the athletic achievements in an sport like figure skating that encompasses a wide range of complex and intricate skills and measurements. Why not bench mark acceptable minimum standard (speed, distance, height, not remain still on ice for more than 5 seconds etc.) and give bonuses when exceed merit standard?. Perhaps they can consider introduce technology to measure the variables with calculated hard facts and stats that averages speed, height, distance, trajectory for each jump and calculate precision and other tangible facts to award extra bonuses (technology exist in other sports already) and if it goes above a certain level, it justify a 'merit' or a 'distinction' bonus to be added in the end. Have wide ranges and look for opportunities to award bonuses, e.g personal best, seasonable best, biggest jump in the competition, a new jump record, all provide small but important incremental small incentives to encourage skaters best at any level to attack their programs more and strengthen figure skating skills.

I agree that new technology could be used into figure skating judgement though I don't exactly know how. Like measuring serving speed in tennis? However, haven't we already had the bonuses given out which is called GOE?

os168 said:
All skaters are built differently, talented in different ways, and have likely interest in different area of the sport and what it means to them. Why arn't the system providing them the freedom to explore and develop their interests with the direction they want with bonuses?

Why not allow greater options for the skaters to prioritise what they think will work for them? We should encourage more skaters to become masters of certain skating skills, push for innovation versus what how many are now, master of none! Intead we see many ladies too busily taken care (or hide them) their weaknesses and average balance of proficiency is sometimes more valued than an exceptional performance of an exceptional element. The new bonus reward ways may create polarised effect in the type of choreography programs and performances (Some more athletic, some more artistic) but it will encourage innovation in skating and diversity. If the judges are worried about too much polarising effect, then why not award some massive reward for those who demonstrate the most balanced program that can hit 4 or 5 merit/distinction mark as well? In theory it is about providing quality vs quantity type of approach and reward. Elements and holder of world's best level can attract a more diverse range of fans and type of competitors.

In another thread I have said and I'll say it here too. I think we could require a certain number of transitions, say 5 transitions, to be measured and counted for transition criteria purpose. The rest of the program could be up to skaters to express themselves. They could use the opportunity to glide through the whole ice according to the music if they want without worrying losing transition marks.

I'm not sure what you mean about diverse range? It could be a good thing and bad thing at the same time. Will the blue haired Lady Gaga type with tail feathers emerge then?

MoonlightSkater said:
I really don't understand why so many people want to bring in "arts experts" from various fields to judge figure skating. Artistic impression, though it can be nuanced, is something that is not so difficult to understand and really should appeal to the general population. You don't need to grasp the intricacies of a Van Gough to understand that a Sasha Cohen spiral was well done or that the way Nicole Bobek was able to interpret her music and relay that interpretation to the audience was quite artistic.

Programs can be artistic in different ways. I've seen raging debates about the "Russian style" of ice dance vs. the current "North American style" of ice dance. I don't see why both can't exist side-by-side. The avant garde is not necessarily better than, for example, the Shibutanis' Fred and Ginger approach. They're just different. There will always be those who prefer one to the other. For instance, while I appreciate the skating in the first free dance example above and I understand it was artistically performed, it really wasn't my cup of tea. Others think it is amazing. It's a matter of taste, but it's also not impossible to judge it as artistic even if it's not your favorite style.

If we bring in arts experts, what would they be looking for in a program? Would a devoted modern arts specialist expect all programs to be a bit more abstract? Would a ballet master want them all to be classical? Is beauty in movement really something so complex that you must be an expert to know it when you see it? I'd argue not.

I agree with this. The "art experts" will cause controversy as well, maybe even more controversy.

skatinginbc said:
Seeking The Perfect Combination Between Sport And Art? I already found one: Daisuke.

I actually think Patrick Chan is a better example of perfect combination between sport and art. Takahashi might have taken the artistry to the top, but with the expense, or rather, inability for the top of athleticism. Sport first, always.

Dragonlady · Nov 15, 2011

Bluebonnet said:
I actually think Patrick Chan is a better example of perfect combination between sport and art. Takahashi might have taken the artistry to the top, but with the expense, or rather, inability for the top of athleticism. Sport first, always.

While I would agree that Chan really blends the artistry and the technical, it is unfair to say that Takahashi has chosen artistry over sport when in fact he is recovering from surgery to remove the bolts from his knees and is not jumping as well as he might have in past years. And Daisuke is still attempting to become the first man to land a clean 4F. Takahashi's multiple knee surgeries have not kept him from continuing to up his technical content and by the end of the this season, I expect a major showdown at Worlds. In fact, I have all my fingers and toes crossed in the hopes of seeing it.

Bluebonnet · Nov 15, 2011

Dragonlady said:
While I would agree that Chan really blends the artistry and the technical, it is unfair to say that Takahashi has chosen artistry over sport when in fact he is recovering from surgery to remove the bolts from his knees and is not jumping as well as he might have in past years. And Daisuke is still attempting to become the first man to land a clean 4F. Takahashi's multiple knee surgeries have not kept him from continuing to up his technical content and by the end of the this season, I expect a major showdown at Worlds. In fact, I have all my fingers and toes crossed in the hopes of seeing it.

I have never said that Takahashi has chosen artistry over sport. I just said that what Takahashi has been showing on ice was not the best example of the perfect combination of sport and art. I know Takahashi is trying very hard and I respect him for that immensely. Who knows? He might be the first one ever in the world to land 4F in competition in the near future. That doesn't make what I have said wrong in any way you slice it.

os168 said:
According to my impression (correct me if I am wrong) most judges tries to abide to an illusion or relative marking, a general impression of 'norm' through trial and error, bench marking, or careful not to venture too outside the norm taking in considerations of success momentum and predictions etc. Problem is many of these things can be subject to manipulation with regional championships, politicking from federation and RP which has not much to do with what is delivered on the day, and then spend their next competition trying to compensate the skater for it. Maybe PCS ought to be rethinked.

That'll be scandalous. Any example/examples?

Eta:

Will you agree more because the result was judged by so called "world famous art experts"? I don't think so. No matter who judge it. It'll create almost equal amount of controversy. The fact that so called "art experts" might have far different ideas from the average viewers would have created more controversies. Take a look at the fashion world with those expert created weird clothes. I've watched Oscar red carpet discussions by fashion experts many times. The more I listened, the more I was confused. There is no standard. what they have judged the best might be what I thought the worst or at least not the best. Am I fashion blind? At least I don't think so. I absolutely trust my own judgement on the matter and proud of it, though I'm perfectly aware that I am generally conservative and traditional. And I am proud of that too. :biggrin:

I don't care what the expert say. I'll have my own ideas. And I know that almost everyone here on this board does the same. That's the source of controversy. :laugh:

Seeking The Perfect Combination Between Sport And Art

Bluebonnet

gkelly

Bluebonnet

gkelly

Mathman

doubleflutz

Violet Bliss

doubleflutz

gkelly

doubleflutz

OS

Sedated by Modonium

skatinginbc

Mathman

gkelly

Bluebonnet

OS

Sedated by Modonium

MoonlightSkater

Bluebonnet

Dragonlady

Bluebonnet

Similar threads

Connect with us