Article by Janet Lynn

Mathman said:

That is exactly what I am talking about. The experts call out every UR and DG, blah, blah, blah. and if you want more you can check out the protocols. Bleh. The spectator is not allowed an opinion, its all cut and dried. Especially dried.

Click to expand...

I don't see any lack of spectators' opinions. What do you think fill the countless pages of skating forums including the one we are in now?

Or you mean every spectator's opinion being considered in determining the competition results? Did 6.0 allow that?

eta. I didn't mean we all need to blindly accept the experts' opinions, especially on the perception of artistry. But the reason they are trusted and their opinions respected is, besides their credentials and successes in skating, they help open the spectators' eyes to see what real skaters and experts see. E.g. Browning often knows the result of a jump at the moment of take off and he's almost always right, as are his calls of UR, and he throws in technical lessons skaters can benefit from, so I respect and learn from him. I am grateful and not about to complain.

If you go to FSU, you don't see pages of argument like here. Some of the GS boarders, the mods, have more understanding of IJS CoP than commentators who are skaters. C'mon guys, we're talking about people who tuned in in years past to enjoy figure skating. This board has elitists who have time to figure out all the stuff that matters to uber fans. Look at all the Yuna fans who became experts in CoP to debate why she wins or is better. We are talking about the huge decline in USA which Janet feels has to do with loss of enjoyment over what we see. I get her. She is saying the training system devised over 100 years has been scrapped and the new system is not turning out beautiful gliding, deep edged skating. It is stressful to watch all but a few phenoms and even they bomb (Chan). It is too hard for most seniors to skate programs well that people enjoy.

We are die hard skating fans here. Many long time fans, but apparently even the die hards with the money are not filling the seats and we cannot get sponsors to put it on ABC, CBS OR NBC. Even Espn stopped covering GP and world events.

Math man has a very good point. If people do not understand something, they do not watch it. i do not understand football. I have never tried. chances are if I knew the rules, i would be more interested. Or if I had a spouse who made me watch, LOL. Janet was right about a lot of these programs being stressful. But I think things will change as they do and improve. Look how good ice dance has become and more people enjoy that now. Why? Somehow the top teams are showcasing great basic skating besides lifts, the choreography is great (thanks Marina/Igor) and the ice dancers don't fall all the time.

It's very enjoyable to long time fans and apparently has caught on due to DWTS and the popularity of ballroom classes everywhere. The ice dancers may be the hardest to rank as the top teams are so comparable in skills, but they are worth watching. I can't say that for many of the current skaters in the other three disciplines. Too much, too crazy, just like Russian/European ice dancing used to be. Just my uneducated opinion. I don't read IJS stuff, don't have time, I'm old enough to know what i enjoy and think is good skating. I think it's more a cyclical thing as far as viewership.

People want to be entertained while watching a compeitition. I think a lot of older viewers are gone for the time being. Only wealthy people fly to comps to fill the seats, or skaters who were once pretty good. How can they fill the seats and regain the viewership? Sadly people today would rather watch kim K and her greedy family.

One thing Janet mentions that bothers me a lot is injuries. I know that skaters have always dealt with injuries, as all athletes do. But I wonder whether some of the more difficult variations that are done to gather points, or the more demanding training regimens needed to comply with the demands for a well-rounded skater, are leading to more injuries and shorter careers for skaters. Just the Biellmann spins alone could herniate a disk or two. I think ladies would be at a special disadvantage because they peak earlier in adolescence, when their bodies are still growing, and because they often skate through growth spurts where they might push themselves when they should be holding back and giving their strength a chance to catch up with their bodies.

This is a worry I've had in gymnastics for years, and I hate seeing skating going in that direction.

Yes, Janet is very concerned about injuries affecting longevity. There are really ugly spin positions now. I much prefer a blurred scratch spin.

I'm not into arguing and all that cr*p that goes on . I'm only interested in posts that get my attention, lol.

Anyhow, I like what these last two posters have stated, and I agree (to an extent). (;^)

Even in Sonja's time there were naysayers saying that the younguns would take over, like Sonja herself when she first hit seniors at age 11, but as you can see by history she didn't start winning anything on the international scene until she was 14, matured, well seasoned, and knew how to compete and take care of her body. Not over do it, eat right, stick to her regimented schedule, listen to her trainers, advisors, coaches, et al. And stay on that merry-go-round eight months of every year for over a decade.

My point is that truly great champions will learn how to win, you can't stop them, it just happens. And that includes overcoming injury, and making it happen. And if that means compensating for spins in other areas, they will do it. Look at Rachael Flatt, she didn't let not being able to do a Biellmann prevent her from becoming a National Champion, nor becoming an Olympian and World Team Member.

That's life. But I do agree with Janet when she worries that the ISU will put a *cap* on new moves/inventions being added, which they said they will do soon. Because like she said if a *cap* was put on skaters in the past, there would have never been the Axel, Salchow, Hamill Camel, Charlotte Stop, Biellmann, and on & on & on.

Another excellent point that Janet brought up, and I agreed with (of course, lol, as I did the entire article) was how she said you cannot quantify/measure a smile, a leap, the feeling one gets when watching a skater fly, be one with the music, the audience, the moment. Or something like that.

By the way, I too wish to see a blurred scratch spin, there's truly nothing like it, like this one at the very end of a magical phenomenal program:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEJXkfMYTX4

SkateFiguring said:

Not if you watch Canadian TV, where trusted experts call out possible UR or DG live, explain amazing feats non skaters wouldn't get, and gush over or critique skating skills, and give ideas of how close the final scores may be before they are up so viewers have an expectation of the range of probabilities. Of course, as in the old era, the biggest compliment they give is complete silence during the performance, followed by emotional exclamations afterwards.

Click to expand...

No matter how expert TV commentators are, they will never be able to call out every under-rotation or edge call or identify the level of every element while the program is being performed. Even the technical caller cannot rely on the naked eye. He or she has slo-mo to verify the call. The only way for the viewer truly to understand what happened is to see the protocols. The average viewer doesn't even know there is such a thing as protocols let alone know (or care) where to find them.

Addressing skatelurv's post, I think a couple of the reasons there are so many debates on the scoring systems in this forum contributing to the impression of more intense and more knowledgeable fans in the GS forum are

1) the GS members tend to be older, as shown in the language and general tone of discussions, and the abundance of nostalgic threads about past events and programs, often incurring heated arguments about who should have won a couple of decades ago! Many have vivid memories and still fresh emotions about distant past competitions like they happened yesterday. And older fans are the most reluctant to accept the new system while having the most fond memories of programs they enjoyed over the long history of fandom. Nothing is as good as it used to be.

2) There are a couple or more members here who are ardent haters of COP and they constantly bring up the subject, blaming all ills in the sport on the new scoring system and, at times when they are active, highjacking every thread into a debate over the scoring system. Posters here seem more well versed in COP because of these repeated arguments when they try to explain the scoring again and again to these members.

3) Maybe, just maybe, older fans do have more time to study the system and the protocols. Of course, there are in this forum those who are experts in the field, and those who are naturally inclined for such details and analyses.

In forum with younger fans, COP is accepted without such frequent debates involving examinations of the scoring and studies of the protocols as instruments of explanation or debates.

jenaj said:

No matter how expert TV commentators are, they will never be able to call out every under-rotation or edge call or identify the level of every element while the program is being performed. Even the technical caller cannot rely on the naked eye. He or she has slo-mo to verify the call. The only way for the viewer truly to understand what happened is to see the protocols. The average viewer doesn't even know there is such a thing as protocols let alone know (or care) where to find them.

Click to expand...

It is not about the commentators being a member of the tech or judging panel. It's about explaining the sport and its scoring to the general TV viewers, who are not necessarily so emotionally invested to need to hunt for protocol details. But it is a good thing that protocols are available for those who are and for the very involved fans. Such educational commentaries simply help fans understand and enjoy the sport. The COP system and its open portocol, however, allow fans to decide, and enable them to pursue, how much they want to know and how involved they want to be.

dorispulaski said:

I'm not at all sure why COP has been so disastrous for the the ladies, more so that for the other 3 disciplines.

Any thoughts?

Click to expand...

Maybe the current crop of the ladies are CoP challenged. Yu Na Kim's programs were beautiful. So did some of Alissa's, Mao's, and Ando's.

Nadine said:

I'm not into arguing and all that cr*p that goes on . I'm only interested in posts that get my attention, lol.

Anyhow, I like what these last two posters have stated, and I agree (to an extent). (;^)

Even in Sonja's time there were naysayers saying that the younguns would take over, like Sonja herself when she first hit seniors at age 11, but as you can see by history she didn't start winning anything on the international scene until she was 14, matured, well seasoned, and knew how to compete and take care of her body. Not over do it, eat right, stick to her regimented schedule, listen to her trainers, advisors, coaches, et al. And stay on that merry-go-round eight months of every year for over a decade.

My point is that truly great champions will learn how to win, you can't stop them, it just happens. And that includes overcoming injury, and making it happen. And if that means compensating for spins in other areas, they will do it. Look at Rachael Flatt, she didn't let not being able to do a Biellmann prevent her from becoming a National Champion, nor becoming an Olympian and World Team Member.

That's life. But I do agree with Janet when she worries that the ISU will put a *cap* on new moves/inventions being added, which they said they will do soon. Because like she said if a *cap* was put on skaters in the past, there would have never been the Axel, Salchow, Hamill Camel, Charlotte Stop, Biellmann, and on & on & on.

Another excellent point that Janet brought up, and I agreed with (of course, lol, as I did the entire article) was how she said you cannot quantify/measure a smile, a leap, the feeling one gets when watching a skater fly, be one with the music, the audience, the moment. Or something like that.

By the way, I too wish to see a blurred scratch spin, there's truly nothing like it, like this one at the very end of a magical phenomenal program:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEJXkfMYTX4

Click to expand...

Great skate Nadine. Plush was really in top form. Imagine if he actually does skate in Sochi-his fourth Olympics-must be a first in mens FS. Fab spin!

A whack job.

Janet Lynn's article? Not exactly (though I don't think it takes a Derrida to deconstruct the inflammatory language at points in that article, where Opinion masquerades as Informed Objectivity). But Ms. Lynn forgets to mention the single biggest factor for figure skating's sudden and huge growth in American spectators and popularity a generation ago.

A whack job.

Yes, I'm looking at you Nancy "I hate Disneyland" Kerrigan. And at you Tanya "Boom Boom" Harding. Oh the drama! Oh the intrigue! Oh the Lifetime Movie ("based on a true story") waiting to happen! Americans tuned into that Olympic Ladies Short Program in DROVES. Were they tuning in to watch the aesthetics? The technical expertise? Based on the people I was watching with at the time, heck no. They thought I was a genius simply because I knew a lutz jump from an axel (all those years of listening to Dick and Peggy paid off!). So why were they tuning in in record numbers? They wanted to see that nasty piece of work get her comeuppance and to see that poor innocent victim skate off with the gold she so clearly deserved (mostly for being a poor innocent victim). Americans love stories with simple, clearly defined Heroes and Villains. And before anyone accuses me of anti-American bias, let me state for the record that I'm American (actually I'm a New Yorker, which is not quite the same thing, but that's a whole 'nother story).

But what about that time before the baton whack heard round the world (ad nauseum at the time I might add)? Before prime time coverage? Between Ice Wars and World Professional Championships at the like? You know, during the days of say, Miss Janet Lynn? Skating was generally covered by one network show (you are Much Missed Wide World of Sports) covering only the most major of major skating events: Worlds. And even then, coverage was almost always limited to the American skaters competing, and the medalists. Every four years there would be a burst of interest for approximately 2-3 months before (and if an American didn't win, 2-3 days after) the Olympics. And then it was back to Saturday and Sunday afternoons, every so often.

I think people on here forget just how informed, knowledgeable and enthusiastic they are about figure skating. Believe me, you are not Average Viewers. I am going to defend what Mathman said about the scoring and add one more suggestion: increase judging transparency. How can I be all self-righteous and emotionally engaged when I don't get a chance to hiss at the East German judge for squirreling the scores? We Average Viewers like our heroes and villains DEFINED.

And perhaps the American Federation might want to look into the possibility of hiring another loony with a baton (just kidding! seriously!).

I'll probably come back to this because I think Lynn's article raises LOADS of interesting issues (like, for instance, why are beautiful aesthetics in figure skating always associated with ballet dancing? And, here's something no one talks much about anymore but should: why is it the Ladies Long Program and not the Gentlemen's? Hmmm....). But that's enough for a start.

I'd love to hear you on the subject of ballet dancing. Because it is something that has changed about the sport recently; it's less frequently balletic. While I think more variety is better, I bet Janet doesn't agree.

WeakAnkles said:

I think people on here forget just how informed, knowledgeable and enthusiastic they are about figure skating. Believe me, you are not Average Viewers. I am going to defend what Mathman said about the scoring and add one more suggestion: increase judging transparency. How can I be all self-righteous and emotionally engaged when I don't get a chance to hiss at the East German judge for squirreling the scores? We Average Viewers like our heroes and villains DEFINED.

Click to expand...

I think you're right about the nature of the general American public's interest in figure skating.

But if that's true, there's not much that the ISU can do to increase interest from American viewers (beyond actual fans of the skating) and also be fair to the skaters.

Yes, they could get rid of the judges' anonymity. But with the way scores are derived and reported now, it wouldn't be easy to single out villainous judges from the averaged scores reported in the kiss-and-cry.

Plus, in order to encourage that kind of drama, you would need to allow or actually encourage some judges to be villainous.

And of course the judges who play that role to the American public would not be the same from the perception of, say, the Russian public, or French or Japanese or Chinese or wherever the biggest rival to the American darling comes from.

So is the ISU supposed to find a way to generate and report scores such that each country's media can build its own conspiracy theories? Are judges supposed to intentionally amplify their natural national bias so that it's easy to identify and get righteously indignant about?

How do you balance the competing desires of audiences who might get disgusted with the sport and stop watching it because they're convinced it's all fixed (one argument about the reason for loss of interest after SLC) and of audiences who want it to be fixed because they're more interested in the political drama than the skating to begin with?

Personally, I'd rather see them focus on getting the scoring to match the skating regardless of nationality, as much as possible, for the sake of fairness to the skaters, and try to develop a small but loyal audience that cares about the skating.

Casual viewers are fickle in their tastes. So if you compromise the integrity of the sport on purpose to try to please them, and you guess wrong and fail to attract them after all, then everybody loses.

WeakAnkles said:

A whack job.

And perhaps the American Federation might want to look into the possibility of hiring another loony with a baton (just kidding! seriously!).

Click to expand...

These days people get their fix, maybe even overwhelmed if it's possible, of scandals and villains, especially in the political arena both public and personal, with ubiquitous cameras, social media, Youtubes, etc. and internet in general.

Live streaming, online videos as well as internet reports and chats also enable some fans to satisfy their apetite somewhat without attending and paying for live events in this poor economy. Specialty channels also cater to fans without general exposure to casual and non fans.

There are so many ways to get free entertainments these days that music industry for one has been suffering a steep decline for years. Sales are a fraction of what they used to be.

It is just a very different time from the good ol' days. However, when there are super stars and idols, people will always want to see/meet them live and support them in person. Currently and for years now US doesn't have anyone close to such status.

Olympia said:

But I wonder whether some of the more difficult variations that are done to gather points, or the more demanding training regimens needed to comply with the demands for a well-rounded skater, are leading to more injuries and shorter careers for skaters.

Click to expand...

My impression (I could be wrong) is that less injuries under the new system than the old. I heard all the time of injury from practicing hard jumps back in the 6.0 era. The score reward for a well-rounded skater or for various talents might have actually prolonged longevity. Dai, for instance, might have quit if he didn't have a chance to win without a perfect quad. Sandhu and Plushenko might have never mentioned comeback if they didn't think they could garner scores here and there in their own way.

I actually think the new judging system has made programs more diverse, rather than more similar as many have complained.

Also, the emphasis on the correct jumping techniques (e.g., correct edges) under the new judging system seems to have reduced injuries. The career ending hip injury of Naomi Nari Nam and of Tara Lipinski seems to be characteristic of the old. I haven't heard too many such injuries for a while.

And we have Carolina Kostner type of skaters who cannot perform all the triples and still hang in there hunting for Gold. The new judging system superficially demands everything but in fact not. As long as you are good at something, you have a chance. Even the Chinese newbie Song and the graybeard KVDP earned themselves a medal recently with their not-so-great skating skills. There is a window of hope for everybody, even for Artur Gachinski, who won the bronze at the last World's with his--in my opinion--boring performance.

skatinginbc said:

My impression (I could be wrong) is that less injuries under the new system than the old. I heard all the time of injury from practicing hard jumps back in the 6.0 era. The score reward for a well-rounded skater or for various talents might have actually prolonged longevity. Dai, for instance, might have quit if he didn't have a chance to win without a perfect quad. Sandhu and Plushenko might have never mentioned comeback if they didn't think they could garner scores here and there in their own way.

Click to expand...

Good points. There were certainly plenty of injuries in the 80s and 90s mostly due to jumps. I guess the concern now is that there are also more injuries due to flexibility moves, and the demand to try to train one's body for both.

But yes, at its best the new system allows skaters to choose where to focus their training to maximize their own strengths. Trying to do the hardest of every type of move without trying to do them well or without taking into account one's own body type and strengths is not the wisest approach.

I actually think the new judging system has made programs more diverse, rather than more similar as many have complained.

Click to expand...

Would you be willing to expand on this observation?

SkateFiguring said:

I don't see any lack of spectators' opinions. What do you think fill the countless pages of skating forums including the one we are in now?

Click to expand...

The problem with debate on the Internet nowadays is that the person with the greatest command over the details of the rule book will always win.

I have never won an argument with gkelly. I have never won an argument with wallylutz. I have never won an argument with mskater, blades of passion, and a dozen others.

If I say, gee, I really liked Joubert's program at 2008 worlds, all someone has to say is, "Look at the protocols, dummy. Buttle got 3.82 points for a level three step sequence. What is it you don't understand about 234.21 points beats 229.86 points?"

Likewise debates about how the scoring system might be changed for the better are met with, "Look, this is the way it is. If you don't like it, go read the rule book some more until you do like it."

Mathman said:

Likewise debates about how the scoring system might be changed for the better are met with, "Look, this is the way it is. If you don't like it, go read the rule book some more until you do like it."

Click to expand...

What you said sounds funny because it is soooo true.

Mathman said:

The problem with debate on the Internet nowadays is that the person with the greatest command over the details of the rule book will always win.

I have never won an argument with gkelly. I have never won an argument with wallylutz. I have never won an argument with mskater, blades of passion, and a dozen others.

If I say, gee, I really liked Joubert's program at 2008 worlds, all someone has to say is, "Look at the protocols, dummy. Buttle got 3.82 points for a level three step sequence. What is it you don't understand about 234.21 points beats 229.86 points?"

Likewise debates about how the scoring system might be changed for the better are met with, "Look, this is the way it is. If you don't like it, go read the rule book some more until you do like it."

Click to expand...

What do you want, winning a debate or seeing changes in the system?

People can only argue and maybe "win" a debate over who should win a competition by way of scoring but there can be no arguments over who anybody's preferences are or whom they love more, whether for their skating or any other reasons. The heart wants what the heart wants, right? No number of others' winning debates can make you change your heart and that's the way it is. But technical skills and scoring can be debated with justifications, according to the rule book, whether or not you like it because that's what the competitions are based on.

If you don't like the scoring system, online debates will not change it. There are more effective ways of instituting a change, mostly by lobbying. Not attending events is not a clear enough message.

SkateFiguring said:

...But technical skills and scoring can be debated with justifications, according to the rule book, whether or not you like it because that's what the competitions are based on.

Click to expand...

Quote so. Quite so.

End of discussion. hwell: