Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 31 to 39 of 39

Thread: If the IJS had been used in the past, what would be different?

  1. #31
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    9,490
    I agree that the possibility of comebacks in the standings is a benefit of CoP. I too remember how frustrating it was to see a dynamite free skate in 6.0 from someone who had to depend on some impossible combination of wins and flubs from someone else in order to benefit from that skate.

    But the system has caused skating to become so mechanistic as skaters try to boost points by adding extraneous elements. Somehow that doesn't bother me as much in gymnastics, where they're not trying for an artistic result as well as an athletic one.

    An example of how mechanical demands can make for less interesting skating is the 1994 finals of ice dance. I know they were 6.0, but bear with me. That was the year ice dance rules demanded that teams use only music that could be danced to. It was the year Torvill and Dean came back to try for another gold. This innovative team, that could make audiences stop breathing for four minutes and more, were restricted to doing a routine to Fred and Ginger dance music. I love Irving Berlin, but as a basis for artistry, it was far below what Torvill and Dean could have explored given the chance. So the judges decided that Dean did an illegal lift and penalized them, and they came in third to--ugh--a cheery rendition of "Rock Around the Clock" performed at frenzied speed. A piece of music that consists of three notes played over and over again gave the winning team the advantage. The rules were so constricting that perhaps the greatest ice dancers ever couldn't win a competition.

    The music requirement for that year was made not to benefit the skaters but to benefit the judges. It was made so that judges would be able to compare different ice dancers more accurately. That's one of the reasons the CoP was worked out: to be able to quantify elements of a program accurately in order to compare skaters' performances. Is it a necessary evil, or just an evil? Maybe it just needs recalibration, but I don't think it's so great for skating as it stands right now.

    For this reason, I am getting more and more uncomfortable with using it to measure the great skaters of the past. If Michelle or Dorothy or G & G would have done less well under CoP, does that mean they are not good skaters? Heaven forbid!

  2. #32
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    430
    For this reason, I am getting more and more uncomfortable with using it to measure the great skaters of the past. If Michelle or Dorothy or G & G would have done less well under CoP, does that mean they are not good skaters? Heaven forbid![/QUOTE]

    Of course not, they were still great skaters. That's the problem with the "new" judging system. It seems to reward--I don't know--conformity, perhaps--over performance and showmanship and innovation. Under 6.0 a skater who maybe flutzed or underrotated or did easier footwork could still win if they skated clean and were creative and entertaining. Was this fair? I don't know. Perhaps there were skaters who sat there fuming about how so-and-so won unfairly even though he/she/they only did their footwork on two feet or took off on the wrong edge. But most of the audience was happy to see the cleanest and most entertaining people usually win.

    I think it's sad that we don't see too many "characters" like Bowman the Showman or Philiippe Candeloro anymore. It's like everyone does the same program and the one with the best edges wins.

  3. #33
    Outdated Old Dinosaur
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    941
    Olympia, thanks for reminding me of the 1994 Olympics. The whole ice dance situation was quite a puzzle.

    I remember some criticism of an early T/D program that season because of the whole "danceability" issue, so they chucked it and went with something VERY ballroom for the Olympics. I didn't realize they had been penalized for a lift... I just thought something incomprehensible had happened in ice dance again... I've already shared my opinion on 6.0 ice dance judging and placements.

    I don't recall which program T/D did at EC that year... but it was good enough to win, although I'm not sure they won the FS there.

    To be honest, the program I enjoyed the most was U/Z. I was dumbfounded at the time about the judges' choice for the gold, and I still am.

  4. #34
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    9,490
    I think the big impact that Torvill and Dean made that year was with their compulsory dance (I can't remember if it was called that in 1994), which was I believe a rhumba. As I recall, it was pretty incendiary. It did place them first after that phase even in the Olympics. At the end, when they had won the bronze, some interviewer asked their opinion of yet another change in the rules, and Jayne Torville said in that calm, crisp British way that they didn't care what the new rule change was because they would not be taking part in future competition.

    Like you, I preferred Usova/Zhulin of the remaining two couples in the Top Three, and I was shocked that they had not won in T/D's stead. They were such a wonderful, graceful pair, with great choreography and splendid unison. And, for my mind, better taste than G/P in terms of music and moves. But there; they'll never make me a judge, so I'll just enjoy the programs I watch and not worry about the outcome.

  5. #35
    Wicked Yankee Girl dorispulaski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Staring at the ocean and smiling.
    Posts
    17,145
    I too preferred U&Z at the 1994 Olympics.

    Yes, T&D's 1994 OD to Rhumba d'Amour is a total classic
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19CYCcmA2Y0

  6. #36
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,780
    Quote Originally Posted by Poodlepal View Post
    Of course not, they were still great skaters. That's the problem with the "new" judging system. It seems to reward--I don't know--conformity, perhaps--over performance and showmanship and innovation. Under 6.0 a skater who maybe flutzed or underrotated or did easier footwork could still win if they skated clean and were creative and entertaining. Was this fair? I don't know. Perhaps there were skaters who sat there fuming about how so-and-so won unfairly even though he/she/they only did their footwork on two feet or took off on the wrong edge. But most of the audience was happy to see the cleanest and most entertaining people usually win.

    I think it's sad that we don't see too many "characters" like Bowman the Showman or Philiippe Candeloro anymore. It's like everyone does the same program and the one with the best edges wins.
    That's because the judges don't use CoP correctly.
    Michelle should get 10 on P/E for some of her programs.
    B/L should get 3 on their P/E for performing a little worse than club level pairs.
    Julia L. should get 1 on her CH for being tacky and ugly.

    If the judges really decouple components in the PCS, great skaters in the past or great performances in the past would still do well in the new system.

    I think CoP is the right tool to reward interesting choreography, skills, correct technique. Patrick Chan is a prime example of fundamental misunderstanding in CoP judging. His SS score influenced his 4 other component scores. If you score him correctly on the other 4 components, you would get the correct placement.

  7. #37
    Outdated Old Dinosaur
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    941
    Quote Originally Posted by Olympia View Post
    And, for my mind, (U/Z had) better taste than G/P in terms of music and moves. But there; they'll never make me a judge, so I'll just enjoy the programs I watch and not worry about the outcome.
    I never warmed to G/P, although to be honest, I wasn't that great a fan of Ice Dance back in the day. Still, I do recall some of the truly great performances and occasionally youtube some of them. G/P are not among them.

    I've never rewatched their 1994 OGM performance, and I've never watched their 1998 one at all. By that time, I was so disillusioned with dance that I just wasn't interested enough to watch it very much, and certainly wouldn't have inconvenienced myself enough to tune into watch G/P. I don't know if they're still skating, or even if they're still alive.

    They split after 1998, didn't they? I recall some scandal or other...

  8. #38
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    130
    Poor Midori Ito. She would have won the 1988 olympics under IJS. Even though her components are clearly not great, she would have had a 70+ technical score. She would hve won 1990 worlds as well. Also maybe the 1992 olympics.

  9. #39
    - * - blue_idealist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,809
    Quote Originally Posted by TontoK View Post
    I never warmed to G/P, although to be honest, I wasn't that great a fan of Ice Dance back in the day. Still, I do recall some of the truly great performances and occasionally youtube some of them. G/P are not among them.

    I've never rewatched their 1994 OGM performance, and I've never watched their 1998 one at all. By that time, I was so disillusioned with dance that I just wasn't interested enough to watch it very much, and certainly wouldn't have inconvenienced myself enough to tune into watch G/P. I don't know if they're still skating, or even if they're still alive.

    They split after 1998, didn't they? I recall some scandal or other...
    Yeah, she started skating with Alexander Zhulin, and he started skating with Maya Usova (as pros).. kind of a partner swap thing. lol.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •