For example, when I watch 6.0 programs now, I actually notice how empty a lot of them are, and how weak the spinning is too. The footwork also looks easy. So for me, I think there is some good about IJS.
Also there were some crazy results. I don't think Patrick would have won 2013 worlds under 6.0 and I do think the quality of a whole program needs to be taken into account.
Also while I think spinning in a lot of ways is better now, I must say I miss super fast and tight spins. A LOT and unique moves. Just because someone can eek out a spin, doesn't mean they should.
In terms of dance though, I miss some of the dance programs. I don't know if anyone can top K/P's 1992 Olympic free.
You can still have plenty of artistry with CoP, the problem is the judges don't reward it:
This deserved the highest PCS of the the Ladies competition at Skate America, but instead she only got the 5th highest. She also got screwed over on some of the level calls (Layback called as Level 1 when it's clearly Level 3? Footwork only called as Level 2, should have been level 3. Combination spin was a Level 4, but she only got credit for Level 3).
Mathman, why? Why rehash the 6.0 v. CoP debate again? For all of CoP's flaws, 6.0 was no better.
Jumps: Underrotations totally okay! They count just as much as fully rotated jumps, gold medal for you at Salt Lake City. Poorly executed jumps? It's okay, you still get a gold medal at Lillihammer. But have a fall, and you might as well stop skating and roll around the ice for 4 minutes.
Spins: Spins were an afterthought. Mostly spins were literally 5 or 6 revolutions with lazy positions. Why even put them there except as a check mark for the requirements of a free skate? I know people on this board love Alissa Czisny and Sasha Cohen, it is because of CoP that skaters with poor jumps but amazing spins and spirals are able to do as well as they do.
Footwork: do some 3-4 random steps really fast, it's just a requirements of a free skate, complete afterthought.
Don't even get me started with the whole ordinal system of ranking skaters.
That being said, here's my new take on Mao: I must say, despite Mao's errors in the long, I was quite delighted and moved by the enormous growth in her skating quality over the past 4 years. I have never been a Mao fan, but I am a huge fan now. I admire her tenacity, her willingness to rework technique and push herself artistically, her calm, gentle strength, and good humor. She used to look stiff and mechanical on the ice; now she is flowing and ethereal. I LOVE both programs, and I agree with Sandra Bezic that the move to the Satos has been great for her. Gorgeous choreography that showcases both her power and her delicacy, emotional nuance, a complete package. Proud of her and actually rooting for her- I never thought I would say that!
However, I also agree with BrightpPhoton and others above that the new judging system has a lot of virtues to it. Some that come to mind are that flashes in the pan with under-rotated jumps- like Sarah Hughes and Kimmie Meissner (not to mention Tara L) can no longer win because they have no nerves and go for it, landing everything and looking like the best to the casual viewer. The young winners in 1994, 1998, 2002, winners who never went on to make good on their Olympic Gold Medal promise as either amateurs or professionals, were a major reason the sport began to decline in popularity. Other advantages of the new scoring system: better rounded skaters like Jeremy A, Sasha C, Alissa, Stephane L, Carolina K have a chance at medals, and artistry will never be lost for the sport. Moreover, skaters are encouraged to continually tweak their programs and improve the quality of EVERY aspect of their skating, not just the jumps, in order to do better with the judges.
I'll send you a private message, wordsworthgirl!
No way in hell a normal person would get those scores. In some Japanese or Korean broadcast I randomly came across I think they put each element's value on the screen and it does explain some at least. It will be healthy after a program at least the audience know the TES base value difference, not that it solves the problem but... When I started watching snooker I didn't know all the rules but after one or two games I figured it out without having to google the rules, whereas with IJS, I don't know if googling even helps.
[I think that people at times have selective memories.
For example, when I watch 6.0 programs now, I actually notice how empty a lot of them are, and how weak the spinning is too. The footwork also looks easy. So for me, I think there is some good about IJS.]
I really agree with you on this. In fact, I don't think most of the top skaters' programs in ladies are that enjoyable to watch from today's standard (except for the fact they were clean). I would rather watching a full program with lots of transitions, choreography, good spins with some falls than watching a boring clean program.