Is figure skating becoming acrobatics on ice?

[Miller]

Cool. Thank you. So it wouldn't make any difference to who won or lost, but itis perhaps a more audience-friendly way of displaying the results (or at least a familiar one -- everybody understands rating something from 1 to 10). It might appeal to those fans who complain about the IJS that they don't really understand where all those numbers come from (but are not curious enough to find out).

I am reminded of the scoring at the Aurora Games show earlier this year. A couple of skaters got perfect tens. Then Ayssa Liu skated and did a quad Lutz, so they had to give her a 10.5.

On the other hand, many fans like to see the running total in the little score box for the excitement of watching their favorite gaining and gaining on the current leader.

Yes, though it would be possible to show an indicative score as you went along - skating fans are used to the final TES adjusting as the skater comes off the ice, even for clean skates.

However what you couldn't do is show individual elements and GOEs. For example Anna Shcherbakova might have a competition where every single judge gave her 100 in TES, but after knocking off the highest and lowest scores her final TES would be 87.5 i.e. 12.5 * 7. However this would be different than the underlying TES of 100.

Hence you could do something that showed a score as you went along, knowing that it wouldn't be quite the final figure, but you couldn't show her score for a quad lutz as BV 11.5 + whatever the GOE was, all you could do is add in 7/8ths of the figure to the current running total, bit like you used to get until the last couple of years when they starting showing individual elements + GOEs.

Similarly you'd have the problem of elements effectively having different values for different disciplines. E.g. Nathan Chen's TES of 125 would convert to 12.5 as would Anna Shcherbakova's of 100, but they're still performing elements with the same underling BV and GOEs, so yet again any question of showing individual element scores would be out of the question.

However overall this would have to be balanced against the benefits of having a more user friendly way of displaying the results. Personally I’d be pretty much on the fence when it came to this, my post was more about showing that it was possible, that you could have 6.0 presentation and all that came with it, but also with IJS scoring underlying it all.

Finally one other thing is that you’d lose the fine details of losing the highest and lowest GOEs on a particular element or PCS category. However this wouldn’t make a whole lot of difference. I’ve done exercises where I’ve knocked off the highest and lowest judges’ tallies and averaged the rest and it doesn’t make a whole lot of difference. E.g. in the Yazuru Hanyu example in my post above his Total Segment Score would have changed to 188.05 from 188.60 if you knock off the highest and lowest overall totals and average out the rest, so all the fine detail of knocking off highest and lowest GOEs etc. doesn’t really add up to that much.

 

[el henry]

Just a few points:

1. I’m not jealous of any skater, country, coach, school, city, whatever. (Well, I’m jealous of Donovan Carrillo’s smile )
No one I know is jealous. A diversion, look a squirrel, from the real issues....

2. Posters have been complaining about the quad revolution and the subsequent “quad bonus” in PCS men’s skating *for years*. In multitudes. I don’t care enough the results about in ladies’ skating to complain, but boy have I been complaining about men. And I’m not alone.

3. Artistry is of course personal, but even the characterizations of who is outgoing and who is not will be personal to the poster. I find Jason’s Schindler’s List to be restrained, mature, powerful and elegant. Someone else may not, but that is a matter of perception, different for each person.

Except for Kevin Aymoz. I think everyone would agree Kevin is outgoing

4. Skating personalities have to do with the skater, not with a country or continent. Such as European Kévin (who was that passionate as a young junior training in France).

Or my beloved Andrew T. Few are more forceful, outwardly emotional, committed visibly to every step and movement on the ice than Andrew. Despite the number of times I’ve had to point out that this all American boy was born and raised in the US of A, of course his parents emigrated from Russia, were his first coaches, and are his choreographers. I believe he owes his on-ice persona in large part to them. Nothing to do with a particular continent or country.

4. What @Tavi said about jumps.:agree:

 

[flanker]

Every time I see one of these threads, I think two things:

First: So many people authoritatively state that jumps / quad jumps are more “difficult” than other elements. I’ve never seen “difficulty” defined (does it mean the skill takes longer to learn? That you expend more energy? Or what?), nor have I seen evidence from a rigorous study that supports the relative values assigned to each element under IJS. Are there any? Or are those relative values just a rough guess? Even if you are a skater (and I’m betting most people taking this position are not) your experience is anecdotal- based on how things feel to you and maybe what your friends think. If there really is a scientific basis for the relative weight of the elements, why does the ISU keep changing them?

I have a bigger problem with judges who sometimes gift high BV skaters with higher than deserved GOE and PCS for sometimes poorly landed jumps, mediocre SS & performance skills, etc. I often hear this justified with “programs with quads are harder” or that “quads make a program more exciting” or that it doesn’t really matter because the “right” skater won anyway. Again, is there proof that those programs are harder? Is excitement a GOE bullet point or a PCS factor? I think people often forget that GOE can comprise up to a third of total TES - that is, an extra 50% of an element’s score. So when judges award high BV skaters with bonus points in GOE on multiple elements by giving them a +3, say, instead of a deserved +1, they’re not only increasing that skater’s reward for something that’s already factored into the system (higher BV + percentage of higher BV) but they may be skewing results. Add in few extra points in quad PCS, and there you have the reason why most skaters without quads still aren’t competitive under a system that was theoretically re-designed to right the balance in their direction a bit.

I haven't seen a rigorous study saying that tightrope walking is more difficult than sidewalk walking and I don't think I need one to make a conclusion.

For quad, you need speed, fast rotation and height of the jump. Basic physics that tell you that all this requires more power (do not mistake with energy* or work) in comparison with e.g. the step sequence due to time. There are activities that can cost relatively big amount of energy, but dispersed in time, while there are others, that require power. You need to release proper amount of energy in exact time to achieve height and rotation. And you can't correct it during the process.

The other thing of course is the danger. Again, physics. Of course sometimes you fall even from a stsq, but again, usually you fall with relatively low speed and "from the ground". When you fall from a jump, you fall from height, you fall fast and the kinetic energy from the fall is much higher. To avoid this, you need coordination, you have to train it practically all the time of your career. Every jump means you have to lift all your weight to the air, to "defy gravity" , but not because of the magic broomstick, but through your own body. In walking the powers are balanced, but in jump you have to multiple the strength with which you normally execute your steps.

Empirically, the frequency of failure with a jump is much higher than with stsq or with a spin. More coordination (=work of the whole organism, brain, muscles, eyes) is needed, learning is longer. Every average skater's spins are sometimes evaluated with lvl 4, while quad is just for the elite who takes all the risks and effort to achieve it.

So yes, jumps are basically harder. than any other element, no matter that so many people don't like them, because spins are somehow more artistic

As for the GOE, there are pretty detailed rules what deserves which grade, both positive and negative, height, entry, exit, UR, fall. On the other hand, the rules about componets are pretty vague in comparison and while you can disagree with the GOEs given by the judges, I have often bigger problem with components, when they are often high even with tehnically weak programs (with errors).

-
*For instance, the last bar of chocolate you've just eaten contains more energy than the same amount of TNT. BUT, the energy from the chocolate is released very slowly in your digestive system, while the energy from explosive comes out in spit of a second.

 

[Mathman]

You were pointed out the most important problem of this algorithm (which you did not answer) .

I did. In the first sentence of post #115. I said, "That's quite true and a valid criticism."

And if you offer in response - “well, let the judge make notes during the performance, what jumps the skaters managed, how good they were”

Despite being in quotation marks, that is not what I said. I said that in the 6.0 ordinal system judges did make a few notes. That is a fact, not just someone's opinion.

(It is possible that some judges still make little annotations to themselves -- although maybe not, since there is hardly any such thing as pencil and paper any more. )

 

[Mathman]

2. Posters have been complaining about the quad revolution and the subsequent “quad bonus” in PCS men’s skating *for years*. In multitudes. I don’t care enough the results about in ladies’ skating to complain, but boy have I been complaining about men. And I’m not alone.

Still, I do think that it is the ladies that brought the issue to a head. Boys are supposed to be rough-and-tumble and if they break their heads, well, that's what you sign up for when you decide to be a boy.

Girls on the other hand need to be protected, and one of the things they need to be protected against is doing anything unladylike, such as climbing a tree.

Here's the ideal: Your Daddy's rich and your Mama's good-looking. I suppose this puts figure skating in the vanguard of progressive social change: By and large, not only can the ladies do quads, but in general they make more money in the sport than men.

Except for Kevin Aymoz. I think everyone would agree Kevin is outgoing

Why did I just read Keegan Messing in that sentence?

 

[Mathman]

So many people authoritatively state that jumps / quad jumps are more “difficult” than other elements. I’ve never seen “difficulty” defined (does it mean the skill takes longer to learn? That you expend more energy? Or what?), nor have I seen evidence from a rigorous study that supports the relative values assigned to each element under IJS. Are there any? Or are those relative values just a rough guess? Even if you are a skater (and I’m betting most people taking this position are not) your experience is anecdotal- based on how things feel to you and maybe what your friends think. If there really is a scientific basis for the relative weight of the elements, why does the ISU keep changing them?

I think what you are saying is true -- that the values assigned to various elements are based on the anecdotal experience of skaters over the years. But I don't see anything wrong with that, nor do I see any alternative. If all the skaters you have ever met say that a flip is a harder jump to master than a Salchow, well, I for one take them at their word.

In the first version of the IJS the ISU just lined up all the triple jumps and arbitrarily assign values from easiest to hardest with graduations of a half a point. Triple toe = 4.0, triple Salchow = 4.5, loop = 5.0, flip = 5.5, Lutz = 6.0. That worked OK, IMHO. But the ISU technical committee needs something to do, so they each year they tweak it a little: Is the Salchow really harder thamn the toe-loop -- not every skater agrees. Should the flip and thre loop be closer together, with a larger gap between the flip and the Lutz? (Maybe next year they will decide that the Lutz isn't that hard after all, since everyone and her sister seems tp be able to do a quad Lutz, while quad loops and quad flips are rarer.

It is not clear whether each subsequent revision version is really an improvement or not.

 

[el henry]

Still, I do think that it is the ladies that brought the issue to a head. Boys are supposed to be rough-and-tumble and if they break their heads, well, that's what you sign up for when you decide to be a boy.

Girls on the other hand need to be protected, and one of the things they need to be protected against is doing anything unladylike, such as climbing a tree.

Here's the ideal: Your Daddy's rich and your Mama's good-looking. I suppose this puts figure skating in the vanguard of progressive social change: By and large, not only can the ladies do quads, but in general they make more money in the sport than men.



Why did I just read Keegan Messing in that sentence?

Well, I’m afraid I need to disagree with the premise about girls, but maybe we are talking about two different things?

Scoring: Posters who are devotees of men’s skating have been complaining about the quad PCS bonus for years and years and years and I don’t think those of us who don’t like it give guys a pass cause wow, they’re guys. Or else we wouldn’t be complaining now maybe the folks who only follow women’s skating have not heard our many wails, but I can’t help that

Health: I am concerned about the health effects of training quads for boys, girls and anyone else for years now. I have seen others with the same concerns (becuause of course I remember all the right thinking people who agree with me). I sometimes see posters say, oh you didn’t care when it was boys, and I go, what kind of “look, a squirrel!” argument is that, of course I did.

I am forced to conclude that no one reads my posts:shame:

 

[Orlov]

Health: I am concerned about the health effects of training quads for boys, girls and anyone else for years now. I have seen others with the same concerns (becuause of course I remember all the right thinking people who agree with me). I sometimes see posters say, oh you didn’t care when it was boys, and I go, what kind of “look, a squirrel!” argument is that, of course I did.

You may be interested in Ted Barton's opinion on this issue. (If here a geo-block, use a vpn)

 

[el henry]

You may be interested in Ted Barton's opinion on this issue. (If here a geo-block, use a vpn)

I love me some Ted, but given how he admires everyone and everything, (which is a great quality :thumbsup: I absolutely adore how he supports, encourages and says positive and encouraging things about lesser known skaters from small feds) I’m not sure what he would say would change my mind.

If he references actual health studies performed on actual skaters with the results published, or if he mentions studies performed on skaters that contradict those in general referrring to the female athlete triad, I would be interested, and if someone can give the cites, that would be great.

 

[McBibus]

I think what you are saying is true -- that the values assigned to various elements are based on the anecdotal experience of skaters over the years. But I don't see anything wrong with that, nor do I see any alternative. If all the skaters you have ever met say that a flip is a harder jump to master than a Salchow, well, I for one take them at their word.

In the first version of the IJS the ISU just lined up all the triple jumps and arbitrarily assign values from easiest to hardest with graduations of a half a point. Triple toe = 4.0, triple Salchow = 4.5, loop = 5.0, flip = 5.5, Lutz = 6.0. That worked OK, IMHO. But the ISU technical committee needs something to do, so they each year they tweak it a little: Is the Salchow really harder thamn the toe-loop -- not every skater agrees. Should the flip and thre loop be closer together, with a larger gap between the flip and the Lutz? (Maybe next year they will decide that the Lutz isn't that hard after all, since everyone and her sister seems tp be able to do a quad Lutz, while quad loops and quad flips are rarer.

It is not clear whether each subsequent revision version is really an improvement or not.

That always puzzled me, especially for how big is the difference in jumps of the same rotation.
There is a 30% difference between highest and lowest quad BV and it's a lot.

I think the only criteria is for quad to measure how many different skaters landed them in competition and for triple to compare the GOE from the best 20 skaters in world.
We may discover for example that a triple that many can complete with >3 GOE average it's a very difficult quad.

 

[drivingmissdaisy]

In the first version of the IJS the ISU just lined up all the triple jumps and arbitrarily assign values from easiest to hardest with graduations of a half a point. Triple toe = 4.0, triple Salchow = 4.5, loop = 5.0, flip = 5.5, Lutz = 6.0. That worked OK, IMHO. But the ISU technical committee needs something to do, so they each year they tweak it a little: Is the Salchow really harder thamn the toe-loop -- not every skater agrees. Should the flip and thre loop be closer together, with a larger gap between the flip and the Lutz? (Maybe next year they will decide that the Lutz isn't that hard after all, since everyone and her sister seems tp be able to do a quad Lutz, while quad loops and quad flips are rarer.

It is not clear whether each subsequent revision version is really an improvement or not.

I think, initially, revisions were ok as the ISU got more input from athletes. Point-wise, the 3T and 3S should probably be closer in value than the 3S and the 3Lo. When women started doing two types of triples, it was usually the 3T and 3S that were chosen, and even in 1988 the 3Lo wasn't all that common as neither the gold nor the bronze medalists did it at the Calgary Olympics.

At this point, some of the harder quads' values might need a bit of revision just because they've been attempted only in the last few years. Conversely, I don't understand modifying the value of the triples anymore because I don't know what new information would be presented to argue that the value should be raised or lowered.

 

[gkelly]

It is true that under 6.0 the skate order contributed more "noise" to the signal of judges' process of evaluating the skating and assigning numbers.

The numbers themselves were only meaningful in terms of each individual judge keeping track of how to rank each of the skaters against each other. So a 5.7 from Judge A for the last skater could be a first place and a 5.7 from Judge B for the same skater could be 5th place.

The judges did apply standards and anchor their evaluations in numbers that were related to their benchmarks for various skill levels but more flexible than how IJS PCS are supposed to be and generally are used.

With large groups and random draws, as was usually the case for most of the 1990s (post-school figures, pre-qual rounds counting) short programs, there was more potential for the skate order to have an effect on results. But the judges' evaluation of the actual quality of skating had more of an effect.

Examples:

Tonya Harding 1991 Worlds
Skating 2nd out of 37 ladies' short programs at her first Worlds, Harding earned 5.7s and 5.8s for Required Elements, 5.7-5.9 for Presentation.
Contrary to the comment below the video, Harding placed 2nd in both the short program and freeskate to win the silver medal overall at this event.

Ilia Kulik 1996 Worlds
Skating 2nd out 29 skaters at his 2nd Worlds. (There were qual rounds, but the SP draw was random.)
5.5-5.8 for Required Elements, 5.7-5.8 for Presentation
He won this short program despite the early start.

None of these skaters were unknown at these events -- perhaps Harding had the least international reputation, but her 3A and win at 1991 US Nationals had surely created some buzz -- but they weren't already world medalists either. Yes, judges had to leave room for potential better skates by later skaters, but they could estimate from the quality of these performances about how much room they needed to leave in case everyone capable of skating at least that well also performed at their best.

If you were plopped down on a judging panel with 30 skaters none of whom you'd ever heard of before and didn't even know whether to expect world-class competitors or average or borderline senior competitors as the majority of the field, you'd have a lot harder time coming up with scores for a first performance in an event. That's why there used to be a pause after the judges entered their scores for the first skater so the referee could take the median mark and share that median only with all the judges to give them the opportunity to adjust their scoring range up or down if they so chose.

In later phases of a competition the start order is seeded, so skaters of similar ability are more likely to be skating close to each other in time. There are always some exceptions though, which can have some unconscious effects in IJS as well as in 6.0.

Because the is nothing like "first gets 5.7". First gets like 4 and you have 15 more to see. Then, you maybe give 5.7 to someone, but there are ten more to come and even if they are better, you can't split three remaining spots among ten even if all of them would be better.

Actually, yes you can with the way 6.0 scoring worked.
Judges didn't give just one mark for a short program or free program -- there were two marks, and there were tiebreakers in case a judge gave the same total to more than one skater.

So if a judge gave 5.7/5.7 (total 11.4) to the first skater in a short program (where the first mark was always the tiebreaker), s/he would have the following options available to score later skaters ahead of that first skater:

(11.4) 5.8/5.6 5.9/5.5 6.0/5.4
(11.5) 5.5/6.0 5.6/5.9 5.7/5.8 5.8/5.9 5.9/5.6 6.0/5.5
(11.6) 5.6/6.0 5.7/5.9 5.8/5.8 5.9/5.7 6.0/5.6
(11.7) 5.7/6.0 5.8/5.9 5.9/5.8 6.0/5.7
(11.8) 5.8/6.0 5.9/5.9 6.0/5.8
(11.9) 5.9/6.0 6.0/5.9
(12.0) 6.0/6.0

So there were 24 possible score combinations available to score other skaters higher than 5.7/5.7.

In practice, that's not really enough to score 24 different skaters ahead of the first skater, because there would also need to be flexibility to rank those later skaters in whatever order the judge believed they deserved.

And for short programs mandatory deductions could make some of those options unusable for flawed performances by better skaters.

So a judge wouldn't give 5.7/5.7 to the first skater (or second skater, in the examples above) unless they were familiar enough with the strength of the field to believe that performance would surely end up among the top 10 and most likely among the top 5. A judge experienced in using the tiebreakers could easily fit 4 or 5 other skaters ahead of that first one, and maybe a few more.

Now if you took a 1990s judge, put them in front of a 2020 field of competitors without them having paid attention to skating in the intervening decades, and asked them to score a randomly chosen short program with 6.0 scoring, they would be lost without knowing what to expect in terms of quads from men and triple-triple combinations and triple axels from ladies and much more difficult spins and steps than what they'd been used to -- possibly by skaters who weren't as strong in basic skating as Harding or especially Kulik.

But no one ever pulls a judge out of an isolation chamber and asks them to score a large field of unknown strength. They do have some idea of what to expect in terms of quality, even if they never saw any of the actual skaters in this particular field before.

This is the strength of the 6.0 ordinal system. The purpose of judging in any sport is to determine who performed best, who second best, etc.

Well, the purpose of holding the competition is to determine that.

What the officials are asked to do may vary, as may the methods of taking each official's input and combining it with that from the rest of the panel(s).

Under 6.0, the judges were tasked with ranking the skaters' whole performances. That was their job.

At some professional skating competitions, different judges may each have been assigned to score different aspects of the performance (e.g., "jumps" in general or "artistry" in general) and the scores from the whole panel would be added up. This is not a system that the ISU has ever used, but it has been used in a skating context.

In other judged sports, the duties of the officials may also be broken up in different ways, e.g., with one group of officials evaluating difficulty and another quality, or with some measured values combined with judged values (as in ski jumping), or maybe with different officials evaluating the difficulty and/or quality of different subsets of skills being performed.

Under IJS, judges are not being asked to rank the skaters but rather to evaluate the quality each element separately and five different (but to some degree overlapping) aspects of whole performances each on their own merits. Meanwhile a completely separate panel determines exactly how many difficulty points each element deserves and not all of their determinations are made known to the judges. The judges are not asked to consider how the numbers they award one skater will add up in relation to any other skaters.

Do judges sometimes think about which performance they think was better overall and who they hope their numbers will give the win? Are they sometimes influenced by the evident difficulty of the elements? Undoubtedly. But under the current system, deciding how to rank the skaters is not the job they have been given.

And when judges' tasks are to score the individual elements and components according to standards (which may still be more flexible between judges and between events than would be ideal), it is possible to come up with a meaningful score for a single competitor in an uncontested event, or for skaters in smaller events that are not close to each other in ability.

Under 6.0, a string of ordinals 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 for an uncontested event tells you nothing about how the skater skated -- they could have stumbled all over the place, but they would still get straight first-place ordinals.

An ordinal sheet like
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

also tells you nothing about how each skater actually executed any of their elements or performed their programs as a whole. Maybe the first place skater was the best skater and also skated cleanest, the second place skater a little weaker with a few moderate errors, and so on. Or maybe, especially in a short program, the best skater missed so many required elements or violated so many rules that the judges were required to score them behind much weaker skaters.

Seeing the placeholder first and second marks in addition to the final ordinals at least gave some idea of what judges were thinking, though much less than an IJS protocol.

On the contrary, what is dishonest is to pretend falsely that a judge can say, with coherence and consistency, that this performance earned exactly 7.75 worth of points in Musical Interpretation, not 7.50 and not 8.00, but 7.75.

But it is honest for a judge to say, I think this performance was better than that one with respect to intepretation of the music.

Fair enough. I do think it is possible for a judge to say honestly "this performance deserves around a 7.5 or 8.0 for Interpretation" according to her standards and then to fine tune the actual score in relation to how they have been scoring earlier skaters in the same event. Maybe think of the digit to the left of the decimal point as delineating a general overall skill level that the judge applies fairly standardly across events, and the decimal places as opportunities to distinguish between different skaters' performances within the same general range. (With the unit place digit sometimes crossing over between .75 to .00 scores or vice versa.

It is far more intuitive to rank skaters relative to one another than to try to give them a number on each thing.

But....the ordinal system really works best only if judges ONLY use ordinals and do not try to give out any kind of number mark like 7.23 in IJS,

No judge can ever give a number like 7.23 in IJS. Their only PCS options are 0.25 decimal increments -- either 7.0 or 7.25, for example. And for an element GOE, their only options are -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5.

The finer decimal places that you see in the right column of the protocols are a result of averaging different judges scores for each component, and of the percentage of base value that determines how many (tenths or hundredths of) points each GOE score is worth for that element, which is then averaged across judges.

or 5.5 in a 6.0 system. In this way both are ridiculous. Because indeed the problem with doing that is having to leave room for late skaters in those number marks.

No one ever claimed that 5.5 meant anything specific under 6.0. It was always a placeholder. If anything, it might mean "world class but not quite medalworthy" in a very general sense -- which might turn out to be medalworthy at this particular event depending on the rest of the field.

With IJS scores, it's not really necessary to leave room for later skaters. If an earlier skater really does do many things just about as well as can humanly be done, there's no reason not to give them 4s and 5s for most of their GOEs and 9.75 and 10.0 for most of their components. If a later skater also does a similar number of things equally well or better, they can also earn the same kinds of GOEs and components, including the exact same marks for some elements and some components. It will be the one or two areas where the judge does see a difference in the later skater's favor that could make the difference, along with the base values that the judge has no control over.

Only straight 10.0s and straight +5s across the board would leave no room for a judge to reflect any difference. And even then the base values would determine the winner.

And then, of course, you have the problem that one simple ordinal ranking is not particularly transparent.

Very true.

This I've come to realize after having to rank a group of entries in a contest (totally unrelated to skating). They had divided it up so supposedly we (judges) were giving individual number marks to different sections of the entries, then adding up the section marks. But in reality the only sane way to do it was to look through all of the entries, rank them relative to one another, then work backwards to assign values. And the thing is, it really does work. The best entries did, in fact, have the best individual sections as well. But I can tell you that these minutely divided numbers are totally antithetical to how human beings judge something. And an expert in a field does KNOW when one thing in that field is better than another, and given time, they can break down for you why, but they can also tell you one is better just by looking.

Had you and the other judges in this contest spent years evaluating similar contests with similar sections and similar marks? Over time, I'd expect you would develop your own sense of what numbers were appropriate for what level of quality, and in comparing notes you and the other judges would come to more agreement about just what each score represents.

It took some time for 6.0-trained judges to come to that understanding with the new IJS scoring when it first came in, but after a decade and a half I think there is closer to a consensus.

 

[Sam-Skwantch]

Well, I’m afraid I need to disagree with the premise about girls, but maybe we are talking about two different things?

Scoring: Posters who are devotees of men’s skating have been complaining about the quad PCS bonus for years and years and years and I don’t think those of us who don’t like it give guys a pass cause wow, they’re guys. Or else we wouldn’t be complaining now maybe the folks who only follow women’s skating have not heard our many wails, but I can’t help that

Health: I am concerned about the health effects of training quads for boys, girls and anyone else for years now. I have seen others with the same concerns (becuause of course I remember all the right thinking people who agree with me). I sometimes see posters say, oh you didn’t care when it was boys, and I go, what kind of “look, a squirrel!” argument is that, of course I did.

I am forced to conclude that no one reads my posts:shame:

Not that I need to speak for Mathman but I believe he is speaking about figure skating fans and ISU as a collective and in more general terms rather than about you specifically or others. Of course there has been and will continue to be concern with quads. What fan of Josh Farris wouldn’t have some concerns. I certainly think that even if the debate existed for years before...believe me I’ve seen and read them and can confirm... the debate is increasing its participation count significantly now that it’s in the women’s events and is very likely one of the biggest factors to ISU changing its rules and an influx of interest on the subject.

 

[Orlov]

I love me some Ted, but given how he admires everyone and everything, (which is a great quality :thumbsup: I absolutely adore how he supports, encourages and says positive and encouraging things about lesser known skaters from small feds) I’m not sure what he would say would change my mind.

Tbh, it's little bit disrespectful to Ted, even though it's said with honey. In fact, you said that Ted is just a "goody uncle" and his words and opinions are worthless. I recommend that you watch all of his interviews. But if you don't have time here he talks about his principles of commenting. "Always be honest."

If he references actual health studies performed on actual skaters with the results published, or if he mentions studies performed on skaters that contradict those in general referrring to the female athlete triad, I would be interested, and if someone can give the cites, that would be great.

He doesn't need to do this. Just as your government should not order research refuting "Russian crypto-Communists poison America with chlorinated water and that's why everything is so bad" (it seems you have such a conspiracy theory, at least I once heard about it, I was very amused ). Of course, I exaggerate, but you understand the point. Those who are afraid of quads should order such research.

Ted says about the well-known things, that injuries occur precisely because of bad technology and only (this hypothetical injuries can not be due to a high jump height, the proof is elementary - couple girls who land good throw landed from a MUCH higher height, and no injuries, everything is fine.) He also says that all this was before - exactly the same concerns were about women's triples. For me, all this is logical and makes sense

 

[Sam-Skwantch]

If he references actual health studies performed on actual skaters with the results published, or if he mentions studies performed on skaters that contradict those in general referrring to the female athlete triad, I would be interested, and if someone can give the cites, that would be great.

Have they even done a study on the effects of triple jumps on teens? I’m honestly interested. I imagine this would be a far easier study since even at my local rink you’ll see several 11-14 yr old skaters doing triples 5 to 6 days a week.

 

[gkelly]

Back to the topic of the thread title -- I think skating purists have complained about aerial/acrobatic skills dominating performances and determining results at least since triple jumps started to become common, if not before.

What they thought was being overshadowed might have been framed in terms of "figures" being the basis of the sport, given its English-language name, or in terms of artistry being lost.

I prefer to think in terms of blade-to-ice skills of all kinds in general being the most important and determining factors.

Personally, I think acrobatic jumps and lifts and spins and also some kinds of acrobatic connecting moves add excitement to the sport, and in some cases more quantifiable objectivity to what is fundamentally a qualitative endeavor. I also love to see skaters who can use those blade skills creatively in combination with full body movement and connection to music to create something that artistically transcends the technical exercise.

But how to balance the weighting of fundamental skating skills, acrobatic elaborations thereof, and artistic inflections thereof will always be a sticky question. And different groups among fans and among the skating community will have different preferences.

For those unfamiliar with solo dance, try searching for "senior solo free dance" online to find some examples. Keep in mind that most skaters who pursue this discipline tend to be either less naturally athletic or less able for whatever reasons to commit to the level of training required to master and maintain triple and quad jumps, or a partnered ice dance career.

(Body size can also determine the likelihood of finding a suitable partner for people who might excel at ice dance skills on their own merit. And in most countries, the ratio of male to female skaters will also make it impossible for all strong ice dancers to find a partner of the opposite sex.)

Most solo ice dancers in the present reality even at senior level tend to have overall skill levels that we might consider average or below average compared to an international freeskating or ice dancing field. However, if the ISU were suddenly to decide to offer solo dance as a separate discipline with its own world championships (highly unlikely, I know!), I have no doubt that ambitious athletes who like or excel in dance skills would train to elite levels in that discipline.

 

[el henry]

Not that I need to speak for Mathman but I believe he is speaking about figure skating fans and ISU as a collective and in more general terms rather than about you specifically or others. Of course there has been and will continue to be concern with quads. What fan of Josh Farris wouldn’t have some concerns. I certainly think that even if the debate existed for years before...believe me I’ve seen and read them and can confirm... the debate is increasing its participation count significantly now that it’s in the women’s events and is very likely one of the biggest factors to ISU changing its rules and an influx of interest on the subject.

You may be right, and I apologize if I misread Mathman’s post and thank you for pointing it out.

I acknowledge that more fans are interested overall in the Ladies, as much as it may not be my own preference

 

[Mathman]

"Russian crypto-Communists poison America with chlorinated water ...

I grew up in the 1950s in a smallish U.S. town "way out west." This was actually a seriously held belief among many panicky cold-warriors of those days. (Not quite as scary as Sputnik about to drop atom bombs on our heads every time it passed overhead, but still -- chemical warfare.)

This conspiracy theory was eventually beaten back by a concerted effort on the part of the American Dental Association. They put forward the idea (probably they were duped by Communist propogada) that chlorine in the water was good for your teeth.

 

[Sabrina]

I think it would be interesting to bring back figures, after all as the great Trixi Schuba, stated, "It is Figure Skating" when she was criticized for her mediocre free skating skills, but still winning gold medals based on her superior figure skating skills. The problem was the average fan never saw her tracing figures so didn't understand. I'm not sure bringing back the 6.0 marking system would change much either. There will always be skaters who are better at artistry and skaters who are better at jumping. I'm not really a fan of the quad, so I wouldn't miss an extra turn in the air. I'd rather see skaters rewarded for artistry than the most jumping passes.

I think English calls this Figure skating. In many other languages it is called Artistic skating! Eiskunstlauf in German, Patinage artistique (French) Patinaje artistico (Spanish)

 

[Mathman]

If (Ted Barton) references actual health studies performed on actual skaters with the results published, or if he mentions studies performed on skaters that contradict those in general ... .

He doesn't. He just disagrees with the theory that quads are bad for a skater's long-term health and mentions that such concerns always pop up when the tech level is raised (to triple jumps, for instance). He believes that both short- and long-term injuries are mainly the result of bad technique (praising the Russian young lady quadsters as having superb technique, so not to worry).

The problem is that serious studies would have to take place years after the skater is retired. This happened in American football for instance. For a hundred years people pooh-poohed the idea that getting hit in the head on every play was bad for you. Finally someone noticed that a lot of fifty-year-old ex-football players were turning up with scrambled brains. So the NFL made some rule changes (about spearing and targeting, for instance), they improved helmets in a somewhat "scientific" way, they initiated rigorous concussion protocols, etc. (Now if you suffer a concussion in a football collision you have to sit out a play or two until the cobwebs clear -- that sort of thing.)

Maybe in the distant future we will have enough data on figure skaters to make some changes. Anything is possible.