Ha, i like your reply. So tell me, what should qualify as Phd. then if not the world's bests?
There is no competition that includes all of the world's best and only the best.
The Grand Prix Final comes closest. Or invitationals like Japan Open. But still some of the best skaters won't qualify or won't be invited or will decline the invitation.
The most important events, Worlds and Olympics, where many of the world's best compete for the most prestigious titles, are also some of the largest events. In addition to some of the very best, they also include skaters who just meet the moderately-restrictive minimum technical scores. And they leave out skaters who may be top 20 in the world but only 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or 5th best in their home countries depending how many slots are available. Or who aren't citizens of the countries they represent in the case of Olympics.
Are the world's bests suppose to represent just best of the year, or something beyond, something bigger?
There is no competition to determine something bigger. Not even to determine best of the year. Only best at this event this week.
World standings at the end of the season give an approximation for best of the year, but with multiple caveats.
Assessments like "one of the all-time greats" are subjective, unofficial, and developed over the course of a career, sometimes drawing on hindsight. The reward for reaching this status is not a medal, but fame, sponsorships, invitations to perform in well-paying shows, election to a Hall of Fame, etc.
Who's responsibility is it then to push the sport?
I once asked this question of a venerable skating historian: did innovation tend to come from officials, from top skaters, or from the grassroots. His response was "all of the above."
The rules can encourage or discourage innovation. So can judges' use of PCS. But they can only work with what the skaters can actually do and choose to put in their competitive programs. Sometimes innovations happen in exhibition programs, which judges have nothing to do with, and then get incorporated or adapted into competition.
Does COP have any room to reward things like innovation, originality and creativity?
Some.
"Originality of the composition" is one of the bullet points under the Composition component, along with "Purpose (idea, concept, vision, mood)," and "Individuality/personality" under Performance. "Use of finesse to reflect the details and nuances of the music" under Interpretation is also going to reward skaters making a piece of music their own.
"Creativity and originality" is one of the positive GOE bullet points for all non-jump singles elements and many pair elements.
For jumps, "unexpected/creative/difficult entry" and "good extension on landing/creative exit."
The thing is, if you look at the COP reality, I'd argue PCS trends are already discriminatory against skaters who are not in the top 10 by their status/profile (power fed no1 for example).
True, though no moreso than under 6.0.
Also, stronger basic skating tends to produce benefit of doubt or what we might consider inflation of the other components.
If splitting the judging panel for major events is a solution, would it help to have the PCS judges focus only on Performance, Composition, and Interpretation, and possibly Transitions, so they aren't influenced by assigning a score to the skating skills? Leave that to the same judges who score the GOEs.
PCS judges would still be influenced by the way the skater covers the ice and fills the space in general (in ways that are often not visible on video and therefore don't have the same effect on those following along at home), but if they're officially busy scoring only the other component criteria the influence would be lessened. Same for any influence of technical content. Or picky technical details like edge calls and underrotations, which PCS-only judges could ignore while focusing on the bigger picture.
So what is the alternative? The idea may sound impractical when applying to all 37 skaters, but it is entirely up to the judge's own discretion on how they want to deal with it.
Deal with what?
I think we're talking about a couple of different things.
I understand "innovation, originality, and creativity" to refer to the sport as a whole. Skaters may develop new moves, new variations, new ways of getting into and out of moves or combining moves, new/unusual ways of laying out a program, choosing new genres of music to skate to or of off-ice dance styles and other movement disciplines to adapt to the ice, etc. Some of these innovations may become signatures for them that fans expect to see in every program, although others (and judges) may be less impressed by the originality after seeing the same skater do the same thing for years.
If other skaters start copying the originator, then fans and judges may tire of the innovation sooner. Once one top skater has made something new famous, then others who follow will not get credit much for originality.
But if a skater brings a new innovation to push the sport forward, it doesn't make much difference to their legacy how many times they do it in competition.
Should Denise Biellmann have gotten less credit for her Biellmann spin, or for her triple lutz, in 1981 than she got in 1978?
Knowing specific skaters' histories in terms of what music they've skated to in the past or what moves they have introduced earlier in their career and kept as signature moves is not really about innovation and pushing the sport forward, but more about versatility and pushing one's own boundaries.
It's certainly possible to skate to different types of music with different choreographic approaches, or to include different spin variations or transitions etc. specifically tailored for each piece of music, while only ever using music and styles and moves that are already old hat in skating. That would be versatility without innovation.
The greatest skaters may continue pushing both themselves and the sport as a whole for years. But whether they're outliers or actually having a lasting effect on the sport may only be evident in hindsight.
No different than any judges who are responsible for marking anything to do with the creative arts. Familiarity is not essential, but it helps especially judgings at worlds best level as an integral part of giving an informed opinion, not a subjective opinion.
For assessing originality as I understand it, what's more important is that judges are familiar with the history of skating and the various ways it is practiced at all levels all around the world, so that they can recognize true innovation as opposed to something fairly unusual they just haven't run across before. But it's impossible for any one individual to possess all relevant knowledge.
Having separate PCS panels can compensate for human limitations like cognitive psychology and latency effects (that tends to delay impression by one competition later). With more knowledge and most importantly awareness hopefully, they can overcome any tendencies and reward PCS with greater clarity and accuracy, and less on reputation.
Yes, I think it would be possible for PCS-only judges to do a better job of assessing each component on its own merits separate from the technical content. I don't know that it would make much difference in reputation judging. The only way to avoid that would be to use judges who are unaware of the skaters' reputations, and it would be hard to find judges who know a lot about how skating should be judged but who don't follow the current top skaters at all. You'd need to get new judges for every event.
In practice, I don't expect the ISU to adopt this approach.
In theory, I think it could be useful. But I do think
*The same criteria need to apply to all skaters in the same event. No different rules for medal contenders and those who are just happy to be there at all. Especially because you never know when an unexpected newcomer will end up having a breakthrough at that big event.
*If splitting the panel is to be used only at the big important events, then PCS judges at those events need to mark to the same criteria as the combined panels at lesser events. The hope is just that they would do a better job, not a different job.
