Proposals to ISU Congress 2018-2019 Season

[Shayuki]

I don't really buy the artificiality argument, just because all of the rules are artificial and the product of value judgments.

It's pretty artificial. In general, the rules are already extremely limiting. Someone like Zagitova is able to perform 6 triple jumps in a combo and we're never going to see it because of these limiting rules. I am not a fan of that at all and think that skaters should be allowed to show what they're capable of - We don't need even more limitations.

This indeed is the case in many similar sports - free skate would be about the skater being free to show everything they are capable of, with no limits or restrictions.

The aim here is clearly to even the playing field and prevent the superior skaters from showing a part of what they're capable of, at no cost to the skaters unable to perform quads. This indeed is artificially generated parity.

 

[sweetice]

Yes, that's fair.

So you are saying that skaters like Brown need and deserve to lose every competition over someone like, let's say, Fentz, when the latter manage to put down a quad flip ?

That's fair ?

Guys...

...come on.

We are oversimplifying the question.

 

[Shanshani]

This quad discussion really misses an important point. It is insanely hard to do more than 4 quads in FS. It takes a lot of stamina and skill to not only master the quads but to do them consistently in a FS. It means that most men will stick to maximum of 3-4 quads in a FS. Meaning those with just two quads, 4T and/or 4S have an opportunity to challenge most skaters. If you take away multiple quads, it takes away the playing field. And gives an advantage to those like Shoma who can do three or four quads but only does four in on program. Now he can still have three or four, but the other skaters are stuck at 1 or two quads in comparison.

It's not about potential, it's about what skaters are physically capable of. And it takes away someone like Alexei Bychenko ability to compete with the top guys.

Further more, it would negatively impact smaller Feds the most. China didn't have the clout of bigger Feds, but Boyang was able to break into the top ranks because of his quads. Imagine Brendan becoming less competitive because he isn't allowed to repeat the quads he's worked so hard on and furthermore doesn't have the federation clout to get him higher scores. Quads makes it impossible to hold good skaters down. It gets them the points to put themselves on the map.

So let's approach this topic from a slightly different point of view. Why is the ability to land numerically more of the same quad type more impressive than landing different varieties of quads? Surely the latter shows more technical prowess. Therefore, why should skaters with only two types of quad be able to compete with skaters with more types? People have been able to land 4Ts and 4Ss for a long time--so shouldn't we be much more impressed by a 4F, 4Lo, or 4Lz? Maybe you should need to be able to land a non 4T/4S quad to be competitive and we need to create more of a separation between only 4T/4S skaters and others. (I'm not saying this because I believe it, my point here is still that choosing to value any particular thing comes down to a matter of opinion, and there's a degree of arbitrariness to deciding the ability to perform 4T/4S is the dividing line rather than some other measure.)

 

[yoloaxel]

I don't think that non-quad skaters should be able to compete with quad skaters, indeed. That's only fair.

Sometimes, I wish we would remember that this is actually trying to be a sport and it's not necessary for weaker athletes to be able to artificially compete with the stronger athletes.

This 10000x

 

[sweetice]

This 10000x

Figure Skating has become Rotational High Jump ?

WHEN IS HAPPENED ?!? :eekn:

 

[lavenderblossom]

I agree that the cliff effect would be far less dramatic if PCS could be judged correctly, and that all sorts of problems that the ISU is trying to fix by changing the rule book would not really be significant problems if the judging were better. But I think whether or not the difficulty of a quad outweighs the value of a aesthetically pleasing, well-put together program that is technically superior in all other respects besides difficulty of jumps is largely a matter of subjective preference. As is the tradeoff between how much you value the ability to land different kinds of hard jumps over superiority in other respects (eg. how many more quads does a clean Nathan Chen have to do over a clean Yuzuru Hanyu in order for the former to deserve to win? 1? 2? 3?). I don't think there's one right answer to this question. Different people value different things about the sport at different levels, and I'm not sure how to make sense of the idea that one person's values are objectively correct.

I don't think my viewpoint is especially difficult to grasp, even if it's true that people value difficulty of jumps differently. But I was thinking of a case under the current rules, which have been deliberated on for some years by various federations, according to the values reached by their consensus.
I think if skater A's advantage over 0 quad skater B is jump difficulty, and they fall or otherwise execute those jumps badly, then they should be capable of losing to skater B. I won't argue over how much, but in the case of multiple falls or other errors it should at least be possible. As long as skater A delivers the BV of their planned content, they won't lose, and it should be implicit that if you plan 3-4 quads in a program you should be prepared to execute them decently.

 

[Shanshani]

It's pretty artificial. In general, the rules are already extremely limiting. Someone like Zagitova is able to perform 6 triple jumps in a combo and we're never going to see it because of these limiting rules. I am not a fan of that at all and think that skaters should be allowed to show what they're capable of - We don't need even more limitations.

This indeed is the case in many similar sports - free skate would be about the skater being free to show everything they are capable of, with no limits or restrictions.

The aim here is clearly to even the playing field and prevent the superior skaters from showing a part of what they're capable of, at no cost to the skaters unable to perform quads. This indeed is artificially generated parity.

Eh, but I think the reason that knowing one quad confers such an advantage over knowing 0 but knowing 3 over 2 does not confer nearly as much is because of the way the competition is structured, including the way other limiting rules work. Essentially, it's a product of how the Zayak rule works. If the Zayak rule or a rule serving a similar purpose worked differently (say, allowing all jumps to be repeated, but only twice, or a maximum of two repeats across the short and the free in total, or a rule requiring skaters to perform at least one of each type of jump, but with no other restrictions), the effect of knowing one quad versus zero versus knowing 3 versus two would be very different. So maybe in a sense it's artificially generated parity, but only as a response to a situation that is artificially generated in the first place. So in the end, I have a hard time seeing how one is more artificial than the other. The fact that layouts have to be a certain way is highly, highly artificial, as you point out, so in my opinion tinkering with the rules for how they are structured doesn't really change the degree of artificiality.

 

[Shanshani]

I don't think my viewpoint is especially difficult to grasp, even if it's true that people value difficulty of jumps differently. But I was thinking of a case under the current rules, which have been deliberated on for some years by various federations, according to the values reached by their consensus.
I think if skater A's advantage over 0 quad skater B is jump difficulty, and they fall or otherwise execute those jumps badly, then they should be capable of losing to skater B. I won't argue over how much, but in the case of multiple falls or other errors it should at least be possible. As long as skater A delivers the BV of their planned content, they won't lose, and it should be implicit that if you plan 3-4 quads in a program you should be prepared to execute them decently.

Ok, but I was more addressing the situation where they both skate clean, but maybe the skater with a quad has ugly landings on all his jumps, very little choreo poorly performed, and bad spins and steps, whereas the skater who has 0 quads has an excellently choreographed and interpreted program and beautiful triples. My point was that whether you think one or the other is superior is just a matter of your subjective preferences. The SOV provides rules for dealing with those situations (in fact, mathematically there is a point at which the skater with 0 quads beats the skater with 1 quad, even if the latter lands all his jumps, though whether the judges are actually willing to award those scores is a different matter), but at the end of the day there's more than one possible compromise to be made and the SOV and current rules are only one of many possibilities.

 

[yume]

Quads are also the only way for some skaters to exist, to keep it up. There are quadsters who have very low PCS and can't dream of a top 10 even simetimes a top 15. Quads are the best way they find to force their marks to go up. You can say that they can work on other elements to improve their PCS. But the reality of figure skating is that most of the time if you don't have the good nationality, the good name, the good coach, your PCS stay almost the same for a long time. Improvement of your artistry or not.
So If their quad are reduced, less chances for them to be seen by judges.

 

[Mrs. P]

Having the zayak/combo limit rules in figure skaters is no different than only allowing an NBA team only 24 seconds to make a basket (and to only make 2 or 3 points per that 24-second period) or having foul calls/time-out rules. They're all rules designed, in essence to establish boundaries on the game and in essence leads to some parity in the game.

In college basketball, the NCAA tournament, which is single elimination, is the ultimate artificial parity. It's why you have a team like University of Maryland-Baltimore County moving on to the second round rather than then a team like Virginia that is far more talented and skilled on most days of the week. This guy questioned the concept: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1208786-why-parity-is-bad-for-college-basketball
But let's face it, we love our NCAA Tournment Cinderellas. The idea that you can come in and win it all -- even if you're not a major conference team -- is appealing. And it could lead to some amazing things. Steph Curry played for a mid-major school, but he got on the map when he help lead the team to the Elite 8 and almost beating eventual winner Kansas.

I point this out to state that figure skating isn't only sport that deprives the "best" of showing all their skills cause of rules.

 

[lavenderblossom]

Ok, but I was more addressing the situation where they both skate clean, but maybe the skater with a quad has ugly landings on all his jumps, very little choreo poorly performed, and bad spins and steps, whereas the skater who has 0 quads has an excellently choreographed and interpreted program and beautiful triples. My point was that whether you think one or the other is superior is just a matter of your subjective preferences. The SOV provides rules for dealing with those situations (in fact, mathematically there is a point at which the skater with 0 quads beats the skater with 1 quad, even if the latter lands all his jumps, though whether the judges are actually willing to award those scores is a different matter), but at the end of the day there's more than one possible compromise to be made and the SOV and current rules are only one of many possibilities.

There are guidelines for quality - GOE. TES is not just jumps, even in the current system where some think quads are overvalued. But this is why there are multiple judges. In theory they will judge according to their own preferences, and collectively they'll come to a decision over the placement if not the exact score. It works most of the time.

I think it's been a great help to see the ISU congress like this. I was expecting more resistance to change. But the ISU constitution seems very open to passing new proposals, provided they're well thought out and written properly, even if they haven't passed any radical changes so far, and that gives me hope. No set of rules will ever be completely foolproof, there will always need to be adjustments, and I think that's something we must accept in order to see the sport evolve. Even if we disagree over the direction.

 

[frida80]

So let's approach this topic from a slightly different point of view. Why is the ability to land numerically more of the same quad type more impressive than landing different varieties of quads? Surely the latter shows more technical prowess. Therefore, why should skaters with only two types of quad be able to compete with skaters with more types? People have been able to land 4Ts and 4Ss for a long time--so shouldn't we be much more impressed by a 4F, 4Lo, or 4Lz? Maybe you should need to be able to land a non 4T/4S quad to be competitive and we need to create more of a separation between only 4T/4S skaters and others. (I'm not saying this because I believe it, my point here is still that choosing to value any particular thing comes down to a matter of opinion, and there's a degree of arbitrariness to deciding the ability to perform 4T/4S is the dividing line rather than some other measure.)

Even with the Zayak rule, people with lower technical jumps have been able to contend with people with higher tech. Should Yuna have beaten Mao with no 3A or 3Lo? I think so. Should her combos have been banned so she and Mao were on the same level?

Why should skaters be punished like this? Smaller Feds don't have the money or resources that larger Feds do. So why make things even harder? It's not fair.

 

[LRK]

Quads are also the only way for some skaters to exist, to keep it up. There are quadsters who have very low PCS and can't dream of a top 10 even simetimes a top 15. Quads are the best way they find to force their marks to go up. You can say that they can work on other elements to improve their PCS. But the reality of figure skating is that most of the time if you don't have the good nationality, the good name, the good coach, your PCS stay almost the same for a long time. Improvement of your artistry or not.
So If their quad are reduced, less chances for them to be seen by judges.

I agree with this so much. One thing that's often is lost in these discussions is that "Art" is so often in the eye of the beholder - and in this case, in the eyes of the judges. Some people seem to think that the "Art" they like is what the judges will prefer too, given the chance - while there is no guarantee of such a thing.

One person's "amazing performer" is for another "OTT expressions".
One person's "sassy" is another person's "tacky".
One person's "elegant and subtle skating" is for another person "boring and unengaging".
And so on and so forth, endlessly.

And in this case, it doesn't matter what casual fans on the internet think, it's the judges who decide.

Any skater who has been labelled "just a jumper" is pretty much sunk, no matter what they do, unless they have other things in their favour.
And also, may I add, not having quads doesn't automatically mean that a skater is an "Arteest". There are plenty of unarteestic skaters who don't even have a 3A, let alone a quad, yet somehow this narrative still seems to find traction, that quads somehow are coarse, vulgar things, enemies of "Art". No matter the skaters that amply prove that you can, in fact, have both. And, again, I'd like to point out, the skaters who have… neither. (Should we mould the rules so that untechnical, unartestic skaters can win things too? After all, they work just as hard - is it their fault that they don't have as much talent as other skaters?) It's not the "either - or" situation some people seem to delight to paint it as. Such blanket judgements and generalisations are, I think, extremely unhelpful in any situation. But then, I'm an individualist, and I hate putting labels on people. ("the Arteest", "the Just-a-Jumper", "the Whole Package".)

Well, perhaps I got carried away into rambling, for which I apologise, but this is something I feel strongly about.

The PCS will always be dependent on biasses - that cannot be helped. Even if it is only the personal tastes of the judge, if their preferences run towards the subtle or understated, the flamboyant and colourful, intricate transitions, or elegant flow, or whatever.

The TES mark is supposed to be fair and objective. The less that is restricted and the less it is given increased arbitrariness, the better.

Let each skater pursue the avenue, and the "strategy", that is best to their advantage and suits their strengths, and may the chips fall where they may.

 

[VegMom]

quads are also the only way for some skaters to exist, to keep it up.

who?

 

[gkelly]

To me it makes perfect sense that the first quad would give the biggest advantage and that the advantage would diminish as more quads are learned. isn't that logical? With the proposed changes the effect would become the opposite - The first quads are the least meaningful(worth less points) while the more quads you learn, the more impactful each quad is(Because they are worth more and more points).

Only if skaters only ever learn quads in order of difficulty/point value. That isn't necessarily always the case.

There are plenty of examples of skaters of skaters learning 4S before 4T. Of course the point difference is minor in that case.

There are rarer cases of skaters learning 4Lz as their second quad after 4T, and even rarer (and less successful in the examples I’m thinking of) examples of skaters choosing one of the harder quads as their very first quad to attempt in competition, although offhand I don’t know of examples where the skater succeeded at landing or even not-popping that harder quad in competition.


[FONT=&quot]If a skater whose first quad was 4Lz could pull it off relatively consistently, that would give the biggest advantage, and later quads added would be worth less.[/FONT]
e are

I don't think that non-quad skaters should be able to compete with quad skaters, indeed. That's only fair.

Sometimes, I wish we would remember that this is actually trying to be a sport and it's not necessary for weaker athletes to be able to artificially compete with the stronger athletes.

It’s a sport, but it is also a highly technical sport based on the curving movement of blades on ice. Rotation in the air that’s generated by using that curving blade movement has become highly valued, but it’s not the fundamental definition of the sport.

I think it would be just as valid to say that I don’t think that skaters who can’t execute level 4 step sequences should be able to compete with those who can. (Or any other specific blade-to-ice skill. I named that one because it is a common element in senior programs as the sport is practiced today. Feel free to add “back paragraph loops” “iron cross” or “full-rink spread eagles” or “double axels in both directions” or “axel that covers at least 10 feet of ice in the air” or “Biellmann spin” or “writing one’s name [or some standard word] with the blade of one foot without putting the other foot down” or “averaging ice speed of at least 20 mph throughout a 4-minute program” or any other difficult skating feat that separates the worthy from the unworthy winners.

For myself, I think that the great potential of a point-based approach to elements is to allow skaters to build up points by meeting minimum expectations and then going beyond the minimum by pushing limits in their own best areas of technical/athletic expertise. For many of the top men these days, that means multiple quads. But I personally believe that the sport should be structured to allow different kinds of champions with different kinds of personal top strengths. And of course that the skater with the most different kinds of strengths should have an advantage over skater who are only good at one kind of skill. Even if that one kind of skill is rotating 4 times in the air from various takeoffs.

Note that I’m only talking about technical feats here. The rules would have to be changed significantly to value some of them as much as in-air rotation is currently valued. But there’s nothing un-sportlike about choosing different or additional kinds of technical feats to focus on – including in theory a choice to value technique over athleticism, or at least equally.

I’m not even factoring in what role the more artistic PCS criteria should play, which would be another discussion entirely.

The methods by which a skater can make a difference should be increased, not decreased.

I agree with that. Which is why I would like to see more ways for skaters to earn points in TES (or in Skating Skills and Transitions if that's where certain technical/athletic strengths get rewarded) in addition to number of rotations in the air. In which case a skater who excels at all kinds of technical feats including triple jumps with enhanced technical difficulty and athletic quality would be able to earn more TES points than a skater with several quads but not as much quality and much weaker non-jump skills.

Of course a skater who can do all of the above would beat both of them.

 

[Harriet]

who?

I wouldn't say it's the only way for them to exist, but for skaters like Chafik Besseghier and Valtter Virtanen, the ability to land a quad has been a big, big help in getting into the free skate at Worlds level and getting on the podium/into the top ranks at Senior B and Challenger events given that they don't rack up enormous PCS scores. Likewise Brendan Kerry.

One of the things people tend to overlook is that a big predictor of having good skating skills and excellent artistry, and/or All The Jumps, is money: how much ice time and what level of coaching you can afford, where the money comes from to afford it, etc. A skater who has to work a day job to pay for their ice time and coaching...and flights to competitions, and accommodation, and boots, and blades, and off-ice training, and health cover, and costumes, and make-up, etcetera, etcetera...quite simply has less time available to put into developing all those things than a skater whose federation pays major bills (or one who has generous sponsors, or one who has extremely wealthy parents, or one who won the lottery, or whatever). They have to make a decision - do they put their limited funds and consequently limited time into developing the skill that will get them lots of TES points quickly (triple axels and quads for men) and make sure they get into the free skate of their next big competition so that they can retain whatever financial/federation support they have, or do they put it into developing the skills that will get them respect and a small, gradual increase in PCS over several seasons (skating skills, interpretation, etc) but no near-guaranteed entry to the free skate? They might wish they could do both, but it's simply not possible given the resources they've got and the circumstances they're in, so they have to make a trade-off, and it seems most go for the TES boost because it's quicker and more reliable.

One of the reasons I like the changes to the SOV and dislike the proposal to prohibit repetition of quads is that the changes to the SOV level the playing field somewhat between those skaters who have many resources, those who have fewer and those who just have few, while prohibiting repetition of quads would increase the gaps between them. Someone who has all the money they need to buy the ice time and coaching necessary to develop a quad toeloop, salchow, flip and lutz, even if they fall on two of them in competition, will automatically gain an even bigger advantage than they already have now over somebody who has only enough money to buy the ice time and coaching expertise necessary to develop a quad toeloop and 4T+3T combination and then can't use one of them. The rules are there to define the sport, but they're also there to promote equity of access. If they start making choices that mean poorer skaters can't hope to compete, we might just as well go back to the truly 'amateur' competition of the original Olympic games, in which only the wealthy competed because only they could afford to train and not need to earn money.

 

[oatmella]

Whether or not it fits the definition of the sport, jumps/rotations in the air are worth the most points - even with devaluing quads or limiting them.

 

[charlotte14]

OH please for sure they will not limit quads. 100% sure.

 

[chopinskate]

STILL missing the point, guys. Make the judges judge better, instead of limiting the athletes. If someone does 20 quads in a program, and the program suffers from it, then give them 0 PCS.

 

[Sam-Skwantch]

STILL missing the point, guys. Make the judges judge better, instead of limiting the athletes. If someone does 20 quads in a program, and the program suffers from it, then give them 0 PCS.

I’m giving at least a 6.0 in PCS for 20 quads. That’s an impressive layout