2019-20 Russian Ladies' Figure Skating

[el henry]

They are three different people, not a triune being.

The point being that the three of them together do not equal one Katarina Witt.

And I do not consider it “progress” to have more revolutions in the air and less years on the ice. I prefer more years and less revolutions. Now other may think it’s wonderful to have more revolutions in the air and less years to skate. That’s fine, that’s a difference of opinion.

But one is not “progress” and the other a symbol of “olden times”.

ETA: and that is what I meant in the other post about feminism. More years on ice and less revolutions is not a symbol of some bygone time when women stayed in the kitchen and knew their place. Plenty of us who didn't stay in the kitchen or know our place prefer more years on the ice. One has nothing to do with the other.

 

[Mathman]

The article where it's talked about Eteri praising Lipnitskaia being able to go without food, only powder nutrients.

What caught my eye was this praise from Elvis Stojko:

Julia Lipnitskaia can be the new super star. If she can stay in it for years to come, she will inspire many.

 

[Mathman]

They are three different people, not a triune being.

Yes, I understand that. Still, it is possible that the three together might trade the world championnship back and forth over the next cycle (like Anett Potzsch and Linda Fratianne did in the late 1970s).

If this should this happen, it would be an interesting achievement and would be regarded as a feather in the cap of their coaching team.

For that matter, if the next 4 world champions are Trusova (5 quads and a triple Axel), Shcherbakova (4 quads), Kostornaia (3 quads and 2 triple Axels) and Valieva (5 quads and 2 triple Axels), that would be pretty remarkable, too.

 

[Orlov]

The point being that the three of them together do not equal one Katarina Witt.

Just as Katarina Witt is not equal to any of them. Why do you practice in the writing of meaningless truisms?

And I do not consider it “progress” to have more revolutions in the air and less years on the ice.

From the fact that you will constantly use this phrase "revolutions in the air" instead of the word "jump" will not change anything - jumps are also the most valuable elements, the most attractive and exciting for the audience.

I prefer more yeas and less revolutions. Now other may think it’s wonderful to have more revolutions in the air and less years to skate. That’s fine, that’s a difference of opinion.

You can prefer whatever you want and live in whatever "Imaginationland". Realities is: increasing competition anywhere in the competitive fields of human activity - from sports to politics - inevitably leads to the reduction of " kings". And vice versa.

 

[Mathman]

-- jumps are also the most valuable elements, the most attractive and exciting for the audience.

I think the counterpoint is this. Jumps are the most highly valued elements only because the ISU decided to make it so. There are ongoing debates, both within ISU circles and out, about possible revisions to the scale of values. We'll see.

As for what the audience enjoys and is excited about, different people have a different finger on the pulse of "the audience." The alternative point of view is that what audiences like are spectacular jumps that are interwoven into the texture of the program as a whole and are used as choreographic accents rather than as the meat-and-potatoes of the performance.

I would say that both Kostonaia and Sscherbakova excel in this, and Trusova is not bad -- but the way the Scale of Values is designed, none of this matters point-wise. I think that we, the skating fans, have been lucky in this. Figure skating does not seem to going the way of snowbooarding half-pipe (where "revolutions in the air" are the entirety of the sport as far as I can tell). And in fact -- to me, everything is going fine in ladies figure skating, so why are we so angry and pugnacious abput it, and so insistent that there can be no other point of view except our own?

 

[Orlov]

I think the counterpoint is this. Jumps are the most highly valued elements only because the ISU decided to make it so. There are ongoing debates, both within ISU circles and out, about possible revisions to the scale of values. We'll see.

They didn't do it because their left heel itched. This was not a voluntary decision. You completely confuse cause and effect. They did so: a) because it is the most exciting for the majority of the audience (it is on the jumps of a favorite skater that we stop breathing), but most important b) for sporting reasons - if element X can do well 300 skaters, and element Y can do only 20 skaters, then the cost of element Y should be higher than the cost of element X. In my opinion, this is so obvious that I am surprised that we are seriously discussing such trivial things.

 

[el henry]

Just as Katarina Witt is not equal to any of them. Why do you practice in the writing of meaningless truisms?



From the fact that you will constantly use this phrase "revolutions in the air" instead of the word "jump" will not change anything - jumps are also the most valuable elements, the most attractive and exciting for the audience.



You can prefer whatever you want and live in whatever "Imaginationland". Realities is: increasing competition anywhere in the competitive fields of human activity - from sports to politics - inevitably leads to the reduction of " kings". And vice versa.

This is your opinion. But it is not fact. Saying that jumps are the most exciting for you, is cool. They are. For you. Not for everyone. Not as a fact. How can it be, when "exciting" cannot be quantified?

I have said nothing to you about living in "Imaginationland" or "meaningless truisms". I fail to see how using such language advances your argument (and I have great respect for your English so I believe those are the words you meant to use). I think therefore it is best for me to exit the exchange.

 

[jersey1302]

Jumps are I think properly scored. They are worth a lot of point because they aer difficult and there has to be elements to separate skaters obviously. They way jumps are being judged for some skaters like GOE *Trusova..cough...cough..* is ridiculous IMO.GOE's are sky high with no content coming in our out of jumps. What I do think needs to happen is the PCS needs to have a bit more rigid rules and there needs to be a panel to reviews scores to make sure it seems fair.PCS IMO should be worth more than it is now to A- close the gap of skaters that have a ton of tech content but virtually no program which again IMO leaves an audience feeling empty vs someone with average Tech content and superior skating skills but yet 1 quad can out weigh an entire PCS score difference.. It just doesn't make sense. I find this the most glaring in Russian ladies skating. I would rather watch a skater that has no quads like Medvedeva (who btw still has incredible technical content with all the triples and combos) and have her artistry filling the entire arena, gripping the audience and captivating us than watch someone win because they can run down the ice with no emotion and jump a few quads and call it a day.

 

[Arbitrary]

Jumps are I think properly scored. They are worth a lot of point because they aer difficult and there has to be elements to separate skaters obviously. They way jumps are being judged for some skaters like GOE *Trusova..cough...cough..* is ridiculous IMO.GOE's are sky high with no content coming in our out of jumps. What I do think needs to happen is the PCS needs to have a bit more rigid rules and there needs to be a panel to reviews scores to make sure it seems fair.PCS IMO should be worth more than it is now to A- close the gap of skaters that have a ton of tech content but virtually no program which again IMO leaves an audience feeling empty vs someone with average Tech content and superior skating skills but yet 1 quad can out weigh an entire PCS score difference.. It just doesn't make sense. I find this the most glaring in Russian ladies skating. I would rather watch a skater that has no quads like Medvedeva (who btw still has incredible technical content with all the triples and combos) and have her artistry filling the entire arena, gripping the audience and captivating us than watch someone win because they can run down the ice with no emotion and jump a few quads and call it a day.

PCS are awarded for the beauty of supporting elements.
Crashing on those elements is a rare thing. Being traumatized during spiraling is extremely rare.

Jumps in FS are like goals in the football.
Supporting elements are like tricks.
You want to score not tricking....

 

[Orlov]

They way jumps are being judged for some skaters like GOE *Trusova..cough...cough..* is ridiculous IMO..

 

[flanker]

Jumps are I think properly scored. They are worth a lot of point because they aer difficult and there has to be elements to separate skaters obviously. They way jumps are being judged for some skaters like GOE *Trusova..cough...cough..* is ridiculous IMO.GOE's are sky high with no content coming in our out of jumps. What I do think needs to happen is the PCS needs to have a bit more rigid rules and there needs to be a panel to reviews scores to make sure it seems fair.PCS IMO should be worth more than it is now to A- close the gap of skaters that have a ton of tech content but virtually no program which again IMO leaves an audience feeling empty vs someone with average Tech content and superior skating skills but yet 1 quad can out weigh an entire PCS score difference.. It just doesn't make sense. I find this the most glaring in Russian ladies skating. I would rather watch a skater that has no quads like Medvedeva (who btw still has incredible technical content with all the triples and combos) and have her artistry filling the entire arena, gripping the audience and captivating us than watch someone win because they can run down the ice with no emotion and jump a few quads and call it a day.

And that's why I am against dividing of figure skating into two separate technical and interpretation competitions. The second one would become what it was during 6.0 era. Personal preferences and opinions about who or what is more "artistic" instead of athletic performance. We can make a competition about whether Raphael is more artistic than Titian, but I wouldn't call it a sport.

 

[[email protected]]

Even Mao Asada, Irina Slutskaya and Michelle Kwan were at, or near, the top of the sport for three Olympic games. But it may be harder now if the sport becomes one where a skater isn't competitive once they turn 17.

I have a fundamental problem with statements like that. It is the next step after popular in 2015-18 "Tutberidze can only be successful with pre-puberty girls". Then Alina who changed dramatically since the Olympics won WC and post-puberty Elizabeth was second, and Zhenya was third.

Now we have a new benchmark "before 17 years old". Do we have any statistics, do we have medical proofs for such a statement? No, what we have is that Eteri has raised the bar substantially with the new crops of talent. They start to learn quads at 11 and they deliver them by 14. She did not train Yulia, Zhenia, Polina, you name them to jump quads. There was not such a goal just 5 years ago.

I wonder, what a new mantra will be devised when a post 17 year old Eteri's skater wins the Olympics and the Worlds with multiple quads?

 

[Orlov]

I wonder, what a new mantra will be devised when a post 17 year old Eteri's skater wins the Olympics and the Worlds with multiple quads?

The same one that they quietly talk about silver Tursynbaeva and her 4S at the WC-2019 - "well, she has a child figure".

I like Zhulin's honesty No, seriously, I respect directness - "I need feminine curves" Okay, everything is clear

 

[Lzbee]

Even Mao Asada, Irina Slutskaya and Michelle Kwan were at, or near, the top of the sport for three Olympic games. But it may be harder now if the sport becomes one where a skater isn't competitive once they turn 17.

In what world is Alina Zagitova not competitive this season? Evgenia won worlds at age 17.

 

[colormyworld240]

The point being that the three of them together do not equal one Katarina Witt.

And I do not consider it “progress” to have more revolutions in the air and less years on the ice. I prefer more years and less revolutions. Now other may think it’s wonderful to have more revolutions in the air and less years to skate. That’s fine, that’s a difference of opinion.

But one is not “progress” and the other a symbol of “olden times”.

ETA: and that is what I meant in the other post about feminism. More years on ice and less revolutions is not a symbol of some bygone time when women stayed in the kitchen and knew their place. Plenty of us who didn't stay in the kitchen or know our place prefer more years on the ice. One has nothing to do with the other.

I disagree. Objectively, in the ladies' discipline (and mens'), quads are progress, just as triples were. This is why: technical and overall progress is described by how the sport is judged which is the entire basis of competitive figure skating (in these disciplines). Jumps are by far the highest scoring elements. Collectively, they contribute to a much higher percentage of a segment score than any other criteria; spins are a very far second, and each of SS, TR, PE, CO, and INT only contribute to a maximum of 16 points in the FS. Even a skater who is just jumping doubles would have the majority of their score come from jumps with maximum GOE.

The difference of opinion comes from whether this is appreciated by viewers, and if this is progress artistically. Of course jumping quads doesn't mean a skater is progressing in spins, skating skills, performance, etc. But in terms of progress within the competitive sport as a whole, I don't see how it is not. The ISU has provided a scoring system by which all competitive skaters are judged, so the definition of progress would have to fit into the system as well. While the judging system has always been controversial, it is the only judging system that exists right now. Now if we're talking about progress in other disciplines, then there are other rules. And if we're talking about progress in shows, galas, and professional careers, that's a different story as well.

 

[McBibus]

Quads are progress. I have few doubts about it.
How this progress is reflected in the scoring system is where problems resides.

This scoring system, mixing a cumulative TES score with an evalutation score is a mess in my opinion.

Ladies routinely doing quads (like men) requires a 2.0 PCS multiplyer (like men) to rebalance the TES vs PCS contribution to the total score.
That would solve the PCS value, but when quads are in the equation, spins and steps are just fillers.

That apart i found a cumulative score does not well reflect tehnical elements.
Scoring favours many quads or triples over better quads or triples even in lesser number.

The question I'm posing is: Who is the best jumper (and should be awarded more "jump points")?
Jane: lands 4 quads with medium quality, underrotate and step out of the fifth, adds medium to good quality triple to complete jumping elements
Lara: lands 2 high quality quads, completes her jumps figures with excellent quality triples

I would say Lara, but that's just my opinion.
Why? because Lara proved the ability to proficiently execute and deliver quads and excellent quality and control to all her jumps, while Jane only demostrated great athletic ability but also less control on the execution and quality on every single jump (easy and difficult).
The cumulative scores will most probably award Jane turnig toward Lara only when Jane really fails to deliver

What do you think?

 

[Mathman]

In my opinion, this is so obvious that I am surprised that we are seriously discussing such trivial things.

This is not obvious. The very fact that it is a topic of heated debate shows that it is not "obvious."

Saying something over and over does not make it true.

To me, what is "obvious" is that some skating fans like one aspect of skating, and some like another. And for this fact we should be grateful.

 

[flanker]

Quads are progress. I have few doubts about it.
How this progress is reflected in the scoring system is where problems resides.

This scoring system, mixing a cumulative TES score with an evalutation score is a mess in my opinion.

Ladies routinely doing quads (like men) requires a 2.0 PCS multiplyer (like men) to rebalance the TES vs PCS contribution to the total score.
That would solve the PCS value, but when quads are in the equation, spins and steps are just fillers.

That apart i found a cumulative score does not well reflect tehnical elements.
Scoring favours many quads or triples over better quads or triples even in lesser number.

The question I'm posing is: Who is the best jumper (and should be awarded more "jump points")?
Jane: lands 4 quads with medium quality, underrotate and step out of the fifth, adds medium to good quality triple to complete jumping elements
Lara: lands 2 high quality quads, completes her jumps figures with excellent quality triples

I would say Lara, but that's just my opinion.
Why? because Lara proved the ability to proficiently execute and deliver quads and excellent quality and control to all her jumps, while Jane only demostrated great athletic ability but also less control on the execution and quality on every single jump (easy and difficult).
The cumulative scores will most probably award Jane turnig toward Lara only when Jane really fails to deliver

What do you think?

Maybe, but that problem did not occur with Eteri's girls or with quads in ladies competitions generally, this exists in men's skating since multiple quads started to be jumped in one program. Rescoring of the elements done in 2018 lowered the BV and rised GOE, which seems right to me as it supports better execution, but the problem is that it also supports more subjectivity in evaluation of the elements. I think that contemporary maximum 50 % of the BV for GOE is more or less OK, but I also think that this should be the upper limit. Medium quality four quads is still a great effort to me, also the one who can do four medium quality quads usually does high quality triples

 

[Mathman]

While the judging system has always been controversial, it is the only judging system that exists right now. Now if we're talking about progress in other disciplines, then there are other rules.

Perhaps what we need is progress in the judging system.

Changes in the judging system will be on the table for the ISU's technical committee and general council for next year. Maybe progress will be made and then a different system will come into existence, replacing and refining what we have now. I do not entirely support the proposition that we must be happy with the current state of affairs just because it is the current state of affairs.

 

[Orlov]

This is not obvious.

Wait, is it not obvious to you that an action that can be performed by only a few should be evaluated higher than an action that can be performed by the masses? Wow. I'm tempted to ask you - what Everett's parallel reality do you write from? In this reality, the pupils of 6th class who struggle to add up the simple numbers, earn a grade higher than their classmates to be able to solve biquadratic equations? And in your reality, welders at a military factory (the elite of the working profession) get less migrant janitors? Very curious))

Sorry