North American competitive system lacking

[thedude]

I guess that is the heart of what I am concerned about. Sofia Akatieva (age 13) just became the first "woman" to land two quads and a triple Axel in a program. I guess that means that the Valieva/Usacheva generation is over the hill.

Except that Valieva will be exactly the minimum age to compete in 2022, while Akatieva will be too old at the time of her first shot in 2026.

If the main qualification for contending for an Olympic gold medal is that you manage to defer the onset of puberty until the day after the Olympics, that catapults the accident of birth order to the place of highest predictor of who are the Olympic favorites.

Yup that's a problem for the health of the sport long term, maybe not in Russia but the rest of the world. Many people in the gymnastics community are upset that the age limit for Tokyo games will allow an additional year rather than original cutoff if it had occurred this year.
They all know that being certain within a certain age is huge advantage.

 

[frida80]

I'm back! I've got another long post coming about why US ladies are late bloomers, so feel free to ignore this one as well. I don't mean to derail any discussion, so apologies in advance.


If you asked me 9 years ago how I felt about figure skating, I would've told you bright. In 2011 Caitlyn Nguyen had just won juvenile with double axels. She was nine. I was deluded. I thought that the presence of a 9 year old with 2A meant that she'd be the next big thing and things were working just fine with the USFS competition system. Nope.

In 2014, I noticed something unusual. The winner of Juvenile, Iris Zhao, age 12, was the only one on the podium that didn't attempt a 2A. Annabelle Morozov and Kaitlyn Nguyen (different girl), 2st and 3rd place respectfully had skated clean programs with two 2A but still lost to her. Why? Because her coaches used IJS to her advantage. Her spins were high quality. She did tanos over her jumps. She skated with more sophistication. That led to a big boost in GoE and PCS netting her the win.

Well, did that help her in the long run? It probably didn't. Since 2014, she hasn't made it back to nationals once. It took her a long time to get her triples. She's never been on the ISP. I can't help thinking if her coaches were fixated on her winning nationals at juvenile level and focused on getting those harder jumps instead, she would've been better off.

I thought it might be a fluke, but the next year I watched as girls intermediate and novice get higher placements with lower tech. While many girls had triples and 2A, 3rd place went to someone that had a similar strategy as Iris. Likewise with the winner of novice, who only had a 3S, 3T, and 2A. As for juvenile, in 2015, only one lady even attempted a 2A. Coaches had decided to try the “simple but sophisticated” method rather than taking risk.

That's why I'm glad the junior national system is gone.

In the USA we have several levels of skaters before hitting juniors and seniors.

No Test
Pre-Preliminary
Preliminary
Pre-juvenile
------------------
Juvenile
Intermediate
Novice
Junior
Senior

Juvenile is the level when they start using IJS judging, and until two seasons ago the first time skaters could go to nationals and become national champs. This is why a lot of skaters skip Pre-juvenile. Preliminary level skate with just two doubles. After you master most or all your doubles, there's no point in staying in pre-juvenile, where there is no nationals. So large amounts of girls vie for that national title every year, and I believe it wreaks havoc on their long term development.

Preparing for nations takes a huge chunk out of the time that these kids could be training new jumps and fixing problems. While the time between regionals and nationals is a precious 4 month period where kids are finessing a program when they could be training triples instead. I watched as layouts become simplified, so they can maximize their points. The 3Los and 3Lzes are removed, in exchange for 3T and 3S. Better to have simple jumps for positive GoE. That means the ladies that go to nationals that are skating more pragmatic programs, will be behind the following year. They have to catch up, because other girls took that time to train and perfect the harder jumps instead.

The way I see it, nationals is a carrot for everyone involved. Parents like it because it looks good on their kids’ college application. Kids like it because it gives them bragging rights. Coaches like it because it allows them charge higher rates and hold prestige. However, in the long run it helps no one. Those four months chasing that gold medal hurts kids’ long term development. In order to get it, coaches will recommend girls stay in the same level, increasing their chances of winning. That means another year of the same program time, same number of elements, same low level of judging, and not challenging themselves at the next level.

The ideal age that skaters start skating at juniors is 12-13. One year to get used to the level before getting international placements. However, due to so much sandbagging, girls may not start juniors until 14-16. By then, they'll just be hitting puberty, creating another delay in their development.

So this is one of the reasons why so many girls are older by the time they hit juniors. There are still unavoidable reasons why there are skating delays; injuries, financial reasons, coaching incompatibility, access problems, equipment issues, and simply because some girls just don't develop as quickly as others. However, from what I can see with pre-juvenile, if there is an incentive of increasing their development, coaches, skaters, and parents will jump at the chance. That's why, now that the bonus system has been implemented and junior nationals has been eliminated, it will spur skaters into learning triples earlier and pushing themselves to get into novice and juniors at an earlier stage rather than languishing in lower levels for a national championship medal.

 

[Mathman]

^ Thank you for the provocative insight.

But it is not clear to me which is better at the juvenile level. Should the skater train nothing but jumps, hoping for a payoff later. Or should she also practice spining, edging, and aspects of performance?. I don't think I would dismiss the latter choice as just an attempt by the coach or the USFSA to "game the IJS."

 

[Mathman]

I think these GOATs will disagree: ...

Well, but that is a different question than the one under discussion. Of course top athletes want to win everything and are devestated when they don't. That's an emotion that is common to everyone.

But the question was, what about the fans? Do they rally around their favorite athlete or team, or do they abandon interest if they finish second? As for "going down in history," who is more fondly remembered, Kurt Browning or Wolfgang Schwartz (Google him)?

 

[frida80]

^ Thank you for the provocative insight.

But it is not clear to me which is better at the juvenile level. Should the skater train nothing but jumps, hoping for a payoff later. Or should she also practice spining, edging, and aspects of performance?. I don't think I would dismiss the latter choice as just an attempt by the coach or the USFSA to "game the IJS."

This isn’t an “either or” situation. Skaters will never train just jumps. they will alway work on everything, because that’s whats required of them. The question is delaying triples and double axels worth it in the long run? My answer from my research is an emphatic no! It makes things a lot harder! At age twelve Iris was learning more about getting +3 on spins than learning 2A. Putting tanos on simple jumps just to improve GoEs? It’s a terrible idea.

When skaters delay learning harder jumps for better national placements, all their skating suffers. All the little points of sophistication like tanos, transitions, edge work, speeds and spins often have be taken out so they can focus on just the jumps. It’s very harder to focus on speed, spin levels, and footwork when super focused on just landing your jumps. Since they learn the triples later, they’re more inconsistent and error prone.

The kids that take the risk are better in the long run. Even if your falling on jumps and lose, it’s better in the long run. Once the jumps are stable you can build more on that foundation.

However my central point was juvenile and intermediate national are a huge distraction that take precious training time away from developing skaters. That four month window could be the difference between learning triples this year, two years in the future, or never. What developing skaters need most of all is time. Time to train and get those harder elements. Skaters that go to nationals often do much worse the next year because their training time is sliced in half. Getting rid of it means that this kids can focus on improving and not placing at nationals.

 

[karne]

In 2014, I noticed something unusual. The winner of Juvenile, Iris Zhao, age 12, was the only one on the podium that didn't attempt a 2A. Annabelle Morozov and Kaitlyn Nguyen (different girl), 2st and 3rd place respectfully had skated clean programs with two 2A but still lost to her. Why? Because her coaches used IJS to her advantage. Her spins were high quality. She did tanos over her jumps. She skated with more sophistication. That led to a big boost in GoE and PCS netting her the win.

Well, did that help her in the long run? It probably didn't. Since 2014, she hasn't made it back to nationals once. It took her a long time to get her triples. She's never been on the ISP. I can't help thinking if her coaches were fixated on her winning nationals at juvenile level and focused on getting those harder jumps instead, she would've been better off.

I mean, this argument kind of falls over without much research.

Nguyen won Juniors in 2017 but finished 14th at Junior Worlds and her GoFundMe update from a few days ago notes that she hasn't skated at all for the last three years due to injury. I wouldn't exactly call that a resounding success.

Morozov never qualified for US Nationals again, switched to France where she was 6th at Junior Nationals, had one Junior 8th place finish at Mentor Torun (not known for its deep fields), switched to ice dance and to Russia, and still hasn't medalled at Nationals.

So this idea that obviously Zhao should have worked on the 2A first instead of - gasp shock gasp! - winning Juvenile without a 2A! the HORROR! - and she would have done better is pretty well debunked. She earned her Juvenile win, and if it was the only time then that happens, but it's not like having the 2A in Juvenile was a keypoint for success.

But also - does the name Jason Brown mean anything to you? He was a regular podium finisher at Junior Nationals. There is video of his Novice skate where he barely has a 3S and 3T, while Joshua Farris was landing 3Lz. Jason is now considered one of the best skaters in the world and multiple medals to his name as well as being National Champion. But tsk tsk! He didn't have the jumps as a junior competitor! We should have written him off then!

I find the basic premise of this thread faulty given the injuries and abuse we see in the Russian factory-farm girls. The US isn't completely stain-free in that regard but at least their girls aren't treated as disposable, replaceable items.

One of the US' problems for many years has been their hyperfixation on the "Ice Princess", at the cost of all else. They fixate on one skater and eventually break them down under the pressure. Nathan Chen's result in Korea did not surprise me one whit because it was inevitable that a kid his age would struggle with that much pressure. They're going to do the same to Alysa Liu. But have you noticed something? Even when the US has an embarrassment of riches - such as their men's event in the cycle between 2013-2018 - they still hyperfixate. God, the fluff pieces that there could have been about the competition, but no. Everyone stay in your box and we'll hyperfixate on one skater.

 

[frida80]

I mean, this argument kind of falls over without much research.

Nguyen won Juniors in 2017 but finished 14th at Junior Worlds and her GoFundMe update from a few days ago notes that she hasn't skated at all for the last three years due to injury. I wouldn't exactly call that a resounding success.

Morozov never qualified for US Nationals again, switched to France where she was 6th at Junior Nationals, had one Junior 8th place finish at Mentor Torun (not known for its deep fields), switched to ice dance and to Russia, and still hasn't medalled at Nationals.

So this idea that obviously Zhao should have worked on the 2A first instead of - gasp shock gasp! - winning Juvenile without a 2A! the HORROR! - and she would have done better is pretty well debunked. She earned her Juvenile win, and if it was the only time then that happens, but it's not like having the 2A in Juvenile was a keypoint for success.

But also - does the name Jason Brown mean anything to you? He was a regular podium finisher at Junior Nationals. There is video of his Novice skate where he barely has a 3S and 3T, while Joshua Farris was landing 3Lz. Jason is now considered one of the best skaters in the world and multiple medals to his name as well as being National Champion. But tsk tsk! He didn't have the jumps as a junior competitor! We should have written him off then!

I find the basic premise of this thread faulty given the injuries and abuse we see in the Russian factory-farm girls. The US isn't completely stain-free in that regard but at least their girls aren't treated as disposable, replaceable items.

One of the US' problems for many years has been their hyperfixation on the "Ice Princess", at the cost of all else. They fixate on one skater and eventually break them down under the pressure. Nathan Chen's result in Korea did not surprise me one whit because it was inevitable that a kid his age would struggle with that much pressure. They're going to do the same to Alysa Liu. But have you noticed something? Even when the US has an embarrassment of riches - such as their men's event in the cycle between 2013-2018 - they still hyperfixate. God, the fluff pieces that there could have been about the competition, but no. Everyone stay in your box and we'll hyperfixate on one skater.

I’m talking strictly about ladies not men. I’ve found that many of the winners of men go on to succeed. But that’s not the case for ladies. Plus men have a much larger window for developing jumps than ladies and can develop higher level jumps easier. So men and women are an apples and oranges comparison.

Kaitlyn never went to junior worlds. After her junior national win she did two JGP got injured and never could recover. However, unlike Iris, she did qualify for nationals multiple times and eventually won. Iris never did again.

I never said she didn’t earn her win. Just that it’s a symptom of a poor functioning system. The point of the system was to develop competitive ladies on a global scale. Instead it made ladies competitive for a season, rather than long term.

I have a whole section on over hyping and the negative impact it has on junior and senior skaters, so I’m well aware of the lethal affect of hyping. Also I have a big section on injuries. That post was just examining one problem with the US system.

Girls must develop the triples early or else risk never having them. Having a system that prioritizes short-term juvenile and intermediate medals, by producing sophisticated simplified programs has a domino effect. Other coaches encouraged simplier programs. This was until USFS put the bonus system in effect. Now, because triples and 2A are given bonus points, coaches are more willing to push their students into putting more triples in their programs. But juvenile and intermediate nationals had to go. Too much time wasted that could be spent on development.

Yeah, I realized this was a pretty controversial take of mine when I posted. However, I stand by what posted. The reason why we have so many late bloomers in US ladies is because the system encouraged it.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

^ Thank you for the provocative insight.

But it is not clear to me which is better at the juvenile level. Should the skater train nothing but jumps, hoping for a payoff later. Or should she also practice spining, edging, and aspects of performance?. I don't think I would dismiss the latter choice as just an attempt by the coach or the USFSA to "game the IJS."

To me, if a skater is prioritizing their career then it makes more sense for them to develop their jumping ability as well and as quickly as possible. The main problem being, developing harder jumps is more physically intensive and riskier.

Spins, edging and performance aspects can be developed, but confidence in one's ability to jump is a completely different thing.

It's the whole "If I did it once, then I know I can do it." mentality. If a skater develops everything else and doesn't push for the hardest jumps when they are able to, then they have to "work up" to the harder jumps later on, which psychologically speaking is harder.

Yes, of course well-rounded skating is important but in terms of getting to the next level quickly, the jumps are what matters. Look at skaters like Uno and Jin and Chen - they didn't "wait" their turn to be a contender, they had high technical ability and then the artistry developed further later. Someone like Jason Brown however has always had to play catch up to reach the top of the podium because he spent so much focus developing his overall skating. Of course, he's the exception because he's a marvellous skater, but he's falling more behind and I wonder how his career might have been had he gotten a quad sooner (not that I'm complaining).

There's also devil's advocate too - because if a skater only has jumps, once they start losing the jumps and they haven't developed other aspects of their skating as much, they can start falling to the wayside (see: Gogolev, or even skaters like Joubert and Tuktamysheva). The North American system is definitely focused on developing overall skating but they need to focus more on jumps if they want to be more competitive. However, parents care about their kids' well-beings and probably aren't going to push for them to land triple axels and quads and potentially destroy their bodies - they think long-term, and you don't have as many Zhang Aijuns around. Skating is generally recreational here, not a way of life.

 

[ManyCairns]

I do think the talent pool in the US is pretty small, just because there aren't a lot of rinks, and not much of an ice sports culture at all. Earlier in the thread, there were some thoughtful post(s) about skating and ballet. If you do live in a city AND near a rink, skating might be accessible, and lessons might be cheaper, and I guess practice clothes and skates could be less than dance clothes and ballet slippers (though that's hard to imagine, even once someone was in toe shoes, at least for non-custom -- but I sure haven't priced toe shoes or decent skates recently, so ???) -- but anyway, the availability of skating vs dance is just exponentially different. I live in a VERY rural area, about an hour outside Richmond, VA. I could get to 2 rinks in the greater Richmond area, one about an hour away, one a bit over an hour away.

I could get to decent dance classes with the same tiny, rural village address -- about 10 minutes away. 25-30 minutes away are at least a dozen more, in _each_ of 3 small towns. One of which also has a decent ballroom studio. And if I weren't happy with any of those options, the same hour-ish would yield countless dance studios, including the Richmond Ballet's large studio program.

We really don't have many rinks that are close to many people. Sure, mid-size cities and up may have one or two, but there's going to be some driving involved, likely to be much more driving required than for dance, or any sport that is also held in schools, like soccer, baseball/softball, etc. etc.

So it's not just costs, which can be considerable, but actual availability, both in terms of physical distance and in travel times (how many stories have we read about skaters doing homework in the car while mom or dad drives them an hour or more each way to rinks and/or coaching -- how many more skaters might there be if the rinks were closer, and/or there were more public transportation options that didn't also require significant parental time and commitment as well as that of the athlete?)

And for those few children who do skate, other posters have shed much light on the US skating culture, esp for girls/women, that seems to be rewarding the wrong things, not offering a competitive enough environment to prepare for top tier international competition, etc.

 

[lariko]

Well Russia is brutal. Anna, Sasha and Aloina to be replaced by Kamila, Daria and Maya, who will then be replaced by the Sofias' And Viktoria. The next great thing is only a year or two behind the current great thing.
The problem with development in the US is the highly touted sacrosanct "learn to skate". The problem with Learn to Skate is it is discouraging. I've seen kids who taught themselves to do an axel on the ice, but no no no, can't move to level 3 Basic until you get that mowhawk. Can't do the spiral? Gonna have to hold you back. The truth is boys leave to join a junior hockey league, and girls quit to do a sport with more instant gratification. Learn to Skate and everything after Learn to Skate is far too structured (not to mention discouraging) to be much fun. Instead of allowing kids to excel at what they are good at (artistic, jumps, spins, edges, flexibility etc.), Learn to Skate is a One Size Fits All approach, and I'm guessing 90% drop out during the process. (Not that the USFSA has ever really cared-Learn To Skate is almost HOLY with the USFSA)
And then, after Learn To Skate-boom, into expensive private lessons and the Wallet Shock.
In Russia it seems kids are grouped by age, taught in groups, (long past basic skills groups) and the kids seem to be having a heck of a lot more fun. But skating is a larger part of Russian culture.

Maya and Daria will not be replacing anyone soon, and I doubt that Maya in particular will ever get on the podium in Russian Nationals. Her instability and jumping flaws are too obvious and she doesn’t have the artistic presence to compensate for it. But that only goes to show how insane the field is in Russia. How they are going to judge their junior ladies nationals this year, I dunno.

American system trains gentlemen well, but doesn’t seem to do so well with the ladies.

I don’t know about USA, but here where I live, in Calgary, the former Olympic city, this whole year the parents of athletic kids are fighting the city to keep the only sports school at the olympic park open because of the lack of funding. That’s the school that allows training and don’t mark trips to competitions that are not school competitions as unexcused absenteeism.

while pretty much every Russian junior I see in Russian Cup, from even the small cities, is attached to an Olympic Reserve Sport School, so I presume they can both train and study.

 

[Flying Feijoa]

If you do live in a city AND near a rink, skating might be accessible, and lessons might be cheaper, and I guess practice clothes and skates could be less than dance clothes and ballet slippers (though that's hard to imagine, even once someone was in toe shoes, at least for non-custom -- but I sure haven't priced toe shoes or decent skates recently, so ???) -- but anyway, the availability of skating vs dance is just exponentially different.

FYI here's my materials budget (in $CAD, since I'm currently stuck in Canada). I dance/skate for fun now, but the cost of gear is similar to intermediate-stage youngsters who may be on a budget.

Ballet:
Leotard - $30 for a fashionable usable one
Tights - $15
Soft shoes - $30 (+/- $10 depending on model)
Pointe shoes - $120 (+/- ~$50 depending on model)

Skating:
Boots - $600? (Can't remember the exact price, it was too painful... rated for beginner doubles)
Blades - $250 (Rated for doubles)
Clothes - no separate budget (use generic sportswear)

The cost difference between me and the serious kids is mainly in lesson/ice time cost (4-6x a week, plus possibly more expensive coaches, special camps/intensives etc.) and assessments (competitions or exams with associated costume/travel costs and entry fees). They would also go through footwear more quickly due to higher training load and physical growth. Pointe shoes wear out faster, but high-level skates cost more, so I'd say skates are still more expensive per year.

But you're right, ballet is generally much more widespread and accessible than skating. That's probably true everywhere except maybe Russia.

 

[Mathman]

But you're right, ballet is generally much more widespread and accessible than skating. That's probably true everywhere except maybe Russia.

Now that makes me wonder if the same is true in Russia, too. Figure skating is big in Russia. But my impression is that ballet is even bigger, just like in North America. (?)

 

[Colonel Green]

I think these GOATs will disagree:

...

I think all of these athletes' legacy will easily survive a single defeat. Why are they so worked up after a single loss? It's probably because they are the only ones that think they aren't worth anything anymore after a silver medal. Most athletes approach their sport this way and beat themselves up over getting silver. If you maintain that a silver/bronze is still worth a lot, I bet these guys would disagree.

Using people like Bolt and Kramer to illustrate your point really misses the mark. They are the sort of athlete who not only wants to win but, based on their track record, can expect to win (on average) whenever they enter a competition. In figure skating terms, they're Hanyu or Chen.

Most athletes in a sport are not Bolt or Hanyu. Look at the Olympic podium photos at any given games and you will see quite a few pleased-as-punch bronze medalists. Making the podium is an achievement. And plenty of athletes who don't make the big podiums (again, especially in a sport like this) leave legacies and are remembered.

 

[Flying Feijoa]

Now that makes me wonder if the same is true in Russia, too. Figure skatong is big in Russia. But my impression is that ballet is even bigger, just like in North America. (?)

From what I know ballet in Russia is more about vocational training, i.e. kids enter special schools from age 11 to become professional dancers. Outside of those vocational schools, there doesn't seem to be much opportunity to pursue ballet recreationally, unlike skating. However, my impression (from talking to Soviet-era dancers/dance teachers) might be outdated, since Russia nowadays has more middle class kids who might be interested in approaching ballet as a hobby-that-could-turn-serious a la North America.

 

[Amei]

FYI here's my materials budget (in $CAD, since I'm currently stuck in Canada). I dance/skate for fun now, but the cost of gear is similar to intermediate-stage youngsters who may be on a budget.

Ballet:
Leotard - $30 for a fashionable usable one
Tights - $15
Soft shoes - $30 (+/- $10 depending on model)
Pointe shoes - $120 (+/- ~$50 depending on model)

Skating:
Boots - $600? (Can't remember the exact price, it was too painful... rated for beginner doubles)
Blades - $250 (Rated for doubles)
Clothes - no separate budget (use generic sportswear)

The cost difference between me and the serious kids is mainly in lesson/ice time cost (4-6x a week, plus possibly more expensive coaches, special camps/intensives etc.) and assessments (competitions or exams with associated costume/travel costs and entry fees). They would also go through footwear more quickly due to higher training load and physical growth. Pointe shoes wear out faster, but high-level skates cost more, so I'd say skates are still more expensive per year.

But you're right, ballet is generally much more widespread and accessible than skating. That's probably true everywhere except maybe Russia.

And I would also think a difference between figure skating and ballet in the US is that ballet has a better career prospects with professional dancing, and there is the option of university scholarships whereas figure skating has very limited professional opportunities especially in the US.

 

[katymay]

I'm back! I've got another long post coming about why US ladies are late bloomers, so feel free to ignore this one as well. I don't mean to derail any discussion, so apologies in advance.


If you asked me 9 years ago how I felt about figure skating, I would've told you bright. In 2011 Caitlyn Nguyen had just won juvenile with double axels. She was nine. I was deluded. I thought that the presence of a 9 year old with 2A meant that she'd be the next big thing and things were working just fine with the USFS competition system. Nope.

In 2014, I noticed something unusual. The winner of Juvenile, Iris Zhao, age 12, was the only one on the podium that didn't attempt a 2A. Annabelle Morozov and Kaitlyn Nguyen (different girl), 2st and 3rd place respectfully had skated clean programs with two 2A but still lost to her. Why? Because her coaches used IJS to her advantage. Her spins were high quality. She did tanos over her jumps. She skated with more sophistication. That led to a big boost in GoE and PCS netting her the win.

Well, did that help her in the long run? It probably didn't. Since 2014, she hasn't made it back to nationals once. It took her a long time to get her triples. She's never been on the ISP. I can't help thinking if her coaches were fixated on her winning nationals at juvenile level and focused on getting those harder jumps instead, she would've been better off.

I thought it might be a fluke, but the next year I watched as girls intermediate and novice get higher placements with lower tech. While many girls had triples and 2A, 3rd place went to someone that had a similar strategy as Iris. Likewise with the winner of novice, who only had a 3S, 3T, and 2A. As for juvenile, in 2015, only one lady even attempted a 2A. Coaches had decided to try the “simple but sophisticated” method rather than taking risk.

That's why I'm glad the junior national system is gone.

In the USA we have several levels of skaters before hitting juniors and seniors.

No Test
Pre-Preliminary
Preliminary
Pre-juvenile
------------------
Juvenile
Intermediate
Novice
Junior
Senior

Juvenile is the level when they start using IJS judging, and until two seasons ago the first time skaters could go to nationals and become national champs. This is why a lot of skaters skip Pre-juvenile. Preliminary level skate with just two doubles. After you master most or all your doubles, there's no point in staying in pre-juvenile, where there is no nationals. So large amounts of girls vie for that national title every year, and I believe it wreaks havoc on their long term development.

Preparing for nations takes a huge chunk out of the time that these kids could be training new jumps and fixing problems. While the time between regionals and nationals is a precious 4 month period where kids are finessing a program when they could be training triples instead. I watched as layouts become simplified, so they can maximize their points. The 3Los and 3Lzes are removed, in exchange for 3T and 3S. Better to have simple jumps for positive GoE. That means the ladies that go to nationals that are skating more pragmatic programs, will be behind the following year. They have to catch up, because other girls took that time to train and perfect the harder jumps instead.

The way I see it, nationals is a carrot for everyone involved. Parents like it because it looks good on their kids’ college application. Kids like it because it gives them bragging rights. Coaches like it because it allows them charge higher rates and hold prestige. However, in the long run it helps no one. Those four months chasing that gold medal hurts kids’ long term development. In order to get it, coaches will recommend girls stay in the same level, increasing their chances of winning. That means another year of the same program time, same number of elements, same low level of judging, and not challenging themselves at the next level.

The ideal age that skaters start skating at juniors is 12-13. One year to get used to the level before getting international placements. However, due to so much sandbagging, girls may not start juniors until 14-16. By then, they'll just be hitting puberty, creating another delay in their development.

So this is one of the reasons why so many girls are older by the time they hit juniors. There are still unavoidable reasons why there are skating delays; injuries, financial reasons, coaching incompatibility, access problems, equipment issues, and simply because some girls just don't develop as quickly as others. However, from what I can see with pre-juvenile, if there is an incentive of increasing their development, coaches, skaters, and parents will jump at the chance. That's why, now that the bonus system has been implemented and junior nationals has been eliminated, it will spur skaters into learning triples earlier and pushing themselves to get into novice and juniors at an earlier stage rather than languishing in lower levels for a national championship medal.

Exactly what I've been saying, starting with the rigid, discouraging 'learn to skate' program. And after that, the progression gets even more rigid and discouraging. I too was once watching the Intermediates/Novice ladies, and noticed that the big jumpers were accorded very little advantage, Some of the judging at the juvenile/intermediate level made me gasp. Obvious club loyalities and favoritism came into play and actual athletic ability was submerged beneath skaters who emoted and were able to flutter their arms in an attractive manner. Program polish was rewarded over jump risk, established programs rewarded over talented kids from rinks where only a few compete at the regional/sectional/national level. With the new judging system, thank God things have changed at the higher levels, but at the lower levels, it is still fairly corrupt and unfair.

 

[jersey1302]

Yeah but isn't it more fun if every year some underdog rises up to challenge and upset the reigning champion? I mean, I love Bradie and Mariah but in a couple more years they're gonna be Sleepy Bradie and Sleepy Mariah LOL

Ive only read this thread up until the few first comments so I'll start there. I somewhat disagree with that. In a sense yes its exciting that new upcoming young talent is grooming and become a champion. the problem is that they are only lasting a few years and they;re done. I LOVED the rivalries in figure skatings golden 90s and early 2000s. Michelle Kwan never got old watching her, Kurt Browning, Elvis Stojko, Alexei Yagudin, Katarina Witt, Kristi Yamaguchi, Peggy Flemming, Dorthy Hamel, Joannie Rochette, Oksana Baiul, Victor Petrenko, Nancy Kerrigan etc just to name a few, These area skaters that people paid to see at events and sold out arenas all the time because they were house hold names and they knew the best of the best was coming , as well as mature well rounded skaters are often more exciting to watch and get into a program vs the jumping machines. The emotion is often very difficult for a 15 year old to convey vs a 25 or 27 year old who has been through the grind and been through life more than a teen. The Russian girls are done and out before the world even knows who they are. They do 1 or half an Olympic cycle and they're often out of the race. I do understand the excitement of a young talent coming up but its like a factory and you cant get connected to the skater before they're pushed out to make room for more. Id love to see someone stay for 2 olympics or longer and make rivalries and make a name for them selves. Theres a reason you ask many people now days..anyone at random. Name me 3 figure skaters that are famous. Guess what.. They sure aren't coming up with names that are current. They're sayin some of the previous names I mentioned. Its exciting when someone young comes along and rivals them and beats them and becomes great. Not win an Olympic gold and disappear from skating.

 

[jenaj]

Well Russia is brutal. Anna, Sasha and Aloina to be replaced by Kamila, Daria and Maya, who will then be replaced by the Sofias' And Viktoria. The next great thing is only a year or two behind the current great thing.
The problem with development in the US is the highly touted sacrosanct "learn to skate". The problem with Learn to Skate is it is discouraging. I've seen kids who taught themselves to do an axel on the ice, but no no no, can't move to level 3 Basic until you get that mowhawk. Can't do the spiral? Gonna have to hold you back. The truth is boys leave to join a junior hockey league, and girls quit to do a sport with more instant gratification. Learn to Skate and everything after Learn to Skate is far too structured (not to mention discouraging) to be much fun. Instead of allowing kids to excel at what they are good at (artistic, jumps, spins, edges, flexibility etc.), Learn to Skate is a One Size Fits All approach, and I'm guessing 90% drop out during the process. (Not that the USFSA has ever really cared-Learn To Skate is almost HOLY with the USFSA)
And then, after Learn To Skate-boom, into expensive private lessons and the Wallet Shock.
In Russia it seems kids are grouped by age, taught in groups, (long past basic skills groups) and the kids seem to be having a heck of a lot more fun. But skating is a larger part of Russian culture.

Not sure I agree. The basics are important.

 

[jenaj]

Longetivity should only be to describe skaters who win (Gold Medal) at international events and continuing to perform at that level. Nathan Chen? Sure. Tessa and Scott? Sure. But winning Nationals for the tenth time doesn't say anything about that skater. Only tells me that that country is really bad with developing talents. Ashley Wagner winning or being near at the top for a decade and then only managing to be 3rd place at Worlda is disappointing. Who remembers the 2nd plave finishers anyway?

She was second at Worlds. Lots of second place finishers are remembered. Janet Lynn never finished higher than second at Worlds and was bronze at the Olympics. Midori Ito was another skater who didn't have a long record of gold medals at the big events but is a legend.

 

[Kraft des Bösen]

Using people like Bolt and Kramer to illustrate your point really misses the mark. They are the sort of athlete who not only wants to win but, based on their track record, can expect to win (on average) whenever they enter a competition. In figure skating terms, they're Hanyu or Chen.

Most athletes in a sport are not Bolt or Hanyu. Look at the Olympic podium photos at any given games and you will see quite a few pleased-as-punch bronze medalists. Making the podium is an achievement. And plenty of athletes who don't make the big podiums (again, especially in a sport like this) leave legacies and are remembered.

I figure I'll point to underdogs to show that "Gold or nothing" doesn't really apply to G.O.A.Ts.

"People really only can remember the winners." Rasmus Winther
"Losing at Worlds felt like throwing away everything I had worked towards and built." Martin Larsson
"Only five people are truly able to make their names known [...] because nobody remembers the runners-up." Hu Shou-Chieh
"To me, I'm like, what a failure. We made it all the way to the Finals and we didn't win.
So... I don't think I'll look back with pride ever on that. Like, I will always be really ashamed that we didn't win the Finals." Yiliang Peng

Athletes who aren't expected to win will still feel like they were expected to win. I think you underestimate the pressure that athletes place on themselves to get gold. Losing or getting runners up can still mean people will still be your fan and will still support you, but you need to get the gold to cement your legacy.

Of course that make that skater any less great in the eyes of their fan; I don't think Alysa Liu or Mariah Bell will suddenly stop becoming relevant or less loved if they fail to win Nationals or Skate America, but to point to runners up in general and say "that is what success looks like" or "this is peak figure skating" is missing the mark.