Janet Lynn: A Measured Fall from Freedom

[BlissfulSynergy]

^^ Thanks for your thoughtful post @skatesofgold. That's interesting to hear your views, and to hear about your mother's thoughts on the sport and why she is no longer interested in watching. If those running the sport of figure skating actually understood the history of the sport themselves, then maybe we would have a lot more history and personality-based promotion. Most of the media coverage is about p.r. hype, and about what happened five minutes ago. The sport being run by a speed skater for so many years is to the sport's detriment, and that's mainly because Cinquanta, the speed skater in question, didn't have a good understanding of figure skating and its history and development. He was more caught up in the power politics, and apparently in the money-sharing aspect of figure skating revenue supporting speed skating.

Regarding ladies and quads, I can admire and enjoy watching to a point. There are some problematic issues with the over-focus on quads and 3-axels for women (many of whom are teenagers with still growing bodies). My main issue, beyond the injuries, and the physical and emotional problems that result for many young females competing in fs today, is that there isn't a lot of balance. It's like putting the cart before the horse and running both into the ground. But yeah, wow, look at those extra revolution jumps being performed by these young prepubescent bodies.

There doesn't exist a lot of nuance or well-rounded artistry coupled with viable long term athleticism in women's figure skating these days. There are many female skaters I enjoy watching, but the discipline as a whole doesn't sustain my avid interest anymore.

Part of the problem is the nature of how the sport developed, and the fact that the ice has no give. I go back to what @SpiffySpiders was saying about athletes pushing their bodies, which is fine. Of course, athletes in fs are aware of the long-term health issues, and there are preventative sports therapy measures now being employed to stave off overuse injuries. But more work needs to be done. The problem I have with what SpiffySpiders said, is that it seemed to be indicating how figure skaters need to suck it up, and that all sports, including dance is hard on the body. In dance, the floor surface in studios and on the stage has a lot of give. Track athletes and gymnasts train and compete on surfaces that have some give. The ice surface is as hard as a rock, as hard as cement. There is no give.

Figure skaters absorb tremendous impacts on their joints, tendons, bones, and muscles. The skate boot provides little to no assistance in the absorption of this huge force over an entire career of repetitively landing on such a hard surface. The blade on the boot complicates everything as well. There have been many blade cutting injuries, as well as concussion injuries in figure skating. It is an extremely difficult and dangerous sport. But most observers don't see it that way because it looks so pretty, or so easy, or so wowsa. There is no understanding of how hard it is to launch into the air and make three rotations, let alone four and come down in a way that looks light as a feather on an extremely hard surface. The sport needs to educate viewers, in addition to learning about its own history, and widely promoting it. Plus, promote the skaters and find ways to protect them better, and above all, give them more and better competitive opportunities. It's such a demanding/ exacting, while conversely, such a limiting sport.

 

[BlissfulSynergy]

I posted this recently in another thread, and I think it's applicable to post here as well. Enjoy!

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

No quads were needed for this to be a beautiful performance filled with wonderful technique, artistry, and superb athleticism.

Look at that lovely scratch-spin, which is so uncommon in the sport today.

 

[withwings]

Oh, this skate/performance took away my breath- thank you for posting the link, BlissfulSynergy.

 

[el henry]

Bowman the Showman is appropriate any time, any place.

and for the young'uns, Christopher brought this same style and sensibility to competitive performances as well. What can be called a "crowd favorite". As well as world medalist.

I don't need to watch shows. I love seeing this kind of skating in comps, in the 70s, 80s, 90s and now, thank you kindly.

 

[FelineFairy]

Seyfert was an absolute genius at figures, and her free skating was competent but not very remarkable. Without her extraordinary blade prowess and the overbalanced way figures were scored, Seyfert would have maybe been in the mix for medals, but she would not have enjoyed the huge advantage she always gained due to the points she could rack up in the figures portion of competitions.

Sorry to cut in here, but can't you be mixing up Gaby Seyfert with Trixie Schuba? Gaby started winning Europeans years before Trixie, and had never ever won figures in Worlds! She was always second after Peggy Fleming, and also second in free skating. Second also in her only Olympics in 1968. She won Worlds in 1969 and 1970 after Peggy retired. And... even in those Worlds, she was second in figures, but first in the free. Gaby was an athletic type of skater, always with positive emotions on the ice, a great jumper for her time, the first to land a triple loop. She was very strong at the free programme. But she never failed really at figures, that was what gave her the ability to get back from her second place and defeat Trixie, when Schuba became the eternal figures winner. I remember Gaby very well, as I rooted for her at that time. She retired in 1970.

 

[kolyadafan2002]

For those talking about reducing values further with falls, I can agree with this however the biggest problems are these imo:
- lack of reward for non jump elements
- not enough choreographic elements
- lack of differentiation in points between levels of non jump elements.

And by far the biggest issue is TES leaching into PCS even with error riddled programs (E.g. Worlds 2021 Trusova FP which had basic transitions, almost no performance, and lots of errors yet having relatively high PCS).
I just wish the judges would separate them fairly, and judge the skating separately from the rest of the program.

 

[Sharon Whitlock]

So many interesting comments.

One of my problems with the emphasis on the big jumps for women's figure skating is that it's not WOMEN who are landing these jumps--it's girls.

Girls don't have a woman's body--they are straight as sticks. Plus they don't have the fat pads that a normal woman has. So landing quads is easier for a little girl with a 70-90 pound body.

But little girls grow into women, with a woman's body with curves and "protuberances" that make it extremely difficult to land jumps with many revolutions. Over the last ten years or so, we have seen beautiful little girls landing multiple triples/quads, and doing incredible eye-blurring spins. But within a few years, their skating career ends, as they grow up into beautiful women--but their bodies won't allow them to land those jumps and spins anymore. It's physics.

Triples seem to be attainable even for women who have figures. Katarina Witt is a great example of this--she was always "well-endowed" and she seemed to have no trouble landing triples. I think her training and her mindset was perfect for the sport.

And she wasn't the only fully-developed woman who could land triples even into her twenties and thirties. Janet Lynn could land triples, but they weren't necessary in competition during her hey-day. She claims that her ability to land triples with no injuries was because of small muscles developed by endless school figures. I believe her.

But quads--I fear that the physics simply will not accommodate a fully-grown woman with a woman's figure, even if that figure is fairly small.

And that means that we LOSE some of the most beautiful figure skaters before they even turn 21 and actually have lived some life, enjoyed some loves, and have really riveting stories to tell on the ice!

No wonder we no longer see "stories on the ice." Most little girls who haven't become women yet don't really have much to tell, do they?

When Carlo Fassi was still alive, he was urging the ISU to develop a Woman's Figure Skating competition that would be separate from the Girls' Figure Skating competition. I think he had the right idea. I don't think it will ever happen. But it is very sad to see so many beautiful women quit competing and disappear from the sport because they can't do the same things that pre-pubescent little girls can do. So very sad.

 

[Sharon Whitlock]

By the way, I don't think anyone has mentioned the value of ballet training for figure skaters. I think that this discipline develops incredible strength and flexibility in its participants, and is a great help to figure skaters who do it.

I'm not sure how many figure skaters still do ballet. It's awfully expensive, and what we always found is that the ballet classes were held at the same time (after school) as figure skating ice. We also found the "skater ballet" didn't do much for skaters, but "classical ballet" did.

I'm pretty certain Janet Lynn did ballet, but not sure to what extent. A lot of figure skating coaches do a "ballet-type workout" with their students off ice. Perhaps Ms. Kahout did that with Janet. Or perhaps Pierre Brunet (although I'm fairly certain he was her school figures coach only).

Just a thought.

 

[Sharon Whitlock]

BTW, I probably spelled Pierre Brunet wrong. Apologies! I'm very weak with French!

 

[Ic3Rabbit]

Many skaters do train classical ballet in their off-ice (definitely at elite) as well as other forms of dance and movement, yoga, pilates, strength and core training, and more.

I see the point, but not all who have landed the big jumps are "girl stick figure bodies." Amber Glenn, Mirai Nagasu, Tuk, etc.
And not all ladies skaters go from stick figure to womens bodies. Some are never stick figures FWIW.

 

[BlissfulSynergy]

Sorry to cut in here, but can't you be mixing up Gaby Seyfert with Trixie Schuba? Gaby started winning Europeans years before Trixie, and had never ever won figures in Worlds! She was always second after Peggy Fleming, and also second in free skating. Second also in her only Olympics in 1968. She won Worlds in 1969 and 1970 after Peggy retired. And... even in those Worlds, she was second in figures, but first in the free. Gaby was an athletic type of skater, always with positive emotions on the ice, a great jumper for her time, the first to land a triple loop. She was very strong at the free programme. But she never failed really at figures, that was what gave her the ability to get back from her second place and defeat Trixie, when Schuba became the eternal figures winner. I remember Gaby very well, as I rooted for her at that time. She retired in 1970.

Thanks so much @FelineFairy! Indeed, when I responded to @LiamForeman's comment earlier about Gaby Seyfert, I had thought he meant to reference Trixie Schuba (who is the skater who possessed rare, extraordinary figures prowess, and who won gold at the Olympics in 1972 and at the World championships that same year over bronze medalist Lynn and silver medalist Karen Magnussen of Canada -- Lynn placed first in the free skate, but figures were more heavily weighted in the scoring). I couldn't recall Schuba's name earlier, and a bit of checking didn't turn it up for me. I guess I'm getting old, and my memory recall of skaters' names is not as sharp. BTW, I went back to modify my earlier post, to include Schuba as the skater who possessed amazing blade skills and figures prowess. I also further checked into Seyfert's background, which is interesting. She was coached by her mother, Jutta Muller, who later coached Katarina Witt to two Olympic gold medals. Seyfert is credited as the first woman to land a clean triple loop, and she was a direct rival of Peggy Fleming, though she was never able to beat Fleming. In addition, Seyfert's Wiki bio notes that she was known to have been recruited as a Stasi informer, and that authorities in her country refused to allow her to skate professionally in ice shows after her competitive career ended.

Speaking of getting old, I was thinking about Dick Button, as his birthday is coming up on July 18. He will be 92 years old. I pray he is in good health and doing well these days. Happy Birthday in advance to an exemplary legend of the sport of figure skating! I hope there will be some tribute and acknowledgement given to Dick Button on US figure skating's Instagram and fan zone site.

As well, coming up is the anniversary of Denis Ten's death, always a sad memory. But on the other hand, a wonderful memory when I think of DTen's kindness, his generosity toward fans, his love of the sport, and his extraordinary gifts! The skating community lost so much that is irretrievable when we lost DTen's presence among us, and his irreplaceable contributions.

 

[moonvine]

I really really disagree with a lot of her points.

A lot of little girls these days don't want to just be pretty princesses to be ogled at. They want to be known as strong and athletic and able to compete with the best of the boys and I think the quad revolution is showing girls that they don't have to be constrained by what society says they can or cannot achieve. Just see how many skaters (yes even "grown women") are now achieving what they were told to be impossible for most girls except the once in a generation talents.

Janet appears to be advocating for judged exhibitions and I strongly disagree that this will regain the popularity of the sport. People want to watch their athletes do things that they cannot do. If all we're going to be watching are slow mournful one foot glides then I could go to my local rink for that.

And if all we are going to be watching is jumping I can go to a local track meet and watch the high, broad and triple jumps.

She also mentions more than once that CoP is too complex for the audience and coaches. I believe this is doing the fans and sport a disservice. Fans have shown that they can and will dissect, analyse and "measure" the minutiae of scoring so I sure as heck hope that coaches and choreographers will take the time to do so too as part of their job. This is not a rhetorical question but is the gymnastics scoring system much simpler than figure skating's? It's a similarly judged sport but is much more popular (particularly in the US).

Yes. It is much simpler, at least in my opinion. For one thing I get to see much much more of it (with commentary). There are 62 NCAA Division 1 gymnastics teams. They compete pretty much every week. So accounting for bye weeks there are say 25 meets during season (Jan-March). Every week. Then elites you’ve got the Nastia Cup, Winter Cup, American Cup, World Cuo series, World Championships and I’m sure I’m forgetting some things. So I just plain know more about it. Women’s NCAA teams still compete under 10.0. These ladies are typically retired from elite gymnastics although occasionally one or two will go back and forth. This year Mykayla Skinner for the US and Shannen Olsen for Canada. BTW all the Olympic gymnasts except Biles and Skinner will be going to college this fall as well as a lot of national team members. This upcoming season is going to be . But you asked about judging, so I’ll discount the 10.0 and try to explain elite.

There are greater variety of moves (much greater, and new ones keep getting invented). They all have specific values. You put them together to create the most difficult routine you can do well, basically (other than vault which is one move and has one value). So you don’t see everyone doing quad, triple axel, quad. In fact at the 2016 Olympics the beam champion (Sanne Weavers) had a routine with many difficult turns, instead of the flipping we are more accustomed to seeing. But I’m digressing.

So in gymnastics we have two scores, similar to figure skating. The difficulty score is based on, well, difficulty. Each move has a value assigned to it. The 8 hardest moves the gymnast performs are added together to make up the difficulty score. There are 5 different composition requirements on each apparatus except vault. Then there are connection bonuses. This score has no maximum value.

The execution score is basically the old 10.0 score. It starts at 10 and tenths of points are deducted: a fall is one whole point. A step or hop on landing is 1/10 if it is less than shoulder width apart. if they are more than shoulder width apart it is 3/10. Legs not together is 1/10. Landing with chest low. Whatever decreases the quality of the routine. You add those two together then subtract any neutral deductions (1 foot out of bounds is 1/10, 2 is 3/10. Not saluting the judges, going over time, stuff like that) There is someone there holding up a flag if the gymnast goes out of bounds, so every judge is deducting or not deducting the same thing. If the scores are too far apart they have a conference until they can come to an agreement. So you don’t have things like one judge giving Jason a +1 GOE and another one +5. In gymnastics that would call for a conference.

Furthermore, is she proposing that we go back to the 6.0 system? Because I would argue that that is even less comprehensible for the general fan. Once someone gets past the sparkly costumes and movement soaring to the music, they'll want to learn about the technical details of scoring. Why did this skater get a score higher than another skater but with 6.0, the journey ends with "this looked pretty and this did not". That's not to say that CoP doesn't also have its biases but there is a lot more information for people to discuss and strategise.

Most American fans are, IMHO, not overly interested in poring over a dusty rule book. They want something they understand and that they perceive to be fair. That’s my opinion from meeting and talking to a lot of them at various competitions.

 

[moonvine]

I am enjoying reading all the excellent comments so far.

As I considered these comments, it occurred to me that for years, other than the Torville and Dean 6.0 program (still one of my favorite moments in competitive figure skating history!)--most fans of figure skating didn't really like ice dancing as much as they liked the other disciplines. I remember my late husband labeling it "pairs skating light", which is ironic because as an older adult, he started ice dancing and LOVED LOVED LOVED IT, and competed around the country with two different partners.

But now, ice dancing is much more popular with viewers, and I think more people would recognize the names of current and recent American ice dancers than the names of current and recent singles and pairs competitors.

Is it possible?---perhaps the reason for this rise of popularity of ice dancing has occurred because ice dancers currently do "tell a story", as Janet Lynn describes, and utilize the music well, while in Pairs and Singles skating, the music seems unnecessary, as most of the programs, with the exception of Jason Brown, all look alike, and are different only in the number of multi-rotation jumps that are landed and get called.

I hate to say it, but for several years, synchronized skating programs at the high levels were also all pretty much the same, featuring the same elements for almost every team, which of course the medal-winning "good" (well-coached and well-funded) teams" perform with much more strength, speed, and deep edges than the "middle of the pack teams" and the "just here for experience teams." THANKFULLY, we are starting to see some variation in programs again, as a "creative element" has been added to the list of required elements in synchro programs.

I think that as much as some people would like to see figure skating only as a "sport"--it isn't. Like it or not, it's a show, too, and IMO, that's part of this "sport." Someone who can land multiple quads should not win if they don't tell a story, even if that story is simply, "I deserve to win and watch to see why!" That being said, I think the current men's champions DO tell that story. It's the ladies that I think have given up story-telling in favor of those jumps, and without the "glamour" of ladies figure skating, the sport loses it audience. I still find it strange that the ladies event (now called "women's event), which used to be the BIG FINALE in a television broadcast of figure skating competitions, has been replaced with the men's event--that just blows my mind! But they deserve the top spot in the broadcast--perhaps because Jason Brown is a threat to the "jumping beans" unless they do more than just jump!

Just some thoughts, and I accept that others will disagree with me. That's what discussion is for--presenting our case, hearing others present their case, and then arriving at a conclusion that takes into account ALL the "cases."

I’d like to love ice dancing but the judging is awful.

 

[moonvine]

Many skaters do train classical ballet in their off-ice (definitely at elite) as well as other forms of dance and movement, yoga, pilates, strength and core training, and more.

I see the point, but not all who have landed the big jumps are "girl stick figure bodies." Amber Glenn, Mirai Nagasu, Tuk, etc.
And not all ladies skaters go from stick figure to womens bodies. Some are never stick figures FWIW.

Those are “merely” 3 As though. Well, Amber and Mirai. And Mirai quit after landing it at the Olympics and Amber’s isn’t consistent yet (or wasn’t as of last Nationals). In my opinion there is just far too much emphasis on a few jumps and these women are burning out sometimes by 16. The men have a lot more time and space to develop their own styles. It’s not fair to the women.

I’ve seen some even say that women should train jumps exclusively and not bother with things like spins and step sequences that are so few points in comparison to 3As and quads. As much as I would hate that for myself as a fan, in terms of competitions that may well be a winning strategy.

 

[FelineFairy]

The problem with the current judging system is IMHO connected not with the value of elements but with the general approach, forcing the same judges to evaluate simultaneously technical precision and quality (GOE) and all the artistic, performance, etc. features, awarding PCS. I understand that programme components were meant to be evaluated as features of the whole programme and thus opposed to individual elements. However, it results in a heterogeneity of this score. Some parts of it (transitions) overlap with elements (e.g. steps into a jump), some (SS) are totally technical by nature but are judged together with artistic components. I believe that looking for a better system in other sports we should pay attention to acrobatic gymnastics. Comparing FS and artistic or even rhythmic gymnastics is not easy because of a very different competition structure. But with acrobatics it's much easier. To start with, it is more like figure skating in that it doesn't have apparatus competitions, but pairs and groups instead. Secondly, it has three judges' panels: difficulty, execution and artistry. Difficulty is unlimited for senior level but limited for juniors. That could be compared with the technical panel in FS. Actually, SS and TR could also be evaluated here. Execution is judged as in artistic gymnastics, deduction for faults. The GOE system with deductions and added points for quality could also be used, why not, if applied consistently? And the third panel in acrobatics gives the score for composition, choreography, presentation, originality and creativity. Such a system would benefit figure skating more than both systems we know. Many people say it is more expensive to have 3 judges panels and FS is not as popular as to have enough money for that. But acrobatic gymnastics is a marginal sport everywhere but can still afford it.

 

[noskates]

I wouldn't use Mirai or Amber as examples of "non-stick figures" doing big jumps. One or two landings seem to be an exception rather than the norm. The little Russian ladies are throwing them right and left with seeming ease. I do think, and have nothing scientific to back this up, that the tinier you are leads to a tighter rotation leads to multiple rotations.

 

[macy]

And if all we are going to be watching is jumping I can go to a local track meet and watch the high, broad and triple jumps.


Yes. It is much simpler, at least in my opinion. For one thing I get to see much much more of it (with commentary). There are 62 NCAA Division 1 gymnastics teams. They compete pretty much every week. So accounting for bye weeks there are say 25 meets during season (Jan-March). Every week. Then elites you’ve got the Nastia Cup, Winter Cup, American Cup, World Cuo series, World Championships and I’m sure I’m forgetting some things. So I just plain know more about it. Women’s NCAA teams still compete under 10.0. These ladies are typically retired from elite gymnastics although occasionally one or two will go back and forth. This year Mykayla Skinner for the US and Shannen Olsen for Canada. BTW all the Olympic gymnasts except Biles and Skinner will be going to college this fall as well as a lot of national team members. This upcoming season is going to be . But you asked about judging, so I’ll discount the 10.0 and try to explain elite.

There are greater variety of moves (much greater, and new ones keep getting invented). They all have specific values. You put them together to create the most difficult routine you can do well, basically (other than vault which is one move and has one value). So you don’t see everyone doing quad, triple axel, quad. In fact at the 2016 Olympics the beam champion (Sanne Weavers) had a routine with many difficult turns, instead of the flipping we are more accustomed to seeing. But I’m digressing.

So in gymnastics we have two scores, similar to figure skating. The difficulty score is based on, well, difficulty. Each move has a value assigned to it. The 8 hardest moves the gymnast performs are added together to make up the difficulty score. There are 5 different composition requirements on each apparatus except vault. Then there are connection bonuses. This score has no maximum value.

The execution score is basically the old 10.0 score. It starts at 10 and tenths of points are deducted: a fall is one whole point. A step or hop on landing is 1/10 if it is less than shoulder width apart. if they are more than shoulder width apart it is 3/10. Legs not together is 1/10. Landing with chest low. Whatever decreases the quality of the routine. You add those two together then subtract any neutral deductions (1 foot out of bounds is 1/10, 2 is 3/10. Not saluting the judges, going over time, stuff like that) There is someone there holding up a flag if the gymnast goes out of bounds, so every judge is deducting or not deducting the same thing. If the scores are too far apart they have a conference until they can come to an agreement. So you don’t have things like one judge giving Jason a +1 GOE and another one +5. In gymnastics that would call for a conference.



Most American fans are, IMHO, not overly interested in poring over a dusty rule book. They want something they understand and that they perceive to be fair. That’s my opinion from meeting and talking to a lot of them at various competitions.

IMO i think if skating adopted a similar scoring system to gymnastics, it would be a good balance between 6.0 and IJS. it is still number based with values for each element, but simpler to understand than the current system.

none of this might make sense, i am going to ramble on possibilities so don't take this too seriously

you could have a scale up to 100 for PCS that is still weighed by the same categories as of now, and every technical element would be assigned a value similar to gymnastics. i do think the big difference between the two sports is the PCS component, where this side of things is execution based in gymnastics. i'd like to see the PCS component still count for the same categories as now. i think both PCS and technical elements could have a deduction system in place where that side of the score is determined, but throwing out GOE. for example, a 3 Lz could have a value of 5.0, and if it's a hand down, take a certain amount off. if its a fall, take more off. if they have great skating skills, give a high score for that but if the interpretation is lacking, deduct for that. it would eliminate some manipulation by giving every element a "perfect" ceiling value.

this way, a segment score would be more similar to what we see now vs 6.0 and gymnastics.

idk, just a thought. one thing you can never get away from in a judged sport is politics.

 

[Lzbee]

And if all we are going to be watching is jumping I can go to a local track meet and watch the high, broad and triple jumps.

But can they do that on ice with thin blades strapped to their feet?

If I may be so honest but from your description, elite gymnastics scoring system really doesn't sound that different from IJS. IJS also has a difficulty score for each element and then the execution is evaluated. The biggest differences that I can see are the facts that you can invent moves and the execution is deducted from a maximum rather than added to a base value. And honestly, I think figure skating should incorporate these ideas.

 

[flanker]

I disagree with the idea of ceiling the value for an element and only deduce according to execution. There are more ways how to execute a jump to gain a plus GOE, some jump can be higher, some can have a better exit, some can have better flow. Setting an unsurpassable value could easily cause that two jumps on a different level would be evaluated equally if let's say the worse one wouldn't meet the criteria for deduction. Or it could lead to a system where only one particular execution would be spared from deductions and any only ideal way how to perform or execute particular element and any deviation from matrix would be devaluated.

The current system of both positive and negative aspects IMO lead to variations and diversity of the skating itself and it also allow much more balance in the scoring.

And definitely I do not see any need for a "balance between 6.0 and IJS". There is nothing from the 6.0 system that should be returned back.

I'm also not very enthusiastic about dividing the judges between those who care about TES and those who evaluate PCS, for the start just because of the impracticality at the place. It is complicated now, at least for some federations, to have sufficient number of the qualified judges, this would just double the problem even if the number of judges would be reduced. Also the idea is that a skating program is a unification of technique and presentation/art (everything hidden under components), but it can't be that well separated. for evaluating a jump, you need to think of it's implementation in the program, you evaluate also the entry and exit and that can't be fully separated from let's say choreo and transitions, but this would just lead to a problem that the sphere of interest of the two different people, technical and components judge would overlap and it could lead to the situation where technical judges would evaluate something highly and component judges wouyldn't like it. That would be a very bad signal for skaters and choreographers as to how to build and execute the program. IN the current system of course the judges can have a different opinion but the majority prevails, while now we would have two separate overlapping systems that could easily collide.

 

[gkelly]

I think the biggest difference between skating and sports like gymnastics or acrobatics is that what happens in between the tricks is a lot more important: the actual skating in the skating competition.

Right now the skating is evaluating primarily in the step sequence elements and in the Skating Skills and Transitions components.

It often seems as though judges come up with a score for Skating Skills and then just add or subtract a quarter point or a few to come up with the other component scores.

That's one way of making sure that the basic skating ability plays a large part in the overall scoring, but could there be a better approach?

The tech panel has enough to do with the elements already, including difficult entries and exits where applicable to levels (spins for singles, some other pair elements as well).

If there were to be three panels, would it make most sense to keep the tech panel as is for calling purposes, to include a technical judging panel that evaluates GOEs and Skating Skills and maybe Transitions, and an "artistic" judging panel to evaluate Performance, Composition, and Interpretation components?

Can/should the technical aspects of Skating Skills and Transitions be made more quantitative and objective, even if they can never be perfectly so? E.g., could technical judges have rubrics for determining the difficulty and complexity of the skating between the elements or of the program as a whole, similar to how step sequences are leveled but with more options and on a larger scale?

In the future there may be ways to use technology to measure thinks like maximum and average speed, efficiency of acceleration, use of the whole ice surface, depth of edge, etc.

The quality of the edges and turns and other skating moves and transitions would probably be harder to evaluate technologically or even quantitatively by human effort.