The Case for Handwork: Balancing Art and Sport in Figure Skating

[ladyjane]

Well @Mathman, I think I am a bit less traditional than you, as I wouldn't see astronomy, arithmetic and geometry as art but science, although I would certainly see music as art. I went to Grammar school for a few years but didn't think that was artistic, just boring. The only artistic piece in my view were the the stories. Greek mythology is wonderful - Odysseus, Helen, Paris. Still love those. But except for an exceptional skater to a Greek drama that would be it .

 

[streams4dreams]

By the way, me and my friends take the traditional approach. The advanced "free arts" are astronomy, arithmetic, geometry, and music. These comprise the "quadrivium" -- the proper c ourse of study in "high school."

There is also the Trivium (rhetoric, grammer and dialectic). These "trivial arts" are the subject of grammar school.

You know what, I'm so glad we've made it to page 24 in this thread, because I've just learned that I'm an artist too!!! (traditionally, of course)

Yesterday, I thought this was just a view of the cold gas surrounding our Galaxy, but today I know better!

 

[4everchan]

Changes in the judging system can do a lot, but one thing that they haven't done much of is to change the balance between athletic derring-do and artistic expression. I think that we get pretty much the same spectrum of blending that we always have.

4everchan makes two great points (post 472 above) about the IJS: By reducing the effect of reputation judging, skaters can jump to the top of the standings on the strength of their actual performances without waiting in line until the old guard retries, and (2), a bad first period (the SP) can be overcome by an outstanding second period (LP).

Both desirable features, but I don't think that we can rely on them to answer the question, what is art.

The new IJS aimed to keep figure skating at the Olympics after the judging scandal... if anything it contributed to make figure skating more into a measurable sport rather than a very subjectively scored by ordinals discipline. It's far from perfect but the judging system definitely didn't aim at promoting anything "artsy" and subjective. So mission accomplished in that sense, right ?

 

[Magill]

Okay, but this is something I disagree with. Yes, it's still the same sport, but I think changes in the judging system can change the sport a lot, and it's important for several reasons to have the best possible judging system, and they are not all equally good. - what they are good for is at the heart of the discussion, certainly.

As much as I sympathize with your stand on the judging system(s), I do not think insisting on resolving the sport vs art question beforehand is necessary to discuss the system as such . As much I enjoy the discussion, it seems even the very question of what art is has not achieved a widely accepted definition not just on this forum, but among experts, or the public in general. It seems the debate is at a similarly desperate point that gave birth to the intelligence definition I quoted above And without such mutual understanding, without reaching some agreement as to what constitutes art, it is impossible to resolve the art vs sport question. Therefore, interesting as it is, I think it puts us into some sort of a deadlock while direct discussing scoring system(s) is much more definable and touchable, and potentially useful for FS, whatever exactly we think it is.
I get your point that it is "subjective vs objective" dimension involved here and I do understand why it might seem necessary to resolve it beforehand but IMHO it is just pushing us away from getting into the main thing which is the judging. I do not think it necessary to dismiss the artistic side of figure skating to agree it requires as objective, impartial and unbiased judging system as only possible when it is actually judged as a sport, forget even an Olympic sport.
So why don't we move to face the judging questions directly?

 

[Magill]

The new IJS aimed to keep figure skating at the Olympics after the judging scandal... if anything it contributed to make figure skating more into a measurable sport rather than a very subjectively scored by ordinals discipline. It's far from perfect but the judging system definitely didn't aim at promoting anything "artsy" and subjective. So mission accomplished in that sense, right ?

Measurable? Yes. But what is actually being measured? By whom and using what measuring instruments?
I mean, there is a huge, huge difference between things being doable and actually done.
IMHO, the mission is far from being accomplished, although IJS was obviously a step into the right direction when compared to 6.0 system.

 

[Mathman]

The new IJS aimed to keep figure skating at the Olympics after the judging scandal... if anything it contributed to make figure skating more into a measurable sport rather than a very subjectively scored by ordinals discipline. It's far from perfect but the judging system definitely didn't aim at promoting anything "artsy" and subjective. So mission accomplished in that sense, right ?

As to whether the mission was accomplished, I would say "to some extent." I don't think that there was ever a danger that figure skating would be kicked out of the Olympics, but the judging scandal did cause embarassment to the IOC and they leaned on the ISU to "do something." (Actually, from the IOC's point of view, the judging scandal was a blessing in disguise in that it diverted attention from the real scandal of the Salt Lake City games, namely bribery and corruption within the IOC itself, along with the USOC.

2002 Winter Olympic bid scandal - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If the goal of the IJS is to reduce subjectivity and to advance "measurability," again I would say that it has been partially successful. GOEs, for instance, remain a problem. An average run-of-the-mill quad should get a score of 0 GOE, just like an average run-of-the-mill anything else. But in reality a successful quad always gets positive GOE, and a successful quad by a skater wioth a big reputation gets sky-high GOE. Hey, it's a QUAD!!! But is has already been rewarded (in the base score) for being a quad.

But now we are back to square 1. Is it a beautiful quad, is it an eshetically pleasing quad, is it an artistic quad, does it support the flow of the choreography and match the structure of the music? Or is it just, "throw a cat out ugly and see if it lands on its feet?" I would hate to abandon such considerations as irrelevant from a sporting perspective.

 

[icewhite]

As much as I sympathize with your stand on the judging system(s), I do not think insisting on resolving the sport vs art question beforehand is necessary to discuss the system as such . As much I enjoy the discussion, it seems even the very question of what art is has not achieved a widely accepted definition not just on this forum, but among experts, or the public in general. It seems the debate is at a similarly desperate point that gave birth to the intelligence definition I quoted above And without such mutual understanding, without reaching some agreement as to what constitutes art, it is impossible to resolve the art vs sport question. Therefore, interesting as it is, I think it puts us into some sort of a deadlock while direct discussing scoring system(s) is much more definable and touchable, and potentially useful for FS, whatever exactly we think it is.
I get your point that it is "subjective vs objective" dimension involved here and I do understand why it might seem necessary to resolve it beforehand but IMHO it is just pushing us away from getting into the main thing which is the judging. I do not think it necessary to dismiss the artistic side of figure skating to agree it requires as objective, impartial and unbiased judging system as only possible when it is actually judged as a sport, forget even an Olympic sport.

Oh, I'm not sure we understood each other correctly - because I think I basically totally agree with you, and have given up on the art question itself, only pursuing it further because it's something I'm interested in, but it's basically a second line of thought, not a problem to be solved first.

I'm really coming from the original article. That one used "it's art" as an argument, and I think the author is far from alone in seeing it that way, that's why I think it has some relevance. After all people like Lambiel have expressed similar views.

As to whether the mission was accomplished, I would say "to some extent." I don't think that there was ever a danger that figure skating would be kicked out of the Olympics, but the judging scandal did cause embarassment to the IOC and they leaned on the ISU to "do something." (Actually, from the IOC's point of view, the judging scandal was a blessing in disguise in that it diverted attention from the real scandal of the Salt Lake City games, namely bribery and corruption within the IOC itself, along with the USOC.

2002 Winter Olympic bid scandal - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If the goal of the IJS is to reduce subjectivity and to advance "measurability," again I would say that it has been partially successful. GOEs, for instance, remain a problem. An average run-of-the-mill quad should get a score of 0 GOE, just like an average run-of-the-mill anything else. But in reality a successful quad always gets positive GOE, and a successful quad by a skater wioth a big reputation gets sky-high GOE. Hey, it's a QUAD!!! But is has already been rewarded (in the base score) for being a quad.

But now we are back to square 1. Is it a beautiful quad, is it an eshetically pleasing quad, is it an artistic quad, does it support the flow of the choreography and match the structure of the music? Or is it just, "throw a cat out ugly and see if it lands on its feet?" I would hate to abandon such considerations as irrelevant from a sporting perspective.

A judging system can of course be as good as it gets if the judges are, for whatever reasons, not judging according to it. That would be the same in any sport, if the referees do it their way, not the way it's written down, then of course you could say it doesn't matter much what's in the rule book...
I think there are rather clear guidelines for what constitutes a good quad, and what GOEs should be applied in each case. Of course there is always a certain degree of interpretation, there are situations like that practically in every sport - think of "what contitutes a handball", "is it a foul". Even in cycling there are rules like "you're not allowed to leave your line while sprinting" - and there are constantly people leaving their line, and it's in the hand of the commissaires to decide whether that person should be relegated or even disqualified. There will always be controverse cases, which is fine if it's not systematic, but then there are judges, referees, commissaires just not doing their job well (maybe because they badly qualified, because they don't have the time, because they are put under pressure, because they are bribed, whatever), and then the important thing of course is to have a good, working evaluation.

 

[4everchan]

I agree with @icewhite

The judging system is good -though it could be better for sure, like anything in life really. Its application is something else. There are clear base values, clear features and bullet points. Clear indications on how to score PCS. Simple rules exist, for instance, capping PCS when there is a fall... but it doesn't mean that judges do their jobs properly. Cue in the high PCS, above the maximum capped PCS score for a fall at the latest world championships in ice dance. So there, you have it. The code of point is clear. The IJS could work much better than it does, but it still is so much better than ordinals. I know some of you liked the ordinals but I was quite young when the move was made and to me, it was enlightening. I started to follow the sport because, after some work from my part, I could follow points. Yes, skaters skate for points and as an avid sports fan, I know points.

Regarding the corruption scandal. That's another topic completely. The IOC was probably happy that another scandal happened and deflected attention from their own issues, but the scandal still came from figure skating. There have been other scandals at the Olympics provided by our sport. There have been discussion of nixing ice dance in the past. So let's not pretend that figure skating is untouchable. It's not quite accurate.

 

[Mathman]

I think that the whole emphasis on "points" can cut both ways. All sports have points. Why should anyone watch figure skating in particular? What does figure skating brimg to the table besides points?

 

[4everchan]

I think that the whole emphasis on "points" can cut both ways. All sports have points. Why should anyone watch figure skating in particular? What does figure skating brimg to the table besides points?

scandals. tutus. drama.
Seriously, not all sports have points. Some are measured in time, distance, height... maybe for you that's points... but I see it very differently. Points provide ranking. Time, distance, height are absolute measurements, not ranking points.

I am not sure why there is a need to make a list of everything that skating brings. I am pretty convinced that if we are discussing on this forum, it's because we already know that, sort of beside the point pun intended.

 

[Mathman]

The way that I interpret the question in the title of this thread is this: which do we cherish more, the aspects of figure skating that make it like other sports, or the asoects that make it different from other sports. This is where the "balancing" comes in.

 

[4everchan]

Measurable? Yes. But what is actually being measured? By whom and using what measuring instruments?
I mean, there is a huge, huge difference between things being doable and actually done.
IMHO, the mission is far from being accomplished, although IJS was obviously a step into the right direction when compared to 6.0 system.

Just starting with base value. That measures the worth of elements according to established technical difficulty, knowledge gathered from years of tradition. That is already a huge factor in scoring with the code of points compared to ordinals. So yes, there is a value and it is measured. Like in gymnastics and diving

 

[yesterday]

reminds me of..

we went from:

to:

right?

 

[TallyT]

I think that the whole emphasis on "points" can cut both ways. All sports have points. Why should anyone watch figure skating in particular? What does figure skating brimg to the table besides points?

Why can figure skaters do galas and shows and bring (in some cases) thousands of people to watch them with nary a point or score in sight?

 

[Magill]

Just starting with base value. That measures the worth of elements according to established technical difficulty, knowledge gathered from years of tradition. That is already a huge factor in scoring with the code of points compared to ordinals. So yes, there is a value and it is measured. Like in gymnastics and diving

Yes, base value. Fair enough. But then you add GOE to it, expand it from +/-3 to +/-5 and distribute it as you like. I know this is not what it was supposed to be but this is what it is by now - easy to manipulate and highly manipulated. Base value was supposed to make it objective, GOEs make it back as subjective as it gets, in the aspect which actually does not have to be subjective at all as it is perfectly measurable.

 

[Magill]

I think that the whole emphasis on "points" can cut both ways. All sports have points. Why should anyone watch figure skating in particular? What does figure skating brimg to the table besides points?

Why can figure skaters do galas and shows and bring (in some cases) thousands of people to watch them with nary a point or score in sight?

This makes me torn inside as my heart goes both ways. On one hand, I watch it for all things immeasurable - for the beauty, the feelings. the performance. But then I watch it scored and my blood boils, Cause if it needs to be scored, it needs to be scored fairly. If anything needs to be scored, it needs to be scored fairly. And with humans being humans, fair score is mostly the one which is based on instruments far less impressionable by irrelevant factors, TPTB being not the least important of them, than human judges.
Honestly, sometimes I think it should not be scored at all. Far less stress, less bad blood, no fed politicking, no fan wars. Just an eternal gala in peace, respect and mutual unbiased admiration

 

[gkelly]

Yes, base value. Fair enough. But then you add GOE to it, expand it from +/-3 to +/-5 and distribute it as you like. I know this is not what it was supposed to be but this is what it is by now - easy to manipulate and highly manipulated. Base value was supposed to make it objective, GOEs make it back as subjective as it gets, in the aspect which actually does not have to be subjective at all as it is perfectly measurable.

I like to assume the best intentions on everyone's part and go from there in understanding how the scoring works.

What the GOEs measure is quality.

Some of the GOE bullet points (especially negative ones) are yes-or-no questions. But most of them are about "how well" or "how poorly."

The positive points are basically either awarded or not, but each judge has to draw the line somewhere as to how they define "good" or "very good," etc.

With negative GOE reducions, some things are obvious and either happened or didn't happen (fall, hand down, double three). Others are a matter of degree (poor positions? how poor?; wrong edge/underrotation? how far off correct?) and there are a range of reductions that can be applied depending on severity.

Again, different judges may draw the line slightly differently.

So there is definitely subjective evaluation going in applying these positive and negative bullets.

In most cases it's more about differences in estimation and strictness, rather than "I like that skater/represent the same country, so I'll manipulate my scores to give them more points and their rivals fewer."

And then PCS again are about qualitative judgments, and each of the now-3 components has multiple criteria to be balanced.

If you don't have much tolerance for qualitative evaluations and want all examples of the same element with the same code to get the exact same score, then watching figure skating for the scores and results is bound to frustrate you.

Personally, I find it fascinating to try to figure out how good was good, or how poor was poor. Or how to balance all the good and not so good aspects of a performance into one score for Presentation or Skating skills, etc. For me, that's the fun part.

 

[Magill]

I like to assume the best intentions on everyone's part and go from there in understanding how the scoring works.

What the GOEs measure is quality.

Some of the GOE bullet points (especially negative ones) are yes-or-no questions. But most of them are about "how well" or "how poorly."

The positive points are basically either awarded or not, but each judge has to draw the line somewhere as to how they define "good" or "very good," etc.

With negative GOE reducions, some things are obvious and either happened or didn't happen (fall, hand down, double three). Others are a matter of degree (poor positions? how poor?; wrong edge/underrotation? how far off correct?) and there are a range of reductions that can be applied depending on severity.

Again, different judges may draw the line slightly differently.

So there is definitely subjective evaluation going in applying these positive and negative bullets.

In most cases it's more about differences in estimation and strictness, rather than "I like that skater/represent the same country, so I'll manipulate my scores to give them more points and their rivals fewer."

And then PCS again are about qualitative judgments, and each of the now-3 components has multiple criteria to be balanced.

If you don't have much tolerance for qualitative evaluations and want all examples of the same element with the same code to get the exact same score, then watching figure skating for the scores and results is bound to frustrate you.

Personally, I find it fascinating to try to figure out how good was good, or how poor was poor. Or how to balance all the good and not so good aspects of a performance into one score for Presentation or Skating skills, etc. For me, that's the fun part.

I know the difference between qualitative and quantitative assessment. I also know there are ways to protect impartiality and reliability of qualitative assessment, starting from methods of panel organization and selection aiming at ensuring the judges' independence, to using statistics like inter-judge and intra-judge reliability and consistency, to actually measure the quality of qualitative judgement in quantitative terms and improve it if it falls below certain acceptable levels (again, the levels are expressed in numerical values and not as a "general feeling"), to introducing control procedures, some of them very formal like legal regulations regarding avoiding conflict of interest and management of it if it happens.
I wonder, are you aware which of them are used here? Exactly how the panel integrity is protected / controlled in figure skating competitions? On elite level? On lower levels?

 

[gkelly]

I know the difference between qualitative and quantitative assessment. I also know there are ways to protect impartiality and reliability of qualitative assessment, starting from methods of panel organization and selection aiming at ensuring the judges' independence, to using statistics like inter-judge and intra-judge reliability and consistency, to actually measure the quality of qualitative judgement in quantitative terms and improve it if it falls below certain acceptable levels (again, the levels are expressed in numerical values and not as a "general feeling"), to introducing control procedures, some of them very formal like legal regulations regarding avoiding conflict of interest and management of it if it happens.
I wonder, are you aware which of them are used here? Exactly how the panel integrity is protected / controlled in figure skating competitions? On elite level? On lower levels?

I'm not sure what you're asking.

ISU Communications - International Skating Union

The International Skating Union is the international sport federation administering Ice Skating sports throughout the world.

www.isu.org

The ISU procedures for evaluating judges are in
ISU Communication 2583 24 July 2023
Rules of Procedure for Officials Assessment Commission – Evaluation of Judging – Assessments for the Figure Skating Branch

ISU Communication 2478 13 May 2022
ISU Code of Ethics 2022 (Updated August 2023)

Individual federations will have their own rules, which may be more or less formalized.

Whether we agree with the rules and procedures or think a different approach should be adopted could be up for discussion.

 

[Magill]

I'm not sure what you're asking.

ISU Communications - International Skating Union

The International Skating Union is the international sport federation administering Ice Skating sports throughout the world.

www.isu.org

The ISU procedures for evaluating judges are in
ISU Communication 2583 24 July 2023
Rules of Procedure for Officials Assessment Commission – Evaluation of Judging – Assessments for the Figure Skating Branch

ISU Communication 2478 13 May 2022
ISU Code of Ethics 2022 (Updated August 2023)

Individual federations will have their own rules, which may be more or less formalized.

Whether we agree with the rules and procedures or think a different approach should be adopted could be up for discussion.

Thank you, I will read it, but I surely need a bit of time to do this. But in the meantime, are you aware of any audit of judging procedures made by an independent organization? Just like you audit finances and financial procedures, you can also audit assessment procedures (judging panel's modus operandi) if they form a substantial portion of your operations. Has it ever been done and is any report publically available?