Opinion: The brevity of skating careers

[lariko]

It's not tricky if the scoring reflects that which everyone can see, and perceived bias/nuance stops playing the main role in the ranking of the high end competitions and positioning the winners. Literally, an athlete who lands harder jumps cleaner, spins enough times in a position that meets requirements, have fulsome program with lots of upper body movement and skate with energy, speed and ease should win, whether the judges and feds like it or not.

Then, it's easy to get people invested in the sport, because there is no pervasive feel of fudged scores or predetermined outcomes, and anyone can win and can lose at any given event.

Sure, some entrenched fans who believe they know it all and perfected the je-ne-sais-quoi argument, might go home disappointed, but as a direction, fairness and clearly defensible results comparable between athletes in each event is better than the current decision making, when if the famous athlete lands their jumps, landing the jumps is what's important, and when they fall, it's suddenly the glide or the speed that's the main thing...duh. But, I mean, some of them want figures back too.

Defending a sieve's water-carrying capacity with a passion doesn't make it into a bucket.

 

[lariko]

I haven't seen any toxic behaviour from her. I think she is also scored adequately and always has been. Her short program on the weekend was one of the best programs I have ever watched. I don't understand the comment

Toxicity of fan base. Her career beyond December 24, 2021 was artificially extended as it should have ended on that day. Every score she had received at least since that date is inflated by definition, since the correct number is zero. Your statement in and of itself demonstrates how far idolization takes fans, and how much injustice they would support toward other skaters compared to their one chosen favorite idol. Basically, there is no limit. Valieva's case fails the litmus test of toxicity in sport: we reasonably except any other athlete to be treated differently than she was, and that, indeed, occured prior and since.

 

[icewhite]

It's a bit funny though to see Valieva as an example of how long skating careers bring idolization, fandom and toxicity. She's 17. She became the golden posterchild at 15, after the Olympics, at latest. So... what would be the conclusion if that is an argument against longer careers - to not have them have careers after they are 14?

 

[TallyT]

It's a bit funny though to see Valieva as an example of how long skating careers bring idolization, fandom and toxicity. She's 17. She became the golden posterchild at 15, after the Olympics, at latest. So... what would be the conclusion if that is an argument against longer careers - to not have them have careers after they are 14?

And she has no World, GPF or Olympic individual medals and only one Euro (a position unlikely to change) though a lot of WRs in that short time, I allow. But yes, it's a special case but her international career was a whole what, year? or so and the toxicity is mostly to do with other factors anyway. In fact, the whole of the Tutberidze parade was of short-term champions quickly replaced and a great deal of controversy, political scoring and unpleasantness. So what's the anti-longevity argument?

Oh, and @gkelly mentions something else that I think impacts (sorry, for some reason the computer won't let me quote you properly!) "it's a lot easier for those who come from wealthy families" and I would add wealthy countries. The barrier for talented but poor young athletes is as great a problem as any could be blamed on mature skaters already in there, especially since the latter if stars might bring in audiences and therefore funds to help development for the former. Soccer, tennis, even 'rich man sports' like golf and tennis, are far more accessible to the less well off.

 

[gkelly]

It's not tricky if the scoring reflects that which everyone can see, and perceived bias/nuance stops playing the main role in the ranking of the high end competitions and positioning the winners. Literally, an athlete who lands harder jumps cleaner, spins enough times in a position that meets requirements, have fulsome program with lots of upper body movement and skate with energy, speed and ease should win, whether the judges and feds like it or not.

The problem is that the sport is first and foremost about the skating, with the jumps, spins, and performance qualities maybe next in line but not more important than the actual skating.

This is different from other judged sports like gymnastics or diving where the elements are everything and the means of traveling from one element to another (aside from direct transitions from one element to another on gymnastics apparatus) is not part of the scoring.

In skating, the process of getting from one jump to the next is very important.

It's hard for viewers watching on video to see differences between good, excellent, average, or weak skating. It would of course be easier if commentators pointed it out to them -- the energy, speed, and ease -- but it's still hard to see on video. Even for experts and especially for new viewers.

It would be much more obvious live. I remember how eye-opening it was for me when I first started attending elite competitions and also when I first started attending local competitions, to see the differences.

And even if commentators do draw attention to the importance of energy, speed, and ease, that still doesn't account for the difficulty of the skating (how many difficult turns, how many turns in each direction, etc.) and other aspects of the quality (depth of edge, cleanness of edges and turns, etc.).

Sure, some entrenched fans who believe they know it all and perfected the je-ne-sais-quoi argument, might go home disappointed, but as a direction,

It's not just about fans.

The skaters have invested years of their lives mastering these skills. This is their sport, and their sport values advanced, high-quality skating skills.

Skaters value these skills -- they are appreciative when they see others who show extreme mastery (what Dick Button used to call "a skater's skater") and they want to be rewarded for demonstrating these qualities themselves.

Are you arguing that these things should not count at all because it's so difficult for video viewers to see them and so difficult to explain them in words? Do you want to devalue the competence that skaters have spent so many thousands of hours of their lives developing?

Or should there be more of an effort on the part of the ISU, the broadcasters/streaming services that hire commenters and produce fluff pieces, etc., to educate the public not only about the technical aspects of jumps, but also about the technical aspects of the actual skating? And to encourage more viewers to find their way to an actual rink to watch or skate themselves in person?

 

[TallyT]

I am - as my post history will show by the amount of grousing I do about it - all for fair and unbiased judging, but I suspect that the skaters I think would benefit and be detracted from by it, and those much everyone on this and any forum think, are all as wildly varied as a nutty fruitcake. And the faults of the scoring/judging system have nothing to do with longevity. See the Russian youngsters, see Isabeau and Ilia's so coincidentally rocketing PCS scores, see any time that officialdom push when they think they have a new saviour (from the right country or faction) on the ice. So conflating the two aspects is a total logical fallacy.

 

[el henry]

....It's not just about fans.

The skaters have invested years of their lives mastering these skills. This is their sport, and their sport values advanced, high-quality skating skills.

Skaters value these skills -- they are appreciative when they see others who show extreme mastery (what Dick Button used to call "a skater's skater") and they want to be rewarded for demonstrating these qualities themselves.
....

 

[TallyT]

The skaters have invested years of their lives mastering these skills.

Thank you for reminding us all of this.

 

[skatingfan4ever]

13 pages...

All I have to say is that I don't think the ISU or anyone else can "legislate" for longevity. The skaters are each individuals with individual skating journeys, personalities, and lives. And the factors that contribute to or detract from longevity are almost as numerous as the skaters. (There are common factors, maybe, but no two skaters are exactly the same). Would I like for the skaters I enjoy watching the most to compete/skate for as long as possible? Absolutely. Do I think longevity will ever be completely predictable? No. Sometimes it feels like a roll of the dice which skaters get injuries, opportunities, etc. The decision of how long or short of a career each skater has is never up to the fans anyway. I like what I like, and I just go along for the ride.

 

[Remilia]

I feel like the last few pages of this thread have veered away from the original topic

 

[lariko]

Are you arguing that these things should not count at all because it's so difficult for video viewers to see them and so difficult to explain them in words? Do you want to devalue the competence that skaters have spent so many thousands of hours of their lives developing?

Absolutely on point 1, but not on point 2. Things should count, but fairly, and can't devalue that which is obvious to everyone. So if a new skater should win on balance, they should win. Always.

 

[skatesofgold]

I have no idea how I should be invested in a sport like figure skating without there being any investement in individual skaters. It is a highly individualistic sport at its core, mixed with artistic elements (let's not get into this discussion again). The person on the ice is not just an abstract "vehicle" for the sport, and some skaters defined whole figure skating eras wth their power as individual athletes. And if you have someone that great and fantastic, to me it seems only natural to want them to stay in the business for as long as they can and want to.

Btw even in more team-oriented sports like football, people get invested in people. I used to be a Bayern fan. But then they completely removed matches from free TV for a few seasons and since I didn't want to pay for a bazzilion different streaming services just to watch Champions League. So my favourite players retired, I didn't have a chance to get to know the new ones and now I'm not invested in the team anymore at all. I still enjoy watching a good football game if I catch one, but my emotional investement is pretty much gone because I don't really know the individual players. Also, Bayern management sucks.

I think I tend to move on rather quickly, at least when it comes to figure skating. I think it helps keeps me from being disappointed because I've been burned before by having hyper fixations. I also just like watching the competitions. I like figure skating for what it is, not what I wish it was. A skater could be around for a decade, but I won't care if I don't enjoy their programs or feel their difficulty is enough to compete for medals. I have exceptions. It's hard not to like a skater like Jason Brown because you can tell how much he loves the sport, but I've come to expect skaters like Nathan and Ilia to compete for the medals.

 

[lariko]

It's a bit funny though to see Valieva as an example of how long skating careers bring idolization, fandom and toxicity. She's 17. She became the golden posterchild at 15, after the Olympics, at latest. So... what would be the conclusion if that is an argument against longer careers - to not have them have careers after they are 14?

No, because independently of age, her career is prolongued on at the expense of other skaters. She so far skated for 2 years past the point when she should have stopped and 5 years past the one program that was her (presumably natural) peak, the Girl on the Ball in 2018.

Everything she did since was either overscored like no tomorrow, or can't be counted based on fair athletic principle (as in, we either take forbidden substances or we compete). Valieva's career is a great example of trying to fudge for longevity. If she was done in 2020, or her performance declined in natural way, not got boosted artificially into seniors...yeah.

For most women in FS, there is a lull around late teens and early twenties. So, while return post 20 is natural, Valieva's career is not. Now, medicated or not, she is losing all her qualities that shone when she was 13, flexibility, elegance, lightness, a program that stood out, but she is still scored like she was back then...pure fudge. I mean, if you can handle it, watch Girl on the Ball next to 2023 Valieva, it would be clear as day, she is done. Where the divine spins? Where are the awe-inspiring landings?

Where is thoughtful choreo and thought poured in every move? All gone. And don't tell me it's some maturity state, because mature skating is Hendrixx and Sakamoto, a super shape, lots of attack. Frolova too, properly sat out injuries, puberty, did soul searching and returned strong. Perfect. I have no problem with it.


And why? Because they plastered her portraits all over Moscow and played little violins that she is actually a martyr for Russia, and Russians are both prickly-prided and pity-mongering nation?

Hence, Valieva's coaching team preferred to correct nature through forbidden means to extend her earlier abilities for long enough to establish a pattern of overscoring in seniors and capitalize on that judging addiction for idolization until Olympics. And if not for the scandal exposing the means to do so, she would have been history by now. But nope, her career is being artificially constructed despite every ethical and fair principal.

 

[gkelly]

Absolutely on point 1, but not on point 2. Things should count, but fairly, and can't devalue that which is obvious to everyone. So if a new skater should win on balance, they should win. Always.

I absolutely believe that if a new skater should win on balance, they should win.

However, "on balance" must include not only thing that are obvious to casual viewers with zero skating knowledge, but also things that are obvious to judges and skaters and coaches and dedicated fans who are educated about skating skills as outlined in the PCS guidelines (and also jump difficulty, jump rotations, takeoff edges, one-foot landings; and spin difficulty and centering; and step sequence levels) but not to the newcomer who doesn't yet know to look for those details..

Otherwise it just becomes an exercise in entertaining audiences without falling down, which is not what the sport is about.

 

[lariko]

Otherwise it just becomes an exercise in entertaining audiences without falling down, which is not what the sport is about.

I think it's absolutely is about that. Engaged audience+perfect routine=win. Je-ne-sais-quoi is part of engaging the audience.

 

[lariko]

jump difficulty, jump rotations, takeoff edges, one-foot landings; and spin difficulty and centering; and step sequence levels) but not to the newcomer who doesn't yet know to look for those details..

All of these are pretty obvious to anyone who watches one competition, save for Step Sequence levels, because that is hard to pick up from scoring window. Obviously, it implies that the judges don't call a jump UR for a challenger when a shaky landing from a prestigious athlete gets full rotation and +3 GoE. That last feature on spin atm is hard to pick up on as well, because they look ugly but give level 4.

Simpler and more obvious makes sport grow, because all uber popular sports are simple. I mean, unless FS abandons all pretence and becomes pro wrestling on ice for those who like slimmer men. Then sure thing, Plushenko still can be champion.

 

[gkelly]

All of these are pretty obvious to anyone who watches one competition, save for Step Sequence levels, because that is hard to pick up from scoring window.

Try watching a small competition on video, especially one with limited to no commentary, with a friend or family member who knows nothing about figure skating. Don't share your own knowledge that you have gained by reading rules and reading Golden Skate. Just watch.

See if they even agree with your idea of who should have won.

Also, remember that in live competition there is no scoring box for the fans. Live fans won't know the levels during the program, but they will have a better sense of speed etc. especially if sitting up front.

Simpler and more obvious makes sport grow, because all uber popular sports are simple.

So you'd rather see the sport grow in popularity at the expense of rewarding good skating technique. Got it.

Agree to disagree.

 

[Mathman]

I think it's absolutely is about that [entertaining the audience]. Engaged audience+perfect routine=win. Je-ne-sais-quoi is part of engaging the audience.

As much as I like to be entertained, a sport must be about which soccer team scores the most goals, which horse crosses the finish line first. Of course, "goals" and "finish lines" have more subtle meanings in figure skating than in less interesting sports. But in any case, we would not like to see figure skating competitions settled by viewers phoning in their votes.

Valieva's Girl on the Ball is certainly her most charming program. But I would need greater competence, training and experience in the evaulation of competitive skating performances before I would hazard an opinion about how many IJS points it deserved.

 

[Mathman]

Try watching a small competition on video, especially one with limited to no commentary, with a friend or family member who knows nothing about figure skating. Don't share your own knowledge that you have gained by reading rules and reading Golden Skate. Just watch.

See if they even agree with your idea of who should have won.

I once saw on TV a little fluff piece comprising a contest with three relatively unheralded pairs teams. The judging panel comprised 3 figure akters and a famous hockey player as guest judge. It was obvious (to me, anyway) that the worst team went first, then the middle team, with the best team last.

On the first team, the three figure skaterrs gave scores of 7, the hockey player gave a 9. Apparently the hockey player realized his mistake, because for the secod pair, he gave a 7. The other three judges gave two 8s and a 9. For the last team, the hockey player gave an 8 and the figfure skaters gave three 10s.

 

[CrazyKittenLady]

Wow, this thread has run it's course. Now it's anecdotes and arguing for the sake of argument.