59th ISU Congress: Watch and Discuss

[Mathman]

I don't think a balance skater= a star.
The ISU shouldn't be trying to find a skater that will save figure skating. Yuzuru is enormously popular,but you shouldn't try to replicate him. The Monkees didn't replace the Beatles.
In order to grow the sport.

Ah, the Monkeys! This so-called group was not a band at all. Four youthful actors were hired for a TV situation comedy ("The Monkeys") based on the idea of 4 crazy teenagers that decided to form a rock and roll band. The lead singer, Davy Jones, had actually been nominated for a Tony for portraying the Artful Dodger on a Brodaway production of Oliver Twist. Mickey Dolenz, the "drummer," could not play the drums at all and had to take lessons on how to mime it for filming.

As for creating the next star, I remember back in 1996 or so when Oksana Baiul flipped out and started acting like a rebellious teenager, somewhat to the embarrassment of the ISU. They were afraid to try to rein her in because she was such a popular star. Cinquanta, ISU president, would have nonoe of it. "We will create a new Okasana Baiul." (This is a diret quote as near as I can remmeber it from way back then.)

 

[TontoK]

As far as "balanced programs"... that used to be a major topic of discussion. Did the program have an appropriate mix of jumps vs spins vs footwork etc.

That was when a long program was a "free" program. But now, it can be argued that the ISU has exactly quantified what a balanced program is... an exact number of jumps, an exact number of spins, etc.

Even more so with the bonus. A balanced program has exactly 4 jumping passes before the halfway point and exactly 3 afterwards.

 

[Mathman]

And, BTW, IMHO "balanced skaters" or "balanced programs" never meant 50% to 50% break between points gained on TES and PCS. This is a most peculiar way of understanding it, and, IMHO, 1. it is not what is usually meant by this 2. it makes the discussion absurd.

I don't agree that the discussion is absurd. If we believe that it is in the interests of the ISU to encourage skaters to take a more balanced and wide-ranging approach, what tools does the ISU possess to try to bring this about except to manipulate point values among different categories covered by the judging system?

 

[Arigato]

I am done with watching jumps accompanied by mediocre skating and empty programs. When I want this, I go for ski-jumping., Much bigger heights and much more breathtaking achievements. And much more transparent scoring, BTW.,

I'm glad you brought this up. I have watched competitive ski events for decades and I used to ski, myself. If you fall - you're out. You do not get a deduction of one point, you get eliminated. Why do you think they are so good at what they do? They know they have no room to screw up and they train long and hard to make sure they don't. The high risk and skill involved in aerials, giant slalom, and the mogul course—to name a few—makes jumps in skating look like a walk in the park. I was for the ISU proposal from the Netherlands to halve the BV of a fall. The U.S. whined on camera and it ticked me off. I can only imagine what a member of the U.S. ski team would say upon hearing the claim that halving the BV on a fall in figure skating would "discourage risk." The skier would probably laugh out loud and say, "Come try my sport. You fall, you're out. But we handle it."

While the execution of quads can be impressive, what happens back on the ice can pull the program in opposite directions. It can make the skater (and by extension, the program) look like a senior and a junior all at the same time. Being a well-rounded skater could eliminate the problem but some people just can't get there. They don't have the natural talent, no matter how much they practice. When I was a teenager, I ran the 50-yard dash fast. I never had any training. Just naturally fast. The same is true of skaters. Patrick Chan could look like a bullet shot across the ice. Someone else on the ice could look like a video on YouTube playing at half speed.

While I want to see a well-rounded skater, not everyone can actually become one.

Take away a few jumps from Malinin - you are left with a mediocre skater, quite probably losing even to Mozalev.,

Scary. But possible.

 

[Magill]

I don't agree that the discussion is absurd. If we believe that it is in the interests of the ISU to encourage skaters to take a more balanced and wide-ranging approach, what tools does the ISU possess to try to bring this about except to manipulate point values among different categories covered by the judging system?

Discussing scoring system and points distribution between categories - yes. But 50% to 50% between TES and PCS as a sign that a skater or his/her skate is "balanced" when one is capped at 50/100 and the other one is not capped at all ...? well, you're a mathman, you should know it is absurd...

 

[Magill]

While I want to see a well-rounded skater, not everyone can actually become one.

Very true. But not everyone wins gold, and not everyone has to.

 

[Arigato]

This video is not intended for a particular person in this discussion. It is intended for all.

 

[Mathman]

As far as "balanced programs"... that used to be a major topic of discussion. Did the program have an appropriate mix of jumps vs spins vs footwork etc.

That was when a long program was a "free" program. But now, it can be argued that the ISU has exactly quantified what a balanced program is... an exact number of jumps, an exact number of spins, etc.

Even more so with the bonus. A balanced program has exactly 4 jumping passes before the halfway point and exactly 3 afterwards.

I don't think that this is the only way to look at it. If a skater does 3 jumps in the first half and 4 in the second, that skater gets just as many points as a 4-3 split. If the skaetr does 2-5, exactly the same number of points. (OK, if he does 5-2 then he suffers a tiny "opportunity loss" -- not an actual loss of points, though -- on that 5th jump.

But this was the whole idea of the bonus thing in the first place -- to discourage programs that put all the fireworks in the first half to the impoverishment of the second half.

But yes, the discussion of what a "balanced program" should be has always been at the forefront of ISU deliberations as the tweak the scale of values every couple of years (often to correct mistakes made on the previous years' tweaking). On the one hand, thi micromanaging of the "free" program has to make us smile (or cry). The 2022 scale of values lists point values for approximately 1800 types of jumps (how much do you get for a 2Fe< with 0 GOE? 1.06.)

But if we assume that the ISU has an interest in shaping the sport by poking and prodding, what other carrot/stick do they have except points.

 

[Mathman]

Discussing scoring system and points distribution between categories - yes. But 50% to 50% between TES and PCS as a sign that a skater or his/her skate is "balanced" when one is capped at 50/100 and the other one is not capped at all ...? well, you're a mathman, you should know it is absurd...

I should, I should! I am absurdity challenged. I am going to send my degree back the the University.

But to me this is an argument for changing the PCS factors. Yes, it is quite absurd to hope that the ISU can do anything to promote greater balance to figure skating programs with the current cap on PCS but not on TES. Will reducing the number of jumping passes from 7 to 6 accomplish anything? No.

By the way, there is also the question of what exactly it is that we wish to "balance." If we talk about PCS and TES, we mean the balnce between adding up points for each individual element versus assigning points for desireable features of the program as a whole that are not tied to one particular element or another.

Or we could say that a program is better balanced if the skater gets about the same in skating skills as in musical interpretaion. Well, in this regard anyway we have our druthers. The three program components do show a (distressing) clustering.

 

[Arigato]

Popularity is something quite different. Who is more popular than Taylor Swift? Adoring audiences go bananas at every appearance. But is she an exceptional singer?

Take social media out of the carefully crafted promotional picture—specifically Twitter—and she wouldn't have much of a career, let alone "popularity." A great figure skater doesn't need it.

 

[Magill]

I should, I should! I am absurdity challenged. I am going to send my degree back the the University.

But to me this is an argument for changing the PCS factors. Yes, it is quite absurd to hope that the ISU can do anything to promote greater balance to figure skating programs with the current cap on PCS but not on TES. Will reducing the number of jumping passes from 7 to 6 accomplish anything? No.

By the way, there is also the question of what exactly it is that we wish to "balance." If we talk about PCS and TES, we mean the balnce between adding up points for each individual element versus assigning points for desireable features of the program as a whole that are not tied to one particular element or another.

Or we could say that a program is better balanced if the skater gets about the same in skating skills as in musical interpretaion. Well, in this regard anyway we have our druthers. The three program components do show a (distressing) clustering.

Now you're talking like a mathman
There is also a question if we want to seek balance between different TES elements and how this balance could be first structured and then achieved i.e. how many and how great other element(s) could balance a quad. If the system does not offer such a path, it will always, always promote quadsters, no matter what.
And when we say TES is uncapped, in fact, only jumps are. All the other TES elements have their maximum values defined and capped, only jumps do not, This is another screaming way to promote jumpers and jumps .
If you want to achieve more balance, this needs to change.

 

[CaroLiza_fan]

I don't think a balance skater= a star.
The ISU shouldn't be trying to find a skater that will save figure skating. Yuzuru is enormously popular,but you shouldn't try to replicate him. The Monkees didn't replace the Beatles.

Ah, the Monkeys! This so-called group was not a band at all. Four youthful actors were hired for a TV situation comedy ("The Monkeys") based on the idea of 4 crazy teenagers that decided to form a rock and roll band. The lead singer, Davy Jones, had actually been nominated for a Tony for portraying the Artful Dodger on a Brodaway production of Oliver Twist. Mickey Dolenz, the "drummer," could not play the drums at all and had to take lessons on how to mime it for filming.

Ah, I didn't know that Davy did stage work. Over here in the UK (where he was from), in terms of his acting, he is best known for playing the grandson of iconic character Ena Sharples in ITV soap "Coronation Street".

I really liked the Monkees.

But, Mathman's comment has only scraped the surface of the disgraceful way the Monkees were treated by their management.

Yes, they were all actors, but they were actually musicians. But just not of the instruments that management told them to play. Davy Jones was a drummer, but because he was the designated "cute one", the management wanted him to be standing out front, not at the back hidden behind a drum kit.

Having a band fronted by a drummer is just not the done thing. Well, apart from the Dave Clark Five (admittedly Dave never did lead vocals - that was Mike Smith). Or Genesis after Peter Gabriel left and Phil Collins became the front man...

So, Mickey Dolenz, who was a guitarist, was sent to the drums instead. Mike Nesmith, a bassist, became the lead guitarist. And Peter Tork, a keyboard player, became the bassist.

Why?! What's the sense in that?!

Would it not have made more sense to actually let them play the instruments that they specialised in?! Then all the controversy would have been avoided. And people might have taken them more seriously.

CaroLiza_fan

 

[Mathman]

This video is not intended for a particular person in this discussion. It is intended for all.

Lysacek, who hardly had a quad at all, held the position that quads are not all that important. Plushemko, the big quadster of his erea, was peeved that anyone could be crowned Olympic champion without one. No surprises there.

Pkushenko also complained about the fact thatt Brian Joubert's Transition marks were inflated at 2010 Europeans (which plushenko won): "He did the same transitions as I did. None."

Anyway, the gentlemanly Lysaceked showed in the interview that he had been well coached -- in public relations.

Not that Plushenko wasn't gentlemanly. He won me over at a cheesefest. He was so gallant and solicitous of all the ladies. After the men's portion was over (Plushenko won, a young Lysacek second). when the ladies took the ice Evgenni pulled up a folding chair to rinkside and enthusiastically cheered on each of the performances in turn.

 

[AxelLover]

I like to read these "jumps versus artistry" discussions, even though there is never an agreement at the end (well, there is no end in the first place). Any of the long-time FS fans here remembers when these debates emerged for the first time?

 

[Jumping_Bean]

And, BTW, IMHO "balanced skaters" or "balanced programs" never meant 50% to 50% break between points gained on TES and PCS. This is a most peculiar way of understanding it, and, IMHO, 1. it is not what is usually meant by this 2. it makes the discussion absurd.

Let me just quote the ISU on this: "The sum of the scores for Technical Elements is weighted to count for about 50% of the total score and the five (or three) Program Components will count for the balance of the total score."
This was explicitly stated as one of the principles of the IJS at its inception.

Now, there's the question - 50% of the best skate or 50% of an average skate? I don't think the ISU ever stated this in more detail, but we could certainly go through the different World Championships through the years, and at least get a little bit of an idea.

(And by the way, I am fairly certain that approx. 39.8% of the total score coming from the PCS is the lowest percentage (Ilia's FS at 2024 Worlds) - And 56.2% the highest (achieved by both Weir and Buttle in the FS at 2006 Worlds), though that would require some more digging )

 

[gkelly]

Let me just quote the ISU on this: "The sum of the scores for Technical Elements is weighted to count for about 50% of the total score and the five (or three) Program Components will count for the balance of the total score."
This was explicitly stated as one of the principles of the IJS at its inception.

Now, there's the question - 50% of the best skate or 50% of an average skate? I don't think the ISU ever stated this in more detail, but we could certainly go through the different World Championships through the years, and at least get a little bit of an idea.

(And by the way, I am fairly certain that approx. 39.8% of the total score coming from the PCS is the lowest percentage (Ilia's FS at 2024 Worlds) - And 56.2% the highest (achieved by both Weir and Buttle in the FS at 2006 Worlds), though that would require some more digging )

At the time that the IJS was first put together, cutting-edge jump content for men was three quads (two 3T and one 3S, or vice versa).
And there were 4 spins and 2 leveled sequences.

So look at what the content was ca. 2006 (first IJS Olympics). In the free skate, Plushenko earned 85.25 TES and 82.42 PCS. Buttle 76.80 and 78.50. Lysacek 78.24 and 74.34 and 74.34. Lambiel 76.89 and 76.28.

So yes, the technical content and the program components were more or less balanced -- of the top finishers Lambiel was most balanced between scores.

There was also room for growth in the component scores as judges were reluctant early on to go far into the 8s even for the top skaters and almost never awarded 9s.

Leading up to Sochi in 2014 it seemed there was a push to get judges to be more generous with the PCS. (There was also one fewer spin and a choreo sequence instead of one of the leveled sequences by that time.) So the TES and PCS for the top men's free skates that year were
Hanyu 89.66 90.98
Chan 85.40 92.70
Ten 88.90 82.14

So, quite balanced for the winner, and swings of a handful of points between the two scores for skaters who made technical errors without too much effect on PCS, or who were significantly stronger in general at either elements or components.

But the jump difficulty hadn't changed all that much in the previous decade.

Around 2016, 2017 was when the harder quads started being used more and skaters sometimes started attempting more than 4 quads in a program. By that point, even with the more generous component scoring, there was no way for PCS to come close to the TES of a more-or-less successful quad-filled program. The top 6 men at 2018 Olympics all had free skate TES over 100 -- one of them well over 120 and two others over 110.

Now the available points were no longer comparable between TES (for top jumpers) and PCS. The only way to balance them more similarly to the balance in the earlier years of IJS would either be to increase the factoring for the PCS so the maximum component score would be significantly more than 100, or else to reduce the point opportunities on the TES side. Which was done slightly by shortening the men's program and removing one jump pass.

Once the women started getting in on the quad action, the discrepancy between the top jumpers' TES and PCS was even more drastic because the maximum component score available to women is 80, while the top 2 skaters in the women's free skate at the 2022 Olympics earned over 100 in TES.

Removing one jump pass (in 2026-27) will reduce that gap somewhat, but I still think that if difficult jumps are going to be encouraged the program component factors should be increased accordingly.

And also that more TES points should be available for non-jump skills. And rewarding other kinds of jump difficulty not based on number of rotations in the air.

Not that the ISU has indicated that they intend to go in those directions.

 

[Arigato]

Lysacek, who hardly had a quad at all, held the position that quads are not all that important.

2 weeks prior to the OLYG, Lysacek suffered a stress fracture to his foot while practicing quads. Had that not happened, he would have put a quad in. The following statement was made by him prior to his injury:

"Whoever skates clean with a quad will win it. I don't think many will" said Lysacek of the Olympics in January, 2010.



Oh, the irony. He was the one who won, and without a quad. The result contradicted his own prediction. Frankly, I thought it taught him an important lesson.

 

[Arigato]

All our chatter going on and I forgot what happened regarding step sequences at the ISU congress. Does anyone know if the BV was voted to be increased?

 

[saine]

All our chatter going on and I forgot what happened regarding step sequences at the ISU congress. Does anyone know if the BV was voted to be increased?

Changes to the Scale of Values wasn't part of it, and that will be published later. The proposal to add PCS to the SoV publication didn't pass since the members were concerned that the Technical Committee would use that to make adjustments every season.

I'm not expecting there to be major changes to the SoV this season.

 

[Mathman]

Now, there's the question - 50% of the best skate or 50% of an average skate? I don't think the ISU ever stated this in more detail, but we could certainly go through the different World Championships through the years, and at least get a little bit of an idea.

I have done quite a bit of spot checking of scores at various levels, and I am sure that the iSU keeps track of these things comprehensively, although they don't share their analysis with fans. My overall impression is that, taking the bad with the good, the 50-50 ideal is working out fairly well.

... except for the tiny handful of skaters at the very tip-top of the big jumpers list, those who do multiple quads including Lutz, flip and Loop. For these skaters, but, I think, only at that lenvel, the tech potential in terms of jump base values is just so great that all other considerations are swept aside.

I frankly am at a total loss as to what can realistically be done. Lowering the relative weight of big jumps will not allow an artiste to overtake the kind of scores that Malinin and Fa can put up, and it would skew competitions at lower levels in the opposite direction.

There is also the question of men versus women. Absent the Russian dynamos the situation is different for the ladies. A one-size-fits-all solution won't fit anybody.