Good for you, ISU

[Mathman]

OK, this will be the shortest thread in the history of the internet, but here are some things about the ISU that I have no problem with.

1. Is the IJS living up to its 2002 hype?

Actually, I do think that it has succeeded as advertised in focusing attention on the more measurable aspects of figure skating. I do tend to support rather than to disparage the steady incremental changes that the ISU brain trust comes up with year after year. For instance the issue of under-rotations and edge calls, after going through periods of wild swings, has now settled down to a set of rules that seems satisfactory to me.

2. Are figure skating judges incompetent boobies? No. Are they a gang of dishonest crooks? No. The occasional Yuri Balkov notwithstanding, I think the ISU judges do their job competently and with a sincere dedication to the sport as a whole. (These volunteers certainly don’t do it for the money — what money?)

3. Is there bias in figure skating judging? In the statistical sense of the word, yes, as there is in all forms of "judging." Are national federations evil entities? No, for the most part they do the best they can in balancing their responsibility to serve ad promote figure skating in their own countries with their international obligations.

4. What about the sometimes bizarre and opaque language that we see in so many official publications and explanations of rules? No problem. ISU-speak s a piker compared to the officialdom-speak, for instance, of government agencies. And in fact I am more impressed than dismayed by their efforts to render into words various esthetic and performance principles, like “interpreting music” And “reaching out to the audience.”

Of course any regulatory or oversight organization is low-hanging fruit to us armchair critics, self-appointed experts and Monday morning quarterbacks who know more about every subject under the sun than do professionally trained specialists who devote their careers to an enterprise.

 

[TontoK]

I've written this before. I think the IJS yields fair results. I nearly always agree with the podium or I can acknowledge that it was a close call and could go either way.

Now, does that I mean I agree with every placement? No. Do I agree with every PCS mark and rotation/edge call? No. Do I sometimes think the gaps between skaters is too large or too small? Yes. Do I still see instances of national bias when I review the protocol? Yes.

But do I look at a result and think, "This is clearly just a wrong outcome, and it's obvious that factors other than the skater's performance have come into play?" No.

 

[ChiGal]

OK, this will be the shortest thread in the history of the internet, but here are some things about the ISU that I have no problem with.

1. Is the IJS living up to its 2002 hype?

Actually, I do think that it has succeeded as advertised in focusing attention on the more measurable aspects of figure skating. I do tend to support rather than to disparage the steady incremental changes that the ISU brain trust comes up with year after year. For instance the issue of under-rotations and edge calls, after going through periods of wild swings, has now settled down to a set of rules that seems satisfactory to me.

2. Are figure skating judges incompetent boobies? No. Are they a gang of dishonest crooks? No. The occasional Yuri Balkov notwithstanding, I think the ISU judges do their job competently and with a sincere dedication to the sport as a whole. (These volunteers certainly don’t do it for the money — what money?)

3. Is there bias in figure skating judging? In the statistical sense of the word, yes, as there is in all forms of "judging." Are national federations evil entities? No, for the most part they do the best they can in balancing their responsibility to serve ad promote figure skating in their own countries with their international obligations.

4. What about the sometimes bizarre and opaque language that we see in so many official publications and explanations of rules? No problem. ISU-speak s a piker compared to the officialdom-speak, for instance, of government agencies. And in fact I am more impressed than dismayed by their efforts to render into words various esthetic and performance principles, like “interpreting music” And “reaching out to the audience.”

Of course any regulatory or oversight organization is low-hanging fruit to us armchair critics, self-appointed experts and Monday morning quarterbacks who know more about every subject under the sun than do professionally trained specialists who devote their careers to an enterprise.

One thing the ISU, IOC, and every other figure skating organization needs is MORE THAN ONE CAMERA to accurately detect under-rotations, pre-rotations, and edge calls. I get a more accurate view on my television replay, and shouldn't it be the other way??

 

[el henry]

I think IJS is doing what it set out to do. Do I agree with the goals, all the time? No, but that's a different subject.

I am as prone to wuzrobbing on behalf of my favorite skaters as anyone else. But it is a vast conspiracy designed solely to harm my favorite skaters? No. (unlike the conspiracy designed to ban the Tush Push, which is designed to harm my favorite team. Oops, wrong forum )

As a retired fed, I speak officialese fluently. It's no better or worse than other officialese.

 

[lariko]

One thing the ISU, IOC, and every other figure skating organization needs is MORE THAN ONE CAMERA to accurately detect under-rotations, pre-rotations, and edge calls. I get a more accurate view on my television replay, and shouldn't it be the other way??

This is the next step with AI integration in detecting rotation degree calls. Ted and Mark talk about it non-stop this JGP. Multiple cameras/angles and AI calculations. Hopefully, on every jumoing pass by every single skater. So ISU is steering in the right direction.

 

[lariko]

Personally, I think figure skating judging system before IJS was a joke and the sport was unwatchable because of it. And I didn't watch it, lol. Now it's clear what they are going for, and once AI is there, TES would be solid.

 

[Alex Fedorov]

Personally, I like the performance evaluation system gradually implemented after the 2002 Olympic scandal much more than the archaic 6.0 system. But I can't help but notice that figure skating's popularity in the United States began to decline precisely after 2002. Perhaps these phenomena are unrelated, but the coincidence is noteworthy. And there's something ironic about an American today saying, "Well done, ISU."

Furthermore, the ISU hasn't limited itself to introducing a new scoring system during this time. There have been other changes, some of which, starting with the "Zagitova rule," are opportunistic and even destructive.

 

[Mathman]

But I can't help but notice that figure skating's popularity in the United States began to decline precisely after 2002. Perhaps these phenomena are unrelated, but the coincidence is noteworthy..

My own opinion is that there is no particular answer to the question of why various forms of entertainment rise and fall in popularity, other than just general cultural drift. In the 1920s the most popular sport for boys in America was... marbles. Successive generations don't necessarily like what their parents and grandparents liked.

In the 1940s professional American football was so little regarded that teams could hardly charge admission to games (college football was popular, though). Now a Super Bowl ticket is worth thousands of dollars. On the other hand, Americans have pretty much 0 interest in Association Football (nick-named soccer), except as a girls' sport. The rest of the world thinks we're crazy, but go figure.

 

[Isk]

Personally, I like the performance evaluation system gradually implemented after the 2002 Olympic scandal much more than the archaic 6.0 system. But I can't help but notice that figure skating's popularity in the United States began to decline precisely after 2002. Perhaps these phenomena are unrelated, but the coincidence is noteworthy. And there's something ironic about an American today saying, "Well done, ISU."

Furthermore, the ISU hasn't limited itself to introducing a new scoring system during this time. There have been other changes, some of which, starting with the "Zagitova rule," are opportunistic and even destructive.

Zagitova rule destroyed program composition variety, for sure.

 

[Isk]

I've written this before. I think the IJS yields fair results. I nearly always agree with the podium or I can acknowledge that it was a close call and could go either way.

Now, does that I mean I agree with every placement? No. Do I agree with every PCS mark and rotation/edge call? No. Do I sometimes think the gaps between skaters is too large or too small? Yes. Do I still see instances of national bias when I review the protocol? Yes.

But do I look at a result and think, "This is clearly just a wrong outcome, and it's obvious that factors other than the skater's performance have come into play?" No.

If you eyeball and arrive at the same conclusions as a panel of judges doing heavy math, what is the point of heavy math? They could just eyeball, which is what they did with 6.0.

 

[TontoK]

If you eyeball and arrive at the same conclusions as a panel of judges doing heavy math, what is the point of heavy math? They could just eyeball, which is what they did with 6.0.

Well, my eyeball certainly did not always match the panel's eyeballs back in the 6.0 days. Now my eyeballs match up with the panel's score-based placements the vast majority of the time. And when it's a bit off, and that happens sometimes, I can go to the protocol and find out why.

I have much more confidence in the judging system than I used to.

 

[Mathman]

If you eyeball and arrive at the same conclusions as a panel of judges doing heavy math, what is the point of heavy math? They could just eyeball, which is what they did with 6.0.

Actually, I could go along with that argument. I am not truly convinced that the adding up the points model is necessarily the right one for figure skating, which also has heavy esthetic content. But I do think that this is in the spirit of sports scoring more generally.

What is the Zagitova rule? The rule that limited backloading bonuses? I am not sure that this rule change had much effect on the popularity of the sport, nor did the previous rule change that awarded second half bonuses in the first place. Skaters will conform to whatever tweaking of the rules will give them the highest score, regardless.

 

[4everchan]

Actually, I could go along with that argument. I am not truly convinced that the adding up the points model is necessarily the right one for figure skating, which also has heavy esthetic content. But I do think that this is in the spirit of sports scoring more generally.

What is the Zagitova rule? The rule that limited backloading bonuses? I am not sure that this rule change had much effect on the popularity of the sport, nor did the previous rule change that awarded second half bonuses in the first place. Skaters will conform to whatever tweaking of the rules will give them the highest score, regardless.

That's the rule. Only 3 jumping passes in the LP are now eligible for bonus. Only 1 in the SP.

The issue with the rule is that now, skaters do indeed conform to the rule and often have the 4 +3 layout. I'd say 90-95% of skaters use that layout... So it gets boring and predictable. Before the Z rule, one in a while, someone would come up with a 2+5 for instance, or a 0+7 to max out on the bonus allowance.

 

[Anna K.]

That's the rule. Only 3 jumping passes in the LP are now eligible for bonus. Only 1 in the SP.

The issue with the rule is that now, skaters do indeed conform to the rule and often have the 4 +3 layout. I'd say 90-95% of skaters use that layout... So it gets boring and predictable. Before the Z rule, one in a while, someone would come up with a 2+5 for instance, or a 0+7 to max out on the bonus allowance.

The very idea behind giving bonuses was the distribution of jumps more evenly thorough the program. Z rule has the same idea, except it's aimed at the other extreme (all jumps in the second part; not in the first part, as skaters tend to place them). If you don't like the Z rule, then technically you shouldn't like the bonus rule either.

What I personally think about it? I think that most of the public never knew that either of these rules existed. So what? So, nothing

 

[4everchan]

The very idea behind giving bonuses was the distribution of jumps more evenly thorough the program. Z rule has the same idea, except it's aimed at the other extreme (all jumps in the second part; not in the first part, as skaters tend to place them). If you don't like the Z rule, then technically you shouldn't like the bonus rule either.

What I personally think about it? I think that most of the public never knew that either of these rules existed. So what? So, nothing

Yes. I know. Before, the programs were front loaded. Then, a couple skaters backloaded them. Now, they are all the same.

Some skaters go for the 2+ 2 + 3 and sometimes 2+ 2+ 2+ 1 placing spins or choreo seq /step sequence where I put the plus signs.... I prefer those ones.

At some point, the 4th jump was even too often the triple loop for men ... so i was like "here comes the triple loop "

I liked the bonus without restriction a bit more because it did at least mean that a few skaters would gamble. Did i like the 0+7 ? No.. that was too extreme for me to see so many non-jumping elements in the first couple minutes of a program and then hop galore. So the rule change is good to prevent that but the backlash is the 4+3 being the same for everyone now.

So a few years ago, I didn't like one program with passion... but now, there are many programs I don't like LOL but only mildly lol

 

[Mathman]

^ I think that this a good example if the ISU's approach -- keep see-sawing back and forth converging on a happy medium.

At first everyone put most of their hardest technical content in the first half when their legs were fresh. The ISU said, we would prefer a balanced program with interesting tech scattered throughout. So they passed the bonus rule.

Well, predictably, the result was that skaters put as many jumps as they could in the second half, Zagitova being an extreme and remarkable instance. The ISU said, no. no. no, that was not the intent of the rule at all. We want to encourage well-BALANCED programs. So now most skaters do 4-3, or possibly 3-4.There is no rule against other layouts (if it served a choreographic purpose, for instance), its just that there is no special point bonus for putting everything at the end.

To me it's like the various changes in under-rotations. The first version of the IJS was draconian. If you under-rotated a triple, it was scored as a double. That'll show all those 6.0 slackers that have been getting away with cheated jumps all these years. A year or two later their hearts softened and they decided that they had gone too far and needed a gradation of the severity of the under-rotations. It went back and forth until now we have the q and rules that say, well, that wasn't the worst under-rotation we have ever seen. We won't reduce the base value, we'll just count on the judges to give lower GOE.

The back and forth debate about falls is another area where middle ground is sought (although this debate is more on the part of fans than of the ISU). Some fans call themselves purists and say that a fall means no jump at all and 0 points. Others say, falls, schmals -- did it interrupt the flow of the program or did he fall gracefully right on the beat of the music and pop right back up with a grin?

 

[4everchan]

^ I think that's a good example if the ISU's approach -- keep see-sawing back and forth converging on a happy medium.

At first everyone put most of their hardest technical content in the first half when their legs were fresh. The ISU said, we would prefer a balanced program with interesting tech scattered throughout. So they passed the bonus rule.

Well, predictably, the result was that ska=ters put as many jumps as they could in the second half, Zagitova being an extreme and remarkable instance. The ISU said, no. no. no, that was not the intent of the rule at all. We want to encourage well- BALANCED programs. So now most skaters do 4-3, or possibly 3-4.There is no rule against other layouts (if it served a choreographic purpose, for instance), its just that there is no special point bonus for putting everything at the end.

To me it's like the various changes in under-rotations. The first version of the IJS was draconian. If you under=rotated a triple, it was scored as a double. That'll show all those 6.0 slackers that have been getting away with cheated jumps all these years. A year or two later their hearts softened and they decided that they had gone too far and needed a gradation of the severity of the under-rotations. It went back and forth until now we have the q and rules that say, well, that wasn't the worst under-rotation we have ever seen. We won;t reduce the base value, we'll just count oil the judges to give lower GOE.

The back and forth debate about falls is another area where middle ground is sought (although this debate is more on the part of fans than of the ISU). Some fans call themselves purists and say that a fall means no jump at all and 0 points. Others say, falls, schmalz -- did it interrupt the flow of the program or did he fall gracefully right on the beat of the music and pop right back up with a grin?

the problem with back and forth rule changes is that it exactly does that : it keeps changing and it doesn't give an impression of integrity but does give the impression that rules are made to avoid giving advantages to some skaters... they are even "named" after said skaters.

to me, as someone who looks at things long term, it's a lack of vision.

 

[Mathman]

to me, as someone who looks at things long term, it's a lack of vision.

There is another point of view, though, which is, there's no such thing as "getting it right once and for all." Sports, like life, are fluid and need continual rebalancing.

In NFL football the umpires' union meets every season to decide if they should tweak the rules a little because the offense is getting ahead of the defense, or vice versa.

In Major League Baseball, same thing. The strike zone is adjusted every coupe of years depending on whether the pitchers or the batters are getting ahead or falling behind.

True, the players com[lain. Last year that would have been a strike. This year it's a ball.

 

[4everchan]

There is another point of view, though, which is, there's no such thing as "getting it right once and for all." Sports, like life, are fluid and need continual rebalancing.

For sure... but not to that extreme. Every sport changes... the number of times they have change rules in swimming about false start or turns etc... or even what's allowed in terms of swimming gear. At the same time, I never have the feeling that I need to go through the rule book year to year, to have a sense of what's going to happen. With the ISU : the changes provoke that insecurity, even among dedicated fans.

Also, in other sports, when there is a tweak of the rules, it is not so much associated with a "unique case" Honestly, I hated the 0+7 program of miss Z. I was okay with the rule change at first... but then, when I saw its effect, I thought, omg, how could they not see that one coming ?
So, for one skater, one 0+7 program, the entire sport had to shift.

In NFL football the umpires' union meets every season to decide if they should tweak the rules a little because the offense is getting ahead of the defense, or vice versa.

In Major League Baseball, same thing. The strike zone is adjusted every coupe of years depending on whether the pitchers or the batters are getting ahead or falling behind.

True, the players com[lain. Last year that would have been a strike. This year it's a ball.

In figure skating, the throw triple flip is apparently the same as a throw triple lutz... yet, they are different so a flip is a lutz and a lutz is a flip.

 

[Anna K.]

OK, this will be the shortest thread in the history of the internet, but here are some things about the ISU that I have no problem with.

1. Is the IJS living up to its 2002 hype?

Actually, I do think that it has succeeded as advertised in focusing attention on the more measurable aspects of figure skating. I do tend to support rather than to disparage the steady incremental changes that the ISU brain trust comes up with year after year. For instance the issue of under-rotations and edge calls, after going through periods of wild swings, has now settled down to a set of rules that seems satisfactory to me.

2. Are figure skating judges incompetent boobies? No. Are they a gang of dishonest crooks? No. The occasional Yuri Balkov notwithstanding, I think the ISU judges do their job competently and with a sincere dedication to the sport as a whole. (These volunteers certainly don’t do it for the money — what money?)

3. Is there bias in figure skating judging? In the statistical sense of the word, yes, as there is in all forms of "judging." Are national federations evil entities? No, for the most part they do the best they can in balancing their responsibility to serve ad promote figure skating in their own countries with their international obligations.

4. What about the sometimes bizarre and opaque language that we see in so many official publications and explanations of rules? No problem. ISU-speak s a piker compared to the officialdom-speak, for instance, of government agencies. And in fact I am more impressed than dismayed by their efforts to render into words various esthetic and performance principles, like “interpreting music” And “reaching out to the audience.”

Of course any regulatory or oversight organization is low-hanging fruit to us armchair critics, self-appointed experts and Monday morning quarterbacks who know more about every subject under the sun than do professionally trained specialists who devote their careers to an enterprise.

All right... These are very interesting points! I want to take a turn

1. As for me, the invention of IJS was worth it. I didn't follow the competitive FS before IJS because... Was it even a sport? However, the PCS remains the Achilles' heel of the system. Despite that the vision behind the PCS is defined well enough, it's criteria are not tied to any objective point of reference (like the number of rotations is for TES,in example). The problems caused by this will became even more evident after the AI tools will enter the game, so... I suggest that you fix it, ISU!

2. Do I think that judges are the best qualified and knowledgeable people in the business? YES. The commentary from a professional judge has been the best I have ever enjoyed with full explanation of not just tech content but also GOE and PCS. Do I think that this expertise remains unheard way too often? YES, SADLY. Because professional judges are the only people that actually complain about unfair judging (like in the case of Balkov). The public tends to go with "oh, they must be all corrupt" or "oh, they must be all right" and never rise an eyebrow.

3. Oh, the biases... People may have them but they need to know the limits because otherwise the society will fall apart (and you'll get a mess instead of a fed like we have now in Latvia, haha). The ISU hasn't fallen apart yet? It speaks volumes to me. Good for you, ISU!

4. Official/specific language in official/specific documents? Good. That's how it's meant to be. Popular explanations of what this language actually means are not available? Too bad. Thus far, there has been done good job on explaining the technical content of programs but the explanations of GOE and PCS have been forgotten. Fix that, ISU!