Should quads per program be limited to balance artistry?

[Mathman]

Artistic marks are controlled by the judges - if skaters do the tech the judges have no choice but to give them the base value but judges can do whatever the heck they want when it comes to PCS/ artistic impression.

Yes. That is something of an exaggeration, but sarcasm aside it is essentially correct. The tech panel determines what elements are performed, and the judges exercise their judgment on GOEs and PCSs, subject to ISU guidelines and mild oversight. This is the IJS. It was explained quite clearly back in 2003. Why are we still pretending to be gobsmacked by such a concept?

 

[TontoK]

Somebody suggested to give 0 points for jumps without landings or with poor landings. I remember my reaction at the times when flawed jump attempts got very little credit, it was strongly negative. I thought: he/she attempted a triple, made the rotation and fell, and got almost nothing for the effort. The next skater did a clean double and got more. Not fair. But nowadays one can get 1/2 marks -1 pt. for a fully rotated jump with a fall and >1/2 marks for a fully rotated jump with a poor landing. I do get tired from watching skaters doing quad attempt after quad attempt, they are all flawed, and there is no program, it's just a struggle to get in the tech. content. There needs to be something that would force skaters to consider whether they want to invest in this risk or would rather play safer, skate cleaner and invest a bit more in the non-jumps. Problem is: whatever new rules one makes, they will figure out how to leverage them.

OK, I see. This is just a difference in personal perspective. And that's reasonable.

I think the scenario you describe is perfectly fair. I'm of the "risk/reward" school of thought. The first skater went for a triple. That should have a higher advantage if he makes it, and a harder penalty if he doesn't.

For me, this factors into the strategy aspect of sport. "Do I take a chance on a riskier element that could go either way? Or do I perform a safer element with a much higher chance of a modest bump to my score?" Each athlete has to decide this for himself (or herself - I'm not intentionally being gender specific).

Switching gears slightly, there seems to be strong interest in PCS scoring, when the real impact to the bottom line are technical calls. We casually discuss "strict panels" and "loose calls" and such, but the impact to the final score can be significant. An uncalled under-rotation is much more likely to decide a placement than a half-point difference of opinion on a PCS mark.

For certain, a consistent panel is better than an inconsistent one - I think we can all agree on that. But if they're consistently "loose" then what advantage is there for a skater that DOES fully rotate a jump? Same argument for edge calls, etc.

ETA: Fair warning: As we near US Nationals, my annual rants about the ridiculously loose (and often inconsistent) tech calling at that event will accelerate.

 

[gkelly]

Guys were trying quads in the 80s - 90's before Kolyada was even born. They weren't stupid enough to risk putting them in competition because they couldn't duplicate them on a consistent basis, but they were trying them outside of competition. It's been discussed many times over the decades. I'm talking about all the way back to Boitano, et al.

In which case, you're talking about quad toe loops.
And maybe quad salchows.

Although part of Kolyada's statement that you quoted discusses quads in general, which includes those easier and common-by-the-2000s quads as well as the harder ones, I'm fairly certain that what he meant by "the jumps we're trying today" was UPPER TIER quads.

Are you not able or not willing to grasp the distinction between "quads" (any quads) vs. "multiple and more difficult quads," the later of which I'm quite sure is what was meant in the portion of the quote you're taking issue with?

Yes, people had tried some of these harder quads in practice. I can even state with some certainty that Ronnie Robertson (1956 Olympic silver medalist) attempted quad loop in the mid-1970s in practice... as a thirty-something professional. So I agree that some of those jumps had been on some people's radar in the later decades of the 20th century, even as 4T and the occasional 4S were starting to gain traction as expected elements in men's free skates (not allowed in short programs till 1998-99).

But if we're talking about UPPER TIER QUADS, they were rare enough that there was definitely fan chatter in the 1990s and early 2000s about eyewitness reports of attempts at competition practices, and excitement (by fans, and also sometimes by TV commentators) about the possibility that the skater might actually try that HARDER quad (lutz, flip, or loop) in competition.

But very few attempts actually materialized. I can name a few. Maybe @eppen can name more.

Including just one of those upper tier quads in competition was still aspirational for the ambitious jumpers in the 90s and 00s. Landing several of them in the same program, along with the by-then-standard easier quads, for a total of 5 or 6 quads in the same program, was not something fans were talking about in the 2000s and likely not skaters either, because first they needed to master at least 3 different kind of quads, which didn't start happening until well into the 2010s.

 

[Mathman]

I'm of the "risk/reward" school of thought. The first skater went for a triple. That should have a higher advantage if he makes it, and a harder penalty if he doesn't.

I think that in general the ISU often outsmarts itself in terms of micro-managing. When Evan Lyacek won the Olympics without a quad the powers that be decided that what viewers want to see is more quads. So they changed the rules to give greater rewards and less risk. This led to the era of the "choreographed fall" when skaters figured out that falling on a quad got them more points rthan succeeding on a triple.

When Patrick Chan was criticized for winning championships by falling on quads, the rules were changed again, under the assumption that spectators didn't like it.

Other elements, too. The people demand Biellmann spins. Give bonus points for Biellmanns. Oops -- now everyone is doing a crappy Biellmann, take away the bonus right quick.

People don't like programs that are front-loaded with weak 2nd halfs. Solution, give a second half bonus. Oops -- now everyone is backloading as much as humanly possible. No, no, no, that's not what we meant at all. Change the rules.

 

[gkelly]

Other elements, too. The people demand Biellmann spins. Give bonus points for Biellmanns.

I'm not sure that the rewards for Biellmann spins were in response to demands from the people.

I think the ISU was looking for difficult spin features to reward. This one was an obviously difficult feature that was not uncommon at the time the IJS was being developed (but not nearly as common as it became as soon as the rewards were put in place).

Oops -- now everyone is doing a crappy Biellmann, take away the bonus right quick.

What "bonus" was taken away?

Biellmann is still a level feature as a difficult position, and it is still permitted as a level feature following a layback when performed as the required solo spin in the short program, although not until after the minimum number of revolutions (8 for junior/senior SP) in layback/sideways position has been achieved.

What was changed a few years after the beginning of IJS was no longer permitting the SAME feature, same difficult variation, to receive credit in more than one spin. This applied to all difficult variations, not just the Biellmann.

More lately, there have been certain features that are designated as mandatory in order to earn level 4. Biellmann position is not one of those. So it didn't get the extra importance that some other features have been assigned recently. But it didn't lose the rewards it already had.

 

[Mathman]

I'm not sure that the rewards for Biellmann spins were in response to demands from the people.

I think the ISU was looking for difficult spin features to reward.

Yes, I think that's right.Thank you.

I do, however, believe that there is a tension in ISU thinking between competing goals. The "It's a sport" view is that harder tricks deserve higher points, while the "It's an entertainment genre with substantial esthetic appeal" view is not impressed by "doing something the hard way for no other purpose than because it is hard."

 

[TontoK]

I think that in general the ISU often outsmarts itself in terms of micro-managing. When Evan Lyacek won the Olympics without a quad the powers that be decided that what viewers want to see is more quads. So they changed the rules to give greater rewards and less risk. This led to the era of the "choreographed fall" when skaters figured out that falling on a quad got them more points rthan succeeding on a triple.

When Patrick Chan was criticized for winning championships by falling on quads, the rules were changed again, under the assumption that spectators didn't like it.

Other elements, too. The people demand Biellmann spins. Give bonus points for Biellmanns. Oops -- now everyone is doing a crappy Biellmann, take away the bonus right quick.

People don't like programs that are front-loaded with weak 2nd halfs. Solution, give a second half bonus. Oops -- now everyone is backloading as much as humanly possible. No, no, no, that's not what we meant at all. Change the rules.

Remember the regrettable catch-foot spiral sequences? Ugh. I think the spinning quality of the Biellmann disguises ugly positions. It's tougher to get a real look at them.

But, man, those ugly catch-foot spirals were just on display for the whole world to see.

 

[DizzyFrenchie]

I think that in general the ISU often outsmarts itself in terms of micro-managing. When Evan Lyacek won the Olympics without a quad the powers that be decided that what viewers want to see is more quads. So they changed the rules to give greater rewards and less risk. This led to the era of the "choreographed fall" when skaters figured out that falling on a quad got them more points rthan succeeding on a triple.

When Patrick Chan was criticized for winning championships by falling on quads, the rules were changed again, under the assumption that spectators didn't like it.

Other elements, too. The people demand Biellmann spins. Give bonus points for Biellmanns. Oops -- now everyone is doing a crappy Biellmann, take away the bonus right quick.

People don't like programs that are front-loaded with weak 2nd halfs. Solution, give a second half bonus. Oops -- now everyone is backloading as much as humanly possible. No, no, no, that's not what we meant at all. Change the rules.

The latest, the worse, was the suppression of the penalty for backflips. I don't know the reasons for the initial prohibition (apart that it was many years before Surya Bonaly, contrary to some legend) but I know a reason why this penalty was good, and it was aesthetics. I applauded the first year Adam Siao Him Fa did it, because it was a tribute to our compatriot Surya Bonaly, who had done it because she loved tumbling and because there were tensions with her adoptive mother. This tribute had a meaning because the penalty was still there. Then ISU decided to suppress the penalty and Ilia Malinin was probably told that it could make him popular (there are probably some casual viewers who haven't seen group skaters at shows do them, and would believe it's the super hard trick nobody else can do?) which seems to corner Adam Siao Him Fa into having keeping his... and it's so ugly!

 

[gkelly]

The latest, the worse, was the suppression of the penalty for backflips. I don't know the reasons for the initial prohibition (apart that it was many years before Surya Bonaly, contrary to some legend) but I know a reason why this penalty was good, and it was aesthetics. I applauded the first year Adam Siao Him Fa did it, because it was a tribute to our compatriot Surya Bonaly, who had done it because she loved tumbling and because there were tensions with her adoptive mother. This tribute had a meaning because the penalty was still there. Then ISU decided to suppress the penalty and Ilia Malinin was probably told that it could make him popular (there are probably some casual viewers who haven't seen group skaters at shows do them, and would believe it's the super hard trick nobody else can do?) which seems to corner Adam Siao Him Fa into having keeping his... and it's so ugly!

Do we need to go over the history of backflips on ice, and the rule against them, recently repealed, yet again for the benefit of new posters? Should I find previous threads where this has been discussed?

In any case, I think it's a mistake to attribute the rule changes as being personal to any particular skater. Specific skaters may be named as examples, but ultimately the decisions came down to what the ISU technical committee at the time wanted to encourage or discourage in the direction of the sport going forward from that point.

 

[DizzyFrenchie]

Do we need to go over the history of backflips on ice, and the rule against them, recently repealed, yet again for the benefit of new posters? Should I find previous threads where this has been discussed?

In any case, I think it's a mistake to attribute the rule changes as being personal to any particular skater. Specific skaters may be named as examples, but ultimately the decisions came down to what the ISU technical committee at the time wanted to encourage or discourage in the direction of the sport going forward from that point.

I'm sorry, I should have guessed that it had been discussed on GoldenSkate! Please, don't bother!

 

[TontoK]

The latest, the worse, was the suppression of the penalty for backflips. I don't know the reasons for the initial prohibition (apart that it was many years before Surya Bonaly, contrary to some legend) but I know a reason why this penalty was good, and it was aesthetics. I applauded the first year Adam Siao Him Fa did it, because it was a tribute to our compatriot Surya Bonaly, who had done it because she loved tumbling and because there were tensions with her adoptive mother. This tribute had a meaning because the penalty was still there. Then ISU decided to suppress the penalty and Ilia Malinin was probably told that it could make him popular (there are probably some casual viewers who haven't seen group skaters at shows do them, and would believe it's the super hard trick nobody else can do?) which seems to corner Adam Siao Him Fa into having keeping his... and it's so ugly!

The prohibition on backflips stems from US Champion Terry Kubicka, who included a backflip in his Olympic program in 1976. According to the Dick Button commentary, he was the first to do it in amature competition, although it had been a pro-skating or exhibition move previously. It's about 5:15 in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdH921rNkT4

Now this is all supposition on my part, so take with a grain of salt. The ISU wanted to put a nail in the coffin of acrobatic moves quickly, and they did so following Kubicka's performance. Why? Well, in 1972 Soviet gymnast Olga Korbut became the darling of the sporting world with her performances in Munich. Her famous "leap of death" on the bars is pretty well known, but less well known is her beam innovation. She did a standing back tuck! On a balance beam! Followed immediately by a front tuck dismount! Unheard of at the time, but it generated a slew of more acrobatic gymnastics moves very quickly. I think the ISU saw Kubicka and thought, "this is going to get out of hand quickly." So, the backflip was banned. As you point out, Surya played no part in getting the backflip banned - it was already banned, and she did it anyway. As did Adam.

As for the difficulty of the move - I can't report on that directly, because I've never done one on ice. However, I did many off a diving board when I swam competitively - clowning around with the divers after practice. It wasn't difficult once you had the courage to do it the first time - and I suspect the same may be true for doing one on ice. Now, I'm not saying it's not dangerous... when I did them off a diving board, the worse that could happen was a stinging belly flop, so I'm not being dismissive of any skater, past or present, who attempts it.

Edit: Sorry @gkelly I was writing while you were posting. How accurate are my memories on the backflip?

 

[gkelly]

The prohibition on backflips stems from US Champion Terry Kubicka, who included a backflip in his Olympic program in 1976. According to the Dick Button commentary, he was the first to do it in amature competition, although it had been a pro-skating or exhibition move previously. It's about 5:15 in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdH921rNkT4

Yes, this is true.

I'll defer to your experience watching/doing acrobatic moves in other sports.

I don't know that the ISU was specifically thinking about Olga Korbut when they banned the move on ice in 1976. My understanding, based on something I read somewhere ~30 years ago and no longer have access to, was that they just didn't want to reward flashy acrobatic moves that didn't rely on edge control skills. Some purists at the time didn't even like triple jumps (for the same reasons that some posters here don't like quads), but at least generating and checking (stopping) the rotation on the takeoff and landing edges was based on edge control skills, whereas backflips relied on acrobatic skills unrelated to skating skills.

There may have been some snobbery about pure skating skills as opposed to crowd-pleasing barely-skating skills more appropriate for ice shows.

Safety might also have been a consideration, but the main reason as I understood it was to maintain the focus on edge skills.

Similar reasons would also apply to detroiters and headbanger/bounce spins in pair skating, popular in ice shows but still illegal in ISU competition.

In recent years, more flashy skills that appeal to audiences but don't really rely on skating skills, such as knee slides and other sliding movements, cartwheels, etc., have become accepted and in some cases explicitly rewarded. So now backflips are officially accepted as well. With the possible rewards being in PCS and/or in GOE for choreo sequences that include them.

During the period they were illegal, there were other lower-profile skaters who executed them in competition other than Bonaly and Siao Him Fa. E.g., https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLxMS8Orc6g&t=4m35s. Also Dan Hollander at 1999 US Nationals, though I can't find video of that online. Like Bonaly, their final competitive performances. So I think of these backflips as a statement that they were done with amateur/eligible competition and moving on to a professional performing career where this skill would be welcome.

And speaking of professional/show skating, @DizzyFrenchie, would you consider something like this to be ugly?

 

[Mathman]

As I recall, the reason that Surya Bonaly figures so prominently in the story is that, whatever the imotive might have been, the official line of the ISU was: backflips are not a skating move because the skater lands on two feet and not on an edge. Bonaly was, I believe, the first skater man or woman to achieve a one-foot landing, and later, a backflip/triple Salchow combination. This forced the iSU to scramble to come up with something else.

I think that the more general debate on the question, "What is figure skating all about anyway?" goes back to Jackson Haines in the 1860s. He introduced the concept of "fancy skating" (International Style skating, Viennese style skating), thus scandalizing the staid establishment. He championed the outlandish concept of moving gracefully to music. He also invented skates that screwed directly into the boot, making various athletic leaps and bounds possible.

 

[gkelly]

As I recall, the reason that Surya Bonaly figures so prominently in the story is that, whatever the imotive might have been, the official line of the ISU was: backflips are not a skating move because the skater lands on two feet and not on an edge.

Was it an official line? Or is it just something that a commentator said? I never saw anything like that in a rulebook.

 

[Mathman]

Was it an official line? Or is it just something that a commentator said? I never saw anything like that in a rulebook.

Gosh, that's a good question. Maybe it's just an urban legend that worked its way into skating lore. Wikipedia says

"The International Skating Union (ISU), the organization that oversees figure skating, banned the backflip in 1977 because it was deemed too dangerous and because it violated the principle of landing on one skate"

but does not give a reference to an official ISU announcement. As for commentators, I Googled "What did Dick Button say about Surya Bonaly's backflip," and Google AI overview said in part that Button

• Disapproved of the backflip: Button called it a stunt and stated it was not a proper jump.
• Believed it went against skating principles: The International Skating Union (ISU) also banned the backflip because it violated the principle of landing on one skate,

No doubt rhe AI expert got that last statement from Wikipedia.

I do also remember that the "too dangerous" part was emphasized by many observers, in the sense that young skaters should not be encouraged to hot dog on their own without supervision and end up breaking their foolish necks.

 

[Arigato]

Are you not able or not willing to grasp the distinction between "quads" (any quads) vs. "multiple and more difficult quads," the later of which I'm quite sure is what was meant in the portion of the quote you're taking issue with

"I think quads are quite important and when you compare it to the situation ten years ago, the jumps that we're doing today would have been thought impossible to do."

Are you unable to grasp that quoted sentence from Kolyada? Shoving imagined words and meanings of your own into his mouth which you are "quite sure is what was meant" to further your personal agenda is not working out well for you. No matter how much snark you throw in.

I am interested in the overall balance of a program, as was the journalist who asked their question at the 2017 GPF:

"This question to all three skaters . . . as I was watching your performances today, I did see that all of you included multiple quads in your free program, but it seemed quite difficult to make clean jumps, succeed in all the quads, and to have a perfected program. So, now, eyeing the Olympics, I'd like to ask your whether you're thinking of dropping the difficulty level of your jumps and focusing more on perfecting your program, or would you like to still continue to have multiple quads?"

Falling all over the ice like a drunken sailor is not going to perfect a program or attain any degree of balance.

 

[Mathman]

By the way, another reason given for the backflip ban was that the hard landings kick up divots in the ice and creates a dangerous surface for subsequent skaters, or lead to delays for ice resurfacing in competitions.

 

[gkelly]

"I think quads are quite important and when you compare it to the situation ten years ago, the jumps that we're doing today would have been thought impossible to do."

Are you unable to grasp that quoted sentence from Kolyada? Shoving imagined words and meanings of your own into his mouth which you are "quite sure is what was meant" to further your personal agenda is not working out well for you. No matter how much snark you throw in.

What is my personal agenda?

Regarding this specific conversation, my agenda regarding this quote is purely semantic, based on my understanding of what the phrase "the jumps that we're doing today" means in this sentence, nothing more nothing less, completely agnostic on the value of quads.

If you want to know what I really think about quads vs. artistry, my personal preference is that skating competitions should give the greatest weight to blade-to-ice skills. Jumps that use blade skills to achieve multiple rotations in the air are impressive, but I'd rather see the balance of skills rewarded in a "well-balanced program" place more emphasis on what happens on the ice and less on what happens in the air.

I love artistry (which I might define differently than you might -- it is a subjective concept after all), but I accept that in the context of athletic competition artistry is added value, not the main event.

 

[4everchan]

When Patrick Chan was criticized for winning championships by falling on quads, the rules were changed again, under the assumption that spectators didn't like it.

I am sorry but I cannot let this one pass. Patrick won 3 world championships. Not once he fell on a quad in the SP nor the LP.
So rules about quads were not changed because Patrick won and people were not happy about him winning.

Did he mess up some jumps in 2012 and 2013. Sure. but it wasn't his quads. The most striking mistake was a waxel at the end of the program... it happens you know. The skater who fell on two quads and won the Olympics wasn't Patrick Chan who himself landed his two beautiful quad toes.

I am not sure why so many people in this thread are insinuating that Patrick Chan wasn't a good jumper where he clearly was one of the best in his time.

 

[DizzyFrenchie]

Yes, this is true.

I'll defer to your experience watching/doing acrobatic moves in other sports.

I don't know that the ISU was specifically thinking about Olga Korbut when they banned the move on ice in 1976. My understanding, based on something I read somewhere ~30 years ago and no longer have access to, was that they just didn't want to reward flashy acrobatic moves that didn't rely on edge control skills. Some purists at the time didn't even like triple jumps (for the same reasons that some posters here don't like quads), but at least generating and checking (stopping) the rotation on the takeoff and landing edges was based on edge control skills, whereas backflips relied on acrobatic skills unrelated to skating skills.

There may have been some snobbery about pure skating skills as opposed to crowd-pleasing barely-skating skills more appropriate for ice shows.

Safety might also have been a consideration, but the main reason as I understood it was to maintain the focus on edge skills.

Similar reasons would also apply to detroiters and headbanger/bounce spins in pair skating, popular in ice shows but still illegal in ISU competition.

In recent years, more flashy skills that appeal to audiences but don't really rely on skating skills, such as knee slides and other sliding movements, cartwheels, etc., have become accepted and in some cases explicitly rewarded. So now backflips are officially accepted as well. With the possible rewards being in PCS and/or in GOE for choreo sequences that include them.

During the period they were illegal, there were other lower-profile skaters who executed them in competition other than Bonaly and Siao Him Fa. E.g., https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLxMS8Orc6g&t=4m35s. Also Dan Hollander at 1999 US Nationals, though I can't find video of that online. Like Bonaly, their final competitive performances. So I think of these backflips as a statement that they were done with amateur/eligible competition and moving on to a professional performing career where this skill would be welcome.

And speaking of professional/show skating, @DizzyFrenchie, would you consider something like this to be ugly?

Thank you GKelly, that was a really nice program (the backflip from 2:14). It's Robin Cousins after all... and I may reconsider "the universality" of my stance on backflip?