Should quads per program be limited to balance artistry?

[Isk]

I loved Takahiko Kozuka.
I think Tracy Wison, regardless of nationality - don't forget she coached/saw the next two world champions at TCC, and some others will still view Patrick as the guy who did it all regularly and consistently (landing quads and having great skating skills and programs) because it happened right after the 2010 Olympics when the guy with no quads won over a guy with quads but not so much fabulous skating. So that new era, from 2011-2014 is when the leading man was Patrick Chan and he was the one who led a group of skaters to reach a new level of skating. Yes, others emerged and surpassed Patrick but in 2011-2013, with his three consecutive world championship golds with reliable quads, and his "best ever scores" he was the one people were looking at. It changed in the next cycle when so many skaters developed "exotic" quads but that's another story.

I brought up Patrick earlier in this thread because he, himself, did mention that 2-3 quads were the maximum to still have a program. I still agree with that, and I don't care about the cynical posts that say that he said because he couldn't do more. We see it nowadays with the skaters doing more quads, most of them spend the first half of the programs on two feet, skating from one end of the rink to the other, jumping a bit quad, and then repeat... Once all of these jumps are completed, then, the best ones get more lively and bring some flair In the steps and choreo sequences... but by then, there's already been 2:30 minutes of bland skating.

I brought up that comment because I sincerely miss having 4 minutes of choreography where jumps are better integrated to the programs. However, I recognize that it's much harder to do with quads. So in that sense, my answer, after all these posts, is still the same. I do wish that better balanced programs were rewarded, programs with choreography all across the LP's length, not just at the end. Programs who do not look all the same during the first 4 jumping passes. I miss that because I love figure skating and to me, this is where I agree with @Mathman, there should be a better focus on what blades to on the ice, because that's the unique part of the sport we love.

See, I have absolutely no problems with the SPs. I am fine with the 3 jumping passes in there. It's with the LP that I find there is a lack of balance.

Oh, I forgot to put some smileys. Corrected. I am kidding of course, and there is nothing wrong with being proud of exceptional countrymen.

 

[Mathman]

I loved Takahiko Kozuka.

Mr. smooth edges.

I have absolutely no problems with the SPs. I am fine with the 3 jumping passes in there. It's with the LP that I find there is a lack of balance.

I have always liked SPs better than LPs. Skaters generally are far more successful in the SP of making the jumping passes a coherent part of the program.

 

[TallyT]

Andrew Torgashev's recent and nasty swipe at Jason indicates to me at least that the disrespect for actual skating skills etc needs to be stomped on by TPTB. It won't, but it should be.

 

[Arigato]

By the way, on the subject of why hasn't Ilia Malinin been promoted and advertised in the U.S.leading up to the Olympics Games,I just saw an ad for the Olympics played at halftime at the NFL Sunday night football game. The ad featured U.S. athletes competing in different sports, and to represent figure skating they went with ... Alysa Liu. Not Malinin, not Chock and Bates.

Well of course they chose Liu. She's perky, she's vivacious, she's pretty -- just what Americans expect and want from a figure skating champion.

Have you seen this one?

 

[DizzyFrenchie]

My reference point is the US. If yours is France, we'll have different perspectives. And conditions in Russia or Japan would would be different from both.
So none of us should try to overgeneralize.

Indeed. What we have in France is more similar to what they have in Russia and some other Eastern and Western European countries. Basically, Figure Skating courses are accessible and can become free at a higher level, because pays are low and it's subsidised a good deal. For Japan I don't know.

Yes, ambitious skaters who struggle to master correct takeoffs and landings of jumps they need to compete at higher levels will either switch coaches entirely or enlist input from jump specialists to augment whatever other positives they're getting from their original coaches.

To the extent they can afford to.


Definitely an extreme example. I don't think I've ever seen skaters who deserve Skating Skills scores in the 2s land clean triples, let alone quads.
Some triples from skaters with SS in the 3s on occasion.

I haven't either, I just meant that there's no theoretical barrier in Components. I didn't get under 2, because how could a jumper with less than that level of Skating Sills, jump a Triple at all.

Presentation is another story. It's definitely possible to have senior-level skating skills but not be able to perform well, at least on any given occasion.

In which case it would be appropriate for the PR score to be significantly lower than the SS.

But how much lower?
Take a solid technical skater who's only focused on executing the technical elements while ignoring the music and the audience and compare them to a weaker technical skater with the same presentation problems. Should they earn the same PR score?

If by "solid technical skater" you mean only jump ability, definitely yes. If you include all technical aspects, I would say that better executed crossovers between jumps will entail slightly better scores in Presentation? Slightly only?

In the US, skaters need to pass tests on skating skills and singles/freestyle skills before they're allowed to compete at senior level in domestic competitions. And of course they need to do well in domestic competitions to get offered international opportunities in a country with such a deep field.

International-caliber skaters have no difficulty passing these tests. Even many skaters who do not have it in them to reach international levels, because of jumping talent or other reasons, may be able to pass them. But not just anyone who can land some double jumps and who is over 17 can enter senior competitions.

The hardest skills required to compete at senior level are double axel and two different triple jumps, to meet the short program requirements. Low levels on spins and steps can still meet the requirements and avoid GOE reductions. But weaker seniors may not be able to achieve higher levels or high GOEs on these elements. And may max out at skating skills worthy of 3s and 4s. Which won't get them anywhere in a federation with a deep field. But for skaters from small developing federations, they may be the best their country has to offer.

In France the system is a bit complex but decent Components are necessary to get the Medals (not competition medals, these Medals are an internal award system, and by the way there are some for whole programs, but also some for glide) and also to be selected for International Competition and even some National ones

And of course TV commentators (at least in the US, and some other countries as well) tend to focus on the medal chances of the home country skaters, which brings the commentators' and network producers' biases into the information and opinions that audiences get access to.

This of course is natural from a TV channel viewpoint. And if they're told that X will win in a discipline, well that's it.

Yes, audiences can like what they like regardless of what the commentators tell them. And may come to dislike a skater who just doesn't turn them on but their told they're supposed to get excited about, whereas they'd remain neutral about those skaters without what they consider excessive hype.

I'm happy that you have also observed this phenomenon. I've even seen people disliking Kaori Sakamoto just because she's a "pet", while her only recurrent uncalled error is her Flutz, and she's sparing no endeavour to fix it, and has twice complained of not being called (which resulted in calls for the few next competitions).

The ISU may pay some attention to what kind of music, what kind of movement styles, what kind of elements tend to be popular with general audiences. Which can influence rules about what music and what elements are legal or illegal, encouraged or discouraged in the rules.
But this all has to happen in the context of rules supporting the relative measurement of all kinds of technical skating skills, those audiences appreciate and also those that don't come across well on video.
Outside of competition rules, marketing will usually focus on skaters who have already achieved significant medals or who are viewed as being likely to contend for medals at the upcoming big events. With more focus on local/home country skaters when it comes to domestic media.

I'm not sure at all. My impression is that skaters and teams are already very willing to please judges and crowds, sometimes to the point of choosing programs which won't be enthusiastically skated to, and the public doesn't "buy" it if the skater doesn't "sell" it. I don't think that ISU should add further pressure by interfering with it? I don't know the proportion of people liking Figure Skating, who like in it that there are many many styles of music, programs and skating. Somehow it's the opposite of Ballet, where beauty is achieved by the unison of the Corps de Ballet (it would be more fit for Synchronized Skating, for instance), which is the primary reason why in France and Russia, later in other countries, State Ballet schools were established where the same schooling would be taught to all, and this makes the superiority of the Ballet troops they feed over Ballets who recruit from anywhere. Sorry for the digression.
Although I don't pretend that all viewers share my feelings over this diversity, I do think that it's good, and likely not only to motivate skaters more, but also to attract more viewers who don't know Figure Skating yet.

I still don't know what your point is here.
It's a fun show program by a popular recent champion skater, without much jumping or even all that much skating. It doesn't really have anything to do with whether or how many quads the ISU should allowe/encourage in competitive programs.
Except perhaps to point out that there's a lot more scope for entertaining performance on ice when an accomplished skater can focus on just using the skills that support the artistic vision of that particular program, without worrying about required elements or well-balanced technical content.

My point was that, while I agree that this program isn't a classical skating program, it still needs the best in Figure Skating to be achieved (Skating Skills; upper body control and suppleness; purpose, precision and explosivity in the whole body moves...) and that's why this fan of the singer and many other people liked it so much. I don't think that they would have spread a mere gesticulation, be it on ice, because they've seen so many fans enthusiastic gesticulation on their favourite singer's music. That's how Yuzuru Hanyu recruits fans and that's why, when they have a watch at the rest of the Figure Skaters, if they're shown less good overscored ones, they will all stick only on Yuzuru Hanyu; only if they're shown the best as they are, part of them will still remain Yuzuru Hanyu-only fans, but another, significant part will embrace the whole Figure Skating with all the benefits it will bring for the Sport (which is what Yuzuru Hanyu wants, by the way).

 

[DizzyFrenchie]

If you don't believe that there are some behind-the-stage intrigues in Figure Skating, even when Japanese officials tell it, then you believe in miracles to achieve that sort of scoring?

 

[Magill]

Hanyu set world record after world record after word record under the -5/+5 version, while continuing to produce performances of widely acclaimed quality and impact.

It is really quite a stretch to imagine that the scoring system was somehow rigged against him. If that was anyone's intent, the 'riggers" fell flat on their faces and Yuzuru got the last laugh.

​

My interpretation of Lakernik's comments in that interview is that they were FULL of praise for Hanyu. Basically stating that he had "broken" the system with his brilliant performances, specifically citing several near perfect performances (and I mean "really perfect with +3 GOE on nearly every element and almost no room left on components" and not the "perfect programs" often gushed when skaters manage to not fall down).

I imagine Lakernik was acknowledging that the then-current system did not envision a skater maxing out on EVERYTHING... there would always be some room for growth. And yet Hanyu had done that on several occasions, so there wasn't room to reward any future improvements.

Regardless of how anyone interpreted all that, I don't see it as trying to undermine Hanyu's dominance, merely to face facts and give him even MORE room for score improvement. And, as @Mathman pointed out previously, he did just that.

Yeah, the funny part was he was setting world record after world record, but somehow did not win any major competition anymore (with the exception of 4CC which is somewhat less major), and his PCS were lowered, not increased. Which he himself found puzzling asking if his skating skills etc. were now worse from what they were when he was 20. Not very probable in the case of the reigning 2xOGM, is it?

I looked briefly over the discussion of that change at the time when it was announced and the responses were split just like today. They were quite a few voices straight away saying it was just giving more power to the judges over the top skaters, as the difference between 4 and 5 which would be decisive for a win was way more arbitrary than between 2 and 3 in the +3/-3 system. Same in the case of deciding of how big the loss would be if a mistake was called. So quite many saw the change as a way to give more control over the results to the judges and create more room for them to tamper with the results more effectively, hence opening the door to the shady judging, rather than for Yuzu - or any other skater - to have more room to improve.

It also made quads even more dominant in the final score than they had been before effectively paving way for today's quad race.

 

[lariko]

Unintended consequence. Every rule change and every major change like a removal of a federation has them, but in the end, there are athletes who end up winning, and those who lose.

Someone just linked me to twitter were Torgashev spoke about his disappointment in his PCS score, right after the dancers opined en masse about their dissatisfaction with their technical scores. I wonder if it is a dawn of a new period, in keeping with the times, of even more schism and acrimonious relationship for the next decade. Unintended consequences of creating an artificial dichotomy of artistry vs tech?

Also, I am not sure if all the jump averse people saw this, but the single ice dance competition has a stream this weekend. May it be a balm on your soul.

 

[gkelly]

If by "solid technical skater" you mean only jump ability, definitely yes. If you include all technical aspects, I would say that better executed crossovers between jumps will entail slightly better scores in Presentation? Slightly only?

Yes, I meant better crossovers, better edges, better turns (and maybe more harder turns, if they're trying to earn higher levels on their step sequence), more speed and as a result more ice coverage, perhaps more turning in both directions, etc.

I'm not sure at all. My impression is that skaters and teams are already very willing to please judges and crowds, sometimes to the point of choosing programs which won't be enthusiastically skated to, and the public doesn't "buy" it if the skater doesn't "sell" it. I don't think that ISU should add further pressure by interfering with it? I don't know the proportion of people liking Figure Skating, who like in it that there are many many styles of music, programs and skating.

It used to be that the ISU required that music not contain vocals with lyrics. I think the point was to keep the focus on the musical qualities of the music, that that's what the skater should be interpreting -- rhythm, melody, etc. -- and not the words that someone else was singing.

As a result, a vast majority of skating programs used classical music, and also orchestral performances of film soundtracks, musical comedy overtures, etc.

More recently the ISU decided to allow music with lyrics, which opened up a much wider range of musical styles for skaters to choose.

But it's just a question allowing, not imposing.

Ice dance, of course, is different.
For the compulsory dances there were just a handful of approved recordings that were used over and over again for each dance; the Original Set Pattern and Original Dance and Short Dance, and now the Rhythm Dance, all require one or more specified dance rhythms or dance themes that everyone's choices need to fit into. Lyrics were allowed in Original Dances before they were allowed in other disciplines or free dances because of the need to find enough variety of music within a specific dance rhythm (Jive in 1998 season).

For much of the history of ice dance the free dance was expected to be ballroom dancing on ice; what made it "free" was that each team could choose which dance style(s) and which steps and other allowed moves to perform, but aside from some experimentation in the 1980s and early 1990s, it's only recently that music that doesn't use specific ballroom rhythms has been encouraged. In reaction to the early 90s experiments, for example, new rules were put in by the mid 90s requiring that the free dance music be "orchestrated for the dance floor."

There are still more restrictions on free dance music than for other disciplines, but not nearly as many as there used to be.

Although I don't pretend that all viewers share my feelings over this diversity, I do think that it's good, and likely not only to motivate skaters more, but also to attract more viewers who don't know Figure Skating yet.

Agreed.

My point was that, while I agree that this program isn't a classical skating program, it still needs the best in Figure Skating to be achieved (Skating Skills; upper body control and suppleness; purpose, precision and explosivity in the whole body moves...) and that's why this fan of the singer and many other people liked it so much.

Well, here's a video of a showcase performance by a not-yet-elite skater that went viral, probably because audiences liked seeing a performance to music not usually associated with figure skating, and the skater really got into expressing it with moves not usually associated with competitive skating -- despite a lower level of technical skating skill than someone like Hanyu could offer.

This was from a showcase competition, which would still have been judged under 6.0 in the US at that time. But it's an example of what we were talking about earlier, deserving of maybe 2s for Skating Skills but higher than that for other components.

Still, if the same skater with her now-elite (but not Olympic champion-level) skating skills were to perform the same program today in showcase competition (which now would use "component judging system" in the US), we'd expect the three components to be closer to each other given her current skill level.

So it's not always the technical skating skills that draw viewers. How many of those viewers who watched and maybe re-shared this viral video then chose to follow competitive skating is unknown.

And although it might not be a good choice rhythmically for a skater who needs to focus on executing difficult jumps successfully, and showing off edges and turns as well as creativity and musicality in the step sequence, it would now be legal to use that music in a competitive singles program.

 

[Magill]

Unintended consequence. Every rule change and every major change like a removal of a federation has them, but in the end, there are athletes who end up winning, and those who lose.

It might look like an unintended consequence but for people with some professional background giving them some understanding how scoring scales work it was obvious from the very beginning that changing the system from +3/-3 to +5/-5 would introduce much more subjectivity and would give judges much more arbitrary influence over the results. It would also further promote the most costly elements, i.e. quads, because of the way GOE was to be calculated since
And Mr Lakernik is a mathematician, is he? He was Deputy Head of Mathematical Analysis Department at a technical university in Moscow. Don't tell me he's so bad in what he officially excels at, lol. I am pretty sure he was 100% aware of this consequence without even thinking twice.

 

[lariko]

Exactly. Giving more leverage to the judges might have appeared to favor one specific skater or a group of skaters or address some concern (such as artistic skaters or non-jumping elements are not appreciated enough), but someone else have benefitted or lost out in this change. Hence, unintended consequences.

The famed dancers are all but saying at the moment that the tech panel should ignore tech for the art to thrive. It's sort of in tune with the retuning tech versus PCSs in singles. The thesis is the same. The unintended consequences in both cases will be connected to a rewind of the judging toward 6.0. And who benefits... we can't know. Because, unintended consequences.

Personally, one unintended (or intended) consequence that I do not want is enshrining an individual or a team as unchallenged entity independently of how they skate at this specific moment of time, in this competition.

 

[TontoK]

It might look like an unintended consequence but for people with some professional background giving them some understanding how scoring scales work it was obvious from the very beginning that changing the system from +3/-3 to +5/-5 would introduce much more subjectivity and would give judges much more arbitrary influence over the results. It would also further promote the most costly elements, i.e. quads, because of the way GOE was to be calculated since
And Mr Lakernik is a mathematician, is he? He was Deputy Head of Mathematical Analysis Department at a technical university in Moscow. Don't tell me he's so bad in what he officially excels at, lol. I am pretty sure he was 100% aware of this consequence without even thinking twice.

I'm not sure I agree - not sure I disagree either. But the section of your post I highlighted in red is interesting.

I think I've made this point before some time ago, but here goes. I'm not sure how judges can look at the same element and have such a disparity of GOE. Now, of course it doesn't happen all the time, but if you really look at protocols as I tend to do, sometimes it paints a very odd picture. I'm not sure how a judge can look at an element and score it +3 and the judge right beside will score it -1.

I always contrast this oddity with diving. Now I get that this is a different sport, but in terms of scoring individual elements (a dive, a jump) there are some similarities - an entry/takeoff, air position, a landing/entry. A knowledgeable TV analyst will watch a dive and say "That was good not great. Strong takeoff, decent air position, a little splashy. Should score 7 to 7-and-a-half." And the judges scores will show on the screen, and they'll all be right in that range. Rarely does a single judge score deviate more than a half-point from the norm. Now I don't know what the standards are for diving, but they are so commonly understood that the scores on an element are very consistent.

I wish we'd get to the point, theoretically, where a knowledgeable analyst might say, "Triple Flip. Nice transition in, correct edge taking off. Off axis in the air, wobbly landing but pulls it off. Fully rotated, but not much runout. Good, not spectacular. Should score 0 to+1." And that's what the protocols would show. I mean, I wouldn't want all that chatter during a program, but you get the idea - there would be consistency in scoring the individual elements because the standards would be so broadly understood.

I sometimes put my conspiracy hat on while looking at protocols and wonder if GOE are manipulated, and in a sport where placements are often decided by less than a point, a couple judges deviating by 2 or more GOE points on a single element can make this difference. Of course, some judges simply score elements across the board lower (or higher) than their peers, and if they are consistent in doing that then it's not a big deal. But sometimes it is not consistent.

 

[4everchan]

I'm not sure I agree - not sure I disagree either. But the section of your post I highlighted in red is interesting.

I think I've made this point before some time ago, but here goes. I'm not sure how judges can look at the same element and have such a disparity of GOE. Now, of course it doesn't happen all the time, but if you really look at protocols as I tend to do, sometimes it paints a very odd picture. I'm not sure how a judge can look at an element and score it +3 and the judge right beside will score it -1.

I always contrast this oddity with diving. Now I get that this is a different sport, but in terms of scoring individual elements (a dive, a jump) there are some similarities - an entry/takeoff, air position, a landing/entry. A knowledgeable TV analyst will watch a dive and say "That was good not great. Strong takeoff, decent air position, a little splashy. Should score 7 to 7-and-a-half." And the judges scores will show on the screen, and they'll all be right in that range. Rarely does a single judge score deviate more than a half-point from the norm. Now I don't know what the standards are for diving, but they are so commonly understood that the scores on an element are very consistent.

I wish we'd get to the point, theoretically, where a knowledgeable analyst might say, "Triple Flip. Nice transition in, correct edge taking off. Off axis in the air, wobbly landing but pulls it off. Fully rotated, but not much runout. Good, not spectacular. Should score 0 to+1." And that's what the protocols would show. I mean, I wouldn't want all that chatter during a program, but you get the idea - there would be consistency in scoring the individual elements because the standards would be so broadly understood.

I sometimes put my conspiracy hat on while looking at protocols and wonder if GOE are manipulated, and in a sport where placements are often decided by less than a point, a couple judges deviating by 2 or more GOE points on a single element can make this difference. Of course, some judges simply score elements across the board lower (or higher) than their peers, and if they are consistent in doing that then it's not a big deal. But sometimes it is not consistent.

Figure skating : the GOE comes with achieving some bullet points and some of these may be more subjective than others. For instance, did the jump happen on a musical highlight. (I believe that was a bullet point, correct me if I'm wrong). Was the jump effortless ? Effortless could vary in interpretation. For instance, there are a few skaters with a huge mule kick into their jumps. This is not good technique but the jumps get done and sometimes have everything else working out... Effortless is one of these important bullet points (if you don't get that one, you cannot get in the upper echelons of GOE)... I personally would never put a mule kick or a muscled jump as effortless. Some judges might thing it is part of the skater's style ?

Diving : there are some variation but I agree, it's less frequent, especially not for good dives. It happens more in the lowest echelons of divers.
I find that the judging is more objectively sourced. The dive is isolated and not within a program and I think that has a lot to do with it. As a fan of both sports, I tend to also manage to give the right scores to diving and I am less successful with skating. I thought about this before and I do believe it is because there are less subjective components to scoring a dive. The ISU has brought in the GOE bullet points to give something to the judges to do but they left some margin for personal taste. That's not the case in diving. Also, just the basics of the sport are simpler to grasp. A good landing of a dive is simple : reaching the vertical, no splash. A good landing of a jump can be different things : running edge is the one I prefer but there are others. Some skaters have less flow out of the jumps but will go on with intricate transitions. Now, I prefer the flow... some will prefer the transitions. Finally, what I dislike in figure skating judging versus diving = difficulty gets into the mix in judging skating. I find that in diving, the judges trust the degree of difficulty (you could equate that to base value) more. They will give their mark the way it should be and the degree of difficulty will do its job... So if the dive is super hard and has a higher DD, but it was not very well executed, you won't see a "quad bonus" in there... However in skating, I find that judges will not reward so much a beautiful triple jump but will reward a so so quadruple jump... as if they were impressed with the level of difficulty of the element. Why not just trust the base value ? The judges are not supposed to evaluate the level of difficulty of the jump, it's been assigned... But yet, there are some loopholes in there because of the bullet system... was there difficult steps before the jump which made it perhaps harder ? Some judges may say yes and others no to that... etc etc.

Long story short : two factors :
1) there is still a lot more subjectivity in how figure skating judging evaluate technical elements compared to diving.
2) Dives are judged on their own while jumps are judged within a whole. (which again, brings in room for interpretation)

The place where I agree with you is that, though I don't believe it can happen because of the way the ISU has created the GOE bullet points, it would indeed be very nice if we could find a better consensus on judging technical elements.

BTW : and I wish this would be done for figure skating not just the lowest and highest scores are removed but the two lowest and the two highest scores are. I find that it would be harder to manipulate scores if 4 outliers of a 9 judge panel were removed. You'd get 5 judges counting their scores. (in diving there are only 3 judges whose scores are added and then multiplied but the degree of difficulty so on a panel of 7, onlythe most 3 sensible scores are counted)

 

[gkelly]

It might look like an unintended consequence but for people with some professional background giving them some understanding how scoring scales work it was obvious from the very beginning that changing the system from +3/-3 to +5/-5 would introduce much more subjectivity and would give judges much more arbitrary influence over the results.

I'm not so sure.

Remember, with the +3/-3 scoring it took 2 bullet points to earn each +. (Although then, as now, the guidelines were presented as "guidelines" rather than firm "rules.")
So there would have been differences of opinion about whether an element for which a judge saw 3 strong points, for example, should earn +1 or +2. But according to the guidelines most judges would have given +1. And that meant they would have given the exact same mark as judges who saw only 2 strong points. And maybe even an occasional judge who saw only 1 but thought it was strong enough on its own to merit a +1.

There were differences of opinion among the judges -- most of them subjective because qualities being considered "good" or "very good" can only be assessed subjectively -- but the way the scoring was defined those differences were flattened out into the same score. Which wasn't fair to the skaters who really did have elements with 3 strong qualities but had to earn the same GOE as skaters who only had 2 or even 1.

Even if all the judges were in complete agreement that Skater A's axel, for example, deserved 2 bullet points and Skater B's deserved 3, according to the guidelines if strictly applied both skaters should have received the exact same score (+1) for their axel. With the +5/-5 range, the two jumps should receive differnt scores.

With +5/-5 there's more room to show the gradations based on how many individual bullet points each judge thinks the element deserves. There isn't more subjectivity in what the judges actual see than there was with +3/-3, but we get to see the effects more clearly, e.g., the differences between which judges thought the element deserved 2 vs. 3 bullet points.

On the other hand, each type of element now has mandatory bullet points that must be present for a judge to give +4 or +5 ("effortless" being mandatory for all element types). Therefore, there are many strong elements that can only earn +3 even if they meet 4 or 5 bullet points but are missing one of the mandatory ones. So there are still going to be a lot of +3s for elements of different overall quality.

Something like "very good height and distance" for jump elements or "good speed or acceleration" might be measured objectively someday, although for now they can only be determined by each judge's mental benchmarks for where they draw the line between "good enough" and "good" or "very good."

But most of these bullets are subjective by nature. There will be differences of opinion, and that's why there are 9 judges and not only 1, or 3.

That subjectivity was always there under 6.0 judging and with +3/-3 GOE scoring. Now we get to see the finer-grained differences of opinion, but ultimately it's the average that determines the final GOE.

It would also further promote the most costly elements, i.e. quads, because of the way GOE was to be calculated since

That is true. The penalties for failure are larger than with +3/-3, but the rewards for success are also higher.

Exactly. Giving more leverage to the judges might have appeared to favor one specific skater or a group of skaters or address some concern (such as artistic skaters or non-jumping elements are not appreciated enough), but someone else have benefitted or lost out in this change. Hence, unintended consequences.

I don't think the intention was ever to favor a specific skater or group of skaters. Perhaps to favor specific kinds of skating (which might be associated with specific skaters and how they were performing recently as handy examples of what the technical committee wanted to favor).

Personally, one unintended (or intended) consequence that I do not want is enshrining an individual or a team as unchallenged entity independently of how they skate at this specific moment of time, in this competition.

Neither do I.

Allowing judges to reflect their real-time assessments in finer detail is not a way to "enshrine" individual skaters or teams as unchallenged.

I think I've made this point before some time ago, but here goes. I'm not sure how judges can look at the same element and have such a disparity of GOE. Now, of course it doesn't happen all the time, but if you really look at protocols as I tend to do, sometimes it paints a very odd picture. I'm not sure how a judge can look at an element and score it +3 and the judge right beside will score it -1.

If you have this (let's assume honest) difference of opinion among judges, then there is no conspiracy to have all judges give the same high scores, because some of them are giving different scores.

If all judges do give maximum scores, maybe it's because they all got together beforehand and decided for political reasons to prop up that competitor. Or because that skater had won so many times before with excellent elements that judges expected excellence and were more inclined to see it and reward it even on occasions when a specific element might only have been just "good" to an observer with equal expertise but less familiarity with that skater's past accomplishments. Or maybe it really was just that good.

I wish we'd get to the point, theoretically, where a knowledgeable analyst might say, "Triple Flip. Nice transition in, correct edge taking off. Off axis in the air, wobbly landing but pulls it off. Fully rotated, but not much runout. Good, not spectacular. Should score 0 to+1." And that's what the protocols would show. I mean, I wouldn't want all that chatter during a program, but you get the idea - there would be consistency in scoring the individual elements because the standards would be so broadly understood.

As you note, there are reasons why we won't get that kind of commentary during figure skating performances.

If it comes down to a close call with GOEs on a specific high-value element making a difference in the results, some broadcasters might do an analysis after the fact to analyze where the winner gained points on that element and where the runner-up may have lost points on the comparable element.

But one element rarely tells the whole story.

It would be nice if there could be pre-game (or during-resurface) features during live events to point out what kinds of things judges are looking for on specific elements. For fairness, I'd prefer to get a judge not on the panel in to analyze elements by specific retired skaters -- not anyone entered in the current event.
Some TV commentators are more knowledgeable than others about how judges come up with GOEs. If we're going to get former champion skaters hired for their name recognition and personality to make those explanations, they'd better be well trained in judging standards.

For now, most analysis tends to focus on the tech panel calls. Which are more objective by nature.

And the focus also tends to be on jumps both because they tend to make the biggest difference to the point totals and also because they're quicker to rewatch. A tech panel might review a whole spin in slow motion, but broadcasts don't usually show whole spins even full speed in replays because of the time they take, in addition to the fact that the level calls don't have quite as big an impact on final scores.

But if we want educational features to show viewers while waiting for the actual competition to take place, a feature on what specific spin features are and how they're determined (tech panel calls) and perhaps another on what judges are rewarding and penalizing in their GOEs could be informative.

Still, there's no way there would be time for commentators to analyze individual elements in that kind of detail during the performance, or more than one or two during the replays while waiting for the panels' scores.

I'd just be happy if broadcasters would display the URLs where audiences would be able to find protocols after the fact so they can see exactly how elements were called and rewarded/penalized in more detail than the scoring boxes shown during the performance, and so they could rewind and the scoring boxes during the program to the final protocols, including significant changes in calls (and often resultant GOE) that commentators might have predicted but didn't have time to analyze.

Although in pairs twists and lifts are also big point-getters that might inspire such analysis.

 

[DizzyFrenchie]

Yes, I meant better crossovers, better edges, better turns (and maybe more harder turns, if they're trying to earn higher levels on their step sequence), more speed and as a result more ice coverage, perhaps more turning in both directions, etc.

Then there would be real Transitions, not just crossovers between jumps? Well, that would raise the Composition score on two criteria too?

It used to be that the ISU required that music not contain vocals with lyrics. I think the point was to keep the focus on the musical qualities of the music, that that's what the skater should be interpreting -- rhythm, melody, etc. -- and not the words that someone else was singing.

I'm still "internally divided" over this decision (regarding competitive Figure Skating). Of course musical versions of preferred songs aren't always easy to get, or cheap to be arranged and played, which was crucial for regional etc levels of competition — except that a few years later, the Copyright thing happened, and I think that this one was completely unintended, and I wouldn't have liked to be Alexa Knierim or Brandon Frazier in their ordeal. I really don't have the knowledge of programs of all levels, tastes, skills to develop... to have even a non-qualified opinion over this.

As a result, a vast majority of skating programs used classical music, and also orchestral performances of film soundtracks, musical comedy overtures, etc.

More recently the ISU decided to allow music with lyrics, which opened up a much wider range of musical styles for skaters to choose.

But it's just a question allowing, not imposing.

Ice dance, of course, is different.
For the compulsory dances there were just a handful of approved recordings that were used over and over again for each dance; the Original Set Pattern and Original Dance and Short Dance, and now the Rhythm Dance, all require one or more specified dance rhythms or dance themes that everyone's choices need to fit into. Lyrics were allowed in Original Dances before they were allowed in other disciplines or free dances because of the need to find enough variety of music within a specific dance rhythm (Jive in 1998 season).

For much of the history of ice dance the free dance was expected to be ballroom dancing on ice; what made it "free" was that each team could choose which dance style(s) and which steps and other allowed moves to perform, but aside from some experimentation in the 1980s and early 1990s, it's only recently that music that doesn't use specific ballroom rhythms has been encouraged. In reaction to the early 90s experiments, for example, new rules were put in by the mid 90s requiring that the free dance music be "orchestrated for the dance floor."

There are still more restrictions on free dance music than for other disciplines, but not nearly as many as there used to be.

Thank you! It's one of the aims of Figure Skating programs that has changed a lot in the Sport's History.

Agreed.


Well, here's a video of a showcase performance by a not-yet-elite skater that went viral, probably because audiences liked seeing a performance to music not usually associated with figure skating, and the skater really got into expressing it with moves not usually associated with competitive skating -- despite a lower level of technical skating skill than someone like Hanyu could offer.

This was from a showcase competition, which would still have been judged under 6.0 in the US at that time. But it's an example of what we were talking about earlier, deserving of maybe 2s for Skating Skills but higher than that for other components.

Still, if the same skater with her now-elite (but not Olympic champion-level) skating skills were to perform the same program today in showcase competition (which now would use "component judging system" in the US), we'd expect the three components to be closer to each other given her current skill level.

So it's not always the technical skating skills that draw viewers. How many of those viewers who watched and maybe re-shared this viral video then chose to follow competitive skating is unknown.

And although it might not be a good choice rhythmically for a skater who needs to focus on executing difficult jumps successfully, and showing off edges and turns as well as creativity and musicality in the step sequence, it would now be legal to use that music in a competitive singles program.

Oooooh! She was sooo cute! And at her young age, such good Dance qualities, such musicality, and of course, the hair to fit the song! Yes it's a perfect illustration of very low Skating Skills with some criteria of Composition (Multidimensional Movements and Use of Space, Choreography reflecting Musical Phrase and Form) and Presentation (Expressiveness and Projection, Musical Sensitivity and Timing) in the mids or even high, this while she was only 9! And this video is the most viewed Figure Skating video ever isn't it?
Criteria for a child performance to become viral are not the same as for an adult, but I'm sure that a number of children who watched it tried a Learn to Skate session? Which is the objective after all, once on the skates, they can see if they like it or not, and it's the club's job to make the session inviting enough to go on with more courses. Then, in the USA and Canada, comes the hard bill but even after just a Learn to Skate session there's more likelihood that the child will watch Figure Skating at the next Olympic Games, or more often, and speak about it?

 

[Skating91]

Not in the women's because the best skaters cheat on most of their triples (illegal prerotation, wrong edge on lutzes, often landing on a quarter or short of rotation with the judges turning a blind eye), so I'm not sure how much they can do to tilt the advantage in favour of skaters who get those big PCS scores and huge GOE on everything whether justified or not. Not enough women jump quads, and those that do take that risk should be rewarded for it.

But maybe in the men. One skater has such a huge advantage over everyone, it's like that skater is in a different sport altogether (I'd love to know how he does it is it diet, jump technique, training regimen it needs to be understood so everyone can improve).

When one skater or group of skaters has dominated in the past, they have rewritten the rules or brought in new rules to nullify a skater's or group of skaters advantage (or even neutralise completely), so maybe a tweak of the rules is in order to bring some competitive balance to improve the show.

The best thing they can do is get tough on the poor jumpers though (whether triples or quads), they should always err on the side of caution and punish any landing that looks a little bit suspect.

 

[gkelly]

Not in the women's because the best skaters cheat on most of their triples (illegal prerotation, wrong edge on lutzes, often landing on a quarter or short of rotation with the judges turning a blind eye), so I'm not sure how much they can do to tilt the advantage in favour of skaters who get those big PCS scores and huge GOE on everything whether justified or not.

I think we just have to accept that most women, even the best skaters in the world, will struggle to achieve 3 full rotations in the air, let alone more than that.

Those who achieve ideal technique should be rewarded for it, but I don't think it helps to focus on the best the other skaters can manage as being "illegal" or "cheating."

The question is, do we want women's figure skating to be a rotating-in-air contest where the skaters who are capable of jumping high enough and rotating fast enough to land consistently rotated triples of all takeoffs, and also maybe triple axels and/or quads necessarily have an insurmountable lead over those whose best in-air rotational efforts fall slightly short of ideal but who may excel at more on-ice skills?

How much of a reward for better or harder jumps is appropriate reward for better technique, and how much is unnecessary and pushes the sport further away from on-ice skills?

But maybe in the men. One skater has such a huge advantage over everyone, it's like that skater is in a different sport altogether (I'd love to know how he does it is it diet, jump technique, training regimen it needs to be understood so everyone can improve).

Or maybe a lot if it is just natural body type and there's not much that skaters with different bone structure or natural muscle fiber composition could do to even the playing field.

But putting more emphasis on skills that are less reliant on body type could do so.

The best thing they can do is get tough on the poor jumpers though (whether triples or quads), they should always err on the side of caution and punish any landing that looks a little bit suspect.

If the rules say that X% short of rotation deserves Y points of penalty (in base value and/or GOE), then yes, tech panels and judges should be consistent in applying those penalties to all skaters regardless of how well they rotate or land other jumps in the program or what else they do well. And maybe someday in the not-to-distant future there will be ways to measure the rotation more accurately than by the human eye.

But again, making fine distinctions in jump rotation the defining factor in who wins and who loses pushes the sport more toward being a rotating-in-air contest and less about being a skating contest.

 

[Skating91]

I think we just have to accept that most women, even the best skaters in the world, will struggle to achieve 3 full rotations in the air, let alone more than that.

The skaters who can't do a triple without cheating are free to attempt a double. If they can't jump a 3Lz-3T, jump a 3F-3T, or 3T-3T , or 3F-2T, etc. Just keep going down the line until they can find something they can land without it being a cheated jump.

Otherwise we can argue that most men even the best skaters will struggle to achieve 4 full rotations in the air with a clean landing, so we just have to accept it give them GOE they don't deserve.

 

[Mathman]

... it was obvious from the very beginning that changing the system from +3/-3 to +5/-5 would introduce much more subjectivity...

I wish I had the power to ban the words obvious, clear, self-evident, incontestable,... .

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

Nope.



And who was under Jin in PCS? Nathan. That makes Nathan your new whipping boy, I guess. By the way, Jin got 80 PCS at 4CC 2016 and 86 at 2017 Worlds. I might consider 80 lower PCS but not 86. In terms of PCS, that's a big difference in one skater. At 2025 Worlds Shaidorov's FS PCS was 82.53. Should we now call Shaidorov a whipping boy? The point of all this is to reiterate: no, he who has the most quads doesn't automatically win. Whipping boys have nothing to do with it.

LOL you can't compare scoring from 2017 Worlds to 2025 Worlds. The PCS categories themselves are different.

But yeah I suppose since there were some folks around the planet who whined that Hanyu should have been scored even higher GOE/PCS in a Worlds that he won and were utterly besides themselves that he didn't win by an even bigger margin, one could argue that Jin wasn't truly hosed on PCS.