Should quads per program be limited to balance artistry?

[Isk]

One more expense to add for many performing artists : performance anxiety therapy.

Oh, having studied music as a kid, I can't play without mistakes as an adult, I guess a part of it is getting older and not practicing as much. I have days when I literally can play nothing and days when I sit at the piano and all of a sudden make 1 or 2 mistakes. Then I think: time to work on expression, but the next day brain-hand coordination refuses to work again. Hard to imagine how artists manage to make so few of them. But sometimes they play so emotionally that a mistake here and there doesn't matter. In my childhood though mistakes didn't bother me. Even in the orchestra I was worried a single day before my first rehearsal: unless you are a first violin, nobody really pays attention to what you play, sooner or later you get the hang your score. This is the thing with childhood performing activities: it's fun or if it is not always, it's really not that traumatic. To me more important factor was that I get along with my teachers because I interacted with them several times a week, whereas exams happened once or twice a year, who cares. You get your B or C, move on to the next grade, everybody is happy. It's different in the adult life, stakes are much higher. W.r.t. the discussion at hand: I am not sure childhood skating experience transfers to fluidity in adult exams. There are so many factors involved physiologically and psychologically. But I totally agree that kids need to be doing stuff for fun and general development, most of it will not transfer, some stuff will transfer to an adult hobby, and most parents view it this way.

I don't know what else to say on the topic of limiting quads TBH. Except imagine decomposing a piano comp into key-points and components: we judge this passage for a level, add a fioritura or play with acceleration and get a level feature, and this key-point: did he/she hit that note X well. What happens in between is not so important so long as something happens, lets shove into a PCS score. The whole idea of decomposing a complete piece of performing artistic work into out-of-context elements and components seems not quite right. It usually takes people some time to express in words why they think an element was good or not. Imagine doing this in real time: 11 elements, a number of bullet points for each and then you have to reconcile it to a subconscious impression. God forbid you get something in your eye and blink at a key-point. And then PCS on top of it, which is a completely different story. Impossible, incomprehensible. Judges must be virtuosos. Well, many of them haven't ever skated. I think a lot of it is still done approximately. We evaluate something as beautiful or not, effortless or not based on years of training our neural connections that work much faster than reasoning and of whose work we are not even consciously aware, this is what forms the first impression. This is all one needs to know about objectivity. It doesn't mean that things should not be analyzed consciously and reasoned, they should - just not in real time.

Figure skating has always been the princess of winter sports. If one wants faster, longer, higher, one can watch something else. No other winter sport has exhibition shows or music. And a comp takes forever. So, yeah, interpretation of music with choreo and aesthetics is important, it's the reason people watched it in the past, although I am no longer sure if it's still the reason. It seems to me technique is a necessary vehicle but not an end goal. If quads are in the way, I'd say let's do away with some of them as long as it helps. Skaters will adjust one way or the other.

 

[gkelly]

But I totally agree that kids need to be doing stuff for fun and general development, most of it will not transfer, some stuff will transfer to an adult hobby, and most parents view it this way.

I agree.

Except of course many parents can't afford to offer their children out-of-school activities. So we're not talking about them. Or they offer inexpensive activities, which might include skating at the very basic levels, but not up to double jumps.

I don't know what else to say on the topic of limiting quads TBH. Except imagine decomposing a piano comp into key-points and components: we judge this passage for a level, add a fioritura or play with acceleration and get a level feature, and this key-point: did he/she hit that note X well. What happens in between is not so important so long as something happens, lets shove into a PCS score. The whole idea of decomposing a complete piece of performing artistic work into out-of-context elements and components seems not quite right.

Because the purpose of music is to create an aesthetic experience for the listener.

For skating, the purpose of a show program is to create an aesthetic experience for the viewer. So the skaters and choreographers will design their show programs with that in mind and include whatever technical elements will serve that purpose.

That is not the primary purpose of a competitive skating program.

Making it look aesthetically pleasing is rewarded, everywhere the skater is able to achieve that. And making it artistically coherent is also rewarded, especially in the Composition and Presentation components. Those are perhaps the most important criteria for those two components (but not the only ones).

However, the main purpose of entering a competition at all is to demonstrate technical mastery of a wide variety of skating skills. Including jumps in the singles disciplines (and to a lesser extent pairs).

So the process of evaluating programs is very different in competition than it would be for evaluating artistic show programs. (Which are generally not scored by judges, although there are artistically focused competitions outside of the ISU's purview.)

It usually takes people some time to express in words why they think an element was good or not. Imagine doing this in real time: 11 elements, a number of bullet points for each and then you have to reconcile it to a subconscious impression.

For the individual elements (i.e., GOEs), it's not necessary to express in words, out loud or in writing, why a judge thinks an element is good or not. They just have to come up with a number. And sometimes take notes about what was good or bad about it, especially if they expect to be asked about the score later, or if they have a question in their mind about it in real time that they want to resolve after the program is over, by checking an obscure rule or by waiting to see the final tech panel calls before finalizing their mark.

That's why judges use shorthand notes that may only need one or two strokes of a pencil to convey a reminder that might take a whole sentence or more to convey in words to someone else.

But for a simple straightforward jump element, experienced judges can see the element, note the quality, and decide between, say, 0 or +1 or +2 in no more time than it takes to watch the element, maybe make a quick note, and input the score.

Spins (except some very weak or failed ones) and step sequences/choreographic sequences take more time for the skater to execute. So judges have more time while the element is in progress to think about positive and negative aspects and come up with a score by the time the element is over. Especially for the sequences, they would probably also be thinking about how the various qualities of the sequence would affect the program components.

God forbid you get something in your eye and blink at a key-point.

Yes, it's possible a judge could miss an important technical detail that took the skater a second or less to execute. Not just from a normal blink, but if they had to close their eye(s) for longer than that for some reason, or the element was in a part of the ice they couldn't see as clearly, or it happened right at the end/right after an element just when the judge looked away for a second to input their score for that element or the previous way.

And then PCS on top of it, which is a completely different story. Impossible, incomprehensible. Judges must be virtuosos. Well, many of them haven't ever skated. I think a lot of it is still done approximately.

The best judges are virtuosos at this kind of evaluation.

Newer judges, often from smaller/newer federations, who may not have skated themselves, might still have a lot more learning and practicing to do.

We evaluate something as beautiful or not, effortless or not based on years of training our neural connections that work much faster than reasoning and of whose work we are not even consciously aware, this is what forms the first impression. This is all one needs to know about objectivity. It doesn't mean that things should not be analyzed consciously and reasoned, they should - just not in real time.

Judges are very practiced at evaluating skating quality in real time. The thought process for evaluating the quality of an element would rarely take much longer than the time it took the skater to execute it.

Program components would require more thought, because they cover the whole duration of the program.
The program components were never intended to be "objective."
They are intended to be analytical, but of course first impressions or general impressions do factor into what the judge will analyze.

So, yeah, interpretation of music with choreo and aesthetics is important, it's the reason people watched it in the past,

Perhaps, although different viewers have different priorities and some fans love to watch practice sessions, without music.

Marveling at the athleticism of skating fast and smoothly in complicated ways, the athleticism of jumping high and far and rotating quickly in the air, the technical precision needed to rotate that quickly in the air or to center a spin while changing positions or to execute deep edges and complicated changes of direction can be impressive on their own.

Some fans or casual viewers clearly are most interested in the jumps.
Others are most interested in the performance qualities.

Performance aspects may be what draws in the largest portion of potential viewers. But it's not the primary goal of the competition.

And different skaters also have different priorities.

although I am no longer sure if it's still the reason. Technique is a necessary vehicle but not an end goal. If quads are in the way, I'd say let's do away with them. Skaters will adjust one way or the other.

The end goal for the skaters when they enter a singles competition is to show off their technical prowess. When they're competing, their goal is to show off what they can do better than their competitors -- in terms of difficult elements and executing the elements with good quality and weaving the elements together into a complex 4-minute (or however long) whole rather than in isolation.

Doing it to music and also being able to perform to audiences and interpret music while demonstrating all that technical ability is an additional challenge. The skaters who can perform and interpret best while also executing difficult technique deserve higher scores/better placements, and they're also more likely to win approval from fans.

But the technique is primary in competition.

Some skaters may love the performing aspects best and consider technical aspects as support for performance. But if they didn't want to show off high levels of technical skill, they wouldn't enter ISU-style competitions.

There are many more kinds of technical skills than just rotating in the air. Which is why for me the question is not how to balance quads with artistry, but rather how to balance the in-air rotation skills with all the other technical skills that go into good skating. While also rewarding all the enhancements to those skills and how they're linked together and performed that go into what might be considered artistry.

But if they felt that artistry was more important than technique, they'd stick to artistic competitions and shows.

 

[4everchan]

Oh, having studied music as a kid, I can't play without mistakes as an adult, I guess a part of it is getting older and not practicing as much.

To perform without mistakes, it requires a whole lot of preparation. Adults or older kids often underestimate that. It's not because your intellect knows and understands a musical score that your fingers will reproduce it perfectly automatically. When learning to manage my own performance anxiety, the one factor that was straightforward was exactly this : have I practiced enough ? If the answer was no... there was no way that I could perform without any stress. Repetition leads to experience which leads to confidence. Without sufficient work there may be mistakes and nervy playing.

I have days when I literally can play nothing and days when I sit at the piano and all of a sudden make 1 or 2 mistakes. Then I think: time to work on expression, but the next day brain-hand coordination refuses to work again. Hard to imagine how artists manage to make so few of them.

Work. Hours of work. It's simpler than you think but it's also harder than one can imagine. It's hours and hours and hours of work and more work. But here is the beauty of it : for an artist, this work is not tedious... because it comes from love. In this case, it becomes a passion instead of a burden.

But sometimes they play so emotionally that a mistake here and there doesn't matter.

This sentence alone could provoke a huge discussion. . Performers are not supposed to get too emotional during a performance. The emotion is for the public to perceive. I am not saying performers are robots without any emotion... but getting too emotional will lower one's focus and when playing a 2 hour long recital by memory, there is no room for meandering around with your heart on your sleeve. Great performers have worked emotions into their playing for the public to feel them, while usually remain very cool and collected, to avoid losing focus and making mistakes. It's something a young musician won't necessarily learn...Professional musicians have to abide by this though. Otherwise, it's too risky.

In my childhood though mistakes didn't bother me. Even in the orchestra I was worried a single day before my first rehearsal: unless you are a first violin, nobody really pays attention to what you play, sooner or later you get the hang your score. This is the thing with childhood performing activities: it's fun or if it is not always, it's really not that traumatic.

It can be traumatic for some children. Some of my kids go into all sorts of nervous behaviours before recitals. I teach them how to deal with it but for some kids, it's definitely traumatic. Some cannot overcome it and if they love music so much, will need counselling. Some decide to do things that upset them less.

To me more important factor was that I get along with my teachers because I interacted with them several times a week, whereas exams happened once or twice a year, who cares. You get your B or C, move on to the next grade, everybody is happy. It's different in the adult life, stakes are much higher.

Stakes are higher for young musicians as soon as they are teenagers and entering competitions and doing auditions. Yesterday one of my teens sent me his exam report with a 90% score. He was very proud and it meant a lot to him as he is in college now and this is going to be his life. So stakes are higher, younger for many. As soon as one things it could be their career, they are trapped into getting As and not Bs and Cs.

W.r.t. the discussion at hand: I am not sure childhood skating experience transfers to fluidity in adult exams.

It varies. I was not a nervous kid. I got nervous at the end of my academic training because the pressure was so high. And then, as soon as I got done, I became a very calm professional. Looking at my colleagues, almost everyone of us has had a moment in their academic life when it got complicated. It's very difficult for a young adult to deal with the fact that if your audition/recital is good, it may mean an entrance scholarship or an award... or not. So many times, there is more to it than getting a grade but it has financial repercussions... some of the wealthier better supported by parents students don't worry as much... but for those who need the money, it's pretty difficult... and especially in your mid twenties when life also seems to bring you so many other things like living away from home, often in another city or country, love, self-doubt, etc So, yes, the experience and skillset acquired during childhood exists but it's constantly challenged In the end, there is a balance achieved where everything starts making sense.

There are so many factors involved physiologically and psychologically. But I totally agree that kids need to be doing stuff for fun and general development, most of it will not transfer, some stuff will transfer to an adult hobby, and most parents view it this way.

yes. the sense of personal achievement for me is the most important thing. I often use this with my kids giving them repertoire slightly too difficult for them, but showing them how proper technique and strategical work will make them achieve what they thought was impossible to achieve. The self-pride they get is priceless. This does translate into adulthood outside of the "hobby" or what I would call "elite hobby".

I see @gkelly addressed the rest of your post so I will leave it at that... plus it's xmas morning so I need to go check if Santa found my terrace.

 

[Isk]

Thanks @gkelly and @4everchan for your posts. @gkelly's posts are always so detailed that I feel like a school-kid. @4everchan, you post sounds a lot like what I've heard from Russian figure skaters: a lot of practicing, repetition, get the program to automatism, learn emotion into the routine so the public sees or feels it even if the skater doesn't experience it and can be focused. To be clear, this is what I meant - emotion that the viewer experiences as a result of the performance, not necessarily the emotion the performer is experiencing during the performance. You know how sometimes people say: he/she lived through the performance. The person might not necessarily have "lived" through it, but the public feels this way. It would be too hard to get invested into each practice and performance anyway. And to be clear - music is a hobby now, not my profession.

I think I wasn't a nervous kid either. I guess it does vary. My parents were busy, they introduced me to stuff and let go, so I didn't feel any pressure to achieve except at school. The expectation was that I and my siblings should go to university, but for me school was pretty manageable. Passing into adulthood was quite stressful, no surprises here.

 

[Blades of Passion]

Because the world isn't the United States, and most people won't be advocating for rules based on what the United States wants.

It's hardly just the US. Capitalism exists everywhere and Asian countries are generally even more strict with their kids and the expectations they have of them.

They allow for there being some parents who do believe this, but most don't.

It's a false statement about "most don't" and that it's a "very minor" thing within the sport. Parents of the most successful skaters generally have a significant expectation of that success and are actively "building" their kid to be successful. There's usually a direct material expectation about the sport "leading somewhere" and a pretty concrete timeline for the kid about what they "should" be doing by a certain age.

The new age rule is going to result in less people participating in the sport and it's going to decrease the number of memorable programs that exist; I think it already has (ie, Mao Shimada right now). Forcing people to stay in Juniors directly tells them "you aren't as valued and you don't have to act maturely" and gives them less opportunity to compete in front of significant crowds and interact with seasoned professionals.

This quaddrenial has already been the worst ever for figure skating and now look at what the 2024 Worlds field would have been if the age rule had been fully in effect - 3 of the skaters in the women's field who finished in the top 5 would've been ineligible. An even more boring competition than what it already was.

 

[yfan1]

It's hardly just the US. Capitalism exists everywhere and Asian countries are generally even more strict with their kids and the expectations they have of them.

So first you criticise someone for speaking out of turn without living in the US, and then go ahead and generalize your experience to other countries and peoples? OK, then.

It's a false statement about "most don't" and that it's a "very minor" thing within the sport. Parents of the most successful skaters generally have a significant expectation of that success and are actively "building" their kid to be successful. There's usually a direct material expectation about the sport "leading somewhere" and a pretty concrete timeline for the kid about what they "should" be doing by a certain age.

"Within the sport" - aka, sport as a whole, that doesn't just include competing at the highest level - many people here are being rather accurate. You aren't one of those people.

If you are only looking at "the most successful skaters", then I imagine there are many factors at play there. Quite a lot of the time, the drive comes from the child, and it includes many other factors that people would consider sheer luck - like where you were born (closeness and availability of ice rinks).

This quaddrenial has already been the worst ever for figure skating and now look at what the 2024 Worlds field would have been if the age rule had been fully in effect already - 3 of the skaters in the women's field who finished in the top 5 would've have been ineligible. An even more boring competition than what it already was.

I don't at all disagree that this quadrennial was the worst ever for skating. I disagree with how you are arriving at some of your other conclusions.

 

[Blades of Passion]

So first you criticise someone for speaking out of turn without living in the US, and then go ahead and generalize your experience to other countries and peoples?

I'm not generalizing. Why are you for some reason trying to deny the effects of capitalism that are present throughout the entire world?

It doesn't necessarily matter about where someone lives, people are capable of educating themselves on world matters without actively living in every country. What matters is when people try to make statements that certain issues don't exist, when they very much do.

"Within the sport" - aka, sport as a whole, that doesn't just include competing at the highest level

The state of the sport at the highest level is the entire subject being discussed. Otherwise there would be no need in the first place to have a thread that asks "should quads be limited".

 

[Arigato]

If you're simply talking about this:



Then forget putting kids in skating.

Put your kid in tennis. There's money there. A lot of it. And you don't even have to win the tournament to make a lot of money. But you do need to be good - true of any sport.

Don't claim you want to talk about capitalism while talking about skating, where basically no money is made compared to other sports.

 

[Mathman]

The funny thing about the "show me the money" meme from Jerry McGuire is that what Cuba Gooding Jr. really wanted was "the Quan" = love, respect, community. -- and yes, money.

As for tennis, I looked it up. Yup, of the top ten biggest money-makers in female sports, 8 of them were tennis players. But there was one "freestyle" skier (half-pipe, etc.), if your dragon-lady mom is looking for a lucrative winter sport.

 

[4everchan]

The funny thing about the "show me the money" meme from Jerry McGuire is that what Cuba Gooding Jr. really wanted was "the Quan" = love, respect, community. -- and yes, money.

As for tennis, I looked it up. Yup, of the top ten biggest money-makers in female sports, 8 of them were tennis players. But there was one "freestyle" skier (half-pipe, etc.), if your dragon-lady mom is looking for a lucrative winter sport.

Are you talking about Eileen Gu? Her money is certainly not coming only from her very not lucrative sport... If it's her, read more about her

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

Here is what's cool about the -5 to +5 GOE thing.

Let's say you have the world's most beautiful quad jump and expect to get +5 GOE. Your opponent does the same quad, but it is as terrible as yours is wonderful. He gets -5 GOE. This gives you the margin over your rival of the entire base value of that element:

(BV + 50%BV) - (BV - 50%BV) = 100% BV.

Now suppose your weak (or unlucky) rival also gets an under-rotation:

(BV + 50%BV) - (80%BV - 50%(80%BV))) = 110%BV

You have gained more than the full base value of the jump in your head-to-head match-up (a lesser amount if you don't beat him quite so decisively, like + 3 to -3. Falls are a little different, but for a quad a one-point deduction is about an extra 10%).

That is to say, it is the quality of the jump that is paramount. I, for one, approve.

Here’s the uncool part:

You’re a skater from an unknown country new on the scene who does three quads beautifully with transitions and amplitude but because in the judges’ minds you’re not a top skater, you end up with ho hum 0/+1s. The rest of your program has high tech content and you’re clean as a whistle technically. And the choreo is You’re new though so your PCS doesn’t clear 8’s.

Your competitor - a top skater / favourite falls on the same quad but gets -3s -4s from a few judges claiming the starting GOE for that popular skater is an + 4/5, so a -3/4 instead of -5 is “justifiable”. and has several other errors. But they get +3/+4 on average triples simply for staying upright: The judges “harshly” still give that skater 9.5s on PCS…and so the advantage of that inferior unknown skater going clean is immediately negated.

There are several skaters who aren’t established who have nicer jumps or elements than top skaters. The biggest evidence is the ChSq where a top skater can do a half a$$ed pattern and garner +4s while someone who isn’t established but actually puts effort and ice coverage into their field movements is given +1/2 because of who they are and lacking a strong federation.

Nobody really talks about the GOE bullets not in the handbook:
- federation (if a skater is from a key federation, add +1 to the GOE; if from an unknown or historically weak federation in the discipline, GOE is no more than +2 on any element, even if clean and strong)
-reputation (if a skater has a significant following and achieved significance, start their GOE at +5 regardless of transitions or musicality or meeting any of the prescribed GOE bullets; if a skater is an unknown, start their GOE at 0 and maybe thrown them a +1 or +2 if they execute an element in a way that a popular skater would get a +3 to +5 for.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

I don't at all disagree that this quadrennial was the worst ever for skating. I disagree with how you are arriving at some of your other conclusions.

The worst quadrennial for skating? I know certain curmudgeons think the sky is falling and has said skating has been shite for a while … and yet they continue to watch and post on this forum, lol.

This has not been the worst quadrennial by any stretch. Pairs has stagnated yeah, but singles has been good. Technically men’s has been out of this world and it’s nice to see the field reliably able to land 2-3 quads and triple axels. Elements like the quad lutz are becoming more common. The freaking quad axel and combos like 3A+4T and 3A+Eu+4S are being landed. Look at how many quads were landed at the recent GPF. With transitions into many of them at that - which you wouldn’t get from 90s skaters just stroking into simple triples. This field would technically wipe out any predecessors (although few can match the BOP-lauded artistic excellence that was most definitely showcased by Plushenko who could only land a 4T).

Women’s you have more skaters doing triple axel attempts and landings from the international field than before (look at the GPF even without Russia), and the triple-triple is standard (none of this Kostner 2012 Worlds 5-triples is enough to win bs). Skaters are being scrutinized more on the rotation on their landings and edge calls more than previously (skaters like even Kwan could have benefited from tech calls flagging UR/Flutzy technique that could use improvement).

Thematically all disciplines the skaters are trying new pieces of music and progressively shedding the warhorses. Ice dance is certainly more difficult and as much as folks like old school ID - they can’t dream of doing what the teams now do.

Judges are a mess with GOE and PCS (nothing new that they try to game the artistic marks for political gains). But there is not much of a leg to stand on to say this is the worst quadrennial ever when there have been significant milestones, great programs, and exciting competitions. But if you come at things with the attitude that figure skating is dying, the ISU doesn’t know how to judge, blah blah blah blah, then of course you’re going to say every quadrennial is worse than the one before.

 

[Arigato]

Are you talking about Eileen Gu? Her money is certainly not coming only from her very not lucrative sport... If it's her, read more about her

The World’s Highest-Paid Female Athletes 2025 List

See the 2025 Forbes list of the world's highest-paid female athletes, which counts both on- and off-field income—and features two women hauling in at least $30 million.

www.forbes.com

The numbers show on-field and off-field earnings for everyone. Gu is #4.

 

[4everchan]

The World’s Highest-Paid Female Athletes 2025 List

See the 2025 Forbes list of the world's highest-paid female athletes, which counts both on- and off-field income—and features two women hauling in at least $30 million.

www.forbes.com

The numbers show on-field and off-field earnings for everyone. Gu is #4.

And as I expected, nearly all her earnings are made off field

 

[Arigato]

- federation (if a skater is from a key federation, add +1 to the GOE; if from an unknown or historically weak federation in the discipline, GOE is no more than +2 on any element, even if clean and strong)

Estonia is not exactly a key federation. And no one really knew who the hell Aleksandr Selevko was compared to everyone else.

Opening element: 4T GOE 3.26

Beautiful.

 

[yfan1]

I'm not generalizing. Why are you for some reason trying to deny the effects of capitalism that are present throughout the entire world?

I know enough about capitalism to know you're full of bs. Figure skating is a largely irrelevant sport in Asia, and nobody cares about "stardom" in skating in most Asian countries.

A grand total of two people who achieved "stardom" in "Asia" means nothing. Parents as well as potential athletes would be more than well aware of it, as well as the lack of funding much of the time, because it's a winter sport. That's not even getting to the motivations "Asian" athletes tend to have for participation in any sport.

Even beyond all that, you still see the top athletes from Japan and South Korea associated with universities, either as part time or full time students.

I'm not even going to pretend you know much about Asia when you're speaking about it as a monolith to begin.

The state of the sport at the highest level is the entire subject being discussed. Otherwise there would be no need in the first place to have a thread that asks "should quads be limited".

Oh, okay. So you must be bringing up Mao Shimada as part of the argument about limiting quads, and then making an argument about how quads are ruining her artistry.

Wait.

The worst quadrennial for skating? I know certain curmudgeons think the sky is falling and has said skating has been shite for a while … and yet they continue to watch and post on this forum, lol.

It's been the worst so far in terms of program quality and quality of skating, and even judging of all four disciplines.

then of course you’re going to say every quadrennial is worse than the one before.

I don't know about the poster, but I wouldn't say this. To me, the best quadrennial was probably 2007-10 for women's skating (would even extend to 2014, if not for the weak 2011/2012 seasons), 1998-02 and 2015-18 for Men and Pairs, and 2007-14 for ID.

So not all 6.0, not all a straightforward progression, and some under CoP (even recent CoP). I think they need to go back to the +/- 3 GOE system, and take an element each out from Men and Pairs since they'll be keeping 4 minutes (would prefer a jump gone from Men and one SBS from Pairs) - those are mainly why I think skating's gone downhill for those disciplines.

I was hoping women's would be better without the Russian judging, but it's not been for me. ID just lacks program quality and looks like it's stuck in a rut - and the judging there is the worst of all.

 

[Isk]

I know enough about capitalism to know you're full of bs. Figure skating is a largely irrelevant sport in Asia, and nobody cares about "stardom" in skating in most Asian countries.

A grand total of two people who achieved "stardom" in "Asia" means nothing. Parents as well as potential athletes would be more than well aware of it, as well as the lack of funding much of the time, because it's a winter sport. That's not even getting to the motivations "Asian" athletes tend to have for participation in any sport.

Even beyond all that, you still see the top athletes from Japan and South Korea associated with universities, either as part time or full time students.

I'm not even going to pretend you know much about Asia when you're speaking about it as a monolith to begin.

Oh, okay. So you must be bringing up Mao Shimada as part of the argument about limiting quads, and then making an argument about how quads are ruining her artistry.

Wait.

It's been the worst so far in terms of program quality and quality of skating, and even judging of all four disciplines.


I don't know about the poster, but I wouldn't say this. To me, the best quadrennial was probably 2007-10 for women's skating (would even extend to 2014, if not for the weak 2011/2012 seasons), 1998-02 and 2015-18 for Men and Pairs, and 2007-14 for ID.

So not all 6.0, not all a straightforward progression, and some under CoP (even recent CoP). I think they need to go back to the +/- 3 GOE system, and take an element each out from Men and Pairs since they'll be keeping 4 minutes (would prefer a jump gone from Men and one SBS from Pairs) - those are mainly why I think skating's gone downhill for those disciplines.

I was hoping women's would be better without the Russian judging, but it's not been for me. ID just lacks program quality and looks like it's stuck in a rut - and the judging there is the worst of all.

2012 was the season when Mao skated to Liebestraum (poorly cut, admittedly), Kanako did Mendelssohn's VC, Alena Leonova skated to Barber's string adagio + something else dramatic in a black dress, Akiko Suzuki skated to Fledermaus in like Yuna Kim's dress, Ksenia Makarova had that awful Monro FS, and Carolina did Mozart and Sollertinsky trio? I wouldn't say artistically 2012 was worse than any other year, it's just there were fewer top skaters with fewer top programs due to exhodus of Yuna Kim, Finnish ladies and Canadians. To boot, Miki Ando skipped the season, Mao struggled, and a crowd of promising American ex-juniors had tanked except Ashley Wagner. Alysa Czisny was never a super-reliable skater, she skated to Sibelius that year IIRC but her Winter-into-spring and Dr. Zhivago I liked more . She had a peak in 2011 but it didn't last, and in 2013 Gracie Gold and young Russian skaters came in. It was a lot of unlucky coincidences that season in women.
For me the best years in man were until 2016, I already mentioned it before somewhere, there was a noticeable shift towards tech. difficulty and a drop in program quality in 2017, with some exceptions.

 

[yfan1]

I thought 2010-11 had great programs (Kim's LP, Kostner's LP, Csizny's LP, Asada's LP earlier in the season) - and I appreciated the rule changes from the quad before it, but I didn't think anyone skated amazingly that season (very clearly post-Olympics season), and it had the worst world champion since the inception of CoP scoring until then (or maybe Slutskaya in 2005 was, IDK).

2012 was even more watered down, and I really only liked Suzuki's programs, even if I thought Kostner was a great champion that year (and probably showed the greatest fluency in her skating skill repertoire that year with her step sequences).

2013 had Kim's legendary LP, and the other top 3 + Murakami showed great qualities. Then the season after that we had Kim doing her best dance choreography in the step sequence for the LP, and Asada's own legendary SP + her most difficult LP content since 2007-08 season.

2007-10 was just those skaters being able to breathe better in the programs, perform like 6.0 skaters under new rules. It would have been better if there weren't that fourth spin for the first two seasons, or the ridiculous spiral level rules, or the awful UR call system.

I wouldn't say there was a "quality" drop in men's after 2016. I thought all of the top 5 + Brown + Vasilijevs gave one if not two great performances at 2017 worlds - and then there were skaters like Misha Ge and Kolyada. Nathan didn't do too well at those worlds, but his programs next season were better (even if he steadily watered them down as the season progressed). The technical boundaries were pushed, and I was happy about it. Hanyu's LP was legendary there.

That quad's weakest seasons for men IMO were 2014-15 and 2017-18 - which is typical, because skaters are tired post-Olympics, and play it safe during it. It was after that which I thought it all went to the dogs.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

Estonia is not exactly a key federation. And no one really knew who the hell Aleksandr Selevko was compared to everyone else.

Opening element: 4T GOE 3.26

Beautiful.

Selevko wasn’t exactly an unknown having competed at the Olympics, two Grand Prix events, and having a couple Challenger medals. Of course EC2024 was a breakthrough for him but that was more of an exception.

There are exceptions and breakthroughs. Vasiljevs is from Latvia, Denis Ten from Kazakhstan, Yu Na Kim from South Korea, etc. and all of them immediately or eventually got good scores. Some had to grind a bit before breaking through like Misha Ge or Javier Fernandez (once he got his quads).

Yes you could find quite a few random skaters from less popular federations who achieve success and are given good scores as rare examples, but the norm is if you’re from a less popular federation (even if you’re a good skater) or not very established your GOE and your PCS will not be given as generously, and will be more strictly awarded.

 

[Mathman]

So now I am wondering, who is the richest living Olympic champion figure skater?

I bet it's Tenley Albright. She is majority owner of a major wealth management firm and of a successful pharmaceutical company, besides sitting on boards of directors of various medical organizations. Her late husband was big in Boston real estate, the owner of the first Ritz-Carlton Hotel which was eventually sold to inaugurate the international Ritz-Carlton chain.

Richest hockey player? Vladimir Putin.