- Joined
- Nov 10, 2007
Jennifer Kirk - How skating gets its groove back
- Thread starter visaliakid
- Start date
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2007
Jenny mentioned in her blog the CoP needs to completely change what is emphasized and rewarded under the current system." Instead of more difficult footwork and increased flexibility, skaters should be rewarded for a well-rounded performance. The emphasis shouldn’t be on triple-triples or spins on various edges, but rather the beauty of a skater’s performance, their edge quality, and maturity." I am not sure about this. Even though I love figure skating exactly because it is a combination of art and sports in my opinion. But for it to be qualified to be an Olympic sport, it should emphasize on athelatism. Beauty of a skater's performance is subjective.
IMO, the biggest problem for US Skating is that both the ISU and the USFS are financed through things like ticket sales and TV rights (which depend upon ratings) -- increasing these means pandering to more casual viewers in a way most other sports do not, even if that pandering drives away more hard core fans. If both entities decide they want to continue this method of financing, then they need to get more control -- put into the contract, for example, things like a fixed amount of time for the entity to explain the judging system, including why one program was judged better than another. If not, then they can concentrate on the "sport" aspect for the hard core fans, and, let the casual viewers go.
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2007
It's the ISU's way of dealing with corrupt judging a la 2002 SLC pairs...by shoving it under the rug instead of actually, you know, dealing with it :disapp:.
Seriously, the line of thinking was that if judging was anonymous, judges would supposedly be able to judge fairly and with their own minds, and also avoid pressure from their/other federations since nobody would know which marks they gave.
You are so right! Though I can't bear to watch wrestling myself--I even turn the channel when they show Greco-Roman wrestling in the Olympics--I can see how effective pro wrestling is at holding audiences, and your analysis gives many enlightening details that explain why. I don't know how skating could pull off something equivalent (though less frenzied, I hope), but maybe someone will get a brilliant idea down the road somewhere. Meanwhile, I keep the faith, and there's always YouTube. .
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2009
Exactly. In a simplistic sense, CoP is harder to understand than 6.0. But if you really look at it, it's a lot simpler. I mean, how does the casual watcher really know the difference between a Technical element score of 5.8 from a 5.9? Was it the turn out on the 2A? Or the shaky landing on the 3T? And why did skater A get a 5.7 and skater B get a 5.8 even though A's program was more difficult? I think that CoP offers clarity. If you're a new fan and you're confused, you can go on the website, and figure out exactly what element got what mark. You can't really do that with 6.0. I mean, knowing that 6.0 is perfect and then deducting from there seems simpler, but if you spend 5 minutes becoming even vaguely familiar with CoP, you know that a 180 is a pretty good overall score for a ladies skater. It's not that hard. What's hard - and in my opinion unfair - is ordinals. I'd say 6.0 ordinals take more time to learn than CoP and also facilitates bias and favoritism that we're trying to steer away from. I'm not saying CoP is perfect, but it makes skating a more legitimate sport in my opinion.
I also disagree with Kirk's point about grace and maturity. Anyone who's seen Kim's Lark Ascending performance can see the tremendous grace and maturity she has. Same with Asada's 2009 FS. Or Shen/Zhao's 2007 FS. I think CoP pushes skaters to be more creative in combining athleticism with beauty, and I think that's a good thing. Skating is beautiful, but it also needs to be objective and I think CoP stresses both.
I completely agree with Tonichelle. It's not the skating itself or the scoring system. What it comes down to is that American figure skating simply is in a rut. Ladies figure skating has always been the most lucrative niche in America, and currently for the casual fan, skating has gotten boring. We have no star: no lady that's really proven herself consistently competitive in the international circuit. I agree with the poster who commented on Michael Phelps. There's absolutely nothing wrong with swimming's judging system, but swimming never got much recognition until it gave America a reason to recognize it. That's what skating needs right now. Changing back to 6.0 won't improve the situation; in fact, I think it makes it worse, because then we have no star, no interest, and a system that in the end, is more confusing.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2005
I agree - the fights don't hold much interest for me but I know how crazy my boyfriend and his friends get over them. What interests me about UFC is that only a few short years ago it was struggling with a projected image that it was too barbaric. So they made some rule changes, added all the elements I stated in my previous post, and began to market the athletes as martial artists whose training is based on respect. Obviously one luxury skating doesn't have is the ability to put events on PayPerView which draw in huge amounts of money.
I think skating could make the events more exciting and interactive. Have fan contests, hand out a daily newsletter (like they do here in Canada), autograph sessions, etc. By allowing vocals in all disciplines I think more "main-stream" fans could be drawn into competitions. Maybe market it more like a So You Think You Can Dance experience? Tension, drama, electric atmosphere, great human interest stories, and great skating. That is what draws me in. I'm definitely not a marketing student but those are just my ideas on it.
I recently read an article here about our Canadian skaters. The article states one large reason they may become "media darlings" in Vancouver is that they have human interest elements to their stories and have overcome struggles in their lives. They list the examples of Joannie and her speed skating boyfriend who will compete together in 2010 and her late rise to the top, V/M's long partnership together, Jessica and Bryce overcoming their awful history of accidents and injuries, Patrick's quick rise and outspokenness.
And because I just can't resist here's GSP's Gatorade ad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-VIpCxyZaA
I swear I'll stop talking about him now
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2003
I understand metric just fine 
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
Not all the rest of the world - the UK doesn´t, but then what do you we know, we drive on the "wrong" side side of the road to most of the world
Ant
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2008
Jennifer Kirk read my mind!
However, for the ladies event, as much as I agree with what she said, I think she should have spoken about Yu-Na. She has that "thing" that stars such as Katerina Witt and Michelle Kwan have. Other than because of the shear pleasure of watching hear skate, I think it would be great for womens' skating if Yu-Na were to stay on after 2010 - bacause of the state of womens's skating.
However, for the ladies event, as much as I agree with what she said, I think she should have spoken about Yu-Na. She has that "thing" that stars such as Katerina Witt and Michelle Kwan have. Other than because of the shear pleasure of watching hear skate, I think it would be great for womens' skating if Yu-Na were to stay on after 2010 - bacause of the state of womens's skating.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2003
Not all the rest of the world - the UK doesn´t, but then what do you we know, we drive on the "wrong" side side of the road to most of the world
Ant
the UK doesn't use the metric system??????? I thought we (the US) were the only ones who didn't
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2006
Debi Thomas has also been thinking about this. See her facebook thread below:
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=81725206663&topic=11748&ref=mf
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=81725206663&topic=11748&ref=mf
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2008
Tinymavy, I read part of the thread. I respect Debbie but disagree with much of what was written there (I also disagreed with most of Jenny's post).
It seems to me that complaints about CoP can be divided broadly into two categories:
1. It's not 6.0! Oh, how will people ever understand that difficult math? Example from the thread:
) - the season's best score is of course displayed, and often times the score needed to lead/medal is also shown or mentioned by the announcers.
2. CoP rewards specific things and this has devalued certain elements/features and/or encouraged checklist programs.
From the same post I quoted before:
Debbie argues that:
It seems to me that complaints about CoP can be divided broadly into two categories:
1. It's not 6.0! Oh, how will people ever understand that difficult math? Example from the thread:
Come on. Unless people are incapable of doing lower elementary school level math or have short term memory loss, it's not that hard to understand that a 170 is better than a 150, or that 75 for tech is better than 65. And nobody needs to keep records at home (though fantasy figure skating would be awesome
) - the season's best score is of course displayed, and often times the score needed to lead/medal is also shown or mentioned by the announcers.2. CoP rewards specific things and this has devalued certain elements/features and/or encouraged checklist programs.
From the same post I quoted before:
I don't think you can argue there are no musical or artistic skaters around, but I do agree that the system emphasizes things that it shouldn't, and doesn't reward other things enough. But I don't think going back to 6.0 is the solution. Under 6.0, everything but jumps was devalued. How is that better? IMO, the solution to this should be to go back and take a good look at what's working in the scoring and what isn't. And fix it - after the Olympics. I would start with Sonia Bianchetti's suggestion that spins and step sequences have a uniform base value, leaving the judges to reward - or penalize - these elements using the GOEs.
Debbie argues that:
I don't buy this. First, I wouldn't write off the Japanese ladies like that. But also, AFAIK, Japanese fans are not as fixated on the ladies' discipline as many casual American fans seem to be. And Japan has tons of talent in the men's discipline, both on the senior and the junior level. I'm not worried about this at all. S. Korea might be a different matter.
Yeah, I wondered what the heck she meant about Japan not being likely to have the OGM ladies. It's like Mao Asada is not out of the Gold medal hunt by any means whatsover. She had a bad year but she could get it together by next. And Miki :Ando can also totally sneak into gold if Asada/Kim screw up.
Japan at least is likely to medal. Add in that Asada has openly said she's staying until Sochi and Japan's good. I agree S Korea is a problem, I cannot imagine the amount of pressure Kim will have to stay in the sport. But I do think in 10 years time we will see some talented Korean skaters. Just like we have all kinds of Korean lady golfers now.
Japan at least is likely to medal. Add in that Asada has openly said she's staying until Sochi and Japan's good. I agree S Korea is a problem, I cannot imagine the amount of pressure Kim will have to stay in the sport. But I do think in 10 years time we will see some talented Korean skaters. Just like we have all kinds of Korean lady golfers now.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2009
1. Is it possible to stay a long time within the COP? We keep hearing about the demands it puts on skater's bodies, and it does seem like the time of three or four Olympics is in the past (I'm speaking of skaters like Stojko with his four or Drobiazko/Vanagas with their five, though one was under COP and after a break). I'm almost thinking that Mao Asada will almost be a test case. She's someone who's had their entire senior career under COP as well as being a definite medal contender. She's talking about going to Sochi regardless of her achievements in Vancouver (and in 2014 she will be the same age Joannie is now, so it's certainly not implausible, age wise). If she manages to do so without major injury, I think we'll see more skaters doing it.
2. I've gotta echo everyone who points out that the COP isn't that hard to understand. But more than that, we have the why behind the marks now too (with the protocols). Anyone reasonably interested can find out what's going on. I just think interest comes with having someone to root for. So it's a kind of ororborus. Without anyone to root for, the COP isn't something worth exploring for many viewers/casual fans. But without exploring COP and more generally the current figure skating scene, they don't find someone to support. So essentially people need to be told who to support, generally by that someone having sustained success within the sport (like Asada or Kim) or having a media friendly personality/look (Sasha Cohen, for example).
3. Is it even plausible for figure skating to attain the degree of popularity in America it had in the early 90's-00's? I mean - you had the absence of figures (so the least entertaining/television friendly part of figure skating was gone). You had massive success (a medal sweep a the 1991 worlds). You had a major, media friendly controversy that didn't hurt the sport itself because it had nothing to do with the actual sport (unlike the SLC Pairs scandal). You had Michelle Kwan. You had the rivalry between Kwan and Lipinski. You had the surprise of Sarah Hughes. I mean, those are pretty perfect storm like conditions for popularity.
Now, there are no stars in the marquee event. Figures has been gone a long time. The rivalries are there, but on a much lower scale. On another board, someone pointed out the topsy-turvy nature of America sending three ice dance teams but only two ladies, but no one felt this was anything other than correct (USA's got both depth and breadth in ice dancing; in ladies, they only have breadth). I'm a little surprised that the rise of the USA in ice dancing hasn't translated to more viewers, truth be told.
4. Debi Thomas' post sounds like someone looking for complaints, unfortunately. Buttercup pretty much summarizes my comments there.
2. I've gotta echo everyone who points out that the COP isn't that hard to understand. But more than that, we have the why behind the marks now too (with the protocols). Anyone reasonably interested can find out what's going on. I just think interest comes with having someone to root for. So it's a kind of ororborus. Without anyone to root for, the COP isn't something worth exploring for many viewers/casual fans. But without exploring COP and more generally the current figure skating scene, they don't find someone to support. So essentially people need to be told who to support, generally by that someone having sustained success within the sport (like Asada or Kim) or having a media friendly personality/look (Sasha Cohen, for example).
3. Is it even plausible for figure skating to attain the degree of popularity in America it had in the early 90's-00's? I mean - you had the absence of figures (so the least entertaining/television friendly part of figure skating was gone). You had massive success (a medal sweep a the 1991 worlds). You had a major, media friendly controversy that didn't hurt the sport itself because it had nothing to do with the actual sport (unlike the SLC Pairs scandal). You had Michelle Kwan. You had the rivalry between Kwan and Lipinski. You had the surprise of Sarah Hughes. I mean, those are pretty perfect storm like conditions for popularity.
Now, there are no stars in the marquee event. Figures has been gone a long time. The rivalries are there, but on a much lower scale. On another board, someone pointed out the topsy-turvy nature of America sending three ice dance teams but only two ladies, but no one felt this was anything other than correct (USA's got both depth and breadth in ice dancing; in ladies, they only have breadth). I'm a little surprised that the rise of the USA in ice dancing hasn't translated to more viewers, truth be told.
4. Debi Thomas' post sounds like someone looking for complaints, unfortunately. Buttercup pretty much summarizes my comments there.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2003
I don't understand why TPTB don't post a 'max' score for the program based upon the components. It's not as though the media doesn't have access to rehearsals where they can determine a base score as is done for gymnastics.
This would at least allow the viewer to better understand if max points were given or not and perhaps better understand why one skater's program could earn more points vs another.
I know the PCS scores are harder to pre-determine, but a skating expert could attend rehearsals and guestimate based upon levels, etc.
The failure of US Skating IMO is because there is not superstar right now. I was too young to see/care about Peggy Fleming. Didn't even hear about Dorothy Hamill until after the Olympics and that was mostly because of her haircut. It wasn't until the 80's that I really became interested in skating and that was because the US media had at least 1 'darling' to highlight that actually had real potential to win the World title.
To the general public, skating and gymnastics (in the US) are events that occur once every 4 years. If there is a media darling that doesn't live up to the hype, the interest in the sport goes down. Otherwise, it goes up.
In the 80's we had lots of real candidates for Olympic champions - Jill Trenary, Debbie Thomas, Scott Hamilton, Brian Boitano, Rosalyn Sumners, Elaine Zayak. In the 90's, it was Jill Trenary, Kristi Yamaguchi, Nancy Kerrigan, Nicole Bobek and Michelle Kwan and toss in surprise winners Tara Lipinski and Sarah Hughes and you've got media fire. Since 2002, other than Michelle's returning, there really hasn't been a skater of great interest for the US General Public to attach itself to. Kimmie and Emily looked promising immediately after the Olympics, but have had problems. Alissa has always had her 'mental' issues - if she had overcome them, she would a skater that America would get behind. The rest are just too young and not dominate. The media's not going to want to campaign around them because they are at tenuous points in their careers and none have really had that breakthrough moment that can be showcased.
Realistically, without knowing what 2009 will bring, the US as shots at World's medals in Mens and Dance only. Even then, 'gold' is not more than likely IMO.
This would at least allow the viewer to better understand if max points were given or not and perhaps better understand why one skater's program could earn more points vs another.
I know the PCS scores are harder to pre-determine, but a skating expert could attend rehearsals and guestimate based upon levels, etc.
The failure of US Skating IMO is because there is not superstar right now. I was too young to see/care about Peggy Fleming. Didn't even hear about Dorothy Hamill until after the Olympics and that was mostly because of her haircut. It wasn't until the 80's that I really became interested in skating and that was because the US media had at least 1 'darling' to highlight that actually had real potential to win the World title.
To the general public, skating and gymnastics (in the US) are events that occur once every 4 years. If there is a media darling that doesn't live up to the hype, the interest in the sport goes down. Otherwise, it goes up.
In the 80's we had lots of real candidates for Olympic champions - Jill Trenary, Debbie Thomas, Scott Hamilton, Brian Boitano, Rosalyn Sumners, Elaine Zayak. In the 90's, it was Jill Trenary, Kristi Yamaguchi, Nancy Kerrigan, Nicole Bobek and Michelle Kwan and toss in surprise winners Tara Lipinski and Sarah Hughes and you've got media fire. Since 2002, other than Michelle's returning, there really hasn't been a skater of great interest for the US General Public to attach itself to. Kimmie and Emily looked promising immediately after the Olympics, but have had problems. Alissa has always had her 'mental' issues - if she had overcome them, she would a skater that America would get behind. The rest are just too young and not dominate. The media's not going to want to campaign around them because they are at tenuous points in their careers and none have really had that breakthrough moment that can be showcased.
Realistically, without knowing what 2009 will bring, the US as shots at World's medals in Mens and Dance only. Even then, 'gold' is not more than likely IMO.
I don't know enough technical stuff, but I tend to agree with those of you who say that the eclipse in American skating is not due solely the CoP. After all, the rest of the world skates to that same CoP, and Japan and Canada are thriving, as are other places.
I do agree that there's a bit too much one-from-column-A, one-from-column-B skating with CoP. But here's a strange thing. Unless I'm misinterpreting what I see, jumps have not advanced but have actually regressed since the end of 6.0. A lot of guys who aren't really quad kings have been doing rather well, and Asada with her triple Axel isn't getting much competition in the jump department but notwithstanding wasn't even on the podium this year. So CoP seems to reward many elements besides jumps. But I think it rewards things piecemeal, and what's needed is a way to quantify an integrated performance, something with an "X" factor. Who knows whether the bean-counters will figure out a way to strive for that!
I do agree that there's a bit too much one-from-column-A, one-from-column-B skating with CoP. But here's a strange thing. Unless I'm misinterpreting what I see, jumps have not advanced but have actually regressed since the end of 6.0. A lot of guys who aren't really quad kings have been doing rather well, and Asada with her triple Axel isn't getting much competition in the jump department but notwithstanding wasn't even on the podium this year. So CoP seems to reward many elements besides jumps. But I think it rewards things piecemeal, and what's needed is a way to quantify an integrated performance, something with an "X" factor. Who knows whether the bean-counters will figure out a way to strive for that!
Similar threads
