How much should U.S. Nationals count for World team selection?

[R.D.]

My objection to this approach is that, depending on the weight you gave to the rest of the season, and previous seasons, relative to Nationals, it could make it almost impossible for a newcomer who has a breakthrough performance at Nationals or a veteran who had a bad year last year and a strong comeback this year to make the team.

Then such a system would need to factor in that likelihood and give them at least a fighting chance. Thing is, if you had an option between a skater who faltered at a big event in the past, and a skater who is yet unproven, what would be your choice?

Suppose a skater didn't qualify for Nationals last year, didn't skate at Nationals last year because of injury, or was sick/slightly injured at Nationals last year and placed poorly.

This year, they had no fall international assignments.

But they did well in summer nonqual competitions. They did very well at regionals/sectionals.

And they come to Nationals and blow everyone away, including a skater who qualified for the Grand Prix Final, defending national champ, etc. Should the committee take regional and sectional results as well as fall internationals into account when considering "the ENTIRE season"?

That's a good point. That may be the one weakness of such a system- how to deal with this, and also how to deal with skaters who "come back" after some years off. Inherently the skaters who have been competing throughout will have the advantage because we've seen what they can do, and once you go back further than about a couple of years, those results don't mean much any more.

Sectional/regional results may hold different weights than GP results because competition on the GP is typically much stronger. Even if you use point totals, there may be inconsistencies between national and international scoring.

Again, the solution here might be to use another competition, such as the 4CCs, to determine who gets that last spot. The more established skater can earn her spot based on Nats and what she has done so far; the comeback skater gets another chance against some of the others at 4CCs to earn the second Worlds spot. Say, I dunno, Meissner or Hughes (take your pick) chose to return, got through regionals/sectionals and somehow miraculously found her way back into the top 3 at Nats. One of the skaters who has been competing all this time (say, Nagasu) wins, and has had a decent GP. You give Nagasu spot #1 and then send the others to 4CCs to fight for that second spot. Allows you to get a second look at them and evaluate them under real international scoring rather than relying on regional/sectional results. Also gives the skater a fighting chance to prove herself once again.

 

[gkelly]

Can you explain exactly what this rule is, please?

http://www.isu.org/vsite/vnavsite/page/directory/0,10853,4844-130127-131435-nav-list,00.html
See communication 1619, bottom of p. 2, and communication 1621, item #16 on p. 7

Will any of these January-March competitions, aside from the ISU senior championships themselves, that have (junior or) senior events be opportunities for skaters to earn the minimum score if they haven't already done so?

Then such a system would need to factor in that likelihood and give them at least a fighting chance. Thing is, if you had an option between a skater who faltered at a big event in the past, and a skater who is yet unproven, what would be your choice?

Whoever placed higher at Nationals.

Again, the solution here might be to use another competition, such as the 4CCs, to determine who gets that last spot. The more established skater can earn her spot based on Nats and what she has done so far; the comeback skater gets another chance against some of the others at 4CCs to earn the second Worlds spot.

Yes, I think that in cases when the results of Nationals alone don't make it obvious who should earn the second or third spot on the world team and past results don't clarify the situation much further, a skateoff at Four Continents might be a viable solution.

A friend and I once wrote a fictional story involving a scenario of that nature:

Two Worlds slots available, national champion gets one of them

Choices for the second slot:
*Former three-time national champion and two-time world medalist who finished 4th at last year's worlds and this fall's GP events, withdrew from Nationals due to illness
*Consistent but unexceptional skater with negligible international results who finished 2nd at Nationals on the strength of that consistency (2nd in short, 3rd in long) and benefitting from the others' problems
*Notoriously inconsistent veteran with one years-ago world medal, disastrous short and brilliant long at Nationals to finish 3rd

But most of the time, it makes more sense just to go with the nationals results than to require a skateoff.

 

[R.D.]

Whoever placed higher at Nationals.

There you go. YMMV. Methods may differ. Personally, I consider Nats results first, then look at other factors. If the "other factors" don't happen to provide at least a convincing argument to deviate from order of finish, then I guess your method is fine. But if they do- I wouldn't hesitate to maximize chances of performing well at Worlds.

 

[Nadine]

I think there are way too many competitons out there as is, which do not take into consideration the short span of a skater's career due to overuse injuries from jumping, therefore a skater's competitive career is usually over by the time they hit 25, if not sooner. The rare exception would be somebody like Evgeni Plushenko, whom is a naturally gifted extraordinary athlete, yet even he has undergone quite a few surgeries which would have ended anybody else's career.

My point is that all these extra GPs, skate-off, 4CC, et al are too much. How the heck is a skater supposed to stay injury-free & achieve longevity in the sport when they're too busy skating almost all year round!?! So imho I say skip all the GPs and just skate at Nationals, which you will have had all season to prepare for, and if you are 1, 2, or 3, so be it, you have earned your berth on the World Team. Then everybody has an equal shot, they all start off on the same foot so to speak.

I'm all for Nationals being the be all end all, the only qualifier to Worlds.

Okay, that said, I have to get something off my chest, which doesn't relate to the above, it's how I feel. I really don't want 23 yr. old Alissa Czisny on the World Team. And it has nothing to do with her as an individual; she's wonderful by all accounts. No, it has to do with her *skating*, in particular her inconsistent record. She's been to 9 U.S. Nationals from 2002-2010, and has medalled twice (3rd in 2007 & 1st in 2009), the other 7 times she has come in from 7th-12th place. And she has been to Worlds twice (15th in 2007 & 11th in 2009). That aforementioned record speaks for itself.

I'm all for veterans, but when you've been on the scene that long, have had that many chances (9 US Nationals chances), and still haven't had a breakthrough at Worlds (a Top 10 placement at least, but more importantly placing high enough to help earn 3 spots back for Worlds), well that's when I'm all for seeing how the younger skaters will fare.

And those younger skaters are in order of age:

17 yr. old Mirai Nagasu (gold & silver medalist at US Nationals in her 3 yrs. on the senior circuit)
18 yr. old Rachael Flatt (gold & two-time silver medalist at Nationals in her 4 yrs. on the sr. circuit)
19 yr. old Ashley Wagner (bronze medalist twice in her 3 yrs. on the sr. circuit)

And out of those three, Rachael Flatt is the only World Junior Champion. The others had their chances several times but never succeeded.

I know this has nothing to do with whom comes in 1st, 2nd, and 3rd at US Nationals, but it means a lot to me personally.

Now here's WISHING THEY "ALL" DO WELL, SKATE CLEAN, AND EARN YOUR SPOT ON THE WORLD TEAM!!!!

 

[Eris]

And out of those three, Rachael Flatt is the only World Junior Champion. The others had their chances several times but never succeeded.

Does it matter right now? Zhang has the JW title, too.


I think it's little unfair not to send a Champion on 4CC. What if she wants this competition to prepare for the Worlds, to master her programs?..

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

(RE: The USFS knows who the best are)

Oh, gosh, I do not agree with this at all. I don't think USFS's crystal ball is any better that yours or mine, when it comes to guessing who will do well at Worlds.

I think the only thing the USFSA big-wigs can do is take their best shot, then -- like us -- cross their fingers.

Regardless of the system in choosing the best team, there is always the unknown slippery sport dinggy which has shown to be a culprit in many competitions.

The Forum seems to be bent on the Medals for telling us who will perform best at the Worlds. There is more to the 'Art of Figure Skating' than one competition. Shae-Lynne Bourne, for me, shows what the art of figure skating is all about, but she is not a Single's competitive skater.

The USFS will look for the one who is the most consistent skater, the one who is a crowd pleaser, the one who can flow through a program, and of course, the one who has proven podium possibilities in past performances especially in international competitions. This may happen at the US Nationals without the non-american competitors there, but the Rule allows for the winner of the Nats to automatically be on the Team. Now the number two lady will make the Team should be the one to place well in the top 10 finishers at Worlds for several reasons. Will she? Will the results of the Nationals show us the perfect silver medalist? or is it just to be fair? I think the USFS would go beyond fair and want a good follow-up skater to get the Federation out of the doldrums.

A one-time competition does not prove the best for the Worlds - it only shows who was best in that and only that competition.

 

[janetfan]

Yes, I think that in cases when the...y training and preparing for Worlds/Olympics.

 

[Mathman]

Will the results of the Nationals show us the perfect silver medalist? or is it just to be fair? I think the USFS would go beyond fair...

I guess that is the main dividing line between the two positions on this matter.

IMHO there is nothing beyond fair. You send the person who has earned it.

I really don't want 23 yr. old Alissa Czisny on the World Team.

Now, see? That is exactly what I am talking about. The choice of who goes to worlds should not come down to what Nadine wants or what Mathman wants or what the President of the USFSA wants. It should be determined by who wins the contest on the ice.

I think it's little unfair not to send a Champion on 4CC. What if she wants this competition to prepare for the Worlds, to master her programs?

The U.S. champion and the number two and number three medalists at U.S. Nationals arealmost always offered the opportunity to go to Four Continents if they want to. They almost never do.

http://www.isu.org/vsite/vnavsite/pa...v-list,00.html

See communication 1619, bottom of p. 2, and communication 1621, item #16 on p. 7

Thanks. This is the first time I am hearing about this rule. I assume its purpose is to save money?

At 2010 Wolrds the ladies champions from Mexico, Ireland, Hong Kong, Thailand, Romania and Lithuania (along with France #2) failed to get 17 points in the short program. Will countries like these be shut out of the World championship in the future?

 

[R.D.]

Yes, I agree and since US Natls is a "skateoff" why in the world would we need a second or third skateoff?
The only reason I can think of would be that certain fans are not happy that their favorites did not skate well enough to make the Natl team.

I can't think of any scenario where additional skateoffs are needed.

again. IT'S NOT ABOUT FAVORITES!!! Like I mentioned above, an additional comp like 4CCs might be useful in the scenario where a skater returns from hiatus or injury and US Nats is her first big comp. Say she missed the GP, didn't get any assignments, but did qualifiers, etc. The 4CCs would allow evaluation under international scoring, to see if it's worth sending her. Highest place finisher gets the last spot.

There's no perfect way to do all this. We can argue about the best way forever and ever. But at the end of the day, we're stuck with whatever USFS is using now.

 

[PolymerBob]

Many of us believe that the World team should be decided by who makes the podium at Nationals. If that is the case, then what decides who makes the podium at Nationals? Is it what happens on the ice right there? .... what happened during the Grand Prix? .... what happened last season? .... who is less than 23 years old? How do we want Nationals to be judged?

 

[Sylvia]

How do we want Nationals to be judged?

As fairly as possible.

All skaters will encounter instances of what they perceive to be unfair or biased judging in their careers, starting at the lowest levels. They must learn to deal with it by focusing on what they only can control -- their own skating.

For example, I believe that the final results of the Senior Ladies event at 2009 Nationals could have been different with a different technical panel and different judges. This is especially true in close and/or "messy" contests, even in the 6.0 days. But I don't believe in "what ifs" and skaters will not survive long-term in this sport if they do not learn to shrug off disappointing ("unfair") results and overcome adversity by dedicating themselves to improving their weaknesses, etc.

A problem with using Four Continents as a potential "final Worlds qualifier" in certain situations is that it usually takes place very soon after US Nationals and, these days, the location is more often in Asia than not. Skaters and coaches are supposed to plan the season's training so as to peak at specific competitive events during the season and, though not having first-hand expertise on this topic, I assume it is challenging to train to peak more than once a season, especially within the very short period of time between US Nationals and Four Continents (Worlds usually is at least 6+ weeks after US Nationals). Plus, the skaters and coaches would need to be informed ahead of time, preferably at the start of the new season, that Four Continents would or could be used in this way.

Another example -- I really was not surprised that Caroline Zhang ended up the highest placing US lady at 2009 Four Continents in Vancouver because both Alissa Czisny and Rachael Flatt were likely still recovering physically and mentally from Nationals that had ended just over one week earlier, whereas Zhang had the extra motivation to do well at Four Continents because it was the final competition of her season (at that time she didn't yet know that she would be competing at World Team Trophy in April). So, IF (yes, even though I don't believe in what ifs ), say, USFS had told Flatt and Zhang that 2009 Four Continents would determine the 2nd ladies spot to 2009 Worlds, would the outcome have been different? ETA: And would it have been fair on such short notice?

 

[R.D.]

Sylvia brings up an interesting point...what I call the X-Factor. What that means is, would the results have turned out differently if the stakes were X instead of Y? If the skate order was different?

The X-Factor may have played a role...or maybe not. For instance, if 2009 Worlds did NOT determine OLY spots for the US...would Czisny have bombed as hard? Conversely, would Rachel have done as well? We don't know, but it's an intangible factor and it does exist.

 

[Mathman]

This is what happens when the criteria for making the world team is not clearly specified in advance.

In the 2005-06 season Samuel Contesti finished second at French Nationals behind Joubert. Frederic Dambier finished fourth. But Dambier had done better in the Grand Prix than Contesti, and the French “selection committee” (i.e., Gailhaguet, who was back in business after having been banned from even attending ISU events since 2002) had said that it would take Grand Prix results into account as well as Nationals.

Dambier sued in the French civil courts and won. IIRC Contesti countersued in a different court, but was unsuccessful. Dambier was named to the European team. He finished fourth (beating Preaubert, who had finished third at Nationals) and thus made the Olympic team.

Contesti got mad and tried to sign up to skate for Monaco. But the Monancan Federation was afraid to take on France, so they declined. Contesti was scheduled for Skate America in the fall, but by this time he was on the outs with the French Federation, so they withdrew his name, declaring that he was "not in competitive shape."

In 2008 he signed up with Italy.

 

[R.D.]

what a mess. That's why in a change of format, it would have to be clearly communicated to all skaters, relatives and coaches...and it would have to avoid a certain level of ambiguity. So you say, in a nutshell: Nats results are considered first. But, in a close race, if there are disparities in competitive record, we reserve the right to deviate from order of finish. Sends the message that your most recent results matter, too.

 

[Mathman]

Bu the way, the strangest case for the US. was the 1998 ladies' world team. (Someone correct me if I am remembering the details wrong.)

The order of finish at Nationals was Kwan, Lipinski, Bobek, Kwiatkowski, Nikodinov, Corwin. Tara did not go to worlds, still basking in Olympic glory. At the last minute Bobek withdrew, too, citing injury. So the team was Kwan, Kwiatkowski, and...

USFS tried to contact Nikodinov to tell she had made the world team. But Angela was vacationing with her family in Bulgaria and could not be reached. So they left the third slot vacant.

At worlds, Kwan won, with Kwiatkowski 6th.

 

[Tonichelle]

Bu the way, the strangest case for the US. was the 1998 ladies' world team. (Someone correct me if I am remembering the details wrong.)
.

I'd say the strangest case was in 1994 during the whole Nancy-Tonya mess with Tonya suing for her spot on the Olympic team and Michelle being ousted because of it. But that whole drama was just strange, so maybe it doesn't count?

 

[R.D.]

Bu the way, the strangest case for the US. was the 1998 ladies' world team. (Someone correct me if I am remembering the details wrong.)

The order of finish at Nationals was Kwan, Lipinski, Bobek, Kwiatkowski, Nikodinov, Corwin. Tara did not go to worlds, still basking in Olympic glory. At the last minute Bobek withdrew, too, citing injury. So the team was Kwan, Kwiatkowski, and...

USFS tried to contact Nikodinov to tell she had made the world team. But Angela was vacationing with her family in Bulgaria and could not be reached. So they left the third slot vacant.

At worlds, Kwan won, with Kwiatkowski 6th.

Strange....never heard about that one.

 

[FlattFan]

Sylvia brings up an interesting point...what I call the X-Factor. What that means is, would the results have turned out differently if the stakes were X instead of Y? If the skate order was different?

The X-Factor may have played a role...or maybe not. For instance, if 2009 Worlds did NOT determine OLY spots for the US...would Czisny have bombed as hard? Conversely, would Rachel have done as well? We don't know, but it's an intangible factor and it does exist.

Nothing fazes Rachael!

 

[R.D.]

Nothing fazes Rachael!

Would expect nothing less from you.

 

[merrywidow]

I haven't read all the posts in this thread (just the 1st & last pages to be exact) but has their been any discussion about the US skaters that are not this years top contenders for the World team having to place in the top 4 at Regionals & then go on to place top 4 in Sectionals just to make it to our Nationals? How many French competitions, for instance, does a French woman have to medal in before she makes it to her National comp.?