Did the USFS Send the Right Mens Team to Worlds?

[Blades of Passion]

It's a very human reaction to want to change the rules in response to a recent disaster (not that losing 1 spot is that much of a disaster). For many upon many years, the US was the only federation that consistently scored 3 spots for men at Worlds. The system worked great all those times, I don't think it's wise to chuck it out one time it didn't.

The system has always been bad. Skaters should qualify for Worlds based upon their OWN international results (each country can decide who gets to go to Four Continents and Europeans, which would be important qualifiers) and entries should not be limited to a maximum of 3 per country to begin with.

 

[CARA]

Should the USFS look into changing the regulation that the best choice is not necessarily the fairest choice? If your answer is yes, what would be the best method for sending their best skater? Other Feds do not rely on one competition.

- Best choice vs. fairest choice -

This is a recurring argument right after the nationals and the worlds. I'll see if I can put my own two cents in.

I believe that this is the perennial question since it is rooted in the philosophical question of how one perceives human beings. This question not only encompasses the criteria on which one makes decisions but also political affiliations and one's life outlook.

One side believes that the human nature is basically good, so human can self-regulate oneself, and given a choice one can make right choices for oneself toward realizing one's uqique potentials (Christianity, Aristotle, Kierkegaard, etc).

The other side espouses that human nature is at best questionable, and majority of humans need to be managed by the ruling class who supposedly know better than the mass (Plato, St. Acquinas, Freud, President Obama etc).

I know that I am grossly oversimplifying more than 3000 years of western philosophical tradition, but you get the gist.

So when you poses question as "best choice vs. fairest choice," your question presupposes the existence of the ruling/expert class (in this case the American federation) that knows the "best ourtcome (which by definition occurs in the future)" more than the "masses (yea, those ignorant skaters who skate their heart out at nationals)."

In contrast, I prefer the term objective choice rather than the term fairest choice. Sending nationals' winners to the worlds is objective in that the criteria is clear and objective, and everyone who participates has the same opportunity. As I mentioned above, given a clear choice, humans/skaters are capable of making the best choices for his/her trainings/coaches, etc., to maximize his/her most desired outcome.

The objective choice maximizes equal opportunity whereas the 'best' choice attempt to maximize the desired outcome determined by "experts." Once again, experts supposedly knows the best outcome better than the masses.

Joesitz, I know that you are a big fan of the experts selection system espoused by the old USSR in constrast to the "democratic" American system. Here are the "objective facts." During the existence of the USSR (1922-1991), the democratic US system produced:

6 Olympic golds, 2 silvers, & 4 bronze, totalling 16 medals. In constrast, supposedly superior Soviet system produced 0 Olympic gold, 2 silvers, and 1 bronze medals, totallying 3 medals.

Now, here's the kicker. Ever since the fall of the authoritarian state (1992 - present), and under the "more or less democratic" Russia, she produced: 5 Olympic golds, 2 silvers and 0 bronze, totalling 7 medals. During the same period, perennially democratic USA produced the total of 3 medals (one color each). Guess all knowing experts are not so all knowing, but who am I to say.

I know which way I side, but I leave that decision and debate up to the others.

 

[janetfan]

- Best choice vs. fairest choice -

This is a recurring argument right after the nationals and the worlds. I'll see if I can put my own two cents in.

I believe that this is the perennial question since it is rooted in the philosophical question of how one perceives human beings. This question not only encompasses the criteria on which one makes decisions but also political affiliations and one's life outlook.

One side believes that the human nature is basically good, so human can self-regulate oneself, and given a choice one can make right choices for oneself toward realizing one's uqique potentials (Christianity, Aristotle, Kierkegaard, etc).

The other side espouses that human nature is at best questionable, and majority of humans need to be managed by the ruling class who supposedly know better than the mass (Plato, St. Acquinas, Freud, President Obama etc).

I know that I am grossly oversimplifying more than 3000 years of western philosophical tradition, but you get the gist.

So when you poses question as "best choice vs. fairest choice," your question presupposes the existence of the ruling/expert class (in this case the American federation) that knows the "best ourtcome (which by definition occurs in the future)" more than the "masses (yea, those ignorant skaters who skate their heart out at nationals)."

In contrast, I prefer the term objective choice rather than the term fairest choice. Sending nationals' winners to the worlds is objective in that the criteria is clear and objective, and everyone who participates has the same opportunity. As I mentioned above, given a clear choice, humans/skaters are capable of making the best choices for his/her trainings/coaches, etc., to maximize his/her most desired outcome.

The objective choice maximizes equal opportunity whereas the 'best' choice attempt to maximize the desired outcome determined by "experts." Once again, experts supposedly knows the best outcome better than the masses.

Joesitz, I know that you are a big fan of the experts selection system espoused by the old USSR in constrast to the "democratic" American system. Here are the "objective facts." During the existence of the USSR (1922-1991), the democratic US system produced:

6 Olympic golds, 2 silvers, & 4 bronze, totalling 16 medals. In constrast, supposedly superior Soviet system produced 0 Olympic gold, 2 silvers, and 1 bronze medals, totallying 3 medals.

Now, here's the kicker. Ever since the fall of the authoritarian state (1992 - present), and under the "more or less democratic" Russia, she produced: 5 Olympic golds, 2 silvers and 0 bronze, totalling 7 medals. During the same period, perennially democratic USA produced the total of 3 medals (one color each). Guess all knowing experts are not so all knowing, but who am I to say.

I know which way I side, but I leave that decision and debate up to the others.

Interesting answer and analysis.

Can't wait to hear some try to talk their way past your logic.

With so many uncertainties in skating I think I still like Natls being "for all the marbles" (except for Mirai ).

 

[wallylutz]

It's a very human reaction to want to change the rules in response to a recent disaster (not that losing 1 spot is that much of a disaster). For many upon many years, the US was the only federation that consistently scored 3 spots for men at Worlds. The system worked great all those times, I don't think it's wise to chuck it out one time it didn't.

Since 1990, Russia won the Men's World title 7 times and a total of 13 medals, Canada won Gold 8 times - 15 medals in total, USA won Gold twice, 15 medals. The longest drought of medal for Team USA in the Men's discipline since then is 3 years: 1992, 1993 and 1994. Since 2009, the U.S. has been struck out two years in the row at Worlds and the prospect looks poor with no one in sight to step up. If this trend holds up, the longest drought for the last few decades or so may have to be rewritten.

I think it's very human in trying to resist change and prefer status quo. Ultimately however, adaptation to change is a necessity as humans are superior to other animals because we adapt, evolutionaly and socialy as well. Looking around, almost no one else uses a system where National Championship is the de facto sole criterion to select World Team.

The model used by the USFS may as well be outdated since it hasn't been changed in a very long time. When they were adopted, there were far fewer competitions in a given year, hence it made sense to have the Nationals being the major prestigious qualifying event. However, since the existence of Grand Prix Series and its predecessor, the Champion Series - a lot of things have changed. Just as the Russians had to adapt to the collapse of USSR, the American model continued to work well in the late 1990's but it's clear that signs of distress have begun to be felt and one needs not to look any further than the situation with U.S. ladies to see what the issues are.

Mathman's opinion re: the "American Way" is frankly an outdated concept since he is from another era. It simply doesn't work in today's reality and cannot expect to be a functional model going forward. After all, 30 years ago, there was no competition from a lot of other countries such as Japan. Asians winning World Championship may as well be considered as likely as Martians visiting Earth, especially in disciplines like Men's back then. Things have changed however. Takahashi is the first Japanese and as well as the first man from outside of Europe and North America to win the World Championship last year. Figure Skating has become a lot more international with far more representations from other countries besides the traditional Western powers and the Eastern Bloc.

With all these changes, is it really reasonable to expect the old way will still work? Russia is learning its lessons from resisting changes and it paid a dear price for it. It's only logical for the United States to plan its next steps seriously and openly.

 

[CARA]

Interesting answer and analysis.

Can't wait to hear some try to talk their way past your logic.

With so many uncertainties in skating I think I still like Natls being "for all the marbles" (except for Mirai ).

Thanks, and I totally agree with Mirai. My head says the US selection system, but, alas, my heart says Mirai!

 

[Mathman]

- Best choice vs. fairest choice -

This is a recurring argument right after the nationals and the worlds. I'll see if I can put my own two cents in....

This dichotomy has its parallel in the narrow world of figure skating, too. Some national federations – most prominently Canada and Russia – have strong central leadership dominated by individuals who are both personally ambitious (to achieve power in the ISU) and unabashedly nationalistic.

Others, like the USFSA are democratic (aka, chaotic ).The true power lies with the hundreds of local club representatives who volunteer to serve on national committees. The top leadership of the USFSA is constantly moaning about the fact that they can’t get anything done because everybody has a different opinion. Both a recent USFSA president and a USFSA general director resigned not too long ago because they tried to lead but the unruly mob had no interest in following.

So, yeah, appointing a world team selection Czar to hand pick the “best team” – that is never going to fly.

 

[prettykeys]

One side believes that the human nature is basically good, so human can self-regulate oneself, and given a choice one can make right choices for oneself toward realizing one's uqique potentials (Christianity, Aristotle, Kierkegaard, etc).

The other side espouses that human nature is at best questionable, and majority of humans need to be managed by the ruling class who supposedly know better than the mass (Plato, St. Acquinas, Freud, President Obama etc).

I laugh at the fact that you put Christianity as espousing the belief that "human nature is basically good", when one VITAL PART of its core includes the concept of Original Sin such that Jesus had to rescue us all from our innate badness. But go ahead and put Obama on "the wrong side."

 

[wallylutz]

This dichotomy has its parallel in the narrow world of figure skating, too. Some national federations – most prominently Canada and Russia – have strong central leadership dominated by individuals who are both personally ambitious (to achieve power in the ISU) and unabashedly nationalistic.

Others, like the USFSA are democratic (aka, chaotic ).The true power lies with the hundreds of local club representatives who volunteer to serve on national committees. The top leadership of the USFSA is constantly moaning about the fact that they can’t get anything done because everybody has a different opinion. Both a recent USFSA president and a USFSA general director resigned not too long ago because they tried to lead but the unruly mob had no interest in following.

So, yeah, appointing a world team selection Czar to hand pick the “best team” – that is never going to fly.

Which is really ironic when you think about it. In reality, the United States has one of the most centralized political federation of any country in the World. Americans see themselves as Americans first, not their regional identity. American unity and sense of oneness is what the U.S. a strong and powerful nation.

 

[CARA]

The model used by the USFS may as well be outdated since it hasn't been changed in a very long time. When they were adopted, there were far fewer competitions in a given year, hence it made sense to have the Nationals being the major prestigious qualifying event. However, since the existence of Grand Prix Series and its predecessor, the Champion Series - a lot of things have changed. Just as the Russians had to adapt to the collapse of USSR, the American model continued to work well in the late 1990's but it's clear that signs of distress have begun to be felt and one needs not to look any further than the situation with U.S. ladies to see what the issues are.

Mathman's opinion re: the "American Way" is frankly an outdated concept since he is from another era. It simply doesn't work in today's reality and cannot expect to be a functional model going forward. After all, 30 years ago, there was no competition from a lot of other countries such as Japan. Asians winning World Championship may as well be considered as likely as Martians visiting Earth, especially in disciplines like Men's back then. Things have changed however. Takahashi is the first Japanese and as well as the first man from outside of Europe and North America to win the World Championship last year. Figure Skating has become a lot more international with far more representations from other countries besides the traditional Western powers and the Eastern Bloc.

With all these changes, is it really reasonable to expect the old way will still work? Russia is learning its lessons from resisting changes and it paid a dear price for it. It's only logical for the United States to plan its next steps seriously and openly.

If I follow your logic, under the US system, there is no chance that the American ice dance should be flourishing. In reality, it is thriving.

Problem of expert selection as I previously stated, is that you have to know the best outcome of the future, which by definition is unknowable. It ultimately means that experts are playing gods (I'm sure most experts do not consider themselves that way.)

Even though experts know a whole lot more than lay persons, trying to predict human endeavor is impossible. You may be able to increase the probability of the desired outcome, but still there are too many variables.

For example, who would have thought that the 2011 World was postponed for 5 weeks and went to other country due to terrible Tsunami and earthquake in Japan? We can't even begin to conceive just what the effects of this tragic incident to not only Japanese skaters but to all the participants. How would it affect the outcome? or would it?

This is what I mean by experts playing gods.

I know I am pushing my logic very far, but it is the logical conclusion nonetheless.

 

[wallylutz]

If I follow your logic, under the US system, there is no chance that the American ice dance should be flourishing. In reality, it is thriving.

Problem of expert selection as I previously stated, is that you have to know the best outcome of the future, which by definition is unknowable. It ultimately means that experts are playing gods (I'm sure most experts do not consider themselves that way.)

Even though experts know a whole lot more than lay persons, trying to predict human endeavor is impossible. You may be able to increase the probability of the desired outcome, but still there are too many variables.

For example, who would have thought that the 2011 World was postponed for 5 weeks and went to other country due to terrible Tsunami and earthquake in Japan? We can't even begin to conceive just what the effects of this tragic incident to not only Japanese skaters but to all the participants. How would it affect the outcome? or would it?

This is what I mean by experts playing gods.

I know I am pushing my logic very far, but it is the logical conclusion nonetheless.

Your misunderstood my points. Laying out the selection criteria clearly but use a combination of various assessments and opportunities to decide the outcome as opposed to rely on a single event is what for instance Japan does and they do it very well. That way, everyone knows what to do and everyone has an equal chance but Nationals is not the only consideration. This seems both fair and sensible to me.

 

[CARA]

I laugh at the fact that you put Christianity as espousing the belief that "human nature is basically good", when one VITAL PART of its core includes the concept of Original Sin such that Jesus had to rescue us all from our innate badness. But go ahead and put Obama on "the wrong side."

Sigh - I know that I was inviting poralizing comments when I brought religion and politics to the mix. Suffice to say the answer to your question regarding the relationship between Christianity and the human nature is a very complex one, so any extented discussion has to be done somewhere else except to say that for the concept of Origianal sin to exist, one has to be able to recognize that which is good, and one is capable of turing to the good.

Also, I never said anything about President Obama on "the wrong side." Not my words, it's yours.

 

[prettykeys]

Sigh - I know that I was inviting poralizing comments when I brought religion and politics to the mix. Suffice to say the answer to your question regarding the relationship between Christianity and the human nature is a very complex one, so any extented discussion has to be done somewhere else except to say that for the concept of Origianal sin to exist, one has to be able to recognize that which is good, and one is capable of turing to the good.

Also, I never said anything about President Obama on "the wrong side." Not my words, it's yours.

I never said Obama was on the wrong side, and that's why I put it in quotes. It was what your post implied by what it was arguing for. Also, your analogy of "turning to the good" being the basis for original sin in Christianity is like talking about the freedom in societies who elect/choose to stand behind fascist/authoritarian regimes.

Yes, please keep religion and politics out of figure skating threads.

 

[CARA]

Your misunderstood my points. Laying out the selection criteria clearly but use a combination of various assessments and opportunities to decide the outcome as opposed to rely on a single event is what for instance Japan does and they do it very well. That way, everyone knows what to do and everyone has an equal chance but Nationals is not the only consideration. This seems both fair and sensible to me.

I see what you mean. As long as "a combination of various assessments and opportunities" are clearly spelled out, your propositions sound fairer. I am still not certain what those assesssments are and how objective they are though.

 

[Mathman]

Here is my favorite quote from a famous Christian theologian:

"The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of hell." -- St. Augustine.

And St. Augustine didn't even know about the CoP!

 

[prettykeys]

I always knew you were evil, Mathman. I mean Devilman.

 

[Violet Bliss]

Now you scare me, Mathman.

 

[evangeline]

Joesitz, I know that you are a big fan of the experts selection system espoused by the old USSR in constrast to the "democratic" American system. Here are the "objective facts." During the existence of the USSR (1922-1991), the democratic US system produced:

6 Olympic golds, 2 silvers, & 4 bronze, totalling 16 medals. In constrast, supposedly superior Soviet system produced 0 Olympic gold, 2 silvers, and 1 bronze medals, totallying 3 medals.

Now, here's the kicker. Ever since the fall of the authoritarian state (1992 - present), and under the "more or less democratic" Russia, she produced: 5 Olympic golds, 2 silvers and 0 bronze, totalling 7 medals. During the same period, perennially democratic USA produced the total of 3 medals (one color each). Guess all knowing experts are not so all knowing, but who am I to say.

I know which way I side, but I leave that decision and debate up to the others.

This is a ridiculous comparison when historical context is taken into account. THe Soviet Union was an international pariah for years after its formation in 1922 and didn't even participate in the Olympics until 1952. Whereas the United States has sent a team to every modern Olympics (except for 1980) and won a large chunk of the medals in the list you produced during the much less competitive era of the early 20th century. Not to mention that Russian skaters who won in the post-Soviet era (Urmanov, Kulik, even Yagudin and Plushenko to an extent) were clearly products of the old Soviet sports system. That being said, this is far from an endorsement of the Soviet sports system--cases like Elena Mukhina illustrate how terrible the relentless pursuit for sports glory can be.

(Also, the modern Russian Federation is a democracy as much as the Soviet Union was a democracy)

 

[CARA]

This is a ridiculous comparison when historical context is taken into account. THe Soviet Union was an international pariah for years after its formation in 1922 and didn't even participate in the Olympics until 1952. Whereas the United States has sent a team to every modern Olympics (except for 1980) and won a large chunk of the medals in the list you produced during the much less competitive era of the early 20th century. Not to mention that Russian skaters who won in the post-Soviet era (Urmanov, Kulik, even Yagudin and Plushenko to an extent) were clearly products of the old Soviet sports system. That being said, this is far from an endorsement of the Soviet sports system--cases like Elena Mukhina illustrate how terrible the relentless pursuit for sports glory can be.

(Also, the modern Russian Federation is a democracy as much as the Soviet Union was a democracy)

I agree that the better comparison might have been after the 1952 Olympics. I also agree that Yagudin & Plushenko et.al, are recipients of the pre-Sovient era to a certain extent. However, we never know whether they would have produced the same glorious results under the Soviet regime as they did under Russia.

Regarding the modern Russian federation, I share your concern re: how authoritarian they had been and they are now.

 

[CARA]

...So, yeah, appointing a world team selection Czar to hand pick the “best team” – that is never going to fly.

 

[ImaginaryPogue]

At the time, I felt not. I thought sending Miner and Dornbush over Abbott was a mistake. A difference of 0.19 as well as a junior-eligible (and still skating as junior internationally) competitor over the best ranked American internationally and the guy with the most potential. It didn't make sense to me, and the consequences are immediate (loss of JGP slots, for example, though that might not be the case with the proposed rule changes). Now, honestly, I don't know.

The reason I think using a sole competition to determine who gets to go to Worlds is that Worlds isn't just a competition. It affects how many slots you get at the future worlds/Olympics. It determines seeded entrants into the GPs. Mathman has related it to Wimbledon (you get sick after the first round, you don't get a bye to the second/third. You lose). But one doesn't play Wimbledon to get to the French Open. One plays Wimbledon to win Wimbledon. No one's arguing otherwise. You don't skate at Nationals, you don't win Nationals.

But I'd point out that arguing Nationals exists as some kind of objective standard is actually wrong as well. How many people complained about the scoring at this season's nationals and how the scoring affected the ranking? The idea that some people got breaks that others didn't get certainly percolates. I truly believe that Bradley is exactly the type of American champion the US Federation would want: cute, masculine, entertaining, with some big tricks. Therefore I do wonder if that would play in some minds (for example, his quads not being UR'ed, his PCS being much higher for his flawed LP than his clean SP).

Additionally, I disagree that Nationals would be devalued without being the sole determinant. Countries where Nationals aren't significant (in relation to figure skating) tend not to have actual... competition. I mean, there are countries where there aren't two rounds of skating to determine who makes it to the actual event. I'm pretty confident that if I took a glance at the prediction threads, I'd find quite a few men and women making the podium, and I'm entirely confident no one predicted Miner. More than that: the USA is a country where the title "National Champion" means something. There's pride in that title that's not connected to going to Worlds, or seeding on the GP or whatever. That title means that the best in your country got together, had it out, and you emerged victorious. Patrick Chan dreams of being a National Champion the same way Michelle Kwan was. Some of the greatest skates of the decade are performances at Nationals (Chan, Abbott, V/T, etc). Does anyone feel that if Worlds was cancelled this year, Czisny's title would mean less?

I find Hernando's comment interesting: Canada essentially went with their top three skaters for the team. And we lost our third spot. The question remains: was any team from Canada capable of maintaining three spots on their own? Doubtful. Sawyer would need an even stronger skate than he had at Nationals, and he's not had two clean programs this season. Balde wasn't actually eligible to compete as he hadn't had a SB/qualifying score. Firius is age eligible, but he's only done junior programs internationally (I believe he just scraped into the LP at World juniors by the skin of his teeth). But on the other hand, if Canada followed the USA, we wouldn't have a World Junior Champion this season, as Firius and Morais beat him at Nationals (Nguyen won juniors, but was too young. Firius, Morais and Rogozine all competed seniors Nationally). Rogozine made the junior team on the strength of his JGP season, which was two gold medals and a JGPF bronze, far stronger than the international records of any of his compatriots.

In the end, I think any secret committee/set of objective rules/Nationals would actually come out with the same group nine times out of ten. That's simply because the best skaters are able to demonstrate that within a range such that making a decision isn't really necessary.

But I'm also agreeing with those who feel that federations should have only partial control with those who are sent to worlds. Try to get that one passed.