Patrick Chan in a Jumping Competition

[janetfan]

Granting the advantage to Weir in terms of execution, in what ways did you think he was more creative?

His "program" drew me in and by the time he finished I felt Ihad seem something special. In case you forgot, that is why people USED TO WATCH skating on TV

Again, I am NOT a big Johnny fan.

Now let's consider Patrick. Too many MAJOR mistakes and like Lambiel he had the unmistakeable "deer in the headlights" look about him.

Lambiel is one of my favorite skaters but to be generous he looked tight in Vancouver. I could not enjoy his skating because it was obvious he wasn't enjoying it either.

Johnny dared to ignore what some of you consider to be the unassailable and bibilical "laws" of the CoP.

If you actually stop and THINK about it gkelly, that alone made his skating somewhat creative.

TR and MIF can be nice but let's be honest here. We see too much of this that does nothing to enhance the music or add creative/artistic touches to a program.

Johnny created a mood and had the crowd roaring and although Chan was on home ice and Lambiel is a born crowd pleaser what we saw in Vancouvver from the two of them was NOT attractive skating IMO.

Johnny did not add in MEANINGLESS gestures that had nothing to do with the music and skated IMO more from his heart.

That is a big No-NO in the CoP as gestures and moves that have nothing to with the music score points in the CoP.

In 6.0 such mechanical and lacklustre presentation tended to be penalized/ignored rather than rewarded.

 

[Violet Bliss]

^^^^Does Hernando sound like a female fan to you, Joe?

 

[janetfan]

^^^^Does Hernando sound like a female fan to you, Joe?

Perhaps that is Janet's affect on me as having seen her skate Live twice I am still waiting for her equal. Amongst the Ladies Kwan and Chen-Lu came the closest and Yagudin and Lambiel for the Men.

Patrick is still far away from what I consider to be a true artistic skater.
Hoping he turns away from the nauseatingly commercial Lloyd-Webber and tries to show some real artistry this season.

I did like his SP to "Take Five" but even a skater like Rachael Flatt can occassionally pull off a jazzy number.

Can Chan take it up a notch or will he continue skating to such hacky music :think:

 

[gkelly]

So you're really talking about your emotional response to the program and your perceptions of the crowd's response. No examples of actual creativity.

To me, creativity is related to the "originality" criterion of the Choreography component or the old Presentation score. I think of creativity as involving using new ways of moving on the ice, new moves and new ways to combine moves, new ways of relating the movement to the music, original choices of music or program theme, etc. In general, I think transitions and field moves are a good area in which to demonstrate creativity, and so are variations on the standard elements including the use of steps within the step sequence. Unique details in expressing the music can show creativity. Unexpected placement of elements in time or space is another place for creativity.

Costuming can be creative and support the choreography concept, but it's kind of extrinsic to the actual skating.

Creating a mood, skating from the heart, being "on" and skating confidently and without mistakes are all areas that should be rewarded in the Performance/Execution and Interpretation components (and GOEs), but I don't think they have anything to do with creativity per se. It's possible to skate an extremely creative program with multiple errors and an extremely traditional program cleanly and with heart.

Also, I think that if a skater puts together the program on his or her own that shows creativity, whereas following choreography put together by a coach or choreographer would show creativity on the coach's or choreographer's part, not so much the skater's. But as viewers we don't always know who was responsible for each decision in creating the program, so it probably usually makes more sense to talk about the creativity of the skater's team than the creativity of the skater as an individual.

If you do more or less agree with my definitions, maybe you can offer some specific examples of where Weir stood out in the areas of creativity and ignore the other areas that I'm not asking about.

The actual perceptions of a lot of these things are subjective, though. Each member of the audience brings different prior knowledge and associations and different preferences to watching the performances. So I might find one performance emotionally moving that leaves you cold and vice versa. I can only speak for my own reactions, not for the audience as a whole. I might recognize some areas that I consider creative within a program that you've seen too many times and are bored with or that you don't actually notice at all, or vice versa.

Do we want to look at these programs more closely specifically to point out areas where we perceive creativity that others may have missed? Or just agree that we don't all see or feel the same things when watching programs, and agree to disagree?

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

I can't give credit to most skaters as having more than adequate presentations. I've never seen Cranston, Curry LIVE and seeing them on youtube, or TV is not the same. They appear to be skating in a procenium setting which they are not, so I tend to concentrate on the Sport more than the Presentation. That means skaters who follow the rules and variations of Music must skate into an element, execute an element by definition follow thorugh musically as they complete the element.

Having reached the top tier in competitive skating (Seniors) the skaters should be flawless. Not easy, and can one who has repeat it at another competition?

 

[janetfan]

Do we want to look at these programs more closely specifically to point out areas where we perceive creativity that others may have missed? Or just agree that we don't all see or feel the same things when watching programs, and agree to disagree?

Geez, a very good reply.

I left in your last sentence because it summed up your thoughts very well and addresses my reply ....

I have seen Johnny's Olympic LP exactly one time. I don't have alot of interest to watch it again and even LESS interest to watch it again with the the purpose counting points.

I don't mind that you seem sort of eager to downplay a Live crowds response but I think that is a big flaw in the CoP.
If Live audiences, not to mention TV viewers continue to disagree with the CoP perhaps in the future we will see you skating at Natls since most of the other skaters will have quit out of frustration or lack of interest.

If no one cares then skating will die. Believe it or not I think it was a healthy sign for skating when so many Americans disagreed with the Ladies result at 2010 Natls. Meaning atleast somebody still cares.

Somebody n this case could include Scott, Sandra, and as we heard in Vancouver, Button who considered Mirai the BEST American lady skater.

I am aware of the difference between high art and art for the masses. My hope is that skating will be somewhere in the middle.

To ever consider it as a mechanical test as the CoP does takes it philospohically back to the school figures. Except older fans know today's skaters don't know figures and don't skate with the same blade skill we saw from skater's of the past.

A certain skater can hit levels but in doing so looks unattractive.
6.0 said sorry , you are an unattractive skater. CoP can't seem to differeniate but a degree of fans can.

So most have walked away. Nobody cares if a certain skater is hitting slow, bad looking spins if the skater doing beautful fast spins is judged the same way.

It's quite elementary meaning show a bad product and no one will watch.
The CoP does not seem to sense the difference between good skating and bad skating. Thus we argue that Patrick outskated Johnny in Vancouver.

To me that is complete rubbish.

 

[gkelly]

I think that Dick Button, skaters who envision themselves artists, TV producers, and lots of fans would like figure skating to be an art form that happens to demand a high degree of athleticism and technical skill. I.e., an athletic artform.

I think the ISU and the IOC want figure skating to be a highly technical sport that demands great athleticism and that tends to be aesthetically pleasing when performed with good technique, i.e., an artistic sport. It allows for, rewards, but does not demand a component of artistic purpose and audience connection that transcends technique and athleticism.

The first group would believe that the "best" performance is one that produces the most satisfying aesthetic response in the audience. That may or may not be the most difficult or the most technically sound performance. Good execution has its own aesthetic value, but difficulty is not valued for its own sake, and fine details of execution that mar the impression for skating purists are often invisible to casual viewers.

The second group would believe that the "best" performance is one that displays difficult skills performed with good technique and athleticism to make those skills look good, and if possible to go beyond technical excellence to include artistry as well. But the technique is primary.

As long as competitive figure skating is an Olympic sport evaluated under rubrics of higher faster stronger, the second group will define the sport. It can add "more beautiful" (or "more musical" or "more heartfelt" or "more creative" etc.) as other important criterion that matter and are actually scored in this sport, as opposed to other sports. But because those qualities are more subjective than whether or not the athlete rotated 3 or 4 times in the air and landed on one foot, or achieved a defined spin position, or performed the required number of different steps and turns in a step sequence, those subjective qualities will never be the primary determining factor in determining the winner of the athletic contest that is competitive figure skating. There's a lot of pressure from the IOC for the ISU to keep the sport as objective as possible.

Under 6.0 there was no set formula for how to weight the difficulty and variety of technical content, the technical quality of execution, and the artistic qualities of each performance. Each judge had to decide for him or herself what to value most highly, as well as deciding how much better or worse each skater was in each area.

Under IJS there are formulas, but there is still room for disagreement among judges (and fans and other observers) about how well each skater did in each area, especially the Performance/Execution, Choreography, and Interpretation components.

And there's never any way to predict whether the skater with the hardest elements and adequate artistry will make few mistakes when a skater with great artistry and easier program skates their best, how the personality and charisma of the skater shines through or not, and which skaters' personalities the majority of the public or the judges relate to best, or any other combination of content, execution, strengths, and weaknesses. Under any judging system, sometimes technical content wins out, other times aesthetics win out. And someone is always going to believe their favorite got robbed, if not in the gold-vs.-silver contest, then somewhere in the rest of the field.

There would probably be an audience who would much prefer to watch performances that are judged only on Performance/Execution, Choreography, and Interpretation, perhaps with minimum requirements for technical content, but with additional difficulty beyond that minimum valued less than the aesthetic impact, if at all. That kind of contest could showcase skaters for whom technical content and technical mastery are just tools to serve artistic purposes. Under that format, if there were incentives to attract the most artistic skaters with the best basic technique, we could see artistic masterpieces that don't necessarily fit the higher-faster-stronger rubric. I'm not sure why skating as artform needs to be organized in a competition format in the first place -- most artforms are not -- but if that would inspire skaters to strive for greater excellence, why not?

But the IOC would never accept that kind of contest in the Olympics. So maybe the ISU should develop its own non-Olympic-track (or post-Olympic-track) competition circuit to reward skaters primarily for artistic strengths and to attract fans whose interest in skating is primarily aesthetic. Or they should allow some other organization to develop such a circuit and allow skaters who want to compete in both formats to go back and forth between those events and their own (i.e., pro skating as it existed 10-15-20 years ago with no loss of Olympic-track eligibility).

Let's just say that I believe that for the purposes of skating as competitive sport, privileging crowd response over technique would be a huge flaw. (E.g., if Oksana Baiul is more artistic and charismatic, but Nancy Kerrigan outskates her technically by a large enough margin, I think Kerrigan should win, even if I'm bored by the performance.)

If I go to watch skating as an artistic performance, I want to see artistic skaters, don't much care how difficult the technical content is, and am willing to forgive subtle technical weaknesses that have negligible effect on the overall aesthetic impact.

 

[janetfan]

I think that Dick Button, skaters who envision themselves artists, TV producers, and lots of fans would like figure skating to be an art form that happens to demand a high degree of athleticism and technical skill. I.e., an athletic artform.

I think the ISU and the IOC want figure skating to be a highly technical sport that demands great athleticism and that tends to be aesthetically pleasing when performed with good technique, i.e., an artistic sport. It allows for, rewards, but does not demand a component of artistic purpose and audience connection that transcends technique and athleticism.

The first group would believe that the "best" performance is one that produces the most satisfying aesthetic response in the audience. That may or may not be the most difficult or the most technically sound performance. Good execution has its own aesthetic value, but difficulty is not valued for its own sake, and fine details of execution that mar the impression for skating purists are often invisible to casual viewers.

The second group would believe that the "best" performance is one that displays difficult skills performed with good technique and athleticism to make those skills look good, and if possible to go beyond technical excellence to include artistry as well. But the technique is primary.

As long as competitive figure skating is an Olympic sport evaluated under rubrics of higher faster stronger, the second group will define the sport. It can add "more beautiful" (or "more musical" or "more heartfelt" or "more creative" etc.) as other important criterion that matter and are actually scored in this sport, as opposed to other sports. But because those qualities are more subjective than whether or not the athlete rotated 3 or 4 times in the air and landed on one foot, or achieved a defined spin position, or performed the required number of different steps and turns in a step sequence, those subjective qualities will never be the primary determining factor in determining the winner of the athletic contest that is competitive figure skating. There's a lot of pressure from the IOC for the ISU to keep the sport as objective as possible.

Under 6.0 there was no set formula for how to weight the difficulty and variety of technical content, the technical quality of execution, and the artistic qualities of each performance. Each judge had to decide for him or herself what to value most highly, as well as deciding how much better or worse each skater was in each area.

Under IJS there are formulas, but there is still room for disagreement among judges (and fans and other observers) about how well each skater did in each area, especially the Performance/Execution, Choreography, and Interpretation components.

And there's never any way to predict whether the skater with the hardest elements and adequate artistry will make few mistakes when a skater with great artistry and easier program skates their best, how the personality and charisma of the skater shines through or not, and which skaters' personalities the majority of the public or the judges relate to best, or any other combination of content, execution, strengths, and weaknesses. Under any judging system, sometimes technical content wins out, other times aesthetics win out. And someone is always going to believe their favorite got robbed, if not in the gold-vs.-silver contest, then somewhere in the rest of the field.

There would probably be an audience who would much prefer to watch performances that are judged only on Performance/Execution, Choreography, and Interpretation, perhaps with minimum requirements for technical content, but with additional difficulty beyond that minimum valued less than the aesthetic impact, if at all. That kind of contest could showcase skaters for whom technical content and technical mastery are just tools to serve artistic purposes. Under that format, if there were incentives to attract the most artistic skaters with the best basic technique, we could see artistic masterpieces that don't necessarily fit the higher-faster-stronger rubric. I'm not sure why skating as artform needs to be organized in a competition format in the first place -- most artforms are not -- but if that would inspire skaters to strive for greater excellence, why not?

But the IOC would never accept that kind of contest in the Olympics. So maybe the ISU should develop its own non-Olympic-track (or post-Olympic-track) competition circuit to reward skaters primarily for artistic strengths and to attract fans whose interest in skating is primarily aesthetic. Or they should allow some other organization to develop such a circuit and allow skaters who want to compete in both formats to go back and forth between those events and their own (i.e., pro skating as it existed 10-15-20 years ago with no loss of Olympic-track eligibility).

Let's just say that I believe that for the purposes of skating as competitive sport, privileging crowd response over technique would be a huge flaw. (E.g., if Oksana Baiul is more artistic and charismatic, but Nancy Kerrigan outskates her technically by a large enough margin, I think Kerrigan should win, even if I'm bored by the performance.)

If I go to watch skating as an artistic performance, I want to see artistic skaters, don't much care how difficult the technical content is, and am willing to forgive subtle technical weaknesses that have negligible effect on the overall aesthetic impact.

If what you wrote is true it is hard (close to impossible) to believe IOC would have ever let ISU get rid of the school figures.

Your argument, although compelling seems to be wrong by miles. What you said IOC would never let happen is exactly what began to happen in the Janet Lynn, Cranston/Curry era.

The more measurable part of the sport was reduced and later eliminated so the ae$thetic$ of free$kating could make figure skating more popular = earn more money.

What you claim IOC would never let happen is EXACTLY what happened during skating's BOOM years.

I think if skating continues to sink in popularity views like yours will be kicked out the window and a product/sport the public believes in will return.

Either way it's about money gkelly and not your views - which seem passionate about making skating the same as other sports.

That will never happen as long as skating relies so heavily on music.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Creativity is just what it means. To create something out of nothing. Axel Paulson created the defined Axel. How it is executed is a performance. Composers create; Artists perform. Choreographers create;Skaters perform. Tweaking a program is just to make it more comfortable.

 

[janetfan]

Creativity is just what it means. To create something out of nothing. Axel Paulson created the defined Axel. How it is executed is a performance. Composers create; Artists perform. Choreographers create;Skaters perform. Tweaking a program is just to make it more comfortable.

In your opinion who should have ben declared the World Champion last spring - Patrick or Lori?

Or who deserves the most credit, Lori or Patrick?

I am not sure how comfortable I am with choreography being as important as the skater's performance.

In Vancouver if Lori had done Plushy's programs and "Rasputin" had done Evan's choreo would the results have been different?

Was the OGM won by the best and most influential choreographer or the best skater?

Does that in any way make CoP skating more of a"real sport"?

It certainly keeps the level of politics as high if not higher than ever, no?

 

[Violet Bliss]

:agree: and +3 GOE to gkelly's excellent knowledge+articulation combo, as per usual.

I think the US is the only place where 6.0 vs COP rages on, likely due to 1) there being more American fans from the earlier era, and 2) the decline of figure skating's popularity coinciding with the changing of the judging system, which then gets blamed as the cause of such cyclical phenomenon. Another discontent is due to fewer and fewer conventional free network broadcasts, with the prolifiration of niche and online media. That too is conveniently blamed on the "new" judging system. No such continual debates in Japan, Korea, China, and Canada, where figure skating is popular or increasingly so and their skaters are doing well in competitions.

The evolution of the judging system is in line with all judged sports, e.g. gymnastics, diving, and trampoline. They are all scored now, with degrees of difficulty taken into account, and placements fall into line according to the scores. Judging by ordinals according to judges' unaccounted preferences just wouldn't do. A point system can and will always be tweaked to adjust to current situations and desired directions for the sport as it evolves. Nostalgia is idealization of the past but past is past.

 

[janetfan]

:agree: and +3 GOE to gkelly's excellent knowledge+articulation combo, as per usual.

I think the US is the only place where 6.0 vs COP rages on, likely due to 1) there being more American fans from the earlier era, and 2) the decline of figure skating's popularity coinciding with the changing of the judging system, which then gets blamed as the cause of such cyclical phenomenon. Another discontent is due to fewer and fewer conventional free network broadcasts, with the prolifiration of niche and online media. That too is conveniently blamed on the "new" judging system. No such continual debates in Japan, Korea, China, and Canada, where figure skating is popular or increasingly so and their skaters are doing well in competitions.

The evolution of the judging system is in line with all judged sports, e.g. gymnastics, diving, and trampoline. They are all scored now, with degrees of difficulty taken into account, and placements fall into line according to the scores. Judging by ordinals according to judges' unaccounted preferences just wouldn't do. A point system can and will always be tweaked to adjust to current situations and desired directions for the sport as it evolves. Nostalgia is idealization of the past but past is past.

Believe it or not I agree with your post and as an older American fan no doubt nostagia influences some of my views (whether I like it or not )


I don't think I have ever written anywhere that CoP needs to be abandoned and 6.0 brought back. I agree past is past and the future lies ahead of us.

But that said, I don't think the IJS has it close to right and is not yet offering a system with values that can ever hope to bring the sport back to where it was in the past.

It is nice that a few smaller and new markets like the CoP but don't ever confuse that with what USA and the bulk of Euro fans offered the sport.


Trying to say this nicely but IOC and ISU can't hope to survive from Canadian TV money.
NBC's substancial winning bid for the next few Olympics will keeps IOC going for the next few years.

No doubt Speedy wants his share and wil lbe all over NBC for a substancial contract for figure skating. Forget how I feel and just accept it won't happen.

Until it does the GP will continue to shrink andthere will be no Worlds broadcast on Natl TV in USA.
Skating will go on with the diminishing interest from America and Europe but it sure would be better for all of us if ISU and the CoP produced a more attractive product.

To better days......

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

^^^

Not every Opera singer can sing Wagner's operas. Lori and Patrick made it together in a figure skating championship. He had the elements and she knew what to do with them, and he did. A good professional marriage of creativity and performance. I didn't need judges or the CoP.

The credit goes to Chan. However, the unsung choreographers are so overlooked in figure skating, I would like their names mentioned in the K&C.

 

[Violet Bliss]

Of couse the US is a major market that ISU wants to revive along with developing new rich markets. But the solution is to have highly competitive American skaters, stars who excite and intrigue the public and arouse national pride. That is viable and doable with will and real support from the USFSA, unlike trying to turn the tide of time, with new technologies, new media, new competitors, new skill levels and new scoring system.

Try raising the bridge instead of lowering the water.

 

[doubleflutz]

If what you wrote is true it is hard (close to impossible) to believe IOC would have ever let ISU get rid of the school figures.

Your argument, although compelling seems to be wrong by miles. What you said IOC would never let happen is exactly what began to happen in the Janet Lynn, Cranston/Curry era.

The more measurable part of the sport was reduced and later eliminated so the ae$thetic$ of free$kating could make figure skating more popular = earn more money.

What you claim IOC would never let happen is EXACTLY what happened during skating's BOOM years.

What you claim happened didn't actually happen. Yes, the TV ratings (and audience reaction) had a lot to do with why the short program was added and the figures were eventually removed. But, in Janet Lynn's era, the reason people were upset and confused by her failure to medal at Worlds was in part due to her superior technical abilities, which weren't being adequately rewarded under the extant system. She was one of the few women at that time with all the doubles, including double-double combinations like double axel-double axel and double axel-double loop, and her technical basic skating was very high as well; sort of like the Patrick Chan of her day. It wasn't just a matter of Janet (or other freeskaters) being prettier and more aesthetically pleasing than the technically superior figure specialists. Trixie Schuba was amazing, but she won her Olympic victory doing mostly singles. As for John Curry, he was beloved by a lot of fans for his aesthetics, but he still had to go to Carlo Fassi and work hard on his figures and his jumps in order to beat his competition. The figures-vs-free skating debate wasn't about technical skill vs aesthetics; it was about one kind of technical skill vs another. The argument could be made that figures and free skating are completely different sports, and the IOC simply sided with the one that is and was much more popular, including amongst its participants. It's only in English that "figure skating" refers to the freestyle part of the sport, after all.

 

[Mathman]

The evolution of the judging system is in line with all judged sports, e.g. gymnastics, diving, and trampoline.

True. And yet...I do not find myself dancing a gig at the thought that figure skating has become more like gymnastics, diving and trampoline.

t's only in English that "figure skating" refers to the freestyle part of the sport, after all.

Quite so. In other languages it is called "artistic skating."

 

[seniorita]

I wanted to ask , is Chan in Guiness book for his record world marks or something else?
Last year I had seen the record book files, there were many figure skaters on it, depending on their record marks, jumps , gold medals, longetivity etc and the most memorable was the longest backflip by Robin Cousins (18ft)
And a skater who had the record of fastest spin around 300rpm but i dont remember her name, i dont think she was elite.

OT, but tell Medusa we miss her. Medusa used to make a lot of really interesting posts (and long ones ). I know how busy she is, but still...

I do miss her too on GS, I tell her all the time but she studies a lot, and I miss Buttercup and Ant too..

Btw u were right, Medusa''s pet peeve phrase was the puberty monster

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

The purpose of the Free Skating was to demonstrate the use of school figures with Music. How that translates into languages is a moot point. To me, in English, it means watch me skate around the arena doing Threes, Brackets, Counters, Rockers, and loops in a program set to the rules of MUSIC. For competitive purposes, Tricks are added, but they too must be executed to the rules of MUSIC.
Music is the key element in Free Skating. Without it, there would be no program necessary.

The Tricks today are quantifiable. The 'artistic' side is NOT. The opinions generated by the musical program are personal, and I daresay, personal to the judges as well.

Art Critics are very conscious of Art History, and apply that knowledge to anything claiming to be today's Art.

Figure Skating 'critics' are either concerned with the Sport (a quad is a must today} or concerned with the 'Artistic' side (the ballet form is a must). I go with both, but a quad that is not in tune with the MUSIC is a NO QUAD. In fact everything should be with the music or what is the reason for the music?

 

[janetfan]

What you claim happened didn't actually happen. Yes, the TV ratings (and audience reaction) had a lot to do with why the short program was added and the figures were eventually removed. But, in Janet Lynn's era, the reason people were upset and confused by her failure to medal at Worlds was in part due to her superior technical abilities, which weren't being adequately rewarded under the extant system. She was one of the few women at that time with all the doubles, including double-double combinations like double axel-double axel and double axel-double loop, and her technical basic skating was very high as well; sort of like the Patrick Chan of her day. It wasn't just a matter of Janet (or other freeskaters) being prettier and more aesthetically pleasing than the technically superior figure specialists. Trixie Schuba was amazing, but she won her Olympic victory doing mostly singles. As for John Curry, he was beloved by a lot of fans for his aesthetics, but he still had to go to Carlo Fassi and work hard on his figures and his jumps in order to beat his competition. The figures-vs-free skating debate wasn't about technical skill vs aesthetics; it was about one kind of technical skill vs another. The argument could be made that figures and free skating are completely different sports, and the IOC simply sided with the one that is and was much more popular, including amongst its participants. It's only in English that "figure skating" refers to the freestyle part of the sport, after all.

It did happen and you described it fairly well.

My point was that freeskating is judged more subjectively than figures. It was said that IOC and ISU would never make a move towards a more subjectve system and that felt like a false statement. Not to say that figures could not be subjective and overly politicized.

That brings me back to the current system which feels as subjective as the former system.

Let's look at some of the results inthe brief history of the CoP. Have there been disputes over scoring and the podium?

Seems the disputes are worse under this system. The 2010 Olympics Men's results will be disputed as long as fans follow skating. The Dance podiums have been political although it seems improved (which isn't saying much).

The 2008 Worlds is still disputed and US Natls has had several hotly disputed results in the CoP era. Eyebrows are constantly raised at the podiums at GP events.

In the examples I cited it is the scoring system that is being disputed. Political issues have also been raised.

IOC could not have been happy about Plushenko and Mishin's behavior in Vancouver as they both implied the Men's event was fixed.
Eyebrows were raised over the bronze medal in Dance in Vancouver and fortunately the wonderful sportsmanship shown by B/A helped defuse what appeared to be a controversial bronze medal.

Sometimes close decisions and disputes are good for sports. In the case of Olympic that has not always been the case and is most definitely not the image IOC wants to present to the world because it hurts their fund raising.

The Ladies 2011 Worlds event was disputed and a very gracious Yuna kept it from getting worse.

I am not really sure if see how the new system has made skating more of a sport and less politically driven.
Yuna beat Miki by what - 40 points in Vancouver. Was Yuna's skating really so much worse in Moscow and was Miki really that much better :think:

Or was the political climate different and therefore skaters were judged differently?

New system or not, scoring in figure skating remains primarily subjective. Ordinals or not, it seems to me the judges are still deciding who they like better and not all of it has to do with what happens on the ice that night.

The anonymous judging says it all and for now the system remains cloaked in secrecy. What are they hiding?

 

[gkelly]

My point was that freeskating is judged more subjectively than figures. It was said that IOC and ISU would never make a move towards a more subjectve system and that felt like a false statement.

I stand by my statement that the IOC would not support a move toward a more subjective judging system if it's presented as such, i.e., an attempt to privilege fan appeal over technical evaluation.

I agree with SkateFiguring and doubleflutz about the reasons for reducing and eventually eliminating school figures. Don't forget there were also other scoring changes such as the introduciton of factored placements introduced to address some of the same problems but that did not change the judging per se.

I'm sure there will be further adjustments to the scoring system and eventually some change as significant as the elimination of figures or the switch from ordinals to absolute scores. But I do not expect changes designed to make the Olympic track sport more subjective.

That brings me back to the current system which feels as subjective as the former system.

Different fans, different feelings. But how does it feel to the skaters?

Seems the disputes are worse under this system. The 2010 Olympics Men's results will be disputed as long as fans follow skating.

Were you around for the Boitano-Orser or Urmanov-Stojko wars? I think those results, especially the latter, were much more controversial than Lysacek-Plushenko. Not to mention, e.g., Poetszch-Fratianne, Baiul-Kerrigan, Lipinski-Kwan, etc.

Lots more if you look at Worlds and bronze medals in addition to Olympic gold.

Time dulls the urgency of the controversy. And also there is more opportunity for debate in the internet age than in previous eras. But just the fact that there has been more discussion about recent decisions and more of it is fresh in our minds doesn't make it "worse" IMO.

The 2008 Worlds is still disputed and US Natls has had several hotly disputed results in the CoP era. Eyebrows are constantly raised at the podiums at GP events.

All of which happened under 6.0 as well. Doesn't look worse to me. At least now we can see how the results came about if we care to examine the protocols, instead of attempting to read the judges' minds.

In the examples I cited it is the scoring system that is being disputed.

So it's more a controversy between those who hate the new system vs. those who accept or even embrace it, rather than between supporters of particular skaters or kinds of skating?

I am not really sure if see how the new system has made skating more of a sport and less politically driven.
Yuna beat Miki by what - 40 points in Vancouver. Was Yuna's skating really so much worse in Moscow and was Miki really that much better :think:

Or was the political climate different and therefore skaters were judged differently?

I think the difference in political climate, though not nonexistent, was negligible compared to the differences in the skating.

New system or not, scoring in figure skating remains primarily subjective. Ordinals or not, it seems to me the judges are still deciding who they like better and not all of it has to do with what happens on the ice that night.

That's not how it seems to me. The skaters with the best PCS and best GOEs on successful elements (i.e., the skaters that the judges "like better") don't always win, and I think the judges are sometimes just as surprised at the results as everyone else.

The anonymous judging says it all and for now the system remains cloaked in secrecy. What are they hiding?

And who are they hiding from? The stated purpose of anonymity was to protect judges from pressure from their own federations or anyone else who would try to fix results. Does it work? I don't know.

As a fan, I'm much more interested in seeing the reasons for the judges' decisions than their nationalities. Given a choice between detailed protocols with scores for each element and component but no names, or a protocol with names and ordinals but no details, the former tells me a lot more about why the results came out as they did.

I recognize that not all fans feel the same way. But I think that new generations of fans who learn to understand skating through detailed protocols will eventually outnumber those who learned to look at results in terms of tech content vs. artistry seen through a rubric of nationalism because that was the only information available in the 6.0 protocols.

From a fan point of view, detailed protocols with individual judges identified would be the most informative.