- Joined
- Oct 22, 2005
I am working under the current reality in my questions to you: the reality is that all skaters are currently judged under IJS (except for low level competitions). IJS rewards calculated risks. Skaters will take calculated risks so that they can WIN a competition and be applauded and gain fame (and possibly a sponsor/money/tour/etc). If it's too risky to include it, you can bet they won't. When IJS starts rewarding innovation with appropriate points, then you will see skaters try and develop something really cool and new. In the same way baseball went through the steroid phase because home runs were rewared with the most attention and $$$$, skaters will do exactly what they see they will need to in order to score the most points and win. Why try something you know is going to kill the next three elements and cost you a potential podium spot when you can do what you know will gain you enough points to finish in the top 3? Look at the history of figure skating - there are very few people who break new ground over time, it's a very conservative sport with regard to anything "new".
In my opinion, they chased what was rewarded and tried to find the "easiest" way to get that reward. That is what figure skaters do (minus the steroids/EPO, hopefully, although that would make for a great "villain" in skating 
) - chase what is rewarded whether that's a 3+3/3A in ladies or a couple quad jumps in the men's division. When something really cool gets really rewarded, skaters will all start doing it to varying degrees of success, although I highly suspect that no one else will try the "Stewicide".
