Thank you so much, os168! Appreciate it! Very thoughtful post!
I have some general ideas. General because I'm not truly familier with Ladies' skating since after watching men's skating, ladies performances are all less thrilled like juniors' skating. It's like, ok, I've seen it, someone in men's skating did this far better. I think men and women should be different. Say whatever anyone wants even drag it back into the history of fighting for women's rights. I don't care. I say they should be different. I've always hated women's soccer (even though Americans are proud of their women soccer victories), women's hockey, women's weight lifting, and anything that made women look like bulked up men. I think we really need to have separate and different criteria for men's and ladies' skating. I suspect that what you've observed was the effort that IJS did within its range towards making difference between men's skating and ladies' skating. Should we push ladies to have 3A and 3-3 regularly? The necessity of having them is much milder though I do not oppose them. In short, men should skate like men and ladies should skate like ladies.
Now onto studying the rest of your post...
Thanks for the feedback Bluebonnet. I totally agree about women should still be women and actually feminism can be powerful in other ways in this sport.
I often wonder how the sport of figure skating came about in the first place. Given the 6.0 format of judging/relative judging, it might give clues and makes it understandable about the accusation of it being a pageant contest sport. Maybe the sport came about because they want more women take part in sport where were none at the time - when they were not even allowed to show knees beneath their skirt. A sport where women can excel at like presenting an impression of refinement, elegance, femininity. Surely that makes figure skating the most refined sport there is at its inception.
The marks were given out on execution (sporting element) but also general sense of aesthetics, dance and rhythms, elegance, sophistication, sensuality, precision, flexibility, emotion, sensitivity and importantly artistry. Things women are suppose to do better than the men, so where are we now? Where are we from 50 years ago? The 6.0 system might be ok when you have maybe only a dozen competitors world wide doing similar (&simpler) things, so the judges follow a simple system like 6.0 reward to indicate their impression, but it is not adequate where you might have 36 competitors doing increasingly complex things, and there maybe intricacies and credibility that are not humanly possible to be take in in the 2-3 minute windows human judgement is capable of processing. Problem is nor does the COP does it justice.
As the sport get advanced, experience globalisation, the scale of values and the method really seems outdated. Especially when the complexity and its demands on the body is much more than it was before, and actually artistry is really where women should be winning far more than the men, but appears hardly evolved from the time of Janet Lynn. Why? And What can we do to change it, to advance it, to push it? ISU may fix its rules on a reactive basis, but it need to be more proactive in thinking what the sport and the direction of the sport could be in 50 years time, or it could die, or it would remain a niche sport as it is? When there are so many interesting and unique selling point they could do with it bridging fashion, dance, music, theatre, film, performance art.
---------
Reply to
GKelly
(Sorry
Mathsman.. it might take until Christmas with the way I am going
)
The point itself would be valid but more salient in relation to solo jumps or combinations with doubles on the end.
Speed, height, and distance on jumps are each bullet points for positive GOE, so a jump that excels in all those areas should earn 1-2 grades higher (1-2 points for triple jumps) than one that just barely makes the rotation and goes up and down almost in place. Of course, it might get cancelled out by something like an edge call, or a lack of preceding steps for the short program solo jump.
You are right, I should use something like 3Lz or 4T. I was looking at the protocol containing Mao and Akiko's score which I can use for point comparison.
Given scale of value for GOEs works purely on tick box merits only, it neglected important sporting performance indicators as a world class levels sport. This elementary tick box system might be ok with Novice/Junior level at regional/national level, but at advanced world class level, the very best sporting performance indicators should be still be included and benchmarked irrespective of the genetic physical characteristics of the competitors.
As much as we try to be political correct about it, a +3 in NHK Japan and a +3 in Skate Canada for the same quad element for Patrick Chan is likely to mean different things, same with PCS awarded. It is not suppose to, but it is likely to. If so, just how different? The current system doesn't tell us that, other than some anonymous judges feel it is so without accountability.
As it is, the COP disregard all body types/genetic traits/age to pursue a specific type (narrow range) of the 'ideal skater'. Yet this ideal shifts year by year, propelled by various federations pressures / lobbying / dissent to amend rules, changes the point values for the 'good of the sport'. It ends up being a vicious circle of 'cherry picking' rules at an ad-hoc basis, try to level the playing field in the name of 'good of the sport' (and disregard 'fairness' to some can be 'unfairness' to others).
The implication of such tweaks on an annual basis is actually does not really advance the sport as a whole in the long term. It only benefit a lucky few and hurt the unlucky few. It can affects athletes training methods who just go about their best business doing their best, a sudden change of focus can and have hurt their performance. A skill they work so hard to accomplish and optimise may worth more 1 year, the less next year, or no longer valid. How does this benefit and advance the sport in 5 years, 10 years, 20 years?
Why not have an reward system that actually recognising and award mini peak form of sporting achievements and personal mile stones on top of these basics requirements? Those who are best at something in the world should be rewarded. I am talking about anything and everything that can be possibility rewarded in figure skating skills and measurements with the help of technology measuring tracking key performance indicators. Things like speed, distance, highest, furthest, power, strength, dexterity, flexibility, more perfect more precise, skill etc. are all important mini mile stones in sport and valuable benchmarks in skater's performance history. There should be a long
list of sporting bonuses assigned with a values, say a symbolic value 0.1 to 0.9 assigned based on rarity and difficulty and prestige.
Mroz with his first 4Lz deserve extra bonuses for the first 4Lz ever ratified in the history of ISU and the only men that does them, Mao's 3A deserve extra bonuses in the ladies competition being the only does them. What about the rarity of 2 clean performance? The longest and the most intricate one foot spiral, biggest overall ice coverage, fastest and best positioned level 4 spins, the biggest ratified combination jumps, most powerful torque quads, able to hit 4 'best of' points out of 13 components for points etc. It should be a very long list of things that can be awarded include balanced elements.
Hard data can be collected and accounted, tracked, analysed, and bonuses get awarded. It can be compiled into an interactive knowledge database and be available for public view. It can help to educate new fans of this sport, get to know the skaters, get the skaters to know themselves. It can help competitors to conceive best strategy suited to their assets and skills set, training, developing skills etc.
Sport performance indicators are useful for setting personal goals, gives sport credibility. More importantly, it enable greater opportunities for skaters of all body type to be more competitive, and encourage more diversity to focussed their skating skills. It is about maximise personal sporting performances, get recognised and get rewarded. Than through some touchy feely average impressions from anonymous judges, which has its own sets of problems and distrust issues.
There may someday, 10-20-50 years down the road, be affordable technology to measure height and distance of jumps and reward those qualities by objective means rather than by relying on human perception.
Technology might be already available in bits and pieces sports, maybe missile or game technology (I am thinking angry bird... lol), or motion capture animated technology. While ISU is slow on these things, but it need to be more strategic and find ways to rescue this sport which seems dying in US at least, package it more sexy, back up with credible performance stats, create accountability and recognise commercial possibilities. It need to motivate the skaters not through discipline them and told them what they are allowed or not allowed to do, but through encouragement, motivation, a reward system push for advancement. I agree about the expense issue, they should avoid commercial contracting (Too expensive, and too many middlemen) , but maybe do a trial project with a science university to work with some minor regional competition first and run trial basis.
Keeping in mind that, especially for women, larger skaters tend to jump bigger and smaller skaters tend to rotate faster, would it be appropriate to build in bonus points for height, speed, and distance such that a larger skater could rack up enough bonus points on excellent double jumps to make up for inability to rotate triples? Obviously, the skaters who can do big fast triples would earn the most points of all.
The COP system's current ideal 'perfect skater' likely to exist in certain body types already, therefore by default it is already unfair to others unless you are were born and groomed within these type of physique body shapes and took care of it as best as you can. By opening the system up with NEW bonus reward system, it encourage ALL type of skaters from ALL levels and ALL body types to work on what would be best for them and get rewarded incrementally regardless of their disadvantages, it empower their assets and make their disadvantages an advantage. Whether you are too large, too small, too fast, too tall, too bulky etc. Open the sport up, you might able to attract all sort of interest, and actually bring more money to the sport.
If anything, I'd want to see more emphasis on the edge-based skills that are less dependent on body type.
I've long been saying that the free program should be more free by allowing skaters to pick and choose among a variety of different kinds of elements, and different kinds of features for the leveled elements, along with certain fundamental skills expected from everyone, so they have more freedom to play to their own strengths. But that's not the same thing as the bonuses that you seem to have in mind.
I agree on the emphasis on edge-based skills point, because it is one of the few skills that appears more 'fair' regardless of body type. But at the same time focus mostly on them, may takes away from those who can do something better than edge-based skills have no choice but to improve on edge-based skills because it is what is rewarded on. It is not a bad thing since it is fairer, but it also means limit them in areas of skating they may be able to excel at, being the world best at.
The bonuses principles are additional extra bonus scores on top of the scoring (with help of technology that can mathematically calculate sporting performance element and account for bonuses with benchmarking and collect stats)
Bonuses can be awarded according to different levels.
- personal history based (personal bests, personal mile stones etc)
- competition based (seasonable best, best spin the competition etc)
- world level based (e.g world record of something, world's 1st 4lz etc, world record in ice coverage etc.)
I 100% agree with your view about giving them total freedom in their LP. This is my interpretation of a free program. If someone who want to devote an entire program just showing different quads and forget everything else, then let them show program all be about quads, they just need to know will probably lose out a lot of artistry marks (or currently known as PCS that need rethinking). If they want to make a program just about spins and spirals with great skating skills, then they better ensure it is the best quality for the bonuses and artistry scores, because spirals and spins don't have great base scores.
If there are big bonuses devoted to award most balanced choreography, then some may choose that strategy as well, and they will likely to have great scores both sport wise + artistry + bonuses (especially if they were able to achieve merits in multiple range of skills proposed in my previous post.)
The total Free skate would also fulfil the criteria on my 'want' list. ie/ Be the best in the world with what you can be best at, and the skater should get credit for it.
Art is rarely performed in a context where winning a competition is the primary goal and communicating to the audience secondary.
Since skating competitions are primarily about competition and only secondarily, at best, about communicating with audiences, there's a limit on how applicable the values of pure art can be to evaluating skating. But for those areas where the arts have established values that technically oriented skaters, skating choreographers, judges, and rule makers can learn from, by all means, let's look for ways to educate the skating world about what the art world already knows.
I think most of the things that are rewarded in PCS (or before that, in the second mark under 6.0 judging) are rewarded because they demonstrate superior control of the skating, not necessarily because they make for better art in a pure art context.
See... this is tricky (as with anything is art). Maybe we shouldn't call it ART, as today's system is really more about DESIGN because it has specific set of 'functional requirements' that need in depth knowledge to make sense of (unless we pursue the free program format you are suggesting, then I'd suggest redefine PCS categories with things like SS and TR and Execution may be re categorized instead of lump it with the art judging aspect.)
I dont ever expect this sport to ever follow a pure art perspective (If such was the goal, ISU should not be a part of it) but I do think there certain things professional/field experts can give a better and more credible opinion than expecting it from the the average ISU judges. So why not separate them?
To educating the rule maker is useful but I am not sure how effective it is in theory. It takes years of training, absorbing, 'experiencing art', learning and critical thinking to become an art/creative professional. Just how do you teach someone what is able to dance to the beat to have someone with great musicality, that interpretation is more than exaggerating emoting; artistry is more than just picking the right package and not something fit an ideology; and substitute someone with 30 years of performance arts knowledge and experience (Shakespeare, ethnic music, theatre production, television, fine art, plays, arts theory etc..), or 20 years choreography knowledge? And expect them to all exist in a every member of the ISU judges at the same level? You just can't.
I definitely agree the art field experts need to have skating knowledge, about the skaters, and their program last year, history, type of style etc. May be they should be qualified for this position.
These art experts might come into the task completely ignorant about skating technique. That's fine, as long as they get educated about what they need to know first.
There maybe should be an additional technical consultant available to them highlight unique technically unique on a need to basis and highlight of the program.
Then it is a matter of educating the field expertise with these issue you mentioned. There need to be an examine to pass and get qualified.
So this wouldn't be arts judges giving scores that figure into the results read in the K&C immediately after each skate?
Yeah why not, kind of like the old 6.0 way of marking, except judges with actual faces instead of nationality! Add a dramatic elements to the K&C we haven't seen in ages.
But I think there should be a special distinguished award at the end once everyone has performed as matter of prestige, and given out entirely in merit basis like how Michelin Stars are given out to top restaurants. Nothing is guaranteed. Let's call it
S stars argument's skate S stand for Superb or Stars or uh.. Skate.
Proposal for a S Stars or (something) type of distinction award
It is not based on numeric points or in there must be 1x Gold, 1x Silver, 1x Bronze given out in every single competition but an idicator of PURE quality (up to the art judge panel to consider what they mean by quality) irrespective of the level of championship is performed, whether it is the world champion finals, or GP qualifiers. Some competition might have just 2 silver awards per all 4 categories of skating. Some competitions (4 categories) might have 2 gold, 1 silver, 3 bronze, and all of them in the Men's. Some competitions might have Zero awarded, even it is the world championships.
If the art judge team feel the performance was artistically distinguished from others and worth highlight, the team might be obligated to give it a Bronze or Silver, and only very rare occasions they can award the performance a gold.
The award is given out entirely based on the merit of the said performance, and the distinction which the judges feels about the performance, regardless of how it scores, how it ranks, who it is from. It is mark of prestige regardless of rankings and scoring.
The result of their decision are not accounted in the final total mark of the competition rankings, but something all skaters can take away with them to use as a prestigious recognition of their artistic credibility. And you will have certain performances of the same program have more S star than others. Any program perform on any day will may range difference in quality. It is up to the art team on the panel on the day to decide if is extra special, and whether it deserve to be noted.
This means splatt fest/low quality/low artistically credible competitions even at world champion final might have ZERO stars of any colour.
Some high level top notch artistic programs might only deserve Bronze if performed okay, but Gold if the performer skated clean, blended perfect artistry as well as made a world record, ie/ that the performer really reached an level of transcendence (or very close), it is up to the art judge team's discretion to award that performance the gold star.
They also need to take in account of things like what the skater/style/skill sets was last year to consider the merit the event they are judging. It is about quality and merits of artistry. Daisuke's last year program was very different, he didn't have a quad. This year he pursued a new challenging program that was completely different from last year, he showed range, diversity, brought his quad, a more challenging layout, maturity her perfected his technique and went clean. Therefore the artistic merit of his performance should then surpass than say a skater who did the exact same thing as last year who has the same layout (e.g Patrick Chan's Phantom) but only upgraded his jump difficulties, interpretation the same. At the end of the day say Patrick Chan might have managed to have 3 quads in his program and broke the world record. He might have ranked no.1 at the competition, but he deserve no S stars or may be Bronze for his world record. (Sport performance heightened and perfected could be art in itself)
Daisuke's program might not have won a gold in his clean performance, but may have 2 bronze star out of other 4 performances. It depends entirely on the Art Panel that day, and his ability to deliver it. So you will ends up maybe a skater have 1 gold star, 1 bronze star even he performed the same program 5 times in the year all ranked performances. It is all about which performance matters to who and what colour of the S star is credit. It is like that with art.
The panel should present their findings in an open discussion panel to the public, like a top down 5-8 mins presentation after everyone has performed with an open critique and give out constructive comments on why they choose the way they did, and if they need to, they can address the artistically contrived programs, name and shame them (ha!). And finally, if they will award anyone deserved with the coloured star of their choice, or say they won't give out any star because everyone was rubbish! It is a great way to credit skaters to get recognition even though they might not be as technically advanced as others regardless of final ranking, and actually should create a good impression for their future performance to the judges, and to the skating fans for shows. It should shoot up their skating star value. It is about selling the art aspect of the sport, which is virtually its unique selling point in terms of sport marketing.
This sounds like an interesting -- I hate to say gimmick but I'm blanking on a better word right now -- .... Or do you mean this should be a standard format for all standard junior and senior figure skating competitions, with critique sessions that last longer than the programs built into the scoring that decides the results? That doesn't seem at all practicable. You'd need a heck of a lot more than 20-30 arts experts prepared to travel the world every week in and they would probably expect to be paid a whole lot more than the expenses and hospitality offered to the volunteer judges.
Ideally applies to world level competitions only, although at national level can be optional, it is up to the federations and availability of qualified art judges and of course budget. ISU could make this a qualification (applicants take exams, get educated on skating, run seminars) on top of their professional certification regardless of their background. They'd ideally need to be well known expert in their field, the more famous the more reputable the better. The qualification is something they can use to add to their credentials as a value added qualification.
It is about
getting the world's best skaters the highest quality of judging possible, with full legitimacy, credibility, trust and accountability.
The art judges are randomly selected like jury service and then will fly in (Only the ones that is going to judge will be flown in) the rest are just on standby where ever in the world they are.
It will need to be presented as a special privilege type of role with almost no money but big prestige and fame, ie/ they judge the world's best. Ideally celebrity judges and well known faces if ISU can eventually entice them. What would an art panel in 2020 consist of Tom Ford, Andrew Lloyd Webber, A Royal Ballet Choreographer, Nastia Liukin, Lady Gaga, Vivien Westwood, Michelle Kwan (might be retired then), Simon Cowell in different set up group make of the WC performance? Yeah they might be biased, but then their professional reputation is at stake.
Outside the competition, they could practically be the sport ambassador for figure skating to their industry bridging industry like fashion, art, musical, dance, culture, stage play and attract more outside interest.. Figure skating have all the beauty and sporting athletics ability to be superstars, they should deserve a system that can make them shine.
The audience-oriented suggestions would be great for a few high-profile, essentially made-for-TV (or internet) events aimed at appealing to audiences and featuring skaters who have already proven themselves in standard competition. But for standard competition itself, including the major ISU championships and all the smaller events that lead up to them, it might be more cost effective to find trained skating judges who already have training in arts and aesthetics in their professional lives, or who want to start learning seriously, and bring in a few experts from various arts field to help train them in how to apply knowledge from the arts to what they already know about skating.
Yeah not sure that would work with live audiences. Scrap that! Sorry when I mean audience, i mean general audience, live + home viewers. But yeah need to think it through.
So to summarize, ways to improve the sport
- Sport Performance Benchmarking + Tracking (with technology)
- A more transparent and comprehensive reward system. (covering all body shapes, levels)
- Knowledge System of competition results, skaters (stats support performance + history)
- Better quality of judging. (Make the subjective aspect of judging more credible, trustful and accountable.)
- A prestige type of award, (mark of quality and artistic credibility to be awarded separately from the rankings.)
- Bring true Free Program back and let the skaters be free.
- Judge the judges
- Fan judging the competition
What other goods way to create unique experience and quality feedback from a more global audiences/fans to shape the sport?
May be ISU would consider a partner project to instigating 3D television, Blu-ray Makers, premium broadcasting companies and consider filming some championships in 3D and charge a premium service for it, and sell them as blu ray disc afterwards with all these data accumulated as an . It should pays (as long as you have superstars). This is such an ideal aesthetic sport perfect for selling lots of 3D TVs/blur-ray and paying channels, and it would be cool if the viewer goes in can zoom in and zoom out and view the same jump from different angles, and at end create a comment, share a thought. Think all those edge/underscore confusion and arguments, it can be seen so crystal clean with details then. (What will we ever argue about then?)
Are they too lazy to really think, evaluate, and strategize?
I don't care what the expert say. I'll have my own ideas. And I know that almost everyone here on this board does the same. That's the source of controversy.
