Article by Janet Lynn

Bluebonnet said:

The older generation people have been having hardtime to adopt the new ideas. Dick Button hated CoP so much that he said it all the time on air. I think the younger people adapted it well. There are many beautiful, artistically superb programs under this new system.

Click to expand...

There are a few beautiful programs under the new system, especially among the men. But among the ladies, there are way too many "free" programs that all have the same elements: layback (some good, most bad, but it doesn't matter) into Biellmann, slow and labored footwork with pointless moves like twizzles, forgettable spirals, pretzel spins, and ugly I-spins to end the program. I don't think it's a generational thing at all. Sasha Cohen and Evan Lysacek have criticized the IJS, for instance. Anyone who has access to YouTube can look at past performances of skaters like Michelle Kwan, Alexei Yagudin, Janet Lynn, Midori Ito, Sasha Cohen, Peggy Fleming, Brian Boitano and others to see what has been lost artistically and emotionally by rewarding skaters for garnering points through tricks like Biellmanns, contorted spin positions, twizzles and other things that really do not measure the skill of the skater, either technically or artistically.

jenaj said:

Anyone who has access to YouTube can look at past performances of skaters like Michelle Kwan, Alexei Yagudin, Janet Lynn, Midori Ito, Sasha Cohen, Peggy Fleming, Brian Boitano and others to see what has been lost artistically and emotionally by rewarding skaters for garnering points through tricks like Biellmanns, contorted spin positions, twizzles and other things that really do not measure the skill of the skater, either technically or artistically.

Click to expand...

Is comparing the best from decades of 6.0 to the general performances of the first years of still evolving COP a fair or accurate way to judge their merits? If you compare the best of both systems, you will then find the new one produces just as beautiful skating with more technical difficulties than the old one, even though there is of course a much smaller pool of skaters and programs to select from in case of COP.

If you want to do a meaningful comparison, I'd suggest choosing one year or one event from the 7 1/2 years of IJS we've had so far, and one comparable year or event from the 6.0 era. (By comparable year, I mean same point in the Olympic cycle, which would probably argue against 1993.) You might want to choose one IJS, one 6.0 without figures, and one 6.0 with figures.

Then choose 5 or 10 comparably ranked performances. Winners, yes, maybe all three medalists, but also some from the middle and lower ranks.

Maybe randomly choose specific placements before you even check which skaters earned those placements. Or decide on certain characteristics that want to find matched pairs for (skaters known for their jumps, for their spins, for their artistry; skaters from the same country or countries with similar depth of field in that year).

Now, for those years alone, what do you want to compare? Quality of certain kinds of elements or of overall performance (PCS/2nd mark)? Cleanness of execution? What skills seemed to be emphasized or deemphasized across the field? Whether you individually liked one year's programs better than another's? The consensus on Golden Skate about those specific groups of programs? All of the above?

2 points which stood out as extremely valid and really quite disturbing for the sport:
- The high risk of injury to different body types. It is rare to find a skater with natural flexibility and the quick twitch that is required for a full clean set of big triples. Especially true for women. I do think this has forced many skaters out of competitive skating.
- The rarity of beautiful long gliding quiet edges, toe point and extension. Itis apparent that they do still exist with some skaters and it seems the judges are rewarding this ie Chan Abbott Czisny. There are coaches that are still focusing on this but as noted maybe a dying breed. These aforementioned skaters did learn their skills during 6.0 Having said that, there are skaters from the 6.0 system that also lacked those skating skills.

The article in short I think is lamenting the loss of a broader range of skaters whom are able to produce beautiful programs with their strongest skills, as a result of the demands and limits of the IJS.

havefun said:

2 points which stood out as extremely valid and really quite disturbing for the sport:
- The high risk of injury to different body types. It is rare to find a skater with natural flexibility and the quick twitch that is required for a full clean set of big triples. Especially true for women. I do think this has forced many skaters out of competitive skating.

Click to expand...

Yes, and this was true well before the IJS. Basically by the end of figures in the early 90s, certainly by the mid-90s, it was impossible to succeed at the senior level without triples, and most girls who take up the sport will never get clean triples, or clean double axel, no matter how good they get at other skills.

The difference now is that flexibility is also highly rewarded, and it's even less likely to find the ability to do triples and the ability to do Biellmann spins and the like in the same person.

Also, as the overall skill level of the top skaters keeps increasing, anyone who wants to try to keep up needs to train very challenging programs with very challenging skills, and younger skaters are also training skills that used to be the province only of the top seniors.

So there is that much more potential for both traumatic and overuse injuries.

But again, much of this was true under 6.0 as well. For example, http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...combinations-naomi-nari-nam-junior-grand-prix
The focus then was more on the jumps than the flexibility moves, but some of those skaters who were named as injured were already doing the kind of spin and spiral positions that we might worry about under IJS a few years later.

- The rarity of beautiful long gliding quiet edges although it is apparent that they do still exist with some skaters and it seems the judges are rewarding this ie Chan Abbott Czisny. There are coaches that are still focusing on this but as noted maybe a dying breed. These aforementioned skaters did learn their skills during 6.0

Click to expand...

Judges can be encouraged to reward high-quality sustained edges under both 6.0 or IJS judging. In 6.0, edge quality and flow would be part of the technical merit mark apart from the elements, although the beauty could also contribute to a higher presentation mark. And at certain points in the history of the short program the first mark was specifically just for the required elements, so then qualities like speed and edges were rewarded in the second mark for the SP.

With IJS, obviously this is rewarded under Skating Skills. And we've seen that, for better or worse, higher Skating Skills scores tend to lead to higher scores in the other components.

There are also ways specifically to encourage edge quality within the elements, some of which are already built into the system and others that could be.

The leveled spiral sequence from a few years ago required skaters to hold their spiral positions longer than had been the case, on average, under 6.0.

It also encouraged difficult positions, sometimes at the expense of sustained glide and steady edges. And often skaters would hold three spirals for 3 seconds each to get the necessary levels but never hold anything longer (i.e., longer than most 6.0 spirals but not as long as the most iconic ones). Adding the 6-second hold as a feature did change that a bit.

And now the choreo spiral sequence allows a single 6-second spiral, and the same base value for two as for three 3-second spirals, so there's no need to rush if the skater can hold a single strong edge in a strong position and earn positive GOE that way. So far what I see happening is that the skaters with the best spirals use this opportunity to show off their strength, but the others have made it more of a throwaway element again. Which was pretty much the case for long program spiral sequences a decade ago.

Step sequences require recognizable edges and turns in order to earn higher levels. If you look at step sequences from the 6.0 era, often quickness was emphasized at the expense of edges and the turns were unidentifiable because the exit edges weren't held at all. So the skaters need to improve and hold their turns and edges if they want to get higher levels on the step sequences.

Judges will consider the quality of the edges in those sequences in awarding the GOEs. How much each judge rewards them can vary with the individual judges' priorities.

Transitions are marked on variety, difficulty, and intricacy, which might encourage cramming in a lot of different moves without sustaining any of them. But they're also marked on quality, so a single really well-executed gliding move, e.g., Arakawa's iconic Ina Bauer, can make up in quality what it might replace in quantity.

The article in short I think is lamenting the loss of a broader range of skaters whom are able to produce beautiful programs with their strongest skills, as a result of the demands and limits of the IJS.

Click to expand...

I tend to disagree with that assessment. I remember a lot of boring or generally unbeautiful programs under 6.0 as well. Skaters did the best they could with the skills they had and didn't feel the need to attempt positions that didn't come easily to them. But on average, across the whole field, I think the general quality of spins and spirals, for example, is much higher now than 10-20 years ago.

SkateFiguring said:

Is comparing the best from decades of 6.0 to the general performances of the first years of still evolving COP a fair or accurate way to judge their merits? If you compare the best of both systems, you will then find the new one produces just as beautiful skating with more technical difficulties than the old one, even though there is of course a much smaller pool of skaters and programs to select from in case of COP.

Click to expand...

I don't even think the new system has resulted in more technical difficulty, for the ladies, at least. How many seven triple programs by a female skater have we seen under COP? How many under COP have done a classic layback? Or a perfectly positioned and held arabesque spiral? Not many. Are triple-triples now the norm? No--they are seen about the same or less than under 6.0. And which COP programs compare in beauty and artistry to Michelle's Lyra Angelica (or her Salome or Rachmaninoff or East of Eden or Song of the Black Swan, to name just a few)? Or Janet Lynn's Afternoon of a Faun or her Olympic free skate? Or Sasha Cohen's Dark Eyes or Sentimental Waltz or many of her long programs, even with the flaws?
Maybe Yu Na's Olympic programs. Maybe Mao's Nocturne of several years ago. And that is not to say that there have not been other beautiful skates under COP--some of Alissa's certainly qualify and maybe some of Mirai's. But none of these reach the heights of artistry we saw under the old system, in my opinion.

I agree the Ladies have been boring lately which is why I'm much more interested in the Men's where exciting things are happening. In Dance too, young talents have been allowed to shine brightly instead of queue-ing up to wait for their day. In Pairs there have been excellent and expressive teams and we are seeing quad throws and quad twists under COP.

I'm not at all sure why COP has been so disastrous for the the ladies, more so that for the other 3 disciplines.

Any thoughts?

jenaj said:

I don't even think the new system has resulted in more technical difficulty, for the ladies, at least. How many seven triple programs by a female skater have we seen under COP? How many under COP have done a classic layback? Or a perfectly positioned and held arabesque spiral? Not many. Are triple-triples now the norm? No--they are seen about the same or less than under 6.0. And which COP programs compare in beauty and artistry to Michelle's Lyra Angelica (or her Salome or Rachmaninoff or East of Eden or Song of the Black Swan, to name just a few)? Or Janet Lynn's Afternoon of a Faun or her Olympic free skate? Or Sasha Cohen's Dark Eyes or Sentimental Waltz or many of her long programs, even with the flaws?
Maybe Yu Na's Olympic programs. Maybe Mao's Nocturne of several years ago. And that is not to say that there have not been other beautiful skates under COP--some of Alissa's certainly qualify and maybe some of Mirai's. But none of these reach the heights of artistry we saw under the old system, in my opinion.

Click to expand...

I agree, but I think part of it is that there is a temporary lack of depth in women's skating. Kostner has been around awhile and her results are better than ever, although she is skating only marginally better than she had before. I think a Kwan, Slutskaya, Cohen or Arakawa in their peak form would be dominating this field. I really liked Sasha's 2010 SP at Nationals so I think it is possible that a talented skater could put it all together and deliver something as good as the legendary programs you mentioned. As another poster said, it's also hard to compare 30 years of great programs to <10 years of COP programs, especially given that the system is still a moving target.

I think the coming of age of real COP Babies will better reflect the effect of the system. Patrick Chan is the most precocious COP baby and he surged ahead of all in his age group. In Ladies Yuna may not stay and Mao is in recess but the lull may be over with the next generation coming on board finally. In both Men and Ladies, we are now seeing new waves of phenoms in the current Juniors turning Senior now or soon, e.g. the Russian Babes, Yuzuru Hanyu, Nathan Chen, Nam Nguyen, Han Yan, Boyang Jin, et al.

I don't know whether the skating is better or worse in one system than another. That's not what's wrong with ythe IJS.

What wrong is that under the CoP the spectator has been taken out of the game. With 6.0, when the scores came down and six of the nine judges gave their opinion that skater A was the winner, the spectator could say, "Oh yeah? Well I have an opinion, too, buster!"

Now the experts-plus-computer says Skater A 168.23, Skater B 154.89, and all I can say is, What a fool I am, I liked the other guy better.

Nobody enjoys having his ignorance thrown up in his face. And no one likes being told superciliously, "If you don't like it, go read the rule book, chump."

Mathman said:

I don't know whether the skating is better or worse in one system than another. That's not what's wrong with ythe IJS.

What wrong is that under the CoP the spectator has been taken out of the game. With 6.0, when the scores came down and six of the nine judges gave their opinion that skater A was the winner, the spectator could say, "Oh yeah? Well I have an opinion, too, buster!"

Now the experts-plus-computer says Skater A 168.23, Skater B 154.89, and all I can say is, What a fool I am, I liked the other guy better.

Nobody enjoys having his ignorance thrown up in his face. And no one likes being told superciliously, "If you don't like it, go read the rule book, chump."

Click to expand...

huh... not once have I felt that way... and no I don't read the rule book, and I don't always get it right.

Mathman, I do get a sense that the ISU, and even some of the fans on the message boards, don't really care to cater to the casual fans. The judging system is so complex that many commentators (at least in the US) don't even understand it. I certainly don't think the scoring should be dumbed down but I do feel like it is necessary for me to read message boards to see why skater A beat skater B.

the commentators that "don't get it" were the ones against it from the start... there are other commentators in teh US that do take it seriously and get it... Paul Wylie, for example, seemed to have a great understanding of it from day one.

^OT: Toni I love your Avatar!

drivingmissdaisy said:

Mathman, I do get a sense that the ISU, and even some of the fans on the message boards, don't really care to cater to the casual fans. The judging system is so complex that many commentators (at least in the US) don't even understand it. I certainly don't think the scoring should be dumbed down but I do feel like it is necessary for me to read message boards to see why skater A beat skater B.

Click to expand...

Not if you watch Canadian TV, where trusted experts call out possible UR or DG live, explain amazing feats non skaters wouldn't get, and gush over or critique skating skills, and give ideas of how close the final scores may be before they are up so viewers have an expectation of the range of probabilities. Of course, as in the old era, the biggest compliment they give is complete silence during the performance, followed by emotional exclamations afterwards.

demarinis5 said:

^OT: Toni I love your Avatar!

Click to expand...

thanks, when I was watching the coverage of TEB last weekend I saw that moment and just had to have it as an avatar. I'm working on new avatars that I'll be putting in a photobucket account as soon as I get a good majority worked out so others can have some new stuff. hopefully we can get them added to the boards sometime in the future!

SkateFiguring said:

Not if you watch Canadian TV, where trusted experts call out possible UR or DG live, explain amazing feats non skaters wouldn't get, and gush over or critique skating skills, and give ideas of how close the final scores may be before they are up so viewers have an expectation of the range of probabilities. Of course, as in the old era, the biggest compliment they give is complete silence during the performance, followed by emotional exclamations afterwards.

Click to expand...

That is exactly what I am talking about. The experts call out every UR and DG, blah, blah, blah. and if you want more you can check out the protocols. Bleh. The spectator is not allowed an opinion, its all cut and dried. Especially dried.

My point regarding the beauty of skating lost to some with IJS -
Who enjoys
- The Bent over spin with the butt in the air,straight legs to end the program.
- Footwork sequence - French guy (sorry don't remember his name with the leopard shirt, fifth this weekend). Not relaxing to watch as a spectator.
- Bent knees on a camel with upper body facing upward to increase points as a difficult variation. (ok for those with long lines and toe point otherwise !!
- haircutter and layback that looks back-breaking.

Just a few examples of tricks that skaters are attempting that take away from the flow and aesthetics of the program but garner extra technical points. The same skater may have gorgeous jumps or sit spins but is having to add variations to their programs that they otherwise would leave out for aesthetic reasons.

I would imagine some viewers might just scratch their heads and switch channels..

dorispulaski said:

I'm not at all sure why COP has been so disastrous for the the ladies, more so that for the other 3 disciplines.

Any thoughts?

Click to expand...

I'd argue that it hasn't been more disasterous. Currently, right now, it's not all that impressive, true. But if you can find me an Olympic event as well skated as the ladies from Vancouver, I'd love to see it.