'Radical change' could be on the way

If they do this, then they can kiss the Olympics good bye. The artistic program would not be a sport, and with subjectivity going through the roof, I doubt figure skating would last very long. This is the reason why I don't see this separation happening, I don't think the ISU would like that.
Not to mention that figure skating itself would decline even further in popularity. I like the artistic side as well but realistically, the athletic elements are what gets the people going. Turning one half of the entire sport into essentially ice-dance, will just push it further onto the margins of interest. Ah well.

Hopefully the ISU is not that incompetent to go for this nonsense ... famous last words probably. Sigh.

Tahuu said:

The fact is figure skating has progressed significantly in technical difficulty but you can't say its artistic aspect has progressed or has room to progress as much. To make PCS close to TES by reducing BV and increasing PCS factoring is artificial.

Click to expand...

Generally speaking, choreography has exponentially increased in difficulty and complexity from Olympic quad to Olympic quad. The BEST choreography effectively harnesses that complexity to work WITH the music and the performer. Look at Evgenia compared to Yulia or Yuna, or Yuzuru 2017 compared to Yuzuru 2014. The choreography is way tougher.

If we don't give skaters an artificial limit of 10 in every category, they may be motivated for more artistic progress. But that would require more objective/correct method of scoring PCS to actually work, which is its own mess.

But if we allow technical to supercede artistic entirely, then we are left with nothing but a jumping contest. Which is not figure skating.

I don't think it's a great idea at all to create such division. It would create medal oppurtunities for older skaters for sure and it would be great fan service. But this is an athletic competetion and medals are given because of it. The way I see it, the gold goes to the best athlete that happens to perform as artistically as possible. I don't see the point of rewarding someone at Winter Olympics solely because they are beautiful/graceful on the ice. I think people differ in how they perceive figure skating, I definitely think it's primarily a sport. Without a strong athletic component wouldn't it just be a slightly harder dancing?

It would also mean young skaters will choose one or the other at the beginning and we will get less complete packages because getting a medal is hugely important politically as well. I am pretty sure there would be a lot of disagreement on artistic judging too. Technical points are more or less reliable especially with the techology we have, it is definitely harder to agree on artistic aspects.

I'm trying to be open-minded and a bit curios as to what the real consequences would be if such a change occurs but I still think that it's just a way to hand out medals to those who aren't athletically competent enough. I want as much athletic improvement as there can be but how many people would risk injury trying difficult jumps when they can get a medal in a less risky and more rewarding way assuming that more people want to see beatiful skating over wonky quads?

Definitely do not like the idea of an artistic program and a technical one. Isn't the whole point to do both at once?

I think they need to do something to make the two parts more even. I don't know the most about it, but my understanding is that even if you got a perfect score in PCS, you would only get 100 pints (or 50 for SP). But for the technical score, you could get higher than 100 so it's skewed out of balance. It seems like there should be a way to make these more equal. I suppose that might be the aim with the one less element thing for next year.

Rather than making it so complicated, why not just increase the PCS factor to 1.2 for men, for instance? So if normally a FS performance would get 40 points, now it'd get 48. Alternatively I guess you could increase PCS factor by only 10% and reduce BV for jumps by 10% but that too seems unnecessarily complicated.


As for the artistic / athletic program separation, that would certainly be interesting but meh... I'd rather have 3 programs instead of just scrapping SP entirely.

andromache said:

I think an "artistic program" with athletic components that are still evaluated and weighed could still constitute a sport.

For example, I like the idea of a long program with, say, 5 jumping passes that are evaluated and scored per COP, and spins and steps that do not adhere to COP (no more ugly spins designed to maximize point value, and we can again have marvelous step sequences like Alexei Yagudin's in his Winter SP).

Click to expand...

Yes, this is what they mean when they say a "technical program" and an "artistic program". The technical program would be what we already have right now - there would still be PCS, but the technical elements would be worth more overall and have stricter rules (again, exactly as it is right now). The artistic program would have less required jumps than the current Long Programs and no levels on footwork and spins. You would still need to have great technical ability, just in a different way.

But even with a separation like this, the rules for levels on spins and footwork can still be improved, to provide more freedom and put more emphasis on quality. When the goal is to make figure skating as good as possible (and thus more popular), you're going to want each program to reflect it. There is no good reason to keep the current footwork rules we have, the sequences are way too crammed and similar looking. Anyway, I'm definitely in favor of having more medals awarded, everyone should be it. Even if it's just awarding separate medals for the current Short Program and Long Program we have. Why not award more people? Look at how many medal opportunities are given to gymnasts and swimmers.

I don't know if injury is the reason behind the downgrade. I am simply saying that it is a legitimate reasoning & possibility.

No one is attributing all injuries in pairs to quad throws. All athletics involve injury. But not all sports have a 50% injury ratio, which is where we were at with the top 10 senior pairs teams last season. Even the men's field was not close to 50% of the top 10 athletes out of the GP.

Athletes have been doing & sustaining quad twists much longer without a 100% injury rate. The men in pairs do sustain serious shoulder injuries, though, that end quite a number of careers. I do think those injuries are well worth acknowledging and monitoring. But it is not the same element as the other quad throws physically, since the man either catches or slows the lady's fall. Plus, her speed during flight is largely generated by him rather than the added speed of velocity across the ice.

The question is whether the regular quad throws--with the force of the woman landing on solid ice at this speed from the height in which she is thrown by her partner--is actually physically sustainable. Or whether it is not. Losing the best athletes of the discipline is not better for the sport.

And there seem to be coaches and athletes at the very peak of the sport who feel that--while they want the points--they are not prepared to risk training this element to land on one foot. Shall we rename it something else then?

Maybe in a decade, we will say this was just another bump along the road in the development of the sport. But the sport will survive and continue to develop even if one avenue of development is discouraged. There are a plethora of extremely difficult moves performed on the ladies uneven bars, despite the dearth of one-arm giants.

If these are the proposed changes the ISU has in mind I have to say that overall I am extremely disappointed. A lot of what was proposed seems to be reactionary to try and mitigate the effects of the judges not using the system properly. On paper I don't have a lot of issues with the structure of the scoring system, but I think the implementation of it needs a lot of work and the changes mentioned in this article seems like it allows more room for variables and doesn't address the implementation issues.

In my mind these are the pros and cons.

Pros:
- Adjusting the BV of jumps. I do think some BV are too high where even -3 GOE still nets you quite a few points. I disagree with lowering it for triples, especially the axel as it seems very few skaters have strong axels.

- Wider spread of GOE - This goes in both my pros and cons. I agree with the intent to award quality and having the GOE increments be tied to BV, but if they want to award quality, they can start doing it now and don't need scoring changes to do so. It's not like we're seeing a ton of people get +3, but we're probably not seeing proper issuing of lower GOE.


Cons:
- Using Boyang's picture for this article, but as Icenetwork is US based I'm not surprised they didn't put Nathan's photo instead, yet they still asked him for a comment any way.

- Separating programs into an athletic and artistic program. The beauty of figure skating is the combination of both aspects. In my opinion, those who have mastery over the technical aspects of their skating (and I don't mean just jumps) are able to afford more energy to focus on the performance, presentation, and their expression in their program. To me the technical and performance aspects of skating are linked in this way, and should remain linked if it wants to continue as a sport in the Olympics.

- Separate medals for both artistry and athleticism, and overall. This is linked to my point above. I'm not sure what purpose an "artistry" medal has in a sport. I imagine there are already artistic skating competitions in existence, so why does these need to be further divided? How exactly are you supposed to measure and score "artistry" objectively? It just sounds like they want to hand out more awards and medals to make people feel good about themselves. It's all very frivolous and about as useless as a pewter medal in my opinion.

- Wider spread of GOE - I think this has more cons than it does pros. I feel that GOE is where we see a lot of inconsistency in judging, expanding the range from -3 to +3 to -5 to +5 seems like you're asking for even more inconsistency and subjectivity. As it stands, it's not as if the judges are using the full breadth of GOE, so what makes them think increasing the range will fix that? I would've preferred to see the the GOE stay within the -3 to 3 range but allow the judges to use 0.5 increments, but I suspect that they're scared people can't handle decimals. I agree with Kori Ade's comments about judges being overly generous on GOE for quads of dubious quality and without preceding steps. I know they recently changed the wording for the requirement into the solo jump in the SP and removed the word "difficult" for the steps before a solo jump. It now says "creative, interesting, original" which is even less definitive and gives more room for interpretation from the judges. They should be working in the other direction to leave as little up to human interpretation during judging as possible.

- Reducing programs by 30 seconds: Why pretend this is part of an attempt at balancing the TES and PCS? I thought this was being done for practical purposes to shorten the length of competitions for TV broadcasts? I also think this will limit an athletes ability to focus on both aspects of their skating.

Overall, these proposals seem very convoluted and illogical, so I had to laugh when Bianchetti said, "markings will be more logical and consistent". Is there any other sport that introduces convoluted scoring rules and changes in an attempt to correct for inconsistencies with judging rather than address the actual judges themselves?

gmyers said:

Those spins could be stunning and artistic! Not like the cirque du Soleil contortions done now!

Click to expand...

Not every skater does Cirque du Soleil contortions. I think we can all agree that the quality of spins are better than in the past if you look at the quality of spins in the field as a whole nowadays versus the quality of spins in the field as a whole under 6.0.

Yeah, there are many skaters who are doing spin positions that are strained and ugly, but most spins have improved -- especially basic positions.

I just realized that Maxim Trankov will be getting his wish. He didn't want throw quads to become the norm, right?

Who have we lost from the sport due to throw quads? Sui/Han are still around. James/Cipres are getting even better. Duhamel/Radford are still trucking. Kavaguti/Smirnov? They seemed to have various problems last time I saw them but others on here know Russian pairs much better than I.

CanadianSkaterGuy said:

Yeah, there are many skaters who are doing spin positions that are strained and ugly, but most spins have improved -- especially basic positions.

Click to expand...

Erm, basic positions in particular have become worse. People do a slow back camel with little stretch in basic position these days, to simply fulfill the spin combo requirement or as the opening position in a flying camel. You never see a camel spin in "basic position" anymore with the quality that Sasha Cohen or Maria Butyrskaya did.

It's no different for the other positions either. Basic sit spin positions these days are only done for spin combos if the skater doesn't need to do a "difficult variation" in that position to achieve level 4, and these sit positions are almost always sloppy, not having a straight back or extended free leg. Layback spins rarely ever showcase a good attitude position anymore (since it is deemed "basic" and not worth anything on paper) and scratch spins, real scratch spins, are non-existent as well.

Blades of Passion said:

Yes, this is what they mean when they say a "technical program" and an "artistic program". The technical program would be what we already have right now - there would still be PCS, but the technical elements would be worth more overall and have stricter rules (again, exactly as it is right now). The artistic program would have less required jumps than the current Long Programs and no levels on footwork and spins. You would still need to have great technical ability, just in a different way.

Click to expand...

How do you know that this is what they mean? there was nothing about how it would be done in the article itself. Are you one of the people working on that for the ISU? you seem pretty certain that how it will be. If you are have information we don't, please share

I'm all for some change. Quads are taking over and the beauty of figure skating - even in the men's competition - is going by the wayside. I see more and more injuries and skater's careers ending before they should. Something has to change.

andromache said:

http://www.icenetwork.com/news/2017/09/11/253667206

Per Phil Hersh, some changes the ISU is considering in order to re-balance the artistic and athletic sides of the sport.

Suggestions include reducing BV for quads, in singles AND pairs.

The most radical idea:



(An idea that I think COULD work, with very careful implementation.)

There are also responses from coaches re: the post-2018 30-second reduction for men's LPs, as they discuss how a shorter programs means less artistry, in their opinion.

Click to expand...

Horrible idea. The point of skating is to combine athletism and artristry not to have two seperate categories. I can already see everyone calling artistic gold the fake gold. It makes everything so confusing imo as well. Would this be only for seniors or intermediate and above? You can't only think about elite skaters when implecating rules like this. I just dont like it....and im all for artistry but quads are HARD. Quads should be rewarded. Does the ISU not realize this, i'm confused.

I'd support the idea of separating the two programs if the "athletic program" were more of a compulsory drill with required elements that vary from year to year. IE, the solo jump has to be a 3F, must include a circular step sequence, etc. The "artistic program" could allow for more freedom with the elements so we don't see every skater trying to cram three level 4 spins with ugly positions that have nothing to do with the music for maximum points... the subjectivity, however, would be very problematic as it could be prone to corruption. Of course this is just speculation--the problem with this article is that it really doesn't say anything about these two programs... just that they might be created under these two names. Can't really have much of an opinion based on nothing.

As for lowering the BV of throws, I like this idea because the GOE variability will also be increased. It will reward teams who can do those absolutely gorgeous throw quads like the Chinese and decentivizes teams who do mediocre or ugly throws from doing them.

No opinion really on the quad BVs... I think for the most part, the right men are winning so I would keep them the same? Might have to think more on that or read other people's thoughts.

Ice Network using Boyang pic for this negative article is just typical american reporters rubbish. A better candidate would have been their very own Nathan Chen who is now more all quads and no artistry than Jin. And plz don't mention the Ballet training again, Ice Network.

Ice Network is the media arm of USFSA. Does anyone really think we'd see a Nathan photo?

noskates said:

I'm all for some change. Quads are taking over and the beauty of figure skating - even in the men's competition - is going by the wayside. I see more and more injuries and skater's careers ending before they should. Something has to change.

Click to expand...

I understand the injury concerns. However, it would be hard for me to watch a skater win an event only because a competitor's difficulty wasn't fairly rewarded.

I don't think the problem is necessarily that quads are worth too much, but more that there is no longer a balance between the technical and the presentation/PCS score. For example at last season's Worlds, Hanyu scored at 125.12 TES and a 97.8 PCS. Even if he had scored perfectly in PCS he would only have received 100 points. A full 25 points lower than his TES. Additionally his TES score has the potential to go even higher while the PCS cannot go any higher than 100.

In other words, under the current system and conditions, PCS is worth a smaller portion of the total score than TES is rather than each being worth 1/2 of the score.

Dear ISU, its a sport.
Please keep it a sport. In fact, instead of focusing more on the "artistry" , you guys should remove PCs alltogether, because it is not any close of objective, and either mirrors technical score or is misused to up skaters the judge likes.

Honestly, while I loved Mao in her best year, I would be majorly upset to see her win any competition without proper triples and so on. Same applies to all skaters.