2021-2022 US Women's Figure Skating

[Tavi...]

Honestly it seems to me that they should only take into account 1) US nationals, 2)GP series and 3)JGP series (points are pretty comparable). I would not take into account last years' Worlds-because, frankly, it was last year. In skating one year can mean a great deal as far as injuries, erosion of jumps etc. I think they are making this way more difficult then it needs to be. Because Bradie and Karen, IMO have a negligible ability to place highly, I would rather the team be all new skaters-give them the opportunity to compete in the Olympics. So Alysa, Amber, Mariah and maybe Lindsay. Alsya will place high enough so that it doesn't matter how they other two do. And we will probably get silver in the team competition no matter which of these girls are sent. For that matter, in the team competition might as well have Alysa skate both segments.

2021 Worlds is relevant because it was an Olympic qualifying event resulting in the US qualifying 2 spots and earning the right to try to qualify a third spot.

 

[Jontor]

2021 Worlds is relevant because it was an Olympic qualifying event resulting in the US qualifying 2 spots and earning the right to try to qualify a third spot.

2021 Worlds and Nationals are irrelevant to me as a BOW argument. FS is a very seasonal sport. One season you are good, the next you're not. If you want to pick the best team for the Olympics, choose those who are good this season, because Olympics IS this season.

 

[Tavi...]

2021 Worlds and Nationals are irrelevant to me as a BOW argument. FS is a very seasonal sport. One season you are good, the next you're not. If you want to pick the best team for the Olympics, choose those who are good this season, because Olympics IS this season.

I mean when you think about it, “this season” is pretty arbitrary, too. Especially this season where not all skaters are doing the same / same number of competitions (for example, I think the entire US team just withdrew from the Asian Open), going back a little farther provides more data. Yeah the older results may mean less, and yeah it’s always a bit iffy to predict anything based on past results, but that applies to last week’s or last month’s competitions, too. IMO it’s not unreasonable to look at a skater’s trajectory going back to Worlds, especially under the circumstances. It’s not even a year. The other thing is, the US in particular is setting results at 2021 Worlds as benchmarks for their skaters to achieve this season. If you’re going to use it as a benchmark, it doesn’t really make sense not to consider the actual results as well. At least, that’s my opinion. .

 

[drivingmissdaisy]

2021 Worlds and Nationals are irrelevant to me as a BOW argument. FS is a very seasonal sport. One season you are good, the next you're not. If you want to pick the best team for the Olympics, choose those who are good this season, because Olympics IS this season.

I think there is some value at looking at the previous season. To me, scoring 200 at Worlds is far more impressive than scoring 200 at the Autumn Classic because the former shows a skater can produce a strong result at a big event, which is what you want from your World/Olympic selections. We usually can't assemble a team of three skaters who are strong both during the GP season and at Nationals, so I think the USFSA has to look at more data points including major events from the previous season.

 

[Jontor]

I think there is some value at looking at the previous season. To me, scoring 200 at Worlds is far more impressive than scoring 200 at the Autumn Classic because the former shows a skater can produce a strong result at a big event, which is what you want from your World/Olympic selections. We usually can't assemble a team of three skaters who are strong both during the GP season and at Nationals, so I think the USFSA has to look at more data points including major events from the previous season.

But scoring 200 points at Worlds is sooo much easier than scoring 200 at Autumn Classic, as the Championships have the tradition to be very generous, and it's been like this for years. 4CC two years ago, for example, the whole top 10 of the women scored their seasons best. So, Europeans, 4CC and Worlds are not a good comparison.

 

[Jontor]

I mean when you think about it, “this season” is pretty arbitrary, too. Especially this season where not all skaters are doing the same / same number of competitions (for example, I think the entire US team just withdrew from the Asian Open), going back a little farther provides more data. Yeah the older results may mean less, and yeah it’s always a bit iffy to predict anything based on past results, but that applies to last week’s or last month’s competitions, too. IMO it’s not unreasonable to look at a skater’s trajectory going back to Worlds, especially under the circumstances. It’s not even a year. The other thing is, the US in particular is setting results at 2021 Worlds as benchmarks for their skaters to achieve this season. If you’re going to use it as a benchmark, it doesn’t really make sense not to consider the actual results as well. At least, that’s my opinion. .

Well, that benchmark imo is wrong. And this is also the flaw of the world of FS. The ones that are successful one season gets all the important assignments the next season. So, therefore they are competing more internationally than the others left behind.
But it doesn't mean they are the best at that time. If you get on top, it's easier to stay there, if you are fighting from behind, it's more difficult, because you simply don't get the same opportunities.
This is especially true to countries like Russia who has a load of good skaters waiting in the wings. But they never get the chance to get out there and prove their worth. This also applies to other big federations like the US, Japan and (nowadays in women) Korea.

 

[Skatesocs]

But scoring 200 points at Worlds is sooo much easier than scoring 200 at Autumn Classic, as the Championships have the tradition to be very generous, and it's been like this for years. 4CC two years ago, for example, the whole top 10 of the women scored their seasons best. So, Europeans, 4CC and Worlds are not a good comparison.

The "benchmark" should be very much against a championship score, though. The Autumn classic scoring won't happen at the OWG, in fact it will be even more lenient than worlds. The scores at ACI can also be explained away as early season hiccups.

(this reasoning from me doesn't take into judging flaws and certain other factors, but benchmarking a championship in order to send a team to a different championship absolutely makes sense)

 

[readernick]

[

But scoring 200 points at Worlds is sooo much easier than scoring 200 at Autumn Classic, as the Championships have the tradition to be very generous, and it's been like this for years. 4CC two years ago, for example, the whole top 10 of the women scored their seasons best. So, Europeans, 4CC and Worlds are not a good comparison.

Yes, if someone had scored 200 at Autumn Classic this year, that would have been incredibly impressive. Shin Amano should be chosen for the Olympics, it would create so much chaos. World's judging last year was frankly ridiculous with blatant over scoring of the top 5, a lot of ignored URs and inconsistent GOE judging.

I , also, think only scores from the current season should count. Generally, skaters tend to have good or bad seasons but there can be huge changes from year to year. But, I'm not the USFS and I think the current selection criteria is better and clearer than the previous selection criteria. So, I don't think it is worth all this discussion.

At least now, skaters know what they need to do to be competitive. If you are a US woman, you now know you should score consistently around 208 points and try to be in the top 3 at Nationals. The women won't make the top selection group ( unlike the US men and ice dancers) so they need try and make the second group. It gives them a benchmark to work toward.

 

[Jontor]

The "benchmark" should be very much against a championship score, though. The Autumn classic scoring won't happen at the OWG, in fact it will be even more lenient than worlds. The scores at ACI can also be explained away as early season hiccups.

(this reasoning from me doesn't take into judging flaws and certain other factors, but benchmarking a championship in order to send a team to a different championship absolutely makes sense)

Yes, and it should make sense. As an objective outsider, that would be the way to go. But it doesn't make sense in reality. For example, in my country Sweden, they are now using Worlds as a benchmark to send their skaters in men and women. Sweden has already qualified one man and woman but the benchmark is a top 8 result from Worlds 2021 to get the Olympic ticket. That means Josefin Taljegård needs to score about 200 points and Nikolaj Majorov needs to score around 260 points. Those scores are unfair to start with, but I get the logic behind the reasoning. But it's just an example of how benchmarking the wrong competition will end. And no, Taljegård and Majorov will probably never get to Beijing because of it, even though they qualified.
Had the Swedish federation used a let's say Autumn Classic top 5 benchmark instead, Josefin and Nikolaj might have a chance...

This has nothing to do with the US selection process of course. But it shows that if you are using the wrong benchmark, the consequences might be dire. And in the US case, giving credit to Karen Chen's very very very generous result at Worlds would be unfair to her competitors.

 

[TontoK]

<snip>

The Ryder Cup in golf manages to have a merit based points system that’s transparent and the rankings are readily available.

Here is a question. Does the committee get replaced if their selections end up wrong, or are these positions locked in and you keep them until you retire or die?

There isn't quite right.

The Ryder Cup team selection, at least in the US, is partly based on historical merit, and partly based on "who is hot now." Three weeks ago, Captain Stricker announced the final team.

Six members are automatic selections based on a points system, and six make the team by virtue of "Captain's Picks." While Stricker consulted with many, the ultimate decision on the Captain's Picks was his. The goal was to choose golfers who were playing well right now - not players who had played well two years ago.

Here is is press conference reminding us of the automatic qualifiers and announcing his six Captain's Picks. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Sr7Dl9M6P8

 

[alexocfp]

There isn't quite right.

The Ryder Cup team selection, at least in the US, is partly based on historical merit, and partly based on "who is hot now." Three weeks ago, Captain Stricker announced the final team.

Six members are automatic selections based on a points system, and six make the team by virtue of "Captain's Picks." While Stricker consulted with many, the ultimate decision on the Captain's Picks was his. The goal was to choose golfers who were playing well right now - not players who had played well two years ago.

Here is is press conference reminding us of the automatic qualifiers and announcing his six Captain's Picks. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Sr7Dl9M6P8

Yes.

I knew this but skating does not allow 12 spots.

But even a 2 based on points and 1 selection from US fed would be a good compromise.

 

[Skatesocs]

Yes, and it should make sense. As an objective outsider, that would be the way to go. But it doesn't make sense in reality. For example, in my country Sweden, they are now using Worlds as a benchmark to send their skaters in men and women. Sweden has already qualified one man and woman but the benchmark is a top 8 result from Worlds 2021 to get the Olympic ticket. That means Josefin Taljegård needs to score about 200 points and Nikolaj Majorov needs to score around 260 points. Those scores are unfair to start with, but I get the logic behind the reasoning. But it's just an example of how benchmarking the wrong competition will end. And no, Taljegård and Majorov will probably never get to Beijing because of it, even though they qualified.
Had the Swedish federation used a let's say Autumn Classic top 5 benchmark instead, Josefin and Nikolaj might have a chance...


This has nothing to do with the US selection process of course. But it shows that if you are using the wrong benchmark, the consequences might be dire. And in the US case, giving credit to Karen Chen's very very very generous result at Worlds would be unfair to her competitors.

Right, but even in that case, if the point of the SOK is to produce a high quality result, they would indeed be using Worlds 2021's top 8. Can't beat the top 8, then you can't go. Benchmarks are what you use design them for If the point of the benchmark were "we just want to send whoever we have to the Olympics" then they could have benchmarked a CS event, and hope the scores Taljegard and Majorov got at worlds beat that benchmark. Since you think Karen's score was generous, the point USFS has in her favour there would be that she might get the same generous scoring at the OWG - therefore giving them a high quality result.

 

[skatingiscool]

How is the current selection system work for skaters (Alysa, Lindsay, Amber, Mariah) who are either not age eligible or selected for the last years' Worlds?

 

[TontoK]

Yes.

I knew this but skating does not allow 12 spots.

But even a 2 based on points and 1 selection from US fed would be a good compromise.

Sorry if I misinterpreted your post, but we're on the same page now regarding Ryder Cup selection.

On your 2-1 USFSA team selection, what exactly do you mean "based on points." Would that be a season long points system, or the top two finisher at US Nationals?

The one-selection from the federation almost certainly not be based on "who is hot now" judging from other times their selections have varied from what would be expected from Nationals

 

[alexocfp]

Sorry if I misinterpreted your post, but we're on the same page now regarding Ryder Cup selection.

On your 2-1 USFSA team selection, what exactly do you mean "based on points." Would that be a season long points system, or the top two finisher at US Nationals?

The one-selection from the federation almost certainly not be based on "who is hot now" judging from other times their selections have varied from what would be expected from Nationals

Definitely a points based system over a period of time. What that time period is can be debated.

I am sure the fed can come up with one. They found a way to get 35 pages detailing the selection criteria.

The one thing I’ll never be able to wrap my head around in this sport is the fact that countries get spots and not athletes.

 

[Jontor]

Right, but even in that case, if the point of the SOK is to produce a high quality result, they would indeed be using Worlds 2021's top 8. Can't beat the top 8, then you can't go. Benchmarks are what you use design them for If the point of the benchmark were "we just want to send whoever we have to the Olympics" then they could have benchmarked a CS event, and hope the scores Taljegard and Majorov got at worlds beat that benchmark. Since you think Karen's score was generous, the point USFS has in her favour there would be that she might get the same generous scoring at the OWG - therefore giving them a high quality result.

That's true. And now we come down to a bit of a dilemma. Do we send the ones that will probably get "generous" scores or do we send the best? That's a tricky question, and even a bit of a philosophical one...

 

[readernick]

How is the current selection system work for skaters (Alysa, Lindsay, Amber, Mariah) who are either not age eligible or selected for the last years' Worlds?

It would seem to be that , just like everyone else, they need to aim for that benchmark score at their competitions this season.

Since median scores are going to be considered from all challengers, GPs, and major competitions, I imagine scoring above 200 at all competitions they enter should be their goal

Alysa has been reaching her goal. She needs to keep doing that and trying to improve. Mariah's single performance wasn't great. Lindsay has done well, but junior scores are lower and she hasn't made it over 200. Amber hasn't skated an entire event yet.

Honestly, while the top 5 were extremely overscored at Worlds, the actual performances were so weak that it isn't impossible for any of them to reach this score. Bradie scored over 200 points in almost every competition for a period of three years ( until her terrible competition at Worlds this year)

Karen definitely has an advantage on the others, ( unfair advantage imho) but if she has a season of skates like she did at Autumn Classic ( and every other year she has been in seniors where her average international score tends to be in the 170s) she will lose it if the others skate better.

 

[TontoK]

That is an attractive way to answer the question, for the reason that it is an actual answer rather than mumbo-jumbo. (On the other hand, an equally firm position might be, "Want to go the the Olympics? Prove it by dominating the Grand Prix cricuit or winning Four Continents against international competition.")

I think that everyone agrees, including the USFSA, that placement at Nationals is the number one qualifier, with everything elase secondary. But DrivingMissDaisy makes a point, too. The "Nationals is all" tack puts pressure on the federation and the judges at Nationals to make sure that the results "come out right." Another point of view woluld be, "If you win Nationals your reward is that you are the national figure skating champion -- no questions asked." Now let's take up the separate question of who is out best bet at the Olympics.

But @Mathman and @drivingmissdaisy ... saying the judges will cheat is the worst possible justification for not changing the criteria.

It's their job to give the skaters a fair shake - all of them. If we can't trust that, then it's time to burn the whole system down.

Edit: One more thing... has there ever been a federation selection made outside of National podium placement that has medaled at an Olympics or Worlds? I can't remember one other than Nancy Kerrigan, and let's all pray a circumstance like that is never repeated. Other than this specific instance, I think we can safely put to rest the notion that these off-script selections lead to medals, even those who have been granted a medical bye. Give the "body of work" people a lifetime achievement award, and let the athletes sort things out on the field of play.

 

[Skatesocs]

That's true. And now we come down to a bit of a dilemma. Do we send the ones that will probably get "generous" scores or do we send the best? That's a tricky question, and even a bit of a philosophical one...

Well, the sport is how you play it. No federation in the world is honest enough to not eat the candies stuffed into their hands. There are many cases where the "correct" person hasn't got what they deserve, but no one in the fed cares, and even the audience eventually forgets about them. Nothing can be done about that - so I do stand by cases like Taljegard being too underscored at Worlds, and therefore not needing to bother with whatever the SOK thinks about her standing in the world based off what she did get. Federations and committees play their self interests, so giving them the proper feedback, that is primary. Too late and just too secondary to cry about what the federation will do instead.

 

[drivingmissdaisy]

But @Mathman and @drivingmissdaisy ... saying the judges will cheat is the worst possible justification for not changing the criteria.

It's their job to give the skaters a fair shake - all of them. If we can't trust that, then it's time to burn the whole system down.

One particular instance that soured me on the judging was 2018 Nationals, where the tech panel was clearly trying to knock Karen behind Ashley and the judging panel (thankfully) had other thoughts. Had Karen not been a major contender, she could have easily been buried by the judging panel. So, yes, I do think it's better to rely on a body of work than solely on the Nationals result.