True enough, although of course that is more true of those judging the tech panel than the panels themselves.Very simply turns, twizzles, and level features can be objectively evaluated or not, but beyond that there wil always be human bias. And that being said, tech panels don't call turns correctly often (either human error or bias).
All these are continuous variables, not either/or. You can rate them on, say, a scale of 0-5 or 0-10. It's not a choice between either 0 or 10 with nothing in between.to an extent, speed, power, edge depth and posture can be objective. A skater is fast or slow. A skater does complicated transitions or not. A skater makes big lobes on the ice, or flat. A skater has hunched shoulders or not. A skater has a stretched free leg or not.
Are you an expert in these areas? Could you mark these aspects better than the judges across a large field?differentiation between masterful technicians is quite tricky in some situations. But if judges could put bias aside, these aspects could be marked quite well. Even composition can (if the judges understood music and element design).
I'd love to learn how to do it, if you could share your expertise, maybe in a new thread.
Very true. There's lots to enjoy from teams who are good performers and maybe less accomplished technically. As long as no one thinks enjoyment factor should override skating skill. But in ice dance particularly, ability to use the skating skills to dance to the music is much more important than in other disciplines, and that often does translate directly into enjoyment.And also considering the non-fans of ice dance, the casual viewers. When asking family, they often loved the least technical skaters the best. Because they watch the program, and take in the performance. Nothing else matters to them but the overall impression.
But sometimes, there are just technical reasons why a more enjoyable program might not score as highly.