2025 Worlds: Ice Dance thoughts and comments | Page 4 | Golden Skate

2025 Worlds: Ice Dance thoughts and comments

Yeah but they can't if they are being hosed by their own federation.
There was an interesting case of that back in the 1970s in ladies. The two top U.S. skaters were Janet Lynn and Julie Lynn Holmes. Janet Lynn was America's sweetheart and won the U.S. championship in 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1972, with Holmes second.

But internationally it was Holmes who was placed ahead of Lynn to medal at the world championships in both 1970 and 1971 (Lynn was 6th and 4th). Holmes' relative hosing by the USFSA was ignored by the international judges. ;)

(Holmes was better at figures, Lynn at free skating, which might account for the difference.)
 
It's ice dance. The more you know about skating, the less you understand the judging. In 6.0 system they didn't pretend it was fair. Now they do pretend and sometimes it's hilarious but more often just sad.
They pretend in all the disciplines, it's just more blatant in ID.
 
They pretend in all the disciplines, it's just more blatant in ID.
Another possibility is that it harder to judge ice dance than is the case of the other disciplines, which have, in part,more objective and precise scoring criteria. In fact, at the lower levels the ISU rules regarding "anomalies" in judging, and even in the handling of ethics complaints are somewhat modified for ice dance because of the difficulty of finding qualified judges and referees at all.

Plus, fans are more likely to complain about this discipline when the difference is that the other couple got 9.75 in composition while my favorite only got 9.50, while in singles, if our favorite falls on her triple Lutz then we partisans just have to suck it up.

I really do not see any evidence that ice dance judges are any bigger crooks than in the general population -- either the population of figure slkating judges or farther afield.
 
Last edited:
Another possibility is that it harder to judge ice dance than is the case of the other disciplines, which have, in part,more objective and precise scoring criteria. In fact, at the lower levels the ISU rules regarding "anomalies" in judging, and even in the handling of ethics complaints are somewhat modified for ice dance because of the difficulty of finding qualified judges and referees at all.

Plus, fans are more likely to comlain about this discipline when the difference is that the other couple got 9.75 in composition while my favorite only got 9.50, while in singles, if our favorite falls on her triple Lutz then we partisans just have to suck it up.

I really do not see any evidence that ice dance judges are any bigger crooks than in the general population -- either the population of figure slkating judges or farther afield.
I've said this before, but it's worth repeating.

For all its faults, there aren't many times when the IJS system has delivered a podium where I thought, "This is just blatantly crooked."

Sure, I can say "I might have scored it differently, I might have placed a skater/team higher or lower, I think the score differential is too large or too small, I just don't see how anyone can like that program." But that's not the same thing as thinking "The whole thing is a scam." It helps, perhaps, that I really don't fanboy for anyone, so I'm not emotionally invested. Yes, there are skaters I particularly enjoy, but my day isn't ruined by the outcome of a competition.

Having the protocols handy so soon after the event has enhanced the credibility of the scoring system. Why did the judges arrive at this score? Well, here, look and see.

The one notable exception to this rule is the propping up at US Nationals. There have been some really egregious tech calls (and lack thereof) in that competition for years. And I think those are designed to affect the outcome, and it is beneath a knowledgeable fan base like we have on this forum to excuse, and even endorse, this.

Case in point from this year's US Nats: The brutally strict technical calls on Lindsay Thorngren vs the mild "q" Amber Glenn received for her blatantly downgraded 3A during the SP. It should not matter if one is out of favor, and one is undefeated and a World podium threat - what should matter to our federation at our National Championship is that all the athletes compete on a level playing field. Tight panel (my preference) or loose panel... we should all demand consistency.

And don't come at me with the "we want to send the strongest team to Worlds" justification. With the body of work selection process (which I dislike immensely, but another fight for another day) that argument holds no water.
 
Case in point from this year's US Nats:
To me, the USFSA is in error when it downgrades its own national championship in the hope of somehow providing a boost for U.S. skaters at worlds. Even on the TV broadcasts, the emphasis is on, Who will qualify for the World team? I would like it much better if the suspense were built around, Who will become the U.S. Champion? Let Worlds take care of itself.

Similarly, at Worlds, I think too much attention was devoted to the question of earning spots at the Olympics. Yes, yes, of course national federations are concerned about this. But the point of the World Championships is to determine the winner of the world title right now. No one can foretell the future, but to be crowned the best in the world at your sport right here, right now -- that's not exactly chopped liver.
 
To me, the USFSA is in error when it downgrades its own national championship in the hope of somehow providing a boost for U.S. skaters at worlds. Even on the TV broadcasts, the emphasis is on, Who will qualify for the World team? I would like it much better if the suspense were built around, Who will become the U.S. Champion? Let Worlds take care of itself.

Similarly, at Worlds, I think too much attention was devoted to the question of earning spots at the Olympics. Yes, yes, of course national federations are concerned about this. But the point of the World Championships is to determine the winner of the world title right now. No one can foretell the future, but to be crowned the best in the world at your sport right here, right now -- that's not exactly chopped liver.

I agree with all of this. And, hey, let's stir the pot - even if I don't have a better solution to the dilemma.

Let's address the "spots" drama that occurs every year, but especially in the pre-Olympic year. For example, let's look at the US Pairs situation. We have three Olympic spots next year. OK, that's fine... let's assume whatever pair jumps through the qualification hoops for purposes of this discussion.

Are our pairs REALLY in a position where with a straight face, we can justify Canada (for example) having only two while we have three? Especially when it is possible (if not likely) that our current gold and silver medalists are likely to be ineligible? Sure, that's the way the results at Worlds landed, those are the rules. And I don't really have a beef with that in the sense that those spots were earned on the field of battle and not in a backroom negotiation.

But let's acknowledge that third spot comes at the expense of whatever team is sitting on the 17th qualification, and they may be from a federation with no representation at all. And, sure, I agree that unknown third US pair has worked hard and has Olympic dreams and that's great and all... but so does that team sitting in 17th, who may, in fact, be the better pair.

The proud American in me is waving a flag and shouting "USA! USA!" but the figure skating fan inside is shrugging his shoulders.

And I don't want to be seen as the anti-American American, so I'll ask if anyone knows, without looking it up, the two non-Misha men from Kazakhstan who deserve a trip to the Olympics more than the first man off the Olympic roster?

And remember the annual drama we used to have about which Spanish dance team would get the nod to major competitions? Any reasonably unbiased person would acknowledge that they both deserved it more than the last team that made it through the qualification labyrinth.

As Mathman alludes, the chatter about "spots" is about federations, and athletes only indirectly. It's nationalistic.
 
I don't think that there is any solution regarding the Olympics. This IS a competition between nations, not individuals. When you look at Olympic results, the first line is always about which nations have garnered the most medals. In many sports, one nation is particularly dominant and the first person left off the team may be better than anyone else at the competition.

As for the ISU, that, too is an association of national federations. No individual skater is a member of the ISU, no matter how good or bad they are compared to other skaters.
 
I don't think that there is any solution regarding the Olympics. This IS a competition between nations, not individuals. When you look at Olympic results, the first line is always about which nations have garnered the most medals. In many sports, one nation is particularly dominant and the first person left off the team may be better than anyone else at the competition.

As for the ISU, that, too is an association of national federations. No individual skater is a member of the ISU, no matter how good or bad they are compared to other skaters.
There is no good solution, I've thought of a few... but all have drawbacks.

For example, perhaps they can be allocated to countries based on average finishing position over a 4 years cycle. That way, no individual country has the absolutely political power to influence spots.
The caveat, is it gives more incentives to have worse judging at every world championships if there is something to gain.

The second, would be to use world standings (with countries). And with this, it rewards countries who send athletes to lots of senior B competitions. I think this could be a better solution. Again though, it could lead to worse judging at senior Bs which is not ideal.

It's tricky to say honestly.
 
Let's address the "spots" drama that occurs every year, but especially in the pre-Olympic year. For example, let's look at the US Pairs situation. We have three Olympic spots next year. OK, that's fine... let's assume whatever pair jumps through the qualification hoops for purposes of this discussion.
The USA does not, in fact, have 3 Olympic spots. They have 3 Worlds spots. For the Olympics, they have 2 spots with the possibility of qualifying a third spot at the qualifying comp in China. If they can come up with a third pair that can earn it there, then more power to them. I actually think it's not very likely.

The treatment of that 3rd (potential) spot is the difference between the new (as of 2022 Olympics) and old rules. And I'm all in favor of the new rules. It means giving one-skater-in-the discipline countries a spot at Worlds. In most cases, it's not even a third spot that is being withheld, but a second spot. In many cases a country that earns a second spot with one entry doesn't even have a second qualified entry, so winds up relinquishing that second spot, to be re-distributed at the qualifier, so it goes to someone else anyway. But It's a tremendous advantage to that "someone else" to get the spot at Worlds instead of at the qualifier. It helps the skater and federation to plan and to elicit government or sponsor support to finance the cost of sending the athlete to the Olympics.
 
Last edited:
The USA does not, in fact, have 3 Olympic spots. They have 3 Worlds spots. For the Olympics, they have 2 spots with the possibility of qualifying a third spot at the qualifying comp in China. If they can come up with a third pair that can earn it there, then more power to them. I actually think it's not very likely.

The treatment of that 3rd (potential) spot is the difference between the new (as of 2022 Olympics) and old rules. And I'm all in favor of the new rules. It means giving one-skater-in-the discipline countries a spot at Worlds. In most cases, it's not even a third spot that is being withheld, but a second spot. In many cases a country that earns a second spot with one entry doesn't even have a second qualified entry, so winds up relinquishing that second spot, to be re-distributed at the qualifier, so it goes to someone else anyway. But It's a tremendous advantage to that "someone else" to get the spot at Worlds instead of at the qualifier. It helps the skater and federation to plan and to elicit government or sponsor support to finance the cost of sending the athlete to the Olympics.
Yes, I made mention of that in the clip you snipped from my post when I talked about assuming for the discussion the pair jumps through qualification hoops.

But I certainly did not make it clear that was I meant. Yes, the third pair spot DOES have to be earned through additional qualification.

Like you, I'm in favor of the new rule. To me, it makes sense. That third US pair, that third French man, that second Georgian dance team, the second Estonian woman... and so on. They need to prove they deserve it more than all the other competitors for those spots. They have to fight for it, rather than it being awarded to them based on the accomplishments of teammates.

Any innovation in our sport that shifts power to the battlefield... I'm usually in favor of that.
 
I love Smart and Dieck's free dance. Following it through the season, it really pulled me in. This time it left goosebumps! They are 50/50 at keeping it for next season. What say you?
I loved the originality of it and their dedication to their interpretation. It was such a mess at the start of the season and grew into a program that became unique and different. The only thing I can thematically think of like it was the Lawrence of Arabia Sand and Ocean program by Klimova & Ponomarenko in the pre-Olympic season of 1991.



That said - I don't want them to keep it. It's magic will be lost by then.
Use it as an exhibition number yes - competition no.
 
Last edited:
I'm still trying to get my head around Zach and Marg finishing in 7th place for crying out loud.
The placement seemed very, very low for me as well. I really liked their program at Worlds and it resonated with me more here than any other time this season. After looking at the scores and rewatching the video, this is my best guess. It appears they were ranked lowest on the dance spin at DS3 ranked 18th (tied with Lopareva/Brissaud) - perhaps Zach was on two feet too long and some judges thought Marjorie's step out of the spin looked a bit off. The other element they lost points on was the twizzles (L4 for both but only ranked twelfth - so likely GOE). KMT mentioned that Marjo might have checked one of the twizzles - no reply to see on video, I thought they looked fine. The most striking thing overall about their marks was the divergence of points by J6-9 who were nearly 10 points lower than J1-5. This placement really bothered me as well and I think the only thing I see is on the spin. Don't understand what the other J6-9 judges were seeing.
 
The placement seemed very, very low for me as well. I really liked their program at Worlds and it resonated with me more here than any other time this season. After looking at the scores and rewatching the video, this is my best guess. It appears they were ranked lowest on the dance spin at DS3 ranked 18th (tied with Lopareva/Brissaud) - perhaps Zach was on two feet too long and some judges thought Marjorie's step out of the spin looked a bit off. The other element they lost points on was the twizzles (L4 for both but only ranked twelfth - so likely GOE). KMT mentioned that Marjo might have checked one of the twizzles - no reply to see on video, I thought they looked fine. The most striking thing overall about their marks was the divergence of points by J6-9 who were nearly 10 points lower than J1-5. This placement really bothered me as well and I think the only thing I see is on the spin. Don't understand what the other J6-9 judges were seeing.
I just watched the CBC TV Free Dance coverage

Carol Lane was stunned with the low score for Marjorie and Zach. The only thing she pointed out is that there was a small bit off-unison in the twizzles .... Judges 6-9 : just look which team they liked and tried to push and you will understand.

She also pointed out many errors in the Brits program and a couple smaller mistakes in the Italian's

But for LaLa she said " oh my, that was unexpected" when the scores and rankings came by.


Regarding the Dune program, well, it's a bit slow and simplistic in terms of difficulty... not so much in lifts and positions but in terms of steps and turns. To me it was a lot of beautiful and creative lifts and sliding moves but not so much a great free dance.

I vote to ban Dune programs for next year. There was no water on that planet ;) how can there be ice on it ? :)


More from Carol, she had only nice things to say about CB.

She also was very proud of her team of GP and said she didn't expect a score that high... And went back to lala saying :"I'm still shaking my head about that"
 
Last edited:
I think Arrakis actually had polar ice caps :cheeky: Don't remember any Fremen ice skaters though. But they might have existed!

But I would vote to ban Gladiator programs. Colosseum was never an ice rink!
My pairs partner took his family to Italy on a vacation when his kids were small. While they were in Rome, they took a tour of the Colosseum. One of his kids pointed down at the big gateway at one end and asked what that led to. My partner said, "That's the door for the Zamboni." (Their guide was the only one who didn't laugh. :what:)

I finally got around to Googling "Dune" to see what it was about, presuming at least that it was a movie. I assumed it was set in the Sahara. I see I was quite wrong. I need to get out more.
 
But I would vote to ban Gladiator programs. Colosseum was never an ice rink!
That would also have left out Robin Hood and Dances With Wolves, which were done to death a few decades ago. (I admit to skating to both.)

Swan Lake could still work, though, if you set it in winter.
 
It was a very interesting competition, unpredictable. In some respects it seems like many teams are pushing themselves and taking risks to some degree (though in varying ways).

I feel bad for the Lithuanians, to not qualify for the free at an Olympic qualifier when they've finally got the chance to actually go.. that's so unfortunate. But their placement in the RD was fair in my opinion. The qualifier in Beijing is going to be tough.
 
Last edited:
Sure, I can say "I might have scored it differently, I might have placed a skater/team higher or lower, I think the score differential is too large or too small, I just don't see how anyone can like that program." But that's not the same thing as thinking "The whole thing is a scam." It helps, perhaps, that I really don't fanboy for anyone, so I'm not emotionally invested. Yes, there are skaters I particularly enjoy, but my day isn't ruined by the outcome of a competition.

Having the protocols handy so soon after the event has enhanced the credibility of the scoring system. Why did the judges arrive at this score? Well, here, look and see.
The more ice dance discussion i read, the more I feel that perhaps a lot of fans are judging it by what they personally feel and expecting the judges (and tech guys) to follow suit. Which isn't going to happen.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top