Article:"Rewarding Failure Diminishes Sport"

[Poodlepal]

There is only one jump, at the "famous Olympic-skater" level, that not every man does: the quad.

There are maybe two jumps or combos that women at this elite level don't do (except in rare cases, like injured Carolina): the triple axel and maybe a triple/triple combo of some sort.

Everyone does up to the triple lutz and all men do triple axels. They should not be rewarded for trying jumps that they are supposed to have mastered by the time they get to this level.

Therefore, give a few points for men for trying a quad, and a few points to women for trying an axel or triple/triple. But don't give any points if they fall on anything else. Also, when a skater falls doing footwork, they should lose all or most points for the footwork, instead of being praised for caring and throwing their body into it.

 

[mskater93]

Poodlepal, almost all of the top ladies omit at least 1 jump from their arsenal BEYOND the 3A. Yuna Kim didn't do 3Lo for a long time, Mao Asada didn't do 3Lz, Nagasu's missing a 3S, Czisny's missing 3S, and so on. Rochette was the only one of the top 4 to attempt (and land) all triples except 3A at the last Olympics.

Why beat on Kostner for not doing the 3Lz when the BV isn't that far off between 3F and 3Lz?

There should be a requirement that all take off types be attempted and if you can't do a 4 or 3 rotation version, you have to do the double version. There are 7 jumping passes in Ladies and 8 in Men's- there are 6 take off types (S, T, Lo, F, Lz, A) which gives you a "free" pass (2 in Men) to repeat your best (or hardest) if you don't put them in combination.

By giving a zero for failed attempts, it will take the jumping back to 1980s levels and the excitement of all the men trying the hardest jumps will be gone...

 

[Mathman]

Now, what's an appropriate way to value C's two failed quad attempts? We agree that 10 points is too much. Do we also agree that -2 points is too little, that C should get more points for rotating and falling than D got for falling without attempting the elements at all? Would, maybe 4-6 points total for the two failed attempts be appropriate?

6 points would be approriate within the philosphy of the CoP. A little un-sporty, but what are you going to do?

If you gave 0 points it would not be necessary to have a -1 deduction for falling. You could just get 0. Same as the guy who skipped two jumping passes altogether. I think there should be a threshold for the answer "yes" to the question, did he do ia quad toe or not, yes or no,which neither skater met.

Two little boys are boasting at the frozen pond. "I can jump a quad!"

"Oh yeah? Prove it."

So he flies into the air and falls down. "Wait, that didn't count." He flies into the air again and falls down again.

"Get back to me when you can do a quad."

By giving a zero for failed attempts, it will take the jumping back to 1980s levels and the excitement of all the men trying the hardest jumps will be gone...

I think you are selling the athletes short. They will always try to out-do one another, CoP or no CoP. "Failed attempt" is not part of an athlete's vocabulary.

 

[gkelly]

OK, two kids on a frozen pond both boast that they can do a quad.

First kid just stands there and smirks, or twirls around four times on the ice on two feet. You can do that. You're not impressed.

Second kid jumps up into the air and twirls around four times in midair. Then he falls down. He hasn't landed a quad. But he has done something that probably fewer than 100 people in the world, out of billions, can do. Wouldn't you be impressed?

 

[Mathman]

I might be impressed, but he has not done a quad.

Two world champions spin around four times in the air and fall down. I know I should be impressed, but...

 

[seniorita]

You can be impressed with the fall

 

[Violet Bliss]

I might be impressed, but he has not done a quad.

Two world champions spin around four times in the air and fall down. I know I should be impressed, but...

But under COP no Man has become a world champion with a fall. It just shows it takes most of a season to reach the optimal performance level with the challenging programs. If someone starts out with a clean easy program and stays clean through the season, I doubt he will win at the end. If skaters all opt for clean easy programs, we will not see amazing WOW performances and the sport will not go forward.

 

[Mathman]

^ All true. But not really relevant, I think, to the question of whether we should be giving partial credit encouragement to the skaters as they work the bugs out in the early season.

I think a tough love approach is more sportsified. "You just fell on your quad attempt at Skate America. No roses for you. You'd better get it together by Worlds, if you expect to win anything."

No need to hold their hands in the early going.

 

[Vash01]

Please. Flawed skating is flawed skating. I don't care WHO points it out... there is a reason skating is struggling and part of this is watching these flawed performances equated with brilliance. And if you choose to see that as a grand illusion, then fine. But don't confuse your illusion with the reality of the sport of figure skating...

Well said. I don't care who wrote the article, if it makes sense.

 

[bekalc]

To be honest, I have far more issues with how PCS are judged/suppose to be judged, than I have with the quad getting big points for falls. I hate the quad getting big points for falling. But what i'm taking more issue is set PCS that give certain skaters huge point advantage no matter what they actually put on the ice.

Do you know what I really think. I think for that for the jumping content Lambiel landed in both programs, Lambiel being that close to Olympic bronze, was FAR more of a travesty than someone winning OGM or a World Title without a quad.

The quad points for a fall make the situation worse, because now if lets say someone like Brezina lands 2 quads, and Patrick falls on two quad attempts. Patrick will have enough cushion that his top PCS will more than carry the day...

Figure skating needs to be like other sports in that it should be possible for upsets and "the lesser known person to beat the more well known person if the lesser known out skates them.

But figure skating is not a sport like hockey, or soccer where its just collect the goals. In figure skating there's a performance and so every thing that is done matters (unlike b-ball, bad turn over you can make up for it.) I frankly don't know how you can really seperate how one performances the elements with the performance. Because I could argue the best figure skating performances, the most memorable ones well they involve weaving the elements to together in the performance.

IJS doesnt' reward magic or special. When Asada landed 3 triple axels at the Olympics, she made history, that's special. I don't think she deserved to win. But everyone knew on a "real level" that what Asada did was special. But the PCS aren't allowed to reflect these things. (And TES scores don't either). And in general when Laura Lepisto went out and did mainly doubles at Worlds (which she was rewarded with bronze). I think most of us who know anything about jumps, knew that it was a pretty poor jumping performance, even if she didn't fall on her butt.

Jump content really isn't rewarded either. Reward difficulty absolutely but reward execution too. This being said I'd rather see a skater do well with what they can do, than to be mopping the floor with their butt. I don't like Kostner's watered down jumps and I hope the young Russians come and yes start jumping around soon. But I much prefer her winning ways now than I preferred to watching her when she was frankly all over the place and messy.
There's got to be frankly a balance.

Pcs need to very from competition, and they need to be tied to execution too IMO.

 

[amber68]

Jump content really isn't rewarded either. Reward difficulty absolutely but reward execution too. This being said I'd rather see a skater do well with what they can do, than to be mopping the floor with their butt.

Exactly. That's why the mistakes also need to penalized much more so the skaters will attempt programs closer to their real abilities .
I agree that the falls look the worst but, for example, I would also like to see a change in the way the + GOE is given to the jumps with difficult entries. There are too many messed up jumps which end up with +GOE because the skater was “wise” and put the trendy difficult entry before them.
The programs look so bad when the jumps are barely landed , tilted, with no height or have no flow out. It’s irritating to see skaters, who clearly are not strong jumpers, putting pretentious transitions before every single jump because they know that these will count both for the transitions scores, choreography and difficult entry .ISU really needs to tone down this transition-mania !
I would reward the difficult entry only if the other aspects of the jump deserve + GOE (position in the air, height, flow). Why encourage the skaters to do things they obviously can’t master?
The difficult but messy programs are bad for the athletes (who could injure themselves) and are bad for figure skating popularity .
IMO, in the arena, nothing looks better than beautiful high jumps and programs skated with power and speed. It’s horrible to see skaters (live, even more so) barely crawling on the ice no matter how intricate the choreography is and how many transitions are packed in. Why encourage skaters to do complicate things before they prove they can execute very well the simpler ones?
As always, the exceptional skaters will continue to try hard things and take risks so penalizing more the mistakes and the falls does not mean discouraging risk taking.
Let’s remember that under 6.0, a fall or a big mistake in the SP was very severely penalized and usually meant no gold medal but this didn’t stop the skaters to try harder and harder elements.
Why does ISU feel now that risk taking needs special encouragement?

 

[Bluebonnet]

Jump content really isn't rewarded either. Reward difficulty absolutely but reward execution too.

I think IJS has them in place. The question is how the judges utilize the rules and apply. In any case, I think it cannot avoid a program with a fall wins over a clean program. And it shouldn't avoid it for the purpose of favoriting clean programs. If a clean program would automatically wins over a program with a fall anytime and everytime, it'll create a different scenario which needs to be addressed as well.

Pcs need to very from competition, and they need to be tied to execution too IMO.

On the whole, I have no objection on this. Ironically, one of the typical examples of such was men's result from 2011 Japan Nationals. No international favoritism in the argument. Takahashi won gold with three falls in a single program - LP, THREE FALLS. Kozuka won silver with one fall. Hanyu has bronze with two clean programs. Though Hanyu won LP with TES content, their LP PCS were like these:

Yuzuru PCS 79.00 7.95 7.50 8.15 7.90 8.00 0.00
Takahiko PCS 81.50 8.45 7.85 8.20 8.20 8.05 1.00
Daisuke PCS 86.90 8.80 8.50 8.45 8.85 8.85 3.00

If the scoring were like Mathman suggested, no points for the jumps with falls, Takahashi would definitely have been placed in bronze or maybe even the fourth place in this competition. I don't think fourth place is marginally reasonable and fair for Takahashi.

 

[ImaginaryPogue]

Interesting post, amber

1. While I agree transitions are over-valued (I would take them out of component scores altogether), I don't agree with removing them as a GOE contributing factor if the rest of the jump is flawed. Can you find me an example so we can explore your POV further?

2. Can you give an example of a skater that packs his programs will transitions but barely moves across the ice? The slow skaters I can think of - van der Perren, Bradley - weren't exactly those with packed choreography.

3. amber68, I think partially because the only elements that seemed to matter under 6.0 were the jumps. If COP were structured the same way, with very little emphasis placed on spins/footwork/etc, and just had jumps as the major point getters, you'd see the same thing, imo.

4. bekalc, I'm just gonna point out that the more elements count, the less everything else does. I want to see clean skating, but I also want to see the choreography, the transitions, the performance, the skating skills, the interpretation get weighted fairly as well, or else you'll get a bunch of elements and nothing else.

 

[gkelly]

1. While I agree transitions are over-valued (I would take them out of component scores altogether), I don't agree with removing them as a GOE contributing factor if the rest of the jump is flawed.

Well, then where would you reward non-listed "elements" that aren't directly connected to listed elements. E.g., stroking-gorgeous sustained Ina Bauer or two huge split jumps-stroking-element?

I suppose that difficult turns and steps not part of a step or spiral sequence and not leading directly into or out of a jump or spin could be rewarded under Skating Skills. And the variety and quality of everything between the elements could be rewarded under Choreography and Performance/Execution, respectively, as applicable.

Still, it would make more sense to me to have a score for transitions (or in-between skating) and not to reflect the transitions in the GOEs, rather than the other way around as you suggest.

2. Can you give an example of a skater that packs his programs will transitions but barely moves across the ice? The slow skaters I can think of - van der Perren, Bradley - weren't exactly those with packed choreography.

I'm not thinking of specific names offhand, but I have sometimes seen lower-level skaters who deserve Skating Skills scores in the 3s who do more "stuff" in between their elements than elite skaters with stronger skating skills including speed.

Obviously the quality of their transitions is not likely to be as high, and possibly not the difficulty. But if the variety and intricacy are there, and sheer quantity, those may be examples of skaters who deserve higher scores for TR than for SS, unlike the majority.

 

[Bluebonnet]

I'd rather see a skater do well with what they can do, than to be mopping the floor with their butt.

No one could guarantee not to mop the floor. The point is no one would want to mop the floor. Do you think Takahashi can't do his 3A or his 3F? He was great at them but he ended up falling on both at Japan Nationals, plus the fall on his less stable 4T. Which jump, do you think, he shouldn't have decided to try at this particular competition in order not to fall?

 

[Mathman]

No one could guarantee not to mop the floor. The point is no one would want to mop the floor. Do you think Takahashi can't do his 3A or his 3F? He was great at them but he ended up falling on both at Japan Nationals, plus the fall on his less stable 4T. Which jump, do you think, he shouldn't have decided to try at this particular competition in order not to fall?

He should have tried them all. If he fell on all, he should have lost the competition.

 

[Bluebonnet]

He should have tried them all. If he fell on all, he should have lost the competition.

Hmmm, that's a thought. Honestly, I don't know. Calling for Takahashi fans - there are so many on GS, for this. Will you be OK with Hanyu gold, Kozuka silver, and Takahashi Bronze or fourth place?

I think if every skater knew before hand that a clean program would win, and a fall in a program would mean lose, their program would have been designed differently from what they've skated. There will definitely be less risk taking in all fronts, not just jumps. Personally, I'm not OK with a quadless world champion, not to mention the dreadful quadless Olympic champion. It's just so ordinary and uninspiring, and losing the feeling of sports.

Although, there might be a way. To make quad jump a standard for a champion. No quad, no champion.

 

[gkelly]

I don't think you can require the most difficult element to become champion.

What happens when no one completes that element successfully? No champion?

What if one skater completes the most difficult element but struggles on the rest of the program, and a better skater does everything else well but fails or doesn't try the hardest element?

What if one skater completes the mandated difficult element perfectly, and another better skater attempts an even harder element that's never been done before? Maybe it's also completely successful but since it wasn't previously written into the rules as a requirement it doesn't guarantee a win. Maybe it's only partially successful but

E.g., at 1994 Worlds a quad toe-triple toe combo with a step out was good enough for a win, because no one else was landing even a solo quad.

Suppose in 2014 someone attempts a quad toe-quad toe combo and steps out of the second landing. Should that be worth more or less than a solo quad?

Or there are several programs with clean quad toes and another good program with fully rotated quad flip with a minor error (e.g., touchdown of free toe or hand). Should the never-before-done, even more difficult element be rewarded enough to prevail?

In the ladies' event, suppose several skaters start landing triple axels so that it appears necessary to attempt one to win the championship. Do you make that the standard for a champion -- no 3A, no champion? Then what if a few ladies land slightly underrotated triple axels and someone else doesn't attempt that jump but does attempt and succeed at a fully rotated quad sal? No 3A, no champion, because the rules said nothing about quads?

 

[bekalc]

No one could guarantee not to mop the floor. The point is no one would want to mop the floor. Do you think Takahashi can't do his 3A or his 3F? He was great at them but he ended up falling on both at Japan Nationals, plus the fall on his less stable 4T. Which jump, do you think, he shouldn't have decided to try at this particular competition in order not to fall?

He should have tried them all but the marks should have reflected the poor skate. No one should be getting 86s in PC's with 3 falls. So he had a bad skate everyone. And I have no issue with someone winning with a fall even over clean skates if everything else is perfect. But when we start getting into multiple falls. MULTIPLE messy landings I draw the line.

 

[Bluebonnet]

What happens when no one completes that element successfully? No champion?

Personally, the skaters who go for the quad jumps but end up with falls are more gutsy and admirable than the skaters who don't even try.

I'm favor of partial credit. If there is no partial credit, there will be new problems. For example, in what degree of completion of an element receives credit? Will under rotated but no fall jump receive a full credit or no credit? Will a stepped out jump receive a full credit or no credit?

What if one skater completes the mandated difficult element perfectly, and another better skater attempts an even harder element that's never been done before? Maybe it's also completely successful but since it wasn't previously written into the rules as a requirement it doesn't guarantee a win. Maybe it's only partially successful but

E.g., at 1994 Worlds a quad toe-triple toe combo with a step out was good enough for a win, because no one else was landing even a solo quad.

Suppose in 2014 someone attempts a quad toe-quad toe combo and steps out of the second landing. Should that be worth more or less than a solo quad?

Or there are several programs with clean quad toes and another good program with fully rotated quad flip with a minor error (e.g., touchdown of free toe or hand). Should the never-before-done, even more difficult element be rewarded enough to prevail?

I think the existing rules have covered it well already. A single new, hard element doesn't guarantee a win but it guarantees more points, like Mroz's 4Lz.

In the ladies' event, suppose several skaters start landing triple axels so that it appears necessary to attempt one to win the championship. Do you make that the standard for a champion -- no 3A, no champion? Then what if a few ladies land slightly underrotated triple axels and someone else doesn't attempt that jump but does attempt and succeed at a fully rotated quad sal? No 3A, no champion, because the rules said nothing about quads?

We can't make 3A as a rule for the winner in ladies because 3A is not as popular in ladies as quad in men.

He should have tried them all but the marks should have reflected the poor skate. No one should be getting 86s in PC's with 3 falls. So he had a bad skate everyone. And I have no issue with someone winning with a fall even over clean skates if everything else is perfect. But when we start getting into multiple falls. MULTIPLE messy landings I draw the line.

I actually agree with you on this.