Duhamel, Radford frustrated by system

[andromache]

Dick Button once pointed out, while watching the amazing Lucinda Ruh, that spins are just as difficult to master (not do, master) as jumps. And nobody rewards them properly.

But, and I say this as someone who like D/R as performers and people, they won't complain about that because spins aren't something they excel at to the same degree as they do on throw jumps.

Just saying...

Are there any pairs out there right now who excel at spins? D/R's SBS spins stand out to me because they're usually more in sync than most other pairs, and Alexa/Chris's pair spin stands out because it's very, very fast. S/H have that one unique pair spin position that they messed up on at a comp last year.

Like, those are all the memorable spins I can think of right now. Spins in pairs are just not good overall.

 

[Stolmov]

I like them but sorry I dont agree. Changing guidelines while we are still in the quad time interval is a no no from me. Changing guidelines while we are still in the quad interval would just be a witch hunt after certain skaters who can do something better than other skaters. It would be unfair and totally chaotic as skaters need their time to train for a set of rules.
As for technique versus an artistic program. They dont go against eachother, a good program is a good program. You can have it both you can be perfect in one and bla on the other. Doesn't matter if you are perfect in something and you do it, you get rewarded for it whatever it is. If you think clear artistic programs are very easy then do it and get the easy points!!

 

[Mathman]

If you think clear artistic programs are very easy then do it and get the easy points!!

I agree with this point. Pairs skating is not singles skating. It's the "two skating as one" aspect that we have to protect in the scoring system.

 

[katha]

My impression is that pairs skating is inherently so difficult and dangerous that it should be legitimate to reward pairs who do pairs elements (like lifts, throws, spirals) exceptionally well. If someone who is brilliant at a difficult triple throw scores relatively close to someone who is middling at a quad, I think there's an argument for that. Moreso than in the other disciplines. Skating as one and building presentation that really presents as a unit and not only as two individual skaters who happen to do the same choreography is also a skill that I'm sure takes lots and lots of time to develop, so I'm alright if that is rewarded as well.

 

[Skater Boy]

There are problems with the current scoring system. Mainly the throws are probably worth too little and the risk of doing say the 3A not worth doing it As some have shown you could do in singles a quad and fall and it would be worth like a 3 sal or loop that was clean but the value of throws is less.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

I agree with this point. Pairs skating is not singles skating. It's the "two skating as one" aspect that we have to protect in the scoring system.

The thing is, does the quad throw really compromise the "two skating as one" nature of a program? I get if single jumps were heavily weighted in terms of points that would compromise it, but a throw - especially of higher difficulty - is definitive of pairs. Look at it this way, women can easily do 3S jumps -- and in some cases do a 3STh and SBS 3S. But most women can't do a 4S on their own (or even men for that matter), and it is the man facilitating it that makes it a definitive pairs element. To me, pairs is about synergy and both partners creating something greater than the sum of their parts... and successful harder elements is indicative of this.

Nobody complained when Stolbova/Klimov were adding a SBS 3T+3T ("singles" elements) instead of gaining points via improving their 3Tw or upgrading their throws. And in fact, they were lauded for it, as they should be. I don't understand the flack that people give D/R for trying a quad -- if they just did a 3S, people would STILL complain about their lack of artistry (regardless of how much they actually improved), only diff is that they wouldn't be gaining as many points.

 

[TGee]

Max only said that mainly b/c he was concerned for Tania & generally skaters & as we see from the multiple injuries he was right
Not about banning ofc but about the fact that this isnt a 100% postitive move & not a certain moving forward

& I dont see how a messy quad is better than a clean & crisp triple both from a sports & art perspective :whack:

I believe that the point was that when others have suggested rule changes, there hasn't been the same kind of criticism in principle of their expressing their views about the current SoV or allowed elements.

For me, well reasoned discussion about the current bullet point system and SoV, informed by the folks who actually train and compete the elements is welcome. Whether it's Maksim or Meagan and Eric, pairs is somewhat stuck, and the conversation needs to happen now.

Maksim is concerned about safety....Meagan and Eric are concerned about the balance of difficulty to reward. Both sound like things that need to be on the table in any revision. Not sure why folks should criticize either for putting their views out there in what is already a public discussion.

Realistically, it takes time to build a consensus for change, but it also sounds as though both these sets of pairs are concerned that the discussion isn't happening sufficiently within the ISU to get the consensus process moving towards meaningful change.

I actually think that some of the comments that the current system doesn't sufficiently reward throw jumps with height and distance are fair. I've seen that argued regarding Kolyada and other men's singles jumps, and I've certainly argued it on the ladies' singles side. But that shouldn't mean that, at baseline 0 GOE, a fully rotated quad minus a fall should get less than a triple.

I can respect a view that the kind of assisted jump-type throws favoured by the Montreal pairs coaches may not be the direction some pairs fans want the sport to go....I rather miss the drama of Lloyd Eisler throwing Isabelle Brasseur 10 meters down the ice. Should we give levels on jumps? Or change the bullet system so that height and distance each get their own bullet at least? But then let's have this discussion transparently and respectfully.

I'd also argue that the twists with superb height are not sufficiently rewarded in the current system....Although, there must be some incentive because I see I/M and some of the younger Canadian pairs really going for the height in the last two seasons.

Lastly, I'd also respectfully like to ask posters to consider whether the gender double-standard, that I've raised about ladies vs men's singles, is operating in pairs also. When men are courageous and attempt new and riskier things they are praised by many. But women are criticized as inconsistent or not nice to watch or wild or any number of unflattering things....

 

[coldblueeyes]

Nobody complained when Stolbova/Klimov were adding a SBS 3T+3T ("singles" elements) instead of gaining points via improving their 3Tw or upgrading their throws. And in fact, they were lauded for it, as they should be. I don't understand the flack that people give D/R for trying a quad -- if they just did a 3S, people would STILL complain about their lack of artistry (regardless of how much they actually improved), only diff is that they wouldn't be gaining as many points.

But I don't think people complain about them trying the quad, as much as how the quad actually detracts from the program. Now it's a lot better, but I still think the preparation for the quad is too taxing in the LP. But when they get it right, I rarely see people complaining about their technical scores because they deserve them.

And why would people complain about S/K's 3t-3t? It's a fairly complicated combo, and when they got it right they were rewarded for it, when they got it wrong they got points docked, just like every other pair. The thing is, they never asked to be rewarded because they tried a difficult combination, a combination no other pair does, in fact. They put the combo out there and let the system do the scoring.

 

[4everchan]

But I don't think people complain about them trying the quad, as much as how the quad actually detracts from the program. Now it's a lot better, but I still think the preparation for the quad is too taxing in the LP. But when they get it right, I rarely see people complaining about their technical scores because they deserve them.

And why would people complain about S/K's 3t-3t? It's a fairly complicated combo, and when they got it right they were rewarded for it, when they got it wrong they got points docked, just like every other pair. The thing is, they never asked to be rewarded because they tried a difficult combination, a combination no other pair does, in fact. They put the combo out there and let the system do the scoring.

CSG meant that people complain that D/R should work on artistry or skating as one..... instead of doing quads....

Yet, when S/K worked on improving their jumps, despite a still deficient triple twist, nobody complained... I have never seen a comment such as "why don't they work on their twist which is probably the most defining pair element instead of doing solo jumps ? "

 

[bobbob]

IF D/R think that working on artistry and skating as one will be more beneficial for them, then they should do that. Clearly, they don't think so. Meagan would do anything to get the additional points...
Anyways D/R fail to mention that their components would suffer without their quad or SBS triple lutzses.

 

[bobbob]

The thing is, does the quad throw really compromise the "two skating as one" nature of a program? I get if single jumps were heavily weighted in terms of points that would compromise it, but a throw - especially of higher difficulty - is definitive of pairs. Look at it this way, women can easily do 3S jumps -- and in some cases do a 3STh and SBS 3S. But most women can't do a 4S on their own (or even men for that matter), and it is the man facilitating it that makes it a definitive pairs element. To me, pairs is about synergy and both partners creating something greater than the sum of their parts... and successful harder elements is indicative of this.

Nobody complained when Stolbova/Klimov were adding a SBS 3T+3T ("singles" elements) instead of gaining points via improving their 3Tw or upgrading their throws. And in fact, they were lauded for it, as they should be. I don't understand the flack that people give D/R for trying a quad -- if they just did a 3S, people would STILL complain about their lack of artistry (regardless of how much they actually improved), only diff is that they wouldn't be gaining as many points.

There's nothing wrong about them doing their quad, there is something wrong with doing a quad and then complaining it's not worth enough points...

 

[coldblueeyes]

CSG meant that people complain that D/R should work on artistry or skating as one..... instead of doing quads....

Yet, when S/K worked on improving their jumps, despite a still deficient triple twist, nobody complained... I have never seen a comment such as "why don't they work on their twist which is probably the most defining pair element instead of doing solo jumps ? "

And is there any hope for their twist? If Mozer couldn't make it better... But they do get their points from where they can. And it's not like that one element is going to make them less artistically pleasing, or take half a minute to get done. YMMV

Also, you're free to be the one complaining about that, no one's stopping you.

 

[Violet Bliss]

There's nothing wrong about them doing their quad, there is something wrong with doing a quad and then complaining it's not worth enough points...

So what's wrong about voicing the fact that quads are not enough points in Pairs? Is it not true?

 

[bobbob]

So what's wrong about voicing the fact that quads are not enough points in Pairs? Is it not true?

The fact that it is totally self-centered and egotistical.

Have you ever heard of another team or skater complain about the scoring system?

 

[SnowWhite]

... For me, well reasoned discussion about the current bullet point system and SoV, informed by the folks who actually train and compete the elements is welcome. Whether it's Maksim or Meagan and Eric, pairs is somewhat stuck, and the conversation needs to happen now.

Maksim is concerned about safety....Meagan and Eric are concerned about the balance of difficulty to reward. Both sound like things that need to be on the table in any revision. Not sure why folks should criticize either for putting their views out there in what is already a public discussion.

Realistically, it takes time to build a consensus for change, but it also sounds as though both these sets of pairs are concerned that the discussion isn't happening sufficiently within the ISU to get the consensus process moving towards meaningful change.
....

^^ This. They have a right to discuss this. Of course they have an opinion on it, this is what they do. And do your strengths influence your opinions? Yeah, course, but that doesn't mean they aren't valid opinions. They have a big focus on pushing the technical envelop, so it makes sense that that's what they're concerned about. And whether or not you agree that this is where pairs should be going, they obviously do. So they're using their platform to advocate for what they believe would be improvements to their sport. You're free to disagree that what they want is an improvement, but I don't think it's fair to criticize them for be open about it. If some pair has amazing spins, then they should push for them to be valued more if they feel they are undervalued. Nobody is going to push for a change that they think would hurt them. It would be stupid to do so. And as someone here said, I believe Meagan and Eric actually have some of the most synchronized spins consistently and most teams aren't punished that much for unsynchronized ones (at least that was my impression watching Canadian Nats). Athletes invest a lot of time in their sports. It doesn't bother me if they have opinions about it that they want to express, even if I disagree personally. I respect their right to do so.

 

[Violet Bliss]

The fact that it is totally self-centered and egotistical.

Have you ever heard of another team or skater complain about the scoring system?

They probably do it in private or they don't get attention. Most elite skaters may not like to get negative criticism from people like you. But yes, earlier quadsters complained enough to get ISU to reevaluate the BV such that these days it's all about quads in Mens and it's the number of quads that determine placements.

Let's say at work, you work much harder to get good results for the company, but all you get is half pay for the extra hours and blame and criticism of any of the extra work not done well enough. Are you a terrible person to say something about this? Is it good for the company that others knows how the extra good work gets treated and are discouraged from any extra performance?

 

[TGee]

The fact that it is totally self-centered and egotistical.

Have you ever heard of another team or skater complain about the scoring system?

uhm, yes LOL... The regs and Statement of Values [SOV] get updated every year.... We hear lots of comments from skaters and coaches on these....

Respect Meagan for getting out there and speaking up herself, in general, and for the team on this one...

You are expressing a great deal of outrage about this. Would you say do this if multiple time sprint and relay OGM and World medallist Usain Bolt, commented on how lane violations are being dealt with in track? Most folks would see that as a reasonable intervention from a highly respected athlete.

Now, Duhamel/Radford have only won two World Championships and an assorted other World, Olympic and Grand Prix medals at this point....but I would argue that they've earned the right to have a view and speak out about it.

Sincerely, I'm wondering if you actually read others posts, as this discussion seems to have already been covered in this page and the last, but you seem more interested in arguing that D/R don't have the right to talk about it than actually discussing the merits, or not, of their proposal.

 

[Mathman]

...you seem more interested in arguing that D/R don't have the right to talk about it than actually discussing the merits, or not, of their proposal.

I think the fault lies in the title of the thred: Duhamel, Radford frustrated ...

This invites the response, "So what if you're frustrated? Suck it up and skate."

The title probably should have been something like, "Duhamel, Radford suggest changes to the IJS."

By the way, it is usually the ISU and its committees that get the flack when changes are made. We all jump in and say, What a bunch of crooks! They obviously made this change to help the Finnsish pair, thanks to a deal made between Finnland and Brazil to fix the Olympics.

The most contentious were the rule changes that were put into effect just after the 2010 Olympics. It was "obvious" that the new rules favored Mao Asada at the expense of Yuna Kim (higher value on triple Axel, only two double Axels allowed, etc.).

 

[UnChosen]

D/R already heavily benefits from the unexplained skating skills corridor where skating skill essentially determine the PCS score and the five categories are pretty much pointless. Sui/Han on the other hand were underscored in PCS for quite a while because of the corridor. That masterpiece SP from last year should not be only less than a point higher than D/R in PCS, nor should it be lower than a subpar V/T with a mistake.

If D/R's complaint work then the entire Chinese team needs to start complaining about the corridor because other than Han Yan (great SS, bad performance) their entire team suffers majorly from it.

 

[gmyers]

They're always complaining about something.

My first thought exactly! It's just always something!