http://www.soniabianchetti.com/writings_whatsleft.html
Some interesting observations, though I don't agree with them all.
I can't say I yearn for the days of the old judging system quite as much as she does, in spite of the flaws of the new one. As she points out, the anonymous judging is not a step in the right direction. I also agree with her on the misuse of the PCS marks to hold up certain skaters based primarily on reputation and the seeming lack of ability of the judges to judge these categories properly and seperately.
I don't agree with her estimation that the new system is simply encouraging skaters to pack more and more difficult elements into their programs and the beauty of the sport is being lost.
Along with some of the great programs of the past, I also remember some very undeserving winners based on jumps alone - the practice of packing more and more jumps into the program, at the expense of everything else was largely taking over the mens event under 6.0. And while I don't find pairs inspiring at all right now, I think it has more to do with the current teams than it does with the judging system - though there are certainly tweaks that need to be made there. I remember that pairs was heading in (what I would consider) a very undesirable directions prior to the new judging system, with pairs increasingly putting three and four jumping passes into their routines simply because, as in singles, it was easy for the judges to reward them for them. A lot of them were done badly. Pairs spinning (and I'm not referring to side-by-side spinning here) hasn't been very pretty to watch from most of the pairs in decades. Very cookie cutter, by the numbers. Talk about lack of creativity.
And while I agree that some of the levels assigned in spins and footwork have led to some very aesthetically unpleasing results in all disciplines (all that footwork on one foot while the upper body twists and lurches around...ugh) I think what's more in need is a tweaking of the system to assign more points (or perhaps a better understanding by the judges of assigning GOE's, if Bianchetti's argument is to be considered) to well-done classic positions so it is worth a skater's while to do something well. As for her argument that all of the spiral sequences were looking the same, well, I can't say there was a great deal of variation under 6.0 either.
I also have to disagree with her that watching skating is less fun overall. I find it more fun, actually. Because while the judges COULD perhaps, have acknowledged great footwork and spinning and transitions etc, under 6.0, largely these elements were ignored in favour of counting jumps. Now skaters HAVE to have them, which, I think, is a good development. It has led to at least an acknowledgement that skating well is more than just jumping well.
And any system comes down to the judges. She complains about judging being reduced to recording results - well, they only have themselves to blame. Their lack of ability to use their discretion to come up with fair results is what led to the changes.
Some interesting observations, though I don't agree with them all.
I can't say I yearn for the days of the old judging system quite as much as she does, in spite of the flaws of the new one. As she points out, the anonymous judging is not a step in the right direction. I also agree with her on the misuse of the PCS marks to hold up certain skaters based primarily on reputation and the seeming lack of ability of the judges to judge these categories properly and seperately.
I don't agree with her estimation that the new system is simply encouraging skaters to pack more and more difficult elements into their programs and the beauty of the sport is being lost.
Along with some of the great programs of the past, I also remember some very undeserving winners based on jumps alone - the practice of packing more and more jumps into the program, at the expense of everything else was largely taking over the mens event under 6.0. And while I don't find pairs inspiring at all right now, I think it has more to do with the current teams than it does with the judging system - though there are certainly tweaks that need to be made there. I remember that pairs was heading in (what I would consider) a very undesirable directions prior to the new judging system, with pairs increasingly putting three and four jumping passes into their routines simply because, as in singles, it was easy for the judges to reward them for them. A lot of them were done badly. Pairs spinning (and I'm not referring to side-by-side spinning here) hasn't been very pretty to watch from most of the pairs in decades. Very cookie cutter, by the numbers. Talk about lack of creativity.
And while I agree that some of the levels assigned in spins and footwork have led to some very aesthetically unpleasing results in all disciplines (all that footwork on one foot while the upper body twists and lurches around...ugh) I think what's more in need is a tweaking of the system to assign more points (or perhaps a better understanding by the judges of assigning GOE's, if Bianchetti's argument is to be considered) to well-done classic positions so it is worth a skater's while to do something well. As for her argument that all of the spiral sequences were looking the same, well, I can't say there was a great deal of variation under 6.0 either.
I also have to disagree with her that watching skating is less fun overall. I find it more fun, actually. Because while the judges COULD perhaps, have acknowledged great footwork and spinning and transitions etc, under 6.0, largely these elements were ignored in favour of counting jumps. Now skaters HAVE to have them, which, I think, is a good development. It has led to at least an acknowledgement that skating well is more than just jumping well.
And any system comes down to the judges. She complains about judging being reduced to recording results - well, they only have themselves to blame. Their lack of ability to use their discretion to come up with fair results is what led to the changes.