- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
It's also the direct result of what I call "the dilution of skating." By that, I mean putting on these declasse cheesefests and skating shows. They only served to over expose the sport via meaningless venues. It's the thrill of genuine competition, whether inspired by the Cold War or not, that fills the seats and pays the bills.
Thirdly and very importantly, the general public does not understand the scoring system. If they can't "participate" and understand how the skaters are scored, they become less involved and walk away. Everyone understands a touchdown, no one understands this unwieldy mess courtesy of the ISU
My first post was about the olympics in general and why less and less attention is paid to them (making them a poor venue to hang the fortunes of a sport upon).
For the apparent decline of skating in particular, I'd say yes you bring up two points.
1. Debased competitions debase the sport. I barely remember anything like a 'pro' competition I really wanted to see again. Most were barely a half-step above professional wrestling in terms of perceived legitimacy . I think there are possible ways to run pro-competitions that wouldn't be an embarassment that drove away fans but no one's found it yet.
2. The ISU's response to the 2002 judging debacle has been to make judging infinitely worse from the point of view of fans.
For all its imperfections (which were many), even casual viewers generally understood the 6.0 system. They knew there were two marks, one (roughly) for what the skater did in terms of athletic achievement and one (roughly) for how well they did that. Most viewers even realized that the scores were simultaneously absolute (against an abstract standard of 'perfection') and relative (the skaters against each other) and that a 5.7 could be very good or so so depending on how the particular judge who assigned it had been marking (tough or generous).
And ... since the skaters were chosen to compete by country, the judges were clearly marked by country giving rise to lots of pleasant speculation about hidden agendas and "what if?" scenarios.
Finally, the drawn out process of reading out the marks and waiting for the second set of marks created great post competition drama.
Something that the ISU did not understand: Despite its many flaws the old system worked in both letting the casual viewer have some idea of what's going on and in creating drama past the end of the program.
The new current system does none of that. I still can't remember what a good or mediocre technical or overall score in the new system is and without names or faces to pin the numbers to I don't especially care.
I think a far better approach would have been to keep nationalities and keep 6.0 as the ultimate mark but to break down the 6.0 system with some elements of the new system. So that (for example) jumps are worth up to 3.0 of the 6.0 technical mark, and for a (for example) lady to get 3.0 she would need (about) 7 triples (there should be more than one way to max out in any given area). Spins and footwork sequences could be 1.5 each. Similarly the 6.0 for presentation could have been divided into six or four specific areas.
The one good thing about the new judging system is releasing the protocals after the competition so that could be done as well with the judges' names and nationalities prominently featured.