Pairs FS Worldwide: The Divine Discipline

[Dreamer57]

Not sure if there is a still a thread for Team Australia (Karne, anonymoose, GF2445?), but I thought this was cute:

Watch this story by Stassy ;) on Instagram before it disappears.

489 Followers, 301 Following, 50 Posts

www.instagram.com

So, pairs fans, are we ready for Finlandia this week?

What an epic pairs contest this will be, with so many pairs programs sending out two of their top entries to compete head-to-head here—James/Radford vs Moore Towers/Marinaro for Canada, Mishina/Galliamov vs Tarasova/Morosov for Russia, Cain Gibble/LeDuc vs Calalang/Johnson for the US, and even Hase/Seegert vs Hocke/Kunkel for Germany. Whoever wins these preseason head-to-heads helps stake their claim for their country’s Olympic spots, I think!

Out of the pairs named here, I'm looking forward to finally seeing MT/M again. I liked the Carry You program they had. I don't think worlds was their best outing so I am hoping they've been able to train a lot more since then!

 

[ladyjane]

I am really unhappy about the JGPF Pairs. Lots of people discussing the 'unfairness' of the decision of the ISU with regard to the Single's and Dance , but there's only a few (thankfully there are some posters who feel the same way) who note that for pairs there will only be 4 finalists. No real reason except keeping the total number of attendants down, because in pairs there was no problem what so ever with regard to the number of JGPs. There are always only 4 JGPs with pairs (which I don't like either, but that's another discussion). So why not 6 Finalists? I don't really care if it's an all Russian final or not - I would just like to see 6 pairs in the final. My favourite discipline, and this feeling is shared by many in this thread.

Thankfully in seniors we've got a fantastic competition to look forward to in Finland, except...even if you're willing to pay for the livestream there won't be any 'on demand' views possible. I am one of those people in the happy circumstance of being able to pay. But not if I can't even watch. Truly hoping that the people who can watch will be so kind as to report on the competition in Finland on the appropriate threads!

 

[CaroLiza_fan]

I don't normally post in the category or country threads in The Edge. But, after recent developments, I just had to post something. And since the dedicated thread about qualifying for the Junior GP Final has turned into a toxic debate about the Ladies slots, here seemed to be the most appropriate place.

I'm livid. Absolutely livid.

The way the ISU is treating the Pairs in the Junior GP Final is final proof (if any proof were needed) that the ISU is actively putting Pairs Skating down.

Having four slots in the Final when there were 22 partnerships taking part in the Junior Grand Prix Series is a joke. Correction, it's not a joke. It's insulting.

And that on top of decreasing the number of slots at the Olympics to just 19.

(I have already given my opinion about how the Olympic slots should be allocated in the final paragraph of my Zoe Jones / Chris Boyadji Nebelhorn Trophy FS report in their Fan Fest thread).

Yes, I know there are people who say "but, there aren't enough Pairs partnerships". And whilst I agree that there are less active participants than in the other categories, I don't agree that there aren't enough to sustain a larger field.

To satisfy myself, I just did a bit of investigating.

I first went to the ISU World Standings, and there were 65 partnerships listed. When you cut the list down to having a maximum of 3 partnerships per country, there are still 40 partnerships left.

Then I went to the ISU Season's World Rankings, and there were 37 partnerships listed. When you cut the list down to having a maximum of 3 partnerships per country, there are still 25 partnerships left.

(Incidentally, the countries that had partnerships removed were America, Canada, China, Italy, and Russia).

Out of curiosity, I then decided to apply the minimum TES's in place for 2022 Worlds to the lists. Here is the resultant spreadsheet:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1l7b61wak75OsF8LBnI2S9xgSGCKCsiG14NFNHFCurqo/edit?usp=sharing

Key​

​

• Green backgrounds mean they have the minimum TES for both segments.
• Orange backgrounds mean they have the minimum TES for one segment but not the other.
• Red backgrounds mean they don't have the minimum TES for either segment.
• Grey writing means that they are not one of the Top 3 partnerships from their country in the list.

Of the 40 partnerships left on the ISU World Standings list, 35 had the minimum TES for both segments. 4 partnerships needed the TES for both segments, and 1 partnership just needed the TES for the SP.

Of the 25 partnerships left on the ISU Season's World Rankings list, 19 had the minimum TES for both segments. 5 partnerships needed the TES for both segments, and 1 partnership just needed the TES for the SP.

(In case you are wondering why there are 5 partnerships needing both in the World Rankings, but only 4 needing both in the World Standings, it is because a lot of the top Canadian Senior partnerships have not yet competed internationally this season. So, if you use the WS list, one of the Canadian Junior partnerships comes into play).

Although filtering down the Season's World Rankings list produces the same number of slots as we have in the Olympics, you have to remember that this is early in the season. A lot of the top Senior partnerships have not competed internationally yet. Plus, there is time for the partnerships that do not have both sets of required TES's to get them between now and the cut off date.

So, there is no justification whatsoever on only having a set 19 slots at the Olympics.

Some of you will have seen my rant in the "Cup of Austria: General Info" thread about the Senior Pairs competition at the event not having Challenger status. And whilst I perhaps went a bit far to make a point, this latest development just reinforces that point. That the ISU is actively discriminating against Pairs skating. And if something isn't done soon to stop it, it's going to be hard for the category to recover.

CaroLiza_fan

 

[flanker]

@CaroLiza_fan

 

[SnowWhite]

I don't normally post in the category or country threads in The Edge. But, after recent developments, I just had to post something. And since the dedicated thread about qualifying for the Junior GP Final has turned into a toxic debate about the Ladies slots, here seemed to be the most appropriate place.

I'm livid. Absolutely livid.

The way the ISU is treating the Pairs in the Junior GP Final is final proof (if any proof were needed) that the ISU is actively putting Pairs Skating down.

Having four slots in the Final when there were 22 partnerships taking part in the Junior Grand Prix Series is a joke. Correction, it's not a joke. It's insulting.

I completely agree that reducing the number of JGPF spots for pairs is a bad, unfair decision. However, I don't think this is a very good argument for why. There were 23 pairs competing this season, and four spots - so a bit over 17%. There were 65 ice dance couples by my count, and 6-7 finals spots - so around 9-10.7%. And I don't feel like counting, but I know there were a lot more singles skaters, especially in the women. So it's not a joke to only have 4 spots when there are 23 pairs. That part is perfectly reasonable when compared to the other disciplines - pairs actually still has the most generous arrangement, in this respect.

The part that's a joke is reducing the JGPF spots from what it normally is, especially when they were willing to expand the singles and dance fields by 1 (even though it's not happening), plus adding Japanese wild cards. I'm guessing that the reason is because with the two Japanese wild cards, the Jr men and Jr women will require two groups instead of the usual 1 group, which affects the schedule. So reducing pairs to only one warm up helps make up for the time. And also means four fewer athletes + potentially their coaches, to balance things out. Which is absolutely unfair to pairs.

So, there is no justification whatsoever on only having a set 19 slots at the Olympics.

The justification is that the IOC puts limits on the number of athletes that figure skating can have at the Olympics. Ice dance also had one spot removed for these Olympics, from 24 to 23.

The ISU decides how to allocate the spots the have, so you can argue that they should give more of those spots to pairs. 30 singles, 23 dance teams and 19 pairs equals 144 athletes. You could take two more spots from dance, and give them to pairs, for 21 each and leave singles at 30. Or you could do 24 for each discipline, make it totally even. There's definitely an argument that that would be more fair.

But there's also an argument that it would be less fair. Ice dance consistently has more entries that pairs does. 42 more teams on the JGP this year (and that's not just about there being dance at more events, because a ton of feds didn't use all their pairs spots). 32 dance teams in the draw at worlds last year, vs 24 pairs. 27 dance teams vs 19 pairs teams at Worlds 2019. 25 dance teams vs 11 pairs at Euros 2019. 12 dance vs 8 pairs at 4CCs 2019. So if they had equal spots, it's harder for dance teams to make the Olympics than pairs teams, since dance is deeper right now. And singles gets more entries than dance does.

You could say that totally equal spots in each discipline would be more fair. You could also say that taking into account the general depth of the field is the more fair option.

Ideally, there would be more spots available for the Olympics. Because I'd love to see more pairs, but right now that would mean taking spots from one fo the other disciplines. You have to acknowledge that when you discuss this. Maybe you're okay with that (I might be, I haven't decided for sure), depending on how many places. But the reality is that it's not up to the ISU to just add extra spots.

 

[skylark]

But the reality is that it's not up to the ISU to just add extra spots.

Good 'Bottom Line.' Literally and figuratively.

Thanks also for your whole post and analysis explaining the nuances. At first I balked against your argument of converting to percentages the number of pairs competitors allowed, but is does make sense. For Pairs Lovers like me, it's still

 

[SnowWhite]

Good 'Bottom Line.' Literally and figuratively.

Thanks also for your whole post and analysis explaining the nuances. At first I balked against your argument of converting to percentages the number of pairs competitors allowed, but is does make sense. For Pairs Lovers like me, it's still

Thanks. I want to be clear that I'm not happy about it, regardless of the percentages. I think they should have stuck with 6. And I also love watching pairs.

And I don't think they decide things just based on percentage, or anything. I'm just used to that type of analysis, so I do consider it when I think about stuff like this.

 

[Baron Vladimir]

Ideally, there would be more spots available for the Olympics. Because I'd love to see more pairs, but right now that would mean taking spots from one fo the other disciplines. You have to acknowledge that when you discuss this. Maybe you're okay with that (I might be, I haven't decided for sure), depending on how many places. But the reality is that it's not up to the ISU to just add extra spots.

While i understand your point, it still looks as not very logical decision to me. It was much better solution to reduce team competition to 8 teams and keep 25 competitors in dance and 20 in pairs. That way they even wouldn't need to call more skaters who didn't initially qualify for the Olympics, but who they need for the team to be able to compete as a team. For me personally it would be the fairest thing to call only those teams who have qualifiers in all of the disciplines. If qualified teams would be RUS, USA, CAN, JPN, CHN, GEO, CZE and possibly ITA, then that's it (but it will never be like 10 full teams competing). Other figure skating competitions would not suffer because of the quota places.

 

[Dreamer57]

Meagan agrees about JGPF pairs!

 

[flanker]

I agree with Meagan on something. "ISU, make impossible possible"

 

[CaroLiza_fan]

I completely agree that reducing the number of JGPF spots for pairs is a bad, unfair decision. However, I don't think this is a very good argument for why. There were 23 pairs competing this season, and four spots - so a bit over 17%. There were 65 ice dance couples by my count, and 6-7 finals spots - so around 9-10.7%. And I don't feel like counting, but I know there were a lot more singles skaters, especially in the women. So it's not a joke to only have 4 spots when there are 23 pairs. That part is perfectly reasonable when compared to the other disciplines - pairs actually still has the most generous arrangement, in this respect.

The part that's a joke is reducing the JGPF spots from what it normally is, especially when they were willing to expand the singles and dance fields by 1 (even though it's not happening), plus adding Japanese wild cards. I'm guessing that the reason is because with the two Japanese wild cards, the Jr men and Jr women will require two groups instead of the usual 1 group, which affects the schedule. So reducing pairs to only one warm up helps make up for the time. And also means four fewer athletes + potentially their coaches, to balance things out. Which is absolutely unfair to pairs.

Agreed. That is the part that sticks in the throat the most. That in Pairs there are fewer going through to the Final than there are in "normal" years, whereas in the other categories there are more going through.

Of course, the reason we are in this mess is that, unlike the Senior GP's, the Pairs are not on the roster at all the Junior GP's. And you already know my feelings about that. If they can have Pairs on the roster at all the Senior GP's, there is nothing to stop them having Pairs on the roster at all the Junior GP's.

Personally, I would like to see 8 slots in all categories (Junior and Senior) at the Grand Prix Final every year. Even if it means extending the event by a day. (Which could actually make the competition schedule a lot tidier: Junior SP's on Wednesday; Senior SP's on Thursday; Junior FS's on Friday; Senior FS's on Saturday; Gala on Sunday).

The justification is that the IOC puts limits on the number of athletes that figure skating can have at the Olympics. Ice dance also had one spot removed for these Olympics, from 24 to 23.

The ISU decides how to allocate the spots the have, so you can argue that they should give more of those spots to pairs. 30 singles, 23 dance teams and 19 pairs equals 144 athletes. You could take two more spots from dance, and give them to pairs, for 21 each and leave singles at 30. Or you could do 24 for each discipline, make it totally even. There's definitely an argument that that would be more fair.

But there's also an argument that it would be less fair. Ice dance consistently has more entries that pairs does. 42 more teams on the JGP this year (and that's not just about there being dance at more events, because a ton of feds didn't use all their pairs spots). 32 dance teams in the draw at worlds last year, vs 24 pairs. 27 dance teams vs 19 pairs teams at Worlds 2019. 25 dance teams vs 11 pairs at Euros 2019. 12 dance vs 8 pairs at 4CCs 2019. So if they had equal spots, it's harder for dance teams to make the Olympics than pairs teams, since dance is deeper right now. And singles gets more entries than dance does.

You could say that totally equal spots in each discipline would be more fair. You could also say that taking into account the general depth of the field is the more fair option.

Ideally, there would be more spots available for the Olympics. Because I'd love to see more pairs, but right now that would mean taking spots from one fo the other disciplines. You have to acknowledge that when you discuss this. Maybe you're okay with that (I might be, I haven't decided for sure), depending on how many places. But the reality is that it's not up to the ISU to just add extra spots.

I disagree with your point that increasing the number of Pairs would mean decreasing the numbers in other categories. Because, unlike the competitions we have throughout the season, they only hold one segment per day at the Olympics. There are no time constraints to adhere to - they literally have all day to run the practice and the competition segment!

Don't get me wrong, I don't think having the same number of slots in all categories at the Olympics is fair either. Because, in reality, if this road was gone down, it would mean cutting the number of slots in the Singles categories, for the reasons you say. And that would go down like a lead balloon with the fanatical fans of Singles skating.

However, I do think the rules should be the same as they are for Worlds - all Federations get a slot as long as the user of the slot meets the minimum TES requirements. It's bad enough that the Olympics has the citizenship requirements - there should not be any more additional limitations on the total number of entries. Especially when you consider that there are no limits on the total number of entries in competitions in other sports on the roster at the Olympics, such as the Alpine Skiing or the Nordic Skiing.

CaroLiza_fan

 

[ladyjane]

Dear @CaroLiza_fan . You continue to express my feelings in much better wordings than I can do. XX

 

[Colonel Green]

Of course, the reason we are in this mess is that, unlike the Senior GP's, the Pairs are not on the roster at all the Junior GP's. And you already know my feelings about that. If they can have Pairs on the roster at all the Senior GP's, there is nothing to stop them having Pairs on the roster at all the Junior GP's.

There aren't enough junior pair teams to support having seven junior pair events on the JGP. This season it's been a bit of a struggle to even fill out the current four, though obviously circumstances are a bit unusual.

 

[ice coverage]

... Especially when you consider that there are no limits on the total number of entries in competitions in other sports on the roster at the Olympics, such as the Alpine Skiing or the Nordic Skiing. ...

I see 2022 Olympic quotas for Alpine Skiing and Nordic Skiing in these qualification system documents from the international governing body:

https://assets.fis-ski.com/image/upload/v1621925156/fis-prod/assets/Beijing_2022_-_Qualification_System_-_Alpine_Skiing_V2.0.pdf

https://assets.fis-ski.com/image/upload/v1575644491/fis-prod/assets/document-library/olympics/Nordic_Combined_V1.0.pdf

Similarly, Olympic quotas for Cross Country Skiing, Ski Jumping, Freestyle Skiing, and Snowboard are specified in their qualification system documents also linked on the International Ski Federation site:

Winter Olympic Games

www.fis-ski.com

I know nothing about skiing, but I don't think your premise is true?

 

[ladyjane]

Some food for thought, inspired by Meagan’s comments: what IS the way to develop the next generation of great pairs? Discuss!!

Oh my. Well, we now know how not to do it: decreasing the number of young finalists in a JGPF, limiting the number of competitions pairs can attend - or limiting the number of competitions where the pairs competition is considered as worthwhile as the other disciplines. I have not forgotten Lombardia where there was a decent pairs field but still that part of the competition did not count as a Challenger.

We do know the ISU has actually been organising seminars for pairs - in Germany and in Russia. These help. In fact Meagan was at the one in Germany (as was Bruno Massot) and they were and are a big help to pairs on the rise. Nina Mozer has also been involved in some of these seminars.

What also would help (obviously) is letting go of the whole idea that Pairs is a discipline for failed single's skaters. And there really are people who think that way. To me it's the most difficult discipline ever as pairs have to jump, do elements synchronised, have pair specific elements, do the most dangerous lifts and still have to make it all happen choreographically. These pair skaters are so admirable in what they do. Don't misunderstand me: I admire Singles and Dancers. But pairs are the thing. It would help if this was understood by more people. It's so much more worthwhile to switch to pairs if people understand that it's not of a lack in ability. That would help in developing young pairs.

Lastly, why don't the coaches, officials and everyone involved make use of the Russian example? Pairs happen to be a popular discipline in Russia. Not only because they are good on the World stage (which they are), but there must be other reasons than that only. Audiences love them, admire them, and support them. I don't know how such popularity can be transferred, but it's worth looking into.

My 2 cents....

 

[SnowWhite]

I disagree with your point that increasing the number of Pairs would mean decreasing the numbers in other categories. Because, unlike the competitions we have throughout the season, they only hold one segment per day at the Olympics. There are no time constraints to adhere to - they literally have all day to run the practice and the competition segment!

Don't get me wrong, I don't think having the same number of slots in all categories at the Olympics is fair either. Because, in reality, if this road was gone down, it would mean cutting the number of slots in the Singles categories, for the reasons you say. And that would go down like a lead balloon with the fanatical fans of Singles skating.

However, I do think the rules should be the same as they are for Worlds - all Federations get a slot as long as the user of the slot meets the minimum TES requirements. It's bad enough that the Olympics has the citizenship requirements - there should not be any more additional limitations on the total number of entries. Especially when you consider that there are no limits on the total number of entries in competitions in other sports on the roster at the Olympics, such as the Alpine Skiing or the Nordic Skiing.

CaroLiza_fan

It's not about the schedule though. The quotas are from the IOC. My point is that the ISU does not have the power to just add more teams. They can move the spots they do have around, and it's true that they keep a few spots right now for the team event and host spots, so they could potentially shift a couple of those back to pairs/dance. But they can't just add spots. The IOC is in control in that respect, not the ISU.

 

[Colonel Green]

Lastly, why don't the coaches, officials and everyone involved make use of the Russian example? Pairs happen to be a popular discipline in Russia. Not only because they are good on the World stage (which they are), but there must be other reasons than that only. Audiences love them, admire them, and support them. I don't know how such popularity can be transferred, but it's worth looking into.

Pairs' historical popularity in Russia is because they have a half-century tradition of being really good at it. Success, generally speaking, breeds success. You see equivalents to that in other countries when they have success in a given arena (see, e.g., Korean women's singles after Kim Yuna).

Conversely, lack of success and lack of traditions can in turn become self-reinforcing. Or the discipline can find itself on the wrong side of another discipline's surge in popularity, which I would argue is the case for pairs in many other countries with the increasing prominence of ice dance -- certainly in North America, Virtue & Moir and Davis & White and their contemporaries have hugely boosted ice dance as the premier partnered discipline these days. The #1 thing to inspire more people to go into pairs is to already have charismatic star pairs who are winning major championships.

 

[CaroLiza_fan]

I see 2022 Olympic quotas for Alpine Skiing and Nordic Skiing in these qualification system documents from the international governing body:

https://assets.fis-ski.com/image/upload/v1621925156/fis-prod/assets/Beijing_2022_-_Qualification_System_-_Alpine_Skiing_V2.0.pdf

​

https://assets.fis-ski.com/image/upload/v1575644491/fis-prod/assets/document-library/olympics/Nordic_Combined_V1.0.pdf

Similarly, Olympic quotas for Cross Country Skiing, Ski Jumping, Freestyle Skiing, and Snowboard are specified in their qualification system documents also linked on the International Ski Federation site:

Winter Olympic Games

www.fis-ski.com

I know nothing about skiing, but I don't think your premise is true?

Thank you.

Well, this must be a relatively recent development then, because there certainly didn't use to be limits on the total number of athletes in a competition. The only limits were on the number of athletes that each country could enter into the competition (up to 4 athletes, which is more than the up to 3 we get in figure skating). At least, that's what the TV commentators led us to believe, anyway.

Admittedly, I didn't watch much skiing last season. My heart just wasn't in it. I didn't think competitions should be going ahead during a pandemic, and then when a lot of positive cases were being found on the first weekend of the season, that was enough to put me off watching any more. So, I haven't heard anything about how they are doing things for these Olympics (if they happen).

It's not about the schedule though. The quotas are from the IOC. My point is that the ISU does not have the power to just add more teams. They can move the spots they do have around, and it's true that they keep a few spots right now for the team event and host spots, so they could potentially shift a couple of those back to pairs/dance. But they can't just add spots. The IOC is in control in that respect, not the ISU.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter who is making the decisions. It's still the same issue.

Anyway, the IOC has an awful lot on it's plate organising not only the event, but trying to co-ordinate the various governing bodies. So it is not unfair to assume that when it comes to the individual sports, it is merely acting on the advice that is provided to it by the governing bodies of those individual sports.

And as for the Team Event, you all know how I feel about that. A pointless gimmick, and an extra opportunity for skaters to get needlessly injured ahead of the main competitions. If the IOC wants to give out Team Medals, it can be done on paper based on the results of the main competitions, rather than on the ice as a separate set of competitions.

Yes, I know the IOC wanted something to fill in the gap in the schedule that was created by getting rid of the Compulsory Dance. But, why not use it as an opportunity to showcase one of the lesser known categories of our sport that I mentioned in my rant in the Cup Of Austria thread? Yes, Synchro or Theatre On Ice would involve finding accomodation for too many additional people. But, why not Solo Dance? Or Fours Skating? Hey, Fours Skating may not even need any additional people, as it is usually contested by Pairs skaters. (See how I managed to somehow work this back on topic? )

At the end of the day, although I may not like this attitude, a lot of people only watch Winter Sports during a 3 week window every non-leap even numbered year. So, this was an opportunity to give a boost to a category that did not normally get publicity. Alas, this opportunity was missed.

But, that is another matter altogether.

CaroLiza_fan

 

[skylark]

What also would help (obviously) is letting go of the whole idea that Pairs is a discipline for failed single's skaters. ... But pairs are the thing. It would help if this was understood by more people. It's so much more worthwhile to switch to pairs if people understand that it's not of a lack in ability. That would help in developing young pairs.

Lastly, why don't the coaches, officials and everyone involved make use of the Russian example? Pairs happen to be a popular discipline in Russia. Not only because they are good on the World stage (which they are), but there must be other reasons than that only. Audiences love them, admire them, and support them. I don't know how such popularity can be transferred, but it's worth looking into.

I started watching Pairs with Gordeeva/Grinkov in 1988. I've always thought that the clear advantage the Russian pairs have is that they included ballet classes as an essential part of pairs training from the earliest stages. That way, the grace, the posture, the arm and upper body expression, the head positions, and the discipline and magic of ballet ... all are ingrained in pairs elements from the beginning. I think the beauty of pairs is why, as you say, audiences love [the Russian pairs], admire and support them.

It seems with some (or many) N. American pairs, that essential underpinning of pairs skating is flipped. It sometimes seems as though they teach dance and try to put the presentation techniques on top, years after the pairs elements have already been learned. Like putting icing on a cake or polish on the furniture. But to me, the gleam comes from underneath. The gleam is already in the movements. I'm not saying it's impossible to improve quality and presentation. But it has to be acknowledged that the essential beauty and quality of the elements lies in the way you do it. Not just that you do it.

@ladyjane, to your point about Pairs thought to be a discipline for failed single skaters: This can be flipped around. Gordeeva and Grinkov were paired for that very reason, as I understand it (Gordeeva said so in "My Sergei."). It was thought neither would excel in jumping. They made the most of their strengths. They created beauty, magic and emotion with what they did excel at, and are still the most celebrated pair.

 

[Colonel Green]

Anyway, the IOC has an awful lot on it's plate organising not only the event, but trying to co-ordinate the various governing bodies. So it is not unfair to assume that when it comes to the individual sports, it is merely acting on the advice that is provided to it by the governing bodies of those individual sports.

None of the individual sports ever advised the IOC to cut its quota places, I guarantee.