Problems with skate judging? (Two Hersh articles)

[Medusa]

I have now listened to both Telephone conferences (which is a lot of work, I just can't understand everything with the telephone noise in the background). I have to say that the journalists were basically begging them to trash the system, reminds me of certain US-commentators who just like to point out "unfair" elements of the judging...

I also feel really bad about trashing Johnny a bit here (he is one of my favourites), after hearing about his financial struggles. So, sorry for my, hmm, brash way of expressing my opinion. (I totally understand him, I had to tell the library lady today that I can't pay the 2,5 Euros fee because I had to pay my radio & TV bill and needed new ballet shoes - therefore my fortune was down to 1 Euro!)

I am looking forward to Evan's new costume of course, and the Triple Axel (though I still don't get what they meant with the camera angle).

But I have to agree that the ISU's choice of which errors it will nit-pick on and which it will let go, from one season to the next, or from one contest to the next, is hard to anticipate. Specifically about underrotations, my own personal guess is that the ISU will continue to hammer away at it until next year, then lighten up for the Olympics.

I have to agree here too, it is all very shady - the general idea of having correct technique has to be applauded in my opinion, but the UR-calls and Edge-calls seem so random.

 

[luvsasha]

Hersh is harsh and i for one am getting sick and tired of his constant negativity.
If he's that upset about the state of figure skating, then why does't he get off of his butt and do something about it?

 

[gsrossano]

Evan had no problem being marketed as the macho, black-wearing, Tanith-kissing alternative to Johnny's sequins and feathers. He came up with ideas to turn figure skating into an "extreme sport" to attract a younger commercial demographic.

Trying to increase the fan base by selling it as a macho athletic activity has been around for 20 years, pushed with lessor or greater emphasis over that time. Somewhere in another thread there is discussion about how Skate Canada now is going to stress athletic instead of cute in their marketing. Setting up male skaters with beards is a long standing practice.

And what has it accomplished. I seen no greater male participation and interest from boys than I did 20 years ago, maybe even less. The male boys/teens that I usually see at competitions are mainly skaters, or the brothers of skaters, or the boyfriends of girls who like skating. In the meantime, the core demographic from the past is alienated.

I find it ironic that the Program Components where meant to insure that the artistic side of skating was preserved and finally judged correctly for once, but they seem to be having the opposite effect. I question whether ISU, Skate Canada, and others who push making skating an athletic only activity are digging their own graves.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Hirsh is a critic and he does what critics do: praise when it is deserved and btch when it is deserved. Not unusual for me. Unless you worry about the children's feelings. it could be a 'grown-up' sport if fans would let it.

Interesting to read about the American skaters views on CoP. Would love to hear what Kostner, Takahashi, and the Zhangs have to say since they also skated both 6.0 and CoP.

 

[museksk8r]

I have now listened to both Telephone conferences (which is a lot of work, I just can't understand everything with the telephone noise in the background). I have to say that the journalists were basically begging them to trash the system, reminds me of certain US-commentators who just like to point out "unfair" elements of the judging...

Absolutely, Medusa. This is a big reason why we in America now have so little television coverage of figure skating. Thanks for nothing, Dick and Peggy.

 

[rain]

I do think that the endless repetition of how hard to understand the new judging system is as compared to the old one has created a somewhat false impression of just that — that it's hard to understand.

6.0 didn't really present results that were that much more understandable to the casual viewer, ie, it wasn't always the cleanest program that won. And instead now we have a number score that adds up everything a skater does, rather than taking deductions and messing about with ordinals (does nobody remember how utterly incomprehensible this was a times?)

That's what commentators are for — to help the less initiated understand where the scores are coming from, whether that's under 6.0 or NJS. The commentators and journalists who refuse to wrap their heads around it are not helping.

 

[antmanb]

Agree, but it's been around for a few years now, and there have been several complaints about the system brought out in this forum. Some fans, are overly protective of the CoP while others are just looking to fix some perceived glaring inequities.

Oh come on Joe, seriously, looking to fix some perceived glaring inequities? By doing what? Complaining on a forum on the internet? How exactly will that fix anything?

And here I just thought everyone was bitching about the system/praising it just passing opinions.

What would be so terrible if the ISU were to call a Conference on the Workings of the CoP. The agenda should be all questions raised. If there are no revisions as a result, the fans who love the CoP as it is, should be happy, and the fans who saw all those inequities should remain disgruntled, but at least the matters were taken up. Perhaps the Conference could meet again in 5 years for another go at it.

I thought this kind of thing happened already? How does the code get changed e.g. the introduction of level 4, introduction of "!" and "e" etc etc. I know we are told about them via a communication but how does the decision to amend it actually come about

Ant

 

[antmanb]

If I went to med-school every day with the thought: this is all senseless, each day thousands of people are dying anyway, those few you are going to help some day won't make a difference - I wouldn't get done anything. And if they are on the ice everyday, and thinking constantly how stupid and tiresome everything is - how can that help them in their competitions, in their artistry?

I'm not sure it's as cut and dry as your example might suggest. Let's say (in order to put it more in line with the time investment in skating) that it will take you 8 years to get through Med-school. Everything you've done to get you academically to med school has been teaching you and preparing you for the syllabus and examinations/coursework. You're half way through at four years and all of a sudden, the syllabus changes, the examination changes, the whole way of assessing you changes. In fact there are things on the syllabus that you can't understand why they are there. Do you throw in the towel because, you don't agree with it anymore, and effectively end the only thing on your life you've been working towards, or do you suck it up, grin and bear it and say - you know what it's only four years, much as i don't like the syllabus and the the way it is assessed i still love what i'm doing and want to do it in the future?

Ant

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

It's difficult to reply to others who are completely satisfied with CoP. Worse because the ISU advantage is something of absolute rule, and some posters can not speak against authority. That is understandable, but it does not make me or some other posters change their minds that the CoP needs a total review. It's so easy to forget, that the present system was rushed into practice.

If the ISU does hold conferences to discuss the CoP's shortcoming, do they go beyond deciding to change the unholy name of Flutz to the Wrong Edge Takeoff? Big deal, and give the Quad more point value. They will never tell you about the discussion on how they arrived on base values or different negative penalties.

How many items did it reject to hear and discuss and revise?

 

[antmanb]

It's difficult to reply to others who are completely satisfied with CoP. Worse because the ISU advantage is something of absolute rule, and some posters can not speak against authority. That is understandable, but it does not make me or some other posters change their minds that the CoP needs a total review. It's so easy to forget, that the present system was rushed into practice.

Again i think you're oversimplifying everything. It isn't black and white, people don't just completely love or completely hate the COP but probably sit somewhere on a continuum of both of those poles with very few being squarely at one end or the other. And I would suggest that you are completely wrong in assuming that those who sit closer to the "loving the new system" end are doing so because they cannot speak against authority. Most of the actual skaters I know (which are at the junior level and below) love the system for one reason only - the protocols - they love pouring over what the judges gave them in GOE and what levels they achieved so that they can use those sheets to better themselves in their next competitions.

Whether or not those are the people whose opinions should have more weight applied, depends on where you sit looking gkelly's post on the different categories of people interested in figure skating.

Personally i dislike more things than i like about the system but i'm merely a spectator unless I decide to compete at our adult nationals, but i think they might still use 6.0 for that. If they did adopt the IJS at our adult nationals then i might be tempted to like it more for the fact I could gain as many if not more points with my spins as i could with my very rudimentary jumps!

If the ISU does hold conferences to discuss the CoP's shortcoming, do they go beyond deciding to change the unholy name of Flutz to the Wrong Edge Takeoff? Big deal, and give the Quad more point value. They will never tell you about the discussion on how they arrived on base values or different negative penalties.

But the thing is Joe, you don't seem to accept that some people disagree with you about the penalties for wrong edge take off. You cry off anyone's agrument against you as people being to affraid to speak up against the system/authorities. Why would anyone on a more or less annonymous web forum be affraid of that? The inference that people that agree with any part of the COP with which you disagree are simply unthinking and going along with what they are told by the authorities is just not true. It's an agree to disagree situation - you disagree with the penalties and others do not, each side has their valid arguments and no one side can "win".

How many items did it reject to hear and discuss and revise?

That would be very intersting to hear along with the justifications for the whole COP, however, i'm not sure how practical it would be for the ISU to let the world into that decision making process. Even highly regulated corporate entities don't have to explain things in that level of detail, heck even governments don't have to explain every last method of analysis used before enacting regulations.

The list of coaches/skaters suggestions that we discussed a while back - was that looked into by the ISU? I seem to recall there being smoe official response to that document, even it was rejecting most of them.

Ant

 

[Mathman]

The list of coaches/skaters suggestions that we discussed a while back - was that looked into by the ISU? I seem to recall there being smoe official response to that document, even it was rejecting most of them.

As I recall, these suggestions were presented to Alexander Lakernik as Chair of the ISU Technical Committee. All the coaches' group got back was a perfuctory "thanks for your interest" letter. Lakernik did not forward the suggestions to the full committee for serious discusiion.

However, about continuing review of the CoP, I think that the ISU Technical Committee at least talks about it every time they meet -- what else do they have a Technical Committee for? I get the feeling that at these meetings they are more interested in their own opinions than in soliciting input from fans, skaters, coaches, newspaper columnists, TV people and event organizers, or the general public. In that respect the ISU is like any other organization with power over its own little bailiwick.

Most of the actual skaters I know (which are at the junior level and below) love the system for one reason only - the protocols - they love pouring over what the judges gave them in GOE and what levels they achieved so that they can use those sheets to better themselves in their next competitions.

GKelly's category 4. This is the strongest argument in favor of the CoP (and the one that GKelly always crushes me with when I start grousing about how awful the IJS is. )

 

[gio]

I think we still don't know the effects of COP on skaters.

Let's see how will do the skaters born in the years 1996 or even 1997-1998. This is the new generation, the COP generation. They are trained COP wise. Let's see which effects has had COP on them.

Mao, YuNa, Caroline, Mirai, Patrick, Brezina and others youngsters are still from the 6.0 generation. For exemple when COP went into effect Mao was already 14 years old and Caroline was 12. Yes, they adapted easily, because they were young, but until than they were trained in the 6.0 system. Their basics are from the 6.0 system.

I think now coaches have another approach in training new skaters.

In a few years we will see if COP has had a good or bad effect IMHO.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

But the thing is Joe, you don't seem to accept that some people disagree with you about the penalties for wrong edge take off. You cry off anyone's agrument against you as people being to affraid to speak up against the system/authorities. Why would anyone on a more or less annonymous web forum be affraid of that? The inference that people that agree with any part of the COP with which you disagree are simply unthinking and going along with what they are told by the authorities is just not true. It's an agree to disagree situation - you disagree with the penalties and others do not, each side has their valid arguments and no one side can "win".
Ant

In deed I do not accept some other peoples views on Alois Lutz description of his jump. He has given the definition of that jump. The whole point of that jump is to take-off on a back outside edge. To take-off on any other edge or flat would go against the whole concept of the Lutz. I do not think that the people who allow for wonky Lutz take-offs as an exception to the definition, do not allow for wonky 3A take-offs (which also come under discussion).or any other wonky take-off jumps. But they do defend the Flutz and Lip as perfect jumps just slightly off kilter.

Now why can I not accept other people's views on the Lutz take-off? Aside from it doesn't follow the definition but because the Flutz was voted on by the ISU and accepted under a new name: Wrong Edge Takeoff. The only other jump that bears this name is the Lip which 9 out of 10 skaters take off on the easier flat.

My question to you, Ant is why not just leave the Lutz out of the program if it can not be executed by definition?

 

[antmanb]

In deed I do not accept some other peoples views on Alois Lutz description of his jump. He has given the definition of that jump. The whole point of that jump is to take-off on a back outside edge. To take-off on any other edge or flat would go against the whole concept of the Lutz.

That sound off in the distance is of the horse being flogged to beyond a bloody pulp It is your opinion and one that is not backed by the current judging sysetm, nor the previous judging system that a lutz which rocks over to a flat or an inside edge is not a Lutz. You will obviously keep fast to your opinion that it isn't a Lutz, but according the rules it is - one that is not executed well.

Alois Lutz is irrelevant for the purposes of the discussion since he did not write the rules of figure skating, and certainly not the ones that have been used in the modern era. Since Alois Lutz never attemp the jump as a triple I wonder what he might think if we could ask his opinion on how the rules work. On a side note I haven't see any footage of Alois Lutz doing a lutz. I wonder if there is any and if there is, if from the camera angle we can tell whether he takes off from an outside edge or not rather than a flat or inside edge. Perhaps there are example of the tracings he left behind on the ice. I'd also be interested to know how his flip was too

I do not think that the people who allow for wonky Lutz take-offs as an exception to the definition, do not allow for wonky 3A take-offs (which also come under discussion).or any other wonky take-off jumps. But they do defend the Flutz and Lip as perfect jumps just slightly off kilter.

I'm not sure what the point is that you are making about the 3A? I haven't heard any descriptions of wrong edge take offs for axel in any number of revolutions. Not exactly sure what is meant by "wonky". Mao ad a pretty "wonky" take off on her axel in the LP at the last worlds but that didn't go anywhere.

Again you are referring to a non identifiable group of people again. I defy you to find a single person who believe that a Flutz or a Lip are perfect jumps? Being slightly "off kilter" by it's very use suggests something less than perfect. Again your paraphrasing is leading you to an incorrect conclusion of what those people are (if i am one of them!) saying.

Now why can I not accept other people's views on the Lutz take-off? Aside from it doesn't follow the definition but because the Flutz was voted on by the ISU and accepted under a new name: Wrong Edge Takeoff. The only other jump that bears this name is the Lip which 9 out of 10 skaters take off on the easier flat.]

Of course you don't need me to tell you that it's your prerogative to hold whatever views you hold and not accept others. My observation is that you seem to be hung up on the nicknames for the flaws in the Lutz and Flip jump. The ISU (as far as I'm aware have never talked about a flutz or lip, they have discussed the change of edge on the take off to a jump - they might possibly have referred to a flutz as an example of that error).

I'm sure I've asked you this a number of times but what of a flip that takes off by rocking over to an outside edge before take off? By "definition" that should be harder. Also i'm not so sure taking off from a flat on the flip would be all that much easier. Some of the rotation on the jump comes from the rotation inherent in the edge from which it takes off. Flatening that edge (or rocking over to the outside) would result in less inherent rotation making it more difficult (according to the "definition") but i'm fairly certain that we are both in agreement that such a jump should not be given extra credit for being harder?

Again just asking about your definitions, would you still call it a Lutz if it took from a LBO edge remained on the edge all the way throughout the jump with a Right toe pick assist but landed on a RBI for a small distance before the skater bends onto a RBO. According to your Alois Lutz definition this would not be a lutz either.

My question to you, Ant is why not just leave the Lutz out of the program if it can not be executed by definition?

The answer is simple. The skaters are not skating to Joe's Rules of Figure Skating they are skating to the COP which clearly gives the reductions made to the base value of a jump for taking off on the wrong edge, the skaters and coaches then come to the decision whether it would add to the score or detract from the score to include the jump flaws and all, or to replace it with another element. It is up to the skater/coach. Seemingly Mao Asada feels that a flawed Lutz in the LP is not worth it.

My question back to you Joe, is - what would your ideal solution be to the wrong edge take off? Would you tweak the COP? Introduce completely new rules on it? I find it's usually easier to criticise things without having to suggest a solution, than it is to fix the perceived problem.

Ant

 

[Mafke]

That sound off in the distance is of the horse being flogged to beyond a bloody pulp

The dead do not bleed. On the other hand, he could be planning a tatar picnic (IIRC they were big into horsemeat).

 

[Mathman]

...he could be planning a tatar picnic (IIRC they were big into horsemeat).

Totally off topic, but at the University where I teach, for many years we were "the Tartars." Our mascot had a leather helmet and a little round shield and the whole bit.

Nobody knew what in the world a Tartar was -- some kind of fish sauce, or a dental hygene problem? -- so when the University upgraded its sports program they decided to change the name to "Warriors." (Same little guy with the round shield, though. )

 

[Medusa]

Totally off topic, but at the University where I teach, for many years we were "the Tartars." Our mascot had a leather helmet and a little round shield and the whole bit.

Nobody knew what in the world a Tartar was -- some kind of fish sauce, or a dental hygene problem?

This is a Tartar. But if he hadn't been one, I would have had no idea what a Tatar is.

In German we call some steaks "Tartar" - but that expression is also connected to the ethnic group.

I'm not sure what the point is that you are making about the 3A? I haven't heard any descriptions of wrong edge take offs for axel in any number of revolutions. Not exactly sure what is meant by "wonky". Mao ad a pretty "wonky" take off on her axel in the LP at the last worlds but that didn't go anywhere.

Is there a wrong take-off for the Axel? I mean, are there skaters who take of with the toe pick instead of the edge?

And another question: All the jumps are per definition landed on a back outside edge. Is that really in the rules, like the fact that the Lutz take-off is from the outside edge? But there are always skaters who don't manage to do that on every jump (some land extremely forward etc.) - ever thought about giving edge calls for that?

I love watching Peggy Fleming, how she lands all the jumps (doubles of course) on a beautiful edge with great ride-out. I haven't seen a program that contains mainly Triples with such beautiful landings.

 

[gio]

I'd also be interested to know how his flip was too

I think the flip jump didn't even exist back in the time Lutz executed a lutz jump. It's strange, cause the lutz is harder than the flip. :scratch:

I don't think that the outside edge take-off is an opinion, but a fact. Marina D'Agata (renowed Italian coach) always explained on TV that flutz and lip don't exist. From the inside edge is flip, from the outside is lutz. More the skater is on the outside edge, more correct is the lutz. Cause the most important aspect in FS are edges.

 

[Mathman]

I think the flip jump didn't even exist back in the time Lutz executed a lutz jump. It's strange, cause the lutz is harder than the flip. :scratch:

That's interesting. According to Wikipedia, the flip and the Lutz were both invented in 1913 (the flip by Bruce Mapes). But other sources say the flip goes all the way back to Jackson Haines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Mapes

I guess I have a different perspective on the whole flutz thing. To me, the reason that a wrong edge take-off on a Lutz attempt is a terrible sin is not so much because of the letter of the law. It is because the wrong edge robs the jump of its coolness.

A really good Lutz, with that delayed POP into the air -- that just sends shivers up my spine.

Take away the Lutzy-ness of the Lutz and what have you got? Just another blah space-filler in your program.

Men's programs should be cut down to three required elemetns: a trple Axel, a triple Lutz, and a split jump -- no credit if it is not higher than my head. (For ladies: a double Axel, layback spin and MK™ spiral.) :yes:

 

[Hsuhs]

This is a Tatar. But if he hadn't been one, I would have had no idea what a Tatar is.

Rudolf Nureyev was indeed of Ta(r)tar origin.