Should quads per program be limited to balance artistry?

[TontoK]

Actually, one could quad a FS program to death, q or < every jump with negative GOE and still win a GP Final.

You act as though everyone skated perfectly at that event. They did not.

In fact, Yuma won the free skate at that event - proving that the whole "artistic skaters can't win" argument a lie.

The problem was that, although Yuma did win the free skate, he squandered an opportunity by making his own FS errors (including a fall if I'm remembering correctly), reducing his margin of victory in that segment, and by entering the free skate with a 12-point deficit because he botched his short program.

It was not a good event, and in this case the winner was the one with the least crappy programs over both segments. You can argue the relative crappiness of the programs, that's fine.

But at this event, you can't argue that a flawed higher-tech set of programs beat a flawlessly skated less-tech set of programs.

 

[Skating91]

Sofia Dzepka's perfect 4T-3T is pure artistry I would argue.

 

[Mathman]

If a skater gets the highest TES and the highest PCS, he'll win regardless. (Well, unless he also racks up the highest number of deductions, enough to more than cancel out his margin of victory over the skater with the next highest TES+PCS.)

I love this crazy sport. I am going to look that up and see if anyone ever lost a skating contest while out-skating everyone in the field in every category of skating, but losing because of a time deduction, a costume deduction, an illegal backflip, an extended lift, etc. -- on top of a fall deduction or two. The closest that comes to mind is the teams Nobunari Oda used to get called for some bizarre Zayak situations.

(OT -- And by the way, what is wrong with holding a lift that rubs the ISU Ice Dance Committee the wrong way?)

 

[gkelly]

I love this crazy sport. I am going to look that up and see if anyone ever lost a skating contest while out-skating everyone in the field in every category of skating, but losing because of a time deduction, a costume deduction, an illegal backflip, an extended lift, etc. -- on top of a fall deduction or two. The closest that comes to mind is the teams Nobunari Oda used to get called for some bizarre Zayak situations.

Not sure if this counts: Evgeny Plushenko lost the 2003-04 Grand Prix Final to Emanuel Sandhu because he did three jump combinations in the free skate (which had been permitted in recent 6.0 events and would be at 2004 Euros and Worlds still to be judged under 6.0) but the original IJS rules only allowed for two combinations. I think he just got no credit for that jumping pass -- not sure if there was any further penalty for an illegal element. The protocols don't seem to be easily findable.

Of course, then the ISU quickly changed the rules to allow three jump combinations again. But next year they'll take the third one away along with the seventh jump pass overall?

(OT -- And by the way, what is wrong with holding a lift that rubs the ISU Ice Dance Committee the wrong way?)

I think the idea is that if you're going to get credit for up to four features in a lift for level 4, you need to get them accomplished efficiently in a limited amount of time. No fair taking as many seconds as you like getting all those features in at your leisure.

The original time restriction for short lifts was short enough that the time limit would often be reached in the middle of a musical phrase. The skaters complained, and the ISU added another second to the allowed time.

 

[TallyT]

Sofia Dzepka's perfect 4T-3T is pure artistry I would argue.

Too callow to be really artistic, but I guess as much if not moreso than some of her previously acclaimed compatriots.

Jumps can in themselves be beautiful (Arakawa and Takahashi were just a few days discussing that and yes, I only know because they were discussing him up there in my icon and no, they are not fans being fannish). Most of the successful that we have seen for years from both the men and the women (Zagitova and Trusova for instance) were and still are efficient rather than attractive because after all, there is no benefit for a beautiful jump above one that simply gets the job done. I'm not getting into whether there should be (except that would be another excuse for judges to pile on points for federation faves, yes) because a lot of sports, how it looks like doesn't matter as long as it does get the job done.

 

[Mathman]

Too callow...

She's what, 16 and three weeks? I can forgive callow in juniors.

 

[TallyT]

She's what, 16 and three weeks? I can forgive callow in juniors.

Agreed, she may develop into artistic jump and skating.

 

[Blades of Passion]

The new age rules are so awful. Michelle Kwan was competing internationally as a senior at 13 years old and that experience is what allowed her to grow into the performer she became. At 15 years she was receiving 6.0's for presentation already and performing with more maturity than almost anyone ever. It's very tragic how she wouldn't have even been eligible as a senior for the 1998 Olympics with these rules. 5 years of her career would've been sidelined and her parents probably wouldn't have even funded her to begin with, knowing she wouldn't be eligible until 1999. They would have made her focus on school and going to college.

The age rule doesn't protect the athletes' bodies, they are still going to do the most they possibly can for Junior competitions, and it doesn't fix the Russian doping problem, nor the Valieva problem; 17 years old is still a minor internationally and thus those competitors still can't be "held accountable".

If we don't want competitions dominated by very young "Ultra-C" jumpers and are trying to protect young bodies, then the rule should be that Triple Axels and Quads are banned in competition for anyone under 17 or even 18 years old.

 

[yfan1]

They would have made her focus on school and going to college.

OK. And?

The age rule doesn't protect the athletes' bodies, they are still going to do the most they possibly can for Junior competitions, and it doesn't fix the Russian doping problem, nor the Valieva problem; 17 years old is still a minor internationally and thus those competitors still can't be "held accountable".

I do agree here that the ISU failed to affect any meaningful change.

 

[Mathman]

Maybe some kind of compromise is available where coaches would agree to limit repetitions of extreme elements in practice sessions. Like in Little League baseball. there are ;limits (I don't know how they are enforced) on how many elbow-wrenching curve balls youngsters can throw.

 

[4everchan]

Maybe some kind of compromise is available where coaches would agree to limit repetitions of extreme elements in practice sessions. Like in Little League baseball. there are ;limits (I don't know how they are enforced) on how many elbow-wrenching curve balls youngsters can throw.

Good coaches talked about this already, for instance, Brian Orser. When Gogolev was a young boy, he was only allowed to jump a certain number of quads per day. There is no need for coaches to agree on this or not. There is no need for the ISU to regulate on this anyway. How would that rule be enforced ?

The one thing is that coaches need is common sense. You want your athletes to have longer career, limit their jumping when they are underdeveloped physically. Or don't.

 

[Arigato]

You act as though everyone skated perfectly at that event. They did not.

The point of my post had nothing to do with an event, per se, or a "they."

This was my comment:

"Actually, one could quad a FS program to death, q or < every jump with negative GOE and still win a GP Final."

It's 100 percent accurate. It happened.

 

[Blades of Passion]

OK. And?

And the rule is going to continue killing the existence of many other potential skaters. Parents aren't going to put their children into a very expensive and grueling sport that now offers very little return on investment and opportunity to make the Olympics.

Would Alysa Liu be with us right now if she had never been eligible for 2022? I highly doubt it.

 

[yfan1]

And the rule is going to continue killing the existence of many other potential skaters. Parents aren't going to put their children into a very expensive and grueling sport that now offers very little return on investment and opportunity to make the Olympics.

I would say that the sport's expenses and constant sex abuse scandals are already very good deterrents for parents to not be putting their children into it. Combined with the judging scandals. I think if people want return on investment for winter sports, they'll likely look at other avenues, or end up putting their children into summer sports altogether.

 

[DizzyFrenchie]

The new age rules are so awful. Michelle Kwan was competing internationally as a senior at 13 years old and that experience is what allowed her to grow into the performer she became. At 15 years she was receiving 6.0's for presentation already and performing with more maturity than almost anyone ever. It's very tragic how she wouldn't have even been eligible as a senior for the 1998 Olympics with these rules. 5 years of her career would've been sidelined and her parents probably wouldn't have even funded her to begin with, knowing she wouldn't be eligible until 1999. They would have made her focus on school and going to college.

The age rule doesn't protect the athletes' bodies, they are still going to do the most they possibly can for Junior competitions, and it doesn't fix the Russian doping problem, nor the Valieva problem; 17 years old is still a minor internationally and thus those competitors still can't be "held accountable".

If we don't want competitions dominated by very young "Ultra-C" jumpers and are trying to protect young bodies, then the rule should be that Triple Axels and Quads are banned in competition for anyone under 17 or even 18 years old.

I agree that changing the age limit was what we call in French, "putting a plaster on a wooden leg". Organisation love to make new rules pretending to be tackling a problem when it's clear from the beginning that the problem isn't there.
It's better for an athlete who can become Senior, to become Senior, they earn more leeway. The problem enabling excessive jump drills and even part of the rest of abuse, is that highest scores were (and are) awarded on Federation commendation on those who jump most ultra-C, regardless of their quality and of the rest of their skates. That is, unfair scoring. With fair scoring, Juniors have to learn real skating and those coaches who ruin their students' health to get them more ultra-C jumps without caring for developing the rest, would be back under better bosses rather than bossing themselves, or developing their students' skills better. If pre-teens and young teens have to work over half their ice time to get to this ease on ice, that's less time drilling jumps, and that's less harmful jump drills because they have more mastery overall allowing them healthier jumps. This won't be achieved until coaches and federations know that their students won't get candies if their jumps aren't good and rotated, and if their other skating Elements and Components aren't to the level.
Then only the Michelle Kwans and Yuzuru Hanyus of this World will effectually turn Senior at 15. Very few at 16. Most of the future World's best (we can take, those in the Free Skating at World Championships and those who would have been if more than three skaters per country had been allowed) would go at 17. Still a good number of them at 18.
That's the obvious remedy but nobody wants it. So the minimum Senior age was changed... and nothing changed.
Can't you hear the voice : "If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change" (The Leopard)?

 

[4everchan]

For most parents, figure skating, just like other expensive activities -whether it is skiing or music lessons etc, remains a fun hobby for their kids. They are absolutely not thinking about a return on their investment in that sense : making money from the sport. The return on their investment is that their kids are healthy, learning things, having fun, being in a group with friends, acquiring skills and things like discipline and perseverance. It's so not about getting that elusive olympic medal...

For the very very few who are looking for that olympic medal : well... it may or may not make a difference anyway. Sport at the elite level is crazy expensive (even swimming or hockey are crazy expensive at that level). So it's a sacrifice no matter what.

The age rule changes are a good one.

 

[Mathman]

The return on their investment is that their kids are healthy, learning things, having fun, being in a group with friends, acquiring skills and things like discipline and perseverance. It's so not about getting that elusive olympic medal...

I quite agree with this sentiment. We should not lose sight of the thousands and thousands of young skaters who enjoy the sport at a participatory level.

 

[Arigato]

For most parents, figure skating, just like other expensive activities -whether it is skiing or music lessons etc, remains a fun hobby for their kids. They are absolutely not thinking about a return on their investment in that sense : making money from the sport. The return on their investment is that their kids are healthy, learning things, having fun, being in a group with friends, acquiring skills and things like discipline and perseverance. It's so not about getting that elusive olympic medal...

Yes, thanks for posting that. I started competing in sport when I was a preteen. While I had told my parents I wanted to try for the Olympic team one day, my sport was the only sport where on average an Olympic rider is older and wiser. A LOT OLDER. Mid 30's-40's. With equestrian events there are even people in their 60's and 70's competing. Gold medalist at Tokyo, Nick Skelton won at age 60. Finally. His career spanned 5 decades. I am a huge advocate for sports, in general, since the mental and emotional benefits can last beyond what happens while being in the sport itself. They can last a lifetime.

 

[Blades of Passion]

For most parents, figure skating, just like other expensive activities -whether it is skiing or music lessons etc, remains a fun hobby for their kids. They are absolutely not thinking about a return on their investment in that sense : making money from the sport. The return on their investment is that their kids are healthy, learning things, having fun, being in a group with friends, acquiring skills and things like discipline and perseverance.

Figure skating as a hobby is a totally different subject and not relevant to the discussion.

It costs far more to do figure skating as a non-hobby, not just monetarily but also in time expenditure and the logistics of needing to home school the kid, and those parents are almost always treating it as an investment. The return on investment is not necessarily money but PRESTIGE. At the very least these parents aspire for their kid to reach the level where they will be seen on TV and be able to use their competitive results as a top-tier extracurricular to get into the best colleges possible.

The new age rule kills that path for most people, not only in what the parents are willing to do, but also in the experiences the skaters are getting. If teenagers are never allowed to compete at the highest level, then how motivated will they be to continue in the sport? Not very motivated. It also stunts their growth as performers. Would Denna Stellato have ever returned to the sport to do pairs, and with the performance foundation she possesses, if she'd never had the wonderful experience of getting to compete against some of the best people in the world at 16 years old? I don't think so.

 

[yfan1]

It costs far more to do figure skating as a non-hobby, not just monetarily but also in time expenditure and the logistics of needing to home school the kid, and those parents are almost always treating it as an investment.

All that AND predators on the constant. Sounds like a wonderful reason to not be sending your children, and nothing at all to do with the age rules.

If teenagers are never allowed to compete at the highest level, then how motivated will they be to continue in the sport? Not very motivated. It also stunts their growth as performers. Would Denna Stellato have ever returned to the sport to do pairs, and with the performance foundation she possesses, if she'd never had the wonderful experience of getting to compete against some of the best people in the world at 16 years old? I don't think so.

Was Deanna Stellato competing against "the best" in the world at international competitions as a junior?

Or was she doing that at national competitions? Can skaters still compete nationally at this level against "the best"?