SP and FS replaced by Technical and Artistic programs?

[Mathman]

Aah, I’d somehow got the idea that both were going to be 3 minutes long...

I just tossed that suggestion into the ring on my own. Alexander Lakernik mentioned 3 1/2 minutes in informal interviews.

(Who are you going to believe, me or Lakernik? )

However, I think this. There is nothing magical about skating for 4 minutes, or for 4 1/2 minutes, or 5 minutes (which I believe was the men's long program many years ago?) Skaters and choreographers can adapt to whatever the rules call for and can produce soul-satisfying gems of any length.

For myself, I generally like the short programs better than the long programs. The old show business maxim, "always leave them wanting more," comes into play. There are only a few long programs that hold my interest all the way through. I am more likely to start feeling, "Is she still out there?"

Plus, after 5 or 6 jumps I often say to myself, "Stop, stop! You made it through all those jumps without falling down, now you are just tempting fate to no purpose."

About Ice Dance, it would be interesting to see which programs over all disciplines are regarded by both casual and serious fans as being super-iconic, "This is what figure skating is all about!" Torvill and Dean's Bolero might end up atop the list.

(Granted, Torvill and Dean didn't score 135.82 points (the modern ice dance record). But they did get three 6.0's and six 5.9's for technical merit and all nine 6.0's for artistic excellence.)

 

[Elucidus]

Well, if both programs end up being 3 1/2 minutes, which I seem to remember seeing proposed, then they would both be equally likely to earn standing Os.

Or they would be equally likely to earn them just as rarely as SP now :sarcasm:

Because for a good chunk of its fans, it's figure skating, NOT figure jumping.

And isn't a complete package "so much more" than a jumpfest?

You missed the point. The "whole package" deal was sold to us by ISU as a mixture of two. Now they want to sell half of that for the same price - with a reduced size to boot. Of course there bound to be customers who are not very excited about that swindle, you see?

Plus, after 5 or 6 jumps I often say to myself, "Stop, stop! You made it through all those jumps without falling down, now you are just tempting fate to no purpose."

It's a key difference between us I suppose. I always shout to myself at the end of a program: "More! I want to see more jumps! Show me how great you are exactly on this marathon distance! Ugh,, again this obligatorily long steps and spins at the end.. Where is my great backloaded programs gone? ". Also seeng how much adding up in a TES box at the end of a program is always exquisite joy for me. The more - the merrier. Unfortunately, with new proposition and limitations - big numbers (and big joy from them) will be gone forever.

 

[Mathman]

... At Skate America, Jason beat every skater but one. The only guy who beat him is the World Champion. ...

My point is that he can compete with bigger jumpers. Jason and other So-called artistic skaters can make it to the medal stand, but they have to do what they are capable of very well.

To me the issue is not who can beat whom but rather, would changes in the two programs improve the structure of the sport itself -- or not?

I think that it is hard to draw any conclusion from Skate America. According to the judges' marks, Nathan Chen was better than Jason Brown in presentation and in choreography and in musical interpretation. He was also better in blade skills and he did more transitions and of greater variety and higher quality than Jason did.

On the flip side, the stronger technical skaters who did not deliver on their strengths... Jason beat those guys.

Again, to me this is yes ... and? Aliev gave the silver away by getting a downgrade on his triple Lutz, popping a triple Axel, and losing a jump altogether because of a Zayak violation. Jason was OK, but not at his tip-top best, plus he made a couple of mistakes, too. I cannot see how this weighs in as either yea or nay on the proposal to mix up the two programs in a different way.

 

[TontoK]

To me the issue is not who can beat whom but rather, would changes in the two programs improve the structure of the sport itself -- or not?

I think that it is hard to draw any conclusion from Skate America. According to the judges' marks, Nathan Chen was better than Jason Brown in presentation and in choreography and in musical interpretation. He was also better in blade skills and he did more transitions and of greater variety and higher quality than Jason did.

Again, to me this is yes ... and? Aliev gave the silver away by getting a downgrade on his trip;e Lutz, popping a triple Axel, and losing a jump altogether because of a Zayak violation. Jason was pretty OK, but not at his tip-top best, plus he made a couple of mistakes, too. I cannot see how this weighs in as either yea or nay on the proposal to mix up the two programs in a different way.

Thank you for your kind reply, but I think that for most this discussion IS about who gets the best placements and who wins the medals. If not, people would be content to just sit quietly and just think to themselves, "oh well, the judges chose Skater X, and that's nice, but I'll just YouTube Skater Y, because that's my preference."

But they don't do that. They don't sit quietly and let their YouTube views do the talking. Instead they engage vociferously on 20-page threads about why the sport needs reforms, and why a certain skater's technique isn't rewarded, and why the PCS for a certain skater is a travesty, and go on wuzrobbed rants, etc etc. They do that because their favorite skaters (or favored skating styles) are not universally acknowledged to be superior to others.

As for Nathan beating Jason in PCS at Skate America... is it possible that Nathan was actually better? Can you concede the possibility? This is going to be heresy to many, but I traded messages with some people who were at the event. They're not PCS experts, but they were surprised to find that Jason was slower, more tentative, and less engaging than they expected. (And everyone can save the hysterics, please, I've already acknowledged that he had little practice time leading up the competition). They thought that the shows and such that Nathan had done over the summer helped him a lot. That his skating was more mature, more exciting, confident, more entertaining...

I don't think livestreaming or television provides as complete a picture as actually being in the arena. I hope to discover that for myself one day.

 

[Mathman]

As for Nathan beating Jason in PCS at Skate America... is it possible that Nathan was actually better?

Well, sure. It's just that I don't see how this bears on the question of whether or not we should increase the length of the Short Program to 3 or 3 1/2 minutes and add more non-jump elements to the list of requirements, etc.

If Nathan is better in the new performance-focused program and also better in the new jump-centered program, then he will win three prizes: Artistic, Technical, and Overall. Good for him!

... but I think that for most this discussion IS about who gets the best placements and who wins the medals. If not, people would be content to just sit quietly and just think to themselves, "oh well, the judges chose Skater X, and that's nice, but I'll just YouTube Skater Y, because that's my preference."

But they don't do that ... they engage vociferously on 20-page threads about why the sport needs reforms, and why a certain skater's technique isn't rewarded, and why the PCS for a certain skater is a travesty, and go on wuzrobbed rants, etc etc.

I think this would happen whatever the structure and focus of the two programs are.

Actually, the main reason why I am open to the ISU's suggestion of stirring things up a bit is this. At present I do not see any compelling purpose served by the short program at all. How is it different from the long program (except being mercifully shorter, and usually better constructed)?

 

[pianistliz]

In addition (at least for me) jumping brings a taste of risk. Beauty becomes much more valuable if you know that it can be taken away at any second. I like the skaters not only because they are artists, but also because they ... like warriors. They must create their beauty and protect it every second. It is delightful and heartbreaking at the same time. Without jumping, without this risk - it will be a completely different sport.

Beautifully said!

 

[TontoK]

Actually, the main reason why I am open to the ISU's suggestion of stirring things up a bit is this. At present I do not see any compelling purpose served by the short program at all. How is it different from the long program (except being mercifully shorter, and usually better constructed)?

I think that from the perspective of sports - having a SP means that you can't just have one incredible day of skating and win. You've got to get it together and hold it together for two different programs over two different days.

And, I kinda like the old canard that "you can't win the gold in the short, but you can lose it." It appeals to me, although Nathan Chen would probably disagree.

Now, as for the line of thought that I think you're pursuing, which is "the SP is just a mini LP" ... maybe so, but without it, the lower-tech artsy skaters wouldn't have a chance at all since jump content is strictly limited, and one of those is the same for essentially all the men - 3A, so it levels the playing field a bit.

 

[Elucidus]

Well, sure. It's just that I don't see how this bears on the question of whether or not we should increase the length of the Short Program to 3 or 3 1/2 minutes and add more non-jump elements to the list of requirements, etc.

If Nathan is better in the new performance-focused program and also better in the new jump-centered program, then he will win three prizes: Artistic, Technical, and Overall. Good for him!



I think this would happen whatever the structure and focus of the two programs are.

Actually, the main reason why I am open to the ISU's suggestion of stirring things up a bit is this. At present I do not see any compelling purpose served by the short program at all. How is it different from the long program (except being mercifully shorter, and usually better constructed)?

Actually you can treat SP as Artistic Program now. In practice it serves that purpose well because due to having much less jumps skaters have more time to express themselves. Therefore majority of modern SP have better choreo and performance than FP - while FP serves the purpose of a Technical Program to a degree where half of a program more often than not is just a jumping drill. Both programs are still many time better than proposed model since they are not this rigid in limitations (for example they allow to have highly artistic program with lots of quads - which wouldn't be possible even theory in new system) and they still remains balanced mixture of both worlds (sport and artistic) in the same program - which was always the ideal of ISU ..until recently.

 

[Mathman]

Actually you can treat SP as Artistic Program now. In practice it serves that purpose well because due to having much less jumps skaters have more time to express themselves. Therefore majority of modern SP have better choreo and performance than FP - while FP serves the purpose of a Technical Program to a degree where half of a program more often than not is just a jumping drill.

I agree. Especially about the bolded part.

That is why I am not upset about the ISU floating this trial balloon. Not all that much would change. I would like for the short program to be a little longer and allow a greater variety of scoring elements. I would look forward to a set-up where split jumps, delayed Axels, and the like would count for a little bit of something, for instance.

Both programs are still many times better than proposed model since they are not this rigid in limitations (for example they allow to have highly artistic program with lots of quads - which wouldn't be possible even theory in new system) and they still remains balanced mixture of both worlds (sport and artistic) in the same program - which was always the ideal of ISU ..until recently.

I guess that is where I get lost. The ISU did not propose any model. Mr. Lakernik spoke briefly about adjusting the relative values of the PCSs a little, maybe. As for putting a limit on jumps, there is already a limit on jumps (in both programs), so that would not be a change. The big jumpers would have a big advantage in the LP and a somewhat lesser advantage in the SP -- just like now.

I do not see why everyone is so up in arms when we don't yet have much of an idea what it is we are up in arms about. Nobody is suggesting that we have a solo dance exhibition followed by a jump-off.

 

[Mathman]

I think that from the perspective of sports - having a SP means that you can't just have one incredible day of skating and win. You've got to get it together and hold it together for two different programs over two different days.

On the other hand, it is also pretty sporty to say, "Right Here! Right Now! Do or Do Not! Win or Go Home! No Excuses! No crying in baseball!" :yes:

 

[moonvine]

Oh, interesting thought! All through this discussion I've been operating on the assumption that of course the SP would evolve into the technical program, because that's where it evolved from already - but if the FS becomes the new technical program and the SP the new artistic program (or whatever names they decide on in the end), that offers more interesting opportunities. Especially if they shift the choreographic sequence from the (now) FS to the (now) SP, and possibly open up more footwork options for the step sequence instead of keeping the same requirements for both.

That seems strange, that the "artistic" program would have more rigid requirements than the technical program. I was thinking it would have fewer. And they'd be the same length and weighted equally. Guess that would be my perfect world

- - - Updated - - -

Carolina Kostner's SP at 2018 Worlds definitely got a standing ovation. (I participated.)

Admittedly, it was in Italy.

I'm sure there are other examples.

Keegan's short at Skate America, so I am told.

 

[Harriet]

That seems strange, that the "artistic" program would have more rigid requirements than the technical program. I was thinking it would have fewer. And they'd be the same length and weighted equally. Guess that would be my perfect world

I definitely agree about same length and equal weight, but certainly the elements for the SP-become-artistic program could be freed up, i.e., retain 3 jumping passes but loosen the requirements for what jumps are to be done, lessen restrictions on spin varieties, emphasise flow, speed and ice coverage in the step sequence, etc. Moving the choreo sequence over would give you 8 elements in the SP-become-artistic program (3 jumping, 5 non-jumping) and leave the FS-become-technical program with 11 (7 jumping, 4 non-jumping). There's no reason they'd have to stay as restricted as the SP requirements are now at all!

Not to mention that BVs could be adjusted so that the non-jumping elements of the SP-become-artistic program would approximately equal the jumping elements in contribution to overall BV.

 

[moonvine]

Actually you can treat SP as Artistic Program now. In practice it serves that purpose well because due to having much less jumps skaters have more time to express themselves. Therefore majority of modern SP have better choreo and performance than FP - while FP serves the purpose of a Technical Program to a degree where half of a program more often than not is just a jumping drill. Both programs are still many time better than proposed model since they are not this rigid in limitations (for example they allow to have highly artistic program with lots of quads - which wouldn't be possible even theory in new system) and they still remains balanced mixture of both worlds (sport and artistic) in the same program - which was always the ideal of ISU ..until recently.

Wow! I am missing something somewhere..I always think since there are so many elements crammed into a short time and so restrictive..they have less time to express themselves.

 

[randomfan]

Slightly related to this: I’ve often noticed that SP step sequences tend to be more intricate and engaging than FS step sequences, likely since the skater doesn’t need to save as much energy in the SP.

 

[Miller]

For myself, I generally like the short programs better than the long programs. The old show business maxim, "always leave them wanting more," comes into play. There are only a few long programs that hold my interest all the way through. I am more likely to start feeling, "Is she still out there?"

Plus, after 5 or 6 jumps I often say to myself, "Stop, stop! You made it through all those jumps without falling down, now you are just tempting fate to no purpose."

About Ice Dance, it would be interesting to see which programs over all disciplines are regarded by both casual and serious fans as being super-iconic, "This is what figure skating is all about!" Torvill and Dean's Bolero might end up atop the list.

It's a key difference between us I suppose. I always shout to myself at the end of a program: "More! I want to see more jumps! Show me how great you are exactly on this marathon distance! Ugh,, again this obligatorily long steps and spins at the end.. Where is my great backloaded programs gone? ".

Have to say I get nervous for the skaters at this point. However it is a sport - c'mon show us what you've got and to the victor the spoils.

To this end I'd quite like the ISU to look at some of the bonuses on offer if the new programs go ahead.

For example you've now got all the skaters pretty much doing their 3 10% bonus jumping passes as soon as the 2nd half starts. I'd like to see a further 10% if the final element is a jump e.g. Rika Kihira's 3S at the end of last year's free skate. Similarly a thrown jump in Pairs.

Also almost every single pairs couple (kudos to Boikova/Kozlovskii who didn't), do their Twist Lift as their first element in both the SP and LP. Why not have a 10% bonus if it's in the 2nd half, or at least in the LP. Similarly a 10% bonus for a side-by-side jump in the pairs, in fact could even be 20% i.e. 2 lots of 10% if it's the final element of all. Very risky, but potentially rewarding.

N.B. Looked up Torvill and Dean's Bolero. Was just over 4 minutes long, excluding swaying on the ice at the start, and lying on it at the end.

 

[pianistliz]

Anyway, this is going to be great fun.

If the ISU wants to make changes with a minimum of disruption to continuity of scoring, it could go something like this. Each program is tree minutes long. (That’s a good thing right there. :yes: )

Balanced program elements for Technical Program

1. Five jumping passes including one Axel type jump and no more than 2 combos. No repeated jumps, bonus for including all 6 types of take-off.
2. Three spins, with levels.
3. One footwork sequence.

Example (Nathan Chen) Jumps = 4Lz, 4F, 4T+3T, 3Lo+1Eu+3S (or 4S+3Lo if he can), 3A; spins = what he does now (CCSp4, FCCoSp4, CCoSp4), Step sequence = what he does now.

Balanced program rules for Artistic Program

1. Three jumping passes, including an Axel jump and a combination.
2. Three spins (no levels – both difficulty and quality rewarded in GOE).
3. One Footwork Sequence and one Choreograph Step or Spiral Sequence.
4. One Surprise Me! Or Check This Out! Something like a small jump sequence, featuring crazy stuff that the audience has never seen before. (Skater must keep this under wraps – no practice videos allowed).

Maybe the base values for spins could be raised slightly so that a very good spin could get as many points as a routine triple jump.

The skater who can do multiple quads in both programs would still have a big advantage overall, if he can keep his program components up – but that’s sport.

Ok I could live with that.

 

[el henry]

OK, but my point is that they would be much rarer, and I think it would be a loss if you didn't get them, a program might 'just be getting going', then suddenly it's over, which is what I often seem to find with SPs, and you lose that 'moment' that you often get with a full 4 minute free skate.

I know we’ve got some examples already, and we could get many more probably, but....

Jason Brown’s SP at 2019 Worlds. Perfectly timed. And the Japanese audience, bless them, agreed.

I’m finding I like SPs more than LPs these days, but that could be because less of an emphasis on jumps?

 

[Mathman]

I’m finding I like SPs more than LPs these days, but that could be because less of an emphasis on jumps?

For me I like short programs better because they are in general more coherently constructed and more unified and thematic.

I don't have anything against lots of jumps per se, but it does seem like the majority of LPs struggle in the "artistic integrity" department. Quite understandable if your main goal is to work in 3 quads and 4 triples before your time runs out.

Although, as other posters have pointed out, once in a while you get a Seimei where the jumps and other technical highlights just seem to be (an artistic paradox?) "inevitable, yet beyond expectation."

 

[rollerblade]

Bring back figures! This segment does not require music or costumes.

Why did they get rid of figures to begin with? Is it the ratings?

 

[anonymoose_au]

Bring back figures! This segment does not require music or costumes.

Why did they get rid of figures to begin with? Is it the ratings?

Pretty much. I'm not sure they even broadcasted it because you wouldn't be able to see the figures in the ice on TV. Even the audience at the rink wouldn't have been able to see it very well, so if you went to the Figures portion of an event it'd just be six hours of watching skaters sloooowly skate about on one foot and then a whole bunch of judges peer at the ice afterwards

However, they do have black ice now, so that you can see the figures...still not sure it'd be much fun. I like the idea of fancy figures though Imagine Yuzu designing Pooh Bear on the ice for his portion!