SP and FS replaced by Technical and Artistic programs?

[Mathman]

Considering that they refused RusFed proposal about allowing quads in SP for ladies and combining it with other Bianchetti words about more focus on artistic side of skating - it leads me to believe that they won't allow quads for ladies in Technical program.

I can't imagine that the ISU would consider anything so absurd. In what sense would the technical program be the TECHNICAL program if they didn't allow the big technical elements?

Putting more stringent limits on jumps in the artistic program, yes, that seems to be the thrust of the whole proposal. They could do something like limit the total number of jumping passes to 4, with only 1 quad allowed.

But I hope they don't take that route. The thrust should be, let's find ways to put artistry forward, not to hold jumping back.

 

[gkelly]

Of course they'll ban quads in the artistic program. That's the main point of whole thing. To make it possible for, say, Brown to beat Hanyu or Chen.

I think it's more for someone like Brown to be able to beat a clean performance from the next young jumper who can land multiple quads but is still mediocre at other skills.

And for skaters like Hanyu and Chen to have more space to show off the other things they can do besides jump.

All else being equal, the skaters who can jump and skate and perform well will still win, but there will be more of a contrast between their emphases in the two programs.

And in the "artistic" program, skaters who can do everything well except for quads will have an advantage over those whose primary strength is quads.

In the technical program, the jumpers will still have an advantage.

If there are two well-rounded jumpers who can also perform artistically, they will tend to get the silver and bronze medals overall. Whether overall bronze goes to a more artistic skater or a more technical/athletic skater will probably vary depending on the point spread between programs at each individual competition.

(If the two programs were separate events, then we'd see more difference in who medaled in which.)

 

[Figure 8's]

This is a terrible idea.

Horrible, horrible idea. Every time they make changes it does nothing to enhance the Program.

 

[Figure 8's]

Speaking for myself, I love the jumps. I don't follow ice dance. If they change it I'll pretty much tune out. I wouldn't mind if there were two distinctly different disciplines-artistic and athletic skating-but this idea will kill the sport for me.

The jumps are what makes the program. Anyone can skate gracefully around in circles.

 

[lariko]

I don't think that's true, neccesarily. Aliona has won many competitions this year due to her lead in the short program. If, hypothetically these programs have the same scoring potential, they'll decide equally.
That's another thing I'm confused about though. Because right now, the "artistic" side, PCS, has a limit, while the technical side has basically unlimited scoring potential.
If they keep that in this new system, then the technical program will be the most important thing. But how can you make artistic scoring unlimited?

Kostornaya doesn’t exactly lose the FP either. Usually, the SP lead only takes over as exceptions—when SP is great, FP is far under what the SP promised, either because of unfortunate circumstances or inexperience.

Atm, in the ladies’ FS 3A is playing a spoiler because there is basically no counter on the highest level of skating to it in SP in terms of point difference with 2A and since it is a required element. Since multiple successful quad jumps in FP for ladies still remains a far-out goal, this, more than the intent, makes FP not to be decisive. Far more men can execute 3A, that normalizes it in the SP.

If, as a rule (not as an exception), SP would win the final, there is little reason to keep everyone in their seats for two more days. So, the second program must be usually the one that wins the day, with an odd exception once in a while.

 

[Mathman]

Of course they'll ban quads in the artistic program. That's the main point of whole thing. To make it possible for, say, Brown to beat Hanyu or Chen.

There seems to be a confusion as to which one is the technical program and which one is the artistic program. The post you responded to was talking about the technical program, not the artistic.

As for the motives of the ISU, I think your reasoning is unnecessarily cynical. For one thing, the proposed division will not help Jason Brown beat Hanyu or Chen because Hanyu and Chen get just as high PCSs as Brown anyway. (It might help Brown stay ahead of Aliev, though.)

To me, it would be a terrible mistake to ban quads outright in either program, for men or ladies. (If it is the deleterious health effects that we are worried about, there is no benefit to allowing young skaters to train quads for one program but then not jump them in the other.)

 

[Mathman]

The jumps are what makes the program. Anyone can skate gracefully around in circles.

But some skate more gracefully than others. No reason why this can't be acknowledged in the scoring system.

If a fan only enjoys seeing jumps, track and field is the way to go. High jump, long jump, triple jump, pole vault, hurdles -- you'll be in sports fan heaven! :yes:

 

[Mathman]

It is interesting to me that the ISU point man for this proposal is Fabio Bianchetti, now an ISU council member and head of the figure skating technical committee (succeeding Alexander Lakernik, who moved up to vice president for figure skating).

Bianchetti is the son of Sonia Bianchetti who spearheaded the movement to abolish compulsory figures and replace that segment of the competition by a "technical free skating program." Sonia Bianchetti aspired to be ISU president, but was outmaneuvered politically by the speed skating side, which pushed in Ottavio Cinquanta. Later Sonia Biamnchetti was kicked out of the ISU altogether for supporting the World Skating Federation.

Evidently the ISU didn't hold the sins of the mother against the son. Still, like mother, like son: here he is spearheading the next big change.

 

[lariko]

I think it's more for someone like Brown to be able to beat a clean performance from the next young jumper who can land multiple quads but is still mediocre at other skills.

And for skaters like Hanyu and Chen to have more space to show off the other things they can do besides jump.

All else being equal, the skaters who can jump and skate and perform well will still win, but there will be more of a contrast between their emphases in the two programs.

And in the "artistic" program, skaters who can do everything well except for quads will have an advantage over those whose primary strength is quads.

In the technical program, the jumpers will still have an advantage.

If there are two well-rounded jumpers who can also perform artistically, they will tend to get the silver and bronze medals overall. Whether overall bronze goes to a more artistic skater or a more technical/athletic skater will probably vary depending on the point spread between programs at each individual competition.

(If the two programs were separate events, then we'd see more difference in who medaled in which.)

I just don’t feel that the rules need a major overhaul. More transparency and more integration of measurements—yes, even if the soft-kneedness metric is not captured adequately, but I am happy to start with speed, span, height, RPMs, ice coverage and element distribution— I would love to see that captured, recorded and tabulated to be transferred into scoring, before arguing the exact % musicality can contribute.

My heart is inclined to go with the young jumper, and I want the metrics to be there for them while their name doesn’t ring the bell yet.

 

[gkelly]

The jumps are what makes the program. Anyone can skate gracefully around in circles.

Some more gracefully than others.

However, it is a lot easier to skate around in simple circles than it is to skate complex and varied combinations of steps and turns woven seamlessly with jumps and spins and other highlight moves, and to do it all in time with the music and with full body movements that not only represent greater challenges to balance and stamina but also reflect purpose, personality, point of view.

There are plenty of skaters (mostly at lower levels, but some who are including quads) who don't do much more during their programs than skate around in circles setting up jumps. If they skated a runthrough of the program with no jumps or watered-down jumps for some reason, there would be no program there.

Then there are other skaters who are always doing something interesting, specific, creative, leading in and out of the jumps, during the step sequences, etc. If they skated their programs without jumps, it would still be interesting. If they watered down their jumps during a runthrough to focus on performing, it might be even more interesting than when their focus is on getting their hardest jumps done.

My understanding is that the purpose of an "artistic" program with fewer jumps and more points for PCS is to give the skaters who can do both difficult jumps and interesting things between the jumps more time to focus on the latter while putting more emphasis on jump content in the tech program.

And to give skaters who have not bothered spending much time working on non-jump skills an incentive to develop those skills and demonstrate more well-rounded skill sets.

For fans who don't see the difference between complex skating and skating crossovers in circles, that's their loss. Or maybe they'll start paying more attention to those other skills when they become more crucial to how favorite skaters place in at least half the event.

 

[Mathman]

If, as a rule (not as an exception), SP would win the final, there is little reason to keep everyone in their seats for two more days. So, the second program must be usually the one that wins the day, with an odd exception once in a while.

This is a good point. From the show business perspective -- keep the audience in suspense until the grand climax -- it would be strange to let the first program be an anything goes slugfest, where one skater might pile up an insurmountable point total by doing five quads, then make the second program less exciting by limiting the scoring potential.

However, as I understand the proposal so far, the points would not carry over, only the rankings (?), somewhat as it was in 6.0 without the factoring. So if Nathan Chen got 150 points and 1st place in the technical program and Brown got 85 points and got second place, then in the artistic program Brown got 100 points and 1st place while Nathan got 95 points and third, Brown would win overall.

A lot would depend on tie-breakers. Would 1st and 3rd beat 2nd & 2nd, etc.

 

[icybear]

Nope. PCS is already too subjective. We'll end up with skaters making several mistakes but winning medals because they have high PCS.

 

[Mathman]

Nope. PCS is already too subjective. We'll end up with skaters making several mistakes but winning medals because they have high PCS.

Well, I don't know. What we have now is skaters making several mistakes but still winning medals because they do a lot of quads.

Look at it this way: reducing the percentage weight on PCSs from 50% to 40% will make the judging of that segment actually less subjective, not more.) Something for everyone.

 

[Supernovaimplosion]

Kostornaya doesn’t exactly lose the FP either. Usually, the SP lead only takes over as exceptions—when SP is great, FP is far under what the SP promised, either because of unfortunate circumstances or inexperience.

Atm, in the ladies’ FS 3A is playing a spoiler because there is basically no counter on the highest level of skating to it in SP in terms of point difference with 2A and since it is a required element. Since multiple successful quad jumps in FP for ladies still remains a far-out goal, this, more than the intent, makes FP not to be decisive. Far more men can execute 3A, that normalizes it in the SP.

If, as a rule (not as an exception), SP would win the final, there is little reason to keep everyone in their seats for two more days. So, the second program must be usually the one that wins the day, with an odd exception once in a while.

You're right. I thought alena was third in the fp at the gpf and europeans, but she was second. Right now, the free program does decide the positions mostly. At the ladies gpf, the free program placements were the same as the final placements, except for the top two.
Maybe because the two new programs will have the same time they'll be more equal, but who knows

 

[TontoK]

Well, I don't know. What we have now is skaters making several mistakes but still winning medals because they do a lot of quads.

Look at it this way: reducing the percentage weight on PCSs from 50% to 40% will make the judging of that segment actually less subjective, not more.) Something for everyone.

How would you feel about increasing the penalty for a fall? I'd be OK with it. Three points or so wouldn't bother me at all.

The thing about risk/reward is that the risk should be somewhat tied to the potential reward. And besides, when someone says, "It really didn't disrupt the program" they are lying. Because it did. We notice it, and savvy fans spend the rest of the program recalculating potential tech maximums and predicting impact to PCS and so forth.

 

[lariko]

Fall carries plenty of penalties. The value of a jump is not a zero, but there are so many additional ways to reduce it to as close to zero, including the PCS, loss of potential GOE bonus, potential under rotation, potential loss of a second jump in the combo...

On the other hand a fall on its own, outside a jump, for the most part gets 1 point.

Increasing fall penalty to -3 might end up in negative score on a jumping pass, making a popped jump preferential to a fall.

I don’t know what others think, but imo a popped jump feels like a worse mistake than a fall on a jump, because most elements of a jump are not performed as a result and it doesn’t carry any inherent aesthetic value.

The potential for the proliferation of the over-cautious, hard to rank programs with minute differences that are hard to quantify is even higher. And that brings to mind the Ice Dance conundrum, where my mom thinks that’s ‘cause SK had channelled more emotions, and I think that’s because PC’s costume takes time to get used to.

 

[karne]

What people forget when they propose things like falls being -3 is that this change won't just apply to the top 0.5% of skaters who are routinely scoring 200+ TCS. It will also apply to the brand new Senior with a barely-there double Axel and one shaky triple who is happy to get over 100 TCS.

The 60-40 split thing is utterly meaningless until they start scoring PCS correctly. While skaters can still chuck all the choreography out of their programs in the pursuit of landing 5 quads, while skaters can just endlessly repeat programs because "the jumps!" and still get 90+ for it, no difference will be made, and something like this would only hurt a genuine 90+ skater like Jason just because he doesn't get the quad bonus.

They've got to fix the quad bonus issue in PCS before they do anything else.

 

[moonvine]

What people forget when they propose things like falls being -3 is that this change won't just apply to the top 0.5% of skaters who are routinely scoring 200+ TCS. It will also apply to the brand new Senior with a barely-there double Axel and one shaky triple who is happy to get over 100 TCS.

The 60-40 split thing is utterly meaningless until they start scoring PCS correctly. While skaters can still chuck all the choreography out of their programs in the pursuit of landing 5 quads, while skaters can just endlessly repeat programs because "the jumps!" and still get 90+ for it, no difference will be made, and something like this would only hurt a genuine 90+ skater like Jason just because he doesn't get the quad bonus.

They've got to fix the quad bonus issue in PCS before they do anything else.

I agree. All of this 100%.

 

[[email protected]]

It's still allowed. It just doesn't gain as many points as before, when all of the backloaded jumps got the 10% bonus.

No one claimed that backloading was not more difficult than the "balanced routine". The challenge was to find the artistic expression to make it work. DQ was a big hit. But now that there is no reward why bother? Risk without reward is meaningless.

 

[rosy14]

All this stuff began to appear (pushed by Bianchetti’s mom) when USFed didn’t have a big jumper, and RusFed and Japan had at least one.Now they are revamping it because of Russian girls doing quads. Assuming all of them will arrive in Peking in 2022 (a big if) they will quite probably retire, and all these changes will become suddenly out of date, especially if Alyssa Liu stays at the top when senior.
If they want big audience, they need big champions, charismatic champions, and check that the judges don’t steel them of their well deserved victory. That’ s all.