Ted Barton and Mark Hanretty: Q&A Session
- Thread starter gsk8
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2018
- Country
-
Ooh they answered my question (sort of)! But I have no idea how they knew my name, did you GS folk tell them?
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2006
- Country
-
The bits about the length of careers are so vague that it is somewhat embarssaing in my opinion...
The average career length for top women is today about 6 seasons in international seniors and that is in general preceed by at least 2 seasons in juniors. That is about 8 years of top level competition for quite a few of them. Before the 1990s, the average senior career was about 5 seasons and there was no junior career to talk about. The average age of retirement has gotten up from 20 in the pre-1990s era to about 22 today.
It could be said that the raising of the age eligibility in the 1990s was the reason for the current longer careers, but I am not so sure about that. At the same time, the amateur rules were also changed and you could also skate in shows and earn money to support your competitive career. This was not possible before and most top skaters tended to quit at the top to turn professional.
To make senior careers longer, the future women should do at least 6 seasons in international seniors. If they have done a full 4 season junior stint before that, that is at least 10 years in the circuit. And then most should actually continue longer than that to make the averages higher.
It will be interesting to see what happens!
E
The average career length for top women is today about 6 seasons in international seniors and that is in general preceed by at least 2 seasons in juniors. That is about 8 years of top level competition for quite a few of them. Before the 1990s, the average senior career was about 5 seasons and there was no junior career to talk about. The average age of retirement has gotten up from 20 in the pre-1990s era to about 22 today.
It could be said that the raising of the age eligibility in the 1990s was the reason for the current longer careers, but I am not so sure about that. At the same time, the amateur rules were also changed and you could also skate in shows and earn money to support your competitive career. This was not possible before and most top skaters tended to quit at the top to turn professional.
To make senior careers longer, the future women should do at least 6 seasons in international seniors. If they have done a full 4 season junior stint before that, that is at least 10 years in the circuit. And then most should actually continue longer than that to make the averages higher.
It will be interesting to see what happens!
E
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
- Country
-
When you fill out the question form it only asks for your first name
I make sure they do not have the last name 
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2022
So... I'm now through ~60%, the last question I listened to so far was: When junior skaters are scoring higher than senior skaters, how do you see that impacting the sport?
And although I appreciate their answers, especially Mark's on this, I think they both avoided the main problems that are part of the question a bit:
- Isn't that ultimately showing a flaw in the judging system when people are scoring higher although they are only better in one aspect of the sport?
If seniors are better in other aspects, why doesn't that show in the scores? And will it not make people not so familiar with the sport feel sceptical about the whole sport, when there are juniors which are "better" than seniors? Will it not make them distrust the scoring but also the sport as a whole when they learn? And devalue the achievements of the seniors, even when the others have an advantage of the human factor etc.?
Also, taking the question and answers before this one into account:
Ted doesn't seem to be a fan of limiting the jump content for juniors - and I can understand, it seems to go against the essence of sport - but since we have an idea how this sport destroys bodies, and how it does even more so when there's such a huge amount of training of difficult triples and quads, isn't that something the sport needs to talk about more and maybe draw conclusions?
Overall though it's an interesting watch! Appreciate it.
And although I appreciate their answers, especially Mark's on this, I think they both avoided the main problems that are part of the question a bit:
- Isn't that ultimately showing a flaw in the judging system when people are scoring higher although they are only better in one aspect of the sport?
If seniors are better in other aspects, why doesn't that show in the scores? And will it not make people not so familiar with the sport feel sceptical about the whole sport, when there are juniors which are "better" than seniors? Will it not make them distrust the scoring but also the sport as a whole when they learn? And devalue the achievements of the seniors, even when the others have an advantage of the human factor etc.?
Also, taking the question and answers before this one into account:
Ted doesn't seem to be a fan of limiting the jump content for juniors - and I can understand, it seems to go against the essence of sport - but since we have an idea how this sport destroys bodies, and how it does even more so when there's such a huge amount of training of difficult triples and quads, isn't that something the sport needs to talk about more and maybe draw conclusions?
Overall though it's an interesting watch! Appreciate it.
