The Case for Handwork: Balancing Art and Sport in Figure Skating

[snowed]

Leaving the terminology alone for one sec.

To achieve a better balance : The ISU had a good idea bringing in the choreo sequence. It does add to programs when it is well done. However, in order to do so, they nixed the second step sequence. If they had nixed one jumping pass instead, we would have seen more intricate skating and less preparation into jumps. It's a very simple fix in my humble opinion.

Senior Free Skates have both Choreo sequence and Step sequence. Junios FS have only Choreo. Short programs for both Seniors and Juniors have Step Sequances. I hope I've got it right...

 

[4everchan]

Senior Free Skates have both Choreo sequence and Step sequence. Junios FS have only Choreo. Short programs for both Seniors and Juniors have Step Sequances. I hope I've got it right...

yes you have it right... but prior to what year?? 2010 or was it later??? There were TWO mandatory step sequences in the LP. This is what I was referring to. When the CH SEQ was added, the ISU could have removed a jumping pass instead of just nixing the 2nd Step Sequence. At one point too the step sequences used to have mandatory features... for some that may mean, oh... mandatory, less creative... fine... BUT there was a focus on a pattern (straight line, circular, serpentine) or a feature like the one-foot sequence which was creating a very specific demand on skaters on those skills.

 

[Mathman]

yes you have it right... but prior to what year?? 2010 or was it later??? There were TWO mandatory step sequences in the LP. This is what I was referring to. When the CH SEQ was added, the ISU could have removed a jumping pass instead of just nixing the 2nd Step Sequence. At one point too the step sequences used to have mandatory features... for some that may mean, oh... mandatory, less creative... fine... BUT there was a focus on a pattern (straight line, circular, serpentine) or a feature like the one-foot sequence which was creating a very specific demand on skaters on those skills.

I actually liked it when steps sequences had lots of specific scoring expectations and rules. As a spectator it made me feel "in the know" when I could tell the difference (with the help of Dick Button) betqween circular and serpentine, or when the skater was deliberately making a show of turning in both directions, or was hitting th bullet point for one-foot skating. (Irina Slutskaya was excellent at that last skill.) I never felt that performance values were compromised. It's like writing a sonnet. A sonnet, compared to free verse, for instance, is more "arttistic", not less because of the strict requirements of meter and rhyme scheme.

To me the esthetic effect of the choreo sequence is not as obvious or so easy to appreciate. Furthermore the skater gets so few points for doing an exceptional choreo seuence that he would be a lot better off wortking on his quad Lutz than putting a lot of effort into this element.

The best specific suggestion that these GS discussions have tossed onto the table is one by @gkelly of replacing one of the jumping passes with a "small-jump sequence." Skaters could earn points by dazzling us with split jumps, delayed Axels, etc., along with accompanying transitions. There is no element in figure skating that thrills the audience more than a spectaular Russian split jump, but the move may fall by the wayside in figure skating because a skater gets 0 points for it.

 

[4everchan]

I actually liked it when steps sequences had lots of specific scoring expectations and rules. As a spectator it made me feel "in the know" when I could tell the difference (with the help of Dick Button) betqween circular and serpentine, or when the skater was deliberately making a show of turning in both directions, or was hitting th bullet point for one-foot skating. (Irina Slutskaya was excellent at that last skill.) I never felt that performance values were compromised. It's like writing a sonnet. A sonnet, compared to free verse, for instance, is more "arttistic", not less because of the strict requirements of meter and rhyme scheme.

To me the esthetic effect of the choreo sequence is not as obvious or so easy to appreciate. Furthermore the skater gets so few points for doing an exceptional choreo seuence that he would be a lot better off wortking on his quad Lutz than putting a lot of effort into this element.

The best specific suggestion that these GS discussions have tossed onto the table is one by @gkelly of replacing one of the jumping passes with a "small-jump sequence." Skaters could earn points by dazzling us with split jumps, delayed Axels, etc., along with accompanying transitions. There is no element in figure skating that thrills the audience more than a spectaular Russian split jump, but the move may fall by the wayside in figure skating because a skater gets 0 points for it.

The small jump sequences were big in the 6.0 era... I remember a German skater loving them... I think her name was Marina Kiellman ?

Yup... it was.. here is a clip.

 

[4everchan]

but i still prefer more steps.

 

[gkelly]

yes you have it right... but prior to what year?? 2010 or was it later??? There were TWO mandatory step sequences in the LP. This is what I was referring to.

For the men, yes. For the women and pairs, up to 2010 the free skate required a spiral sequence. So the choreo sequence replaced the second leveled step sequence for men and the leveled spiral sequence for women and pairs.

Pairs has more different kinds of elements and in some cases splits the element types between short and long programs.

When the duration of the senior men's and pairs' free skates was reduced from 4:30 to 4:00 (+/- 10 s) a few years ago, the ISU did remove one jump pass from the men's FS, and one spin type from the pairs'.

At one point too the step sequences used to have mandatory features... for some that may mean, oh... mandatory, less creative... fine... BUT there was a focus on a pattern (straight line, circular, serpentine) or a feature like the one-foot sequence which was creating a very specific demand on skaters on those skills.

The step sequences still have mandatory features, although the specifics have changed over the years.

There are currently 4 features, so it is required to include all 4 in order to earn level 4. That has largely been true for most of the history of IJS, just the specific features have evolved over time.

The current features are:
1) Minimum variety (Level 1), simple variety (Level 2), variety (Level 3), complexity (Level 4) of difficult turns and steps throughout (compulsory)
2) Rotations in either direction (left and right) with full body rotation covering at least 1/3 of the pattern in total for each rotational direction
3) Use of body movements for at least 1/3 of the pattern
4) Two combinations of 3 difficult turns on different feet executed with continuous flow within the sequence. Only one difficult turn may be repeated in the two combinations. Only the first combination attempted on each foot can be counted.

I actually liked it when steps sequences had lots of specific scoring expectations and rules. As a spectator it made me feel "in the know" when I could tell the difference (with the help of Dick Button) betqween circular and serpentine, or when the skater was deliberately making a show of turning in both directions, or was hitting th bullet point for one-foot skating.

You can still look for most of the current features and feel "in the know" when you recognize them.

It's easy to see how much a skater rotates clockwise and counterclockwise during the step sequence, same as you mention above.

It's also pretty easy to see whether the skater is using body movements, although you'd need some more information to consistently agree with the tech panel on what counts as body movements for this feature.

You should also be able to recognize when a skater performs three difficult turns in a row on one foot. If you like, you can make a point of keeping track whether they do this once on each foot during the sequence.

Keeping track of which difficult turns the skater executed during these one-foot "clusters" to earn feature #4, or in the step sequence as a whole for feature #1, is more difficult.

Twizzles and loops are pretty easy to recognize. Rockers, counters, and brackets might all look pretty similar. If you can recognize that it was a one-foot turn from forward to backward or backward to forward that didn't just follow the curve of travel, you can recognize it as a "difficult" turn even if you can't name which one it was especially in real time.

And feature #1 has always been required across the history of IJS, although the specific definitions of kinds of variety required have evolved over the last 20 years. It should be no more or less difficult to keep track of now than it was then. (I.e., quite difficult for nonskaters or lower level skaters to keep track in real time, under today's rules and also the early IJS rules.)

 

[4everchan]

For the men, yes. For the women and pairs, up to 2010 the free skate required a spiral sequence. So the choreo sequence replaced the second leveled step sequence for men and the leveled spiral sequence for women and pairs.

Pairs has more different kinds of elements and in some cases splits the element types between short and long programs.

When the duration of the senior men's and pairs' free skates was reduced from 4:30 to 4:00 (+/- 10 s) a few years ago, the ISU did remove one jump pass from the men's FS, and one spin type from the pairs'.


The step sequences still have mandatory features, although the specifics have changed over the years.

There are currently 4 features, so it is required to include all 4 in order to earn level 4. That has largely been true for most of the history of IJS, just the specific features have evolved over time.

The current features are:
1) Minimum variety (Level 1), simple variety (Level 2), variety (Level 3), complexity (Level 4) of difficult turns and steps throughout (compulsory)
2) Rotations in either direction (left and right) with full body rotation covering at least 1/3 of the pattern in total for each rotational direction
3) Use of body movements for at least 1/3 of the pattern
4) Two combinations of 3 difficult turns on different feet executed with continuous flow within the sequence. Only one difficult turn may be repeated in the two combinations. Only the first combination attempted on each foot can be counted.


You can still look for most of the current features and feel "in the know" when you recognize them.

It's easy to see how much a skater rotates clockwise and counterclockwise during the step sequence, same as you mention above.

It's also pretty easy to see whether the skater is using body movements, although you'd need some more information to consistently agree with the tech panel on what counts as body movements for this feature.

You should also be able to recognize when a skater performs three difficult turns in a row on one foot. If you like, you can make a point of keeping track whether they do this once on each foot during the sequence.

Keeping track of which difficult turns the skater executed during these one-foot "clusters" to earn feature #4, or in the step sequence as a whole for feature #1, is more difficult.

Twizzles and loops are pretty easy to recognize. Rockers, counters, and brackets might all look pretty similar. If you can recognize that it was a one-foot turn from forward to backward or backward to forward that didn't just follow the curve travel, you can recognize it as a "difficult" turn even if you can't name which one it was especially in real time.

And feature #1 has always been required across the history of IJS, although the specific definitions of kinds of variety required have evolved over the last 20 years. It should be no more or less difficult to keep track of now than it was then. (I.e., quite difficult for nonskaters or lower level skaters to keep track in real time, under today's rules and also the early IJS rules.)

Yup... I remember the spiral for the women and pairs. Glad they are gone those who are flexible can bring them in the choreo sequence if they wish... but it was not fun seeing the ones who didn't have good flexibility struggle with those.

Re the features : i know there are features to get the levels. I meant more like "yearly" features like a specific pattern or the one foot portion. The problem with the current step sequence features is that, in how I see things, a lot of skaters get away with them without focusing enough on them. A few skaters are fabulous and care for the step sequences ! Those skaters, in the current format, do not get enough recognition compared to the average skaters.

 

[4everchan]

Someone in the back row cannot see the actor’s smile, but they know the actor is smiling. A skater who is truly artistic can project their feelings to the back row, just like an actor. It is rarer in skating, true. But guess which skater is a master at it?

of course I think figure skating is a blend of artistry and athleticism, and that the two should be equally balanced n competitions and in scoring. (Surprise ) And that reaching the back row should be a part of that.

the problem I have with these statements is that we can always find a few skaters who excel at some of these things, reaching out to everyone in the audience, being super expressive, having a refined musical taste, impressive skating skills... etc... maybe 2-3% of skaters will have one or more of these skills. But it's not the case for most... why is that? because it's not the main goal of figure skating.

 

[Magill]

the problem I have with these statements is that we can always find a few skaters who excel at some of these things, reaching out to everyone in the audience, being super expressive, having a refined musical taste, impressive skating skills... etc... maybe 2-3% of skaters will have one or more of these skills. But it's not the case for most... why is that? because it's not the main goal of figure skating.

Or maybe it's just because it is really difficult and rare to be able to excel at all these things at once, no matter what your goals are? Just a thought...

 

[Magill]

I just found this interview with Rohene Ward while I was looking for another one. He talks about the interplay of artistry and athleticism. He is being interviewed, I think by young skaters from a skating club, on Zoom.



I was looking for the one where he said "I tell my skaters give the audience something they can feel. What they will remember is how you make them feel". And he is talking about competitions. I'll keep looking for that interview.

He comes out and says that he thinks the performance and artist part of the sport should be emphasized, but he also says you cannot be an artist if you don't have technique. It may be important to remember that when he was competing, Rohene was a big powerful jumper. He loved to jump. He just had no head whatsoever for completion.

He also has comments about skaters at the Olympics, that are, well, he doesn't hold back. .

Great interview, thank you for sharing!
I have not really known much about Rohene apart from the fact that he choreographed Jason's programs (and won several awards for choreography) which is obviously a great recommendation. His skating career was way before I started to follow the sport. Yet he has just won a new fan
For those too busy to watch the whole thing - as well as for further reference in this thread, maybe - I took down two quotes to highlight and share.
"It all has to be about performance. The elements just happen to be a part of the performance, not all of the performance. "
"This is a performing sport. Performing art sport".
And about changes in the sport to make it more diverse and inclusive:
"You need to really want for these changes to take place, you can't just say that you want them, this is not enough".
IMHO, one of most important things he says in the context of this thread is that the performing aspect of the sport should be rewarded more, starting with very young skaters (although obviously performing skills are not fully present there yet) as opposed to just rewarding them for jumps, as this is the time when they learn what is really expected of them. So it would be good for them to learn already then that it is not just quads.

 

[icewhite]

I just found this interview with Rohene Ward while I was looking for another one. He talks about the interplay of artistry and athleticism. He is being interviewed, I think by young skaters from a skating club, on Zoom.



I was looking for the one where he said "I tell my skaters give the audience something they can feel. What they will remember is how you make them feel". And he is talking about competitions. I'll keep looking for that interview.

He comes out and says that he thinks the performance and artist part of the sport should be emphasized, but he also says you cannot be an artist if you don't have technique. It may be important to remember that when he was competing, Rohene was a big powerful jumper. He loved to jump. He just had no head whatsoever for completion.

He also has comments about skaters at the Olympics, that are, well, he doesn't hold back. .

Thank you for the link.
However when he talks about Trusova's Olympic performance I absolutely disagree with him - to me that was a stunning performance. I know she doesn't offer much in regards to skating skills, and her scores were already generous in regards to that. I would have given her lower scores on those. But actually looking at the "whole" thing, she made me feel (+her dress, which he also talks about...) great. I thought it was such a powerful, modern, energetic program, I loved the music and she did what the music required, and I just loved how she broke all that typical women's stuff. I think she was similar to Surya Bonaly in that regard. It also had a great development throughout. I felt like "hell, yeah". So... Rohene Ward, as many, not a fan of that, but I was. If I had not looked at everything on a singular basis, I, as a judge, would have given the program a pretty high score for amazing and exciting me emotionally. I wasn't bored for a second, which I can't say about a lot of programs.

(I also, by the way, think it's pretty disrespectful to say "the girl that got second at the Olympics" about her. I think I have been pretty outspoken about not being a fan of that system, I'm really not a special Trusova fan and I actually do appreciate great technique and musicality, which she doesn't have, but still I think to say "that girl that got second" about such a big name... come on, you could remember that name and use it.)

 

[Magill]

Thank you for the link.
However when he talks about Trusova's Olympic performance I absolutely disagree with him - to me that was a stunning performance. I know she doesn't offer much in regards to skating skills, and her scores were already generous in regards to that. I would have given her lower scores on those. But actually looking at the "whole" thing, she made me feel (+her dress, which he also talks about...) great. I thought it was such a powerful, modern, energetic program, I loved the music and she did what the music required, and I just loved how she broke all that typical women's stuff. I think she was similar to Surya Bonaly in that regard. It also had a great development throughout. I felt like "hell, yeah". So... Rohene Ward, as many, not a fan of that, but I was. If I had not looked at everything on a singular basis, I, as a judge, would have given the program a pretty high score for amazing and exciting me emotionally. I wasn't bored for a second, which I can't say about a lot of programs.

(I also, by the way, think it's pretty disrespectful to say "the girl that got second at the Olympics" about her. I think I have been pretty outspoken about not being a fan of that system, I'm really not a special Trusova fan and I actually do appreciate great technique and musicality, which she doesn't have, but still I think to say "that girl that got second" about such a big name... come on, you could remember that name and use it.)

Yes, Trusova part was a low point of this interview, not very gentlemanly, agreed. Yet he does point out she had much better performances, he just did not like this one, which happened to be the most important one. Hard luck. IMHO, her best take on Cruella was at the test skates at the very beginning of the Olympic season.
And from POV of a performance focused interview - Sasha gave a great athletic show, no doubt about it, but was it really that great in terms of performance? What made it so exciting was us knowing how many quads she was planning to attempt, what the stakes were, and not knowing how many of them she would actually successfully land, so going "wow" as she ticked them off one by one. But she was so focused on doing all these quads that there was not that much more left to it. And I say it as someone who had appreciated her athletic, pioneering spirit and defended her even on this board although I would usually cherish different type of qualities in skating/skaters. So I can also see how someone focused on different aspects might just not like it.
As for him not remembering her name, it was live Zoom, it probably just momentarily skipped his mind so he came up with something to make her easily identifiable to his interviewers in lack of the name. It happens, bad luck. I do not think he does not know her name at all and I would not make a big deal out of it.

 

[LolaSkatesInJapan]

Thank you for the link.
However when he talks about Trusova's Olympic performance I absolutely disagree with him - to me that was a stunning performance. I know she doesn't offer much in regards to skating skills, and her scores were already generous in regards to that. I would have given her lower scores on those. But actually looking at the "whole" thing, she made me feel (+her dress, which he also talks about...) great. I thought it was such a powerful, modern, energetic program, I loved the music and she did what the music required, and I just loved how she broke all that typical women's stuff. I think she was similar to Surya Bonaly in that regard. It also had a great development throughout. I felt like "hell, yeah". So... Rohene Ward, as many, not a fan of that, but I was. If I had not looked at everything on a singular basis, I, as a judge, would have given the program a pretty high score for amazing and exciting me emotionally. I wasn't bored for a second, which I can't say about a lot of programs.

(I also, by the way, think it's pretty disrespectful to say "the girl that got second at the Olympics" about her. I think I have been pretty outspoken about not being a fan of that system, I'm really not a special Trusova fan and I actually do appreciate great technique and musicality, which she doesn't have, but still I think to say "that girl that got second" about such a big name... come on, you could remember that name and use it.)

TRUSOVA DOESN'T HAVE GREAT TECHNIQUE?

 

[icewhite]

TRUSOVA DOESN'T HAVE GREAT TECHNIQUE?

Technique as in "skating technique", not TES. No, she doesn't.

 

[TallyT]

TRUSOVA DOESN'T HAVE GREAT TECHNIQUE?

No, Trusova doesn't have great technique

 

[4everchan]

Or maybe it's just because it is really difficult and rare to be able to excel at all these things at once, no matter what your goals are? Just a thought...

it is certainly difficult but it's also not the goal... the point is that if you go and look in a field where expression is the main goal, you will find a higher percentage of successful individuals.

 

[Mathman]

I really, really misss the good old days when ladies did fully realized spirals. Nowadays a competitor just can't devote that much time to an element that she doesn't get any points for. To me, a Michelle Kwan type spiral was the skater's homage to figure skating itself: "This is figure skating."

Do men even have spread eagles in their repertoires any more?

 

[icewhite]

I really, really misss the good old days when ladies did fully realized spirals. Nowadays a competitor just can't devote that much time to an element that she doesn't get any points for. To me, a Michelle Kwan type spiral was the skater's homage to figure skating itself: "This is figure skating."

Do men even have spread eagles in their repertoires any more?

There are lots of spread eagles!

 

[Mathman]

There are lots of spread eagles!

There are? I must have blinked. What would Brian Boitano do?

Here's Jonathon Cassar.

https://i.pinimg.com/1200x/02/3c/80/023c809580a42f20e9e334bf9f2c1036.jpg

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/_i3GSjxmHy0I/TUiApVGkhFI/AAAAAAAAAGo/tnTPawWAeWY/s640/j+cassar+spread+eagle.jpg

 

[4everchan]

There are? I must havbe blinked. What would Brian Boitano do?

Here's Jonathon Cassar.

https://i.pinimg.com/1200x/02/3c/80/023c809580a42f20e9e334bf9f2c1036.jpg

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/_i3GSjxmHy0I/TUiApVGkhFI/AAAAAAAAAGo/tnTPawWAeWY/s640/j+cassar+spread+eagle.jpg

i

i am old enough to remember Brian Boitano's spread eagles. The difference nowadays is that skaters rarely do a "long lasting" spread eagle. Jun does a long Ina Bauer... but many skaters use these moves as transitions or even in and out of their jumps. It's become a fancy entry or exit transition more often... So I can see why you think there are less "iconic" spread eagles but there are plenty of them happening.