Women's single skating at the ISU Grand Prix stages: statistics from 2021 to 2023

[Mathman]

Statistics on the execution of the sequence of steps in 2021-2023: ...

Thanks for all this interesting information.

I do think that there is a problem in maintaining a balance between jumping and everythig else, though. There seems to be no limit to how many TES points a skater can haul in on jumps, especially in men's. The "everything else" cannot keep up.

Is this good or bad? Well, different strokes for different folks. For me, there are a hundred sports that feature jumping. With figure skating there are 101. What I find most satisfying about figure skating are the features that make it different from other sports, not necessarily the features that make it the same. Here are two examples of junping sports.

Parkour: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/NlD6udREoug

Steeplechase (-1 fall deduction for this pair. Rule #1: don’t drop your partner!):

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/UZGy2sPGGDw

 

[el henry]

whole post

Thank you for this table and for compiling the information.

I agree that, in a vacuum, it is impossible to draw any definitive conclusions from these charts or the other charts.

 

[Alex Fedorov]

I do think that there is a problem in maintaining a balance between jumping and everythig else, though. There seems to be no limit to how many TES points a skater can haul in on jumps, especially in men's. The "everything else" cannot keep up.

Is this good or bad?

in 1977, the Japanese figure skater Minoru Sano performed 3Lz, 3F, 3S and 3T in a free program at the World Championships - and no more jumping elements. He received 105 points for this program and took first place in free skating (third overall). By the way, in the same year Linda Fratianne (16 years old) and Elena Vodorezova (16 years old) scored 103.1 points. This is more than Vladimir Kovalev, who received a gold medal. Do we want to go back to those happy times? I probably don’t want it anyway.

I perfectly understand the concerns associated with the predominance of jumping elements, but it seems to me that when it comes to women’s figure skating, these concerns are exaggerated. We have a reference example - Alexandra Trusova. She put everything on jumping - but did not receive a single gold medal after moving to senior competitions. Yes, it may seem to some that she created a very bad and dangerous precedent in 2021 in Stockholm, winning the free program with an absolutely anti-aesthetic program in which the entire choreography was literally flushed down the toilet. But the truth is that this precedent was a “collective creation.” All the other skaters at that competition also made a lot of blunders, which led to such a strange result.

Anna Shcherbakova's free program at the 2021 Russian Championships, saturated with jumping elements to the limit, is a vivid example of the fact that jumping does not interfere with art. I’ll just remind you of that content: 4Lz, 4F, 3F+3T, 2A, 3Lz+3Lo, 3F+eu+3S, 3Lz. It looks like madness by today's Grand Prix standards, but it wasn't a mindless set of jumps.

For men, the situation is, of course, more complicated. Maybe Malinin is too much. But he has not yet become an absolutely unattainable winner.

 

[snowed]

the judging of the step sequence has become somehow chaotic, there is no system in it. The same skaters are given either the second or the fourth level, and the reasons for this are unclear.

Do you mean that same skater gets different levels at different events? If yes, they have counted what they execute cleanly, not what it is designed in choreography, that is turns with no changes of edges and not jumped. Or you mean something else?

 

[snowed]

I think changes in jumps difficulty can also be related with the increase of age eligibility.

 

[Alex Fedorov]

Do you mean that same skater gets different levels at different events? If yes, they have counted what they execute cleanly, not what it is designed in choreography, that is turns with no changes of edges and not jumped. Or you mean something else?

Typically a skater needs to work hard to increase the difficulty level of their step sequence. It's not that easy, it may take a whole season. And here we see a situation where at one competition the judges give an athlete the second level, and a week later at the next competition - the fourth level, and there are no noticeable differences in the choreography. This also works in the opposite direction - it was the fourth level, became the second in a very short time.

Well, at the first stage of the Grand Prix this year, the generosity of the judges on the step track was unprecedented. They gave almost everyone the fourth level. At subsequent stages, the severity of the judges began to increase rapidly. Such sharp fluctuations are surprising.

 

[snowed]

Typically a skater needs to work hard to increase the difficulty level of their step sequence. It's not that easy, it may take a whole season. And here we see a situation where at one competition the judges give an athlete the second level, and a week later at the next competition - the fourth level, and there are no noticeable differences in the choreography. This also works in the opposite direction - it was the fourth level, became the second in a very short time.

Well, at the first stage of the Grand Prix this year, the generosity of the judges on the step track was unprecedented. They gave almost everyone the fourth level. At subsequent stages, the severity of the judges began to increase rapidly. Such sharp fluctuations are surprising.

I don't think it is unusual to get different level calls at weeks apart, it is not the choreography that is "leveled", it is the correct turns. I can do every single turn myself, but on my own timing, when my body is rotated enough, I'm on the correct part of the blade... Ask me to do them on a specific rhythm... it is way more difficult. To skate the step sequence on the music it is one of the bullet points, I feel sometimes the skaters have to turn those turns to keep up with the music, but their body is not quite there, hence not correct and not called turns.

 

[Mathman]

in 1977, the Japanese figure skater Minoru Sano performed 3Lz, 3F, 3S and 3T in a free program at the World Championships - and no more jumping elements. He received 105 points for this program and took first place in free skating (third overall). By the way, in the same year Linda Fratianne (16 years old) and Elena Vodorezova (16 years old) scored 103.1 points. This is more than Vladimir Kovalev, who received a gold medal. Do we want to go back to those happy times? I probably don’t want it anyway.

Well, "points" meant something a lot different in those days. I am not sure exactly what (even figures got points), but this was a quarter century before the IJS made its appearance. I am pretty sure that "points" in 1977 had to do with how many judges gave various ordinals to the different competitors, in which case there is nothing surpising about a woman scoring higher than a man, regardless of jump content. (@gkelly can you help out? )

To me, adding up points (however they are determined) is not as interesting or important as actually watching the performances. A year earlier (1976) this performance won the Olympic gold medal with a variety of double jumps and a couple of triples.

- YouTube

Auf YouTube findest du die angesagtesten Videos und Tracks. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder gleich der ganzen Welt teilen.

www.youtube.com

Is this the greatest men's figure skating performance of all time? Or is Yuzuru Hanyu's Seimei even better? I'll have to think about that one.

For that matter, how doesJohn Curry's interpretation of the Don Quixote music in 1976 compare to Alina Zagitova's in 2018? I'll have to think aboput that one, too.

Would I like to go back to those "happy times," or would I rather watch Ilia Malinin do every quad in the book, one after another? Yet another question that I will have to think about. I can see merit in both.

 

[Alex Fedorov]

I think changes in jumps difficulty can also be related with the increase of age eligibility.

By the way, there is no connection with age here. Don't forget - we're not talking about quads or 3A here. Regular triple jumps and their combinations. For example, Rino Matsuike, although she is about six months younger than Trusova and Shcherbakova, made many mistakes on jumping elements at the 2021 Grand Prix. In addition, she achieved a level 1 on the step sequence on one occasion. Alуsa Liu (one and a half years younger than Shcherbakova and Trusova) also did not become a standard for the reliability of jumping performance. It is noteworthy that it was she who became the performer of the sequences in 2021 (and this was unprofitable then), and she could not perform the sequence successfully.

In general, if you analyze the protocols, you can see that the most “reliable” non-Russian jumping performers in 2021 were already old enough not to fall under the current age restrictions.

 

[snowed]

By the way, there is no connection with age here.

I think nowadays skaters may pace their development differently, so they would peak after 17, hopefully into their 20s.

 

[skatingguy]

Well, "points" meant something a lot different in those days. I am not sure exactly what (even figures got points), but this was a quarter century before the IJS made its appearance. I am pretty sure that "points" in 1977 had to do with how many judges gave various ordinals to the different competitors, in which case there is nothing surpising about a woman scoring higher than a man, regardless of jump content. (@gkelly can you help out? )

Not @gkelly , but ordinals started to be used in the 1980/81 season. Before that they just added all the judges marks together, factored them, and the winner was the skater with the highest total.

1977 World Figure Skating Championships - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Mathman]

Not @gkelly , but ordinals started to be used in the 1980/81 season. Before that they just added all the judges marks together, factored them, and the winner was the skater with the highest total.

1977 World Figure Skating Championships - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Thank you.

The factoring process must have been a doozie to come up with totals for each segment in hundreths of a point. Also, it appears from the link that the winner was decided by "places" (the last column) rather than "points?' What is a "place" if not an ordinal of some kind?

Here is 1980.

1980 World Figure Skating Championships - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Now I see that the "points" for each segment (figures, short program and frree program) have been replaced by ordinals. But there is still a "total points" column. Then the final column is "Placings" which do not seem to be derived from the ordinals of the three segments, nor do they follow the points." For instance, David Santee (USA) scored fewer points than Charlie Tickner (USA), but Tickner got the bronze over Santee on "placings."

(Robin Cousins won the SP, the LP, and the SP/LP combined, but only got second, with 17 placings to 11 for gold medalist Jan Hoffmann because Cousins was only 5th in figures.)

 

[skatingguy]

Thank you.

The factoring process must have been a doozie to come up with totals for each segment in hundreths of a point. Also, it appears from the link that the winner was decided by "places" (the last column) rather than "points?' What is a "place" if not an ordinal of some kind?

If I remember correctly that was the final ranking for each skater for each judge added together. So, for example Linda Fratianne had a placing total of 10 which would have been 8 first place votes, and 1 second place vote for the whole competition (8x1+2x2 = 10).

 

[Mathman]

If I remember correctly that was the final ranking for each skater for each judge added together. So, for example Linda Fratianne had a placing total of 10 which would have been 8 first place votes, and 1 second place vote for the whole competition (8x1+2x2 = 10).

But I am still not clear as to the difference between "8 first place votes" and "8 first place ordinals " (unless the ISU reserves the word "ordinal" or "factored ordinal" for the combined ordinal placing of the whole panel, rather than the placement awarded by a particular judge?) Or how "points" were taken into account, if only things like "8 first place votes" counted in the final placings.

No wonder fans complained that figure skating judging was too opaque.

By the way, speaking of 1980, Robin Cousins' first element in the free skate was a dandy of a delayed single Axel, very effective within the context of the whole program. In the current scoring system this would get him 1.1 points. Hanyu was pretty good at it, too, but I don't remember if he actually put it into a competitive program or not. Too much work for too few poijnts. Dorothy Hamill also used this element as a program embellishment back in the day.

 

[gkelly]

I don't have a good understanding of how figure skating scoring worked before the 1980-81 changes. I was skating and watching in the 70s but not paying close attention to the scoring back then, and after I started getting more interested in the 1990s I never really came across a good explanation of how things worked before the change to factored placements.

From what I gathered, I think that ordinals were used but the way they were used was somewhat different from 1981 onwards. And the way that placements for each separate phase of the competition factored in was different, and the tiebreakers were different.

Also there seem to have been some changes to the details during the 1970s, 1960s, and earlier, so what was true in 1980 might not have been true in earlier parts of the 6.0 era.

I could be completely mistaken, but if I understand correctly, I think it went something like this:

Judges scored each figure separate, short program separately once that was introduced, and then free skate separately. They gave scores out of 6.0 for each phase (one score per individual figure; two scores for the free skating).

Ordinals were the rankings that each individual judge gave to all the skaters in the event.

The majority ordinal system was used to combine the separate rankings of each member of the judging panel to come up with the results for that competition phase.

The actual scores were factored depending on the factor for phase.

The majority ordinals were the primary determinant of the results for each phase. However, if there were ties within a competition phase, the total (factored) point values for that phase were used as tiebreakers.

The whole panel's ranked results for each phase were known as placements -- not ordinals, which refer to the rankings by each individual judge.

Where I'm a little confused is how the results for multiple phases were combined into interim results (after the last figure and after the SP, and then for the competition as a whole after the freeskating).

It may have changed at various times during the pre-1980s era(s).

But there were definitely ordinals involved.

See, e.g., https://olympics.fandom.com/wiki/Figure_Skating_1972/Ladies'_singles

The competition exists out of two separate rounds. All athletes compete in the first round, in which they perform compulsory routines. The second round allows the competitors to perform a free routine of around 4:00 minutes. The scores are based on the individual rankings of the judges. In each round, athletes are ranked based on these ordinal points. The athlete with the fewest classification places after two rounds wins the competition.

Figure Skating 1980/Ladies' singles

The ladies' singles of Figure Skating 1980 during the 1980 Winter Olympics was held on 20-23 February 1980 in the Lake Placid Olympic Ice Center. With 22 athletes competing, the event was won by Anett Potzsch from East Germany, with Linda Fratianne from United States taking the silver medal and...

olympics.fandom.com

The competition exists out of three separate rounds. All athletes compete in the first round, in which they perform a compulsory routine. The second round allows the competitors to perform a routine of a maximum of 2:00 minutes, after which all athletes perform another routine of around 4:00 minutes. The scores are based on the individual rankings of the judges, with each position earning one point. In each round, athletes are ranked based on these ordinal points. The athlete with the fewest classification places after three rounds wins the competition.

What they're calling "classification places" are what was later (post-1980s) referred to as "factored placements."

I think what may have happened, at least during some of that time, was that judges awarded ordinals for the whole competition by adding up scores for each skater in all competition phases. And then those ordinals for the whole competition were used to calculate the overall results according to the majority system. With the total factored points available as tiebreakers if the various majority system tiebreakers couldn't break the tie. The total points (the 6.0 points times relevant factors for each phase and then added up) were often reported and depending on the calculations system at the time, which I'm unclear about, may or may not have been used in calculating the final results. To the best of my understanding, at least in the 1970s-80, the actual scores were only used as tiebreakers when all other majority system tiebreakers had failed to break ties.

Another point to remember is that, in figure skating usage, the word ordinals always refers to the rankings given by individual judges -- the input that was fed into the majority calculations, not the output. Results for each competition phase (output after running all the majority system calculations) were "(factored) placements," or, evidently, "classification places," or maybe other terminology at other moments in skating history.



The change for 1981 was that the placements for each phase were factored (i.e., the factored placements system)

 

[gkelly]

But I am still not clear as to the difference between "8 first place votes" and "8 first place ordinals " (unless the ISU reserves the word "ordinal" or "factored ordinal" for the combined ordinal placing of the whole panel, rather than the placement awarded by a particular judge?)

No, the opposite. "Ordinals" refers to the placements awarded by a particular judge.

The ISU did not use the word "votes." That can be a useful term for trying to explain the system to laypeople, but you wouldn't have found that word in the rulebook describing the scoring or accounting process.

Or how "points" were taken into account, if only things like "8 first place votes" counted in the final placings.

As I said in my previous post, to my understanding the "points" were only used as tiebreakers up to 1980. After 1980, the points didn't count for anything at all. The actual scores that each judge awarded during the competition were purely placeholders to keep track of how they were ranking skaters over the course of up to 30+ or 20 or 24 skaters in the event.

No wonder fans complained that figure skating judging was too opaque.

Yup.

By the way, speaking of 1980, Robin Cousins' first element in the free skate was a dandy of a delayed single Axel, very effective within the context of the whole program. In the current scoring system this would get him 1.1 points.

Well, that's a +5 single axel if I've ever seen one!
So a total score of a whopping 1.65 adding in the GOE.

 

[skatingguy]

No wonder fans complained that figure skating judging was too opaque.

Then keep in mind that fans almost never saw the compulsory figures portion of the competition, and the technology at the time didn't really allow for the best viewing when they did.

 

[Mathman]

What an education! Thank you one and all. I will file away this thread with my saved ISU Communications, Scales of Values, etc.

About tie breakers in the majority of ordinals system, there is actually a mahematical phenomenon (Condorcet's Paradox) that illustrates with great simplicity why any system of ordinal judging with at least three judges and at least three contestants is susceptable to situations where it is impossible to break a tie using ordinals alone. Social scientist Kenneth Atrrow won the1972 Nobel Prize in economics for working it all out in the context of economic therory. (Five of his many graduate students also went on to win Nobel Prizes of their own. Since I do not hold a Nobel Prize in economics, I don't blame myself for having many questions )

Applied to political science (substituting "votes" for "ordinals" ) this work also explains why in a democracy it is impossible to design a voting system that is guaranteed to accomplish simultaneously certain individually desirable goals, such as every election should determine a winner but no one should be allowed to take over the country as a dictator.

(Alas, Professor Arrow died 6 weeks before Evgenia Medvedeva won the 2017 world championship with a then- record 233.41 points, so we will never know if his theory can explian why women are jumping less these days. My apologies to Alex Federov for hijacking this interesting thread.)

 

[Alex Fedorov]

Well, "points" meant something a lot different in those days.

It's funny - when a new scoring system was introduced after the famous events of 2002, I thought that I would no longer watch the competition because I didn't understand anything. And now I’m so used to this system that I involuntarily transferred it to 1977. However, it is possible that with content of three or four triple jumps the skater would have received just about 100 “modern” points.

To me, adding up points (however they are determined) is not as interesting or important as actually watching the performances. A year earlier (1976) this performance won the Olympic gold medal with a variety of double jumps and a couple of triples.

I don’t know if you remember the Soviet figure skater Vladimir Kotin (he is now 62 years old). He didn't win any big titles (his biggest achievement was a few silver medals at the European Championships), and his performances were never called "the greatest of all time." But the audience loved him very much for his outstanding artistry and emotional content of skating. Perhaps he could have successfully competed with John Curry, but for the 80s, his content was no longer strong enough. So, a couple of years ago I wanted to review Kotin’s performances - and I realized: no, figure skating, unlike “great art,” is still a perishable product. In Kotin's skating I lacked athleticism and speed too much.

Yes, those times were happy in their own way (even regardless of where you lived, in the “totalitarian USSR” or in the “free world”). There are no cell phones, the most sophisticated electronic device in the house is the television, and the skaters perform double jumps. And there's nothing wrong with nostalgia - but you still shouldn't become Amish.

 

[Mathman]

To me, it's something gained, something lost. I think that the skating of Belousova and Protopopov stands the test of time, for instance, even though Rodnina and her partners did harder feats of technical virtuosity. As for a performance like Curry's what I admire about it is that the jumps might be doubles, but they are placed in the choreography as "juist right" musical exclamation points. They enhance the program without being the program.

I find that too many modern skaters aproach their jump card aslike an obstacle course to be gotten through by any means possible. Yes, they are wonderful at what they do. But I can also appreciate the basic skating that I see in old, old, old clips of Ulrich Salchow and Karl Schaefer, not to mention Sonia Henie who could to a 1A+1A sequence and also a Lutz in the opposite direction off the opposite foot.

Confession: I do not own a cell phone. Even the Amish are not what they used to be. Although they don't use power tools that run by electricity (such devices not being mentioned in the Bible), it is OK to use tools powered by compressed air generators, Bible or no Bible.