I find explanations regarding why IJS is anymore accurate than 6.0 to be a bit lacking. Yes, elements have values assigned to them, and there's a system of assigning levels, etc. But, exactly how do they come up with those numbers? Why should certain features count in gaining a level while others not? Nobody really explains why the numbers make sense. They just argue results are fair because the system says it is. That's fair since competitions are taking place by the system in place, but I've never really understood why people are so quick to accept the system in itself isn't deeply flawed in truly measuring what's put out there on the ice. Not to say there aren't many positives to it. Elements like footwork and spins are given much more importance than they ever were under 6.0, skaters that are close after the short program have a real shot of moving up with a cumulative points system rather than a factored placement system (an example would be 2002 Ladies SP where it didn't seem fair that comparable skates did not have the same shot of a medal), technique problems like flutzing and underrotations are finally being dealt with, and skaters themselves can see areas in which to improve if they want to move up in the rankings. However, with all those positives and constant tweakings to "perfect" the system, can anybody really say that the actual numbered values and system of adding up numbers really properly evaluates programs in the sport at least any better than 6.0? Yes, it is a more detailed approach and puts many more things in consideration, but as a whole, is it better? BTW, Brennan is really a bad journalist when it comes to figure skating. Yes, she has inside information and can provide gossip, and I guess skating knowledge at the most basic level (though I find her conclusions to be weak based on what information she gives). However, she's not well-researched nor does she really do any real work to understand how anything in figure skating works. That was true under 6.0 as well as she never understood what was required for the presentation mark.