I'm starting this because there was a lot of discussion about this on another thread and the suggestion was made that some of the side issues discussed would benefit by their own thread. I'll start : The problem I have with these videos is that there is no.... rigor. That is, there's a lot of mumbo jumbo using vague terms that have different meanings for different people and then clips of skaters that are supposed to be examples. My problems: The features the viewer is supposed to be looking for are very subjective. It all has a very Emperor's New Clothes feel about it. With the example of Harding vs Asada they don't mention (for instance) that Harding seems to spend a lot more time on one foot and her power seems directly generated from the blades (and the timing of her stroking seems better to my untrained eye). Asada spends more time on two feet and is using her whole body to generate speed. The technology is so primitive! Why don't they use computer enhancements (and super-imposed graphics) to show or highlight things like: - length of stroking versus height of skater - one foot vs two foot skating - balance checks - movement or lack of same in upper body - degree of lean (against a vertical axis) - balance on the blade - etc The wording: "Skaters with good flow and glide". Surely 'Skating with good flow and glide" would be better, it seems a trivial point but it's training judges to judge the skater and not the performance. And by using active skaters it's all but saying "See this is who you're supposed to give good marks to". That'll do for a start.