Monica Friedlander: "International Skating Union Now Officially a Dictatorship"

[julieann]

If you want the "publique general" to understand and follow the IJS, then...wait for it...

Why not display each competitor's scoring protocal either DURING or at least JUST AFTER each program, with all the TES elements described fully - not with the acronyms - and with possible values AND actual judged values, including GOEs, and then PCS?

Integrate the protocol availability with the broadcasts as each skater competes, and reference a link to a web area with complete protocols for skaters who have competed so far, so that viewers, if they care to, can track all scores via the web in real time).

Display them immediately in the arena as well.

I agree. I think they need to get rid of the kiss & cry and allow the competition to flow better and only show the complete scores if they are available, not just the total, but what would be shown on the protocol. In gymnastics they don't wait until the score is ready they move on. Now fans see that skaters got a 195 verses a 201 but at least they can see a difference. I like the idea of having more interactive on the internet too.

[Aussie Willy]

What kind of bothers me with many of the anti-IJS articles coming out is they only seem to focus on the elite level of the sport, and even then it is not an insider's view, it is only from whatever barrow they want to push.

I would really like some of these journalists to head to a regular figure session or club competition and chat to some of the younger kids who are skating under this system and get their thoughts about it.

[Cherub721]

I think what would be most helpful is, during Kiss and Cry, to show the top three skaters to date, with last name and score, so that the number that's flashed on the screen for the current skater has a context. I don't think most people care about the details.

I like that idea. I also find it helpful when they flash the skater's season's best score at the beginning and also tell us what number they need to beat to get into first - that way, the audience can at least figure out if that number is feasible for that skater.

Posting the full protocol information on the screen would be a turn off for many viewers, IMO. What the broadcasters might do, in controversial cases or for all the medalists in each competition, would be to break out the scores in smaller categories - X points for spins, X for jumps, X for footwork and spirals, and then the breakdown for each PCS. That would sufficiently demonstrate what qualities helped the skater win.

Another thing that could be improved in the US would be explaining when a skater placed high overall but actually lost placements in the free. The British Eurosport commentators always do a good job of saying "A is into first overall, but B is first on the night." I think the audience could accept and understand that the score is cumulative. What annoys the audience is when someone clearly has a poor skate and then goes right into first place without explanation that they are like 4th in the free.

[Coco]

Yes, it kills me that they show each individual PCS mark, even though they've never been adequately defined for a US audience AND they are barely >.5 from each other.

Yet they never show "jumps," "spins," or "steps" as lump sums. That would make all the difference in the world, imo.

[julieann]

Posting the full protocol information on the screen would be a turn off for many viewers, IMO. What the broadcasters might do, in controversial cases or for all the medalists in each competition, would be to break out the scores in smaller categories - X points for spins, X for jumps, X for footwork and spirals, and then the breakdown for each PCS. That would sufficiently demonstrate what qualities helped the skater win.

So you think the audience would hate seeing the protocols on the screen where they can clearly see a skater got a level 1 vs a level 4 that is worth more or someone did a double instead of a triple? I think they care about understanding what skaters got what scores than some people worrying about the anonymity of the judges.

[Cherub721]

So you think the audience would hate seeing the protocols on the screen where they can clearly see a skater got a level 1 vs a level 4 that is worth more or someone did a double instead of a triple? I think they care about understanding what skaters got what scores than some people worrying about the anonymity of the judges.

Yes, I think some audience members would be turned off by that much information. If skater A's first spin was level 3 with positive GOE, second spin level 4 with negative GOE, and third spin level 3 with negative GOE, while skater B's first spin was level 4 with 0 GOE, second spin level 3 with positive GOE, and third spin was level 2 with positive GOE, then who spun better? It's too much information for a lot of people to absorb in the limited time that the broadcast has. A lot of people already complain that the new system is too technical and too complicated, and that would be an irritant for them.

The goal, IMO, is to get people enough information to allow them to understand the result, while allowing for the fact that people watch figure skating for entertainment and not to analyze details. For those who do love to analyze, the information is available online. I also think NBC's Olympic game for Vancouver (allowing viewers to live judge online) was a great teaching tool for interested parties.

[bmcg]

I spent the last few days watching US Olympic trials. I watch gymnastics every four years so I don't understand the scoring system and I don't know enough (or anything really) about the sport to recognize on my own what elements they are performing or what their base values are. Yet I enjoyed watching the gymnastics competition this week and while the numbers that came up meant nothing to me I just trusted the commentators when they pointed out mistakes/deductions (which was enough to tell me it wasn't their best) and when they pointed out the more difficult routine. *IF* I want to understand it beyond a casual fan level then I will research a bit more into it. But I don't, I'm satisfied with what I saw and the explanations that were given and just enjoyed and marvelled at the talent and skill of the gymnasts I watched.

I don't think casual fans of figure skating are turned off by IJS. I think it's people who are a bit more into the sport and watch it in non-Olympic years. Casual fans don't need an instant printout of detailed scoring. They just need a decent educated commentator to say "while the crowd seems to have enjoyed that performance more I should point out that the other program had a much higher degree of difficulty, more complicated choreography and their command of the blade is second to none". It's a sport and there are rules in sports.

[julieann]

Yes, I think some audience members would be turned off by that much information. If skater A's first spin was level 3 with positive GOE, second spin level 4 with negative GOE, and third spin level 3 with negative GOE, while skater B's first spin was level 4 with 0 GOE, second spin level 3 with positive GOE, and third spin was level 2 with positive GOE, then who spun better? It's too much information for a lot of people to absorb in the limited time that the broadcast has. A lot of people already complain that the new system is too technical and too complicated, and that would be an irritant for them.

The goal, IMO, is to get people enough information to allow them to understand the result, while allowing for the fact that people watch figure skating for entertainment and not to analyze details. For those who do love to analyze, the information is available online. I also think NBC's Olympic game for Vancouver (allowing viewers to live judge online) was a great teaching tool for interested parties.

You must not watch much professional sports.

Some may watch skating for "entertainment" value but we can't forget it's still a sport. We can't just rely on the drivel that the so-called commentators give during the skate and during the repay. Half the time they are aren't even talking about what they are watching. It doesn't have to be as complex as you described, remember you're not comparing skater A to skater B, just informing them why skater A may have received the score they got.

[iggie]

the isu pdfs for scores are complicated to read. i had to turn here to ask for helping figuring out what it means. once you know what to look for and what everything means, it's fine but it's not something that makes immediate sense to someone new. the scoring at the 2010 olympics, however, was brilliant. it was clear, easy to understand and useful.

[spikydurian]

I spent the last few days watching US Olympic trials. I watch gymnastics every four years so I don't understand the scoring system and I don't know enough (or anything really) about the sport to recognize on my own what elements they are performing or what their base values are. Yet I enjoyed watching the gymnastics competition this week and while the numbers that came up meant nothing to me I just trusted the commentators when they pointed out mistakes/deductions (which was enough to tell me it wasn't their best) and when they pointed out the more difficult routine. *IF* I want to understand it beyond a casual fan level then I will research a bit more into it. But I don't, I'm satisfied with what I saw and the explanations that were given and just enjoyed and marvelled at the talent and skill of the gymnasts I watched.

I don't think casual fans of figure skating are turned off by IJS. I think it's people who are a bit more into the sport and watch it in non-Olympic years. Casual fans don't need an instant printout of detailed scoring. They just need a decent educated commentator to say "while the crowd seems to have enjoyed that performance more I should point out that the other program had a much higher degree of difficulty, more complicated choreography and their command of the blade is second to none". It's a sport and there are rules in sports.

That's me too.

[berthesghost]

What kind of bothers me with many of the anti-IJS articles coming out is they only seem to focus on the elite level of the sport, and even then it is not an insider's view, it is only from whatever barrow they want to push.

I would really like some of these journalists to head to a regular figure session or club competition and chat to some of the younger kids who are skating under this system and get their thoughts about it.

Is that how it works? An editor calls a writer into the office any says : "Lois, I need you to do another anti-IJS article. Take Jimmy and get some pictures, and don't come back until you get some anti-cop quotes from famous skaters!"

[kwanfan1818]

I agree. I think they need to get rid of the kiss & cry and allow the competition to flow better and only show the complete scores if they are available, not just the total, but what would be shown on the protocol. In gymnastics they don't wait until the score is ready they move on. Now fans see that skaters got a 195 verses a 201 but at least they can see a difference. I like the idea of having more interactive on the internet too.

In gymnastics there are three-five other events happening at the same time, and each individual routine is a lot shorter than anything if figure skating. The judges still judge in the moment, just as figure skating judges do. Kiss and cry takes as long as it takes for the judges to come up with their scores. It's not like the extra 10 seconds of hugging before the next skater is called to the ice will make that much of a difference. Even if it's not live, 10 seconds of kiss and cry is not going make or break the viewership.

Another thing that could be improved in the US would be explaining when a skater placed high overall but actually lost placements in the free. The British Eurosport commentators always do a good job of saying "A is into first overall, but B is first on the night." I think the audience could accept and understand that the score is cumulative. What annoys the audience is when someone clearly has a poor skate and then goes right into first place without explanation that they are like 4th in the free.

I think this is really critical in the FS/FD. It's not like figure skating is the only sport to have cumulative scoring. "X is coming in with a 10-point deficit/lead" is an important message, and "Highest score in the FD, but not enough to make up for SD score" isn't that much more difficult than saying, "X is in 4th place, which means that if A beats B, and B beats C, then X can win a medal if X beats them all, but if X only beats B..." or "X has the highest marks so far, but A beat B and B beat C, so X goes from first to third."

[Mathman]

What kind of bothers me with many of the anti-IJS articles coming out is they only seem to focus on the elite level of the sport, and even then it is not an insider's view, it is only from whatever barrow they want to push.

I would really like some of these journalists to head to a regular figure session or club competition and chat to some of the younger kids who are skating under this system and get their thoughts about it.

As much as I feel nostalgic about the good old days, that is the killer argument in favor of the CoP that ends debate. 99.99999 per cent of skaters are not Patrick Chan or Daisuke Takahashi. The great majority, in fact, are children. What did parents tell their disappoint kids after a beginner's competition under ordinals? Sorry, Suzy, the judges thought you weren't as good as Juanita. Now they can say, yay, you got positive GOE on your layback spin -- see. all that hard work paid off. Next year we can go to work on your double loop and shoot for a thirty-point program.

Again, what would solve all problems would be a return of professional competitions, where the entertainment values could come to the fore. In the 1960s and 70s amateurs tried to win championships so they could sign on with the big ice shows. Janet Lynn became the highest-paid woman athlete in the world when she signed with Ice Follies in 1973. Dick Button created the World Professional Championship just to cash in on her popularity.

[kwanfan1818]

What did parents tell their disappoint kids after a beginner's competition under ordinals? Sorry, Suzy, the judges thought you weren't as good as Juanita. Now they can say, yay, you got positive GOE on your layback spin -- see. all that hard work paid off. Next year we can go to work on your double loop and shoot for a thirty-point program.

Considering that in almost every country, skating is entirely subsidized by skaters and their families at least to the junior elite levels and usually throughout the skaters' careers, and without parents willing to spend thousands at the lowest levels, there would be skating in China only. All the marketing and pro tours in the world wouldn't be worth a fig, because there wouldn't be any skaters, unless the delusional parents are happy.

[overedge]

As much as I feel nostalgic about the good old days, that is the killer argument in favor of the CoP that ends debate. 99.99999 per cent of skaters are not Patrick Chan or Daisuke Takahashi. The great majority, in fact, are children. What did parents tell their disappoint kids after a beginner's competition under ordinals? Sorry, Suzy, the judges thought you weren't as good as Juanita. Now they can say, yay, you got positive GOE on your layback spin -- see. all that hard work paid off. Next year we can go to work on your double loop and shoot for a thirty-point program.

I agree with you that it is a lot easier now for kids to understand why they got the marks they did. However IME kids also get very frustrated with the levels that are called especially now when they can look at very good video and see when the calling is inconsistent. They also get frustrated e.g. when they see other kids doing Biellman-type spirals, and usually not well either, and getting more points, when they can only do lower-rated spirals but do them very nicely.

I think CoP has just replaced one set of frustrations with another.

[Aussie Willy]

Is that how it works? An editor calls a writer into the office any says : "Lois, I need you to do another anti-IJS article. Take Jimmy and get some pictures, and don't come back until you get some anti-cop quotes from famous skaters!"

Show me some articles written by journalists in favour of IJS.

[kwanfan1818]

Because three emails to Nancy Kerrigan, Johnny Weir, and Brian Boitano are so hard to write. At least with Janet Lynn, you have to track her down.

[Maofan7]

Here are a couple of earlier articles by Monica Friedlander on the subject, the first of which is:

Artistic Heart of Skating Torn Out, Skaters Say. This one reads:-

In a recently televised interview, Canadian skating star Toller Cranston stated that he's embarrassed to be part of the sport, and blasted the new system for judging figure skating with his renowned candor. “The way it's judged now, the more you can do the more points you get, so everything is overproduced and generic,” said the 1976 Olympic medalist. He was no kinder to the medalists at the 2010 Winter Olympics, who use the new system to their advantage. They were, Cranston said, like “cats hanging by a claw from a roof.".....Skating champions from around the world are expressing their distress about the direction the sport has taken under the International Judging System (IJS), which replaced the century-old 6.0 system back in 2004. Two-time Olympic gold medalist Katarina Witt recently bemoaned the loss of emotion and passion that used to be the hallmarks of figure skating. “It’s like putting figure skating in a box,” she said in an interview in the Toronto Globe and Mail. Former World Champion Stephane Lambiel was quoted in an Italian skating magazine as saying that present rules favor good jumpers without charisma. American skating legend Janet Lynn, beloved for her musicality and artistry during the 1970s, went as far as calling the IJS “a totalitarian system of measurement that does not breed freedom on the ice or lift the human spirit.” Most interestingly, perhaps, even the current world champion, Patrick Chan, who has benefitted the most from the new system, has harsh words for it. In a December interview he said that skating used to be much more "epic and memorable" in the past. "There was a lot more uniqueness between each skater, whereas nowadays it's almost become a production line.”......Has the new judging system saved or destroyed figure skating? Judging by TV ratings and event attendance, the sport has fallen off a cliff in North America and Europe. Tours have folded, professional competitions are but a faint memory, and opportunities for professional skating are shrinking faster than the polar ice caps. The sport survives as a technical, competitive enterprise. But is it the same sport? Historically, skating as competitive sport and as performing art were two sides of the same coin, intrinsically linked into a whole far greater than the sum of its parts. There were always skaters who excelled more at one or the other aspect, and in some cases their strength in one area prevailed long enough to win them a medal or title. But for the most part, the system rewarded those who could strike that magic balance between technique and artistry. All that has changed. For the first time in the history of figure skating, a change in the judging system has not only changed the way skating is measured, but also the way it is performed. The point system is a radical, unprecedented departure from anything ever used to judge figure skating. With mathematical precision it forces skaters to focus on diabolically-difficult tricks and design cookie-cutter programs that strategically maximize points with every step at the expense of originality and emotion. Even age-old, crowd-pleasing moves such as fast scratch spins and stunning spread eagles, have been abandoned after being deemed unworthy of high scores under the system. As a result, the artistic heart of figure skating has been ripped out of a sport that has been known for its dual artistic/technical personalities since before the days of Sonja Henie. The champions that captured our hearts were always able to meld the two. That’s what made skating special and that’s what may be forever lost under the new system.

The second article is:

Rewarding Failure Diminshes Figure Skating As A Sport. This one reads:-

Try, miss, walk away with the gold. That’s the new winning formula in figure skating competition in the brave new world of the new International Judging System (IJS). Back in the days of the 6.0 system, perfection was the standard for elite-level skaters. The slightest misstep in an otherwise perfect program would cost the greatest performers the Olympic gold. Just ask Brian Orser, Nancy Kerrigan, or Paul Wylie. Back in those days programs made history not just by winning but by capturing our hearts. Audience were afraid to breathe for fear they would mar a perfect performance. It was magic. It was a 6.0. Today, with rare exceptions, perfection is for the birds. Who needs it? Racking up points like coins at a Vegas slot machine is the ticket to gold. Whether you stand up, sit down, or twist into a pretzel to stop from falling doesn’t matter. After all, a big splat on a quad can be worth more points than a perfectly executed triple axel – the next most difficult jump in the sport.....Of course it does not help when blatant favoritism rears its ugly head as well. This time-tried practice is reaching unprecedented heights when Patrick Chan takes to the ice. The Canadian judge-favorite couldn’t lose if he tried, which he usually does. But even this shameful aspect of figure skating — encouraged today by anonymous judging — is not the worst offense. The reason why skaters like Chan can smash into the boards or play Zamboni yet keep on winning has to do with the system itself. From the onset, the IJS was designed to reward failure, much the way grade school kids are rewarded with A’s for effort. If not revamped (or better yet, put through the shredder), this system will put figure skating — already on the endangered species list — into the grave for good. Common sense dictates that when a skater steps out of jump, puts his hands down, lands on his rear end, or crashes into the boards, he failed. Under the 6.0 system, the attempt was marked as such. A jump that ended in a bad fall was considered a non-jump. Under IJS, such fiascos are considered successful jumping attempts that get nearly full credit. If sufficiently rotated, a jump counts as done no matter how it’s landed — or not. The only difference between the splat and the same jump landed vertically is a slight deduction for grade of execution....Where else but in figure skating is failure rewarded with such generosity?

[Mathman]

Show me some articles written by journalists in favour of IJS.

All journalistic articles are against whatever they are writing about. No one would read an editorial on any subject that says, "everything is peachy -- aren't we the lucky ones."

[spikydurian]

According to a Morgan poll on 'image of professions in 2010' in Australia, journalists are one of the lesser respected professions at 11% with politicians at 16%. Nurses, school teachers, doctors, engineers etc. belong to the 'highly respected professions' at 75%-85%.
Maybe we shouldn't take Friedlander's article seriously? Or perhaps the perception in North America is different?