Skating Lessons Podcast: Chuck Foster (former USFSA President)

[skateboy]

I think it's laughable that the whole problem was never the system, but the corrupt judges. So we decided to change the judging system.

Thank you. Will you marry me?

[bardtoob]

Debated amongst who? From what I understand in Europe the situation isn't debatable at all. Annette is far better at figures and welll Denise Bielman had an amazing free skate.

So, if Denise was so much better than Annette in two portions of the competition, why didn't Denise medal and why did Annette get the Gold medal?

Was Denise the Midori of 1980?

Certainly, Annette has been called the Trixie Schuba of 1980.

... What's the Karen Magnussen of 1980, Dagmar or Linda?

Yes, yes ... I know this is not part of the traditional debate ... the traditional debate is how a skater that could not put a 2Lp at the end of a triple or 2A in the SP place so high in that portion of the competition with a low difficulty prescribed element.)

[triple_toe]

Thank you. Will you marry me?

[TheIronLady]

When IJS came along I loved it, I really felt that skating needed something to shake it up and the judges needed to be accountable. That being said, I think the two points that Chuck hit in his interviews are the two primary problems with the system and which are making skating an incredibly unpopular sport to watch: 1. the layout of the programs are too similar and don't allow for signature elements and personal style---the IJS is really a wonderful example of how a collection of parts do not make a whole. Under 6.0 the very best programs were a cohesive, singular piece that moved the viewer on a larger scale (think of Kwan's great programs, Curry, Lynn etc. we remember "Lyra Angelica" or "Don Quixote" or "Afternoon of the Faun"). Under 6.0 the judges were grading the forest through the trees, under IJS the judges are grading each individual trees. I won't say there isn't merit to this, however it makes for very similar programs which leave no overall impression on the audience. As was pointed out by someone during the interview (or at some point somewhere) skating's appeal---like most sports today---is found in its entertainment value. So while the programs under 6.0 were perhaps simpler (certainly Kwan's famous COE spiral is less difficult than a L4 Footwork sequence, but I can tell you what I'd rather watch) they drew the audience in, in a way they don't anymore. I think the results (that it television ratings, empty arenas) speak for themselves (I, personally gave up my icenetwork membership).

2. The whole anonymous judging thing just seems underhanded and has not made the sport any less corrupt (I don't know if it's made it anymore corrupt, but there are still just as many questionable results under IJS as there were under 6.0).

I'll get off my soapbox now.

I think this is a great post, and I wonder how much corruption goes on today that is better hidden thanks to IJS.

In 2002 someone said that ice dancing was the gangrene infecting all disciplines. Ice dancing was said to be the root of the deals, and if corruption could be removed from dance, maybe the sport could be healthy. Given how controversial ice dancing judging was from 1988-2004, this may be accurate. In the 1990s ice dancing (and skating) became more globalized. Top teams, individuals, and coaches increasingly crossed countries. Boundaries between federations became more permeable. The downside was more incestuous deal making (and perhaps outright bribery) that could be achieved most easily in ice dancing. Judges seemed to be openly horsetrading and doing backroom judging, but nobody could prove it. I think IJS has kind of improved and organized ice dancing, but at the same time, when I'm watching short dances, I sometimes wish I was doing something more interesting.

Does anyone outside the ISU technical committee know how many judges are corrupt? The anonymous judging makes sure nobody knows if they exist, if they are punished, and who they are. I agree with the random selection of panels partially at the last minute. That was a good idea, but anonymity is a shallow way to shield judges from outside influence, and it is incompatible with transparency. This is a human sport, and it should never be decided by measurements or a clock. Judges should be respected (and probably compensated) but at the same time held accountable for their individual scores.

Now I am done with my soapbox.