What rule changes would you like to see for the next quad?

[ToFarAwayTimes]

I'm in favor of limiting the most dangerous things and being as responsible as we can. But to me that's a short list of things. If you look at diving and gymnastics, athletes are doing more things at a very young age that endanger their bodies wayyyyy more than skating ever can.

I'm not gymnastics expert, but from what I've read this isn't true any more. The age and maturity of girls has been going up in recent years. It's now common for top gymnasts to be in college or entering college, instead of 14 and 15 years old.

All you have to do is change the incentive structure. Of course, the IOC and Federations may not want to do that. It's a lot easier to exploit prepubescent girls.

 

[Rock2]

I have an idea.

I mentioned earlier we need to get more accurate scoring for GoE and PCS. I think part of the current problem is that judges are looking at so many things, it's hard to focus. Also, we have what I think is an issue where GoE and each PCS score are used as almost one mark, compiled to create influence over the placement of one skater.

My solution. Use the TES/base value method of judging and apply it to GoE and each component.
Here's the theory although I don't want to get too distracted with details at this point as it will detract from the core idea I'm advocating.

Base values are determined by a caller and assistant. Two people, who to some degree need to agree.
I would like the same model applied to GoE, SS, TR, PE, CH, IN. Individually.

That's 7 distinct areas being graded x 2 judges each = 14 officials total. Not really more labor intensive than current models.

The judges who judge GoE and components have more detailed score sheets where they need to rate each aspect of that component that ladders up to an overall score. Those sheets are made transparent just like current sheets so we how the components are built up.

Each component has like 5-10 things that matter. They will be able to scrutinize each sub-element intensely and be held more accountable for thorough analysis. This might also help decouple one component from the next such that we might see 6.5 in SS and 9.25 for IN for example. Because it's different judges...and they will be focused and be placed firmly in the spotlight for their scoring just like TES callers are.

Yes, I have ideas for what to do if the two don't agree but I'm not getting into that because as I said the convo would get distracted. But this is the theory I would want to work with going forward.

 

[misskarne]

Miss Karne, I have been reflecting on what you said and I do believe you misinterpreted what I wrote. I mean literally one quad. I do not mean choose one quad style and then do as many of them as the person wants. Now, I get what you mean by the Zayak nightmare. It did not make sense to me as I read your comments. You were thinking I meant that the skaters should chose one quad style. No, I am saying they get points for only one quad per FS and one quad per SP. If they do their quad in combo with the triple they get more points then if they do it alone but still one quad.

Please don't condescend to me. I understood perfectly well what you meant, and my point still stands. The system you propose would unfairly punish those whose strengths lie in the jumps. It would be like telling Jason he can only do one spin.

If, say, a skater had done a quad already and then opted to do a quad Lutz, then did two triple Lutzes - you propose to have the 4Lz treated as a 3Lz. Does this mean then the second 3Lz does not count? That is what I meant by a Zayak nightmare.

 

[misskarne]

Of course, one problem I DO envision is the following. Are we not going to soon have the women whining and complaining that it is all unfair and sexist Soon we will hear that THEY should be allowed to compete in skate jumping, as well. After all, since we are going to have women become marine infantry personnel, should they not also skate jump. I am afraid so. We'd have to let them compete such an event lest the ISU be labeled as - gasp - sexist. Of course we don't have too many women doing quads these days and I don't know interesting it would be to have a "jump skating" event where the women did triples. We'd need lots of coffee to stay awake, no? Could be a logistics problem.

Oh, wow. Sorry that you had to be dragged out of the 50s! I didn't realise that women pursuing athletic feats was so offensive!

And yes, I'd watch a women's jump event just as I'd watch the men's. Well-done triples are not boring to watch.

Oof, was not expecting to have to deal with sexist dinosaurs this morning, but I suppose that gross paragraph in the first post ought to have clued me in.

(Sorry double post, on my phone)

 

[crzesk8dad]

My suggestion to not give some or any credit to partially completed jumps particularly the Quads or even the 3A. You can either do it or you can't, no partial credit. This may force some skaters to work on those areas that they do well in, rather than using the "spaghetti theory": throw it against the wall (ice) and see if it sticks.

Maybe we would get some "well balanced programs" out of the deal.

 

[PDilemma]

This might also help decouple one component from the next such that we might see 6.5 in SS and 9.25 for IN for example. .

This desperately needs to happen. I don't know if your suggestion for dividing judges is workable or would happen. But the notion that components scores stay in a corridor is nonsensical. A skater can have amazing skating skills and no interpretation. Or vice versa. Those scores don't have to be the same or in the same range all the time.

But I feel like judges just throw PCS scores up as an afterthought at the end of the skate right now. They can't possibly have time to adequately evaluate every component or absorb things like interpretation or the whole of choreography when they are busy putting in GOEs for every element.

 

[Rock2]

But I feel like judges just throw PCS scores up as an afterthought at the end of the skate right now.

That's exactly what's happening. And lately, throw GoE into this phenomenon of marking it all as one lump of a grade. No time or interest on judges' part to dissect everything to ladder up to a thoughtful grade on each thing.

On PCS we're effectively back into 6.0. Judges are watching and effectively going, "ehhhhhh, 5.6"
The only calibrating they do is what they did under 6.0 -- ensure PCS score is reasonably connected to TES proficiency.

 

[brennele]

misskarne, it is not that women pursuing athletics feats are offensive. It is more the whining and complaining that they must do absolutely everything the men do or that there are no differences between the genders which is offensive. We now have woman who want to be Marine infantry personnel which would be fine with me IF they could meet all of the standards that the men do. Supposedly they were not going to lower the standards to accommodate the women...............but quietly they did just that. As a woman, the constant whining and screaming of sexism at every turn of the road, gets on my nerves. If someone wants to compete with men, do so but then don't water down the standard to accommodate the women or, more accurately, shut them up in the name of political correctness.

Condescending or not - so now it is condescending to clarify one's points - apparently you did not "understand perfectly well" what I meant. You misinterpreted it. Using your example, the 3 LZ DOES count. All of the 3s count. What I am proposing is that only one 4 of anything per program count for points over and above what is allotted to the 3. All other 4s count as threes of whatever they are AND all of the 3s ALSO count so that the total score could reflect only one 4 per program and as many 3s as the person wished to do. Falling down on a 4 would not count as a 3 just for attempting it. Only 4s which are landed would count. Same for 3s for that matter.

Perhaps if you spent less time insulting people and more time actually paying attention to what they wrote, you would comprehend the meaning. Here is another enlightening concept for you. If you don't like what I right - you don't have to read it. What a novel idea. Every time you see the flowers, you can just skip over the comments so as to avoid being "grossed" out. When you start off your morning you can pick and choose to read only those comments from posters who support your views.

 

[Rock2]

My suggestion to not give some or any credit to partially completed jumps particularly the Quads or even the 3A. You can either do it or you can't, no partial credit. This may force some skaters to work on those areas that they do well in, rather than using the "spaghetti theory": throw it against the wall (ice) and see if it sticks.

Maybe we would get some "well balanced programs" out of the deal.

That would pretty much kill the technical development of the sport so I don't think the ISU would go for that...and neither would I.

Recall that up until about 2006 the penalties for underrotations were severe and were later amended to graduated penalities based on the severity of underrotation. This was what was wanted.

Also recall we've already been through the phase of developing well balanced or more PCS-dominant programs. When IJS came in, quads started to disappear in all but a few skaters as athletes close to drive their marks through GoE and PCS. This went on through 2010 in both men's and ladies, when that lake pretty much was fished dry and athletes started again to search for ways to gain the upper hand, which is natural in sport. Cue the quads and triple triples.

We have to remember skating is first and foremost a sport. The goal is to first challenge athletes to better themselves in all areas of the sport and to win by doing so. Generating more clean aesthetic performances -- like in arts such as the ballet -- is likely not even on the radar although some degree of quality output is welcomed. That objective lives in show skating.

As I said earlier, the rulebook isn't horrible although it needs tweaking. We just need to put measures in place to mark what's happening on the ice in accordance with the rules. That's it...although easier said than done.

 

[brennele]

'that would pretty much kill the technical development of the sport" I am not following your logic here. People who aim to do a particular element would continue to practice it until they could do it. People have lots of elements in the pipeline which they will bring into their competitive programs if and when they are ready to do so. What I don't like to see is for people to get credit - and then lots of it - for ATTEMPTING something they have not yet mastered. The performance arena is not the practice rink. It is a place to showcase what you have done and what you have mastered. I am going to again point out that some guy who really has no business doing quads at all - because he has not developed enough requisite skill to do them - could go out there and "attempt" a quad six different times in his program - each time falling on his -----(you know what) because he was not ready to be going live with the element. His six failed attempts will put him ahead of someone who has performed five perfectly executed triples.

We must make a distinction between the practice rink and the performance arena and not reward persons for confusing the two concepts. The person who said "either you can do it or you can't" is absolutely correct. If you have not mastered the skill, do not bring it out into your performance. If we are interested in watching you learn, we will be sure to find out where you practice and make it a point to be there when you have ice time. My own feeling is that if you cannot land something 90% of the time, you probably don't need to be adding this element to your public performance. This business of rewarding people for merely attempting something is ludicrous. People are not paying good money for arena seats nor are the networks paying millions of dollars for broadcast rights to watch people attempt elements which perhaps one day, they will be able to pull off.

 

[MIsty Blades/Skate Mom]

I like a lot of the ideas in here, but I'd like to see these things:

1. 10 -15 second interpretation sequence
Here, the skater attempts tell the story or convey the mood of the program through choreography or movement which is separate from the footwork passes. This is a huge artistic opportunity here. However, this section could get interesting. Some skaters will use this time to catch their breath. Others may twerk in this portion. Some skaters may actually lie down for 10 seconds and claim that it conveys the mood and story of the program. That will score a Level 1. Anything longer/shorter than 10-15 seconds gets a time deduction.

2. Fewer jumping attempts to 6 for both genders
Down from 8 for men and 7 for women. Same rules on jump repetition, but you are allowed up to 4 combination passes.

3. More equal distribution of jumps and no bonus for jumps in the second half
Could we require an even distribution of jumps such as 3 attempts in each half? Backloading jumps in the second half makes the first half dull.

 

[kwanatic]

I haven't read through the list yet so I'm sure some of these are repeats. Here's what I'd like to see...

1. Falls should carry heavier deductions. A fall on a quad earning more than a clean triple is ridiculous IMO. Yes, it's a harder element but you busted your butt. This will discourage the "Hail Mary" jumps some skaters go for purely for points...

2. Get rid of the SP bonus. Like pewter medals at US nationals, it's ridiculous and there's no point in having it. Nuff said.

3. Limit the tano/Rippon feature like they limit features on spins. You get to use it once per program. One tano jump, one Rippon jump. That's it.

4. No more than 4 jumping passes are eligible for the bonus section of the program. This promotes "balance" which is supposed to be taken into account in the PCS but obviously is not...like at all. You can do all of your jumping passes in the bonus but only the first four will get bonus points.

5. A clean program bonus. Programs that are "all green" (no -GOE) get a bonus. Maybe 1 point added to the total score. This would help to promote cleaner skating and would have a certain element of self-policing to it. You're not going to go for the 4Lz if you know you can't land it. Not only do you lose more points if you fail (see #1) but you'll miss out on the clean program bonus.

6. Good technique bonus. This is similar to the clean program bonus, it could be 1 point added to the total score. If a skater executes all five triples (six for the men including the axel), they get a bonus. No edge calls, no dings...tech bonus. Of course this means the tech panel is going to have to do a better job of calling jumps...

(#5 and #6 focus on rewarding skaters for doing the jumps correctly and executing their program cleanly. If you do both of those things you can earn an additional 2 points for your score. This rewards clean skaters and good technicians.)

7. This is a long shot but I'd like to see two different scoring panels. A technical panel and a component panel. I don't have the particulars on it but I do think a combined score from two sources (tech and components) may lend some much needed balance to the scoring. As of now judges' scores are heavily influenced by the technical side of things. There is little to no separation b/w the scores, especially for the top skaters. There are skaters who deserve 9s in some areas and 7s in others; yet you will never see that kind of scoring. A split panel may make a difference.


That's all I've got for now.

 

[misskarne]

misskarne, it is not that women pursuing athletics feats are offensive. It is more the whining and complaining that they must do absolutely everything the men do or that there are no differences between the genders which is offensive. We now have woman who want to be Marine infantry personnel which would be fine with me IF they could meet all of the standards that the men do. Supposedly they were not going to lower the standards to accommodate the women...............but quietly they did just that. As a woman, the constant whining and screaming of sexism at every turn of the road, gets on my nerves. If someone wants to compete with men, do so but then don't water down the standard to accommodate the women or, more accurately, shut them up in the name of political correctness.

Oh my god. Maybe I should have been thinking earlier than the 50s.

Condescending or not - so now it is condescending to clarify one's points - apparently you did not "understand perfectly well" what I meant. You misinterpreted it. Using your example, the 3 LZ DOES count. All of the 3s count. What I am proposing is that only one 4 of anything per program count for points over and above what is allotted to the 3. All other 4s count as threes of whatever they are AND all of the 3s ALSO count so that the total score could reflect only one 4 per program and as many 3s as the person wished to do. Falling down on a 4 would not count as a 3 just for attempting it. Only 4s which are landed would count. Same for 3s for that matter.

No, it doesn't count! Because if you are counting the 4Lz as a 3Lz in my example then by the time he does the first 3Lz he has now done two. Which means if he does another 3Lz, that 3Lz will not count. Because then he will have done three.

The idea is ridiculous and sets skating back nearly twenty years. No. No limit on quads beyond the Zayak rule already in place.

 

[ToFarAwayTimes]

1. Falls should carry heavier deductions. A fall on a quad earning more than a clean triple is ridiculous IMO. Yes, it's a harder element but you busted your butt. This will discourage the "Hail Mary" jumps some skaters go for purely for points...

Yes I agree with this. Falls must be penalized more. A failed quad should not count more than a successful triple, and a failed triple should not count more than a successful double.

The Federations are reluctant to do this because it increases variance in the results. They have the corridor with all of their skaters and backroom deals lined up. If falls were penalized more heavily, it would affect the results more. This would be a good thing.

3. Limit the tano/Rippon feature like they limit features on spins. You get to use it once per program. One tano jump, one Rippon jump. That's it.

Yes, another good idea. We have the Zayak rule and limits to features on spins. Why can't we limit these darn things? They are nice to throw into a program one time but when they are done over and over again, it really detracts from the performance.

4. No more than 4 jumping passes are eligible for the bonus section of the program. This promotes "balance" which is supposed to be taken into account in the PCS but obviously is not...like at all. You can do all of your jumping passes in the bonus but only the first four will get bonus points.

I hate backloading and would like to see it ended, but I would rather just see the components score get marked down for an unbalanced program instead. Limits would only be needed if the judges are incapable of scoring components correctly, and if that's the case (which it is) we have a bigger problem.

5. A clean program bonus. Programs that are "all green" (no -GOE) get a bonus. Maybe 1 point added to the total score. This would help to promote cleaner skating and would have a certain element of self-policing to it. You're not going to go for the 4Lz if you know you can't land it. Not only do you lose more points if you fail (see #1) but you'll miss out on the clean program bonus.

I don't think this would be a good idea. Skaters will already be rewarded for clean skates and penalized for falls. It's probably not a good idea to double reward them or double penalize them.

6. Good technique bonus. This is similar to the clean program bonus, it could be 1 point added to the total score. If a skater executes all five triples (six for the men including the axel), they get a bonus. No edge calls, no dings...tech bonus. Of course this means the tech panel is going to have to do a better job of calling jumps...

The technical panel just needs to do its job. Sadly they are corrupt and that often doesn't happen. Greater transparency and accountability is needed. I would like to see the technical callers forced to do interviews with the media after the competition, which is a common practice for referees in many sports.

 

[brennele]

Karne, well for all of your ill-tempered demeanor and snide remarks, it would appear that you DO, in fact, have a valid point. The solution is simple, however. Excess quads when landed (and BTW, no one would even DO them under such a system) could simply be exempt from Zayak because, technically they are not the same animal. It is a moot point, however, because under such a system - meaning skaters are not going to get credit for them - they are not going to even perform excess quads. They will land a quad or a quad-triple and then they will perform other variations of jumps for the rest of their program. No one is saying that the Zayak rule could not be tweaked to adapt to a new scenario.

Now since I am such a "dinosaur," as you are ever prone to point out in your less-than-cordial posts, I will mention that I WAS around during the whole Zayak debacle when the various papers were full of articles concerning this issue. The fact is that the whole bru-ha-ha was much the same as what we are now hearing with the quad discussion. Everyone was worried back then - you know during those prehistoric times - about the women becoming "jumping jacks" and ruining the sport.......and so the Zayak rule came into being. I thought the whole thing was a tempest in a teapot when the issue was hot. Fact is, however, the way it morphed in the long run, the women ended up becoming those very (much-feared) "jumping jacks" and the world did not come to an end. It all worked out, somehow. Some might long for the graceful Peggy Flemming days but the old folks are dying out and most people will not even remember them, anyway. Given how things turned out, we probably did not even need the Zayak rule - it was sort of over-reactionary to treat a non-existent potential scenario.

So now, we have much the same thing all over again with the quads. People are, once again, freaking out predicting that "jumping jacks" - only this time it is the men - will ruin the sport. Actually, I number among those very people although - in the days before the dawn of time i.e. during the Zayak controversy - I was not esp concerned about it. While there are parallels to today's issues with quads, I don't feel that the ladies doing triples quite rises to the same level of potential problems.

Now that we have aired our respective points, if it is all the same with you, I would prefer that you and I terminate our conversation. Life is simply too short and there is too many sources of beauty and joy which abound about us to be wasting time interacting with someone fond of generating negative and disparaging remarks. YOU may well be in a bad mood but I am not. I would prefer to stay away from negativity. If at some point you want to hold discussion without all of ad hominems, we can pick it up and further dissect this issue. Otherwise I am signing off from further converation with you. For now, however, I shall leave you to stew in your ill-temper.

 

[MAXSwagg]

People want to add more rules to make the system even more convoluted? No. Just no. It needs to be simplified to make it more cut and dry. I'm in the group that would like 0 points for falls on any element but many do not like that so it needs to be a happy medium. You should not be getting more than 50% of the base value for an element that WAS NOT COMPLETED! Hopefully, though, the percentage GOE will get closer to solving this problem.

The panel needs to be split. Judges are so hyperfocused on dissecting elements that they don't see the "big picture" of the program, and at the end they just input the component marks based on what they think they saw mixed with what they "expect" the skater to get. How can you assess program cohesiveness when you're not looking at the program as a whole??

 

[Bellanca]

This thread has completely jumped the shark! What a beautiful thing to witness.

 

[brennele]

Max,
As usual you make excellent points. The more I think about it, the more the current quad controversy reminds me of the controversy surrounding Zayak. As I mentioned in my previous post, I was alive and well at that time and the newspapers were full of articles about the whole thing. FS had a much higher profile in those days. Zayak wanted to put 7 triples in her program.......sound familar (?) and the powers that be were all aghast at the notion. In those days, the US figure skating authorities wanted women to be "fairy princesses" and to conform to a stereotype fitting that image. Rosalynn Sumners was the fairy princess permutation for the time frame in question and most of the women in the general public - the ones who even knew about skating - were on the side of Zayak. We did not want to be put into molds and told how we should look or act. Worse, women resented the notion that females could not be athletes but instead had to conform to some mold put forth by the ISU. Many felt Zayak was being treated very unfairly and many were not the least bit disappointed when Sumners did not get the gold in 1984; not many among the women of that day were rooting all that much for her. I numbered among that group. I was perfectly OK with the outcome where Sumners missed the gold. Witt was the better althlete. Like most, I was on the side of Zayak. Our lives were not about being fairy princesses and we did not like the way Zayak was being treated simply because she did not conform to someone's wet dream of how women should be. Also Sumner got to use a prop (a maudlin routine where she placed a rose on the ice and skated around it) for her program, something which was supposed to be a no-no.

The whole Zayak rule back fired anyway and did not accomplish its intended purpose. The women went on to become quite athletic and simply worked around the rule. So when you say we have too many rules, you just might have a very valid point. Whether or not a rule concerning quads is in order, we do need to make overhauls to the present scoring system. It is very flawed as it now stands.

 

[Rock2]

'that would pretty much kill the technical development of the sport" I am not following your logic here. People who aim to do a particular element would continue to practice it until they could do it.

Here's the catch. With the exception of some desperate attempts which yes do happen, the skaters actually *can* do these jumps. These elements are usually pretty consistent in practice. Even if they are landed 100% of the time at home, it's a whole new ballgame to do them in competition, especially when it comes to the hardest elements.

Some skaters can translate practices directly into competition without a hitch. Others need several competitions to replicate their practice consistency on competitive ice. For those skaters, which are the majority, you almost stop them from developing because you create a scoring system that has no patience for this adjustment process.

Then there's a whole other issue of having athletes showing up to an event in some physical pain as they battle injuries or getting over a cold or competing through women's issues. There are a ton of factors that compromise an athlete's ability to perform as planned. We have to be careful about assuming they can't do the jump as there's stuff behind the scenes we never hear about. So what do they do if they are worried about hitting their tough elements on a given day when they aren't 100%? With a huge penalty they'd have to consider redesigning their program at the last minute or training multiple versions to account for different conditions. Most skaters would tell you that's impractical.

I do agree with an earlier suggestion to raise the deduction for a fall. 1 pt in a 150-200 pt long is nothing. I'd be in the 2-3 range, depending on where IJS goes with GOE deductions, which need to be bigger for quads as well.

 

[Rock2]

Yes I agree with this. Falls must be penalized more. A failed quad should not count more than a successful triple, and a failed triple should not count more than a successful double.

The Federations are reluctant to do this because it increases variance in the results. They have the corridor with all of their skaters and backroom deals lined up. If falls were penalized more heavily, it would affect the results more. This would be a good thing.



Yes, another good idea. We have the Zayak rule and limits to features on spins. Why can't we limit these darn things? They are nice to throw into a program one time but when they are done over and over again, it really detracts from the performance.



I hate backloading and would like to see it ended, but I would rather just see the components score get marked down for an unbalanced program instead. Limits would only be needed if the judges are incapable of scoring components correctly, and if that's the case (which it is) we have a bigger problem.



I don't think this would be a good idea. Skaters will already be rewarded for clean skates and penalized for falls. It's probably not a good idea to double reward them or double penalize them.



The technical panel just needs to do its job. Sadly they are corrupt and that often doesn't happen. Greater transparency and accountability is needed. I would like to see the technical callers forced to do interviews with the media after the competition, which is a common practice for referees in many sports.

Who are you, and why are we not best friends??!?!?

You pretty much typed verbatim what I was thinking on each of these points.
Before I read your post I was going to reply and type all this stuff but was all like "auuugh, it's 1am I should be in bed"

Thanks for saving me the work!

 

[brennele]

Just as Fed and State laws, passed with the best of intentions, often end up having unintended consequences, so too with new regs by the ISU. Regs meant to correct a problem or else avoid a potential problem, can end up backfiring and creating more problems than there was originally. We see that with government all the time and now we see it with skating. Examples are the 10% bonus rule which was never meant to create unbalanced programs with all the elements in the latter half. Such was never the intent when the rule was passed. Same with the Zayak rule - they meant well or so they thought but it did not work as intended. The "fairy princesses" they hoped to preserve ended up morphing into female athletes anyway only now they were even more athletic than would be the case, without the rule, because they now had to master all the jumps. They ended up creating the very thing they were hoping to avoid. With the Zayak rule, the net effect was to screen in favor of the athlete and less preservation of Ms (make that Miss) Fairy Princess. Trying to mold human beings into someone's world view typically does not work out so well. Harding states that she was discouraged from divorcing her abusive husband because the ISU frowned upon divorced women as seedy and not in keeping with the image they wanted to protect. She states (to whatever degree we can believe her) that she was told if divorced him, she would be black balled by the judges. The end result of staying with him was far worse than their feared scenario of having divorced women - gasp gasp - "sullying" the ice. The new scoring system has many unintended consequences and ticks which need to be adjusted. Sometimes more proposed regs when enacted end up bringing about more problems - unforseen ones - which are worse than the original problem they were suppose to fix.

 

[ToFarAwayTimes]

Who are you, and why are we not best friends??!?!?

You pretty much typed verbatim what I was thinking on each of these points.
Before I read your post I was going to reply and type all this stuff but was all like "auuugh, it's 1am I should be in bed"

Thanks for saving me the work!

Just a one man army with good opinions and bad!

 

[HeManSkaterDad]

It is very naive for people to ask for 'fairly judging PCS' as a necessary change criterion. Is it not obvious that politics is at least 30% responsible for the second-mark scores? No judging system will get rid of this issue.

Scoring PCS fairly was my first thought when I saw the first post, so I agree to that extent. I will concede we cannot get rid of the political issue 100%, but we can certainly reduce its impact. I am thoroughly convinced that a significant number of judges do not follow the PCS criteria and instead adjust their scores to reflect what they want the outcome to be (instead of following the rules, as minimal as that guidance may be). I also think many have a hangover from the 6.0 and are still savings scores, even though that is no longer necessary. Better education and stricter enforcement of failing to follow the rules by IJS will help reduce the effect of politics.

Similarly, GOE and the associated bullets are relatively easy to measure, so there should only rarely be a divergence of more than 1 point (no -3s and +1s for the same element). This needs to be much more strictly policed. It also needs to be made very clear that the elements have a maximum value, no matter how good they are. If skater A gets the sufficient bullets for the +3, give it to him or her, don;t hold back because there is a better element coming up that will also merit a +3 and the judge wants to differentiate. Just like in baseball, a 310' homerun counts the same as a 500' homerun.

Before any major rule changes, the IJS needs to be given a fair chance with it being properly followed.

Injuries is a tough one. Banning moves to prevent injuries I think has a low chance of happening. Doing your body in is a by-product of elite athletics and hard core training and a million reps over a period of time. Baseball pitchers can't raise their arms above their head when they retire. Football players can hardly walk etc. Not saying it's right...but it's hart to prevent

I agree, and I question the sincerity of the argument to ban or limit quads based on it. The Olympic motto is "Faster, Higher, Stronger" not "do less and play it safe". It is difficult to participate in any sport at a high level for a long career and not experience some long term effects. Using the prevent injury logic, we should also limit twists in pairs (men's back and women's abdomen injuries) and I am sure we can find many more.

I understand, and can accept, the no backflip rule, that poses a significant risk of immediate and serious injury, but limiting based on the assumption that quads or much worse that other jumps or elements smacks of nanny state thinking to me. But if you want to go down that road, let's really look out for the skaters, limit number of hours of practice, number of elements that can be done during a practice, etc. Less practice will mean less advancement and might just solve the perceived quad problem.

Here is what I would propose and I mentioned it in another thread - which unfortunately got derailed into unrelated discussion. I propose the following: limit the number of quads to one per program i.e. one for the SP and one for the FS. Obviously skaters could do as many as they wish but they only get credit for one per program. Any others done would count as triples. Such a rule would achieve the would achieve the following:

1. Reward those men who can do a quad and do it right
2. Protect skaters from injuring their bodies in "quad madness" where they try to outdo one another
3. Open the playing field to more men not just those born with the right body type
4. Make the men's event more enjoyable to watch. Not everyone prefers a jumping bean contest

I think I am opposing to every thought in this comment.

1. Reward those men who can do a quad and do it right. - How does limiting to 1 reward those who can do it right? Doesn't it penalize those who can do more than one while rewarding those who can only do one or can not do any? Let's just eliminate jump, give everyone a participation trophy and go home.

2. Protect skaters from injuring their bodies in "quad madness" where they try to outdo one another. - What about triple-triple madness, triple twist madness, etc. The entire concept of sport is trying to outdo each other, and it will happen at whatever limit is allowed. And, since it is now March, might be worth pointing out that a lot of people like to watch madness (as long as their team makes it to the big dance).

3. Open the playing field to more men not just those born with the right body type. - Good idea, while we are at it, let's limit the spin positions for the ladies, no Beillmanns, no catchfoot to avoid the back injuries and open up the playing field to the body types that cannot contort in such a manner.

4. Make the men's event more enjoyable to watch. Not everyone prefers a jumping bean contest. - More enjoyable will be in the eye of the beholder, not everyone prefers a prettiest skating contest, but does simple making some quads into triples make it any less of a 'jumping bean contest'?

 

[gkelly]

Is there a definite definition of skating skills?

http://usfigureskating.org/content/ISU program-component-chart_sandp-and-id_08-16.pdf
(This is an ISU chart but the USFS website is easier to navigate)

Skating skills
Defined by overall cleanness and sureness, edge control and flow over the ice surface demonstrated by a command of the skating vocabulary (edges, steps, turns etc.), the clarity of technique and the use of effortless power to accelerate and vary speed.
*Balance, rhythmic knee action and
precision of foot placement
*Use of deep edges, steps and turns
*Flow and glide
*Varied use of power, speed and acceleration
*Use of multi directional skating
*Use of one foot skating

As I mentioned in my previous post, I was alive and well at that time and the newspapers were full of articles about the whole thing.

But were the (American?) newspapers reporting the actual motivations of the ISU decisionmakers or offering their own interpretations of the decision as to how they affected a leading American woman?

Was the ISU really trying to tell female skaters to do fewer triples? Or was it telling both female and male skaters that if they wanted to do lots of triples, they should learn to do more different kinds of triples and stop repeating the same ones over and over? And also that toe loops and toe walleys were being executed pretty much the same especially as triples and therefore shouldn't count as separate jumps.

Elaine Zayak wasn't the only person to be doing lots of triple toes, or in some cases lots of triple salchows, in the same program. She just ended up being a poster child for the new rule because 1) she was doing more triple toes (5) than other other skaters only doing 3 or 4 of them in a program and 2) she won Worlds with a triple toe-heavy program.

Admittedly I wasn't there for the deliberations about the rule change either. But given the actual rule that was implemented, that's how I understand it. If they really wanted to limit the total number of triples that women could do and not limit the number for men, they would have made a different rule that would do exactly that.

But if you want to go down that road, let's really look out for the skaters, limit number of hours of practice, number of elements that can be done during a practice, etc. Less practice will mean less advancement and might just solve the perceived quad problem.

I know you're not really recommending this. But it wouldn't work because there would be no way to police it. The ISU or the national federations can't post spies in every rink around the world or around the country to monitor how many hours every elite skater is practicing, let alone every juvenile hopeful. If they enlisted all rink managers or even all coaches to enforce limits, skaters who wanted to gain an advantage would find ways to sneak around and find additional ice time they could use without getting caught.

 

[Rock2]

The Olympic motto is "Faster, Higher, Stronger" not "do less and play it safe". It is difficult to participate in any sport at a high level for a long career and not experience some long term effects.

You and I are aligned on just about everything.

I apoligize for sounding like a broken record but sadly I find this point needs to be made on an ongoing basis.

Skating is an (Olympic) sport.

And I find we need to stop and pause on that thought and probably meditate on it for hours if not days.

That is not to say that artistry doesn't matter because I do embrace that part of what makes skating unique. It's part of why I am a fan.

But what it does mean is that technical progression will always (always!!) be important and often times the priority.

The fact of the matter is that I would say the majority of fans appreciate the technical prowess but are more interested in the aesthetic factor and the artistry. That's what they consume and internalize the most. So when people make mistakes and they fall, it bothers them much like if mistakes were made in a ballet performance. If I was watching that and people were tripping all over the place I'd be asking for my money back.

If you watch skating first and foremost as a sport, like I do, you would look at a fall the way you would look at Tiger Woods hitting a golf ball into the water. That's a serious mistake. Yet, we don't say "dang, doesn't this guy know how to hit? The hole is 95% dry land and 5% water yet he hits it here. Doesn't he know what he's doing? This is wrecking my enjoyment. He shouldn't be allowed to win if he hits it into the water twice in one event.... etc etc."

But we don't say that in golf. Why? Because since we know we're watching a sport we understand he took a calculated risk trying to hit it far and directly over the water. And he failed. He's going to get penalized and if he wants to win he has to make it up elsewhere. We're not raging about it. We say "awwwww" but we completely get this kind of drama is what sport is about..and we move on, hoping he does well the next hole (if we're a fan).

So it's fine if the dominant lense through which you watch skating is art. Watch it how you will. Yes, you will be annoyed when mistakes happen. But to expect corrective measures to ensure you get the perfection you want to see will likely not happen. That's not sport. That would create an art-dominant version of skating...and that already exists -- show skating. Set your expectations there.

 

[brennele]

It is probably fine to let the thing evolve as it will because change is the nature of life, anyway. I personally watch the FS more for the artistic components and less for the sports elements although I do appreciate both. When FS gets to a point where it is more sport than art, I probably will lose interest in it and gravitate toward something else. When it moves more in the direction of sport, other people - who presently do not consider it a sport - may come into the audience. My husband, for example, does not consider FS a sport and ridicules the notion that it is. He says the scoring is not objective enough and there is not definitive enough end points to be called a sport. I don't argue the point with him because he is not about to be convinced. He watches the sports he likes and I watch the ones I like which happen to be limited to FS and now, very recently, baseball. Many men who like sports share his sentiments. Who is to say; each to his own.

One thing we can say, however, is that FS is absolutely moving away from the realm of arts and more into the realm of sports. Now it so happens, that my husband also like opera and he likes ballet so it is not that he is anti-arts. He simply does not consider FS to be a sport. Everything evolves over time and that includes FS. At best we can modify change but it will occur anyway. More and more I am not watching FS and spending more time watching ballroom dancing because there is less of all the athletic jumping and more actual artistic components. I find that ballroom is like FS but without the jumps and falls. People will gravitate toward what they like. No one is right and no one is wrong. It is just a matter of personal preference.

 

[mag]

I have two comments:

First, the cumulative fall deduction in senior (-1 for each of the first two falls, -2 for each of the next two, etc) is already a nightmare are senior levels below ISU Championships and the GPS. The fast majority of senior skaters do not have all their triples. Rules need to work for all levels. Increasing the fall deduction is not the answer. Which leads me to number two.

Second, deal with GOE. Right now skaters doing jumps that deserve -1 or -2 are getting positive GOE. Vincent Zhou is a perfect example. I am not a hater, I think he has lots of potential and is doing really well, but most of his quad attempts should get negative GOE. I am sure they will improve, but right now they are still tight and scratchy and usually have a small hook on the end. My suggestion is to decide on 5 things that increase GOE and 5 that decrease it. For every jump box on the computer screen simply have the same 10 options. When a jump is done, judges click on all that apply.

For example on the plus side:
Excellent flow out
Steps in
Above average height/distance
Unusual air position
Second jump more revolutions

On the negative side:
Short rotation
Stalked jump
Below average height/distance
Ugly air position (okay not these works )
One other option

Basically the list is the same for every jump pass so it is quick for the judges. They don’t assign GOE, the computer generates it based on what is selected. For jump combos the “second jump more revolutions should be auto selected by the tech panel, for solo jumps it should be grayed out. The system should have a check in it so that button is selected or not selected consistently.

At the end of the comp, the computer randomly selects X number of skaters per judge and their selections are reviewed. The judge points out why they made the selections they did. Because the skaters are randomly selected it doesn’t matter if that judges marks are exactly the same as other judges or completely different. The key is, can the judge explain why they selected the points they selected.

 

[ToFarAwayTimes]

@Rock2 and @HeManSkaterDad

I take issue with the "faster, higher, stronger" mantra. In figure skating, it should be "faster, higher, stronger....as long as you do it beautifully too." Skating is about having strong basics, musical interpretation, and mature presentation, as much as it is about jumping drills and tricks. If someone lacks those components, they should not be competitive. Period. And if someone lacks technical difficulty, they should not be competitive either. It's a competition to see who can balance the two sides and become the best skater overall.

Are we producing that when the presentation side is not being scored correctly? No. How did we wind up with a ladies sport where little girls are preferred? How did we wind up with ladies champions who have mediocre skating ability and poor ice coverage? Is this figure skating or figure jumping?

I want to list here the age of the ladies who have been awarded the gold medal at the Olympics:

Madge Syers, 27
Magda Julin, 25
Herma Szabo, 21
Sonja Henie, 15, 19, and 23
Barbara Ann Scott, 19
Jeannette Altwegg, 21
Tenley Albright, 20
Carol Heiss, 20
Sjoukje Dijkstra, 22
Peggy Fleming, 19
Trixi Schuba, 20
Dorothy Hamill, 19
Anett Potzsch, 19
Katarina Witt, 18 and 22
Kristi Yamaguchi, 20

And then you have the list since figures went away:

Oksana Baiul, 16
Tara Lipinski, 15
Sarah Hughes, 16
Shizuka Arakawa, 24
Yuna Kim, 19
Adelina Sotnikova, 17
Alina Zagitova, 15

The first group was populated almost exlusively by healthy young women in their late teens and early 20s. There was one outlier in that second group immediately after IJS started, but otherwise the ages have rapidly declined towards the arbitrary minimum limit.

Are all of these new ladies skating champions? Or are they little girl jumping champions? What does it mean to be a great figure skater? Until these questions are re-examined, figure skating on the ladies side at least will continue on a dark path that at some point will have political consequences. The incentive structure is too skewed to do unnatural, immoral things to very young girls.

 

[brennele]

Tofaraway, great point. I imported your data into a spread sheet and generated an average for the two groups. It is 20.5 and 17.4 respectively. If you throw out the highest number in BOTH groups the figures become 20.1 and 16.3 respectively. It would appear you have a valid point, indeed. Your entire post makes valid points. Body type has a huge influence on jumping ability esp for women. The younger one is, the more likely they will have a body type which favors jumps. I particularly like the last sentence of your post and, it seems, we can't even rely on the parents to be safeguards against such an outcome. It seems like many of these mothers want the goal every bit as much as the children; they are willing to sacrifice the children in the process.

 

[MAXSwagg]

I have two comments:

First, the cumulative fall deduction in senior (-1 for each of the first two falls, -2 for each of the next two, etc) is already a nightmare are senior levels below ISU Championships and the GPS. The fast majority of senior skaters do not have all their triples. Rules need to work for all levels. Increasing the fall deduction is not the answer. Which leads me to number two.

Second, deal with GOE. Right now skaters doing jumps that deserve -1 or -2 are getting positive GOE. Vincent Zhou is a perfect example. I am not a hater, I think he has lots of potential and is doing really well, but most of his quad attempts should get negative GOE. I am sure they will improve, but right now they are still tight and scratchy and usually have a small hook on the end. My suggestion is to decide on 5 things that increase GOE and 5 that decrease it. For every jump box on the computer screen simply have the same 10 options. When a jump is done, judges click on all that apply.

For example on the plus side:
Excellent flow out
Steps in
Above average height/distance
Unusual air position
Second jump more revolutions

On the negative side:
Short rotation
Stalked jump
Below average height/distance
Ugly air position (okay not these works )
One other option

Basically the list is the same for every jump pass so it is quick for the judges. They don’t assign GOE, the computer generates it based on what is selected. For jump combos the “second jump more revolutions should be auto selected by the tech panel, for solo jumps it should be grayed out. The system should have a check in it so that button is selected or not selected consistently.

At the end of the comp, the computer randomly selects X number of skaters per judge and their selections are reviewed. The judge points out why they made the selections they did. Because the skaters are randomly selected it doesn’t matter if that judges marks are exactly the same as other judges or completely different. The key is, can the judge explain why they selected the points they selected.

Point two, yes.

Point one: how is it a nightmare?