Olympic legend Button’s advice for Hanyu: Don’t overtrain

[Marco]

Step sequences were an after thought, spins positions not held and often ugly ( especially sit spins) lack of connecting steps. 6.0 didn't value these

And now we have step sequences that are slow and minute-long, spins that only showcase flexibility and do not display musicality, even uglier spin positions, transitions and connecting steps that have no relation to the music or program.

At least back then, more programs had freedom and creativity. Elements were used to enhance the program. I sorely miss Yukina Ota's plain layback spin that lasted forever, Fumie Suguri's ending scratch spin, Michelle Kwan's holding her jump landings and putting her heart on her sleeves during the Aranjuez and Tosca step sequences etc. Right now, these are limited because of all the things that must be done for points. There is no "free"dom in "free" skates anymore.

I love IJS as a system because it gives clarity and transparency to judging, but the rules do not encourage much room for creativity or variety. It's mostly jump, jump, spins, steps, (half way), jump, jump, jump, jump, jump, cho seq, spin to finish.

We have been blessed with the Buttles, Lambiels and Takahashis in IJS as well who were capable of making the best out of limiting rules but those remain exceptions IMO. The rise of the Russian ladies and the Eteri skaters prove the point.

 

[gkelly]

"Boring" and "creative" are often in the eye of the beholder.

But if we did want to find some way of measuring the level of boringness or creativity in different eras of skating, how would we define those qualities?

Could we gather representative samples of programs from representative years, perhaps randomly selected, of figures era, 6.0 non-figures era, and IJS era and take a poll as to which ones FSU posters consider very boring, somewhat boring, average, somewhat creative, or very creative?

 

[jenniferlyon]

The whole argument reminds me of how certain members of my generation wax nostalgic over 1980s music, before "that damn Nirvana came along and ruined everything!" But they only remember the big groups, the big albums, and the big hits. They've forgotten how much awful music there was in the 80s (along with awful clothes and awful hair)-- the Madonna wannabee pop singers, the interchangeable hair metal bands, the cringe-worthy love ballads, the aging stars from the 60s and 70s' struggles to remain relevant in the age of MTV, the one-hit wonders' futile attempts at a second hit.

In a similar vein, those who wax nostalgic any sort of Golden Age Of Skating are thinking of the big medal winners and the few ahead-of-their-time maverick skaters who defined that era. They aren't thinking of whoever it was who came in 16th at the 1984 Olympics, let alone the skaters who never made it to the Olympics. If we fast forward twenty years into the future, we will inevitably hear about how those skaters aren't as wonderful as Evgenia Medvedeva and Yuzuru Hanyu.

 

[bardtoob]

-- the Madonna wannabee pop singers, the interchangeable hair metal bands, the cringe-worthy love ballads, the aging stars from the 60s and 70s' struggles to remain relevant in the age of MTV, the one-hit wonders' futile attempts at a second hit.

From 1983, here's KC and the Sunshine Band's last hit, just for you @jenniferlyon

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psFQMKcsIF8

ETA: OMG! It is always a worse video than I remember

ETA: And apparently being a Madonna wannabee is still a thing ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hPMmzKs62w

. . . there is just so much good material to build on from in this post . . .

- Interchangeable hair metal band
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjyZKfdwlng&index=1&list=PLoYS22teoSSN7WjL3dGlBpaDlG-jQ2yrm

- the cringe-worthy love ballads

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRfy1yorkec

- the one-hit wonders' futile attempts at a second hit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPbneFBfnGg

 

[Marco]

In a similar vein, those who wax nostalgic any sort of Golden Age Of Skating are thinking of the big medal winners and the few ahead-of-their-time maverick skaters who defined that era. They aren't thinking of whoever it was who came in 16th at the 1984 Olympics, let alone the skaters who never made it to the Olympics. If we fast forward twenty years into the future, we will inevitably hear about how those skaters aren't as wonderful as Evgenia Medvedeva and Yuzuru Hanyu.

Actually some skaters in the 90s who weren't necessarily top elite were extremely interesting. Krieg, Ruh for their spins; Vlashenko, Dmitrinko, Rechnio, Hubert, Jo Carter, Czako and Yokoya for wonderful flow and choreography; Millot, Mark Mitchell and Britten for everything.

 

[antmanb]

This is the most broken record discussion I have on FSU and honestly I think I've said everything I have to say on the topic, but just one last time - having decades of 6.0 programmes to pick from and coming up with just a handful of skaters that were interesting, doesn't prove anything. I could come up with plenty of non medal contenders under IJS (or just link to team train wreck)that are also interesting and that is in less than 20 years of available skaters. I also quibble with everyone in the list above (Jo Carter??? Dmitrenko??) except Czako but i'm fairly sure she medalled at Europeans at least once so

Honestly in hindsight I suspect we will look back at the period between the abolishment of figures and the introduction of IJS as the crossover, Mohawk and three turn years, where the top skaters basically did those three things between the elements and not much else. Morosov's step sequences seemed like the work of a choreographic genius because he dared to put toe steps in amongst the three turns and mohawks and shook things up a bit.

A lot of 6.0 programmes do not stand up to the test of time and it's just crossover after cross over (and not even done in time with the music the majority of the time). If there was that little connection to the music under 6.0 (and there really were in a lot of programmes outside the medal contenders and a few within) I think it's comparable to what we have now. But at least now the skaters are demonstrating a lot if not all of the different turns and steps throughout the programmes they skate (and not just in the step sequences).

I agree that the IJS needs tweaking and some fundamental changes (like the value of combinations and sequences) and I think the PCS factoring in the mens event definitely needs addressing, but a blanket statement that 6.0 programmes were more interesting or creative than the programmes we have under IJS, I just cannot agree with in any way at all.

 

[Japanfan]

At least back then, more programs had freedom and creativity. Elements were used to enhance the program.

I agree about the freedom, but not about the creativity. However, not a lot of skaters took advantage of the freedom. Also, originality is rare in FS, and most programs looked the same under 6.0, just as they do under IJS.

OTOH, creativity will find a way to shine through despite rules and limits - this has always been the case and always will, because creativity is a human aspiration and to some extent, a need. We don't see more of it in skating because of all the rules and limits, and perhaps because skaters are so young and trying to fit a certain mold. And because today's skaters are aiming to maximize points, much as skaters under 6.0 aimed to get the best scores possible.

But a skater with a truly creative spirit will express it under IJU, just as some skaters did under 6.0. Jason Brown immediately comes to mind - the judging system never impeded him from being original.

 

[bardtoob]

Jason Brown immediately comes to mind - the judging system never impeded him from being original.

No, the judging system impeded him from winning

 

[Foolhardy Ham Lint]

This is the most broken record discussion I have on FSU and honestly I think I've said everything I have to say on the topic, but just one last time - having decades of 6.0 programmes to pick from and coming up with just a handful of skaters that were interesting, doesn't prove anything. I could come up with plenty of non medal contenders under IJS (or just link to team train wreck)that are also interesting and that is in less than 20 years of available skaters. I also quibble with everyone in the list above (Jo Carter??? Dmitrenko??) except Czako but i'm fairly sure she medalled at Europeans at least once so

One person's chalk is another person's cheese.

If we're going there, I think the problem I have with your argument is the original poster provided an interesting cross - section just to make a point about variety. You didn't actually list any IJS skaters to back up your side of the argument.

Of course if Marco had the time (and of course who does these days) they could link to hundreds of YouTube clips just to show what is out there.

However, YouTube channels by floskate, Sk8Frasch, and Hyacinth B have hundreds of clips dating back to the 1960s of some terrific 6.0 skaters. Floskate even provided a link to a skater, Jennie Walsh, who only appeared at the world level once. She was fantastic. Check her out!

Anyway, my biggest concern with IJS is with the free skate. When I saw the ISU JGP of Brisbane in person back in August, and to use the ladies' event to address my point, the skaters have eleven boxes to fill with seven jump elements, three spins, and a step sequence. That doesn't leave a lot of latitude for creativity. Irrespective of music, costumes, or how these elements were placed, most of the programs did end up looking very similar.

The standout was Trusova, who was so confident in her ability, for example, was able to add transitions such as a cantilever spread eagle into her triple lutz.

Given skating is an athletic competition first and foremost, the skaters are including mastered elements which will earn them the highest possible marks overall.

Further, the free skate basically becomes a longer version of the short program, because, if you miss an element or double a triple, you can't add it in again later, (which was possible under 6.0)

 

[kwanfan1818]

Actually some skaters in the 90s who weren't necessarily top elite were extremely interesting. Krieg, Ruh for their spins; Vlashenko, Dmitrinko, Rechnio, Hubert, Jo Carter, Czako and Yokoya for wonderful flow and choreography; Millot, Mark Mitchell and Britten for everything.

But they, too, were the exceptions among skaters who placed the way they did.

It's similar in opera: the only three sopranos singing in the (last) Golden Age of Opera were Callas, Tebaldi, and Milanov, and now all singers come out of the same conservatories and young artists programs with great technique, but with uninteresting voices and interpretations.

Back in the day, there were fantastic, underrated singers who didn't have record contracts, or didn't want to leave home, or who had bad stage nerves, and are appreciated passionately by small numbers of fans, and others who got the same contracts in the same size and ranked houses and who were competent, but not terribly interesting singers.

 

[becca]

I think that there were good and bad in both systems. However what I agree with Dick on is artistry and technique should be one and not tried to be so completely separated.

The great skaters had both. It's why I have such an issue when people get rewarded with sloppy skates. And why I think no Jason Brown should not be winning competions. So I do wish the current system took the entire skate into it account. A great male skater will have quads and beautiful skating. A great female will have 3/3 and beautiful skating.

 

[antmanb]

One person's chalk is another person's cheese.

If we're going there, I think the problem I have with your argument is the original poster provided an interesting cross - section just to make a point about variety. You didn't actually list any IJS skaters to back up your side of the argument.

Sorry, the reason I didn't is because I've done this before at least three other times and I didn't want to just repeat myself. In any event, exactly like you say, and like gkelly said earlier - there is no one unified opinion on what is creative or interesting or boring, so it's all up for debate. People thinking Hubert was "voidy" because she portrayed a prostitute on crack leave me scratching my head as I didn't think much to her programmes. But conversely I like Leonova's brand of over the top choreography which I know doesn't go down well with some so there will never be a conclusion.

And my main point was still that you have 100 years of 6.0 skating to pick from and only what...13 (or 14?) years of IJS skating to pick from, so you can't really compare just by looking at pure numbers. Maybe it would make for a more interesting debate to see who we pick as creative/interesting or boring from say 6.0 skaters 1988 to 2003, and then the IJS skaters? Including or excluding medal winners from championships?

Anyway, my biggest concern with IJS is with the free skate. When I saw the ISU JGP of Brisbane in person back in August, and to use the ladies' event to address my point, the skaters have eleven boxes to fill with seven jump elements, three spins, and a step sequence. That doesn't leave a lot of latitude for creativity. Irrespective of music, costumes, or how these elements were placed, most of the programs did end up looking very similar.

The standout was Trusova, who was so confident in her ability, for example, was able to add transitions such as a cantilever spread eagle into her triple lutz.

Given skating is an athletic competition first and foremost, the skaters are including mastered elements which will earn them the highest possible marks overall.

Further, the free skate basically becomes a longer version of the short program, because, if you miss an element or double a triple, you can't add it in again later, (which was possible under 6.0)

I agree the free programme isn't very "free" any more, however, skaters always had to fit a full set of triples with two repeats if they wanted to be competitive so even though there wasn't the same rigid 11 (or however many elements) boxes to check, there was a de facto number of elements because all skaters had roughly the same jump content, and while there was more freedom to rethink on the fly for missed elements, that would often mean sacrificing the choreography that would otherwise have been done (think Kwan scrapping the falling leaves at the end of a programme for a 3T if she missed it earlier, or worse when Pluschenko basically scrapped the entire first half of his LP stalking the damned 4T). One thing I really disagree with is a skater aborting or falling on the entrance to a jump, never getting into the air, and yet the lose a whole jumping pass to what amounts to a fall on an edge.

 

[gkelly]

Where I think the current singles well-balanced program rules limit creativity are:

*Jump sequences don't earn full credit for any of the jumps, or any credit at all for the third-hardest jump in the sequence, and jumps placed very close together but with one or more steps or turns choreographed may get called +SEQ with no credit at all for the jumps after the steps/turns, so there's a lot less incentive to be creative with stringing jumps together in creative ways and a lot fewer ways that would not amount to just throwing away points

*Including intentional single or double jumps as choreographic touches for most of the IJS era would mean wasting jump passes. Putting them at the end of the program after all the jump slots were already filled would have been way to get around that problem, but it doesn't add much flexibility. As of recently single and double jumps are now allowed within choreographic sequences, but not many skaters have been taking advantage of that option.

*Only 3 spins total are allowed, so there is incentive to pack as many features into each of those spins as possible, precluding the option of the same number of features spread across twice as many shorter spins or anything in between

*Some features for spins moves, or options for exactly how to achieve the feature, are much easier than others. So the easy ones get overused by what seems like a majority of skaters, while the harder ones rarely get seen at all.

*Variations that clearly do not meet the criteria for a feature but that do make the element harder to perform successfully are not worth attempting

*There are only 4 features available for step sequences, so anyone who wants to earn level 4 has to do the exact same features -- the only room for creativity is in the details of how to achieve them (or fitting in creative moves in between the requirements to earn levels)

Many of the issues with spins also apply to various pair moves.

Short programs have always had restricted elements and in fact are much freer now than 30+ years ago, when creativity in SPs meant working within strict rigid rules. Which does mean there is less distinction now between the short and free programs, which is probably not a good thing but is a different issue.

Being able to throw in repeated jumps to make up for mistakes is also a different issue unrelated to creativity. Unless you consider "spontaneity" to be a synonym.

That said, I do think that the proportions of boring and creative programs are comparable in the 2005-2017 era as in 1991-2003. (I'll leave out the 2004 season because it was a transitional year between systems.)

Shall I put together a thread in the Trash Can to compare comparable sets of programs from different eras? Or is now a bad time to be watching old programs, with the Grand Prix starting?

Without lots of specific examples, do we want to figure out what we mean by "creativity" in this thread or in a Trash Can thread?

 

[Doggygirl]

Am I misremembering? Or did singles 6.0 programs not most often start with a center ice pose, some arm movements to connect with the music, a skate to the far end of the rink and the most difficult jump?

Oh Uncle Dick. I love you, but the 6.0 rose colored spectacles are firmly on your head!

 

[VALuvsMKwan]

But they, too, were the exceptions among skaters who placed the way they did.

It's similar in opera: the only three sopranos singing in the (last) Golden Age of Opera were Callas, Tebaldi, and Milanov, and now all singers come out of the same conservatories and young artists programs with great technique, but with uninteresting voices and interpretations.

Back in the day, there were fantastic, underrated singers who didn't have record contracts, or didn't want to leave home, or who had bad stage nerves, and are appreciated passionately by small numbers of fans, and others who got the same contracts in the same size and ranked houses and who were competent, but not terribly interesting singers.

No Leontyne Price, Birgit Nilsson or (as much as I don't personally care for her, but appreciate her technique) Joan Sutherland? Perhaps my GAoO covers more time than yours does.

 

[kwanfan1818]

No Leontyne Price, Birgit Nilsson or (as much as I don't personally care for her, but appreciate her technique) Joan Sutherland? Perhaps my GAoO covers more time than yours does.

I don't think Callas/Milanov/Tebaldi as the Golden Age of Opera, but their era frequently cited as such, and the "kids" who came after, like Sutherland, Nilsson, and Price couldn't hold a candle to them if you're someone who's looking back to another time as uncomparable.

 

[AxelAnnie]

And Uncle Dick saw it all coming. See his Eight minute speech (rant) right after SLC.
The Greatest Rant Ever!

 

[mackiecat]

There was a well balanced program in 6.0. Free skates also. There were spin requirements and jump restrictions very similar to now. Let's discuss the artistry herehttps://youtu.be/yMC008lGcX8

 

[kwanfan1818]

"Her choreography sets her apart from Midori Ito."

 

[Areski]

There was a well balanced program in 6.0. Free skates also. There were spin requirements and jump restrictions very similar to now. Let's discuss the artistry herehttps://youtu.be/yMC008lGcX8

Jill Trenary and that muzak. Cringey & bland at the same time. This one clearly does not represent any ''golden era''. I think that her becoming the World Champion in 1990 put the seal on the end of compulsory figures as an integral part of the competiton.

 

[bardtoob]

Jill Trenary and that muzak. Cringey & bland at the same time. This one clearly does not represent any ''golden era''. I think that her becoming the World Champion in 1990 put the seal on the end of compulsory figures as an integral part of the competiton.

It was not muzak . . . but probably a little dated since Jill skated to it in 1990, although it was pop music from 1978.

https://youtu.be/mZCTFgu_x_Q?t=37

It feels very 1970s Eastern Mediterranean Yacht party!

 

[mackiecat]

https://youtu.be/oIdX9sjvE5w

How about theses beautiful 6.0 spins, the transitions, the creative program, the step sequence of Mohawks and a couple threes.

Verses this IJS https://youtu.be/5vJFdEfGk3w

Same country, same training centre, different judging system

Both world champions

 

[VGThuy]

I bet most non-skating watchers would prefer Stoijko if I was a betting person. IJS skating is much more skilled and substantive but I do see a real lack of individuality and distinct personality in the actual skating itself. I also miss when program composition could surprise me. IJS has taken the fun out of that and all the kicks come from whether we can see a clean program in men’s and if a caller will be strict or not. As for ladies...during 6.0 people used to call them ladiezzz for good reason and I don’t think much has changed on that front generally speaking no matter how much better at skating clean and doing 3/3s the top skaters (really from one camp) is now.

Overall so many 6.0 programs were real duds with nothing going on. A lot of IJS programs are real duds with lots of things going on but not amounting to anything. With nothing going on we might see glimpses of individual personality and interpretion but probably not. With lots of things going on we can see great displays of technical skating and blade work...one right after the other looking the same.

What’s important is that IJS is better for actual competing skaters and at least we know footwork and spins actually do count.

 

[Marco]

@antmanb Well, I didn't have decades of programmes to pick from. I specifically said 90s because that's when I got in touch with the sport. Fine, a decade and a bit since I also mentioned post-SLC Kwan etc in an earlier post. Too bad you didn't like Jo Carter but she had speed and attack (unfortunately not a 3sal) like no other, and she didn't hunch and pump like Slutskaya either.

Morosov's step sequences were trash in a technical sense, but the likes of Yagudin, Takahashi, Honda, Cohen and Kwan were able to fully take advantage of the passion in the movements in enhancing the program, so I appreciated them in the artistic sense.

I do really appreciate IJS in bringing up requirements in the technical aspects of non jump elements but (1) at the expense of quality; (2) judges didn't seem to be dinging the slowness and the fact that the steps didn't go with the music in either GOEs or PCS. I suppose some like a perfectly executed 2axel, some like a half-arse 3axel. I would be OK with both if the scores were given accordingly to both difficulty and quality. Right now it doesn't seem to be the case.

When I said I feel there are more boring programs at the top, I was thinking of programs by Tuktamysheva, Radionova and Medveda, and now Zagitova, getting high PCS 'just because they tick the boxes'. To me that's ridiculous, especially with the way they express themselves and the way their programs were structured. I hate that that is becoming the benchmark.

Thank you @gkelly for very eloquently stating how IJS or the current rules may be limiting creativity. I completely agree. Dick was right - the free skate is just the same as the short, just around 2 minutes longer and 4 or 5 more passes.

 

[purple skates]

@Marco used the word passion in his above post. I think that’s a really important word in this discussion.

I’m an old, crusty, single/low double adult skater (back in my freestyle prime - I do Synchro and pattern dance now). I’ve competed under both 6.0 and IJS. Creating a program in the 6.0 days (for me) was all about building emotion from beginning to end. Creating a program in IJS was all about backloading to gain points.

The passion gets lost in the point calculation.

 

[kwanfan1818]

It's possible to construct a backloaded program that builds to a spectacular ending.

 

[meggonzo]

It was not muzak . . . but probably a little dated since Jill skated to it in 1990, although it was pop music from 1978.

https://youtu.be/mZCTFgu_x_Q?t=37

It feels very 1970s Eastern Mediterranean Yacht party!

The beginning music is the same as Tuktamysheva's Sandstorm, right? I remember I kept wanting Tuk to do a one-foot axel into a triple salchow.

 

[Japanfan]

Further, the free skate basically becomes a longer version of the short program, because, if you miss an element or double a triple, you can't add it in again later, (which was possible under 6.0)

I'm not on top of the rules by any means - although I am aware of Zayaking - but are there not situations in which you can add in a missed element or triple? If an under-rotated triple is marked as a double, can a skater not add another triple in later? And SFAIK it is okay to repeat a jump twice in the LP? So if a skater misses an element or jump entirely, can they not incorporate them elsewhere in the program?

 

[MacMadame]

You can do some of that but you only get so many jump passes so the opportunities are limited.

I think the big difference between now and then is before the SP really penalized you for missing a required element. It's not like that now.

 

[gkelly]

I'm not on top of the rules by any means - although I am aware of Zayaking - but are there not situations in which you can add in a missed element or triple?

It is usually wise to have a plan B. But it has to be planned carefully because too many of the same jump will lose all points for the jump, and under some year's rules all points for a whole combination. At least that is no longer the case.

If an under-rotated triple is marked as a double, can a skater not add another triple in later?

A downgraded jump is not "marked as a double." That hasn't been true since about 2005. They're marked as a triple with a << symbol and get the same base value as a double. And skaters may or may not be aware that the jump was sufficiently underrotated to get downgraded, but they won't know what the tech panel called.

They usually will know if they did an actual double jump by mistake, but even then they may not be sure exactly what happened on a jump that felt weird in the air or was all over the place on the landing.

And SFAIK it is okay to repeat a jump twice in the LP? So if a skater misses an element or jump entirely, can they not incorporate them elsewhere in the program?

Yes. If it's not in combination either time, under the current rules they get 70% of the base value. If at least one was in combination, then full value for both, plus or minus any GOE the judges see fit to award. (And minus a fall deduction if applicable.)

But there are only a set number of jump slots available. To attempt a triple again later in the program would mean leaving out a different jump that had already been planned for that slot. So it's not always in the skater's best interest to replace the planned jump with a harder one that was missed earlier.

The exception would be if the skater has used up all their big-ticket jumps in fewer than the allowed number of slots. In which case they might choreograph an extra double axel or an easier double at the end of the program to fill the extra slot, with a backup plan that they can use that slot to make up a triple that was missed earlier.

And certainly they might choreograph two of the same jump into a program intending for the first one to be a combination, but if they can't get a second jump on the first attempt because of a fall or bad landing or being too close to the boards, they could improvise (or revert to plan B) a combo on the end of the second attempt.