Hypothetical US skating development changes

[gkelly]

@becca and others have suggested in the U.S. Ladies thread that USFSA developing coaches, and developing a more group training approach, might help US ladies become more competitive internationally.

Just for fun, shall we brainstorm how something like this might work?

Let’s not jump straight to the answer, but rather start by analyzing the question in more depth.

Imagine you’re part of a committee undertaking this task. Between yourself and your fellow committee members, you have expertise in business and fundraising and technical coaching and motivational coaching and whatever else might be needed.

See the next post for an overview of the current ice situation in the US, how it is, or isn’t, organized at a national level.

With this in mind, would it make more sense to introduce new initiatives from the top down or the bottom up?

If the goal is to get more already-mid-level competitors in training ready to compete with the best in the world, where do you start?

If the goal is to make figure skating accessible to a broader base of young beginners in hopes that some of them will demonstrate elite potential and then give those skaters the resources they need to realize that potential, where would you start?

If the goal is increase participation in figure skating in all disciplines at all levels, where would you start?

If the answer involves a complete overhaul of how coaches teach on a daily basis, would this be best addressed through USFS or the Professional Skater’s Association or both or by somehow combining them?

 

[gkelly]

There are thousands of rinks spread across the US that offer some sort of skating instruction at beginner levels or beyond.

Rinks might be municipal or county owned and operated; private for-profit; owned by figure skating clubs or country clubs/ multisport clubs.

Some are seasonal (often outdoor) rinks open only a few months a year.

Many have only one (usually NFL-sized) ice surface. Some have two ice surfaces, maybe one NFL and one Olympic sized. A few have multiple ice sheets.

The location might be sparsely or densely populated. There might be a significant affluent population in the area, or primarily more modest income, rarely in poorer neighborhoods.

Public skating times and rentals to hockey groups tend to be more profitable. Figure skating ice times often lose money for the rinks, especially with few enough skaters on the ice to be productive for high-level competitors, let alone safe for dance teams or especially pairs.

Most users prefer late afternoon/early evening and weekend ice times. If those attractive times mostly go to public skating and beginner lessons, hockey teams and figure skaters will need to apportion early mornings, middle-of-the-work/school-day, and later evening (or rarely overnight) ice times.

At a training center with multiple ice surfaces, or the rare rink owned by a figure skating club, it may be possible to offer figure skating times at desirable times every day. At most rinks, serious training means adjusting one’s schooling and/or sleep schedule to work around the available training times.

At some rinks, skaters pay the rink directly for ice time. At others, the only figure skating ice time available is purchased from the rink by the local skating club, and skaters pay through the club.

Coaches for group lessons are often hired directly through the rink, sometimes through a skating club, and the skaters pay the rink or club for classes. Private lesson skaters usually pay the coaches directly and the rink or club takes a percentage or a fee for use of the ice as independent contractors.

What works best at a one-surface rink with a smaller skating population will not be the same as what would work best at a multi-surface training center.

Talented skaters might take up the sport young at any of these types of rinks. How well they can develop that talent depends on what’s available to them in terms of ice times that fit with their family’s location, schedule, and finances, and also the quality of coaching available. Not every rink or club has the means to produce elite competitors, but some elite skaters do start out at more modest local rinks and then move or commute elsewhere once they commit to an elite track.

Clubs are run mostly by volunteer members (former skaters including officials, adult skaters, and parents). Each club tries to make decisions that meet the needs of their members, but in a club with diverse membership some members’ needs might be served better than others’.

USFS has some basic rules and more suggestions about club organization and governance, but they don’t oversee the daily operation of member clubs.

They have even less input to how rinks run their businesses.

Some rinks have no connection to USFS at all, but offer group and private instruction in affiliation with Ice Skating Institute, or their own brand of group lessons.

Most now use the Learn to Skate USA curriculum endorsed by USFS, USA Hockey, and US Speedskating.

A skater who completes the Learn to Skate Freeskating or Ice Dance classes would be ready to join USFS and to start testing and then competing in the standard USFS test and competition tracks. There can be some overlap between these specialty “advanced” Learn to Skate classes and the “Introductory” standard competition levels.

At higher levels beginning with Pre-Preliminary/Preliminary, any group lesson curriculum or academy-style training offered would be developed by one or more coaches at a given rink/club to meet the needs of their skating population, maybe to try to attract new populations to the sport and grow their coaching business. In some cases the initiative might start with a club who would then look to hire appropriate coaches.

USFS decisions are primarily made by committees of very active volunteers who have been involved with skating for most of their lives. Local clubs have some input by sending representatives to Governing Council; local club members may also volunteer for national committees.

USFS technical committees set standards for testing and for competition at developmental levels – for standard junior and senior competitions they follow ISU rules exactly. Test and competition requirements are designed to encourage development of good technique. Which techniques are prioritized may change as international rules and standards change, and judging standards in different parts of the country may vary somewhat.

USFS has requirements coaches must comply with in order to coach at USFS-sponsored and USFS club-sponsored events including on club ice time. Clubs are responsible for enforcing compliance at the local level. Individual clubs may have additional requirements for coaches using their ice time or participating in their activities.

Coaching on rink ice time/as a rink employee would be subject to rink rules.

Coach professional technical certification is through the Professional Skater’s Association. USFS requires membership to coach at USFS events, and USFS and PSA often work together in implementing changes to the testing structure, etc.

But historically USFS has never had any input on how coaches teach skills – only on what skills should be taught and how proficiently the skaters need to execute them to pass tests. Even at comparable levels of expertise, different coaches will have different pedagogical styles, which wise coaches may then vary to accommodate different skaters’ learning styles or skating goals.

 

[Spun Silver]

On the theory that outside of the box thinking from outsiders can occasionally be useful I'm just going to throw out a couple of suggestions, at least one of which I'm sure will inspire you to many more questions, @gkelly :

--To get more mid-skill skaters to commit to continuing to the elite ranks, increase prize moneys at every possible level. From what I recall, prize moneys in FS internationally are a total joke. FWIW, a lot of donors would enjoy supporting something so concrete as this.

--To get more children into figure skating, period, figure out some way to link skating to the public schools. Don't ask me how but there has to be a way, maybe via synchro... but then we need a path from synchro to the other disciplines of figure skating.

--To identify special talents in the young, use a scout system with scholarships. I'm sure such systems are hit and miss but they are used in many sports and also in ballet. Scholarships would be another donor-attractive idea.

OK, bring on the Qs although I doubt I will be able to answer any of them.

 

[gkelly]

--To get more mid-skill skaters to commit to continuing to the elite ranks, increase prize moneys at every possible level. From what I recall, prize moneys in FS internationally are a total joke. FWIW, a lot of donors would enjoy supporting something so concrete as this.

There is no prize money at US domestic competitions. (There is team envelope funding for elite skaters based on placement at Nationals and beyond, but most mid-level skaters will never even get close to it.)

If you want donors to introduce previously nonexistent financial incentives in the qualifying system, would it be more effective to give large(ish) lump sum prizes to the sectional or national medalists at juvenile-senior level?

Nothing the ISU does will have any direct effect on lower levels within the US.

--To get more children into figure skating, period, figure out some way to link skating to the public schools. Don't ask me how but there has to be a way,

It's not feasible to make skating available to all students in all public schools because not all schools are located anywhere near a rink.

But for those that are, it would be great to develop programs to offer an introductory skating class as part of PE or a school-based club.

Any school that has a hockey team could certainly sponsor a figure skating team as well.

Expanding the USFS high school skating program could be a way to keep more teen skaters involved and to get more late starters involved.

But to develop elite skaters, they have to start skating and commit to intense training well before high school.

An elementary or middle school can't offer that kind of training. Getting elementary schools to take kids on one-time trips to public sessions with some beginning instruction offered could get some kids to consider taking up the sport at a young enough age to get to higher levels. But the actual training for the higher levels wouldn't be through the school. Unless it's a private school with a figure skating program like Shattuck-St. Mary's.

maybe via synchro... but then we need a path from synchro to the other disciplines of figure skating.

Synchro probably isn't a path into serious singles/pairs/dance competition. It could be a thing in itself that would flourish more if more schools and colleges fielded varsity teams.

--To identify special talents in the young, use a scout system with scholarships. I'm sure such systems are hit and miss but they are used in many sports and also in ballet. Scholarships would be another donor-attractive idea.

If you can get hundreds of thousands (or millions) of dollars from donors, maybe there would be a way to make large need-based grants to talented skaters who have reached a level where they have to increase their expenditures significantly to make further progress. Around double axel level for singles.

The problem is that that point often comes a year or a couple years before the major growth spurts -- after which genetics might dictate that the skating (or at least jumping) talent has already maxed out.

And some of the skaters will lose interest or develop career-ending injuries, regardless of post-growth-spurt body type.

So some of those promising kids who look like they could make great progress if they just had more funding will end up not delivering on the early promise even if their financial struggles are solved.

Will donors be happy if they invest in individual promising juveniles who never make it to novice much less senior level?

Scholarships to training centers might be useful. And training centers that mix group instruction with individual lessons might provide more bang for the buck than a private lesson-only approach (which could be necessary in locations where there's only one serious skater at that level).

But for young skaters who need to relocate, with at least one parent joining them, even covering all training expenses would not completely eliminate the added expense of having a serious competitor in the family.

Would it be more effective to choose a handful of talented but financially strapped skaters to give five-figure funding each year? Or to spread the wealth with smaller grants to more individuals, enough to serve as incentives and ease some of the financial burden but not enough cover all the necessary training expenses?

 

[AxelAnnie]

It is such a circular question. At the end of the day, the kid has to want it more than anything, and the parents be willing to mortgage their homes to support their kid. There is no "fair" here.
To take from a commercial the world distributes greatness evenly but it does not distribute opportunity equally.

It will never be "fair". It is serendipitous. And take an enormous amount of hard work and sacrifice.

 

[Brenda_Bottems]

- Eliminate bronze and pewter medals at all levels. The "everyone is a winner" mentality is the cancer of today's society.

- Teach school figures at all levels and make them a segment of the competition at national championships. This will not only make our skaters more competitive,but increase intrigue.

- No participation trophies. Sink or swim.

- Fire Johnny and Tara. With these two entitled millennials as the face of the sport,it's no wonder interest is plummeting.

Trust me,implement these suggestions and success will follow. When can I be anointed leader of the task force?

-BB

 

[Spun Silver]

There is no prize money at US domestic competitions. (There is team envelope funding for elite skaters based on placement at Nationals and beyond, but most mid-level skaters will never even get close to it.)

If you want donors to introduce previously nonexistent financial incentives in the qualifying system, would it be more effective to give large(ish) lump sum prizes to the sectional or national medalists at juvenile-senior level?

Both. Nationals, absolutely. But for motivation, sectionals are key too. It shouldn't be an obstacle if not every section can match the same level of prize money. Anything is better than nothing.

It's not feasible to make skating available to all students in all public schools because not all schools are located anywhere near a rink.

But for those that are, it would be great to develop programs to offer an introductory skating class as part of PE or a school-based club.

Any school that has a hockey team could certainly sponsor a figure skating team as well.

Expanding the USFS high school skating program could be a way to keep more teen skaters involved and to get more late starters involved.

But to develop elite skaters, they have to start skating and commit to intense training well before high school.

An elementary or middle school can't offer that kind of training. Getting elementary schools to take kids on one-time trips to public sessions with some beginning instruction offered could get some kids to consider taking up the sport at a young enough age to get to higher levels. But the actual training for the higher levels wouldn't be through the school. Unless it's a private school with a figure skating program like Shattuck-St. Mary's.



Synchro probably isn't a path into serious singles/pairs/dance competition. It could be a thing in itself that would flourish more if more schools and colleges fielded varsity teams.

But what about pre-synchro teams at the elementary school level? If that got more kids to keep skating after their first exposure or lessons, it might lead some to singles skating in time to build competitive skills.

If you can get hundreds of thousands (or millions) of dollars from donors, maybe there would be a way to make large need-based grants to talented skaters who have reached a level where they have to increase their expenditures significantly to make further progress. Around double axel level for singles.

The problem is that that point often comes a year or a couple years before the major growth spurts -- after which genetics might dictate that the skating (or at least jumping) talent has already maxed out.

And some of the skaters will lose interest or develop career-ending injuries, regardless of post-growth-spurt body type.

So some of those promising kids who look like they could make great progress if they just had more funding will end up not delivering on the early promise even if their financial struggles are solved.

Will donors be happy if they invest in individual promising juveniles who never make it to novice much less senior level?

Scholarships to training centers might be useful. And training centers that mix group instruction with individual lessons might provide more bang for the buck than a private lesson-only approach (which could be necessary in locations where there's only one serious skater at that level).

But for young skaters who need to relocate, with at least one parent joining them, even covering all training expenses would not completely eliminate the added expense of having a serious competitor in the family.

Would it be more effective to choose a handful of talented but financially strapped skaters to give five-figure funding each year? Or to spread the wealth with smaller grants to more individuals, enough to serve as incentives and ease some of the financial burden but not enough cover all the necessary training expenses?

I do think that in principle, donors can be found for almost any sort of training program that has a good argument behind it and celebrity advocates, like, say, Kristi Yamaguchi or Brian Boitano, who believe in it and will help raise funds for it. Nothing is guaranteed in sports or ballet... I remember when Violette Verdy came scouting to my little ballet school, and the one pupil she picked for an SAB scholarship (to everyone's surprise -- her potential was not that obvious to others) had zero interest in relocating to NYC or in ballet as a career ... but the School of American Ballet and the various ballet competitions go on year after year.

As for whether it is best to provide big support to a few or more modest support to many, I think the latter would be more popular and create more excitement. Skater families would still be pressured and strapped, but at least some of them would feel that they were part of something purposeful and that they were "chosen ones" in some sort of national feeder system. That could keep some kids going for a few more years, IMO.

 

[Spun Silver]

It is such a circular question. At the end of the day, the kid has to want it more than anything, and the parents be willing to mortgage their homes to support their kid. There is no "fair" here.
To take from a commercial the world distributes greatness evenly but it does not distribute opportunity equally.

It will never be "fair". It is serendipitous. And take an enormous amount of hard work and sacrifice.

I completely agree with you, but don't you think that the more kids actually learn to skate and keep at it for a while, the more are likely to catch that desire? It is contagious, to some extent.

 

[AxelAnnie]

I completely agree with you, but don't you think that the more kids actually learn to skate and keep at it for a while, the more are likely to catch that desire? It is contagious, to some extent.

I don't know. It seems logical....bigger talent pool, more participation. I think, though, that it doesn't really work that way. At some point, early on I would think, it will be apparent that this kid is special. This kid has it. Then a special process starts. Better coach, better programs, higher competitions, harder elements. I think a kid would have to tap into all that pretty early on, or they are kind of lost competing against the other kids their age.

At the higher levels, you have to give up a normal life (at least to some degree.) I remember Frank Caroll or Mr. Kwan telling Michelle that if she moved into the dorms and tried to do normal college, her skating would suffer. And it did.

 

[concorde]

There needs to be 4 separate pipelines structures, one for each discipline. The singles male and female pipelines do not need to be the same.

Given the men's current international results, I believe their current pipeline is working so there is no reason to change it.

The current pipeline is broken for the ladies due to the different variables - numbers of participants and puberty hits female skaters much harder than the male skaters. With the current system, the USFS has too few ladies in its basket and the odds are stacked against those few.

 

[gkelly]

Any suggestions for what could be done differently to help the ladies?

 

[concorde]

Any suggestions for what could be done differently to help the ladies?

Still pondering that.

 

[concorde]

It's not feasible to make skating available to all students in all public schools because not all schools are located anywhere near a rink.

Exactly! The Washington Capitals "rents" their practice ice from Arlington County, Virginia.

Arlington County has in its elementary school curriculum at least one visit to that rink (I'm not sure of the specifics because I live one county over). The glitch is that between the Caps practices and County oriented events, there is only minimal freestyle ice during the winter months.

While "make skating available to all students in all public schools" is sounds great, it may have the opposite effect to why it tends to be advocated.

 

[concorde]

Would it be more effective to choose a handful of talented but financially strapped skaters to give five-figure funding each year? Or to spread the wealth with smaller grants to more individuals, enough to serve as incentives and ease some of the financial burden but not enough cover all the necessary training expenses?

I think the answer depends on whether the skater is male or female.

With males, I think that giving the money to the handful of talented but financially strapped skaters is probably a good idea. If you watch the young male skaters over time (Nathan, Vincent), you see same guys at the top year after year.

With ladies, yeah you see the some at the top year after year but you also see "newbies" breaking in later and those "newbie" tend to be better in the long run. For instance Bradie, Starr and Ting (before that Gracie) have been good year in, year out but they have not been at the top year in, year out. So for the ladies, spreading the wealth is probably a better bet.

 

[concorde]

Sorry but I disagree with most of BB's suggestions and here is why.

- Eliminate bronze and pewter medals at all levels. The "everyone is a winner" mentality is the cancer of today's society.

Once skaters move out of "no test" (way before the IJS scoring system), group size increases. Ten + skaters in a small summer competition is common. Medals are something to strive for (think incentive) and getting rid of half the places takes away incentives. Even with 4 medals per event, the majority of skaters will go away with nothing.

- Teach school figures at all levels and make them a segment of the competition at national championships. This will not only make our skaters more competitive,but increase intrigue.

Figures use a different set of muscles than those required for jumping. Add figures and the jumps will get worst. Skaters may get prettier but their technical content will go down, hence the US will lose even more ground.

- No participation trophies. Sink or swim.

To the best of my knowledge, ice skating does not give them so this is moot.
My skater has been skating for 10 years. She had never received a participation trophy in skating.
The only time I have ever seen trophies given out is when a skater WINS an event and that only happens at certain competitions.

- Fire Johnny and Tara. With these two entitled millennials as the face of the sport,it's no wonder interest is plummeting.

Disagree. Young skaters LOVE Johnny (not so sure about Tara). We went to Skate America a year ago and Johnny had the longest autograph line by far.

 

[concorde]

At the lower levels, there is a typical progression of learning jumps. From the double axel on, all bets are off as to when jumps are learned (if ever). Typically a double axel is learned first and the triple sal comes next but there are exceptions. The next jump learned depends on whether the skater is an edge or a toe jumper. For this reason, group lesson at the higher levels are hard because each skater progresses at their own rate (even more so than with singles and doubles). The time between getting new jumps becomes greater and greater so motivation tends to go down.

Each year skating puts more demands (time and money) on the skating family. As one coach told me, reaching Novice is HUGH accomplishment regardless of the actual scores.

I think the current system needs to figure out a better way to better develop those mid-level skaters. Only certain parents/kids are willing to get up early and devote the training time (i.e., minimal time off so forget vacation a couple time a year) and those mid-level skaters have shown they are willing to do it.

My suggestion is for our group to focus on how to keep those 12-16 years old motivated to continue in skating as well as how to help families pay those bills.

 

[Tak]

This is very interesting topic. Perhaps it may be informative to look at national systems which apparently manage to produce results, at this moment.

Around 1990, JSF (Japan Skating Federation), while happy with results they were getting from Midori Ito initiated investigation of national figure skating organizations which consistently produced world standard skaters. They found that North American infrastructure (all year skating rinks) were so numerous, number of skating population were so many, it was considered that it was not possible to emulate. On the other hand, European and Soviet systems had far fewer rinks but still were competitive, albeit in limited disciplines.

The key component imported from Soviets, was "Get 'em early, get 'em young" concept. JSF initiated "New Talent Discovery Seminar", a week long event for Novice and early Junior Skaters. This invitation only seminar invites the best skaters and tests physical, psychological aptitude and creativity. The highest scoring skaters are given priority in funding and novice and junior international competitions. The first inductees included skaters such as Shizuka and Fumie. This program was important in securing talented skaters from other sports such as Swimming (Shizuka) or Gymnastics (Kihira).

More recent development was necessitated by private ice rinks closing. The closing of Kyoto rink truncated the career of many Coach Hamada's students. Certain universities built all year skating rinks to support skating programs, such as Kansai U. (Osaka, currently three coaching teams share the ice time including Ms Hamada's team) and Chukyo U. (Nagoya). University level support also exist in other forms, such as one of the best private University in Japan, Waseda, has granted entrance based on exceptional international skating results. This college level tie-up is critically important in assuring skaters of "Future Career Path".

It is suggested, second one half in jest, that USFSA consider the following:

1. Make Figure Skating Collegiate Sport
It used to be that Figure Skating offered numerous career opportunities outside of college education in the USA. This is unfortunately no longer valid. Skaters and families who support them would appreciate having clear "Career Path".

2. Make lower level skating "Reality TV"
Dancers and singers are darlings of reality TV. If you can create "So you think you can skate!" reality TV show, this will serve dual purpose. Obviously attracting competitors to shine on national TV, and more importantly to inform the audience what current judging system is all about. We need to have a commentator (Uncle Dick character of 1980s), at the end of the skating program declare to the competitor, "Your Axels and loops were good but both Lutz and flip were under-rotated! And your PE and INT should be only 4.5!"

 

[concorde]

Interesting that the JSF and I both targeted the same group (Novices). JPF also added early Juniors which is not a bad idea. What I also thought it is interesting is that JSF is offering a week-long seminars (i.e., camps) to these top skaters. USFS does offer some camps for skaters (Jump On it and several PCS oriented camps) but these are only weekend camps vs. JSF's week long camps. Adding 3 days to a camp does not seem like much but I think the "real" difference would be HUGE for those skaters attending. The question is who gets invited to attend these invitation-only camps.

Where I think the Russian Federation gets it right is they target not only skills but also ages of skaters. In Russia, there seems to be a focus on age (birth year) whereas in the US, the focus seems to be on level. Let's face it, an older skater should be better than a younger skater; however, in the US, we are treating them all as equals at the same level. To prove my point - why is there such a fuss over Alysa Liu? It is not only because she doing all the tricks, it is because she is a just turned 13 year old doing all the tricks. I think we all recognize that age makes play a role in developing skater but the USFS system does not take that into account. Quick - who are the top 10 13-years old (birth year 2005) in the country? Not sure if anyone knows beyond Alysa being #1.

Continuing with the age focus, I think the US levels (age wise) need to be structured the same as IJS ages. Did you know that the IJS birthday cutoff is July 1 but USFS uses September 1? Why does the US not switch their cut-off date? Not sure how many skaters are affected but its seems like a simple thing to align.

Back to levels and age. It really makes no sense for a 13 year old to skate as a Senior at Nationals if he/she cannot be sent to Senior IJS events. Starting next year, I think only age eligible skaters should be skating at both Junior and Senior Nationals. That would limit Juniors to 13-18 year olds and Seniors to 15+ (ages would be of July 1 of the previous years). Since USFS determines who will get their JGP slots, this will not penalize a skater that turns 13 for the following season.