ISU Congress & elections 2022

[Andrea82]

It is like 2018. To hurry up, they go for voting on blocks of proposals. And it becomes unclear (even to them) what they are voting for.
And they have to recover from last night's party. Check the Iceland delegate (Maria Fortescue) IG stories for that. Don't watch them immediately before lunch, you have been warned.

 

[On My Own]

I still don't get why the step sequence in the junior LPs was removed though. What is the point?

 

[Orm Irian]

I still don't get why the step sequence in the junior LPs was removed though. What is the point?

If I had to guess, it would be because the kids already do a step sequence in the SP and there's no difference in StSq requirements between the SP and the FS, so why not give them a chance to develop their ChSq skills before they hit seniors instead?

At least if they're doing ChSqs from Juniors, we might see stronger edge skills and spirals developing across the cohort, and fewer 0.3-second skids masquerading as choreo sequences.

 

[ShuPa]

repeatedly!!!!! this should not be this hard!!!!! And now, I'm really hoping, like you, that this PCS proposal passes, if only because the Hanyu fans will melt down and then leave the live chat.

You were rightfully getting roasted by many people in the live chat - not just by Yuzu fans but also by International Figure Skating Magazine, for example. Some of your comments were totally unnecessary.

 

[On My Own]

I wouldn't say a bunch of people who couldn't understand what was being written and don't understand how they come across as count as people who've "roasted" anyone.

 

[On My Own]

It is like 2018. To hurry up, they go for voting on blocks of proposals. And it becomes unclear (even to them) what they are voting for.

But from 2018, I don't recall them going back to discuss some individual proposals, in case they wanted to remove them from the bundle. That was new here. I think I prefer it this way, provided they've discussed the benefits of the rest of the proposals in the bundle behind the scenes. And, of course, provided they actually know they're voting for the bundle and aren't just as confused as the viewers. If you're there to vote on proposals, you should have done research and taken the time to formulate your opinion beforehand, anyway. So to save time, it makes sense to vote them in as bundles, and then bring up the controversial ones as objections afterwards.

If I had to guess, it would be because the kids already do a step sequence in the SP and there's no difference in StSq requirements between the SP and the FS, so why not give them a chance to develop their ChSq skills before they hit seniors instead?

At least if they're doing ChSqs from Juniors, we might see stronger edge skills and spirals developing across the cohort, and fewer 0.3-second skids masquerading as choreo sequences.

But I think two step sequences in one competition (ideally choreographed differently) would do more to hone choreography delivery and performance and skating skills, though... I don't really see how this promotes better ChSq skills, because they can still just do split second moves. Trying to achieve StSq4 meant you still needed to do hard requirements to get there, meaning there would be more practice. Personally, I think they should have dropped a jump from the junior LP, and let them perform a ChSq instead (ideally a SpSq for junior girls and a second step sequence for junior boys), while keeping the existing StSq.

 

[allezfred]

I'm kind of looking forward to the week-long meltdown on twitter if this one passes.

Et voilà!

https://twitter.com/x/status/1534835048805019649

 

[Deleted member 221]

I'll probably be sorry I asked, but.... 1) WTF is the context behind that tweet? It's like someone is speaking in tongues. 2) Why are the Fanyus so upset?

 

[allezfred]

I'll probably be sorry I asked, but.... 1) WTF is the context behind that tweet? It's like someone is speaking in tongues. 2) Why are the Fanyus so upset?

1) I$U HATES HANYU
2) See above

 

[On My Own]

1) WTF is the context behind that tweet? It's like someone is speaking in tongues.

What's happening in Phuket? - This is happening in Phuket https://www.instagram.com/stories/arizakarian/2856201049770264278/

What's the goal you're trying to achieve? - To party like there's no tomorrow.

I await explanations, many explanations - Sorry, but no, what happens in Phuket stays in Phuket.

Let's not kill it, but let's try to save it - There's no saving you after five mimosas.

Max Ambesi is just jealous.

 

[victorskid]

I'll probably be sorry I asked, but.... 1) WTF is the context behind that tweet? It's like someone is speaking in tongues. 2) Why are the Fanyus so upset?

I'm not sure if the following will help not just in relation to the tweet but the whole situation...

When the part of the meeting regarding the technical rules began the Vice-President proposed two approaches to the voting - instead of voting proposal by proposal there could be one vote to accept everything on four votes - one for the package of "general" proposals (applied to all disciplines); one vote on the package of "singles & pairs" proposals; one vote on the package of "ice dance" proposals; and a final vote on the package of "synchro" proposals. It was unanimously agreed to go the four votes route.

They then moved to the general technical rules proposals.

The proposal (#201) about the change from 5 to 3 "program components" was apparently much discussed in the workshop earlier in the Congress. Following the workshop there were some wording amendments made and these were presented to the group as one part of the proposals for the voting (meaning that they were no longer looking at a proposal with lines and lines of scored through words). They were put up on slides by the Technical Committee. Delegates were encouraged to "take pictures" of the revised wording put up.

Remember, that particular amended proposal was one of several continued to be part of a "general package" of technical rule proposals (as they applied to all disciplines) and it had already been unanimously agreed to have a single vote on the general package. However, Finland then asked to have that proposal removed from the general package for a separate vote. This caused a very large "kerfuffle". It was determined that, legally, if Finland's intervention was accepted (by vote), it would automatically result in the rejection of the full general package. There was much "to-ing and fro-ing", legal opinions expressed, and then some discussion on the PCs "issues" was permitted before voting on the Finland intervention.

During this "discussion", from the intervention of the Japan Federation representative, there seemed to be a lot of concern about the interests of not just the skaters and coaches but the fans (and perhaps even sponsors) related to the removal of certain explicit words from what I would call the streamlined wording - examples were provided. I presume those words were considered sacrosanct by some??? There were assurances that the concepts remained and it was intended to simplify the task of the judges within the available time.

When the vote was finally taken, there were at least three explanations of what "yes", "no", and "abstain" meant and the result was more than a 2/3 majority voting "yes" to reject Finland's intervention which meant that the full general package of proposals was accepted, including the "5 to 3" proposal. There was much applause. I presume that the Japanese Federation was one of the few voting "no".

Then, after that, just to throw the "cat amongst the pigeons", Boris Chait got up and wanted one of the other proposals within the general package to be discussed and voted separately - it had to do with the # of pairs and ice dance couples at Worlds, as I recall. He was told that it was already part of a much larger Worlds "operational" proposal (#161 ?) agreed by the full Congress already. He kept rabbiting on and talked about this being a disservice, especially to small federations, blah, blah, but finally sat down.

At that point I went to bed! Apparently the other 3 packages of proposals were less problematic and the remainder of the meeting went much more smoothly!!

***

Not much of this is reflected in the press release on the Day 4 activities which just mentions the approvals of the "packages": https://isu.org/isu-news/news/145-n...ngress-2022-phuket-tha-day-4?templateParam=15



P.S. I have stayed well clear of the ISU "chat channel" throughout all of this!

 

[Karen-W]

You were rightfully getting roasted by many people in the live chat - not just by Yuzu fans but also by International Figure Skating Magazine, for example. Some of your comments were totally unnecessary.

Nothing that I said in the live chat was inappropriate. There are limitations to the live chat, such as the character limit, and not much nuanced conversation. The Fanyus have a well-deserved reputation for being Johnny-come-lately fans of just one skater and do not understand that new stars will emerge once Hanyu retires. It isn't rude or inappropriate to point out that their relative youth and lack of awareness of the sport's rich history over decades before Hanyu arrived on the scene, starting with Sonja Henie going to Hollywood and making movies once she stopped competing, and continuing right up through Yuna Kim, has generated passionate fans and followers and brought a lot of money into the sport. Additionally, many of those "fans" have been spamming the live chat of every single session of the Congress.

Some of the gems from the live chat included some spammers (Korean fans) who thought Jia Shin was robbed at Jr Worlds and that Ilia Malinin didn't deserve to win... I was thoroughly amused when a few level-headed people pointed out that Jia and Ilia weren't even competing against each other. And then they started in on how Sotnikova was the most undeserving Olympic champion ever, but Eteri's girls are fine. I really hope that most of these bot-like fans will disappear from the live chat now that the major questions have been decided and the sport has been ruined forever in their vaunted opinions.

As far as IFS Magazine is concerned... are they a legitimate, credentialed media outlet? I know that question can be mistaken as definitely dismissive, but it is an honest one because I'm unfamiliar with them or their status as a source of skating news and anyone can create a social media handle that presents the appearance of being a knowledgeable, legitimate media outlet when they aren't that at all. There were comments from IFS Magazine over the last several days in the live chat which make me question if they are anymore legitimate than TSL.

I'll probably be sorry I asked, but.... 1) WTF is the context behind that tweet? It's like someone is speaking in tongues. 2) Why are the Fanyus so upset?

1) the PCS categories being reduced to 3 will "KILL" the sport and lead to empty programs with no transitions or difficulty... ice jumping vs figure skating in their esteemed opinions. 2) Transitions being gone, mostly. They certainly weren't bitching up a storm about aspects of the Interpretation category being merged into the re-defined Performance and Composition categories. Basically, the PCS category which they think should rule the sport is now gone, and their fave will lose whatever edge he had, and they'll be DONE with skating themselves. To them, I say "good riddance." But, anyone here knows that I'm not a fan of super-packed programs that don't have much real purpose to the choreography or relation to the music, so I'm fine with Transitions being merged into both of the newly re-defined Composition and Skating Skills categories.

 

[mella]

I'm not sure if the following will help...

When the part of the meeting regarding the technical rules began the Vice-President proposed two approaches to the voting - instead of voting proposal by proposal there could be one vote to accept everything on four votes - one for the package general proposals (applied to all disciplines); one vote on the package of "singles & pairs" proposals; one vote on the package of "ice dance" proposals; and a final vote on the package of "synchro" proposals. It was unanimously agreed to go the four votes route.

They then moved to the general technical rules proposals.

The proposal (#201) about the change from 5 to 3 "program components" was apparently much discussed in the workshop earlier in the Congress. Following the workshop there were some wording amendments made and these were presented to the group as one part of the proposals for the voting (meaning that they were no longer looking at a proposal with lines and lines of scored through words). They were put up on slides by the Technical Committee. Delegates were encouraged to "take pictures" of the revised wording put up.

Remember, that particular amended proposal was one of several continued to be part of a "general package" of technical rule proposals (as they applied to all disciplines) and it had already been unanimously agreed to have a single vote on the general package. However, Finland then asked to have that proposal removed from the general package for a separate vote. This caused a very large "kerfuffle". It was determined that, legally, if Finland's intervention was accepted (by vote), it would automatically result in the rejection of the full general package. There was much "to-ing and fro-ing", legal opinions expressed, and then some discussion on the PCs "issues" was permitted before voting on the Finland intervention.

During this "discussion", from the intervention of the Japan Federation representative, there seemed to be a lot of concern about the interests of not just the skaters and coaches but the fans (and perhaps even sponsors) related to the removal of certain explicit words from what I would call the streamlined wording - examples were provided. I presume those words were considered sacrosanct by some??? There were assurances that the concepts remained and it was intended to simplify the task of the judges within the available time.

When the vote was finally taken, there were at least three explanations of what "yes", "no", and "abstain" meant and the result was more than a 2/3 majority voting "yes" to reject Finland's intervention which meant that the full general package of proposals was accepted, including the "5 to 3" proposal. There was much applause. I presume that the Japanese Federation was one of the few voting "no".

Then, after that, just to throw the "cat amongst the pigeons", Boris Chait got up and wanted one of the other proposals within the general package to be discussed and voted separately - it had to do with the # of pairs and ice dance couples at Worlds, as I recall. He was told that it was already part of a much larger Worlds "operational" proposal (#161 ?) agreed by the full Congress already. He kept rabbiting on and talked about this being a disservice, especially to small federations, blah, blah, but finally sat down.

At that point I went to bed! Apparently the other 3 packages of proposals were less problematic and the remainder of the meeting went much more smoothly!!

***

Not much of this is reflected in the press release on the Day 4 activities which just mentions the approvals of the "packages": https://isu.org/isu-news/news/145-n...ngress-2022-phuket-tha-day-4?templateParam=15



P.S. I have stayed well clear of the ISU "chat channel" throughout all of this!

Good grief. There is an organisation in the UK called Led by Donkeys. They should have a follow of this nonsense.

 

[Karen-W]

Good grief. There is an organisation in the UK called Led by Donkeys. They should have a follow of this nonsense.

It was absolutely painful to watch in real time. I think the 2nd day of the Congress, my main observation was that the Chair of the session in question (Djikema and/or Lakernik) certainly needs to learn the judicious use of a gavel to preside over a meeting.

And don't even get @Dai's Blues for Klook or I started again on just how incompetent these folks seem to be with using a basic electronic voting system that they've already been using for several days. It should NOT take people three or four times to know what to input for a basic roll call vote to determine the simple and 2/3 majority numbers.

 

[Miezekatze]

I don't see why reducing the PCS to 3 will kill the sport when under the 6.0 system there was only one score for the "artistic stuff" and most of the time the points in the 5 PCS categories barely every really differed for a skater anyway.

 

[LeafOnTheWind]

I was going to watch the replay but won't now thanks to the excellent summaries provided by those who watched the whole painful thing live.

 

[victorskid]

By the way, the three categories of program components are now defined as:

• composition;
• presentation; and
• skating skills.

 

[Karen-W]

Then, after that, just to throw the "cat amongst the pigeons", Boris Chait got up and wanted one of the other proposals within the general package to be discussed and voted separately - it had to do with the # of pairs and ice dance couples at Worlds, as I recall. He was told that it was already part of a much larger Worlds "operational" proposal (#161 ?) agreed by the full Congress already. He kept rabbiting on and talked about this being a disservice, especially to small federations, blah, blah, but finally sat down.

He was objecting to the reduction of the pairs and dance teams that make the FS at Worlds to just 4 warm-up groups (16 & 20). He made some legitimate, valid points - and he tried to make them when they were discussing 161 the day before, but was told that he could challenge 205 when they came to the technical rules discussion, IIRC. I think his concern is a fair one, and it does negatively impact pairs and dance more than singles.

At that point I went to bed! Apparently the other 3 packages of proposals were less problematic and the remainder of the meeting went much more smoothly!!

Yes, it did. Very fast and they were done by 12:40pm local time, so the morning session only ran 10 minutes over the scheduled time and they got the afternoon off, lol.

One significant note for Synchro - they've approved the creation/addition of the Elite 12 category for international competition, with this being the one they intend on developing for Olympic inclusion.

 

[VGThuy]

I’m so glad they got rid of transitions in PCS. I don’t like empty programs either but that one element in figure skating has evolved into a monster in past 16 years and it was the one thing a certain fanbase kept going on and on about because it was the one PCS category they thought their fave had an advantage over his competitors. I think we can encourage fuller programs without going crazy. Of course, we still have it in GOE where wimpy jumps with questionable entrance edges but with lots of transitions can outscore a high quality huge jump.

 

[Ena Grins]

I don't see why reducing the PCS to 3 will kill the sport when under the 6.0 system there was only one score for the "artistic stuff" and most of the time the points in the 5 PCS categories barely every really differed for a skater anyway.

This is where I am. If the 5 PCS categories were being applied correctly, we could have this discussion, but they weren't. I have mixed feelings about the change - I think you could have much more specific criteria for evaluating each of the components - but TBH I'm glad the transitions category is gone. It's been consistently evaluated as "more transitions = better" and fans have latched onto that too even though it was supposed to also capture quality and intentionality of transitions.

It's weird to me how some fans are framing THIS change as the death of figure skating. How long have we had 5 components? A little less than 20 years? 5 arbitrary and poorly-defined categories with a lot of overlap were keeping the "figure" in figure skating? I think it's more that fans are losing the things they can point to as evidence of underscoring/overscoring.

 

[On My Own]

I don’t like empty programs either but that one element in figure skating has evolved into a monster in past 16 years and it was the one thing a certain fanbase kept going on and on about because it was the one PCS category they thought their fave had an advantage over his competitors.

Well so did the Russian girl stans. The rhetoric of how no one will care about skating when he/Russian girls are gone is the same too. Tells you a lot. Also, "16 years" of this monstrosity, the reminder just made me want to vomit.

And yes, totally agree that I'd take a giant jump over a supposedly difficult entry into a puny jump any day.

 

[Trillian]

It's weird to me how some fans are framing THIS change as the death of figure skating. How long have we had 5 components? A little less than 20 years? 5 arbitrary and poorly-defined categories with a lot of overlap were keeping the "figure" in figure skating? I think it's more that fans are losing the things they can point to as evidence of underscoring/overscoring.

One thing I would guess from seeing the conversations elsewhere online is that a lot of these fans are really, really young. They don’t remember anything before the last 5-10 years.

I have to laugh, though, because when I was a teenage skatefan spouting off all kinds of opinions back in the ‘90s, I tried really hard to learn about the history of the sport. I was digging for VHS tapes of performances that happened before I was born, or too young to remember. The younger fans now can watch videos of everything that’s ever happened, but a lot of them don’t bother because they’re shaping their worldviews around one single skater.

 

[victorskid]

He was objecting to the reduction of the pairs and dance teams that make the FS at Worlds to just 4 warm-up groups (16 & 20). He made some legitimate, valid points - and he tried to make them when they were discussing 161 the day before, but was told that he could challenge 205 when they came to the technical rules discussion, IIRC. I think his concern is a fair one, and it does negatively impact pairs and dance more than singles.

So, Boris should have "done a Finland" and stood up earlier and moved for the removal of #205 from the "general package" or, at least, raised it in the discussion before the vote on the Finland intervention was taken. By standing up after that vote, which accepted the full general package, he was "out of order".

Once the delegates unanimously accepted the "four votes approach", debate on specific proposals within any of the four packages was effectively stymied. As one delegate said, voting in favour of Finland's intervention on the general package would have "thrown the baby out with the bathwater".

 

[On My Own]

So, Boris should have "done a Finland" and stood up earlier and moved for the removal of #205 from the "general package" or, at least, raised it in the discussion before the vote on the Finland intervention was taken. By standing up after that vote, which accepted the full general package, he was "out of order".

Actually, there was a vote on removing 205 from the package, but not an "official" one, I guess? It was just some of the delegates raising their cards, but not everyone. And then Lakernik said he'd have a look, but wouldn't be promising anything.

https://youtu.be/Zd2tf-HwoYM?t=12469

 

[gkelly]

I’m so glad they got rid of transitions in PCS. I don’t like empty programs either but that one element in figure skating has evolved into a monster in past 16 years and it was the one thing a certain fanbase kept going on and on about because it was the one PCS category they thought their fave had an advantage over his competitors. I think we can encourage fuller programs without going crazy. Of course, we still have it in GOE where wimpy jumps with questionable entrance edges but with lots of transitions can outscore a high quality huge jump.

"steps before the jump, unexpected or creative entry" is only one bullet point, and not one of the mandatory ones. There's nothing specific in the GOE guidelines about transitions out of a jump -- they could be rewarded in "good take-off and landing" if well performed, but if the takeoff is questionable then that bullet point should not be awarded. The highest a wimpy jump (I assume by this you mean "not large") with questionable entrance edge and transitions before (and after) should earn would be +3, and only if it were also effortless, had good body position, and/or matched the music, at least two of those three plus the preceding steps.

A high-quality huge jump might earn only +2 if judges don't think it's effortless or doesn't have a very good body position. But if not, it wouldn't be highest quality, just probably higher than the wimpy one with the transitions and questionable edge. If it really is very high quality, that would imply that it does look effortless and does have a good body position, in which case it could earn +4 (or +5 if it also matches the music), which the wimpy one cannot.


Regarding PCS, I'm expecting even less difference between highest and lowest components for each program, when there are only three components to work with and strongest or weakest aspects may cancel each other out if they're considered under the same one of those three.

 

[victorskid]

Actually, there was a vote on removing 205 from the package, but not an "official" one, I guess? It was just some of the delegates raising their cards, but not everyone. And then Lakernik said he'd have a look, but wouldn't be promising anything.

https://youtu.be/Zd2tf-HwoYM?t=12469

As I understood the "resolution of the situation", it is very complicated in relation to the acceptance of #161 (the days/time available/schedules) but, in the actual operationalization of #161, they will have a look at this issue.

 

[Deleted member 221]

I'm not sure if the following will help not just in relation to the tweet but the whole situation...

Bless you for typing this out. I never would've gotten it otherwise. Truly ridiculous / truth is stranger than fiction .

 

[VGThuy]

"steps before the jump, unexpected or creative entry" is only one bullet point, and not one of the mandatory ones. There's nothing specific in the GOE guidelines about transitions out of a jump -- they could be rewarded in "good take-off and landing" if well performed, but if the takeoff is questionable then that bullet point should not be awarded. The highest a wimpy jump (I assume by this you mean "not large") with questionable entrance edge and transitions before (and after) should earn would be +3, and only if it were also effortless, had good body position, and/or matched the music, at least two of those three plus the preceding steps.

A high-quality huge jump might earn only +2 if judges don't think it's effortless or doesn't have a very good body position. But if not, it wouldn't be highest quality, just probably higher than the wimpy one with the transitions and questionable edge. If it really is very high quality, that would imply that it does look effortless and does have a good body position, in which case it could earn +4 (or +5 if it also matches the music), which the wimpy one cannot.


Regarding PCS, I'm expecting even less difference between highest and lowest components for each program, when there are only three components to work with and strongest or weakest aspects may cancel each other out if they're considered under the same one of those three.

The thing is you’re talking about how the system should be implemented, which may have been fine, but we know how it was used in practice. It became all about “more” is better and you see it in the protocols and you see it in many videos where jumps are compared and you see what scores those jumps actually received. Accuse some of the vid makers of bias but a lot of them were actually eye-opening and not in a good way. Bad application of the rules may still exist as that seems to be a problem with the judging but I do think ridding transitions from PCS will re-condition some of the mentality that has evolved.

 

[Coco]

I still say they should have stripped all 'performance' aspects from GOE bullets, leaving them purely technical, then had the Tech panel assess GOE, leaving the judges to focus on big picture aspects. Oh, well.

 

[MacMadame]

As far as IFS Magazine is concerned... are they a legitimate, credentialed media outlet?

They are. They used to publish a paper magazine back in the day (and I think a yearly skating calendar?). They have been around at least since the 90s and probably before that. They would be considered old school media who made the transition to online.

However, they have had financial issues and almost gone under in the past so I would not be surprised if the people running their online presence now are mostly unpaid volunteers. I do think the quality of what they put out has gone down.

it was the one thing a certain fanbase kept going on and on about because it was the one PCS category they thought their fave had an advantage over his competitors.

Even though he doesn't.

It's weird to me how some fans are framing THIS change as the death of figure skating. How long have we had 5 components? A little less than 20 years? 5 arbitrary and poorly-defined categories with a lot of overlap were keeping the "figure" in figure skating? I think it's more that fans are losing the things they can point to as evidence of underscoring/overscoring.

Also, people hate change.


I do have to come to the defense of the delegates not being able to follow what is going on. Having been to Governing Council and also on a committee where Robert's Rules of Order were used to manipulate the outcome, I would say that most people aren't familiar with how they work much at all. Also, in a big room like that, not everyone can hear and it can be hard to follow the conversation, especially if the people running the meeting are rushing things. Add in that not everyone there speaks English fluently and you are going to have these "what are we doing?" moments.

That doesn't mean that there aren't clueless people there who after you vote say things like "what did we just vote on?" because you will. But for a lot of people, they are normally competent but are being undone by the circumstances.

What they should have done is present the packages and ask if anyone wanted to pull an item from them out for discussion and separate voting. Then vote on the remaining items as a block. That's what most organizations do with their consent calendar so it would be a concept people are familiar with. By voting to make the blocks first, they locked in all the items. I am sure people didn't understand that they couldn't pull items when they made that vote because they are used to being able to do that. And whoever was running the meeting might have known that and did it this way on purpose.