ISU Singles & Pairs Scale of Values, Levels, and GOE guidelines for 2019-20 season

overedge

G.O.A.T.
Messages
26,895
I believe a good portion of the argument behind adding the elements was to make ice dance less subjective & easier to judge.
It was, but I don't agree with the argument :p

IMO it's just as easy to judge unison and deep, solid edges as it is to judge spins or any of the other gimmicks the ISU added into ice dance. Changing the judging system or the program requirements doesn't address the central problem, which is the ISU not having any meaningful way to punish judges who are biased, and/or the ISU not having the will to crack down on poor judging. It doesn't matter what the judging system is if the people using it are flawed.
 

VGThuy

Well-Known Member
Messages
30,213
Ice dance would be easier to judge if the ISU took out all the pairs-like moves and athletic tricks, and encouraged simpler programs that really emphasized edges, matching lines, musicality, and creativity. Like this https://youtu.be/GWO4eG_EwG8?t=37
I'm afraid if we do that, we'll have no movement in standings and it'll all just go back to judging by reputation and politicking. One upside is that we'll probably get some really beautiful routines like in the 1989-1992 Olympic cycle which probably had the most creativity and probably freedom. The downside is that a lot of great teams will feel like nothing they can do will improve their rankings without those more objective athletic elements to sort of offset the reputation power. Also, and I hate to say it, but those more athletic "tricks" help better justify ice dance as an Olympic sport. I notice that a lot less people questioned ice dance as a sport and it was one of the biggest hits on social media at the last Olympics. It also makes it more accessible as it gives audiences elements to look for and to evaluate for themselves to compare teams, i.e. twizzles.

One reason people sort of liked it last Olympic cycle when so many teams were so close to one another for third (and for second in the 15-16 and even first for the 14-15 season) was that those more tangible elements to judge were crucial and if teams failed to nail their levels or execute well they could have been dropped no matter how much the judges liked them. Of course there was still protocol rankings and hierarchies but a lot of it was balanced by callers dinging elements causing some surprise rankings. Also, if a team kept hitting their levels and received high BV on TES, they were able to much more quickly gain reputation, even within a single season and place higher than teams that had beaten them by a few places in the GPF or GP event. A lot of things that happened last Olympic cycle was sort of unprecedented and it was thanks to TES and teams hitting their elements.
 

overedge

G.O.A.T.
Messages
26,895
@VIETgrlTerifa the elements are more visible but IMO they are no less easy to judge than edges, unison and timing. They may be even more difficult to judge because of all the factors that have to be assessed, e.g. features, length of time, quality of execution. And don't forget that judges now have the technical caller to provide some of that information. Pre-IJS judges had a referee and that was it, but that doesn't mean the criteria were more difficult to assess.

And as I said, if judges want to cheat, they will try to find a way to cheat no matter what the judging system is. If judges are being biased, then the effective way to deal with that is by addressing the judges' behaviour, not tweaking the marking. The ISU has done nothing substantial to deal with poor judging.
 

Sylvia

Wishing I could go back to the Lake Placid JGP
Messages
60,484
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 3)

Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information