Repeating Programs - Pros and Cons

skylark said:

Not this Ashley fan.

But other than that .... I agree emphatically with your last sentence. Ashley would be getting so much vilification if she'd chosen to repeat two programs that the whole forum would be sagging with the weight of it.

Just goes to show.

Click to expand...

100%. Even when Ashley repeated Moulin Rouge, people were hating on her for it.

I wouldn't mind Ashley repeating both her programs from the 2015-2016 season bec she's so good at interpretation that I wouldn't put it past her to be more than capable to pull it off (her FS at Worlds '16 gave me goosebumps regardless of the UR calls unclear edges), but if there's anyone I have faith in to capture La La Land, it would be her. Given how concussions have been a problem in the past for Ashley, I'd completely understand. Everyone has their reasons why they choose the programs they do.

I think if people were a lot more understanding for these hardworking people, we'd learn to be more appreciative of their contribution to the sport.

I think the risk is higher when you repeat a program that was well-loved and skated to its max (or near max) potential,. For ex, I just watched Shoma's new Nessun Dorma SP and was frankly less than impressed with the program and music cuts. Initially when I heard he was repeating it, I was actually happy b/c it's one of my favorite men's programs. However, I think the original music cuts gave it good balance (the quick part in the middle was perfect for showing off his footwork), and his cantilever at the end was just to die for. However, his new program doesn't have either of these, which I get- he doesn't want to repeat the same exact program. But sometimes, the original is just better. I'm hoping that since it's an ice show, the actual competitive program will look better.

Same goes for Yuzuru's Seimei. I am hoping I like the new version as much as the old version...

FCSSp4 said:

I wouldn't mind Ashley repeating both her programs from the 2015-2016 season bec she's so good at interpretation that I wouldn't put it past her to be more than capable to pull it off (her FS at Worlds '16 gave me goosebumps regardless of the UR calls unclear edges), but if there's anyone I have faith in to capture La La Land, it would be her.

Click to expand...

:2thumbs: I think folks who focus on little dings are missing the beauty and virtuosity of her interpretation, her musical nuances, her use of drama, and the emotional resonance she creates with her audiences. The good news is that the judges, international as well as US, do recognize and reward all those things, when she executes the elements in the way she's capable of doing.

And La La Land! It was smart of the other top ladies in the field to steer away from LLL after she'd announced for it. She can pull it off. In case someone who's interested hasn't seen it, here's Jackie Wong's feature of Shae-Lynne and Ashley, making of LLL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9u5Q1Xok1y4&t=23s

Given how concussions have been a problem in the past for Ashley, I'd completely understand. Everyone has their reasons why they choose the programs they do.... I think if people were a lot more understanding for these hardworking people, we'd learn to be more appreciative of their contribution to the sport.

Click to expand...

And perhaps more appreciative of what each skater contributes. Evgenia brings her own set of beauties and strengths; Ashley brings her own set of beauties and strengths. The beauty of it is, Evgenia and Ashley have both said what they admire about each other.

CanadianSkaterGuy said:

100%. Even when Ashley repeated Moulin Rouge, people were hating on her for it.

Click to expand...

I like it and I don't mind her repeating it. It was a good program which I prefer over her program last season. Frankly I don't want to say this but Wagner isn't a World and Olympic champion to get much hates and exposure. Because she isn't the No1 in the ladies. Or how should I put this: the bigger your name is, the bigger criticism and expectation.

Figure Skating is a sport that is also called 'Patinage Artistique' in French, which literally means 'Artistic Skating'. Some of the greatest performances in the history of the sport came to be because they have reached artistic new heights beyond just a technical routine. They may not win their deserved accolades, but they are among the greatest performances that out last time, being celebrated through repeat viewing and improves the popularity of the sport. More than anything, they have also shaped the sport in some way.

I don't think it is asking too much for the judges simply give credits where credit is due, to reward artistic efforts and artistic difficulty properly as they would do to a technical one.

As it currently stands. There is clearly more PRO and little or no CONs under the current COP system. It doesn't mean there's nothing wrong with PCS judging trends/criteria as they are, and I hope it gets fixed/improved. I don't think you need to go as far as to create a separate competition to make artistic competition, but simply acknowledge the sport is historically also an artistic one, and therefore a balanced approach is needed to reward those who wish to compete through developing better/best programs or develop better artistry while also fulfilling the technical requirements. The best of everything requires a balance of EVERYTHING.

As for skaters continues to fail in PCS when their brave experiments don't work as well the first time, it part of the risks of 'experimentation', but a lot I'd argue also has to do with the inadequacy of judging system, human limitations and cognitive latency effects, when it can take a while for judges to reward the right program for it, and it is an area the judging system needs to some how address which is not an easy thing to do.

By the way, I hope I am not alone finding the COP guide for PCS explanation wholly inadequate, these guide might as well have been written by a software engineer!! No wonder judges don't really follow or execute according to how they 'should' or 'described', and we often look back at these protocols vs actual performances completely befuddled.

The reality is that many Judges simply don't have enough time, the care, or perhaps even have the capacity to take it all in otherwise how else can you explain the homogenize scoring that implies apathy and group thinking rather than any careful analytical breakdown of the 5 separate program components? Why do we feign that they are 5 separate categories when they are practically always aligned with little difference within the program themselves or even the competitors, other than according to their technical ranking/reputation/political components.

I bet if ISU bothers to improve how PCS are judged, rewarded with care and attention, the audience will soon be rewarded for greater efforts from the skaters realise some genuinely great artistic programs that can grow the sport. As the way the things are, there's simply no 'point' to put in the effort, especially when you are already a top ranked skaters who is getting high 9s in the components. Those who bothers are sabotaged and failed by the scoring system.

Qualities that are most prized in art include
- originality
- creativity
- authenticity
- risk taking (something new, or outside the comfort zone)
- experimentation
- transcendence (exceed oneself, beyond one self, reaching new heights. Technical brilliance can also a form of transcendence, not just an artistic one)

Art has nothing to do with perpetuating popularity, mass consensus or being entertaining (depends on the concept of the program), but it just has to answer to itself. Why it came to be, how it got there and was it successful in delivering these original vision as intended. It should always reward less for copies, mass manufactured, templated, tried and tested formulaic routines.

OS said:

Figure Skating is a sport that is also called 'Patinage Artistique' in French, which literally means 'Artistic Skating'.

Click to expand...

My impression of what this has meant to figure skating officials over the decades is more that they considered ideal skating to be aesthetically pleasing to watch -- sometimes within a pretty narrow range of possible artistic choices.

By the later years of 6.0 judging, the Presentation criteria were:

a) harmonious composition of the program as a whole and its conformity with the music chosen; b) variation of speed;

c) utilization of the ice surface;

d) easy movement and sureness in time to the music;

e) carriage and style;

f) originality;

g) expression of the character of the music;

h) unison (pairs).

Click to expand...

Nothing about authenticity, risk taking, or transcendence there.

If you look at the 6.0 judging criteria on the Skate Canada website and scroll down to the explanation of EASY MOVEMENT AND SURENESS IN TIME TO THE MUSIC for freeskates, it says

Everything angular, violent or stiff shall be avoided. The impression shall be given that the entire program is executed with ease. The high points in the program should be placed to coincide with the high points in the music. Rhythm and easy movements to the music shall be observed.

Click to expand...

I don't know what year that explanation was written. I think more recently we have seen some choreography in which angular and violent movements have been intentionally chosen and performed with control as authentic and creative artistic choices. But at some point the skating Powers That Be either couldn't conceive of why a skater would choose to move in those ways and thought such movements could only result from poor technique, or they felt that demonstrating smooth controlled movement was important enough to denigrate contrasting choices, or they were trying to impose a specific range of artistic meanings on the sport and to exclude others. Your guess is as good as mine.

Going back further, in a 1960 USFSA rulebook I've seen excerpts from, the equivalent of the "Artistic Impression" or "Presentation" score was then called "Manner of Performance" and gave very explicit descriptions of how various body parts should be held, but made no reference to music or originality. I'd almost think these descriptions were written for school figures only, except that the last criterion states "There should be no visible strong effort and the impression should be given that the entire program is executed with ease."

Male skaters from the 1970s and earlier have stated that they were advised verbally (if not in actually rules) not to raise their arms above their waists or shoulders because that was considered too feminine. But some, such as Toller Cranston and John Curry, had their own artistic visions that were outside the sport's ideal, and by introducing their own styles were able to expand the possibilities for the sport as a whole.

In general, I think that a minority of artistically minded skaters have pushed the artistic boundaries, and the rules have only slowly caught up over the years and raised the bar for what's expected.

The concept of a "skating choreographer" was still pretty new in the 1980s. Often just coaches put together the programs, whether they had any off-ice artistic training or not.

Sure, many judges especially those with outside artistic interests felt they recognized artistic qualities such as you list when they saw them and rewarded them when they did, as is also true under IJS.

But in general, historically, I'd say that a minority of skaters with artistic aspirations have pushed the possibilities of the medium, including within the rules of competitive programs. Sometimes they have been rewarded for those innovations and sometimes penalized.

Some of the greatest performances in the history of the sport came to be because they have reached artistic new heights beyond just a technical routine. They may not win a medal on the day, but they are among the greatest performances that out last time, being celebrated through repeat viewing and improves the popularity of the sport. More than anything, they have also shaped the sport in some way.

Click to expand...

Very true.

A handful of great artistic skaters who were also strong technicians and athletes have won big titles on the strength of their artistry combined with other assets, sometimes ahead of skaters with more difficulty or athleticism.

The ones who could do it all and win the big titles are the ones the most people remember.

And sometimes there have been great artistic performances by skaters who didn't win gold or any other medals because they were much stronger artistically than technically/athletically.

Along with some thrilling technical tour de forces that have excited audiences and won titles with only average artistry by the standards of the day.

But most of the time, most skaters in an event are just trying to get the best mix of technical content executed with the best technical quality and performance quality they can muster. When I watch most competitions all the way through, not just the medalists, from most eras, I see a lot of flawed performances and a lot of boring programs, in some cases peppered with a few interesting and meaningful choreographic ideas.

But getting the technical skills executed almost always seems to take precedence no matter the scoring system.

(Ice dance has sometimes been an exception)

I don't think it is asking too much for the judges simply give credits where credit is due, to reward artistic efforts and artistic difficulty properly as they would do to a technical one.

Click to expand...

To do so, you'd have to 1) get the ISU to agree on what constitutes artistic efforts or difficulty that should be rewarded and how to reward it "properly," 2) establish guidelines and wherever possible enforceable rules, 3) train the judging community in general to recognize qualities that rely on knowledge from outside the sport.

As far as I know, judging training never included any specific artistic education, aside from some international seminars about aesthetics to help judges with program components under IJS.

By the way, I hope I am not alone finding the COP guide for PCS explanation wholly inadequate, these guide might as well have been written by a software engineer!! No wonder judges don't really follow or execute according to how they 'should' or 'described', and we often look back at these protocols vs actual performances completely befuddled.

Click to expand...

It is hard to write rules or guidelines to standardized rewards for aspects of performance that are purely qualitative, often culturally dependent, and therefore subjective and to turn them into consistent numerical scores.

And then to train the judges from different cultures, different generations, with different educational/professional/recreational backgrounds that may include significant or moderate or next to know arts training, and in different art forms. A judge who is a professional or serious amateur musician or dancer or painter, or one with a graduate degree in an artistic or philosophy of arts field will bring very different understanding to the process than a judge whose day job as a doctor or software engineer, combined with family and skating commitments, hasn't left much time for artistic pursuits.

The one thing all skating judges have in common is that they know skating technique. It's a lot easier to get them all on the same page there than it is for extra-skating considerations.

Why do we feign that they are 5 separate categories when they are practically always aligned with little difference within the program themselves or even the competitors, other than according to their technical ranking/reputation/political components.

Click to expand...

At a minimum, it's certainly useful to separate Skating Skills and the technical aspects of Transitions scoring from the more artistic components.

I also think it's useful to give judges the option of reflecting significant differences in the different areas of performance when relevant. But the system is far from perfect, so if you have specific practical suggestions for improving how these areas could better be scored, please share.

Art has nothing to do with perpetuating popularity, mass consensus or being entertaining (depends on the concept of the program), but it just has to answer to itself. Why it came to be, how it got there and was it successful in delivering these original vision as intended. It should always reward less for copies, mass manufactured, templated, tried and tested formulaic routines.

Click to expand...

I don't think these are meaningful standards to apply to a sporting contest.

And to get back to the subject of this thread: I don't think it is possible to develop a fair and consistent standard for defining and penalizing what constitutes "repeating" a program. It would take another long post or several to outline the potential pitfalls, some of which have already been touched on earlier in the thread.

Do we or do we not want judges to consider anything about each skater's performance other than the performance in front of them on that day?

These days a program, no matter how innovative, becomes old really fast because of the internet. Just a decade or two ago, fans got to watch whatever got shown on television, usually just the top skaters in a couple of major events each year, if they could catch it. These days they can watch each and every competition performance of the season, not to mention repeat viewing with online videos, whether voluntarily for enjoyment or as references for online debates. Music become warhorses easily because every use by every skater gets watched, not just when it's used by the top skaters.

I doubt judges watch as much as hardcore fans which is a main reason they watch practices at competition to familiarize themselves with the programs. As well, they are supposed to judge only what happens in front of them when it happens, not past performances.

All in all, fans have become blasé and also extremely demanding. They are hard to impress or please with all the technical difficulty and artistry the skaters train so hard to achieve and impossible to bring it every single time they perform. Programs are already repetitious and far from fresh before the season is over. Repeating a program in a new season? There better be compelling reasons.

Violet Bliss said:

These days a program, no matter how innovative, becomes old really fast because of the internet. Just a decade or two ago, fans got to watch whatever got shown on television, usually just the top skaters in a couple of major events each year, if they could catch it. These days they can watch each and every competition performance of the season, not to mention repeat viewing with online videos, whether voluntarily for enjoyment or as references for online debates. Music become warhorses easily because every use by every skater gets watched, not just when it's used by the top skaters.

I doubt judges watch as much as hardcore fans which is a main reason they watch practices at competition to familiarize themselves with the programs. As well, they are supposed to judge only what happens in front of them when it happens, not past performances.

All in all, fans have become blasé and also extremely demanding. They are hard to impress or please with all the technical difficulty and artistry the skaters train so hard to achieve and impossible to bring it every single time they perform. Programs are already repetitious and far from fresh before the season is over. Repeating a program in a new season? There better be compelling reasons.

Click to expand...

You make excellent points...but the conclusion for a skater would/ should be, forget trying to please the fans who are so demanding. Competing with a new program or an old program has got to make sense to ME, the skater, and further my chances of winning or being comfortable expressing myself and jumping consistently during times of high-stress and pressure. If fans like it, that's great, if not, too bad.

Interspectator said:

You make excellent points...but the conclusion for a skater would/ should be, forget trying to please the fans who are so demanding. Competing with a new program or an old program has got to make sense to ME, the skater, and further my chances of winning or being comfortable expressing myself and jumping consistently during times of high-stress and pressure. If fans like it, that great. If not, too bad.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Regardless of fans' perspectives, skaters have pragmatic considerations when choosing between scoring points with the judges and meeting the impossible demands of general fans. Most can still bet on the support of their hardcore fans nonetheless.

Violet Bliss said:

These days a program, no matter how innovative, becomes old really fast because of the internet. Just a decade or two ago, fans got to watch whatever got shown on television, usually just the top skaters in a couple of major events each year, if they could catch it. These days they can watch each and every competition performance of the season, not to mention repeat viewing with online videos, whether voluntarily for enjoyment or as references for online debates. Music become warhorses easily because every use by every skater gets watched, not just when it's used by the top skaters.

Click to expand...

Excellent points.

I doubt judges watch as much as hardcore fans

Click to expand...

As much what?

I too doubt that judges spend as many hours per year as hardcore fans watching international medal performances because they have little reason to watch the same performances over and over again.

But a busy judge could easily spend as many hours per year watching skating at all levels that they judge. Which could mean hearing many more programs to the same warhorses. Just not the same one from the top skater multiple times.

Ender said:

I like it and I don't mind her repeating it. It was a good program which I prefer over her program last season. Frankly I don't want to say this but Wagner isn't a World and Olympic champion to get much hates and exposure. Because she isn't the No1 in the ladies. Or how should I put this: the bigger your name is, the bigger criticism and expectation.

Click to expand...

Ashley is a big name, and has had big expectations. Miyahara has big expectations, Radionova, Osmond, etc. You don't have to be a World or Olympic champion to have a target on your back. I think not everyone is a fan of Wagner's realness and outspokenness, and because she doesn't fit certain people's standards of what a figure skater should be... so these people look for every excuse to hate on her, including repeating programs -- but then they'll give their favourite skaters a pass for doing the same.

CanadianSkaterGuy said:

Ashley is a big name, and has had big expectations. Miyahara has big expectations, Radionova, Osmond, etc. You don't have to be a World or Olympic champion to have a target on your back. I think not everyone is a fan of Wagner's realness and outspokenness, and because she doesn't fit certain people's standards of what a figure skater should be... so these people look for every excuse to hate on her, including repeating programs -- but then they'll give their favourite skaters a pass for doing the same.

Click to expand...

I think most people who are not fans of Wagner don't care if she repeats her programs or not (including me).

MaiKatze said:

I don't know if it's a language issue, or we're just having a fundamentally different understanding of the sport, but I'll opt out of this discussion now and say, let's agree to disagree. I stand by what I wrote, and your points and argument make no logical sense to me. Just think of me as simple-minded and let go. :giveup:

Click to expand...

I think this is more of the part. No problem, there is always two side of a coin.

As I stand by mine, your points doesn't make sense to me either but like you said after several discussion it's obvious our understanding is very different, let's agree to disagree.

And there's no right or wrong in this so you don't have to feel you need to put down yourself, you seems to take offend with "simple minded" as you keep repeating that in your replies so I just wanted to be clear that when I mention "simple mindedness" it is referring to majority of people's tendencies to take light of things. So if you feel insulted with that word when I used it then I'm sorry because it is by no means a personal attack to you but more to referring in general.

Good day to you :agree:

It is hardly demanding, but about rewarding artistic efforts/successes proportionally as the COP intended but are not followed through during judging practice. It is no accident how today's programs came to be, not because the skaters/teams are incapable of developing good artistry, but because they are not rewarded nearly enough when they reach the top. Artistry should be organic that involves actual thought process and development (intellectual and emotional), not some instant coffee.

GKelly's excellent explanations of how things came to indicate to me there lies the conflict. Any competition, that's are governed by an institutionalised prescription on what constitutes as 'good artistry' without at least acknowledge the true nature of the arts should be free, encouraging, progressive and innovative beyond craftsmanship will inevitably fail and becoming outdated. Different styles of choreography and unfamiliar music, unsteady rhythms, stepping out of the comfort zone are innovative AND difficult compared to one that is that has been optimising for technical delivery within the skater's comfort zone. Certain types of music edit and choreography ARE more difficult to express with the required elements, are these taken into account? It is not just how you do, but also what you do.

To me, Hanyu delivering a successful new program like Javier's Malagueña artistically deserve higher PCS than Hanyu doing Chopin for the 3rd time or Javier doing Malagueña for the 3rd time, however brilliant their efforts might have been the first time.

Javier delivering a new program like Patrick's Elegie / A journey successfully (full of subtlety, finesse, sensitivity, effortless and seamless glides, musicality) also deserve higher PCS than Javier doing Malaguena / Black Betty for the 3rd time, or Patrick repeat his program for the 3rd time however brilliant they might have been the first time.

In fact, I'd argue Hanyu's Chopin was brilliant because it is an excellent answer to Patrick's Elegie. It is about stepping outside his comfort zone and rise above himself developing something new, showcase new aspects to his skating that he deserves the accolades not just his technical bravado.

Why not instead of sticking with a guideline and suggest all judges follow them (when they rarely do), simply appoint the best class team of experts (paid independents to remove from political pressure) who ARE capable of distinct and analyse the 5 categories of the programs with real in-depth opinion and knowledge of the sport/skater history, and have them judge at the elite level only (WC, Olympics, GP series). Specialists rather than generalists, who are capable of justifying why they mark the way they did verbally even if they don't always agree among themselves.

Again, the penalty idea was suggested due to the way PCS is capped at 100, and the minuscule difference hardly reflects the different artistic merits that they are designed to reward but rarely followed. Unlike under TES where risks, difficulty, successes can actually fluctuate up and down massively over a competition. PCS values rarely ever come down, and there's no room at the top to reward the skaters, so why should they bother putting in any effort rather than secure their technical delivery and not lose points?

I would even go as far as to say under the current judging trends if the same said high ranked skater gets to perform their easiest and hardest choreographed program in the same season, who want to bet they'd reward practically the same as long as they are able to deliver everything technically? Does this seem right? Do you see the conundrum?

Not sure how to fix this massive loophole of theory vs practice, but there had been discussions of

- adjust factoring for the men's scoring to offset the massive increase in TES with all the quadsmania
- increase the points threshold (1-20)
- Make full use of the range of marks 1-10 at the elite level
- Uncapping PCS
- Some sort of handicap bonuses to those at lower level competitions? Similar to golf?
- Penalty. If there is no room to grow at the top, the score needs to come down to separate the degree of efforts/difficulty/success more

It is about putting the right risk/reward system in place to balance out with the technical while allowing a wider scope of opportunities for the skaters to compete.

To answer your final question. I have always believed the ability to progress, and proven successes are how one should build up PCS over time, by their body of work, experience and how it compares with previous as they are moving forward not backward. PCS should also move up and down to reflect the artistic effort/difficulty with greater degree under a capped system. After Sochi though, I honestly think judges kind of give up looking at the PCS guidelines and fell into their old bad habits to use them as place holders.

skylark said:

:2thumbs: I think folks who focus on little dings are missing the beauty and virtuosity of her interpretation, her musical nuances, her use of drama, and the emotional resonance she creates with her audiences. The good news is that the judges, international as well as US, do recognize and reward all those things, when she executes the elements in the way she's capable of doing.

And La La Land! It was smart of the other top ladies in the field to steer away from LLL after she'd announced for it. She can pull it off. In case someone who's interested hasn't seen it, here's Jackie Wong's feature of Shae-Lynne and Ashley, making of LLL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9u5Q1Xok1y4&t=23s



And perhaps more appreciative of what each skater contributes. Evgenia brings her own set of beauties and strengths; Ashley brings her own set of beauties and strengths. The beauty of it is, Evgenia and Ashley have both said what they admire about each other.

Click to expand...

Ashley also has a positive effect on younger skaters, helping them realize that they don't need to fit a certain mold as a ladies skater. Wakaba Higuchi cites her performances as the ones that impressed her the most and you can tell by how her new programs are looking that she's coming into her own (she even said she would never skate to Swan Lake lol)

Evgenia's contribution to the sport can be seen especially in the juniors where the young girls are either training to backload all their jumps with tanos/rippon or add a quad + 3A to maximize their point potential above backloaded programs. In the end they both push the sport forward.

evasorange said:

I used the word ridiculous in the program discipline thread and I 100 percent stand by that! It is ridiculous,I honestly think it should be against the rules to repeat a program three seaons. one of the main arguments I see in defense of the two repeats is "now it can be done better, we will see a new interpretation" but was anyone on earth really wondering if Seimei and Chopin, programs that broke the world record MULTIPLE times, could be made new and better?! It really exposes how shook Yuzuru must be over the new guys and their endless quads. Obviously as a really big fan I like when Yuzu wins, and I root for him at every competition but I hope he gets some serious pushback this season from the guys who are challenging themselves with new content.

Click to expand...

Well... ridiculous can have positive interpretations too.

https://www.instagram.com/p/BQzCCUUFILI/

OS said:

Figure Skating is a sport that is also called 'Patinage Artistique' in French, which literally means 'Artistic Skating'.

Click to expand...

In my language, the term for figure skating is 'taitoluistelu', which translates roughly as "skill skating" or "skillful skating" (as opposed to 'pikaluistelu', "speed skating").

There's also the old-fashioned and somewhat outdated term for figure skating, 'kaunoluistelu', which could be translated as "beautiful skating" or maybe "aesthetic skating". This term, then, reminds me of what GKelly wrote earlier:

My impression of what this has meant to figure skating officials over the decades is more that they considered ideal skating to be aesthetically pleasing to watch -- sometimes within a pretty narrow range of possible artistic choices.

Click to expand...

So, "artistic skating" and "figure skating" aren't the only ways of naming this thing we're discussing here; the corresponding terms in different languages can have quite different connotations.

(Sorry if this is off-topic, I just thought I'd point this out.)

CanadianSkaterGuy said:

Ashley is a big name, and has had big expectations. Miyahara has big expectations, Radionova, Osmond, etc. You don't have to be a World or Olympic champion to have a target on your back. I think not everyone is a fan of Wagner's realness and outspokenness, and because she doesn't fit certain people's standards of what a figure skater should be... so these people look for every excuse to hate on her, including repeating programs -- but then they'll give their favourite skaters a pass for doing the same.

Click to expand...

:agree:

FCSSp4 said:

Ashley also has a positive effect on younger skaters, helping them realize that they don't need to fit a certain mold as a ladies skater. Wakaba Higuchi cites her performances as the ones that impressed her the most and you can tell by how her new programs are looking that she's coming into her own (she even said she would never skate to Swan Lake lol)

Click to expand...

I didn't know Wakaba had said that. Thanks! And what you said about Ashley helping younger skaters realize they don't need to fit a certain mold is an important aspect of what she contributes to the sport. The Ice Princess stereotype was, or still is, a pretty powerful image, maybe more or less so in different countries.

OS said:

Why not instead of sticking with a guideline and suggest all judges follow them (when they rarely do), simply appoint the best class team of experts (paid independents to remove from political pressure) who ARE capable of distinct and analyse the 5 categories of the programs with real in-depth opinion and knowledge of the sport/skater history, and have them judge at the elite level only (WC, Olympics, GP series). Specialists rather than generalists, who are capable of justifying why they mark the way they did verbally even if they don't always agree among themselves.

Click to expand...

This is an intriguing idea and might be appropriate to try out at those elite levels only, at least to begin with.
I wouldn’t trust any old artist of f the street with judging Skating Skills or probably Transitions.
With some kind of standardized rubric, adapted from the existing component criteria or built from scratch, I could see letting artists with no skating background evaluate what’s currently covered under Performance, Composition, and Interpretation.
I’d think there would need to be some effort to get them all on the same page in terms of some minimum skating knowledge (e.g. regarding clockwise vs. counterclockwise turns and travel patterns).
Should existing judges or former skaters with off-ice artistic backgrounds also be welcome among these specialists?
I’d also think there would be some need to balance panels between arts experts from different art forms, different parts of the world, classical vs. popular traditions.

I would even go as far as to say under the current judging trends if the same said high ranked skater gets to perform their easiest and hardest choreographed program in the same season, who want to bet they'd reward practically the same as long as they are able to deliver everything technically? Does this seem right? Do you see the conundrum?

Click to expand...

How do you define “easiest” and “hardest choreographed”?
Easiest could mean recycled from last year, or finally for the first time adopting a movement style that works best with this skater’s natural movement qualities instead of trying to force them into a more traditionally accepted mode, or including the most demanding contrasts and variety within the same program, or including easier technical elements or easier transitions and basic skating between the elements, etc.
For the definitions of Easier that result in better performance quality, I’d expect higher scores. For definitions that reflect lesser technical challenges, I’d expect lower scores.
Of course it’s possible that balance between quality and technical difficulty would balance out in the judges’ minds to end up with similar final scores for two very different programs.

Not sure how to fix this massive loophole of theory vs practice, but there had been discussions of

- adjust factoring for the men's scoring to offset the massive increase in TES with all the quadsmania
- increase the points threshold (1-20)
- Make full use of the range of marks 1-10 at the elite level
- Uncapping PCS
- Some sort of handicap bonuses to those at lower level competitions? Similar to golf?
- Penalty. If there is no room to grow at the top, the score needs to come down to separate the degree of efforts/difficulty/success more

Click to expand...

The first has already been discussed within the ISU and will probably happen soon.

I want to address the question of using the full range of marks 1-10 at the elite level at some length in a separate post, perhaps in a new thread.
I also want to make another separate post addressing just how one could define “repeating a program” in a meaningful way to create fair ways to penalize it, should there be an agreement that it should be penalized – or alternatively to offer bonuses for expanding one’s own repertoire, which could have a similar effect.

To answer your final question. I have always believed the ability to progress, and proven successes are how one should build up PCS over time, by their body of work, experience and how it compares with previous as they are moving forward not backward.

Click to expand...

So you do think that skaters should be judged on their body of work every time they compete, and not just what they perform that day?

I strongly disagree that would be appropriate within an individual skating competition.
The ISU hasn’t so far been in the business of bestowing official rewards for body of work, beyond nominations and elections to the Hall of Fame. It could certainly be possible to develop official ways to recognize skaters who consistently show innovation or versatility on an artistic level (or on a technical level or in terms of results, or a combination of the above) across the course of a career. But I think that kind of reward should be separate from determinations of who wins this competition today.