Figure skating is the most popular event in the Winter Olympics. Unless the IOC wants to kill the Winter Olympics entirely, figure skating will remain the premiere event regardless of any move to increase the value of artistry. Funny how it managed to survive all of those years, and produce legendary champions, while having a mark for "artistic impression," later changed to presentation.
Future of FS competitions?
- Thread starter chopinskate
- Start date
Figure skating is the most popular event in the Winter Olympics. Unless the IOC wants to kill the Winter Olympics entirely, figure skating will remain the premiere event regardless of any move to increase the value of artistry. Funny how it managed to survive all of those years, and produce legendary champions, while having a mark for "artistic impression," later changed to presentation.
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2014
Yes, it survived, even thrived, in past years. Note the word past. Audiences change, tastes change. While there's a market for ice shows and galas, two places often (not always) focused on the artistic side, more people pay attention to the Olympics than anything else about figure skating and, well, if you look at the sports coming in as new events there's a lot of daredevil moves and quick, easily understood competition while the established sports are seeing events added that focus on mass starts, specialized tricks and relays. Why? Because that adds events without adding athletes and there's the potential for lots of action and unexpected excitement which build crowd enthusiasm. Figure skating would be heading in the opposite direction by upping the art and de-emphasizing the tech, making such a change unlikely to happen. I could see something like the aerial challenge - easy to score, exciting tricks; checks the popular boxes - becoming an added GP/Olympic event, which, as much as I'd find it fun to watch, isn't a direction I'd want for the sport.
Also, as has been pointed out, figure skating relies on funding and promotion it receives from being an Olympic sport. It isn't mainstream enough to survive in today's market as a pro sport, not even in those few countries where it's currently popular. It could exist, but not at the annual multiple international event level we're used to. As for being the most popular Winter Olympic event, that depends. Few people I know in everyday life watched the skating and, among those who did, most of them chose to stream specific skates, usually Canadians who won medals (I live in Canada), after the fact on CBC's website or via YouTube. While it isn't ignored, it isn't that popular a sport all across the country. Hockey and curling were the priorities among people I talked to, followed by snowboarding. I watched more biathlon and short track speed skating as it aired live than I did figure skating. Overall, perhaps figure skating wins out, I haven't looked into viewing numbers, but I suspect it varies by country and even regions within each country.
If the ISU really went ahead with split artistic/technical programs, something I doubt will happen, I don't see it working. Figures disappeared from competition in large part because it lacked excitement; both jump displays and lowered tech programs have the potential to alienate a portion of the audience who would heap praise on their 'perfect' program style, either artistic or technical, while tearing apart the other (and those skaters who excel in it and, worst case scenario, go on to win overall) and everyone else would find something lacking in both halves of competitions. Training and coaching would have to change again, emphasizing different skills without knowing how the result will play to the public. I can't see key national federations supporting such a drastic move but the ISU is a strange beast so who knows what they'll do...
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2014
Well, I didn't claim that it worked
I wouldn't know how to measure whether or not it did :confused2: CoP certainly does some things right and others wrong. I also wouldn't know the "real" motivating factor for implementing CoP, as that would be speculating into the intentions of ISU officials, so I don't see how we'll ever know for sure. But thanks for your interesting take on the matter.
If there is to be a competition where artistry and pleasing audiences take priority over skating technique, I think it needs to be a separate championship event that skaters qualify for separately, on the basis of their artistry and entertainment value in lower-level artistic events. Yes, it could be co-ed. And no, it probably wouldn't belong in the Olympics (but could belong at Worlds, or a separate ISU championship held at a different time and place).
For top sport, I think technique has to take precedence. However, there could be a sport-based program that is designed to value the use of skating techniques including elements in service of artistic effect in distinction to a more technical program that prioritizes difficulty and quality of elements over the holistic impression.
I don't know exactly what the ISU has in mind. I expect they will change their minds about details over the next few years as they try to figure it out.
If they want to change the structure of standard sport skating competitions to have one program that emphasizes technical difficulty and another that emphasizes overall effect, I'd suggest a breakdown something like:
Technical program:
Same as the current Well-Balanced Freeskate rules, with no choreo sequence (and only 6 jump elements total if they want to get it down to 3:30+/-10 seconds). Skating Skills weighted at 2.0 (or 1.6 for ladies and pairs?); other components weighted at 1.0 or 0.8.
"Artistic" program (singles):
*Three multirevolution jump elements including one combination of 2 or 3 jumps
*Two spins, no restrictions/requirements, no levels
*One choreographic step sequence, no levels
*One additional choreographic element, which may be
-a third, contrasting spin
-a second, contrasting step sequence
-a choreographic sequence emphasizing field moves, low-revolution jumps, sliding movements, etc., or any combination thereof
-a "signature" or "choreographic" element that might be a single low-revolution jump variation or a single sustained spiral/spread eagle/etc., or any kind of creative or combination element that doesn't fit elsewhere (e.g., double axel flying sitspin) -- maybe there would no illegal moves so backflips could be allowed to fill this slot
Aside from the jumps, all these elements would start with the same base value (2.0 just for completing it recognizably?), but enough positive GOE would be available that could outweigh higher jump base value.
And then all the program components would have factors of 2.0 or more each and fall deductions could be 2.0 or more.
So a skater who did an old-style short program with successful quads and triple axel for this program could earn a high base value for the jumps, but if they didn't also have high quality/artistry on all the elements plus high scores on all components, they could still end up behind a skater who did have all of that with easier jumps.
And yes, it would be even more important to have detailed guidelines and training for how to evaluate program components for this kind of program, while allowing for flexibility to compare completely different artistic approaches and for each judge to apply their own expert knowledge beyond the common standards, with more precision than just "I liked this one better"
For top sport, I think technique has to take precedence. However, there could be a sport-based program that is designed to value the use of skating techniques including elements in service of artistic effect in distinction to a more technical program that prioritizes difficulty and quality of elements over the holistic impression.
I don't know exactly what the ISU has in mind. I expect they will change their minds about details over the next few years as they try to figure it out.
If they want to change the structure of standard sport skating competitions to have one program that emphasizes technical difficulty and another that emphasizes overall effect, I'd suggest a breakdown something like:
Technical program:
Same as the current Well-Balanced Freeskate rules, with no choreo sequence (and only 6 jump elements total if they want to get it down to 3:30+/-10 seconds). Skating Skills weighted at 2.0 (or 1.6 for ladies and pairs?); other components weighted at 1.0 or 0.8.
"Artistic" program (singles):
*Three multirevolution jump elements including one combination of 2 or 3 jumps
*Two spins, no restrictions/requirements, no levels
*One choreographic step sequence, no levels
*One additional choreographic element, which may be
-a third, contrasting spin
-a second, contrasting step sequence
-a choreographic sequence emphasizing field moves, low-revolution jumps, sliding movements, etc., or any combination thereof
-a "signature" or "choreographic" element that might be a single low-revolution jump variation or a single sustained spiral/spread eagle/etc., or any kind of creative or combination element that doesn't fit elsewhere (e.g., double axel flying sitspin) -- maybe there would no illegal moves so backflips could be allowed to fill this slot
Aside from the jumps, all these elements would start with the same base value (2.0 just for completing it recognizably?), but enough positive GOE would be available that could outweigh higher jump base value.
And then all the program components would have factors of 2.0 or more each and fall deductions could be 2.0 or more.
So a skater who did an old-style short program with successful quads and triple axel for this program could earn a high base value for the jumps, but if they didn't also have high quality/artistry on all the elements plus high scores on all components, they could still end up behind a skater who did have all of that with easier jumps.
And yes, it would be even more important to have detailed guidelines and training for how to evaluate program components for this kind of program, while allowing for flexibility to compare completely different artistic approaches and for each judge to apply their own expert knowledge beyond the common standards, with more precision than just "I liked this one better"
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2014
- Country
-
You raise very good points, and yes, the ideal would be the combination of both artistry and technical. And once I did come back and saw some of those older programs of Patrick's, of course they were wonderful.
And I agree that the Peggy Fleming comp was not the best example. It was the first year and it did not have a wide variety of skaters. Despite his gifts, I'm not convinced Camden Pulkinen is soup yet, and I didn't think his program was all that "artistic" TBH. I love Tim Dolensky and I loved his program, but I may be prejudiced because I went in liking Tim. Anyone with the best headless scratch spin in skating is going to be
for me.But I think your boy has the answer with regard to number of jumps, and now I know why I much prefer Nathan's SPs. I saw Nathan in SOI and I was blown away, he had *performance* skills
But Nathan has spent his whole career developing jumps first and why shouldn't he, that's what the system rewards now. And Nathan is a very intelligent skater.But the old pro circuits were the best, and how do we bring them back? Beats me. Will the excitement of jumps or the excitement of the best headless scratch spin in skating bring back fans? Beats me. I'm not being sarcastic, I really don't know. I did mean it when I said I don't think any one person, most of all including me, has the answer.
I just wish the system rewarded the headless scratch spin equally (ETA: with mo' jumps, mo' revolutions)
One gal's opinion......
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Country
-
Back with more thoughts on my zero-points-for-falls proposal.
The recent World Championship for men comes to mind. The FP was a splatfest (except for Nathan), but skaters still netted points for those falls. I wonder if those falls had counted for zero, would cleaner, more artistic skaters (and I leave it to the individual to define that) have climbed the rankings? To be honest, I don't know, because after skimming the results, I didn't watch most of the programs.
I guess what I'm saying is that the risk-reward factor is not severe enough. There's a big reward for quads, and insufficient penalty for failure.
The recent World Championship for men comes to mind. The FP was a splatfest (except for Nathan), but skaters still netted points for those falls. I wonder if those falls had counted for zero, would cleaner, more artistic skaters (and I leave it to the individual to define that) have climbed the rankings? To be honest, I don't know, because after skimming the results, I didn't watch most of the programs.
I guess what I'm saying is that the risk-reward factor is not severe enough. There's a big reward for quads, and insufficient penalty for failure.
If jumps with falls earned 0 points, then Uno would have lost 17.4 points in the freeskate, and Kolyada would have lost 14.22 (or 13.4 and 12.22 if they don't also get fall deductions).
The former would have made the freeskate standings 7) Uno, 8) Aaron, 9) Messing, 10) Kolyada.
I haven't gone back to figure in the overall results including short program scores with fallen jumps in the SP receiving no credit. It would probably have meant Uno and maybe Kolyada off the podium and Bychenko and maybe Tomono on. Opinions may vary on which of those skaters are "more artistic" -- which is not the same thing as "skated cleaner."
Those would still have been the 2-5 overall finishers, though. (Using factored placements instead of adding scores from both programs would make more of a difference.)
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2015
- Country
-
until figure skating alienates its fans with some weirdo artsy fartsy impossible to comprehend subjective fake sport
then figure skating will lose its importance. i mean audience for curling went from 0 to bananas because it is simple to understand and great for tv with a 2 hour game with lots of breaks for food and bathroom... then the curling federation created mixed doubles with even simpler rules and shorter games... audience grew again... figure skating's audience has been decreasing since the end of the 90s... it's NOT because it is STILL the most popular sport that it will remain that way.
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2003
Too true, that. Toller was not rewarded, except with the love of the audience:agree:, in his own time.
Then again, we do have SPs and no figures, thanks in part to Toller. So who knows what, in my view welcome, changes will come in the future to prize spins and skating skills and footwork and choreo over seven jumps with max revolutions in a program?:hap85:
Maybe I’ll still be around to see it
It's true Toller was ahead of his time and changed men's figure skating by making it "okay" to be expressive and show some artistry, but it was not because of Toller alone that the figures portion was eliminated from competition. Skaters like Trixi Schuba would have a huge lead in figures and then skate a "so so" free skate yet would be awarded first place, of course most fans - especially at home watching on TV did not see her amazing skill at figures so would be perplexed why she won. Eventually with better TV coverage, the Short Program was brought in to attract a wider audience as figures were not that interesting to watch for the average fan.
no matter the format, people want to see a fair judging, which means, judges APPLY the rules and don't look at them as guidelines they can bend as they wish.
Fair judging is not happening right now and won't be happening with a separate artistic and technical program.
So by changing the format, you'll loose part of the old fanbase who liked the old format, while barely winning a new fanbase.
Fair judging is not happening right now and won't be happening with a separate artistic and technical program.
So by changing the format, you'll loose part of the old fanbase who liked the old format, while barely winning a new fanbase.
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2003
This is certainly an interesting idea, but really even artistic skaters have technical abilities. One can never have artistry without learning good basic technical skills. It's the basis of all figure skating. From the first steps taken on the ice a skater must master basic technical skills, stroking, balance, cross cuts - backward and forwards, 3 turns, mohawk (mostly done in ice dance) a basic one foot spin and a basic jump - Waltz jump. Even connecting foot work comes from good technique. Figure Skating has always been an evolving sport with both artistic and technical skaters. It will be interesting to see what the future brings.
However, if the rules allow for gradations of quality, then there will be differences of opinion about where the dividing line is between average and good, or good and very good. One judge making a decision on once side of the line and another judge on the other side doesn't mean that one of them is wrong or is "bending" the rules.
Skating isn't an either/or sport, so you're not going to get clear yes-or-no answers on most of the scores.
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2014
- Country
-
Indeed, why I said "in part". As much as I love Toller, I would argue that Janet Lynn had the most to do with the SP being instituted.
That's why for me it's a little
to see that a renewed stress on the artistic parts of program is seen as something new, or as something less exciting. To me, it's as old as the hills (like me) and decidedly the most exciting.But I understand opinions will vary, that's what creates figure skating boards
What's most exciting to me is to see technical skills used for artistic purposes, adding something extra to the challenge of just executing difficult technique for its own sake. Steps and whole body movements that tell a story or express a theme in complex ways, variations in spin positions and timing to enhance the music and the story/theme, creative movements in and out of elements and creative ways to link elements together all the while keeping up the difficult technical content.
However, we have seen programs in professional competitions or shows or galas that often rely on simpler skating (not just easier elements), relying on nice line and carriage, lyrical phrasing to lyrical music, or flashy elements punctuating highlights in music, facial expression, charismatic connection to the audience or even just star power of known champions doing their best moves, thematic costumes, facial expression and arm movements and posing in place to add up to "artistry."
My fear would be seeing too much of that simplified skating relying on externals rather than real challenges to using the skating vocabulary to create the artistry.
Admittedly, many show programs are put together quickly and not trained with the same rigor as competition programs. It might take a few years for skaters and judges (and official rules/guidelines) to get onto the same page about what should be rewarded in a competitive artistic program. Once it becomes apparent that pretty crossovers to pretty music or getting the audience to clap along with rhythmic music or miming on two feet won't cut it, eventually skaters would figure out what they need to do to win in this format.
However, we have seen programs in professional competitions or shows or galas that often rely on simpler skating (not just easier elements), relying on nice line and carriage, lyrical phrasing to lyrical music, or flashy elements punctuating highlights in music, facial expression, charismatic connection to the audience or even just star power of known champions doing their best moves, thematic costumes, facial expression and arm movements and posing in place to add up to "artistry."
My fear would be seeing too much of that simplified skating relying on externals rather than real challenges to using the skating vocabulary to create the artistry.
Admittedly, many show programs are put together quickly and not trained with the same rigor as competition programs. It might take a few years for skaters and judges (and official rules/guidelines) to get onto the same page about what should be rewarded in a competitive artistic program. Once it becomes apparent that pretty crossovers to pretty music or getting the audience to clap along with rhythmic music or miming on two feet won't cut it, eventually skaters would figure out what they need to do to win in this format.
[/QUOTE]
I don't mean the graduation of personal taste of judges having different ideas of what divides between a good or an excellent element.
I mean judges don't judge fairly or consistently throughout the competition. Or else how can Kozuka's best performance of his career at 2015 world FS receive less PCS than Nam, Brezina, Kovtun et al. at the same competition?
how can this get less PCS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSHLj0g927k&frags=pl%2Cwn
than this:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCAMRSwblGs&frags=pl%2Cwn
is it incompetence, is it bias, who knows, but this is not fair judging and it's very clearly not fair judging.
Or how can savchenko/Massot's masterpiece FS get less PCS than Tarasova/Morozov's 'panties drop'-Fs at Nebelhorn trophy?
How can a judge judge the competitor of their skater 10 points below the average judges score, while giving their own skater 10 points more than the average judge's score?
Fans, especially long-term loyal FS fans notice that these scores are not given fairly. And that is bad for how invested and willing they are to spend to follow the sport.
But of course I think you know what I meant, but I suspect you just wanted to distract from my very valid 'unfair judging' points, just like you started to play semantics with Lorrie Parker not 'placing' Vincent above Hanyu, when the scores she gave added up for Vincent to place higher than Hanyu in the FS.
Anyone who takes notice of your posts knows that you are deeply in favor of unfair judging in figure skating, always brushing the issue off with the excuse of 'subjectivity'.
I am not in favor of unfair judging.
What I am opposed to is fans who focus more on calling out judges whose scores don't match their own opinions.
I'm much more interested in analyzing the actual skating and discussing what kinds of scores might be appropriate for those performances based on the guidelines -- and with the recognition that performances always look different live than on video.
My default is to give everyone the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. That includes judges. I'm fascinated by the process of evaluating skating, and that's where I would prefer to steer discussions.
Yes, national bias exists, often unconsciously. Conscious manipulation does exist too. Without reading judges' minds, it's often hard to tell the difference.
We can't identify bad judging until we first have a good idea of what good judging is. But it seems that many fans prefer to skip straight to looking for wrongdoing. Sometimes I just can't stand the negativity any more and offer an alternative interpretation.
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Country
-
Thank you. That's very interesting.
This is a big ask - but just your gut, in a very off-the-top-of-your head way - would you think that Bychenko and Tomono would be more deserving of the podium at this competition than Uno and Kolyada? Throwing out the CoP, and just going on your "feel."
I know this would just be your subjective opinion, but your opinion happens to be one I value.
As I said previously, I didn't watch the comp live, and only bothered with watching video of very few skaters. So I have no opinion on this one way or the other, and I'm not going to watch those performances now, even for the sake of research and comparison.
until figure skating alienates its fans with some weirdo artsy fartsy impossible to comprehend subjective fake sport
It's the most popular sport at the Winter Olympics. It's not going anywhere no matter how the scoring system is changed.
And no fans were alienated by the artistry of Michelle Kwan, Sasha Cohen, Alexei Yagudin, Brian Boitano, John Curry, Janet Lynn, Peggy Fleming, to name some of the legends who skated under 6.0.
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2017
Yes, this.
They can do artistry as an extra event, if they like, but this just sounds boring.
Wouldn't want to go visit competitions like that.
Similar threads
