"Inevitable" Winners vs. Rule Changes

maya1985 said:

It's strange to think of changing a rule just to disadvantage someone in particular:sarcasm:

Click to expand...

dorispulaski said:

Really? I assure you, the Zayak rule was not made to advantage Elaine Zayak.

Click to expand...

True, it wasn't meant to advantage her. But I don't think it necessarily follows that it was meant to disadvantage her.

I thought the Zayak rule was created because putting 3 or 4 of the same jump in a program is easier, and therefore is an advantage to skaters who do so. As opposed to skaters who train a bigger variety of jumps to place in a like program, such as a free skate. Since training a variety of different jumps is more time- and energy- (mental and physical) consuming than training just one jump. Not to mention it's harder when performing that variety of jumps in competition.

I think the rule change was made to bring the playing field to be more fair. So I agree with maya1985. Same with Katarina Witt.

Skater Boy said:

P/C deserve to win if they skate the best!

Click to expand...

Absolutely. :dance2:

Reading this thread is really interesting and enjoyable ^^

skylark said:

I think the rule change was made to bring the playing field to be more fair.

Click to expand...

That's one way of looking at it and it's not wrong, per se, but if this was the entire intention ISU wouldn't keep fiddling around with what they consider UR and DG, introduce ! and take it out again then put it back in, change spin level requirements constantly, etc. etc. If there were an objective definition of "fair", then the ISU could just settle on that and keep it that way. This is not the case.

ISU adjusts rules and the way judges give points in such a way to encourage skaters to do what the ISU wants them to do and develop the sport in the direction they want it to develop. I'll avoid talking about recent rules and skaters, but for example under 6.0 when men started landing consistent quads, for a while judges and officials would be quite outspoken about how quads couldn't win you competitions. In fact, men with no quads (like Eldredge) did beat men with quads. But then after a while they seemed to have changed their minds, and the quad became a de facto requirement to be a top contender. It wasn't that the rules and judging became more fair or that the playing field became more even, since who's to say what's objectively "fair" -- evening the playing field so even quad-less men can win, or evening the playing field so men doing technically much more difficult jumps shouldn't lose to men choosing to face much lower risk? Both of those options could be considered "fair" depending on how you look at it. It wasn't really about that, it was about the ISU deciding that they wanted to encourage skaters to take the risk of more difficult jumps because this is is what they wanted for the future of skating. This was a conscious choice, just like it was a conscious choice when they changed their minds about this a few years later. It's not as neutral as "fair" implies.

I think what dorispulaski is trying to get at (I might be wrong!) with this thread is that rules and judging are not 100% objective, they're subjective, political, and have intent. Not to hold up specific skaters, like conspiracy theorists in this fandom like to blabber on about, but based on where they decide the sport should go.

Yes, that is exactly what I was trying to get at...

Quite often, when you hear a lot of buzz about Skater X/Team X should not be rewarded as much, because they are deficient in some way, soon after you hear proposals in the World of Rules that either X's deficiency should be penalized more, or their rivals comparative excellence should be rewarded more. After a while this organized discontent gives birth to a rule.

And quite often, this happens after an Olympics, because it does give skaters a whole quad to adjust to the rule change.

The voting federations on these proposals are not sinless; sometimes their votes are based on aspirational, "Let's improve the Sport" grounds, but sometimes the loudest proponents of a proposed change seem to be trying to make it easier for their own teams to win more often over teams that are beating them.

In the clearest cases, the rule gets named after the legislated against skater(s).

No one was sexier than Witt. Sex should not over influence the judges. Solution: require outfits to be less sexy.

You can see this as improving the sport, or squashing down Witt's natural advantage.

There is politics in rules, and the rules do not just evolve in a linear way.

This can be most easily seen from the grading of pair twist lifts.

Once upon a time, everyone at the elite level tried at least a triple twist, and some tried a quad. Then suddenly, requirements on twists penalized crashy twists a lot, and extra points were added for gratuitous things you did with your arms and so forth, so that a double with a lot of features could outscore a crashy quad. And quads became extinct and triples more rare. Immediately after the Olympics, suddenly points were readjusted and triples were a requirement for elite pairs again.

So I invited people to think about the sport in a political way, because often rules have a lot of politics going on.

The rules determine who wins.

Different rules often mean different winners.

Which is why no skater is unbeatable; they are a rule change away from a change in their scores.

dorispulaski said:

The rules determine who wins.

Different rules often mean different winners.

Which is why no skater is unbeatable; they are a rule change away from a change in their scores.

Click to expand...

Agree:thumbsup:

You said in any discipline, so I’m going to say devalue quads. A lot. I’ve seen enough eating disorders and athletes starving themselves. Sometimes I feel guilty about loving this sport because it hurts too many athletes. Remember when Stephane Lambiel could win world championships because he was the best spinner in the world and no one could come close? Or skaters with fabulous step sequences? Or Sasha Cohen’s spirals? Now there is little reason for anyone to do these things. Just quad quad quad quad quad. It is almost 100% can you do a quad or can you not do a quad. If you can’t do a quad, might as well hang up skates. Unless you’re Jason Brown and I’m afraid to think what’ll happen to him even domestically this year if he doesn’t start landing at least one quad and preferably more.

moonvine said:

You said in any discipline, so I’m going to say devalue quads. A lot. I’ve seen enough eating disorders and athletes starving themselves. Sometimes I feel guilty about loving this sport because it hurts too many athletes. Remember when Stephane Lambiel could win world championships because he was the best spinner in the world and no one could come close? Or skaters with fabulous step sequences? Or Sasha Cohen’s spirals? Now there is little reason for anyone to do these things. Just quad quad quad quad quad. It is almost 100% can you do a quad or can you not do a quad. If you can’t do a quad, might as well hang up skates. Unless you’re Jason Brown and I’m afraid to think what’ll happen to him even domestically this year if he doesn’t start landing at least one quad and preferably more.

Click to expand...

The Good Ole Days weren't quite so rosy as that. They never are. Political shenanigans in the form of bloc voting, to name just one example, certainly takes the hue off those rose-colored glasses.

So while I agree with Doris 117% about how rule changes are often if not usually weaponized there are several other weapons in a federation's arsenal when they decide that "what's best for the sport" doesn't mean diddly compared to "We won."

And it's happening not only at the international level but within federations as well. Think of Jennifer Kirk, 2000 World Junior Champion, who knew her career as a senior skater was toast when the only Grand Prix event she got was Cup of Russia.

So many many ways to game the game.

WeakAnkles said:

The Good Ole Days weren't quite so rosy as that. They never are. Political shenanigans in the form of bloc voting, to name just one example, certainly takes the hue off those rose-colored glasses.

So while I agree with Doris 117% about how rule changes are often if not usually weaponized there are several other weapons in a federation's arsenal when they decide that "what's best for the sport" doesn't mean diddly compared to "We won."

And it's happening not only at the international level but within federations as well. Think of Jennifer Kirk, 2000 World Junior Champion, who knew her career as a senior skater was toast when the only Grand Prix event she got was Cup of Russia.

So many many ways to game the game.

Click to expand...

I just want people to be safe and healthy and not die or suffer permanent damage from eating disorders or anorexia. Or trying to train quads when they’re eating 2 grapes a day. It’s probably a pipe dream.

skylark said:

True, it wasn't meant to advantage her. But I don't think it necessarily follows that it was meant to disadvantage her.

I thought the Zayak rule was created because putting 3 or 4 of the same jump in a program is easier, and therefore is an advantage to skaters who do so. As opposed to skaters who train a bigger variety of jumps to place in a like program, such as a free skate. Since training a variety of different jumps is more time- and energy- (mental and physical) consuming than training just one jump. Not to mention it's harder when performing that variety of jumps in competition.

I think the rule change was made to bring the playing field to be more fair. So I agree with maya1985. Same with Katarina Witt.

Click to expand...

Yes, you have given the official explanation. However, in addition to disallowing the repetitions of jumps, the Zayak rule abolished the triple toe walley, saying it was the same as the triple toe loop (the two had different takeoff edges, but like the flip & lutz today, some skaters that did both jumps did not have a clear edge on one of them). So basically one jump of Elaine's repetoire was abolished. Meanwhile, you could do as many double axels as you wanted. This not only favored Zayak's competitors, it was not her best jump because of the missing 3 toes on her take off foot. It levelled the playing field in a not very fair way.

moonvine said:

I just want people to be safe and healthy and not die or suffer permanent damage from eating disorders or anorexia. Or trying to train quads when they’re eating 2 grapes a day. It’s probably a pipe dream.

Click to expand...

It's an admirable sentiment which gets a huge :agree: from me. I used to love gymnastics, but to me it has gotten so dangerous I simply don't enjoy watching it anymore. I'm massively ambivalent about skating moving in a similar direction.

dorispulaski said:

Yes, you have given the official explanation. However, in addition to disallowing the repetitions of jumps, the Zayak rule abolished the triple toe walley, saying it was the same as the triple toe loop (the two had different takeoff edges, but like the flip & lutz today, some skaters that did both jumps did not have a clear edge on one of them). So basically one jump of Elaine's repetoire was abolished. Meanwhile, you could do as many double axels as you wanted. This not only favored Zayak's competitors, it was not her best jump because of the missing 3 toes on her take off foot. It levelled the playing field in a not very fair way.

Click to expand...

interesting... as i never knew what a triple toe walley was.... and it was one of josée jumps.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJwkGv2JZYg

was a triple to walley harder than a triple toe?

Theoretically it’s an inside edge takeoff counter-rotated jump... well, obviously, hence the name, I guess, but I’ve literally never known anyone to do one that didn’t end up “flutzed,” so to speak, because the movement of the picking foot in the actual rotational direction and against the inside entry curve. So functionally a toe walley really is just basically a toeloop from a different type of entry. Usually an FO three turn or an outside Mohawk, then a step to the other foot and inside edge, and changing edge as the picking leg reaches back.

Lots of skaters do them. In Zayak’s case the toe walley and toeloop were so similar that commentators couldn’t agree about which were which. Chouinard’s there is probably the most walley-like one I’ve ever seen, actually, but you can see she still ends up flat before the pick touches the ice.

moonvine said:

Remember when Stephane Lambiel could win world championships because he was the best spinner in the world and no one could come close?

Click to expand...

In fact, he won Worlds twice because he was the only one who landed 4T+3T in SP and FS and two quads in FS (one in the second half), what gave him the highest (in 2005) and second highest (2006) BV. While his spins were all evaluated on level 2 in 2005 and level 3 in 2006 :shocked: (it was Nobunari Oda who got all level 4 on spins in 2006 and he was 4th overall).

So the best spinner in the World got less points for his spins (plus StSq) than for TWO jump passes. What in fact shows that spins, steps etc. mean nothing in comparison with jumps. Sometimes I really wonder why skaters still bother to learn their programs and waste their time on step sequence while there is almost no reward for it. Roughly calculating, a skater with all quads can win with no spins nor a step sequence at all . OK, I'm laughing now, but it's easy to imagine that comes true. The more PCS usually is given generously for quads no matter how the non-jump part of performance looks like.

My solution? Make spins and stsq more valuable, at least those on level 4 (the points difference between levels is minimal, why not to increase it?) and give PCS for what it should be given, not just for a number of quads.

I would totally be there for more points for spins and steps!

(Maybe I should watch solo dance more...)

I think you have to consider that certain CDs favor different types of skaters - there are those who excel at Latin, Quickstep, Waltzers, and Blues. Often the choice of a particular dance favors certain skaters and almost provides a built in advantage

Right now, transitions get credit more by the number of them than the quality of them. A Shizuka Arakawa quality Ina Bauer gets you the same credit as a teeny tiny one.

Shouldn't be.

Go back to something like the spiral sequence with spirals and moves in the field, with time requirements for the moves, so that moves have to be held. It would be nice to have time to enjoy them.

Well, at WC 2018, Caro got 9.5 in TR for her SP performance, while Alina got 9. So you can't say judges evaluate only number of transitions when assess TR mark. If done well and with purpose, (like in Caro's case) judges will score transitions high even there is less amount of transitions in program.

Not a lot of difference there, really.

Under the current definitions, the criteria for Transitions are
Continuity of movements from one element to another
Variety
Difficulty
Quality

Quality alone won't earn the highest scores -- but neither will quantity alone, especially because "quantity" isn't one of the criteria. (It's hard to have variety with low quantity, but three or four high-quality highlights of completely different kinds could be worth more than relying only on, say, large numbers of repeated body movements or repeated use of similar steps and turns between elements.)

It should be possible to earn similar high scores with very different strategies. One skater might rely more on variety and difficulty, another on quality and continuity.

Different individual judges will probably weight the different criteria somewhat differently.

How could rule changes enforce a weighting that would be more to your personal preference?

^^^ I like the recent rule change for Ice Dance that rewards a character choreographic sequence. (I know, I know, please don't throw tomatoes.) That's because I thrill to see good technique, but for me good technique is the means to an end. Technique serves the expression, emotion, lyricism, music and character of the program and the skating itself

Charlie White said it another way when being asked about his choreography for pairs, especially James/Cipres. He said that (I'm paraphrasing) by the time all the essential elements were included in their Wicked Games FS, there were only about one or two seconds in a couple of places for him, and them, to show "what the program was about." He also worked with them a lot on synchronicity.

I had the impression Charlie was talking about micro-adjustments (and also, honoring the beauty that was already present in J/C). That, and that for him, the meaning of the program is most important, and the relationship between the skaters and what they can show.

I think this approach, a global vision of a program, is what's needed and desired more in singles, pairs and ice dance. So all the rule changes to favor personal taste, or to advantage certain skaters over others, miss the point for me. Even the idea that spins and step sequences should be given more weight is again, more about rewarding technique. When, for my personal taste .... since you did ask about personal taste, gkelly, sorry I couldn't quote your post ... the more intangible qualities of skating are what need to be rewarded more. I'd have to leave it to others to figure out just how to do that. In the 6.0 system, the technique had to be there, but Artistic Impression was the tie-breaker, and the FS, the artistic program, earned more weight.