SP and FS replaced by Technical and Artistic programs?

Elucidus said:

I think many people here are forgetting one simple fact: we already have technical and artistic programs They just called as Short and Free Why I think so? It's easy - just look at PCS weight in each program. Free have 2 times more PCS factor already. It means for the Free artistry and other PCS qualities is two times more important ...

Click to expand...

Actually, i believe that the opposite is true. The short program, restricted to only three jumping passes, is the artistic program. The long program, where skaters are encouraged to jump up a storm, is the technical program.

As for the multiplication factor, skaters get twice as many points in TES in the long (technical) program. Doubling up on the PCS is just the ISU's way of leveling things out a bit. (Otherwise, in the LP the TES would be twice as high as the PCS, instead of just somewhat higher (for the top men) as it is currently.)

For instance, here are the scores of the top men at the 2019 Worlds LP.

Nathan Chen: TES 121.24, PCS 94.78
Yuzuru Hanyu: TES 110.26, PCS 95.84
Vincent Zhou: TES 93.71, PCS 87.28

Shoma Uno flubbed three of his four quad attempts and still his tech score was a tiny bit higher than his component scores, multiplication factor and all: TES 89.90, PCS 89.02

Boyang Jin: TES 95.81, PCS 82.64

We have to go all the way down to Michail Kolyda in sixth place before we find a skater whose PCS are higher than his tech: TES 88.87, PCS 89.34.

tokoyami said:

The ISU is incompetent. Did they even think about changing the base values of spins and step sequences to weight more? Making the difference between levels bigger?

Click to expand...

Competence? They're middling, in my humble opinion.

But as to whether they think about changing the base values of elements, yes, they are absolutely obsessed by such thoughts. They change the base values every year.

But they painted themselves into a corner (or maybe it is just the nature of the sport). The difference in how much harder a quadruple jump is than a triple (or a triple than an double) is immense. The difference between a level 4 and a level 3 step sequence -- besides being hard to quantify -- is not so great.

To propose a scale of values where the difference between a great step sequence and a pretty good one is 5.60 points (the difference between a 4Lz and a 3Lz) would require a pretty thorough reworking of the rules. Probably more drastic than the proposal to have separate "slightly more artistry oriented" and "slightly more jump oriented" programs.

I'm a 22 year old girl who just started following the sport a few years ago why do I feel like I should be in charge???

Click to expand...

No, me, me!

I am afraid this proposal will take "Figure" skating back to the arbitrariness and politics that led to the sport abandoning figures in the first place. The sport would resemble Ice Dance before it was reformed after the 2002 Olympics, where the placements were determined by politics and placements had absolutely nothing to do with what happened on the ice; so much so, that it was easy to determine placements in advance by looking at the composition of the judging panel for a given event.

Isabelle Duchesnay says that she and (her brother) Paul were told (by officials) months before the Albertville Games that they would get the Silver. If the medals are predetermined before the competition even takes place, how is it a sport?

layman said:

If the medals are predetermined before the competition even takes place, how is it a sport?

Click to expand...

I think it is possible to have two programs with a different focus without necessarily risking an increase in biased judging and political intrigue. I would envision something like this.

For the Technical program (3.5 minutes) the balanced program requirements would be something like 7 jumping passes (same as currently), 2 spins and 1 step sequence. The program components would be pretty much the same as they are now, and would in part judge how well the skater wove these individual elements into a coherent program.

The restrictions on repeated quads, etc., would be relaxed. So, for instance,a skater might do (if he is able) 4T, 4T+3T, 4S, 4S+2T, 4F+3Lo, 4Lz, 3A. There would be no need to give less relative weight to the PCS -- this would turn out automatically because the TES would be so high. That should satisfy every sporty-sport-sport fan in the skating world.

For ladies, a winning Technical Program might be 4T, 4Lz, 3A, 3A+2T, 3Lo, 3S+1E+3F, 3Lz+3T.

For the Artistic Program, 4 jumping passes (there are currently only 3), 1 or 2 innovative moves like using an unlisted jump in combination with a triple (say a Walley or open Axel + 1E + 3S), 1 or 2 step sequences, 1 or 2 spiral sequences, all adding up to 10 elements.

Maybe they could have different rules for GOE, with Tech Program GOEs rewarded for height, distance and pizzazz factor, and with Artistic GOES paying more attention to things like Timed with the Musical Phrasing and the like.

To be sure, a skater whose 4 jumping passes were 4T+3T, 4S, 4F, and 4Lz would always win -- but at least he might not totally run away with it if he neglected other skills.

No matter what, we can't eliminate the subjective factor in judging. But I don't see why this proposal is any more (or less) susceptible to judging shenanigans that what we have now.

Edit: For the overall winner, total ordinals would be fine (1st in tech and 2nd in artistic beats 1st in artistic and 3rd in tech). The first tie breaker would be total CoP points (guaranteeing that the tech winner would be the overall winner in the case of a tie in ordinals).

Mathman said:

Edit: For the overall winner, total ordinals would be fine (1st in tech and 2nd in artistic beats 1st in artistic and 3rd in tech).

Click to expand...

Factored placements.

Or just "placements" if the two programs both have the same factor of 1.

"Ordinals" were the judges' rankings of all the skaters in each separate program. If we're using IJS and adding up scores within each program, we're not using ordinals in the figure skating sense of the word.

The first tie breaker would be total CoP points (guaranteeing that the tech winner would be the overall winner in the case of a tie in ordinals).

Click to expand...

Well, it's not a guarantee. But in a well-skated event with lots of difficult jumps successfully attempted, it would be highly likely.

However, some events might be splatfests so that the last skater standing who happens to be strong in PCS would end up winning.

Or there might be several skaters who are all very close in TES and overall in the tech program and one of them far outshines the others in PCS. So of several strong technical skaters, one who is slightly behind in overall TES, or slightly behind in the technical program, might take the title with a decisive win in PCS/artistic program.

What would not be possible (in your suggestion as in the current status quo) would be for a strong artistic skater without the difficult jumps to win against adequately artistic skaters who significantly outjump them.

gkelly said:

Or just "placements" if the two programs both have the same factor of 1.

Click to expand...

That would be my suggestion. If the programs were of equal lengths, there would be no need for factors.

"Ordinals" were the judges' rankings of all the skaters in each separate program. If we're using IJS and adding up scores within each program, we're not using ordinals in the figure skating sense of the word.

Click to expand...

I think we can say that the IJS still gives out ordinals for each segment, without abusing the term. They list who is first, second, etc. separately for each segment. The only difference would be, do we then want to combine points for the overall winner or do we want to combine ordinals.

I think that points would be too much to the advantage of the tech winner and would defeat the purpose of having two different types of program.

In the artistic program the skater who does 3A, 3Lz+3T, 3F, 3Lo is only 4.6 points behind the skater who does 4T+3T, 3A, 3Lz, 3F. He still has his innovative jump sequences, spins, footwork and spiral sequences (6 elements in all) , plus GOE and PCS to make up ground.

The PCS would be weighted the same absolutely as in the tech program, but this would come out to a higher percentage of the overall segment score even without extra enhancement. (For instance, it might go something like this for the tech winner and the artistry winner:

Tech winner: TES 110, PCS 90 (PCS is 45% of total segment score)
Artistry winner: TES 80, PCS 95 (PCS is 54% of total)

Mathman said:

I think we can say that the IJS still gives out ordinals for each segment, without abusing the term.

Click to expand...

As a mathematician, you can use the term in the mathematical sense with complete accuracy in this context.

But the word "ordinals" had a very specific meaning in 6.0 figure skating judging. Anyone who wants to understand how the figure scoring system worked before 2004 would need to understand the skating-specific meaning of the word, which applied to how each judge ranked each of the skaters in a given competition phase. (Or in the competition as a whole up to 1980, but let's stick with the more familiar 1981-2004 era.)

In the 6.0 system, judges gave ordinals. The system did not give ordinals. The placements in each phase were not "ordinals" in skating parlance.
Maybe you would prefer the term "rankings" for each competition phase to refer to the overall (whole-panel) results of that phase?

The word as used in a skating context had nothing to do with who placed 1st, 2nd, 3rd overall in each competition segment or in an event as a whole. If you use the term in that sense, you will only create confusion in anyone who isn't already an expert in 6.0 scoring and would like to learn how it worked.

gkelly said:

In the 6.0 system, judges gave ordinals. The system did not give ordinals.

Click to expand...

Thank you for those two sentences. I get the distinction now.

I am not completely convinced that it would do any harm to our understanding of the 6.0 system to call entities like 1st place, 2nd place, 3rd place (however determined) by the common name "ordinals."

However, there might be a subtle linguistic consideration. "You have won 2nd prize in the beauty contest -- collect $10."

https://benhuber.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/2nd-prize-in-a-beautry-contest.jpg

The language leans toward subjective (and possibly dubious) judging, as opposed to "my horse came in 2nd in the Kentucky or "the decathlete totaled 8291 points for ten events and won the silver medal.") I would have no objection to saying "rank" or "placement" instead. (His rank in the Artistic Program was 2nd.)

gkelly said:

But the word "ordinals" had a very specific meaning in 6.0 figure skating judging. Anyone who wants to understand how the figure scoring system worked before 2004 would need to understand the skating-specific meaning of the word, which applied to how each judge ranked each of the skaters in a given competition phase.

Click to expand...

I think I read over this distinction too hurriedly. This is a very cool point, even with respect to strict context-free mathematics. What made the 6.0 system intriguing was, OK, now each judge has given his ordinal ranking. How do we combine the individual ordinals to determine who wins the contest, who gets second, etc.

The answer (both mathematically and with respect to the experience of figure skating) is, there is no way to do it that produces a satisfactory result in every case.

For newer fans who are curious, here is an explanation about how the 6.0 majority scoring system works:
http://sk8stuff.com/traindocs/2_60_scoring_r1.pdf

This system is still often used at lower level events in the US.

See the protocol sheet on p. 7 of the PowerPoint that lists an array of numbers 1 to 6 under the judge numbers? Those numbers are the "ordinals" that each judge assigned to each skater.

In any other part of the scoring system where skaters are referred to as standing 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc. in overall standings, the word "ordinal" is never used, although of course 1st, 2nd, 3rd are ordinal numbers in a more general grammatic or mathematical sense.

That vid is a good explanation. What was really neat back in the day was to try to construct imaginary (but sometimes mimicking real) competitions where the will of the majority appeared to be flummoxed.

Here is an example with three judges and 5 skaters, A, B. C, D, and E. The rankings of each judge were:

Judge #1. A, B, C, D, E
Judge #2: E, B, A, C, D
Judge #3: C, D, A, E, B

No one has a majority of first place ordinals. B has a majority (2 out of three) of first and second place ordinals combined. B wins the gold medal. (Even though not a single judge thought she deserved it, and one judge put her last.)

Now we switch to the Condorcet winner (the OBO or one-by-one system). Skater A beats skater B by 2 judges to 1.
Skater A beats skater C by 2 judges to 1.
Skater A beats skater D by 2 judges to 1.
Skater A beats skater E by 2 judges to 1.

Skater A has beaten everyone head to head. Skater A is the Condorcet winner (4 slays, 8 total judges; even though a majority of judges thought that skater A deserved no better than the bronze.)

[Nicholas de Condorcet was a 18th century French mathematician and political philosopher whose work on social choice theory had great influence, especially in France after the French Revolution when people were struggling -- rather like the ISU -- to come up with voting schemes for the new republic that would honor the rule of the majority while also protecting the rights of minorities and individuals. ]

So I’m still not clear on what burning issue this proposal is addressing?

Holy Headband said:

So I’m still not clear on what burning issue this proposal is addressing?

Click to expand...

To me, the "burning issue" is the same burning issue that the ISU has struggled with ever since the beginning of the current point-value judging system. How to achieve a "balanced program" that rewards every aspect of competitive skating in due proportion.

I think there are two general viewpoints. The first is, the IJS is working fine. If it's not broke, don't fix it.

The second is, we can always do better. Onward and upward.

The Onward and Upward camp is concerned that there is a ratcheting and ever-increasing trend for the TES to dominate the PCS and for rotational jumps to dominate the TES. The last revision of the scoring rules, which limited repeated quads and made changes in GOE, was an attempt, but not a very substantive one, to speak to this issue.

Personally, I don't think the ISU's dilemma will ever be solved. You don't really have any choice but to give the most points for the hardest elements. This automatically skews the scoring toward over-valuing rotating in the air and relatively under-valuing blade-to-ice skills and performance considerations.

Anyway, it gives us something to talk about. :yes:

To pontificate further...

Here is what I think. The most important thing about ice-skating is ice.

What can you do on ice? Well, ice is a relatively frictionless surface, so the two things that you can do are glide and spin.

Jumps? You don't need ice to jump. You can jump up and down on dry land all day long. :yes:

So what does ice have to do with jumping? IMHO the most important relation between ice and jumping is to be able to land on a flowing edge. It is also cool when a skater masters a variety of different take-offs, plus it is doubly cool when the jump serves as a choreographic and performance highlight. The ISU scoring system could be redesigned to give more weight to these aspects of jumping, and also to spirals and moves in the field, and to spinning. The more "icy" a move is, the move it should be valued (my opinion).

Mathman said:

Here is what I think. The most important thing about ice-skating is ice.

What can you do on ice? Well, ice is a relatively frictionless surface, so the two things that you can do are glide and spin.

Jumps? You don't need ice to jump. You can jump up and down on dry land all day long. :yes:

So what does ice have to do with jumping? IMHO the most important relation between ice and jumping is to be able to land on a flowing edge. It is also cool when a skater masters a variety of different take-offs, plus it is doubly cool when the jump serves as a choreographic and performance highlight. The ISU scoring system could be redesigned to give more weight to these aspects of jumping, and also to spirals and moves in the field, and to spinning. The more "icy" a move is, the move it should be valued (my opinion).

Click to expand...

I understand what you’re getting at, but by that logic all those ‚nice positions‘ that require flexiblity, body tension or turnout in spirals, spins or spreadeagles/Ina Bauers are just as unrelated and therefore less valuable to our medium, the ice, as the number of revolutions a skater does in the air. Because surely I can show off my gliding skills without sticking my leg up or spin fast and centered without doing a camel or squatting down for a sit position. All those contortions belong into gymnastics, no?
(I also don’t think one needs those things to express music, its tempo, dynamics or emotions, although they can help of course)

I would also disagree a little re jumps on ice, because I do actually feel that the ice adds a lot to the jumps execution-wise, especially the take-off, and it’s nothing that can be replicated on the floor. And a good jump (take-off) depends on good glide and blade control too, it’s not just about variety.

Tavi... said:

You may be right that it’s impossible to judge programs without bias, but that’s pretty much true of everything in life - you just try to be aware of your bias and do your best to be fair in spite of it. I don’t think people should give up, or not even try, just because something is hard.

Click to expand...

I don’t think good intentions and awareness can overcome the problem of subjectivity, and doing your best is not enough.
There's already enough bias/personal preferences at play when judging the execution of technical elements and then there's this big PCS chunk that also goes into the score. But at least with GOE, it’s a lot more tangible, because a slow or wonky, travelling spin or a shaky landing, or a fall even, are pretty much objectively bad and rather obvious errors.

But another thing that just occurred to me:
I think a big part of the reason why I hate the idea of artistry-focused judging in one of two programs is, that I actually hate the idea of artistry/performance being judged in any way, period.
It just feels wrong to me, precisely because it's something so personal and also, I'm quite frankly not interested in seeing it being judged, if that makes sense? It kinda reminds me of a talent show or something like that.

Also, even though skating programs are pretty repetitive and there's not much creative freedom, I still feel that there's too much diversity in terms of style and music, to be able to compare and judge the artistry fairly. To be able to do that, everyone would have to skate to the same theme at least.

Tavi... said:

@annajzdf, I’d guess programs where the skater is clearly having fun - as opposed to “fun” programs- have an advantage at the end of a long day, when judges are tired of sitting and watching and concentrating and judging.

Click to expand...

That reminds me of my coach telling skaters to not choose music that's too moody or depressing, because judges won’t enjoy that after a long day of judging.
(but I would still maintain that a more serious or passionate or even sensual program with exciting or dramatic music (see Yuzu's or Jason's SPs f.i.) will grip the judges just as much when it's well-skated and the skater is very much committed, no matter how much fun another skater exudes)

Tavi... said:

Finally - I would guess Jason’s lines and movement aren’t balletic because he’s skating on ice rather than a dance floor, he rarely if ever has skated to ballet music, and he’s usually working with Rohene’s choreography, which is non traditional and certainly doesn’t attempt to reproduce ballet on ice.

Click to expand...

Oh I certainly don’t expect a skater to do actual ballet moves on the ice or even anything resembling actual ballet, that would be silly (unless it happens to be a program to a ballet piece).
What I meant was just a certain awareness, knowing how to use your body, arms and legs to create aesthetic or proper looking lines, even when you’re doing a style that’s non traditional and different from ballet.
Also never mind some of Rohene’s more ‚out there‘ choreo choices, I’ve certainly seen several past programs of Jason, that had a pretty conventional, lyrical look, where he most certainly wanted to present a graceful and elegant looking performance and where applying some of the things that ballet lessons taught you would seem rather obvious.

annajzdf said:

I understand what you’re getting at, but by that logic all those ‚nice positions that require flexiblity, body tension or turnout in spirals, spins or spreadeagles/Ina Bauers are just as unrelated and therefore less valuable to our medium, the ice, as the number of revolutions a skater does in the air. Because surely I can show off my gliding skills without sticking my leg up or spin fast and centered without doing a camel or squatting down for a sit position. All those contortions belong into gymnastics, no?

Click to expand...

Very true. I don't know what the right answer is.

I remember all the arguments over what made a good spiral. Is it blade control and depth of edge? Or is it holding a pretty position in the upper body?

It seemed like there was a trade-off: a skater could get her free leg higher if she flattened the edge.

I think that this is the dilemma and delight of figure skating. No matter what, we will never be satisfied with the competition format or scoring system. I believe that the best we can hope for is to offer a smorgasbord with as great a variety of juicy tidbits as possible. (But then how do you judge one performance against another?)

Mathman said:

Actually, i believe that the opposite is true. The short program, restricted to only three jumping passes, is the artistic program. The long program, where skaters are encouraged to jump up a storm, is the technical program.

Click to expand...

Well, in practice, if we are talking about top skaters - you're right. Still whether is short or long (or both in case the skater has weak TES abilities overall) can be considered as artistic program - is not what matters. What matters is that system where "artistic program" exists is already working despite many people not realizing it. The proposition is not about introducing more artistry into fs. It's about more convenient and controlled judging, simplifying and degradating technical level of fs to let more weak skaters and federations to participate in struggle for podium places (thus bringing more money to ISU sponsors) - and financial benefits from IOC.

Mathman said:

To me, the "burning issue" is the same burning issue that the ISU has struggled with ever since the beginning of the current point-value judging system. How to achieve a "balanced program" that rewards every aspect of competitive skating in due proportion.

I think there are two general viewpoints. The first is, the IJS is working fine. If it's not broke, don't fix it.

Click to expand...

I am definitely is from the first camp

The second is, we can always do better. Onward and upward.

The Onward and Upward camp is concerned that there is a ratcheting and ever-increasing trend for the TES to dominate the PCS and for rotational jumps to dominate the TES. The last revision of the scoring rules, which limited repeated quads and made changes in GOE, was an attempt, but not a very substantive one, to speak to this issue.

Click to expand...

Even if it's true - why it should mean it's a problem? If we consider the top TES skaters - they are extremely artistic. Hanyu, Nathan, Zhou, even Boyang - they all are great performers and constantly working on improving the PCS side. In current system. With TES domination. And if we talk about more weak skaters - again majority of them tries to be competitive with PCS side first - since it's more easy to achieve than learning hard jumps. As a result we can see great range of artistic skaters both from low TES (Aliev, Aymoz, Rizzo) or high TES camps. In current system. With TES domination.
In other words TES domination is not gonna destroy artistry. Moreover, we can clearly see that PCS matters on all levels now - so much so that athletes are going to great lengths to evolve in that direction. If it's not the best indicator of balanced system - what it is?

Personally, I don't think the ISU's dilemma will ever be solved. You don't really have any choice but to give the most points for the hardest elements. This automatically skews the scoring toward over-valuing rotating in the air and relatively under-valuing blade-to-ice skills and performance considerations.

Anyway, it gives us something to talk about. :yes:

Click to expand...

This so called dillemma is very much artificial. Artistry is rewarded more than enough in current system. For example I've just watched recent Russian Open Test Skates. There were so much artistry in each and every performance that it's practically oozed from every pore of my body at the end of the event If there was true dilemma - by their logic most performances would be jump fests as that should be more beneficial. In practice it's not truth as we can see.
The real dilemma would be if they wanted that winning through artistry only or mostly would be possible. If that is the case - then claiming about balance or due proportion is big fat lie. Balance exists now more or less.
Even if numbers of TES are considerably higher than PCS for top skaters - it doesn't mean there is something wrong with balance. It's not the simple matter of equalizing numbers since they are made based on vastly different principle (TES is addition while PСS is percentage). It only means that between two skaters who both reached
or almost reached their limit in artistry - further struggle to determine the winner will be in execution of elements. Is it fair? Yes. Does it mean that TES can greatly outnumber PCS? Again, yes. Does it mean it's unbalanced? No.
From balanced point of view where both areas are important - artistic skater winning over technical one is inbalanced. Technical skater winning over artistic one is inbalanced too. All skaters should be artistic and technical at the same time. Ideally - extremely artistic and extremely technical. But suggested changes directly contradicts declared ideals about "balance" and "dilemmas" - dividing skaters and making them from balanced ones to inbalanced. Will it turn fs comps dividing it to either jumpfests (with set of skaters specializing in that) or snoozefests (with set of skaters typical for first flights)? Most likely yes. Is it good for fs or its fans? Definitely no.

Elucidus said:

The proposition is not about introducing more artistry into fs. It's about more convenient and controlled judging, simplifying and degradating technical level of fs to let more weak skaters and federations to participate in struggle for podium places (thus bringing more money to ISU sponsors) - and financial benefits from IOC.

Click to expand...

I don't think that is the point at all.

I think the point is
1) at the elite level, to give the all-around great skaters opportunities to shine at both quantity and quality with the opportunity to do better at each when allowed to focus more on one side in one program and the other in a separate program
2) to allow excellent skaters who have reached the limits of their ability to accomplish a skating-adjacent nonskating skill (rotating in the air) to continue to push the limits blade to ice and be rewarded for excellence in actual skating and performance
3) to appeal to a wider range of fans, including both those for whom quantity is most important and those who are more interested in quality

I expect that if there are separate medals for separate kinds of programs, the big federations will still win most of the medals.

However, we may see a wider range of talents displayed by different individual skaters from those federations if there are separate paths to international competition for those who excel in different types of programs. If competitions remain combined, then we'll still only see the same number of skaters from the larger feds, but if separate medals are available in each, even if a federation can't send more than 3 men or 3 ladies total to the championships they might choose to send their best technical athlete and their best artistic skater along with their best all-arounder.

And skaters from smaller federations will still be less likely to reach the top ranks. But if a widely talented skater -- or a skater who excels in either quantity or quality -- has the resources to develop that talent and rise to the top, then we will see some medalists from smaller feds about as often as we do now.

Putting an emphasis on "artistry" in one program is not going to favor weaker basic skaters or skaters who lack the resources to hone their qualitative performance skills and hire top choreographers.

If the medals are combined, then the same skaters will still need to learn to excel, to the best of their ability, at both quantity and quality.

But suggested changes directly contradicts declared ideals about "balance" and "dilemmas" - dividing skaters and making them from balanced ones to inbalanced.

Click to expand...

That's a valid point. It remains to be seen how the program requirements and competition/medal opportunities will be apportioned.

It also depends how you define "balance." Some would argue that the sport is currently unbalanced away from its fundamentals and that more weight needs to be placed on blade-to-ice skills compared to in-air rotational skills, more weight on quality and less on quantity.

Will it turn fs comps dividing it to either jumpfests (with set of skaters specializing in that) or snoozefests (with set of skaters typical for first flights)? Most likely yes. Is it good for fs or its fans? Definitely no.

Click to expand...

I don't think dividing the programs and the medal opportunities would necessarily be a bad thing, because I don't think it would be structured the way you characterize them here.

I expect that the technical program would still look very much like the current long program, with maximum difficult jumps as well as maximum difficulty in spins and steps, and transitional moves that add difficulty to the elements. There might be even more reward for risk taking. The excitement would be in seeing who can skate the hardest program most successfully. And quality might not count for as much as difficulty, but if several skaters have similar difficulty then those with the best as well quality will earn the highest scores.

The "artistic" program would be more about quality and about using technical skills for aesthetic purposes.

Weaker skaters are not going to excel here. Strong skaters will be able to showcase the quality of their skills by not having to cram as many into the same short period of time. The winners may not be the same strong skaters who are attempting the hardest jumps.

But they will be skaters with stronger skating skills who are able to use those skills in aesthetically pleasing and coherent ways.

Maybe the same skaters who also excel at the technical side. Maybe former jump experts who had to scale back on jump content because of injury or natural body maturation changes that don't favor in-air rotation but continue to improve in skating and performance quality. Maybe skaters who excel at skating and performance but whose adult bodies are too big for advanced jumps or for pair skating in the case of women, or even for ice dancing as women now that difficult lifts are point earners there -- skaters who would no longer be training for elite skill levels if there's no path to elite levels without the hardest jumps, but who would have a reason to stay in and aim to reach the top in a part of the competition where they can more than hold their own.

It won't be the skaters who skate easier programs with lower skill levels that we most often see in the lower ranks internationally (or nationally, as the case may be). Those skaters will only be able to make a mark in the "artistic" program if they can focus their training on actually improving their basic skating and the quality of the (possibly easier) jumps and spins they include to the point that they can use these skills for maximum aesthetic impact.

I would not find top-quality skating and presentation by top-quality skaters to top-quality choreography to be a snoozefest.

Fans who are only interested in quantity might be less interested. But if the ISU wants to expand its audience, then rewarding the use of excellent technical skills for artistic purposes will attract audiences who may not care about the difference between a toe loop and a lutz or between a triple and a quad.

To tell the truth, I don't know what I think.

Looking at the history of figure skating I feel like I have a right to be confused about what is artistic and what is technical. Back in the day a figure skating competition had two segments:

1. The technical program = school figures. Who can trace the most perfect circles on the ice.

2. The artistic program = free skating. The free skating program included such artistic elements as jumps, spins and spirals. (Wow! look at that beautiful double Lutz; what a breathtaking layback spin!)

By the late 1970s two problems were recognized. The first was that in the television age audiences found the technical program to be uninteresting. The second was that the nature of the scoring system overly favored the technicians over the artists.

In 1968 Peggy Fleming won figures with such a big score that the free skating was little more than an exhibition. Yet today she is revered for her "artistry." (Here she is on a postage stamp being "artistic.") What is art? What is technique?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...g/220px-Peggy_Fleming_1983_Paraguay_stamp.jpg

To go way back, it was Jackson Haines in the nineteenth century who is given credit for inventing the concept of artistic skating ("fancy skating"). He introduced the idea of skating to music and of incorporating athletic leaps into the program. Was he a technician or an artist?

If the ISU wants to expand its audience, then rewarding the use of excellent technical skills for artistic purposes will attract audiences who may not care about the difference between a toe loop and a lutz or between a triple and a quad.

Click to expand...

I agree that this is the goal and the ideal. But I can't dismiss Elucidus' point that a talent like Hanyu, who can do a quad Lutz AND use his technical skills for artistic purposes is greatly to be admired, alike by the elite cognoscenti and the great unwashed masses. :yes:

Then he can still win and everyone can be happy