A "radical" proposal to reshape the sport: Phil Hersh article

gkelly, I agree with a lot of what you say in principle, but not in actuality. My point is, there's a world of difference between what "should be" (even according to the current rules) and what "is". GOEs are padded. PCS are padded. While the system is not perfect, and can be easily gamed, it's understood - but the worst culprit is endemic judging bias.

For example, when a higher / longer / cleaner jump with beautiful entry and exit should receive a higher PCS and GOE (in theory) - in practice, it often does not, if performed by a skater who is not the judges favorites at that particular competition. And those are just the most blatant side-by-side examples. Never mind anything as "subjective" as interpretation or cleanliness.

Why strive for perfection (perfection is HARD!), if you can sail through on ugliness and high tech content? Tinkering with rules will do nothing to fix the underlying problem. JMHO

Sam-Skwantch said:

Instead of ballet and piano playing could you maybe use another or other Olympic sports to highlight your point. I think it would be more effective that way when considering that playing piano and ballet aren’t even sports or Olympic sports for that matter. I’m genuinely curious.

Click to expand...

On the other hand, many skating fans celebrate what makes figure skating different from other Olympic sports, rather than what makes it the same.

But I'll bite. I would say that maybe rhythmic gymnastics and synchronize swimming might face scoring challenges that are similar to figure skating's. (They also face the same criticism -- is this really a sport?).

Actually, there are already two branches of skating. Speed Skating and Figure Skating. Something for every taste. Speed skating is all tech and whoever crosses the finish line first wins. (Except in short track where the goal is to knock the other guy down without getting caught by the referees -- sort of like the "performance art" of flopping in soccer.)

Figure skating ... ?

Casual said:

Why strive for perfection (perfection is HARD!), if you can sail through on ugliness and high tech content? Tinkering with rules will do nothing to fix the underlying problem. JMHO

Click to expand...

What is perfection?

It's a lot easier to skate clean programs with top quality elements if the elements are much easier. Should the scoring system be set up to reward "perfect" triples more than mediocre quads, or perfect triples more than mediocre doubles? Well, if perfect is more important than difficult, why shouldn't a perfect single axel be worth more than a squeaked out quad axel?

Both would be exciting in their own ways, and maybe there should be room for each, perhaps in the same program.

But the riskier the elements attempted, the less likely perfection will be achieved.

And even if a skater has impeccable technique, ice, as they say, is slippery. Or sometimes not slippery where it needs to be. So falls and stumbles can happen because of ice conditions through no fault of the skater. If "perfection" is more important than difficulty and overall quality, then should a flawless performance with merely good execution throughout outweigh an otherwise exquisite performance with one obvious flaw?

I think there is always room for improvement, either in difficulty of the elements (aiming for 4 instead of 3, whether we're talking about jump rotations or spin levels), or in difficulty of the connections between elements, or in quality of individual elements, or quality of the in-between skating.

As top skaters aim to outdo each other for the top spot, at any given competition or in any given season some will make leaps ahead mostly in difficulty and others primarily in quality. Or some might show some improvements in each.

Very rarely will a contest come down to flawless and artistic execution of good difficulty vs. highly flawed execution of extreme difficulty. There will almost always be gradations within each performance.

If the sum of the parts should always outweigh the individual parts, then the decisions will almost always come down to personal preference about which kinds of parts should take precedence.

With a point scoring system as we have now, the preferences get built into the system. There could be a collective decision to prioritize quality over difficulty and to rejigger the Scale of Values accordingly. What would be a better balance? What kind of difference in point value between, e.g., +5 double axel and 0 triple axel would be appropriate, and in which direction?

Casual said:

Figure skating without artistic perfection should not be allowed anywhere near the world podiums. However, the true mastery (whether piano playing, ballet, or figure skating) demands both. True artistry demands perfection of execution, which demands a very high level of underlying technical skill. The higher the technical skill, the freer and more refined the artist becomes to express himself/herself and reach the deepest emotions.

But until ISU fixes their blatant cheating problem (biased judging - propping up "favorites", "reputation scoring" and "country bonus" are all cheating), nothing would fix this sport.

As for this particular proposal: I'm a huge fan of artistic perfection in figure skating, and I hate this proposal. Lets compare Jason Brown to Yuzuru Hanuy. Is Hanuy any less "artistic" than Brown? Nope. Should the two have equal standing on the world podiums due to Brown's artistry? Nope. Hanuy is clearly superior, because he manages to attain the highest levels of artistry along with the highest levels of tech content. That makes him a virtuoso.

The problem is not that skaters like Brown do not get enough PCS. The problem is that all those other skaters who are allowed to have zero artistry and lack finesse (and ugly executed jumps to boot) are unfairly awarded sky-high PCS and GOEs.

A musician who misses notes and is tone-deaf and sloppy in his/her execution, would be booed and laughed off the stage, and never reach the top of the podium. But in figure skating, they are rewarded with highest scores, AS IF they had a perfect pitch and soul-stirring artistry. It's a travesty.

So, what would be the point of giving the judges even more opportunities to pad the scoring, if they are already doing it?

Fix the underlying problem first, and stop rewarding uncouth cows-on-ice as if they were artistic virtuosos.

Click to expand...

There are tons of skaters who are not paradigms of artistic perfection (which is of course subjective) who have made the World podium and even won Worlds. Surya Bonaly (who I totally love) is continually used as a example of poor skating ability but she has still won World medals.

IMO, edge goes to the better athlete than the better artist:
Someone with technical perfection should be potentially pushed off the highest podiums if they are artistically very subpar.
Someone with artistic perfection should potentially make it onto the highest podiums even if they are technically very subpar.

Also, artistry is completely subjective. There are lots of people who would suggest that Hanyu isn't a better artist than Brown (including the 4CC FS judges, if we're taking score), but sometimes it comes down to a matter of taste.

Regarding ZERO artistry, that is the worst hyperbole. These are all elite skaters. Some of them might have stone-cold skating but they are all at least making some attempt to express themselves and convey a level of artistry (whether mediocre or masterful), but they all train hard, learn choreography and at the end of the day, some have it in spades and others have it less so. But let's stop with the "zero artistry" rhetoric. Which is especially laughable when you use it to refer to those who make the World podium - because there's no way you would EVER make the World podium, politicking or bad judging or whatever, unless you had at least a moderate level of artistry/choreography/skating ability.

You're also assuming that a de facto "artist" will always skater artistically, which obviously isn't the case. Compare Hanyu's ACI to his Skate Canada or GPF performances, and you'll see different levels of artistic performance from the same skater in the same programs. Brown's Riverdance at 2014 Nationals was a completely different performance and artistic level than earlier in that season at Skate America and Nebelhorn. No skater is entitled to a specific amount of artistic scores, and should be assessed based on what they put on the day.

CanadianSkaterGuy said:

This is a terrible idea. Not only is it blurring the lines between the SP and FS, this will also put way more power in the hands of the judges to manipulate the final results based on propping up popular skaters on PCS.

"It also has made it very difficult for consummate artists like Jason Brown, who never has landed a quad, to make global podiums in men’s events. Many of the sport’s longtime fans say they have lost interest in what they see as a jumping contest."

No. Consummate artists like Jason Brown have made global podiums (4CC silver, most recently.. and several GP medals) on the merit of their artistry. But they can't make the top of it because they lack a quad. Which is how it should be.

I see the point in ladies where a handful of skaters can do quads and primarily from one country, so there is an imbalance. But in men's the quad is a standard. If Brown can't do a quad, that's on him, as literally hundreds of male skaters have landed quads in competition.

And never mind "Oh well, that will compel skaters to improve their PCS." The judges have their faves, and no matter how much some skaters who are classically inferior in PCS (Jin/Nguyen/Tomono, etc.) show improvement, they will never get the PCS needed to reach higher level. The benefit of them executing a quad will be immediately negated by their upper-tier rivals getting higher PCS (even if the upper-tier rival bombs their skate).

This isn't a radical proposal, so much as a handout to skaters who are unable to achieve the technical standards needed to compete at the upper echelons of the sport.

Brown should always be in contention for a medal, but putting him in contention for gold at Worlds or Olympics without a quad is simply ridiculous. It would be like weighting under 6.0 more to artistic impression so that skaters who couldn't do a 3A would still have a shot at winning. Except now it's the quad. Brown has superb elements and is the most talented in terms of artistry IMO, but he should consider himself lucky to be in the running for the World bronze in 2020 without a stable quad.

Click to expand...

I really like Jason Brown's skating but this is 2020. People complained about Patrick Chan's only two quad fs. Life isn't fair. PCS are like artistry and can be fudged is the suggestion but heck GOE's especially now also have a wide range that allows for especially the skaters with reputation to be given the benefit of the doubt and extra points. I think the issue is "if only the world can see what I see" through my glasses.

Casual said:

Remove music from figure skating; remove movement to music; remove costumes, creating a character and a story; remove emotional impact on the audience; remove searching for a transcendent "moment", through an artistic performance via precise movements set to music; THEN we'll talk about comparing figure skating to other Olympic sports.

Click to expand...

This is just my unlearned opinion, but going by practice videos with plain black/grey gear, repetitive practicing of moves and poor or no sound - aka the closest we probably get to figure skating as a baldly athletic and nothing else exercise - Yuzuru, yes Jason and I imagine Chen (I haven't seen any of his practice videos) would still be right up there. There are a million of these available for Yuzu - often with Javi or with a whole group of rivals - and he dominates the rink: there's both superb technique and that uncluttered beauty of pure motion. And stripping away the 'artistic fripperies' would probably benefit Jason (and maybe men like Han Yan?) as it would allow his stunning mastery of the non-quad aspects of skating skills to be even more visible.

On the ladies' side, I don't know enough to say who would benefit from a non-artistic sport of skating...

gkelly said:

... Whereas the purpose of a figure skating competition is to demonstrate mastery of the technique. "Artistry" is valued in large part because its presence attests to that mastery. ...

Click to expand...

Masterfully and artistically said.

It always intrigued me that the Performance Component was always, until very recently, called "Performance and Execution." Execution = technical virtuosity, "performance = reaching the audience." For a long time one of the bullets for the P&E category was "Uses energy to create an emotional bond with the audience." (I can see why they dropped this language as being unhelpful for scoring purposes.)

However, if they skate fast, then they should be rewarded for that in the Skating Skills component. If they fill most of the other SS criteria as well -- technical criteria -- such as acceleration and balance and deep edges and one-foot skating, then they should score high overall in that component.

If they have varied and difficult nonlisted elements and other movements between the elements, they should be rewarded for that variety and difficulty in the Transitions score.

Click to expand...

That is the bottom line. I do not see how anyone can disagree, whatever they feel about one scoring system or another or about whether judges cheat or judge fairly. If you do all these things then you have performed better than the skater who doesn't, other factors being equal.

Does music even have podiums?

Click to expand...

There are, for instance, piano-playing competitions with prestigious prizes. Somehow the judges manage to judge the performances not only against each other, but also against some sort of reasonably objective standard. Sometimes no one rises to the occasion and the judges declare that the such-and-such piano prize will not be awarded this year.

There is even a World Federation of International Music Competitions to maintain the integrity of these events.

The most dramatic example historically was the first time the now super-prestigous Tchaikovsky Prize was held in 1958, The American wonderboy Van Cliburn gave a dazzling performance. The judges were in a quandary. This was the very chilliest time of the Cold War. Could they give the Tchaikovsky Prize to an American ahead of the Russian competitors? They eventually had to appeal the situation to Khrushchev himself. Khrushchev said, "Did he play the best? Then give him the prize."

Skater Boy said:

People complained about Patrick Chan's only two quad fs.

Click to expand...

I don't think so, really. Patrick was almost universally praised as a skater who began his ascent by displaying amazing skating skills!, then he added quads!! and finally he became a pretty compelling performer as well!!!

What Chan was ruthlessly blamed for was winning world championships while falling a lot. This, however, is a criticism of the scoring system (it doesn't punish falls enough), not of the skater.

CanadianSkaterGuy said:

Also, artistry is completely subjective.

Click to expand...

I think this belief is why the ISU has always shied away from the word "artistry" in their official rule books. In describing skating skills, instead of "artistry" they speak of "rhythmic knee action and precision of foot placement."

In terms of the new proposal, it would be better to call the two programs the Technical Program and the Performance Program -- maybe this would calm people down about the "What is Art? " issue.

However, all the folks who make their livings as movie critics or who serve on art juries -- I would not like to think that they are nothing but a bunch of charlatans and fools. In choreography, for instance, I think there is something more to it than just, "I like this" and "I don't care much for that." Harmony, symmetry, coherence, filling time and space with movement, expressing the character of the music -- these are not entirely up to the whimsy of the viewer. (And even if they were, that is why we have nine judges, to smooth out individual subjective idiosyncrasies.)

Plus, figure skating choreography can be more intricate and nuanced, or less so, according to the ability of the skater. It is then the skater's job to carry out the overall intent and the technical details of the choreography. And (IMHO) the skater's success in doing so can be judged without throwing up our hands in despair and saying, "You like asparagus, I like broccoli."

In fact, I think you are agreeing with this when you say:

Compare Hanyu's ACI to his Skate Canada or GPF performances, and you'll see different levels of artistic performance from the same skater in the same programs.

Click to expand...

Yes. One is better, the other is worse. And you and I and all the judges have valid reasons for saying so (and not just, "We like asparagus.")

I feel like if artistry is what the sport is missing in freestyle, then for free skate, here's what would be better:

• Less jumps
• Add twizzle series
• Add character step sequence
• Add an edge element with a change edge
• Start judging the step sequences more like ice dance, where they have to do proper turns and edges!

This could help tons to make the programs more well rounded to have required elements that aren't spins, jumps or step sequences!

laceylou said:

I feel like if artistry is what the sport is missing in freestyle, then for free skate, here's what would be better:

• Less jumps
• Add twizzle series
• Add character step sequence
• Add an edge element with a change edge
• Start judging the step sequences more like ice dance, where they have to do proper turns and edges!

This could help tons to make the programs more well rounded to have required elements that aren't spins, jumps or step sequences!

Click to expand...

Yes I think they need to decide what at it's essence is GOOD skating. If you focus on the jumps and that means you don't have the time to work on your spins or footwork doesn't that mean your not a really GOOD skater.

Honestly I don't care about quads or 3A's if the rest of your skating is not excellent.

I am all for having a jumps only category. Perhaps a single 5 jump pass with your best jumps and maybe a transition or two.

laceylou said:

I feel like if artistry is what the sport is missing in freestyle, then for free skate, here's what would be better:

• Less jumps
• Add twizzle series
• Add character step sequence
• Add an edge element with a change edge
• Start judging the step sequences more like ice dance, where they have to do proper turns and edges!

This could help tons to make the programs more well rounded to have required elements that aren't spins, jumps or step sequences!

Click to expand...

I hope the ISU technical committee is listening. This is exactly the thing that would make this idea of an "Artistic Program" deserve the term "radical" that appears in the title pf Hersh's article.

However, that would still pose a big headache when it comes to preparing the revised Scale of Values. If the "Artistic program had, as you say, fewer jumps but additional features like a "character step sequence " or an edge element with change of edge, these would have to be valued really highly to compensate in point value for the missing one or two or three quads and triple-triples.

At present I do not see any way that the skaters will be able to score as many points in the Artistic Program as they can in the Technical Program. Whoever wins the Technical Program will automatically win every time. A skating competition will become two programs, "The Real Competition" and "The Gala Exhibition." (This is why I am disappointed if the proposal simply adds up the total points to determine the overall placements. To me, this removes the description "radical change" and replaces it with "same old, same old." )

The problem with Jason Brown is that his tech is way below the average for men's standard like way, way below. I might be wrong but in the worlds men fs, I think he was the only man to have never landed a quad ever (I'm not totally certain). The only other guys might have been Julian Yee and Deniiss Vasijevs (has Deniss ever landed a quad?). But I'm pretty certain the other 17 guys have landed a quad. Point is a quad is basic technical standard in men skating now. I'm surprised by how much the judges have kept him afloat in this day and age. This isnt 2010 where some men have quads and some dont. The top 20 men should have at least 1 quad

Mathman said:

However, that would still pose a big headache when it comes to preparing the revised Scale of Values. If the "Artistic program had, as you say, fewer jumps but additional features like a "character step sequence " or an edge element with change of edge, these would have to be valued really highly to compensate in point value for the missing one or two or three quads and triple-triples.

Click to expand...

If the goal is to have the total point values for the two programs approximately equal, with more emphasis on jumps in the technical program and on non-jump elements in the "artistic" program, in theory it would be possible to keep them close in total value but that might require a larger difference in the PCS balance than ~40% in the tech program and ~60% in the artistic.

It might also involve revaluing the step sequences.

Say that the tech program will have 11 elements: 7 jump elements (of which 3 can be combinations or sequences, one of which can have 3 jumps), 3 spins, and 1 step sequence.

An artistic program with the same 3:30 time limit might also have 11 elements, but maybe only 4 or 5 of them can be jumps, maybe only 1 or 2 combinations allowed.

The other 6 or 7 elements might allow for 4 spins, one full-ice step sequence with base value more similar to what's used for ice dance step sequences, a character step sequence which if leveled could be scored more similar to how the longer sequences are scored now, a twizzle sequence, an edge element or field moves sequence (which if leveled could have high base values for difficult features -- more difficult than change of edge in spiral position, which is actually not that difficult to accomplish), a sequence of low-rotation jumps rewarding air positions and complex on-ice connections between the jumps, etc.

If some of those elements are worth more than 3.5 or 4 points each in base value, then the base values for the program could end up being comparable to a tech program full of triples -- higher still for those skaters who include triple axels and quads among the lower number of allowed jump elements.

If the emphasis really is supposed to be on artistry, and especially if many of these elements will be "choreo" with low base values and most of the points earned from GOE, then probably the values of the positive GOEs should allow for adding more than 50% of base value for excellent execution.

The TES base values would still probably be lower in the artistic program than in the tech program. Especially for skaters who are able to include multiple 3As and quads in the tech program.

But more comparable for skaters who are only doing triples to begin with.

However, the higher values of the PCS may mean that the total segment score will not be that different between the two program types.

Of course, it would be important for judges to set and maintain clearer standards for what constitutes 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10 in each component and to apply those standards consistently.

A skater who spends the tech program stalking jumps and in the artistic program can relax and perform more detailed choreography should receive very different PCS in the two programs.

And a skater who doesn't have the presentation skills to do much more than just present elements even in the artistic program might earn similar component scores in both programs (but with higher multipliers in the artistic).

If the PCS factor is 2.0 for the artistic program, a 20-point TES lead in the tech program and a 10-point TES lead in the artistic program won't hold up if they can't crack 8.00 in any component in either program while top competitors are earning 9.5s and 10s in the artistic. (That's at least 30 PCS points right there, not counting any tech program PCS advantage the top artistic skaters might have narrowed the gap with a little in the tech.)

icybear said:

The problem with Jason Brown is that his tech is way below the average for men's standard like way, way below. I might be wrong but in the worlds men fs, I think he was the only man to have never landed a quad ever (I'm not totally certain). The only other guys might have been Julian Yee and Deniiss Vasijevs (has Deniss ever landed a quad?). But I'm pretty certain the other 17 guys have landed a quad. Point is a quad is basic technical standard in men skating now. I'm surprised by how much the judges have kept him afloat in this day and age. This isnt 2010 where some men have quads and some dont. The top 20 men should have at least 1 quad

Click to expand...

There’s no problem with Jason Brown

The judges reward skating skill, spins, quality of jumps, performance, interpretation, and all the other elements that Jason performs to the highest level. That is not “holding up”, that is judging.

All of these elements, as far as I can tell, the ISU has listed as eligible for points in a judged sport. Also, as far as I can tell, the ISU has not required a certain number of revolutions in the air on a jump for a skater to be listed in the top 10, top 20, or top anything

You may prefer programs with many four revolution jumps, and that is great, you have many programs to watch to bring you pleasure:agree:

icybear said:

The problem with Jason Brown is that his tech is way below the average for men's standard like way, way below. I might be wrong but in the worlds men fs, I think he was the only man to have never landed a quad ever (I'm not totally certain). The only other guys might have been Julian Yee and Deniiss Vasijevs (has Deniss ever landed a quad?). But I'm pretty certain the other 17 guys have landed a quad. Point is a quad is basic technical standard in men skating now. I'm surprised by how much the judges have kept him afloat in this day and age. This isnt 2010 where some men have quads and some dont. The top 20 men should have at least 1 quad

Click to expand...

Julian Yee has landed 4S before.

el henry said:

There’s no problem with Jason Brown

The judges reward skating skill, spins, quality of jumps, performance, interpretation, and all the other elements that Jason performs to the highest level. That is not “holding up”, that is judging.

All of these elements, as far as I can tell, the ISU has listed as eligible for points in a judged sport. Also, as far as I can tell, the ISU has not required a certain number of revolutions in the air on a jump for a skater to be listed in the top 10, top 20, or top anything

You may prefer programs with many four revolution jumps, and that is great, you have many programs to watch to bring you pleasure:agree:

Click to expand...

Spins, skating skills maybe. I wouldnt say his quality of jumps are the highest level out there. Performance and interpretation is subjective. Anyway it's not whether I prefer quad programs, it's the basic difficulty that men these days should have.

icybear said:

Spins, skating skills maybe. I wouldnt say his quality of jumps are the highest level out there. Performance and interpretation is subjective. Anyway it's not whether I prefer quad programs, it's the basic difficulty that men these days should have.

Click to expand...

Should have, could have, would have.

According to the ISU handbook, in the SP where there are prescribed jumps, a 3A, a single Triple OR Quadruple jump, and a jump combination. Nowhere does it say that a Quad is the basic requirement. Therefore, Jason hits the basic difficulty required for a Men's Senior skating, whether you think he does or not :confused2:

fzztsimmons said:

Should have, could have, would have.

According to the ISU handbook, in the SP where there are prescribed jumps, a 3A, a single Triple OR Quadruple jump, and a jump combination. Nowhere does it say that a Quad is the basic requirement. Therefore, Jason hits the basic difficulty required for a Men's Senior skating, whether you think he does or not :confused2:

Click to expand...

I wasn't referring to the rules merely the standards that have been set out by skaters these days.

But they are arbitrary standards. The rules set the standards (which is no prescribed quad jumps) and these set the scores. That is what matters regardless of whether you think it’s enough or not.