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

icybear said:

This isnt 2010 where some men have quads and some dont. The top 20 men should have at least 1 quad

Click to expand...

And if you would be so kind as to point out where in the rule book it says that it is officially mandatory?

And to be blunt people keep going on about "why can't he get a quad"... well, why can't all those with a quad get the skating skills, edges, spins etc?

TallyT said:

And if you would be so kind as to point out where in the rule book it says that it is officially mandatory?

And to be blunt people keep going on about "why can't he get a quad"... well, why can't all those with a quad get the skating skills, edges, spins etc?

Click to expand...

Again, I was not referring to the rule book. I was referring to the standard set out by the other 20 top men. And the standard is that top 20 men have a quad.

icybear said:

Again, I was not referring to the rule book. I was referring to the standard set out by the other 20 top men. And the standard is that top 20 men have a quad.

Click to expand...

I think I am confused by the word "standard". Is what you mean that the *average* of men in the top 20 have landed quads at least once in a competition?

I just checked the top 20 men: Jason is No. 6, Deniss V. is No. 12, Kevin, who has landed precisely one quad, is No. 11. So it is certainly not a "standard".

As @TallyT said, there are many points where skaters could improve. in my world of standards, everyone would need to spin like Jason to be in the top 20

We all like different skaters, which is But everyone in the top 20 deserves to be there:thumbsup:

el henry said:

I think I am confused by the word "standard". Is what you mean that the *average* of men in the top 20 have landed quads at least once in a competition?

I just checked the top 20 men: Jason is No. 6, Deniss V. is No. 12, Kevin, who has landed precisely one quad, is No. 11. So it is certainly not a "standard".

As @TallyT said, there are many points where skaters could improve. in my world of standards, everyone would need to spin like Jason to be in the top 20

We all like different skaters, which is But everyone in the top 20 deserves to be there:thumbsup:

Click to expand...

Standard meaning a baseline level.

gkelly said:

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...

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.

Click to expand...

I think achieving that goal would be a difficult challenge. Even in the Artistic Program, with 5 jumps (including at least one quad and one triple Axel if the skater can do it), it would be hard for the ISU to come up with a scale of values + PCSs differential that would give the "artistic" skater the advantage over the big jumper.

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.

Click to expand...

I think that is the way to go. For instance, if an "edge move with change of edge" is a judged element, well, it is nothing to fulfilling the bare bones of the requirement, so the points would have to come either from some sort of levels or from piling on the GOE.

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.)

Click to expand...

To me, it is beginning to look like proposed new system is not much different from what we have now. Call it what you will, a Short Program, a Long Program, an Artistic Program, a Technical Program, the skater must at least hold his own on the jumps and not be terrible at performance skills. A skater who can't jump will not be able to win even the Artistic Program and a skater who can't manage even an 8 in PCS will not win the Technical Program.

I guess this is as it should be.

Still, I think that a skater who does 6 quads in the two programs combined will be in the driver's seat no matter how beautifully someone else changes edge or portrays a character in a step sequence.

icybear said:

Again, I was not referring to the rule book. I was referring to the standard set out by the other 20 top men. And the standard is that top 20 men have a quad.

Click to expand...

Not a great standard then, if one element done once - no matter how whizzbang - overrides the combined other umpteen. And I speak as a Yuzu/Javi/Shoma/Mikhail/etc fan so I love quads in their place. But I also love that beauty and precision in motion I mentioned elsewhere, and quite a lot of the top 20 don't have enough of it. Maybe the changes will encourage it (I'm not holding my breath).

And come on, the judges (whom I am no fan of for many reasons) do not have to follow any arbitrary some-fans-see-it-and-some-fans-don't 'standard', they have enough trouble with the actual rule book as it is.

TallyT said:

Not a great standard then, if one element done once - no matter how whizzbang - overrides the combined other umpteen. And I speak as a Yuzu/Javi/Shoma/Mikhail/etc fan so I love quads in their place. But I also love that beauty and precision in motion I mentioned elsewhere, and quite a lot of the top 20 don't have enough of it. Maybe the changes will encourage it (I'm not holding my breath).

And come on, the judges (whom I am no fan of for many reasons) do not have to follow any arbitrary some-fans-see-it-and-some-fans-don't 'standard', they have enough trouble with the actual rule book as it is.

Click to expand...

It's not about whether the standard is good or not. It's just the standard it is. If the standard was that all men should have 3a which they do, then a male skater without one is below the standard no matter how good their pcs is.

It's up to the ISU to determine what it wants to reward -- what it considers a minimum standard to compete at senior level at all (including people who will never make it as far as Worlds) and what skills should weigh heavily in determining champions.

They really need to think things through in terms of how many points should be available for each type of skill and to build the Scale of Values for base values and GOEs, the PCS categories and factors, and the program requirements (or options) for each phase of the competition.

If they want rotations in the air to be the determining factor, then the current SoV and program structures come pretty close to achieving that.

If they want other things to be just as important or more so, then they need to rejigger the program content, SoV, and/or PCS factors.

It sounds like the proposal to replace Short Program and Freeskate with Technical and Artistic programs is one attempt to address the issue with restructuring the program content in at least one of the programs and also with PCS factoring, details still TBD.

As Mathman points out, they do need to consider whether the point-earning opportunities in the revised system will in fact allow excellence in other areas to outweigh in-air skills (if in fact that is the intended result). And whether they want the most important skills in the less jump-centered program to be more about "artistry" or about on-ice technical skills and quality.

But if jump difficulty and jump quality and spin difficulty and spin quality and difficulty of steps and transitional highlight moves and basic skating and the quality thereof and performance quality and program construction etc. are all intended to be important, then there's no need to legislate exactly which areas one must excel in before being considered for elite placements. There are lots of different kinds of skills to earn points in. A skater who can earn many points by excelling in most can medal even if one of those areas happens to be deficient compared to all their other areas of excellence.

icybear said:

It's not about whether the standard is good or not. It's just the standard it is. If the standard was that all men should have 3a which they do, then a male skater without one is below the standard no matter how good their pcs is.

Click to expand...

And yet, it is possible for a man to win competitions without a 3A. At the world level, in a reasonably well skated event, it would probably take several quads to so. But there's no requirement that a skater must land a 3A to win. Or any other specific jump. (They do need to include an axel of some kind, which is not true for each of the other takeoffs. But there are still enough other point-earning opportunities available to overcome popping 3A attempts in both programs or intentionally planning doubles instead.)

Same for quads. When some skaters are successfully able to land 3, 4, or 5 quads in a freeskate, it's hard to make up the base value difference without any. However, it's easy to make up the difference between 1 quad and 0 quads per program, and no reason why it shouldn't be.

gkelly said:

Same for quads. When some skaters are successfully able to land 3, 4, or 5 quads in a freeskate, it's hard to make up the base value difference without any. However, it's easy to make up the difference between 1 quad and 0 quads per program, and no reason why it shouldn't be.

Click to expand...

It is especially hard because, for a lot of skaters, they get a boost in PCS when they skate well and earn very high TES scores. Nathan's PCS shouldn't really be close to Yuzuru's or Jason's. He should still win if he's a few quads ahead, but the PCS scores aren't reflecting what the skaters are putting on the ice sometimes.

drivingmissdaisy said:

It is especially hard because, for a lot of skaters, they get a boost in PCS when they skate well and earn very high TES scores. Nathan's PCS shouldn't really be close to Yuzuru's or Jason's. He should still win if he's a few quads ahead, but the PCS scores aren't reflecting what the skaters are putting on the ice sometimes.

Click to expand...

This is cynical and crassly unpurist of me but... pragmatic economics is IMO what quads for quads' sake getting high PCS rewards was all about, and what it is all about now that other things may - may - be on the rise. When I got interested in the men's skating (just before Olys 2018) it seemed to me that most people - including the ISU - had decided that mega-quadsters was the way to go to excite the audiences, make fans and full rinks and money etc. Especially as the said mega-quadsters (as I recall) at that stage promised to be the two Americans and a budding Canadian, Steven Gogolev. The promise of superstars right where the Powers That Be most wanted to up the numbers.

Didn't really happen, for a whole range of factors that weren't the skaters' fault (certainly not Nathan's - whether you agree with his PCS or not, he is unquestionably doing more than anyone could expect of one man to try and be a popularity game-changer). And now pretty much all the top men can do one or more, but... it's not working the fannish magic the way it was supposed to.

This shouldn't be all about one skater, but even you think if it is, Jason has grown into one of the two finest all-round skaters in the world right now, when I watch competitions or shows, I see audiences and judges responding to that. I am no fan of the ISU or the major feds, but I can't blame them for deciding that quadmania didn't work the expected magic, and shouldn't therefore be the only thing that counts. Anyone who has the quads and the skating skills shouldn't have a problem with that.

PS - please note, I am not agreeing or disagreeing about Nathan Chen's PCS, I honestly have no opinion on them at all. I don't have the right to have one.

Well I think Nathan is just as good a skater as Yuzuru and Jason. He just has a different style that the judges and audiences find appealing. He’s not what you think of when you think of the typical figure skater.

TallyT said:

This is cynical and crassly unpurist of me but... pragmatic economics is IMO what quads for quads' sake getting high PCS rewards was all about, and what it is all about now that other things may - may - be on the rise. When I got interested in the men's skating (just before Olys 2018) it seemed to me that most people - including the ISU - had decided that mega-quadsters was the way to go to excite the audiences, make fans and full rinks and money etc. Especially as the said mega-quadsters (as I recall) at that stage promised to be the two Americans and a budding Canadian, Steven Gogolev. The promise of superstars right where the Powers That Be most wanted to up the numbers.

Didn't really happen, for a whole range of factors that weren't the skaters' fault (certainly not Nathan's - whether you agree with his PCS or not, he is unquestionably doing more than anyone could expect of one man to try and be a popularity game-changer). And now pretty much all the top men can do one or more, but... it's not working the fannish magic the way it was supposed to.

This shouldn't be all about one skater, but even you think if it is, Jason has grown into one of the two finest all-round skaters in the world right now, when I watch competitions or shows, I see audiences and judges responding to that. I am no fan of the ISU or the major feds, but I can't blame them for deciding that quadmania didn't work the expected magic, and shouldn't therefore be the only thing that counts. Anyone who has the quads and the skating skills shouldn't have a problem with that.

PS - please note, I am not agreeing or disagreeing about Nathan Chen's PCS, I honestly have no opinion on them at all. I don't have the right to have one.

Click to expand...

The main reason I care about PCS scores, or really scoring in general, is because judges sometimes use the wrong category to boost good performances. The impact is seen when you have skaters from more powerful federations get accurate scores on TES and then a reputation boost on PCS for their strong performance, whereas a good jumper from a weaker federation will get the good TES scores but not any PCS boost if they skate well. If quads get the base value they're truly worth, you wouldn't see sloppy landing quads get +3 and some good, multi-quad performances get a PCS bump. Quads should be worth more, but judged more like triples where you actually need a difficult entry and a perfect landing position to earn top marks.

drivingmissdaisy said:

The main reason I care about PCS scores, or really scoring in general, is because judges sometimes use the wrong category to boost good performances. The impact is seen when you have skaters from more powerful federations get accurate scores on TES and then a reputation boost on PCS for their strong performance, whereas a good jumper from a weaker federation will get the good TES scores but not any PCS boost if they skate well. If quads get the base value they're truly worth, you wouldn't see sloppy landing quads get +3 and some good, multi-quad performances get a PCS bump. Quads should be worth more, but judged more like triples where you actually need a difficult entry and a perfect landing position to earn top marks.

Click to expand...

Sloppy landing quad still has better height and distance, more time in the air, and more impact to the observers than triples. I mean jump is a jump, and with a quad you are jumping more in every jumping sense than with a triple (unless you are jumping with a delayed rotation or with a more demanding/more appealing air position). You can make an impact on performance with spins too, but its not that someone today is spinning as Lambiel or Lipnitskaya, so...

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...

Actually, under the current scoring rules, Jason is well above the average technical standard. His 4CC SP TES was 7/24 there and higher than the SP TES of every single guy at Euros. His FS TES was 5/24 at 4CC and higher than all but 2 guys at Euros. The fact that he gets such high TES without a quad may be a problem for you, but it’s not a problem under the current scoring system.

Baron Vladimir said:

Sloppy landing quad still has better height and distance, more time in the air, and more impact to the observers than triples. I mean jump is a jump, and with a quad you are jumping more in every jumping sense than with a triple (unless you are jumping with a delayed rotation or with a more demanding/more appealing air position).

Click to expand...

I disagree. Quads should be compared to other quads. If you give a quad +3 with no difficult entry and a sloppy landing, a good quad will not be rewarded enough relative to the former.

el henry said:

I think I am confused by the word "standard". Is what you mean that the *average* of men in the top 20 have landed quads at least once in a competition?

I just checked the top 20 men: Jason is No. 6, Deniss V. is No. 12, Kevin, who has landed precisely one quad, is No. 11. So it is certainly not a "standard".

As @TallyT said, there are many points where skaters could improve. in my world of standards, everyone would need to spin like Jason to be in the top 20

We all like different skaters, which is But everyone in the top 20 deserves to be there:thumbsup:

Click to expand...

I want to come hang out in your world of standards. Can we also dictate they need to have amazing step sequences?

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...

Jason does keep himself afloat by doing what a lot of the other guys don't do - maximizing grade of execution on the elements he CAN do. Skaters who can do quads also lose levels on spins and footwork or just DO their jumps with not the best air positions, flow on the landings, transitions. A quad is only about 4-5 points more than a triple counterpart, which can be made by a skater like Brown on execution/levels.

However, the skaters at the top of the pack can all do quads but also do the requirements to achieve levels, with decent enough execution. Hence, Brown relies on his artistic score (and inconsistencies from rivals) to hang with those ones. This proposed system however, essentially doesn't encourage him (or other technically-deficient, jump-wise skaters) to improve their jumping, because it gives them more leeway to make errors and not upgrade knowing that they'll have a PCS gap over other skaters.

Some people just max out on certain skills below the level of the best in the world. They're not going match those best skaters in those areas no matter how hard they work at them.

E.g., a skater with certain skeletal or muscular types may never be able to execute a Biellmann spin. Which may make it impossible for them to achieve a level 4 layback. Or possibly enough difficult positions to earn level 4s on three different spins per program even without attempting laybacks.

A hearing-impaired skater may have difficulty interpreting music with the same finesse as the most musical skaters.

So those won't be their strong points. They'll have to find other skills to maximize in order to try to achieve their best possible results.

If they can earn enough points elsewhere despite a personal area of comparative deficiency, they can be competitive with other skaters who do excel in those areas and may have different areas of relative weakness.

TallyT said:

This is cynical and crassly unpurist of me but... pragmatic economics is IMO what quads for quads' sake getting high PCS rewards was all about, ...

Click to expand...

I think you are on to something there. To me, it is very telling that the new ISU proposal puts the Artistic Program last, as the grand finale -- step right up, ladies and gentlemen, this is what you have all been waiting for! -- instead of the Technical Program.

They must have decided that the one-quad-after-another business model wasn't all that appealing to their customers after all.