It has been discussed before how the dropping of figures as a discipline led to detriment in the sport. I personally enjoy watching figure skating of today much more than of years/decades ago.
Crossovers are so much more powerful and have better extension, arm/body movements are much more balletic and elegant. Transitions are so much more intricate and inventive.
Air position is more esthetically pleasing and it also appears that the skaters skate more into the ice as opposed to floating on top of it.
All in all, as a spectator, I feel that the sport is more interesting to watch now. I do miss the drama of the 6.0 system, though :-)
What are your thoughts on the state of figure skating of today vs past years?
There weren't year-round rinks everywhere back then, so there was a lot less competition, meaning that skaters did not have to be perfect to come out in first place.
There have been a lot of changes in this sport over the past decade or so, some are definitely related to figures, though some of it is simply natural evolution that happens over time.
Losing figures has definitely altered training, and I have to wonder if this has lead to more injuries (and shorter careers) for skaters. Not only has technique changed, skaters spend more time training harder jumps and combinations, which is pretty hard on the body.
I'm not a big fan of televised sports, don't even own a TV actually, but I watched a few programs from the 2013 Canadians on youtube. If you take what is new and edgy today with what is new and edgy 50 years ago, say Donald Jackson's World's winning program, There are similarities, but the differences are striking. Don Jacksons footwork was lightning fast, he threw in umpteen jumps, some killer spins, and never put a foot wrong. The 2013 program is based on standing in one spot gyrating and gesticulating aimlessly to the music, then skating aggressively...like breakdancing, then attempting a quad and almost falling, then attempting another and almost falling, neither was clean...
There is more to artistry than jumping and gyrating...
I enjoy a slow skater...one who floats over the ice...graceful elegant, artistic. Like any art different folks appreciate different genres and mediums, I guess. For me, watching a master execute a clean figure with precision and flow is Art...like sacred geometry.
Quote from: JSM on February 16, 2013, 06:19:25 PM
Losing figures has definitely altered training, and I have to wonder if this has lead to more injuries (and shorter careers) for skaters. Not only has technique changed, skaters spend more time training harder jumps and combinations, which is pretty hard on the body.
Something I've heard quite a bit is that losing figures has meant less edge control and, in practice, that's affected how much time it takes people to get their (single) Axel, since they're not in complete control of that forward edge. I'd guess it may also have affected how many skaters have tendencies to flutz or lip.
"The point he gets from doing the quads allow him to make mistakes" - commentator a few seconds in.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZciKUG4zgo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Alrsemq_mzQ
As I say many similarities, but do you not think a totally clean triple or double is more artistically pleasing that a stumbled quad? The two clean triples make more impact than a fizzling four? I dunno. I'd rather a clean program.
Quote from: irenar5 on February 16, 2013, 02:37:48 PM
All in all, as a spectator,
I do miss the drama of the 6.0 system, though :
I agree, a lot of the drama and intrigue of the scoring of the various disciplines is gone under the IJS system. I noticed that during the showing of the 2013 USFS Nationals on TV. It used to be that when the scores were shown after a skaters performance, that the drama and build-up as the individual judges scores were shown or reveled was just awesome. You could feel the tension and audience reaction to each score as it was shown, something like this---
. . . . 5.7 . . . . ( some applause, sports announcer explaining as to maybe why that score was given . . . . ) . . . . 5.4 . . . . ( hushed tone, some booing from the audience, " Is that judge crazy ? " ) . . . . 5.9 . . . . ( wild cheers and pandemonium breaking loose for several moments ) . . . . ( audience gasping as to what the next score will be . . . . ) . . . . 5.8 . . . . ( someone screams . . . .). . . . ( what next ? , what next ?, I can't stand it . . . . ) . . . . ??? . . . .
But all of that wonderful angst and drama is over ! There is a blank box on the screen, then an unknown number is shown. That's all ! ( " WTF ? How did that happen ? You mean that the skater won by someone posting a three or four digit number ? That's all ? WTF ? " ). I was really disappointed by the lack of any understanding or commentary offered about the IJS scoring by the sports announcers, or by anybody else, at the Nationals. All that excitement, pain and pleasure, all down the drain, thanks to IJS, IMO.
It really begs the question: What material difference does it make under either scoring system whether a skater is unartistic and racks up points during Compulsory Figures, or whether they rack up points by just throwing in as many triples and quads as they can good or otherwise? Is it just competitive showjumping? The fact that a skater can do almost nothing of artistic merit and yet have staggeringly high technical marks based on jumping alone...he fails to land several jumps cleanly... what have we really gained in net value to the sport?
While I did not like Reynolds' skate, I did not care much for Don Jackson's, either. I would take any beautiful double or triple over a stumbled quad, but to me Jackson's jumps do not look beautiful. There is pretty much running crossovers with straight stick arms into jumps. To me personally it is not artistry.
I would think many people would agree that Reynolds' win was a big surprise. Besides, I was not really talking about judging, but rather esthetically pleasing qualities of skating.
John Curry's figures are an incredible spectacle to watch. Amazing blade and body control- I do not dispute this. However, from a purely "pleasing on the eyes" point, I much prefer current figure skating.
Check out Peggy Fleming's skate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdPKgg8SGys
Even novice ladies, in my opinion, have much more elegance today.
ONskater74: 2013 Canadian Nationals is not representative of the entire world of figure skating. The 2010 Olympics would be a better sample. In my opinion, Kim Yu Na and Mao Asada are absolutely marvelous skaters. Beautiful jumps, beautiful artistry, beautiful skating.
I loved skaters of the past though -- I'm sure Peggy Fleming would be doing beautiful triples if she were born decades later. The sport has evolved, I think for the better. The "lack of skating skills" that people notice came from the elimination of figures from training, not elimination of figures from competition (IMO, the latter should not necessarily lead to the former). In fact, it was mentioned in another thread that many top skaters today with the best skating skills (ex. Patrick Chan, Kim Yuna) have actually done figures, although probably not to the same extent as skaters did in the past.
Hey, different strokes for different folks :)
I agree with you, irenar5. So many people idealize the skating of the past, but whenever I look at it, all I see is that there were a lot of crossovers, a lot of counter-clockwise skating, and a lot of repeated jumps. I also see that the footwork is fast but extremely easy. While I do believe figures taught great edge quality and could benefit today's skaters as well, I think 6.0 was a system that failed to push skaters in the areas of choreography, footwork and transitions.
It would be interesting to see some hard numbers from TV networks comparing overall figure skating viewership over the years. Is it declining, increasing, staying stable? I reviewed a book elsewhere that was written in 1995/96 and it was the writer's view then that figure skating was "The Hottest Thing" ever and it would eventually dominate sports network programming.
I really have no comment on the artistic merit of Don Jackson's skating, All I'm saying is he knew his limits, while still pushing them, and he skated clean and won. I was appalled at the commentators remarks about Kevin Reynolds mistakes, that they were compensated for by landing some clean quadruple jumps. It is no different than 40 years ago saying a skater can freeskate poorly and bore the audience to tears but still win because they had such a huge lead in compulsory figures. Both scoring systems seem to me to be flawed in that they can manipulated by skaters who excel in figures back then, or jumping today. While spectacular on-ice accidents and hell-bent-for-leather jumping may be exciting for some, even the majority of, TV spectators, is it really taking skating in the right direction when winning any competition becomes the exclusive right reserved for the elite few who can jump? Where does this leave the vast majority of skaters who might otherwise be expressive and artistic skaters, but who are thwarted when doing triples and quads becomes the benchmark of what constitutes a "good skater". Has the pendulum swung out of control in the opposite direction from where it was 50-60 years ago? How many years are these young-twenties skaters going to be able to land these quads before they damage something? How many aspiring skaters will injure themselves attempting to master more and more difficult jumps earlier and earlier?
I take the long view. A skater should be able to enjoy the sport their whole life long. To reduce technical merit down to just landing difficult jumps? It leaves me cold. I'm not opposed to change, I'm not interested in turning back the clock. There is more to skating than landing jumps. The work of choreographers is so much more advanced, the skaters have so many more advantages today in developing a graceful artistic style of their own, and this is good.
I'm just cautious, that's all. Let us see in 40 more years where figure skating is, and compare notes again.
Don Jackson still skates nowadays and is pretty special to watch....just saying! :)
I know that's not what this topic is about but I think his love of the sport is incredible. And comparing skaters of today and yesterday is like comparing apples and oranges. I do think edge control was a lot better with figures but then again most coaches grew up with figures and can instill those qualities they learned from figures in their students if they try.
I love this conversation!
I remember watching the 1988 Olympics - the "Battle of the Brians", Katarina Witt, Gordeeva & Grinkov....I was captivated by both the artistry and the technical aspects. To me, that was the height of figure skating at its best. There was such a beauty and artistry in their programs. I don't enjoy watching figure skating on TV as much today because it seems like it's just jump, jump, jump....
I rarely watch competitive skating on TV. The few times I did, got bored and annoyed in short order, and turned the tube off.
Seems all they do is setting up for jumps by skating furiously. The music is playing, yet there is only an occasional coincidence of movement in sync with the music. Might as well turn off the music and let the commentators prattle on.
Do like exhibitions and dedicated artistic skating. At times the choreography is really good. When the choreography actually has good expression of the music, and the skater artfully presents it, it is truly enjoyable. Wonders never cease.
I do spend a fairly good amount of time scouring youtube for good skating. Recently I stumbled on some long ago performances of Moiseeva and Minenkov. I'd like to be able to skate, say 20% as well as Minenkov. Next to John Curry, he is one I like to emulate. Tough at my age that is a bit optimistic, nonetheless I do give it my best even with the limited skills. Maintaining good posture just gliding along, gets me lots of unsolicited good comments and compliments from skating moms. Then I hear them tell their little ones, that is how it should look like.
THIS is a breath of fresh air for those who feel that skating is all about the jumps. I actually like it at least as much as Vancouver. Congrats Yuna!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDRtKl_2ajw
Sampa, some fans dumped on that performance last night as "workman-like", "boring" and "meh" (not me, personally), so it really is in the eye of the beholder
Okay... not about the jumps? Skate to one end jump, skate to the other end jump, skate back to the other end jump..., then 4 minutes spent replaying each jump in slow motion?
:o
Quote from: ONskater74 on March 17, 2013, 11:52:53 AM
Okay... not about the jumps? Skate to one end jump, skate to the other end jump, skate back to the other end jump..., then 4 minutes spent replaying each jump in slow motion?
:o
It's not just about the jumps, but what's going on in between.. Yuna makes it all look way too easy.
QuoteOkay... not about the jumps? Skate to one end jump, skate to the other end jump, skate back to the other end jump..., then 4 minutes spent replaying each jump in slow motion?
Without jumps freestyle skating would be ice dance- and we already have that discipline. Anyone who has ever tried jumps, knows what a feat of athleticism they are! Figure skating is a sport first and foremost, so we need to have a distinct measure of athletic ability.
Besides, jumps add so much drama to the competition! :P
It's what goes BETWEEN the jumps that's special for me. The slight nuances in movement, the steps. Of course the jumps are wonderful, but this is NOTHING like men's skating. I watched Kevin Reynolds and all I can see are his quads. Well, Patrick Chan is an exception -- I prefer everything else other than his jumps. :p
Quote from: ONskater74 on February 20, 2013, 06:54:21 PM
It would be interesting to see some hard numbers from TV networks comparing overall figure skating viewership over the years. Is it declining, increasing, staying stable? I reviewed a book elsewhere that was written in 1995/96 and it was the writer's view then that figure skating was "The Hottest Thing" ever and it would eventually dominate sports network programming.
It is very difficult to compare TV numbers from now to the past. First- even as recent as the 80s, and possibly 90s, having more than a couple of handfuls of networks was rare, a decade earlier you just had a very few choices, so for the most part, people watched what was on. Yes- they watched less TV, but during 'family TV hour', whatever was on, got watched. Now there are 100+ choices of things to watch, so viewership of just about everything is down.
Then you have the issue of how media is delivered today- many people don't watch traditional TV at all, but get their media from the Internet. They may get it from a TV stream (like how I watched World's - from Latvia) or they may get it from Youtube. Those numbers dont' get counted in any ratings.
I do think Figure Skating in the US is down in viewership, but I think a lot of that has to do with how it is marketed. NBC has the contracts- and their "sports network" is rare in most cable packages. If ABC had it, I'm almost certain it would be on ESPN, or ESPN2, or ESPN the Ocho- I'm thinking it is still probably more popular that pool or bowling...
I agree with Skittl. Figure skating viewership was at its peak in the 90's because we had a reigning Olympic gold medalist lady (Kristi Yamaguchi) and the huge Kerrigan-Harding scandal, as well as an exciting new champion, Michelle Kwan. Before that, figure skating did not have a huge audience, but people tend to forget that. Still, there was a decent sized audience just because it got televised and there weren't as many viewing options back then. People either had only network TV, basic cable, or basic cable plus some premium movie channels. Now people have over 100 TV channels, not to mention everything available for viewing view online streaming. The pie is getting sliced into a lot more pieces and it has nothing to do with anything going on in the sport; it has to do with the media market. Although I will say NBC shot itself in the foot by not broadcasting live.
Quote from: Doubletoe on March 18, 2013, 01:51:34 PM
I agree with Skittl. Figure skating viewership was at its peak in the 90's because we had a reigning Olympic gold medalist lady (Kristi Yamaguchi) and the huge Kerrigan-Harding scandal, as well as an exciting new champion, Michelle Kwan. Before that, figure skating did not have a huge audience, but people tend to forget that. Still, there was a decent sized audience just because it got televised and there weren't as many viewing options back then. People either had only network TV, basic cable, or basic cable plus some premium movie channels. Now people have over 100 TV channels, not to mention everything available for viewing view online streaming. The pie is getting sliced into a lot more pieces and it has nothing to do with anything going on in the sport; it has to do with the media market. Although I will say NBC shot itself in the foot by not broadcasting live.
Oh yeah - I will double that about NBC!!!
The times now remind me of the 60s when there was only a little bit of televised skating - it would be at the end of the Saturday afternoon "Wide World of Sports" - they would show the top three of mens and ladies and maybe Pairs if there was anything interesting (like the Kaufmans) - otherwise there was no skating on TV. Period.
People are tired of skating I think (of course we aren't but we are skaters)! Some of my friends are really surprised that I am still into skating and they still want to talk about Paul Wylie, or maybe Tonya Harding - that was their heyday - and while it was great then I think the market got oversaturated with skating shows at that point.
I don't even have a TV, so I've no dog in the ratings fight :)
I guess what I like about a more classical style of skating is the visceral response one would have if attending the opera, the ballet, the symphony, as the curtain closes and the place leaps to its feet in thunderous ovation... The music is music I personally love, the gracefulness is beautiful, the timing and choreography is precise, even Dick Button comments on the beauty of a slow spin because the line of the skater's back is so appealing. He makes a walley into something special. I watched a number of the programs from 2013 Worlds and it is assembly line skating, just stock off-the-shelf elements fastened together with flexible wire and arranged on the ice to different music.
The picture is much clearer if you watch it on youtube, for some reason... ???
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djadlQLK_ow
John Curry has a balletic quality that few men have... or could even train to have, and that was as true back then as it is now.. and that style is apart from his wonderful edge work, it's just that most men aren't built that way, and they don't move that way. It's not really a statement about "skating today" as much as it is about pointing out the exceptions to what is more common.
Your comment about assembly line skating.. I guess if all you are LOOKING for are the required elements, then that's what you see... but if you aren't experienced enough to look for the nuances like the edgework and how someone uses their blades, you won't see them. I've honestly never been the biggest Yuna Kim fan (she just never did much for me inspiration wise leading up to her olympic gold) but I can say watching her world's performance over the weekend, I sat there thinking to myself "this just isn't fair" because her skating skills are really just that much above everyone else and no one else really had a chance of winning worlds against her - the speed she skates with, the ease with which she does it, it's effortless - and obviously lost on some viewers.
I think over time people forget about the bad skaters of the past and remember the very few on the top. Once in a generation types.
Well, we still have those one or two great ones. But I also think a sport should be athletic. If you only want artistry, go to a show.
Quote from: Skittl1321 on March 18, 2013, 08:21:52 PM
I think over time people forget about the bad skaters of the past and remember the very few on the top. Once in a generation types.
Well, we still have those one or two great ones. But I also think a sport should be athletic. If you only want artistry, go to a show.
You took the words right out of my mouth Skitt!
John Curry was amazing then and now (but of course there will be the inevitable comparisons to Toller Cranston - also an artist on the ice and off - ) John Curry is the skater who all other skaters are compared to actually - in terms of the PCS marks. It goes something like, "If John Curry is a 10 then skater x,y z is ____ compared to that quality of skating."
I can recognise that Kim's skating skills are nice, but that doesn't mean I have to enjoy her. She's flat-out boring to me. I thought a lot of the criticisms that she was expressionless and emotionless were pretty well founded IMO.
I was rewatching the top 4 LPs from US Nationals Men the other day, and it struck me that I really enjoyed watching Joshua, Ross and Max, but not Jeremy, even though he arguably had the best skating skills of the four. The reason? Joshua, Ross and Max were all smiling, enjoying themselves, looking like they were doing something they loved. Jeremy looked like he was being tortured to death. If it comes down to big jumps vs tortured artists, give me the big jumps any day. I recognise that "Bring Him Home" is quite a sad song, but his emoting was wayyyyy OTT.
I think some fans need to understand a bit more that not everyone will like the skaters you like, not everyone will see the skaters in the same way you do. I actually had someone tell me flat-out after Nationals that I was stupid for liking Max Aaron's skating since "his skating skills should score a 2 if that". Hmm. But I enjoy his speed, his enjoyment, his energy far more than I enjoy watching Patrick Chan splat all over the ice in spite of his "oh-so-perfect" edges.
Quote from: Sunnyside_Skater on February 21, 2013, 12:07:23 AM
I love this conversation!
I remember watching the 1988 Olympics - the "Battle of the Brians", Katarina Witt, Gordeeva & Grinkov....I was captivated by both the artistry and the technical aspects. To me, that was the height of figure skating at its best. There was such a beauty and artistry in their programs. I don't enjoy watching figure skating on TV as much today because it seems like it's just jump, jump, jump....
I agree with you completely. The 1988 Olympics was truly the high-water mark of skating. And they still did figures! (I am of the school that says skating has suffered tremendously since the demise of figures. They still should be required for testing purposes. Moves in the field are a poor substitute. But I digress.) In contrast, the choreography of today tends to be uninteresing in its own way. It's all the same because everyone has to do the same things to stay competitive with the point system. Lots of beautiful moves are eliminated because they have no point value. Most skaters also either don't have any musical sense or are not allowed to develop it because for the most part, the music may as well be background noise because the skaters rarely express the music--which tends to not suit the skater to begin with. You could interchange any music and their programs would still be the same. I am not even interested in watching skating on TV any more. I would rather watch someone do a beautiful soaring waltz jump or delayed axel that suits the music than a succession of triple jumps and three Bielmann spins--which is ugly anyway.
Quote from: ONskater74 on February 16, 2013, 10:23:44 PM
It really begs the question: What material difference does it make under either scoring system whether a skater is unartistic and racks up points during Compulsory Figures, or whether they rack up points by just throwing in as many triples and quads as they can good or otherwise? Is it just competitive showjumping? The fact that a skater can do almost nothing of artistic merit and yet have staggeringly high technical marks based on jumping alone...he fails to land several jumps cleanly... what have we really gained in net value to the sport?
My two cents: nothing.
The one thing that struck me in watching the John Curry video above was how he really centers his spins. I've watched a lot of modern skaters and they seem to precess around a center point rather than center the spin.
Quote from: karne on March 19, 2013, 07:07:31 AM
I can recognise that Kim's skating skills are nice, but that doesn't mean I have to enjoy her. She's flat-out boring to me. I thought a lot of the criticisms that she was expressionless and emotionless were pretty well founded IMO.
I don't disagree with you there at all :) My comment was more because of the skating itself, not necessarily her performance - there's simply not enough emotion/connection for me, and to be honest she looks almost like she's bored. That's why i said it's not fair - because skaters who give more of themselves in their performance aren't rewarded enough against that.
Quote from: Robin on March 27, 2013, 07:33:06 PM
I agree with you completely. The 1988 Olympics was truly the high-water mark of skating. And they still did figures! (I am of the school that says skating has suffered tremendously since the demise of figures. They still should be required for testing purposes. Moves in the field are a poor substitute. But I digress.) In contrast, the choreography of today tends to be uninteresing in its own way. It's all the same because everyone has to do the same things to stay competitive with the point system. Lots of beautiful moves are eliminated because they have no point value. Most skaters also either don't have any musical sense or are not allowed to develop it because for the most part, the music may as well be background noise because the skaters rarely express the music--which tends to not suit the skater to begin with. You could interchange any music and their programs would still be the same. I am not even interested in watching skating on TV any more. I would rather watch someone do a beautiful soaring waltz jump or delayed axel that suits the music than a succession of triple jumps and three Bielmann spins--which is ugly anyway.
So which moves do you miss that have been "eliminated" due to lack of points?
With non-musical skaters, you could *always* interchange any music and their programs would be the same, even back in the 6.0 days. Nothing has changed there.
Competition programs are meant to exhibit the highest level of difficulty; that's what competitions are for. To see beautiful soaring waltz jumps or delayed axels that are simply meant to express the music, you should go to an ice show or watch the exhibitions after the competitions, which are precisely for that purpose.
Quote from: Doubletoe on March 28, 2013, 01:46:07 PM
So which moves do you miss that have been "eliminated" due to lack of points?
With non-musical skaters, you could *always* interchange any music and their programs would be the same, even back in the 6.0 days. Nothing has changed there.
Competition programs are meant to exhibit the highest level of difficulty; that's what competitions are for. To see beautiful soaring waltz jumps or delayed axels that are simply meant to express the music, you should go to an ice show or watch the exhibitions after the competitions, which are precisely for that purpose.
I'm with you Doubletoe - a competition is just that - a competition!! Otherwise it would just be a personality contest or an artist showcase (nothing wrong with that and that does exist of course!).
I think of all of those big empty programs in the mid-90s - yuck - and then someone would come along and just nail it!!
It hasn't changed. There have always been great skaters and there still are - I just wish we could actually watch them on television and not have to go looking for them on the internet, etc. Cripes!
At least we have the option of looking on the internet for more skating! Imagine if we were still in the 80's with no internet. We would be stuck with what was on tv. Even now it can be tricky to find some of the skaters of yesteryear that weren't in the top ten before the era of the internet.
Quote from: karne on March 19, 2013, 07:07:31 AM
I can recognise that Kim's skating skills are nice, but that doesn't mean I have to enjoy her. She's flat-out boring to me. I thought a lot of the criticisms that she was expressionless and emotionless were pretty well founded IMO.
My coach, who was herself and Olympic competitor, was at Worlds this year with a prime seat (she works for the media). She said the same thing about Kim. Great skating, great jumps, little expression, boring.
Patrick Chan at least has some expression. But I'm tired of seeing his bare chest.
Quote from: Purple Sparkly on March 28, 2013, 05:09:58 PM
Patrick Chan at least has some expression. But I'm tired of seeing his bare chest.
LoL! Me, I just look at his blades, haha!
Speaking of artistry, though...I think that personally, I see artistry in jumps. There's something about the moves that precede each jump. Whenever I see Yuzuru Hanyu do his counter-entrance to his 3A in his Parisienne Walkways SP, I am just in awe. Superb.
Same thing for Yuna -- there's something about the flow in her jump entrances that is just different from all the rest. There's this ease in which she does them, a grace which I don't find in other skaters (say, Kanako Murakami).
For me, the definition of non-artistry is Evgeni Plushenko. It was always quads, quads, quads for him. I hated how he puts all the jumps first and then does all the spins after.
I agree with you, Sampaguita! And for those skaters who don't have the amazing flow of Chan or Kim, they can make up for it in characterization and performance. I don't just mean posturing, but real characterization while still executing difficult step sequences and transitions, like what we see from Javier Fernandez.
http://www.manleywoman.com/episode-63-audrey-weisiger-part-2/
I just listened to this episode , as well as the first part, and felt it would be useful to the discussion. Of particular note is the concept of breaking figure skating down into its various disciplines. The athletic side where jumpers could burn off excess testosterone and knock themselves out "crash ans burn" was the term used. Then the artistic side for the John Curry's and Janet Lynn's. I would add the third category of Figures, again as a separate discipline. A skater could compete in one, two or all three. But the disciplines would be regarded as separate. It would enable a lot of great artistic skaters, of all ages, to remain competitive, when the quads elude them. The obsession with jumping is keeping a lot of people from pursuing skating because there is no possible chance of winning competitively at regionals unless you can consistently land these jumps, which 40 years ago hadn't even been attempted at the international level.
Anyhow, I feel it is worth a listen.
I think that if the disciplines were broken apart it would be easier for the audience to understand - to keep score- and so develop an informed fanbase. If figures were properly televised, to catch the footwork and the body positioning, split screens and the like, and the tension of the judges, then close-ups of the tracings and turns, showing the wobbles and mistakes, I think people would begin to understand the complexity and difficulty figures involve. I mean, come on! people watch curling and golf :o ??? The only Figures programming shown on TV was a 5 minute wrap-up blurb with only the final few seconds of the winning figures televised.
The artistic skating is easily packaged and sold to an audience...Ice shows have been making hay with this for a hundred years, TV series, celebrities on ice etc etc. The "EXTREME Jumping" type of competition, would appeal to a lot of male viewers and with digital technology it is easy to slow a jump down, measure height/distance, speed of rotation etc, to pick the best jumper.
I really feel the sport of figure skating is losing ground commercially, and skaters are dropping out of competition earlier, due to the emphasis on jumping. The good male skater who just can't land a quad has no hope of getting anywhere competitively. Yet he may have the most elegant double axel in a generation, beautiful spread eagles, and a graceful line throughout.
And where is ice dancing going? seems like it is all about sex or something :-\ why can't they choreograph something a little less erotic? It seems bit cheap, technical difficulty aside.
Have you not watched Davis and White or the lower level German team ice dance? Neither team is about erotica or sex. The SD of D/W this season was exquisite in it's interpretation of Giselle as was Die Fleidermaus's interpretation of a couple at a ball just wanting to have fun dancing last season. The Zombie dance this year was fun and played to the German team's strengths.
I agree with Techskater. Also, I guarantee you will see nothing erotic from Shibutani & Shibutani. . . ;)
Quote from: Doubletoe on April 03, 2013, 06:56:17 PM
I agree with Techskater. Also, I guarantee you will see nothing erotic from Shibutani & Shibutani. . . ;)
Sadly that's partly why the naysayers write them off...
Well, it has always been hard for those brother-sister teams through the years - they can be great skaters and work well together but it always seems to be hard for them to show that connection - that is what I think that some people see as "erotic" (hardly) - it is that man-woman thing that we like to see in high-level ice dance - that there is some connection between the skaters. I think Virtue and Moir do it best (of the current group) but Davis and White's Free Program is :love:.
Quote from: icedancer2 on April 03, 2013, 10:22:12 PM
Well, it has always been hard for those brother-sister teams through the years - they can be great skaters and work well together but it always seems to be hard for them to show that connection - that is what I think that some people see as "erotic" (hardly) - it is that man-woman thing that we like to see in high-level ice dance - that there is some connection between the skaters. I think Virtue and Moir do it best (of the current group) but Davis and White's Free Program is :love:.
Yup, love the chemistry between Virtue and Moir. Of course it helps that they were romantically involved before (or maybe that romantic involvement is an effect and not a cause of that chemistry?). There's this romance that you can see in every dance that they do.
Quote from: sampaguita on April 04, 2013, 02:46:24 AM
Yup, love the chemistry between Virtue and Moir. Of course it helps that they were romantically involved before (or maybe that romantic involvement is an effect and not a cause of that chemistry?). There's this romance that you can see in every dance that they do.
They were hardly romantically involved, unless you count elementary school "dating". Although there's no doubt their chemistry is great and unique, I don't think it has anything to do with off-ice romance.
Quote from: DrillingSkills on April 04, 2013, 09:18:40 AM
They were hardly romantically involved, unless you count elementary school "dating". Although there's no doubt their chemistry is great and unique, I don't think it has anything to do with off-ice romance.
Well, I don't know about any off-ice romance either but I can say that every move is totally choreographed (this I am sure of) -
Ice dancers are good actors. That is why they come up with a story line for their programs. As a former dancer who skated with a sibling I know it is all about playing a role. I have known teams that hate each other off the ice, can't even change in the same changeroom as each other but on ice you would assume that they are romantically linked. It's just acting. :)
Quote from: SynchKat on April 04, 2013, 02:43:52 PM
Ice dancers are good actors. That is why they come up with a story line for their programs. As a former dancer who skated with a sibling I know it is all about playing a role. I have known teams that hate each other off the ice, can't even change in the same changeroom as each other but on ice you would assume that they are romantically linked. It's just acting. :)
OMG I forgot that you had skated with a sibling! Forgive any offence in my comment about siblings. I was thinking about the Duchenays, the Seibolds, the Carruthers, the Kaufmanns - many great brother/sister teams through the years.
No offence taken at all. My mom once had someone comment to her how he liked our programs because we always managed to stay away from creating an "uncomfortable" feeling with our programs.
I just wanted to make the point that it's all about acting. I know lots of people assume teams are romantically linked but it's no different than a leading actress and her leading man in my mind.
Since this thread is about skating of today I do think that especially in ice dance there is more of a tendency to tell a story. I think back in the day it was a bit more about just skating and showing your skating skills rather than telling a story of some sort.
Quote from: SynchKat on April 04, 2013, 04:29:49 PM
No offence taken at all. My mom once had someone comment to her how he liked our programs because we always managed to stay away from creating an "uncomfortable" feeling with our programs.
I just wanted to make the point that it's all about acting. I know lots of people assume teams are romantically linked but it's no different than a leading actress and her leading man in my mind.
Since this thread is about skating of today I do think that especially in ice dance there is more of a tendency to tell a story. I think back in the day it was a bit more about just skating and showing your skating skills rather than telling a story of some sort.
Yes, it *is* all about acting. The problem is that when people know that a pair or ice dance couple are brother and sister, there's a big "Eww!" factor if they play the part of a romantic couple. It doesn't make them any less good; it just limits the types of characters they can play and emotions they can express.