My Big Olympic Ideas

[FigureSpins]

I hereby propose:

. Technical Jumping - full-ice program with 7 jumps maximum, no spins, minimal choreography, IJS judging.  Let 'em do quads and quints all they like.

. Technical Spinning - full-ice program with 5 spins maximum, each with at least one change of foot and edge.  Two can start with a flying entrance, the others with difficult entries.
  Maximum four positions/spin, IJS judging.  Let 'em cover the ice with artistry.

. Artistry - max 3 jumps and 2 spins, full ice. Requirements include full-ice step sequence with recognizable pattern, plus a choreography sequence to include gliding movements like spirals, spreadeagles, hydroglides, etc.  Focus will be on music interpretation and character demonstration. Allow duets, both mixed-gender and same-sex teams.

Singles - Mens and Womens
. Eliminate the short program.  Let the Technical events replace it entirely.
. Keep the Free Skate event as-is, with all the same rules and IJS judging.

Pairs
. Eliminate the short program.  Let the Technical events replace it entirely.
. Keep the Free Skate event as-is, with all the same rules and IJS judging.

Dance
. Keep them as-is.  Ice Dance revamped their structure already to come into the new age.
. Allow same-sex couples to perform.

Synchro
. Let 'em in already!  Limit it to one or two teams per country if the headcount is such a show-stopper.

Figures
. Undecided, but open to suggestions. 
. Frankly, it's not a well-viewed discipline, but maybe they could use drones and imaging to show the completed patterns, which would make it more tangible for a viewing audience.


I'm also open to a Theater on Ice style competition that my proposed Artistry category could become part of, as a separate event. 

Our skaters need more options to win a medal.  Friggin' swimmers and snowboarders have abundant opportunities for medals, but figure skaters get one or two chances.

Unfair!

Thoughts, comments ... violent disagreements?

[Bill_S]

I'm with you on keeping the IJS judging rules. I was never comfortable with the old scoring system that some want to return to. Some argue that both systems can be gamed, but I think that the new system is less susceptible to it. Really, it doesn't seem that difficult to comprehend with the help of the little scoreboxes that accompany programs-in-progress on TV, and commentary.

I'm not sure about the jump/spin technical sections. For me, that would be boring. However, I suspect that it would address one common criticism of figure skating, that it's not judged by hard, objective numbers like lap times, pounds lifted, etc. That would help doubting viewers perceive some "objectivity", but it's not something that I want to watch.

I'll even bet that the others would get bored watching the 10th competitor go through their triple axels, quad sals, etc. regardless of how objective it is.

I'm mixed on synchro, and could be persuaded either way.

I'm in complete agreement with the situation for ice dance. It's my favorite discipline to watch on TV. That's probably because I'm a skater and can appreciate the complete control over difficult turns. I'm not sure how the general public perceives it, but my non-skating wife also prefers to watch it over singles or pairs.

[Pandora]

I would love to see more options in technical jump scoring, like they have in spinning.....

For example, a skater who isn't so flexible can still gain features doing a difficult entry or an edge change or difficult transition rather than a Beillmann or Y-catch position.

Maybe offer an option for double jumps in the opposite direction that is equal to points for a triple of that same jump in the skater's dominant skating direction, or something like that?
I think it would make it more interesting! 

[FigureSpins]

They could use technology to measure RPMs, height, distance and correctness of takeoffs, landings, etc.  It would be like diving or x-games style events.

[LunarSkater]

What would you consider as Technical for Pairs? The elements are unique enough that perhaps that part could focus on lifts and the spins.

As for adding Synchro, I am all for it. Take out the current Team event. Why even have it when the skaters are just repeating the same programs they'll be competing in the regular events? Now, if they replaced it with a showcase number, that might be more interesting. But I'd still rather have Synchro.

[Query]

I agree about medaling in individual events. I've never understood why you can win individual ski events, running events, speed skating events, etc., as well as the sports you mentioned, but you have to do very well in multiple events to win one skating medal.

Also, put it all on broadcast TV, or on freely viewable Internet. They are killing the sport by making it too difficult and expensive to watch. Of course, Covid isn't helping.

One possible answer to gender eligibility issues is to reward grace, flow, fine motor control, and balance more, so that neither males nor females, native or modified, have a clear competitive advantage, and all genders can compete with equal possibility of winning in the same events. Some of us find I find those things more interesting than how many times a foot rotates in the air. But I admit these criteria tend to be more subjective.

But it might help the general public appreciate skating better. Elite competitive skaters earn points by mostly doing things that most of the audience cannot possibly do, or fully understand. If they earned points by doing the same things an ordinary recreational skater does, but very, very well, more of the public would understand skating events better, and could better imagine themselves doing the same things while they watch - a very important element of audience enjoyment for most other popular sports.

Do you think figures competition would be more interesting to the audience if we brought back ensemble skating? I like the idea of teaching ensemble (social) dance and figures again at lower levels (post Covid, of course), the same way land dance teaches line, circle and square dances - adding a social element to what is now largely only an individual or couples team sport.

And, make roller skating (speed, figure, and ensemble), a Summer Olympic sport. Again, it is something more of the public can imagine themselves doing, because it costs less at the lower levels.

P.S. You mention quints. Would they be scored as failed jump attempts under current IJS rules?

[LunarSkater]

Also, put it all on broadcast TV, or on freely viewable Internet. They are killing the sport by making it too difficult and expensive to watch. Of course, Covid isn't helping.

No argument here! I just watched a competition in Estonia because it was streaming live on YouTube. But with NBC having a stranglehold on the license, it will never change because there is money to make. They don't care about the casual viewer.

But it might help the general public appreciate skating better. Elite competitive skaters earn points by mostly doing things that most of the audience cannot possibly do, or fully understand. If they earned points by doing the same things an ordinary recreational skater does, but very, very well, more of the public would understand skating events better, and could better imagine themselves doing the same things while they watch - a very important element of audience enjoyment for most other popular sports.

But what would you consider the 'ordinary recreational skater'? The person who goes to public skate once or twice a winter? The child skater who takes lessons just so they can show off at a birthday party? The former child skater who goes to public skates every now and again just to reminisce? The skater in private lessons who knows they're not talented enough to win competitions, but skates for the joy of it? Because the last few I listed? They are exactly what you described - they can skate the elements the elites do. I have seen many a beginner skater on public get really excited because a two-foot spin makes them feel like an Olympian, because they can spin too!

We cannot confuse casual skater for audience. Because the casual skating audience does not mean they skate. Most of the time, they don't.

Do you think figures competition would be more interesting to the audience if we brought back ensemble skating? I like the idea of teaching ensemble (social) dance and figures again at lower levels (post Covid, of course), the same way land dance teaches line, circle and square dances - adding a social element to what is now largely only an individual or couples team sport.

As someone who is actually working on a figures test, I think figures will never come back. They take way too much time away from what the beginner skaters consider the fun elements: jumps and spins. The higher-level competitive skaters don't have time to work on them. The teenage recreational skaters don't have the interest. Plus ice cost and time the general skater just does not have. The casual skating audience? Boring. And ensemble dance, IMO, would be too similar to synchro for the casual audience to care. People already get confused between pairs and dance.

And, make roller skating (speed, figure, and ensemble), a Summer Olympic sport. Again, it is something more of the public can imagine themselves doing, because it costs less at the lower levels.

Agreed! Also, it became a thing during the summer lockdowns. So there might actually be some traction in this sport.

[FigureSpins]

Take out the current Team event. Why even have it when the skaters are just repeating the same programs they'll be competing in the regular events?

I forgot about the Team Event and I'll bet others have, too.  ☺

[Query]

Take out the current Team event.

Yes! For the most part, only the three countries that have the population and resources to train a lot of serious skaters have much of a chance, and are almost guaranteed a medal. The one thing it has done is to demonstrate how much luck is involved - sometimes a skater competes well in the National team event, but not the individual event, and vice versa.

Because of that, if you are really willing to change the way the Olympics works - make it every year, or every other year. As it stands, especially for female athletes, who usually have a short peak athletic period, if they come to maturity in the right year, they stand a chance, but not if they come to maturity in the wrong year. There have been exceptions, but for the most part it's true.

I'd kill the gymnastics team event too. In both cases, it means the national teams sometimes don't include the best athletes in each event.

BTW, NBC is set to make watching big event sports in the U.S. even more exclusive and expensive. They will eliminate the NBC Sports channel, and may instead be pushing people to buy "NBC Sports Gold" for each sport that interests them - which costs more.

BTW, on the gender thing - Johnny Weir has said he wasn't invited to be part of "Stars on Ice" because he wasn't "family friendly" enough. But NBC demonstrated that he and Tara could attract a lot of interest as sports commentators, without Johnny pretending to be straight, and their apparent "flirtation" increases interest by making people wonder whether he is actually bi. Very clever. Some of you hate3 their technical commentary, but from a general audience interest perspective, they and NBC play it exactly right. Perhaps Johnny has done for skating what Jadzia Dax did for Star Trek.

[Isk8NYC]

SOI was/is a family show; some of the skaters traveled with their spouses and young children, plus they host pricey meet-and-greets for young skaters.  IIRC, they were more concerned with his off-the-cuff comments and work ethic for training. (Which is why he didn't sue for discrimination.)  He was pretty quick with the snappy comebacks, so he may have said something inappropriate or used some entrendres that made people uncomfortable.   It's a short tour and, if one of the key skaters is going to go clubbing all night, the matinee performance may be a little iffy the next day.  Since they perform some complicated group numbers, filling their spot in three or four group numbers is tricky, so everyone has to be reliable and committed.  At the time, JW was launching his post-skating career as a celebrity and wanna-be fashion designer.

Back to the original topic instead of speculating on things that happened years ago...

I would say to apply technology to the Pairs event as well.  Height, speed, rotation can be measured.  Make it tangible.

[Loops]

I could get behind all of these ideas. The team event in its current format is uninteresting.  Imho there always should have been at the very least a separate medal for figures, since it really is such a different event, and then separate medals for the short and long, plus an all around (a la gymnastics).

With the new judging system, I've stopped watching skating (except dance) because it really is just a glorified jumping contest, so I like the idea of a jumping category.  Cynical me says do away with the program, line 'em all up at one end of the rink, and do it in elimination rounds- one jump defined for each round.  When they get to the quint axel, they just keep going until someone falls/cheats so aggregiously it can't pass.  Or, in the interest of time, let them choose their jump, go out there, and perform as many of them as they can in sequence.  So 10 quint axels would beat 9 of them.

For the artistry category (and perhaps spinning too?) if jumps were limited..... e.g. no triples, or only up to an axel,  an argument can be made that gender is a non-issue and no separate categories would be necessary.  Here in France, where solo dance is well developed, jumps are limited to 1/2 rotation, and spins are nowhere near as complex as in freestyle- men and women (and boys and girls) compete against each other. 

For the singles non-technical, I would say no credit should be given for failed jump attempts.  I would love to see some credit for opposite direction jumps.  And spins.  Could that be another technical category? Or incorporated into artistry/overall scoring somehow?

I would love to see a category (perhaps it could be the artistry?) where jumps are limited to 1.5 rotations.  I miss the delayed axel type jumps- those are so pretty and have been sacrificed for the points.

For pairs, let the technical categories be the same as for singles- (side by side) jumps and (s-b-s) spins.

Gotta run, but I like this idea of re-defining the competition. This is a good discussion.

[Query]

Am I correct that quints would currently be scored as failed jump attempts?

The IOC could perhaps create rules for them once they have examples to model, but I have wondered whether, as high rotation jumps cause more and more injuries and long term physical problems, we will reach a point where the IOC will decide they are too dangerous to accept.

[Loops]

Am I correct that quints would currently be scored as failed jump attempts?

The IOC could perhaps create rules for them once they have examples to model, but I have wondered whether, as high rotation jumps cause more and more injuries and long term physical problems, we will reach a point where the IOC will decide they are too dangerous to accept.

I was being tongue in cheek with the quints.  Given that no one's landed a quad axel yet (have they?) I think we're still a ways off from quints.  Personally I don't want to see them.  While appreciate the athleticism of quads it just gets so redundant and uninteresting. There's so much more to skating than the jumps.  And yes, the injury factor at some point will kick in.  But I bet at some point we'll see at least a 5s and 5t, which will inevitably then lead into the others....

But I think its a bit off to give a skater any credit for an attempted, but failed jump.  Or maybe I'm misunderstanding the scoring??

[ChristyRN]

Take out the current Team event. Why even have it when the skaters are just repeating the same programs they'll be competing in the regular events?

I agree about the team event. I thought skaters should get a new piece of music a set time ahead of their competition day and have to design a new program for it. Show us how creative you can be on relatively short notice.  If there were 10 ladies competitors, the host country would create 10 pieces of music. Skaters would draw for their music so that no one had an advantage. Seeing the same program gets old.

[Query]

I'd like to propose a fundamental fairness rule that I admit would be very controversial, among people in the medical and rules committees.

I believe all rules and standards changes should have their implementation delayed at least 1 or 2 or even more years after they are announced.

I don't care whether these rules or standards apply to skating technique, judging, music, equipment, clothing, the distinction between foods, nutritive supplements and banned performance enhancing drugs, eligibility, or the criteria by which an athlete's nationality or gender are determined. This concept should apply across the board, in all sports.

When you see a high level competition, everyone in the competition has spent most of their lives specifically training for such competitions - PER CURRENT RULES, or what they can reasonably expect those rules to be.

Likewise, people may spend over a year planning and putting together a costume or music or program. Change the rules and standards, and many don't have time to adapt.

Likewise, a substance which is considered a nutritive supplement or medically desirable one month, at some level of body content, might now be banned and tested for shortly before a competition - not giving enough time for the athletes to flush it out of their system. To use an extreme example, imagine arriving at a competition and being told that caffeine or chocolate or traces of your favorite sports drink, e.g., Gatorade or Red Bull, would disqualify you, and result in a long term ban.

It's also not fair that a skater or coach who is privy to discussions of rules changes about to be made has an advantage over those who isn't. It's not fair that politicking on next month's rules and standards, to benefit one group of skaters or coaches, at the expense of the others, might play a significant role in who wins.

(And yes, I believe that should apply to the types of radical structural change the o.p. of this thread proposes, should such changes ever be made. )

Comments?

[FigureSpins]

My "Quote" function isn't working, sorry.

ChristyRN - an interpretive event would be cool!

Loops - they tried punative penalties for falls on jumps and found that it kept skaters from attempting difficult jumps.  It was felt that jumps need to always progress to more revolutions.  I feel it creates a circus environment of tricks and raises the bar so high that skaters are shut out of elite competitions.  The wonderful Jason Brown is an example - he makes the podium based on his artistry, but the quad is an obstacle that will keep him off the top box.

Spins/jumps in the opposite direction are considered "difficult variations," I believe and do receive some extra points if completed successfully.

[Loops]

My "Quote" function isn't working, sorry.

ChristyRN - an interpretive event would be cool!

Loops - they tried punative penalties for falls on jumps and found that it kept skaters from attempting difficult jumps.  It was felt that jumps need to always progress to more revolutions.  I feel it creates a circus environment of tricks and raises the bar so high that skaters are shut out of elite competitions.  The wonderful Jason Brown is an example - he makes the podium based on his artistry, but the quad is an obstacle that will keep him off the top box.

Spins/jumps in the opposite direction are considered "difficult variations," I believe and do receive some extra points if completed successfully.

Thanks! 

I, too like ChristyRN's suggestion of interpretive event.  I'd even be OK with them all using the same piece of music.  Given that by Olympic time, we'd know what all are skating to, there'd be no, or minimized risk of the chosen music being used already by one of the skaters (this happened once for an interpretive event at club competition at my rink....it was a bummer for the other competitors).

Re jump scoring.  Falls already get a -1, and I would hope that the failed attempt gets a bunch of -GOE, but I think they're still awarded a base score, right?  If so, I don't know if more punishment needs to be added for a failed attempt, but would "no credit" so a 0 score for that element be considered punitive?  I feel like as it works now, I could go out there, list a bunch of triples or quads as my elements, attempt and bomb them all in glorious fashion, and still get some base credit for at least having attempted them, and that base credit (plus the -GOE and fall penalties) would still be a higher score than if I listed singles, and landed them all cleanly. Am I misunderstanding how this works? (I hope so)

Cool that opposite direction spins are already considered worthy of more points.