Skates (was Re: corked bats)

[Cindy C.]

Just popping back in to say I'm enjoying this thread, not ignoring 
it!  ;-)

Jodi wrote:

<about Lipinski's victory over Kwan>

> But when I rewatch that tape I *still* can't decide who I think 
>should've won, I change my mind every time. I don't think Kwan was 
>robbed but I don't think Lipinski was so clearly the winner either. 
>And IIRC it was a 6-3 split, it really could've gone either way 
>without me feeling it was wrong.

Actually, I think the only reason Lipinski is a gold medalist is the 
skate order that night.  Kwan went first.  Lipinski went last.  There 
is an advantage to going later in that the judges don't have to leave 
room for anyone else.

BTW, I think they should change the rules governing skate order.  
Unless things have changed, the leader going into the long program 
has to skate really well to win.  If they don't win the long program, 
they could easily lose.

So what is the advantage you gain by skating a marvelous short 
program and blowing away the competition in the short program and 
going into the long program ranked on top?  Not much, IMHO.

I think skate order in the long program ought to follow the standings 
in the short program.  In Nagano, Kwan won the short program, and 
Lipinski was second, IIRC.  That night, Lipinski should have skated 
fifth and Kwan sixth.  Alternatively, you could allow each skater to 
pick which position they'd like for the long program; Kwan would most 
likely have chosen to be the final skater.  That way, if there is any 
natural bias based on skate order, it least it would favor the skater 
who proved herself in the short program.  Now, skate order in the 
long program is determined by random draw, so it favors the skater 
who is lucky that night.

 
> And that's maybe where the new judging system *could* help. Which 
> aspects of skating should carry greater weight? Should you reward 
> energy and attack or polish and maturity? 

You probably know my answer.  ;-)  

I really don't like the way that skaters who skate like a ton of 
bricks can still compete at the highest levels.  Of course I'm 
talking about Surya Bonaly (and Slutskaya, although she's much better 
than Bonaly).  But I find it really boring when skaters skate from 
one end of the rink to the other popping off eight triple jumps.  
That was what I loved about Kwan's skating.  There was always 
something beautiful going on between the jumps.  

Granted, Lipinski had attack and greater difficulty.  But she was a 
young skater with minimal polish.  I just wish the judges would 
reward originality and artistry more than they do.


>Is it better to have more 
> difficult jumps or better executed ones? Personally I think the 
>best thing would be to break down the marks into these kind of 
>categories to give a bit more structure for the judges to work with, 
>but without trying to assign points to every single element (as 
>they're trying to now) because you're never going to be able to 
>cover everything.


I suppose we can look to gymnastics as an example for how skating 
judging might work.  After Mary Lou Retton's victory in gymnastics in 
L.A. in 1984, they reworked the rules to use a code of points.

The results of that systems, IMHO, gave much fairer results.  I don't 
think I've ever disagreed with a judging outcome in gymnastics.  

But there has been a price.  Certain skills score well in the code of 
points but aren't that interesting to watch.  An example is the front 
somersault on the balance beam.  Yeah, front flips are harder, but 
they also aren't as graceful, IMHO.  So gymnasts now seem to string 
together these routines that have the high point values but some very 
clumsy looking skills.  And the routines start to look alike because 
everyone wants a high start value.  

Anyway, there's the opinion of someone who still hasn't learned to 
stop on a pair of figure skates and who never mastered the cartwheel 
in gymnastics.  ;-)

Cindy