Changes for Better or Worse?
Changes for Better or Worse?
Originally published Sep/Oct 2018 PS Magazine
“We would not have change if there wasn’t any progress.” -Gale Tanger
ISU Communication No. 2168 was published on May 23, 2018 with little fanfare. The move to +5/-5 was expected. The Scale of Values were re-valued to capture the original intent and not place too much weight on a few selected quadruple jumps. Under-rotated jumps were addressed to now make the quarter mark under-rotated as opposed to achieving full value. Rulemaking today is more about correcting unintended consequences of previous rules. A back entry into a camel spin was considered a difficult entry until everyone did a back entry, and in most cases, better than a forward entry. Why do we keep making so many changes?
When Communication 2168 came out, I gave Gale Tanger a call to ask some questions to help me understand. “Jimmie,” she said, “we would not have change if there wasn’t any progress.” So true! Who would have thought just a few years ago that 6 or 7 quads in a program was possible? Maybe this is what bothers me. We have taken a giant leap forward in the execution of quads and now the ISU has appeared to put on the brakes, reducing the men’s program by 30 seconds and one jump pass. Additionally, the ISU is limiting the number of quads that can be repeated. The quads were also devalued in the Scale of Values. Instead of pushing the men to chase Nathan Chen, they are pulling him back to the pack. Why does it always seem that rules are written for the benefit of some and at the cost of others?
I’m sure those who author the rules would say they are protecting the integrity of the sport. Writing rules to promote better balanced programs. I’m not sure that’s the case, however. Is the ISU trying to make the sport better or just more appealing to TV? In the not too distant past, television demanded a more exciting visual sport- one that fit into the 21st century of X-games. The ISU made that happen. One former TV contract allowed the producers to approve or deny new ISU eligibility rules. Today’s rule makers are the same type who stripped the sport of figures and pattern dances to gain favor with television. The decision to make all senior level programs 4 minutes in length was also made for the benefit of TV. Writing the rules to create parody in the events will make for great rivalries and better TV.
I actually understand the argument. It takes a considerable amount of money to run associations and competitions. Big money can only come from sponsorships and TV revenue. While we may complain loudly about the direction of skating, television coverage has been and will be the key to relevancy and survival. While we must make skating watchable, do the rules accomplish that? Time will tell.
Comments