Artistry v. technique in skating
Posted 12 February 2002 - 12:15 PM
I attended many of the World's Professional championships (because they were in DC and I sometimes reviewed them) and I always fell for the artists (this was okay, since I was there to write about Torvill and Dean as dance, or something like that). The skating fans around me never fell for them. I'd learn later, watching the TV coverage, that the skater I'd admired had done all doubles and not triples -- and that makes sense to me.
But in a sport, if someone falls, or does doubles instead of planned triples -- or triples instead of planned quads -- doesn't that count more than artistry? Is it completely subjective, or is there something in the rules about how much weight "artistry" is given?
(I'm always amazed/amused to hear skating commentators say things like, "Well, finally. She's doing a rock and roll number instead of just that same classical stuff over and over again -- good to see some artistry." Like "content" (number of triples) the words have different meanings smile.gif
Posted 12 February 2002 - 06:19 PM
As far as I know, the judges do not mark you down if you plan a triple and then change your mind; however, if you do only five out of seven planned triples and do two doubles instead, and a competitor does all seven equally well, you're in trouble. (Personally, I prefer doubles to triples and quads because it's easier for a non-expert to see the different shapes the body takes in the air and note the different landings. However, triples and quads well jumped are exciting to see, and they are harder, after all.)
For myself, I dunno. I value grace and a well integrated program, but I also respect energy, daring, and athletic prowess for its own sake.
Posted 12 February 2002 - 06:39 PM
There was a sportswriter for the Post who had a wonderful way of covering skating events. Artistry never entered her reviews -- and she groused about dance critics taking over skating coverage smile.gif She'd just go through the routine triple by triple, lutz by whatsit. You never knew if they were wearing a cowboy suit, or skated to Rachmaninoff.
I also wondered if a triple was a triple, or if those clean edges Dick Button always talks about (I guess I'm the only one who misses him) matter for anything.
Posted 12 February 2002 - 06:50 PM
Posted 12 February 2002 - 07:06 PM
Posted 12 February 2002 - 08:01 PM
I miss Dick Button terribly. And, dirac, I loved your quote about Surya Bonaly. LOL! What's great about Dick is that he has very high standards and he calls a spade and spade. How I'd love to hear his opinion about last night's competition.
Posted 13 February 2002 - 12:44 AM
Now tonight the talk was all of collusion among judges, with the French judge stating she was told if she voted in favor of the Russians, they'd vote in favor of the French in the ice dance competition. Yikes! I hope that something really good comes from all this, perhaps a restructuring of the voting system.
Interestingly, my daughter, the ballet dancer, says she believes ice skating shouldn't even be in the Olympics, especially since the presentation marks are the deciding factor. She feels strongly that one can make the case that ballet should be in the Olympics and she's firmly against that. She doesn't see a whole lot of difference between dancing on ice and dancing en pointe when it comes to sport. But she hastens to add that she's selfishly glad ice skating is a sport because otherwise she'd never get to see it!
Posted 13 February 2002 - 01:09 AM
that doesn't detract from the performance won't be reflected in the presentation mark, and therefore likely won't be reflected in the ordinals (although you could lose technical merit points for it).
And, although it isn't always clear to the viewer, proper execution of jumps and spins is (usually) reflected in the marks. Certain jumps take off from an outside edge, others from an inside edge. So just as an examiner would mark you down for a pirouette from fifth that landed in third, a 'flutz' as Dick Button correctly tells us, is a similar mistake. And two-footing a landing is also bad, just like a spin that doesn't stay centered and travels across the ice (see tonight's men's programs--good spins Tood Eldridge, bad spins--most competitors ranked lower than 5th). And damnit 'layback' spins are attitude turns and the leg should be supported and turned out not dangling! A noodle like layback should lose at least 0.5 IMO tongue.gif
Whew, that was long! I personally feel that all things being nore or less equal (technically), artistry, nice lines, good edges etc. should win out, even if a program has lots of sentimental value (of course i wasn't referring to any program in particular smile.gif ).
Posted 13 February 2002 - 12:09 PM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
Help support Ballet Alert! and Ballet Talk for Dancers year round by using this search box for your amazon.com purchases. (If it doesn't appear below, your computer's or browser's adblockers may have blocked display):