The topic of the article, published by the official media arm of the United States Figure Skating Association, focuses on how Kaitlin Hawayek and Jean-Luc Baker had "regressed" to finish fifth at the 2016 US Nationals, and details what feedback they were given as to what needed to change to be placed on the podium this season.
"After nationals, we talked to officials and got their straightforward feedback on why we were fifth, when we were fourth the year before and when we were aiming to be third," Hawayek said. "It's a lot easier going into a season knowing exactly what they want to see from you rather than have it be a guessing game."
The International Skating Union has published literally hundreds of pages of guidelines as to what is expected of teams, and the national federations use the same material to judge their qualifying competitions. Think about what it means that teams are left feeling it’s just a “guessing game” as to what judges want to see from them. They don’t know which parts of the Code of Points are going to be actually applied this season and which ignored? They don’t know what artistic packaging will touch the hearts of judges the most, with the CoP being just mere suggestions that the judges might want to consider, kinda sorta maybe, but only if they are really inspired to do so? Or maybe each team has a special classified file including rules, limitations and stylistic goals that apply only to them?
There is no possible interpretation of this quote that makes sense if officials actually use the judging system, the requirements of which were brought into existence so that the ISU and feds could claim transparency and accuracy in how they give out scores. "Exactly what they want to see from you" would be a fitting subtitle for the handbooks - unless, of course, panels don't follow the regulations or apply the codified standards consistently and in their entirety when assessing teams. If officials instead resort to backroom tweaking of the rules away from the eyes of public, the media and, one would hope, Olympic officials that could keep it accountable, that would explain why some teams feel like they're not in the loop.
"There were certain things we were focusing on last year we did not need to focus on. This season, we're focusing on the basics… [The criticism] didn't hurt at all," Baker said. "We were thankful [officials] were able to say that to us."
There is nothing wrong for a team at H/B's stage of development to scale things back and drill basics. There is nothing suspicious in itself with a team being advised to work on improving their skills with regards to their own potential or in order to catch up with superior teams. There is also nothing wrong for a team generally to veer towards simplicity (only to a point, of course, as I’m sure my audience has gotten the message by now that I think the “Gadbois style” has gone too far) in order to showcase “pure skating" (as Kaitlin explained elsewhere), and by doing so, challenge themselves to more fully develop their glide and power. After watching H/B's recent outing of their Liebestrรคume Free Dance a few times, I've come to feel that it’s a really gorgeous vehicle and maybe the right decision for them after all, despite the initial disappointment I felt (comparing it to the brilliantly authentic contemporary of last season's) when it was unveiled in August. In both of their new programs, you can see that their off-season focus on skating skill is paying off in improvement.
But H/B were told to “focus on the basics” in the context of where they placed at last season's Nats. And the truth is they were placed fifth instead of third there entirely because the quality of skating (and everything else that is supposed to carry significant weight when calculating the placements of teams, such as difficulty, dance technique and musicality) were completely disregarded. So there are two very troubling scenarios. Either the feedback they received was primarily skating-based and gaslighted them into believing or at least publicly implying that their skating was of lesser value than Chock/Bates and Cannuscio/McManus when it was not. Or it blamed their placement inappropriately on their packaging, and everyone involved pretended that was a valid reason to ignore that they skated better than two teams that ranked above them in January. Perhaps it was a mix of both, but both the reference to it being a mystery what the judges wish to see, and the following quote (emphasis mine) certainly suggest that vehicle was a large part of the criticism.
"One of the big things people told us last season was that our free dance (set to the soundtrack from The Theory of Everything) was theatrical," Hawayek said. "Which is fine, we loved it. People that understood it loved it as well, but the ones who didn't understand it said we were so invested in it ourselves, (that) it was an internal piece. This year, we wanted something people could appreciate as art rather than try so hard to grasp a concept or story."
Hawayek only specifies "people", and not officials like in her first quote, but in the context of the article, there is no indication that this criticism was not part of the clear and detailed feedback that H/B so appreciated. So assuming that was the case… where in heaven’s name does it say in CoP that specific genres, themes or approaches are of more worth than others and that judges can validly expect teams to do one type over the other? How does the requirement that choreography be judged "according to the principles of proportion, unity, space, pattern, structure, phrasing” [1] not demand that judges grade, objectively as possible, the quality of the content with regards to the fundamentals of dance (and necessarily, the choreography’s use of the blades as a medium)? The Choreography/ Composition category (changed this season to just Composition, but with very little change in wording) is clearly not meant to be a test of subjective aesthetic taste. A judge should be able to simultaneously dislike something or find it not particularly entertaining, and still recognize if the movement and overall design are substantive and demonstrate the characteristics quoted above. Of course, the judges may differ in opinion on what the level of quality is, but it should be analogous to the differences of perception when rating the execution of an element, and not a personal judgement of what they liked or wanted to see, whether generally or from specific teams.
There is no official reason that “internal” programs should be scored lower, as “inwards” projection is explicitly allowed – or even demanded – if the program requires it [2]. And there is absolutely no evidence that a program is supposed to be punished for being “theatrical”, as long as it relies on bladework and movement instead of gesticulating and pulling faces. In fact, plenty of weaker teams have been highly rewarded for using the style as an excuse to do the latter, so I think we can assume that the ISU hasn’t simply forgotten to release to the public an across-the-board ruling against the genre itself (the only way this would be a valid criticism of a genre that an ice dance team chose to skate to). I do, however, find "theatrical" to be an odd descriptor for a program that was rather abstract, despite the intention to tell a story and the strength of H/B’s acting skills. Skating's most dance-literate and dance-focused media outlet, Two for the Ice, had similar thoughts when including the FD in its Top 5 ice dance programs of 2015-16:
"Superficially, the program could be viewed as one set to a pretty film score with a generally overarching romantic theme. This would be to ignore the challenge actually faced — and conquered — in this sophisticated free dance from coaches Anjelika Krylova and Pasquale Camerlengo. Presenting the story of Stephen and Jane Hawking and the former’s battle with ALS could spell gimmickry; instead, it’s a tale told through dance, not theatricality. Mirrored moments and contracted motions spell out the duo’s romance, tragedy and a subtle shift in roles, those harsher, more grounded moments drawing in the contemporary dance influence."
And maybe that was the cardinal sin – if you’re going to tell a story, do it as facilely as possible with no complicated symbolism to figure out. The keywords that keep appearing in the guidelines such as "symmetry", "space", "innovative" and "concept" [1,2] would suggest that movement tending towards the abstract and original instead of the literal and commonplace should be more highly regarded in whatever style of dance is picked by the team, but programs are indeed supposed to be “clearly understandable” [2]. But what was so confusing about what H/B were doing? If judges couldn’t simultaneously hold “film score from a movie about ALS” and “contemporary vocabulary” in their head long enough to interpret the piece, they are absolutely not qualified to be judging anything related to dance. But further, that guideline exists only in one of the five component categories, and is one thing to consider out of many within that category. It gives absolutely no excuse to refuse to appropriately score the dozens of other, more important facets of a team’s execution of a program.
The "feedback" system has always seemed very sketchy to me. The logistics of it are always murky when it comes up, and if things were judged properly a team and their coaching staff should be able to look at the protocols to know what they need to work on. Examples: "I think your Grade of Execution on this element was lower than expected because you have a tendency to do this”, “to take your GOE from +2 to +3, this is the one aspect that could be improved even further”, “your transitions could use a few more changes of direction and that’s probably what’s keeping your score for that component down”etc. I can also see how getting additional insights from federal consultants, who have judging expertise but do not actually work on panels (thus avoiding the opportunity for bias by developing personal relationships with skaters and then giving them scores) would make sense in theory. Getting the opinions of someone with a fresh eye and who knows what watching from the judges’ bench is like could indeed be beneficial. Maybe if the whole process was transparent, I wouldn't find it troubling for the the judges to give written explanations as to why they marked things a certain way, for the skaters and their teams to consider on their own. (Perhaps they do? I would appreciate it if anyone could point me in the direction of official guidelines as to how judges give feedback, if they exist.) But that feedback should be based on explaining the protocols for what a team might be missing with regards to CoP. There should be no puzzle as to what unofficial rules or trends they might need to follow, and no judge should be speaking with them about what they personally found lacking with their presentation.
Of course, the protocols are all crap and so it’s a moot point. Feedback can be nothing but sketchy when officials have to explain special unwritten ways to obtain the points that a team already deserved, or the alchemical methods by which a team will be allowed to place ahead of the teams they were already outskating. Consider for a moment that the very people who corruptly ranked H/B below two weaker teams are the very ones giving them this feedback. (And minor detail, but who was it that advised them to make the bizarre change away from the period costumes that helped give context to "the story" at Nats?) Baker also notes that sometimes officials “beat around the bush and say, 'Maybe this, maybe that' rather than be upfront”. Even aside from the obvious problems with H/B's specific feedback, I don't know how anyone could defend this inconsistent, casual approach as being of the ethical standard required for an Olympic sport.
H/B interpreted whatever they were told in conversations with officials as a suggestion that a more basic approach would showcase them in a more deserving light. But it is not – or certainly should not be, at any rate – the role of judges to assign the type of programs a team should skate to. Their job is to primarily grade the quality and difficulty of the skating, as well as the dance skills (which also demonstrate the strength of skating by showing what else a team can do while skating). Composition is a small minority of the score in the first place, and much of the category can only be rated by how the team executes (eg. phrasing, use of the ice). When assigning the very small portion arguably based more directly on “artistry”, the requirements are very defined based on whether the content has or doesn’t have certain qualities. Judges’ overall consideration of the program is clearly meant to be how the team used the choreography to show their skating, and not the other way around.
Certainly some programs can do better at highlighting a team’s strongest assets than others, and some types of choreography can get in the way of a team, either because they aren’t capable of it or because it’s shoddily put together. I don’t believe any of those scenarios were the case with H/B’s FD last season, but more importantly, in those cases, judges should not be excused if they don’t accurately evaluate how the team skated. Judges should be educated enough to tell the skating and choreography apart, be focused enough to evaluate the strengths of the team as shown without reference to what else they could be doing instead, and to be professional enough to not let their own inclinations distract them from rating the team’s skills fairly. If judges are preoccupying themselves with what they think would suit a team, or – probably nearer the mark – what they would enjoy watching, that is a clear violation of their role as outlined. What they should be looking for is in CoP. There should be nothing complicated about that.
But further, when ice dance judging has for many years had a mainstream reputation of being a bit shady, how can anyone justify judges telling teams on an individual basis different things they should or should not consider doing? How is that not a perfect recipe for sabotage and favouritism? If safeguards – such as the recent decision to remove anonymous judging – are needed because judges have motivation to score in a biased way, how do they not have equal motivation to give feedback with ulterior motives? Coaches and choreographers, providing they are competent, and in conjunction with what should be unbiased federation oversight, are the ones who should be deciding if a team is capable of doing more, or would be better off for now with doing less. They best know how their skaters need to develop, and are best able to judge their ability for growth. They are the ones whose prerogative it is to think strategically of how to make a team standout and show them off to best advantage. (As an aside, although "strategy" also encompasses the task of finding the right balance between showing a team's strengths and helping them to grow further, the context in which the word is often used these days - to make the judges "notice" a team - is somewhat problematic. It could in theory still be valid, I suppose, to counteract an understandable and unintentional level of human error displayed by judges, but the very emphasis currently placed on it is itself an indicator of the incompetency and corruption seen among panels. Judges should assess what they see on the ice each time and score accordingly, rather than judge by reputation or withhold points out of boredom.)
The whole organization of ice dance is run by blatantly ignoring the very phrases and formulas they insist competitions are judged by. Teams like H/B get convinced that they missed out on what they deserved (in this case, two additional competitions and a bronze medal) because of something they did wrong, and they’re supposed to just be grateful that someone let them in on the secret. Scores are explained away by the packaging being too confusing or just not what the judges were in the mood for, despite that being a very disproportionate at best, and blatantly improper at worst, way to penalize a team. There is nothing about the way ice dance operates that is befitting of a credible sport, and it has no business being in the Olympics or otherwise officially recognized. And on that note, I tweeted this teaser for Part 2 of the new series last week, but will include it again here – behold your future Olympic champions, who can only get through a pattern dance by two-footing it.
References:
2015-16 Handbook for Referees and Judges
1. pg 17
2. pg 19
