From: ac999257@umbc.edu (ac999257)
Newsgroups: rec.skate
Subject: Re: US National Championship results!
Date: 26 Jan 1993 18:45:23 -0500
Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: umbc8.umbc.edu

In article <1k3ohvINNnq0@mojo.eng.umd.edu> clin@eng.umd.edu (Charles Lin) writes:
>
>In article <1993Jan25.221535.22617@dvorak.amd.com>, erussell@dvorak.amd.com (Ed Russell) writes:
>that one of the reasons figures were dropped was because ice time in Europe
>was quite expensive, and since the short and long programs count more, they
>should be emphasized.   Supporters of figures saw it as necessary to being a
>good skater, while opponents thought that piano players may practice
>scales, but you don't judge a piano player by listening to scales, but
>by the performance.
>
>>I for one do not wish to see figure skating degenerate into the same kind
>>of thing that IMO women's gymnastics has degenerated into.  I want to see
>>some art along with the jumps and spins.   BRING BACK FIGURES!
>
>    Do figures actually do this?  It seems to me that what they do is decide
>whether or not people can do figures.   If they wanted some art, then they


My two cents of compulsory figures: I don't know where I heard or read
this, but one thought on the demise of figures was that TV networks
got tired of seeing the crowd pleasing skaters lose because of
an event not enjoyed by spectators. For example, Elizabeth Manley
was sensational in Calgary in 88 and won the long program by a decisive
margin over Katarina Witt. Witt was good, but definately not her
best and not as good as Manley. Witt won overall because of a superior
score in the figures -- in the present scoring system, Manley would
have won. Also, figures began the decline of acceptance by TV when
they cost Janet Lyn, a superior free-style skater, the gold medal
in 1972. I just finished watching the ABC video tape called Magic
Memories on Ice that said this resulted in a major change in scoring.
Figures had counted as 60% of the overall score, but were decreased
to 30% (??) and the short program was added with the long program
counting as 50%. I for one, believe the TV theory has some merit.

As for what affect figures have on skaters, I think the most prominent
theory is that since it takes so long to master them well enough for
competition, skaters don't mature enough to be Olympic contenders
until their late teens. Also, young skaters don't have the artistic
sense that older skaters do. So the figures kind of made sure
the mature and artistic skaters were the ones who would win. Now,
anyone who can master the best jumps will win, and we're seeing
lots of children in the big competitions -- a couple of 14 year
olds at the 92 Olympics, two 15 and one 12 year old in the top 6 at
the Nationals this year... I don't know what happened to
gymnastics, but ever since Nadia, it's become a sport of the
young teenager and they're washed up by their late teens (Svetlana
Bogenskya was an exception at 19 in Barcelona, and I know I 
butchered the spelling). I'd hate to see the same thing happen
to figure skating. The teenagers I've seen really do not have the
grace and style they develop when they're older, and it would
be horrible for them to win big early and quit before they really
develop as a mature skater.

Without understanding the real merits of compulsory figures and
without knowing for sure why they were dropped, I can't agree
or disagree with the change. I'm not a figure skater myself,
so all I know is what I observe. But I do hope someone is paying
close attention to the growing number of young teenage girls
rising to the top in figure skating and that they do something
about it before we see a bunch of mid-teenage brats like we
watched in Barcelona in women's gymnasitics. 

Mary