The Great Jumping Bean Fallacy

[rack]

Yesterday, when I was on the phone forever with my friend Christy (on my bill too), she referred to the "jumping beans," young female skaters whose success is based on their ability to jump, rather than the graceful moves that come with time and maturity. I said my perception was that men skaters had gotten successful younger, rather than ladies.

So last night and this morning I researched the issue, and I found the results kind of surprising. Since school figures were eliminated from senior competitions in 1990, I went with two groups- first time world champions from 1977-89, and first time world champions from 1990-2002.

For the men there were eleven champions in all. The average age of the champions from 77-89 was 22.16, from 90-02, the average age was 21.2. The drop off in age was exclusively the product of Yagudin and Plushenko; without them, the average age of the 90-96 first time champ was 23.3. Whether Yagudin and Plushenko are the wave of the future or just a fluke remains to be seen.

For the ladies the results were even more interesting. To begin with there were 17 different champs from 77-02. The average age for a first time ladies World champion between 77-89 (the school figure era) was 18.875. The average age for first time champs from 90-02 was 19.77, close to a year older. In fact, the average age for a first time world champ from 96-02 is 20.

I'm no great expert in medians, but they seem to bear out the results. Here are the average ages first of the 77-89 men:

21/21/22/23/23/23

Now the 90-02 men:

17/19/22/23/25

The median in both cases seems to be 22.

Here they are for the ladies 77-89.

17/18/18/18/19/19/21/21

And for the ladies 90-02

14/15/16/19/20/21/23/23/27

The first median seems to be 18/19; the second is 20.

I think one reason for the misperception is the fact that US ladies tend to be younger than average when they win Worlds for the first time, and this is a longstanding situation. From 1953-76, four US ladies were World champs, and their average age was 18. From '77-02, there have been 5 US ladies World champs, and their average age has been 17.6. So the media in the US at least has probably emphasized youth.

I took the ages from the Encyclopedia of Figure Skating, subtracting the year of birth from the year of first championship. Probably most of the skaters are actually younger than that, since Worlds are held in March, and thus if the skater's birthday is in April or thereafter, they'd be officially a year younger. But I figured this would be true of so many of them that it was legitimate to go with the simpler dating system.

Frankly, I don't expect much of a response to all this. Heck, Christy hasn't even e-mailed me back and she's used to me. But I thought it was interesting, and it is the slow season, so I figured I'd share my findings with everyone out there.

[Oracle]

I think your research is very interesting & appreciate your efforts. If you take Maria out of the mix for the 2nd group of ladies then the median age would drop to 19, pretty much the same as the 1st group.

[icenut84]

I agree Maria probably pulled up the average a bit. She was 26 though wasn't she? Interesting anyway :)

[loveskating]

Thanks for sharing your hard work. Your conclusions seem right.

Perhaps the "real" jumping bean is the kid who is learning to skate and doesn't want to practice the footwork or the spirals etc, but has a burning desire to jump, and especially getting that axel?

None of the champions, IMHO, are "jumping beans", although I do contend that some, without the spectacular jumps, have little else to display.

I also no longer unquestioningly accept the "maturity" designation...its too broad a brush. It seems to me the issue addressed as to "maturity" is really a matter of detail in the skating, not mindless detail, but that which conforms to the music (point in the presentation mark).

[Patty]

Rack-
Wow! I thank you for taking what must have been a lot of time to do all that research. I hope your example will encourage others to learn more about skating history.

The age revoluation started when 15 year old Baiul won '93 Worlds. Part of the jumping bean phenonmenon also started that year when Surya first medaled at Worlds. So, I think you might have seen more of a difference between eras according to age, if your eras had been '93- '02 and whatever year ('06, '48, '68, '80, etc.) to '93.

By using '93- '02 and '92 and before, how would you like to figure out Olympic champions? IIRC from watching between '68- '92, it seemed the ages of the ladies Olympic champions were usually traditional college age, 18- 22, the men, 20- 25. Am I right? I also think the ages would probably still stay in that range if you figured anytime to '92.

IIRC, before '94, there had been no under age 18 Olympic#Champions, since Sonja Henie in the '20s, way before most all of us were born! Thus, I think this is one reason why under 18 ladies champions feel like a very new, recent phenomenon for many of us long time fans like myself and, I imagine, your friend.

Here's a furthur examination of "jumping beans" since 1980:

Those who are known for their athletic triple jumps who were under 18 when they first medaled at a World Championships:
[list:09be162b41]
[*:09be162b41]Elaine Zayak: 15- '81 World Silver Medalist (The first skater I remember to be dubbed "jumping bean")
[*:09be162b41]Tara: 14- '97 World Champion
[*:09be162b41]Sarah: 15- '01 World Bronze Medalist
[/list:u:09be162b41]

Ladies who are known for their athletic triple jumps who were 18 and over when they first medaled at a World Championships:
[list:09be162b41]
[*:09be162b41]Midori: 20- '89 World Champion
[*:09be162b41]Tonya: 20- '91 World Silver Medalist
[*:09be162b41]Irina: 18- '96 World Silver Medalist
[*:09be162b41]Surya: 19- '93 World Silver Medalist (*Note: She first became European Champion at 16 in '90)
[*:09be162b41]Debi Thomas: 18- '86 World Champion
[/list:u:09be162b41]

Looking at these lists, it would appear that athletic jumping and youth don't necessarily go together. However, we should note that some of the 18 and over jumpers were held back by figures, and might have become World medalists under 18, if figures had been removed sooner.

Also, note that Tara was the first "jumping bean" to become Olympic Champion followed by Sarah, also famous for her jumps, in '02. Before '98, skaters known as "complete skaters" or "artistic skaters" usually became Olympic Champions, and all of these, except for Baiul, were 18 and over. Thus, this is why it seems to many of us "old timers" that more teeny bopper jumping beans have been taking over.

[Ellyn]

A few little clarifications/corrections, and some thoughts:

The first year of international competition without figures was 1990-91. 1990 Worlds (and Europeans, etc.) did include figures, so Rack should probably move that year's winners back into the 1977-89 group.


Those who are known for their athletic triple jumps who were under 18 when they first medaled at a World Championships:


[quote:77b56e6518]
Elaine Zayak: 15- '81 World Silver Medalist (The first skater I remember to be dubbed "jumping bean")
Tara: 14- '97 World Champion
Sarah: 15- '01 World Bronze Medalist [/quote:77b56e6518]

If you want to go back a little further, probably Linda Fratianne (and Annett Poetszch?), 16 at 1977 Worlds, which was the first one in which triple jumps really were deciding factors for the ladies.

Before that, with strong doubles including double axels, Peggy Fleming (first medal in 1965 or 66 at 16 or 17?); Carol Heiss (first gold in 1956 at 16, not sure if she had medaled before that); not sure how old Petra Burka was when she first medaled in the early 60s; Cecilia Colledge and Megan Taylor in the mid-1930s (when doing any double jump at all made one a "jumping bean" although I doubt that phrase was used then). Of course, jumps weren't all that these ladies had to offer. Neither was it *all* that Zayak or Lipinski or Hughes had even if it was their biggest strength compared to their closest competitors.

Generally good skating with exceptional jump content can be competitive with generally very good to excellent skating with good jumps. Depends on the skater and who happens to do best that day.

[quote:77b56e6518]Ladies who are known for their athletic triple jumps who were 18 and over when they
first medaled at a World Championships:


Midori: 20- '89 World Champion
Tonya: 20- '91 World Silver Medalist
Irina: 18- '96 World Silver Medalist
Surya: 19- '93 World Silver Medalist (*Note: She first became European Champion
at 16 in '90)
Debi Thomas: 18- '86 World Champion [/quote:77b56e6518]

Ito was 19 at 1989 Worlds.

Bonaly won her first European title, and her junior world title, in 1991 when she was 17. Evelyn Grossman won Europeans and Yuka Sato won Jr. Worlds in 1990, largely on the strength of their figures -- I believe Bonaly won the long program in both cases.

Denise Biellmann's one (gold) world medal at 18 in 1981 should probably also go here. Yes, she was also more artistic than most of her competitors, but three different triples including triple lutz at a time when only the very best female jumpers had that many varieties of triple to work with was certainly a big point in her favor.

The youngest men's Olympic/World medalist I'm aware of was Scott Allen winning bronze at the 1964 Olympics when he was 14, and I think bronze at Worlds a year later. From what I've read, he was not doing any triples in 1964 and some of his competitors were.

I just think that "jumper" or "athlete" vs. "artist" is too simple a dichotomy. There are aspects of athleticism, not only including jumps, that tend to improve with age (well, between say 13 and 25 or 30, which is where most competitive skaters fit in) and other aspects that tend to decline. Being able to do exceptional jumps is one thing, and actually getting them done when it counts, especially under pressure at the Olympics, is something different -- too many opportunities for mental/emotional state or injury status to interfere with any skater's ability to deliver his/her best jumping or best stroking or best presentation.

I also think that the sample size of only Olympic champions is too small to draw any definitive conclusions about "trends." World/Olympic medalists is probably more meaningful.

And usually the champions who are best known for their jumps are also well above average on basic skating and often presentation, those who are best known for artistry are well above average on athletic content and technique. Whether a skater gets labeled as "athlete" or "artist" often depends on who they're being compared to.

[rack]

Because the 1990 champ, Kurt Browning, and the 1979 champ Vladimir Kovalev were both repeat world champs, the men's numbers don't change.

Jill Trenary (born 1969) was ladies champ in 1990. If I move her to the first group, and eliminate the 1977 and 1978 champs, to keep the number of years the same for both groups (12), then the school figure average goes up to 19, and the post school figure average goes down to 19.625 (still higher than the first group, I am relieved to report). Because Anett Poetzsch and Linda Fratianne each won her first championship before 1979, they get pushed off the list altogether (Fratianne was 18 and Poetzsch 19 when each first won, which would have lowered the school figure average a smidgen).

With Trenary moved into the first group, the median age for the school figure group is 18/19, and the post school figure group 19.

And I still haven't heard from my friend Christy.

[Patty]

[quote:912789fa90]I also think that the sample size of only Olympic champions is too small to draw any definitive conclusions about "trends." World/Olympic medalists is probably more meaningful.[/quote:912789fa90]

Whether we like it or not, most of us fans remember the Olympics more than anything else. They are what stand out most in our memories, especially as our memories get older.

Back in the '70s and some of the '80s, we got about a half hour to an hour of Nationals and a half hour to an hour of Worlds coverage per year on Wide World of Sports. OTOH, we got hours of Olympic coverage every four years. So, what happened at the Olympics had an even greater impact in fans' perceptions in the past than it does now I think.

I watched the Olympics in '68, '72, '76, '80, '84, '88, and '92-- every ladies Olympic champion was 18 and over. I watched the Olympics in '94, '98, and '02-- every ladies Olympic champion was under 18. Thus, how can I and other long time fans help it, if we don't notice a change that seems to be becoming a habit, at least when it comes to the Olympics?

Though they do other elements well, Tara and Sarah are most famous for their 3- 3s. Neither usually received as high as presentation marks as their competitors. IIRC, both won their Olympic Gold on the technical mark, and I doubt that either of them would have won the Olympic Gold without their 3-3s. Thus, they are labeled as "jumping beans" or "athletic jumpers".

In labeling them that, it doesn't mean people are saying that jumping is all they are good at. Both are also very good spinners, seem to have good speed, etc. But, what got them to the top, and what was the main reason they became Olympic champions? The difficulty and consistency of their jumps.

I wish we could figure out who medaled in competitions mostly because of their technical marks and who medaled mostly because of their presentation/ artistic marks. Of course, figures throws things way off, especially in the '70s and before.

Katarina Witt was known more as an artist than a jumper. I think she won most of her competitions with the artistic mark. While Kristi has great jumps, I think she won most of her competitions with the artistic mark. And Oksana won her competitions with the artistic mark. So, it looks like to me "artistic skaters" became Olympic Champions in '84, '88, '92, and '94. Note- IIRC, the '94 Olympics was the last Olympics where the second mark was contained the word "artistic" rather than "presentation".

So, some of us old fans think there's been a changeover from "artistic skaters" winning the Olympics ladies event to "athletic jumpers" winning it.

Rack-
Why don't you ask Christy to come participate in our discussion here? It would interesting to see why she feels the way she feels, and how she supports her opinions.

[Patty]

[quote:7550498e76]If you want to go back a little further, probably Linda Fratianne (and Annett Poetszch?), 16 at 1977 Worlds, which was the first one in which triple jumps really were deciding factors for the ladies.[/quote:7550498e76]

I purposely didn't include skaters who came before Elaine Zayak, because I don't think the term "jumping bean" had ever been used before her. Even though others did triple jumps (and double axels) before her, the commentators just didn't seem to talk about or emphazise them as much as they did with Elaine and as they do today. In the '60s and '70s, a great blurred scratch spin would get as much attention as a double axel. Jumps were just one of many elements, while they seem to be "THE" element today. Maybe that's why I didn't hear the term "jumping bean" until the '80s.

Also, I would never include Linda Fratiane and Denise Beilmann in the "jumping bean" category. If I were to put any of the ladies of that era in that category it would be Dorothy Hamill and Annette P. I found Linda and Denise to be artistic skaters, while I found Dorothy Hamill and Annette Poezch more athletic. IIRC, they were also viewed this way by the commentators and judges.

Coming after Fleming and Lynn, Hamill seemed more athletic than balletic. Even Hamill herself has talked about this. But, I'm not sure her athleticsm had as much to do with her jumps as her spins, speed, and other elements. No one called her a jumping bean. She also had and has something a lot of the "jumping beans" don't have-- impeccible posture and carriage.

Linda looked like a graceful butterfly on the ice. At the time, I really didn't think about the difficulty of her jumps. I just liked her artistry.

Annette reminds me of Irina. They have good technique and basic skating skills, but neither are that graceful and balletic. Much like Irina's Tosca, I think Annette's '80 Olympic LP to Broadway Show Tunes was chosen to improve her artistic marks (and win over the American audience)

[quote:7550498e76]Denise Biellmann's one (gold) world medal at 18 in 1981 should probably also go here. Yes, she was also more artistic than most of her competitors, but three different triples including triple lutz at a time when only the very best female jumpers had that many varieties of triple to work with was certainly a big point in her favor.[/quote:7550498e76]

I had never seen a Beilmann spin
until Beilmann did it. When she did it, it played to me like an artistic, balletic flexibilty move -- much like Sasha's moves-- rather than something athletic. Back then, she skated with a graceful. balletic style to classical or classical- like music. As with Linda, I didn't think a whole lot about the difficulty of her jumps. I just liked her artistry.

[Scott]

well, I must say that this has been one of the most interesting discussions that I have seen on any board! I am amazed that you all had the time to dig in and do all the research. Great fun. Thank you.

[Ellyn]

[quote:a693ef9b94]Whether we like it or not, most of us fans remember the Olympics more than anything else. They are what stand out most in our memories, especially as our memories get older. [/quote:a693ef9b94]

Which means that this perception is, to a certain extent, a fallacy as rack calls it -- based on the accident of who happened to win the most-televised events, not who happened to win most often (although sometimes they were the same people) or what the judging establishehment as a whole "preferred" to reward.

Yes, our perceptions based on which events we get a chance to see and which commentators we get to hear, driven by where we live, which network has the rights to which competitions, etc., have a huge effect on our understanding of the events. If the majority of Americans see only the same high-profile, highly televised events such as Olympics whether they would like to follow skating outside the Olympics or not, that is a large amount of the AMERICAN public who have the same TV input and therefore similar perceptions of what skating is about., what it rewards, etc. But people who get to see a wider range of events, whose personal allegiances or those of the commentators they have access to tend to cause them to root for Canadian or Russian or French skaters rather than for American ones will have different perceptions of the very same events, and also will not necessarily give the same amount of weight to Olympics as people who get to see more (or less) skating outside the Olympics.

The perceptions of the general American public about skating based on what gets shown on American TV are not THE truth about skating as a whole.

[quote:a693ef9b94]In labeling them that, it doesn't mean people are saying that jumping is all they are good at. Both are also very good spinners, seem to have good speed, etc. But, what got them to the top, and what was the main reason they became Olympic champions? The difficulty and consistency of their jumps.[/quote:a693ef9b94]

Same reason Yamaguchi became Olympic champion, as it turned out. She was perceived, for good reasons, as more artistic than the other medal contenders that year, but as it happened the reason she won was that she landed more clean jumps, including a difficult triple-triple combination. If she'd been competing with her 1992 programs against Baiul of 1994, I don't think the dichotomy would have been "athlete vs. artist" but rather which of these two artistic skaters was more athletic (Baiul, who skated faster and jumped higher) vs. who was teh better technician (Yamaguchi). As I said, it all depends who you're being compared to. Kerrigan was "artistic" compared to Harding but not compared to Baiul.

Witt won in part because Sumners (also known as "artistic" although only in comparison to other skaters at the time, I don't consider her skating then in the same league of artistry as what we started seeing in the 90s) and Thomas failed to deliver the goods at the Olympics. Yamaguchi won in part because Harding and Ito didn't deliver. Lipinski won in part because her actual skating between the jumps was faster than Kwan that day and quite possibly Chen and Butyrskaya, more fluid than Chen and Butyrskaya, and Chen, Butyrskaya, and Slutskaya all made mistakes. Hughes won in part because Kwan and Slutskaya made mistakes. It's as much about the mental game as about sheer jumping ability. Of course, maybe the pressure is now so great that only younger skaters with less of an awareness of what's at stake can skate their best at the Olympics, but that has to do with mindset, not jumping ability.

[quote:a693ef9b94]So, some of us old fans think there's been a changeover from "artistic skaters" winning the Olympics ladies event to "athletic jumpers" winning it.[/quote:a693ef9b94]

You're free to think that, but it's a fallacy to conclude that there was any kind of agreement among the skating establishment that up until 1992 an "artistic" skater would inevitably be favored and afterward a jumping bean inevitably would.

[Ellyn]

[quote:c790d90047]Also, I would never include Linda Fratiane and Denise Beilmann in the "jumping bean" category. If I were to put any of the ladies of that era in that category it would be Dorothy Hamill and Annette P. I found Linda and Denise to be artistic skaters, while I found Dorothy Hamill and Annette Poezch more athletic. IIRC, they were also viewed this way by the commentators and judges.[/quote:c790d90047]

As I recall at from the time (since confirmed by videotape), in 1976 Dick Button was going on and on about Fratianne's triple jumps and certainly not comparing her artistry favorably to Hamill.

I've also in recent years seen tapes of Fratianne vs. Poetzsch at 1978 Worlds, and most of the top ladies but unfortunately not including Poetzch (except the exhibition) from 1980 Olympics. And Biellmann in '81 as well.

In 1978, my perception was that although Fratianne had better edited music, Poetzch was much more graceful in her movement, even moreso than Biellmann or Witt a few years later. So to me, saying that the stiffer Fratianne was more artistic than Poetzsch sounds like cold war nonsense. However, it's certainly possible that it was Poetzsch who looked stiff and less graceful in 1980.

You see, so much depends on which performances you happen to base your perceptions on.

[quote:c790d90047]Linda looked like a graceful butterfly on the ice. At the time, I really didn't think about the difficulty of her jumps. I just liked her artistry.[/quote:c790d90047]

This is not the Linda Fratianne on my tapes! You must have been seeing different performances. Or if you haven't seen them recently, maybe your memory is distorted by what you remember of the commentary. Or maybe you have a different definition of "graceful" than I do.

[quote:c790d90047]I had never seen a Beilmann spin
until Beilmann did it. When she did it, it played to me like an artistic, balletic flexibilty move -- much like Sasha's moves-- rather than something athletic.[/quote:c790d90047]

But you had also never seen a woman do a triple lutz before she did it. And that was definitely a big point in her favor. If it didn't make as much of an impression on you at the time as her flexibility or her musical expression, that's your selective memory, influenced perhaps by the commentary -- Biellmann was good at many aspects of freeskating (her weakness was figures) -- and triple jumps were one of her biggest strengths.

In other words, assigning labels based on either-or dichotomies comparing just the top two, three, or four skaters in any given year (or four years) and ignoring aspects of the skating that don't fall along those axes is a very misleading way to understand the results at one competition much less overall trends. It can lead you to make generalizations that are not backed up by the reality of the whole international field (or at lower levels) all year long every year.

[Patty]

Ellyn said:
[quote:df383cfa82]Which means that this perception is, to a certain extent, a fallacy as rack calls it -- based on the accident of who happened to win the most-televised events, not who happened to win most often (although sometimes they were the same people) or what the judging establishment as a whole "preferred" to reward.

Yes, our perceptions based on which events we get a chance to see and which commentators we get to hear, driven by where we live, which network has the rights to which competitions, etc., have a huge effect on our understanding of the events...[i:df383cfa82](edited for space)[/i:df383cfa82]... and also will not necessarily give the same amount of weight to Olympics as people who get to see more (or less) skating outside the Olympics.[/quote:df383cfa82]

Well just how many events were there before the GP series and how many did skaters participate in? IIRC, for non- European skaters, usually only one international event besides Worlds. So, we didn't miss seeing that many events-- we just didn't get to see as many skaters and programs for the events that were televised.

Now, that we have extensive coverage of of the GP Series, we can see much more of the 7th -15th Worlds rank skaters. I have found new favorites and other new ones I don't care for. However, this hasn't changed my perception about what I prefer and don't prefer about skating. I choose my favorites in the 7th- 15th ranks the same way I choose my favorites in the 1- 6 ranks, based on my definition of whose performances I personally find more artistic or aesthetically pleasing, not just what the commentators tell me.

[quote:df383cfa82]The perceptions of the general American public about skating based on what gets shown on American TV are not THE truth about skating as a whole.[/quote:df383cfa82]

Where did I ever say that that or what I said was THE truth about "skating as a whole"? I was only thinking about the top skaters, and only referred to them. But, can't we agree that it is the top skaters that set trends, not the unseen or less seen skaters? It's Marlon Brando who gets the credit for starting the method acting trend, not some unknown Stella Adler or Actors' Studio student.

[quote:df383cfa82][i:df383cfa82](edit)[/i:df383cfa82]
I don't think the dichotomy would have been "athlete vs. artist" but rather which of these two artistic skaters was more athletic (Baiul, who skated faster and jumped higher) vs. who was the better technician (Yamaguchi). As I said, it all depends who you're being compared to. Kerrigan was "artistic" compared to Harding but not compared to Baiul. [/quote:df383cfa82]

Yes, I agree artistry is relative to who is being compared to whom. Unlike some people, Nancy meets my qualifications for what I find artistic. Baiul is unquestionably artistic, but I didn't find her '94 Olympic LP performance particularly artistic, because it was too sloppy for me. Nancy's LP performance may have been blah (the music in particular was blah), but I found her performance neater and more graceful and thus, for me, more artistic than Baiul's.

[quote:df383cfa82]Witt won in part because Sumners (also known as "artistic" although only in comparison to other skaters at the time, I don't consider her skating then in the same league of artistry as what we started seeing in the 90s) and Thomas failed to deliver the goods at the Olympics.[/quote:df383cfa82]

Yes, back then, Roz seemed graceful enough for me. Witt wasn't quite the drama queen in '84 that she was in '88, so there didn't seem to be that big of difference in their artistry.

I also liked Debi, and looking back, I don't think she did and does get enough credit for being a complete package. She had good line, position, posture, and other things which I consider artistic. She seemed to get pigeon-holed with the athletic jumper label, because she was one of the few trying 3- 3s, and was being compared to Kat's theatrical style.

[quote:df383cfa82]Yamaguchi won in part because Harding and Ito didn't deliver.[/quote:df383cfa82]

True. But, no matter how she won, it was a skater who was known as an artist who won.

[quote:df383cfa82]Lipinski won in part because her actual skating between the jumps was faster than Kwan that day and quite possibly Chen and Butyrskaya, more fluid than Chen and Butyrskaya, and Chen, Butyrskaya, and Slutskaya all made mistakes.[/quote:df383cfa82]

I can agree with all the above, except saying that Lipinski was more fluid than LuLu. I found LuLu's skating more fluid than Lipinski's. Also, Lipinski's line wasn't very good, and towards the end-- she was sort of flailing and kind of sloppy. Thus, this performance (nor most of her eligible performances) didn't meet my qualifications for what I consider artistic, which is why I say an athletic skater won in '98.

[quote:df383cfa82]Hughes won in part because Kwan and Slutskaya made mistakes. It's as much about the mental game as about sheer jumping ability.[/quote:df383cfa82]

Oh, I think most of us understand that. But, like Lipinski, Hughes doesn't meet my qualifications for what I consider artistic. IMO, her posture, line, and many of her positions (her spins usually DO have good position) just aren't good enough, at least now, for me to consider her artistic. Thus, I feel another athletic skater won in '02.

I, Patty said:
[quote:df383cfa82]So, some of us old fans think there's been a changeover from "artistic skaters" winning the Olympics ladies event to "athletic jumpers" winning it.[/quote:df383cfa82]

Ellyn, in reply to that, said:
[quote:df383cfa82]You're free to think that, but it's a fallacy to conclude that there was any kind of agreement among the skating establishment that up until 1992 an "artistic" skater would inevitably be favored and afterward a jumping bean inevitably would.[/quote:df383cfa82]

I don't think I said anything approaching that, so I think maybe you're reading a whole lot more into my comments than what are there. If I thought that, why would have Baiul won, or the artistic Kwan been the top contender for the past two Olympics? I thought Kwan had a good chance of winning both times, and I wouldn't have thought that, if I believed in some conspiracy against artistic skaters.

I thought all I was doing was noting what I see as changes, mostly in the Olympics. Why those changes occurred I'm not sure. Was it the elimination of figures? Was it changing when the Olympics occurred? Was it evolution in skating or skaters? Or did it just really come down to who was the most consistent or the least affected by nerves, as you talked about. I don't know why-- but I think many of us feel that some things have changed. I think the changes at the Olympics really occurred, while the changes in skating as a whole are probably just perceptions.

[loveskating]

It would seem that the original post is right...its a false analysis to divide skating into jumpers and artists. I think its so much more complex than that, and far more interesting!

Take Michelle Kwan...who is cited as "artistic" but IMHO she has so many wins because she is a consistent jumper with good technique mostly, and she was one of the few in the field for a time who could do the lutz combination and a second lutz consistently...viz Bobek for instance. Its true that Michelle's tech marks were often lower RELATIVE to Tara and then Irina, but not to many others...say Maria Butereskaya except a few times, so what does that make Michelle? Likewise, just because a skater's presentation marks are often lower relative to someone else, that does not mean their presentation is awful and that they are "not artistic" and they are "jumping beans".

As to the 3 jumps, a case can be made that once some ladies started doing them, others had do to do them, just as when Stojko began to do the quad, others had to do it if they wanted to beat him. Its that simple: likewise with other elements.

[Patty]

Ellyn said-
[quote:e4f2633872]As I recall at from the time (since confirmed by videotape), in 1976 Dick Button was going on and on about Fratianne's triple jumps and certainly not comparing her artistry favorably to Hamill.
[/quote:e4f2633872]

There was a lot going on with my brother then, so I'm not sure I saw that one. Whenever I did start seeing a lot of Linda, I remember that I found her more artistic than I had found Dorothy. Maybe this is evidence that not all my opinions memories are derived from commentators, at least Dick Button.

[quote:e4f2633872]I've also in recent years seen tapes of Fratianne vs. Poetzsch at 1978 Worlds, and most of the top ladies but unfortunately not including Poetzch (except the exhibition) from 1980 Olympics. And Biellmann in '81 as well.

In 1978, my perception was that although Fratianne had better edited music, Poetzch was much more graceful in her movement, even moreso than Biellmann or Witt a few years later. So to me, saying that the stiffer Fratianne was more artistic than Poetzsch sounds like cold war nonsense. However, it's certainly possible that it was Poetzsch who looked stiff and less graceful in 1980.

You see, so much depends on which performances you happen to base your perceptions on.[/quote:e4f2633872]

Yes, and your tapes seem to contain only performances where Linda didn't win-- '78 Worlds and '80 Olympics. Maybe she just didn't skate as well and was stiff. Some of Kwan's poorer performances can seem stiff and tentative. We might come to the same conclusion about Michelle as you do about Linda, if we watched only tapes of '99 Worlds and '02 Olympics or '98 Olympics.

Also, you can have a stiff upper body and still be graceful. Some ballet dancers, like Margot Fonteyn, could be described as stiff. Dancers from the New York Ballet tend to be more supple. But, they are all graceful.

I, Patty, said:
[quote:e4f2633872]Linda looked like a graceful butterfly on the ice. At the time, I really didn't think about the difficulty of her jumps. I just liked her artistry.[/quote:e4f2633872]
Ellyn said in reply:
[quote:e4f2633872]This is not the Linda Fratianne on my tapes! You must have been seeing different performances. Or if you haven't seen them recently, maybe your memory is distorted by what you remember of the commentary. Or maybe you have a different definition of "graceful" than I do.
[/quote:e4f2633872]

I don't have tapes to back up my memories. But, I have books with pictures. On page 74 of [u:e4f2633872]The Love of Ice Skating and Speed Skating[/u:e4f2633872], published in Britain in 1980, is a picture of Linda in a pose in her red dress from her Olympic LP, I think. I find her hands graceful and her back position nice. The caption reads:
[i:e4f2633872] "The beautiful American Linda Fratianne strikes an extravagant pose on the ice. A fluid performer who unfortunately did not quite pull off the win she wanted during the Lake#Placid competition."[/i:e4f2633872]

Also, the book Rack used, [u:e4f2633872]Encyclopedia of Figure Skating[/u:e4f2633872] says on page 63:
[i:e4f2633872]"The US and East German women were very different skaters, Fratianne holding the artistic edge and the athletic Poetzsch the slightly stronger jumper."[/i:e4f2633872]

Maybe these books aren't totally accurate and reflect "cold war nonsense". But, I do think they reflect the opinions of most US fans in the '70s. If I saw your tapes, maybe my opinions of Annet's gracefulness and artistry would improve. But, I hope it wouldn't change my memories of Linda.

[quote:e4f2633872]But you had also never seen a woman do a triple lutz before she did it. And that was definitely a big point in her favor. If it didn't make as much of an impression on you at the time as her flexibility or her musical expression, that's your selective memory, influenced perhaps by the commentary -- Biellmann was good at many aspects of free skating (her weakness was figures) -- and triple jumps were one of her biggest strengths.
[/quote:e4f2633872]

Well, a big deal was made by the commentators about Midori's triple axel, Elvis's 4-3, and Irina's 3lutz- 3loop. But, those moments still didn't make as big of a impression on me as they have on other fans. I did enjoy S&Z's quad throw attempt, but that was because I found it breathtaking, until she fell. Maybe difficulty of jumps is only important to me in how they can help my favorite artistic skaters place higher.

[quote:e4f2633872]In other words, assigning labels based on either-or dichotomies comparing just the top two, three, or four skaters in any given year (or four years) and ignoring aspects of the skating that don't fall along those axes [i:e4f2633872](note: do you mean axises?)[/i:e4f2633872] is a very misleading way to understand the results at one competition much less overall trends. It can lead you to make generalizations that are not backed up by the reality of the whole international field (or at lower levels) all year long every year.[/quote:e4f2633872]

I don't think Christy was talking about all of skating, just the top skaters we all see on TV. I assumed from Rack's initial post that we were only talking about trends among the top skaters in the world, not the whole international field and lower levels, or else Rack would have included non- medalist seniors and junior skaters.

I assign the artistic label according to criteria of what I thinks defines artistry, not necessarily according to who they are competing against. I went to Nationals this year and saw lower level skaters. Some I found artistic, others I didn't. That didn't change my opinion on how I categorize the top skaters.

Comparisons might change the degree, such as Nancy vs. Tonya and Nancy vs. Baiul, but not which category I put them in. I'd still find Michelle and Sasha artistic even if they were competing against Janet Lynn. I'd still think Tara and Sarah are athletic jumpers if they were competing against Tonya and Midori.

Since my opinions aren't worth much, I'm trying to back up my category opinions with how they seemed to be judged on the first and second marks, and what has been said about them by commentators and in other media.

[rack]

First of all, I'm really enjoying all the posts on this thread. I'm very glad I started it.

Secondly, while I don't specifically remember which skaters Christy and I were talking about, the odds are they were the top ranked ones. We did go to Nationals together in January, and Christy is far better than I at remembering people and things, but my money is on highest echelon skaters being her focus. And when I did my survey and then my move Jill Trenary into the school figure era survey, I deliberately limited myself to the number one skaters of each year. I considered looking into the ages of bronze medal winners, but figured some of them would be skater-on-the-rise types and others skater-on-the-decline and it didn't seem worth the effort. Actually, as I type this out, I'm getting curious as to how many bronze medalists go on to World championships and how many have been World champions, but that's a whole other issue.

Third of all, I remember vividly my first perception of Linda Fratianne, and it was her jumping ability- her triples versus Dorothy Hamill's doubles. I knew ladies figure skating had just made a major leap in athleticism, which I found very exciting.

And finally, for those of you who've been wondering (or worrying), I heard from Christy a couple of days ago. She e-mailed me that she's particularly interested in the apparent discrepency between the ages of the World Champions and the Olympic Champions. So I guess I'll be pulling out my reference books again!

[loveskating]

[quote:cdbd34a1ae]Well, a big deal was made by the commentators about Midori's triple axel, Elvis's 4-3, and Irina's 3lutz- 3loop. But, those moments still didn't make as big of a impression on me as they have on other fans. I did enjoy S&Z's quad throw attempt, but that was because I found it breathtaking, until she fell. [b:cdbd34a1ae]Maybe difficulty of jumps is only important to me in how they can help my favorite artistic skaters place higher[/b:cdbd34a1ae].[/quote:cdbd34a1ae] (emphasis mine)

To me, whatever you like is just fine, but that is no substitute for the rules under which everyone competes. [b:cdbd34a1ae]Jumps are required, and the way judges differentiate the same jumps landed is by speed into and out of, proper backspin position in the air. correct takeoff and landing as to edge, and height and ice coverage[/b:cdbd34a1ae]! Everyone who skates KNOWS these rules, and its not right to disavow them when convenient! My favorite lady skater overall is Sasha Cohen...but I STILL recognize that when it comes to the jumps, Irina has it over my favorite, or anyone in the current field except Volchkova, for that matter. Those are the rules, and we can't bend them to suit our favorites, nor claim the judges are corrupt when they are only applying the rules (some of which they might not like a whole lot personally).

Also, I'd like to understand your definition of "artistry". There is no artistic mark, although, IMHO the presentation mark includes artistry. Can we define this term?

Presentation Outlined:
1. harmonious composition/conformity with the music chosen
variation of speed
2. use of the ice surface
3. ease of movement/sureness
carriage and style
4. originality
5. expression of the character of the music

I refer people to the canadian federation's web site, which very simply and clearly explains the existing rules and the marks that flow from them.

[Patty]

[quote:bce0b4bcb2="loveskating"][quote:bce0b4bcb2]Well, a big deal was made by the commentators about Midori's triple axel, Elvis's 4-3, and Irina's 3lutz- 3loop. But, those moments still didn't make as big of a impression on me as they have on other fans. I did enjoy S&Z's quad throw attempt, but that was because I found it breathtaking, until she fell. [b:bce0b4bcb2]Maybe difficulty of jumps is only important to me in how they can help my favorite artistic skaters place higher[/b:bce0b4bcb2].[/quote:bce0b4bcb2] (emphasis mine)

To me, whatever you like is just fine, but that is no substitute for the rules under which everyone competes. [b:bce0b4bcb2]Jumps are required, and the way judges differentiate the same jumps landed is by speed into and out of, proper backspin position in the air. correct takeoff and landing as to edge, and height and ice coverage[/b:bce0b4bcb2]! Everyone who skates KNOWS these rules, and its not right to disavow them when convenient![/quote:bce0b4bcb2]

I think you've misunderstood what I was saying, and why I was saying it. In the quote of mine above, I was trying to further explain why I may not remember the difficulty of Linda and Denise's jumps. Jump difficulty just doesn't excite me as much as it does other fans, so it doesn't seem to impact my memories that well. Thus, I don't remember it as well, especially when I have to recall it from more than 20 years ago, like I have to for Linda and Denise as amateurs.

Where did I "disallow them (jumps) when convenient"? I agree with the jumping criteria you stated above. How a jump is done with good technique, and how it looks aethetically is much more important to me than its difficulty.

[quote:bce0b4bcb2]My favorite lady skater overall is Sasha Cohen...but I STILL recognize that when it comes to the jumps, Irina has it over my favorite, or anyone in the current field except Volchkova, for that matter. Those are the rules, and we can't bend them to suit our favorites, nor claim the judges are corrupt when they are only applying the rules (some of which they might not like a whole lot personally).
[/quote:bce0b4bcb2]

I respect Irina's jumping ability so much, that's why I put her into my athletic jumper category. Volchkova has that great huge 3 lutz, but she needs more consistency.

And where did I say judges are corrupt? Goodness, I thought the Olympics pairs competition was over- hyped, partly because I gave the second mark and win to B&S. So, did my former skating coach. (I skated only from '72-'74 as a child, so I don't consider myself a skating expert).

[quote:bce0b4bcb2]Also, I'd like to understand your definition of "artistry". There is no artistic mark, although, IMHO the presentation mark includes artistry. Can we define this term?[/quote:bce0b4bcb2]

Until 1994, the second mark was called artistic impression. Much of what we ended up discussing in this thread happened before '94, so I used the term artistic mark sometimes. And while the current criteria may not mention artistry, I still think it's inferred.

[quote:bce0b4bcb2]Presentation Outlined:
1. harmonious composition/ conformity with the music chosen

2. variation of speed and use of the ice surface

3. ease of movement/ sureness
carriage and style

4. originality

5. expression of the character of the music

I refer people to the canadian federation's web site, which very simply and clearly explains the existing rules and the marks that flow from them.[/quote:bce0b4bcb2]

I agree with the criteria for the second mark. As for what I personally find artistic or good presentation, I would take the above criteria, expand upon them, and make them more specific. I don't think I have ever written out my own ideas on artistry-- they are just what's been floating around in my crazy head for years now. I thought about writing them out, and maybe posting them here. But, it will take time, and I'm not sure other posters would be that interested.

As I said before, my reasons for entering this thread was to try to explain what I think Rack's friend Christy might be thinking and why.

[blue111moon]

I'm fuzzy on skating history but it seems to me that the term "jumping bean" was usually applied to young-up-and-comers bursting onto the scene primarily because of their athletic ability - Tara, Michelle, Okasana, Surya all are linked in my mind when they first appeared, primarily because they had at the time nothing much more than the jumps. Elaine Zayak was one in her first season and the regional and sectional competitions are full of little sprites who bound across the ice like young kangaroos. They are the reason USFSA has a rule about no more than three combinations or series of jumps in a program, to limit the amount of leapoing and force kids - and coaches to put something else in the program besides more jumps.

To me, "jumping beans" are the opposite end of the spectrum from "baby ballerinas" - the skaters who are elgant and stylish beyond their years but whose technical skills just aren't as high. Eventually - if they stick in the sport long enough, - the skaters find a balance between the two and the champions learn to excell at both. However, skating being a sport, I'd say that the jumpers have an edge over the artists in ISU competitions.