The Influence of Artistic Focus on Technical Skills
in Olympic Ice Skating
In recent years, the world of Olympic figure skating has seen a significant change in how judges score performances, with more focus on artistic expression and less on technical skills. While this has made the sport more visually appealing, it has raised questions about how it affects skaters’ technical abilities. This essay suggests that as the focus on artistry increases, the quality of technical execution is declining since athletes are spending more time on choreography and presentation instead of mastering challenging jumps and spins.
A major part of this change is the International Skating Union’s (ISU) introduction of the International Judging System (IJS) back in 2004. This system created a scoring method that breaks performances into two main parts: the Technical Element Score (TES) and the Program Component Score (PCS) (ISU 2022). The TES looks at the technical skills, focusing on the execution and complexity of jumps and spins, while the PCS highlights artistic elements like interpretation, musicality, choreography, and skating skills. Over time, the PCS has gained more importance, sometimes overshadowing the TES, leading skaters to focus more on artistry than on technical challenges.
The way the IJS is set up has changed how skaters design their routines. With the PCS being such a big factor in overall scores, many skaters choose to spend their efforts perfecting choreographed parts and boosting their artistic performance (Smith, 2022). This shift is largely because getting a higher score in the PCS is often easier compared to the more strict standards for the TES. For example, skaters who are great at artistic expression but include fewer difficult technical elements can still score well, while those with more impressive technical skills but weaker artistic presentation may lose points (Smith, 2022). As a result, some skaters have adopted a safer approach, opting for simpler technical elements to avoid mistakes during tough jumps, like quadruple jumps (Chen, 2023).
Some critics claim that focusing on artistry makes figure skating more appealing to a wider audience, making it more exciting for viewers. They argue that balancing artistry and technical skill makes performances richer and more impactful (Johnson 2021). However, this view misses an important point about figure skating as a competitive sport. While artistic expression is valuable, the sport was originally all about technical skill. By putting artistry first, figure skating might lose its competitive core, as routines shift from showcasing athletic ability to emphasizing performance style.
Adding to this complexity is the issue of judging bias. Although the IJS was created to make scoring clearer and fairer, it can still be influenced by regional preferences. Judges from different countries might have their own ideas about what great artistry looks like, which can affect their PCS scores (Doe,2023). This potential bias shows up in the different ways artistry and technique are valued in various competitions and by different judges. Even though the IJS aims for consistency in judging, there’s still room for interpretation that could favor artistic over technical skills (Doe,2023).
The effects of these changes are clear when we look at recent trends in Olympic figure skating. A review of scoring patterns from the last few years shows that skaters are trying fewer technically difficult moves, especially compared to earlier times. The average number of quadruple jumps attempted in each program has gone down, with skaters choosing safer options to boost their PCS (Chen, 2023). This reflects a wider trend in the sport where the focus on presentation and choreography often takes priority over technical mastery.
In closing, while the growing emphasis on artistic expression has certainly made Olympic figure skating more beautiful to watch, it has also led to a decrease in technical skills. Skaters are focusing more on choreography and presentation to improve their PCS, often at the cost of challenging technical elements like jumps and spins. This shift jeopardizes the very essence of figure skating as a competitive sport, where technical excellence used to be key. To maintain the integrity and competitive nature of the sport, it’s important for organizations like the ISU to rethink how they balance artistry and technical skills in their scoring systems, ensuring both aspects are valued fairly.
References
- (ISU,2022) . Official Judging Guidelines. ISU Handbook. Retrieved from ISU
- (Smith,2022). The Evolution of Figure Skating Scoring. Skate America. Retrieved from Skate America
- (Johnson,2021). How Figure Skating Merged Athleticism and Artistry. The Guardian. Retrieved from The Guardian
- (Doe,2023). Judging Biases in Figure Skating. US Figure Skating. Retrieved from US Figure Skating
- (Chen,2023). Breaking Records with Quad Jumps. NBC News. Retrieved from NBC News
https://www.skateguardblog.com/2020/04/the-evolution-of-technical-merit-and.html
https://olympics.com/en/podcast/podcast-artistry-vs-technical-figure-skating
Counterintuitive Fall 2024 
First, GOAT81, while I appreciate that you’ve provided url links as References, your listings don’t follow the guidelines for APA Reference lists.
We need the Author Names, Article Titles, Publications of standard notation. If you’re kind enough to link ALSO, that’s a much-appreciated bonus, but it doesn’t SUBSTITUTE for bibliographic material.
Follow this link: https://rowancomp2.com/model-papers/references-list-model/
For the most part, your Introduction CONTRASTS the RISING IMPORTANCE of artistry over TECHNICAL COMPLEXITY, but not always. See if you can improve the ratio of successful claims:
—Here, your IN ADDITION TO fails to distinguish between art and technique. It treats them as equals. The sentence might mean the sport has placed more importance on BOTH.
—Here, your ENHANCED makes a claim that visuals are preferred, but your REGARDING ITS EFFECT ON makes no claim at all about technique except to say that it’s had some kind of effect.
—Here you get the contrast mostly right. Your DECREASE IN TECHNICAL EXECUTION is clear; and your MORE ATTENTION TO choreography is clear about the skaters’ INTENTIONS but not about which is VALUED MORE BY JUDGES, which you should emphasize as often as possible.
This is a CAUSAL argument, so we really want to know THE MECHANICS of HOW the criteria EFFECT the scoring. You don’t tell us. You have PLENTY OF WORDS left in your 1000-word budget, but all you tell us is:
—The IJS assigns considerable weight to artistic elements such as interpretation, choreography, and skating abilities.
—Presumably, the IJS ALWAYS HAS assigned considerable weight to these aspects of the sport. WHAT CHANGED? How much did it change? [In my case, for this course, I can tell you that Non-Portfolio assignments are WEIGHTED to influence your overall grade by 20% whereas your Portfolio assignments are weighted at 75%.]
—So, is there a weight given to the two broad categories of performance? Have the criteria changed FORMALLY? Or have tastes just evolved over the years so that judges are permitted to express their own preferences?
—You say the PCS can overshadow the TES, but not how or why. That’s not a satisfying Causal argument.
—Are judges from every country biased in the same way? Are you calling it a bias? Is the ISU biased?
I got the sense from your References list that you hadn’t done much actual research, GOAT, which led me to try an experiment with ChatGPT to see how it would answer my questions about how or when the judging criteria had changed and the possibility of bias in judging.
I’m not suggesting you should have submitted what ChatGPT delivered to me, but, if you had asked it the obvious questions I posed, it would at least have guided you to some hints about what a reasonable reader would want.
Here’s the question I posed:
In 500 words, how has the adoption by the International Skating Union of the International Judging System—which favors artistic elements such as interpretation and choreography over technical skating ability and difficulty of performance—affected Olympic skating and judging?
Here’s the answer it gave me:
The adoption of the International Judging System (IJS) by the International Skating Union (ISU) in 2004 fundamentally transformed Olympic figure skating, altering its competitive landscape and judging practices. While its aim was to create a more objective and transparent scoring system, the IJS has drawn criticism for prioritizing artistic elements like interpretation and choreography over technical difficulty. This shift has significantly influenced how athletes approach their programs, how judges score performances, and the overall spectator experience.
Under the IJS, scoring is divided into two primary components: the Technical Element Score (TES) and the Program Component Score (PCS). While TES rewards technical proficiency and difficulty, PCS emphasizes artistry, including interpretation, musicality, choreography, and skating skills. This dual emphasis sought to balance athletic and artistic excellence. However, critics argue that the IJS disproportionately rewards skaters with polished artistry even when their technical content is less demanding, potentially undermining the value of high-difficulty elements like quads and complex combinations.
One notable effect on Olympic skating is how programs are now constructed. Skaters often prioritize integrating intricate transitions and seamless choreography to maximize their PCS, even if it means reducing technical difficulty. For example, skaters who excel in artistry but perform fewer technically challenging elements may still earn high scores, while technically superior athletes risk being penalized for weaker artistic presentation. This has encouraged some skaters to “play it safe” with their technical content to avoid errors that could result in deductions, shifting focus away from the bold, risk-taking performances that once defined the sport.
The IJS has also led to significant changes in judging practices. Unlike the previous 6.0 system, which relied on ordinal rankings and was often criticized for subjectivity and bias, the IJS uses a cumulative point-based system. Judges assign grades of execution (GOE) for each element and detailed PCS marks, with oversight mechanisms to detect anomalies. While this has reduced blatant favoritism and increased accountability, it has also made scoring less intuitive for audiences. Viewers often struggle to understand why certain performances rank higher than others, particularly when technical and artistic strengths vary widely.
Additionally, the system’s complexity has spurred strategic gameplay. Athletes and coaches meticulously analyze the scoring criteria to maximize points, sometimes leading to formulaic programs that prioritize score optimization over creative expression. Critics argue that this can stifle the spontaneity and individuality that once made figure skating uniquely captivating.
Despite these challenges, the IJS has fostered a higher standard for artistry and overall performance quality in Olympic figure skating. Skaters now face pressure to be not only exceptional athletes but also compelling artists. This dual demand has produced memorable performances that blend technical precision with emotional depth, appealing to both casual viewers and dedicated fans.
In summary, the IJS’s emphasis on artistic elements has reshaped Olympic figure skating, inspiring more holistic performances but also sparking debates about the balance between artistry and technical difficulty. While the system has improved judging objectivity, it continues to evolve as skaters, judges, and audiences navigate its complexities and implications for the sport’s future.
In short, I got more answers from the AI function than I found in your essay, GOAT: something to consider as you approach revisions to your argument.
Graded. Put this into Regrade Please or back into Feedback Please or both after any significant improvements.
On three separate short arguments, I have invited you to respond in several ways and you have neglected to answer me at all. You’ve produced texts, ignored feedback suggesting needed revisions, and exported the three of them into a larger document, without changes, to present it as your own. I’m tired of this.
From the Syllabus:
Feedback and Revision
Instructor-commented drafts are required. The course blog will save all drafts of your work. It will be your sole responsibility to produce later drafts that respond to instructor feedback.
The Short Arguments and other Portfolio items will undergo revisions during the semester, so grade penalties and deadlines are somewhat flexible. One thing is certain: Portfolio materials MUST be available for professor feedback and student revision WELL BEFORE the end of the semester. No student can pass the course whose work has not been reviewed early in the semester and thoroughly revised in response to feedback. The penalty, therefore, for repeated failure to post drafts and revisions timely will be a grade of F.
Hello Professor, I just followed up on your Feedback and tried to cover the whole thing.
Thanks
There’s nothing responsive about this, GOAT. It’s just a paraphrase of exactly the same claims. It takes two seconds to generate one of these, but it doesn’t qualify as “recursive” or meet the other requirements of the course. I’m not buying it.
I asked you some very specific questions about the nature of your claims and evidence, all of which your new version ignored.
See my Comment on your Causal Draft.
I am taking this post out of Feedback Please and Regrade Please until I have clean copies of your short arguments in draft and with revisions.
Don’t act until you’re clear on what I need and why.