Artistic Integrity vs. Athletic Precision:
The Balance Debate in Olympic Ice Skating
For years, Olympic figure skating has been caught in a debate over two competing priorities: technical skill and artistic expression. Critics who favor artistry argue that skating is a unique performance sport that blends athletic precision with creative storytelling. Supporters of this position, like fans of Yuna Kim, emphasize that artistry is what distinguishes figure skating from other athletic competitions. As Olympics.com notes, “Kim’s gold-medal-winning routine at the 2010 Olympics achieved a perfect harmony of technical mastery and artistic elegance, captivating fans worldwide” (“Yuna Kim”). However, while artistry enhances the sport’s appeal, prioritizing it alongside technical execution is impractical and undermines figure skating’s competitive integrity. Technical rigor drives innovation, provides a fair scoring system, and ensures the sport remains dynamic and competitive.
Critics of emphasizing technical execution believe that artistry is what makes figure skating special. As Global Art Movements describes, “Artistry elevates figure skating beyond other sports, transforming performances into emotionally engaging experiences” (“Global Art Movements”). For instance, Jason Brown is celebrated for his expressive routines and choreography, which resonate deeply with audiences. Proponents argue that artistry must be equally weighted with technical skills to preserve figure skating’s artistic identity.
This perspective is compelling, as skaters like Yuna Kim and Brown exemplify what a harmonious blend of artistry and technicality can achieve. However, such performances are the exception rather than the norm. The ISU Judging System itself reflects why technical execution inevitably dominates. According to Wikipedia’s ISU Judging System, “Technical elements are assigned fixed point values for difficulty and execution, while program components like artistry are subjectively evaluated” (“ISU Judging System”). This objectivity makes technical mastery easier to assess and justify, while artistic scores rely on interpretation, creating inconsistencies.
The reality is that skaters face immense pressure to excel in both areas, and prioritizing both equally is often unrealistic. For instance, quadruple jumps demand years of intense preparation and conditioning. According to MentalFloss Guide to Scoring, “Quad jumps are so demanding that even experienced skaters risk injuries and burnout when training for them” (“MentalFloss Guide”). At the 2022 Winter Olympics, several skaters who invested significant time in artistic choreography struggled to land these high-risk elements, costing them critical points and podium positions. This highlights a key issue: the effort required to master technical skills often limits the time available for perfecting intricate artistic components.
Nathan Chen’s dominance further underscores the importance of prioritizing technical execution. Chen’s routines are built on pushing the boundaries of what’s technically possible. As Wikipedia’s List of Career Achievements reports, “Nathan Chen’s multiple world records and Olympic gold medal were achieved through unmatched technical feats, including combinations of quadruple jumps” (“List of Career Achievements”). Chen’s success demonstrates that technical rigor is what propels the sport forward, encouraging innovation and inspiring future skaters to expand their abilities.
The ISU Judging System, while claiming to give equal weight to artistry and technical difficulty, unintentionally favors technical programs. “Technical elements are measured through quantifiable metrics like height, rotations, and landings, whereas program components involve subjective artistic scores” (“ISU Judging System”). This imbalance creates a clear disadvantage for skaters like Jason Brown. Despite delivering routines rich in artistry and emotion, Brown often places behind technically stronger skaters. As Prometric Famous Female Skaters explains, “While artistry resonates with fans, it rarely outweighs the measurable precision of technically challenging elements” (“Famous Female Skaters”).
Some critics suggest that judges could counteract this by inflating artistic scores, but this approach would introduce further bias. Awarding higher scores for artistry risks undermining the fairness and credibility of competition because subjective interpretations of artistry vary widely.
Prioritizing artistry also introduces long-term risks for figure skating’s evolution. The sport thrives on athletes who push the boundaries of what’s technically possible, like quadruple or even quintuple jumps. However, if skaters feel pressured to prioritize artistry, they may hold back from attempting groundbreaking elements. As Prometric Famous Female Skaters notes, “Skaters often avoid high-risk technical elements when artistic components are weighed more heavily, limiting progress” (“Famous Female Skaters”). This reluctance threatens the sport’s competitive edge, stifling innovation and reducing the excitement of competition.
Balancing technical mastery and artistry also imposes an unsustainable burden on athletes. According to MentalFloss Guide to Scoring, “The relentless expectation to excel in both areas leads to anxiety, injuries, and early retirements” (“MentalFloss Guide”). Skaters are often torn between prioritizing physically demanding technical elements or creating artistically engaging performances. This pressure can compromise their mental health and performance longevity.
For example, skaters who focus on artistry may struggle to stay competitive when judges reward quantifiable technical skills. On the other hand, skaters who prioritize technique often feel criticized for a lack of emotional depth in their routines. This dilemma reflects the inherent imbalance in trying to weigh technical precision and artistry equally.
The idea of balancing technical skill and artistic expression in figure skating is appealing but unrealistic in competitive settings. While artistry adds emotional resonance to routines, technical execution drives progress, ensures fair judging, and maintains the sport’s integrity. Athletes like Nathan Chen demonstrate that innovation thrives when technical mastery is prioritized. Artistry should continue to play a complementary role, but it cannot hold equal weight with measurable technical achievements. If we want figure skating to remain dynamic, exciting, and fair, technical rigor must remain the foundation of the sport.
References
https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/55137/guide-scoring-figure-skating-olympicsThis guide explains how figure skating is scored at the Olympics, including the technical and program components scores
https://dev.prometric.com/public-spaces/famous-female-skaters.html This article highlights the achievements of top female skaters who have excelled in both technical precision and artistic expression
https://dev.prometric.com/global-art-movements/ice-skating-couples.html This article delves into the technical elements and artistry behind partnered ice skating
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_career_achievements_by_Nathan_Chen This article details Nathan Chen’s numerous accomplishments, including his world records and Olympic gold medal
https://Olympics.com Yuna Kim: This article highlights Yuna Kim’s Olympic journey, including her gold medal win at the 2010 Vancouver Winter Games
Counterintuitive Fall 2024 
GOAT, this is nicely written, but you keep doing things that make it hard for me to trust your process.
I consulted those sources looking for SOME CONNECTION between the text of your argument and the material you hint made some contribution, but I have to devote my time to more productive exercises than that. I found none, even when you provided the names of Chen and Kim. What did your sources provide you regarding them?
I’m going to post my mystery grade again until you can resolve these questions.
Again, I am at a loss to in any way confirm your authorship of the material you have provided here, GOAT. As with your Def/Cat pair, here your Rebuttal Rewrite is still identical to your Rebuttal Draft despite my concerns expressed above that you are responsible for the research and language you’ve presented.
Until you participate in the feedback/revision process on which this course is based, I am compelled to apply the grade I reserve for work of questionable provenance.
From the Syllabus 1.
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.
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.
OKAY. Here is the test to determine whether you’ve been producing your own writing, which earlier attempts to prompt you to revise have failed to do.
STEP ONE—Cite Your Sources
Actually, I was very clear about this requirement in my Reply above from November 30. I said:
In other words, you may have consulted the sources in your References list, or you may not have. It’s impossible to tell from reading your essay which is the case. The technique you should have been following all along is to Quote, or Paraphrase some language, some evidence, some material from each of the sources in your References list somewhere in the text of your essay.
When you do so, you will use our House Style, which is Informal In-text Citation, about which we did a lot of classwork.
https://rowancomp2.com/gathering-exercises/informal-citation/
Your References list attests that you OWE something to each of the seven sources you’ve named. Your job ALWAYS as a scholar is to CITE the sources when you share what you learned from them. So, your Rebuttal Rewrite will need to contain Quotes, or Paraphrases from all seven sources, using Informal Citation.
YOU MAY NOT SELECT NEW SOURCES. You’ve already tried a full-text swap of old material for new material. I want to see how you’ve ALREADY used these sources to inform the text of your existing Rebuttal Rewrite.
STEP TWO—Address my Specific Objections to your Current Draft.
I have numbered your paragraphs to make it easier to track my remarks.
P1. For years, Olympic figure skating has been caught in a tug-of-war . . . .
—We’ve already heard more than enough about this balance between technical skill and artistic expression in your first two essays. You don’t need to repeat that here.
—This is a Rebuttal Argument, so your job is to identify your Worthy Opponent and demolish that argument.
https://rowancomp2.com/portfolio-tasks/rebuttal-argument/
—The assignment for Rebuttal Argument says:
—Surely one of the sources you’ve referenced is such a Worthy Opponent. Quote directly, or closely Paraphrase, the argument that opponent makes to your clearly defined position.
—It goes without saying that your first paragraph should do BOTH: 1) Clearly spell out which “side” of the argument is your Thesis, and 2) Clearly state the Counterargument of the Worthy Opponent you will refute.
—Currently, your first paragraph does neither. It makes vague claims about what “Athletes, judges, and fans” believe. It vaguely references what “Some believe,” and suggests that “their idea” doesn’t hold up well.
—You appear to counter that a “both/and” approach is difficult, but if THAT’S your thesis, we don’t have much to argue about. Of course it’s difficult. What’s the alternative? You don’t name it.
P2. Critics of placing too much emphasis on technical execution argue . . . .
—Again, “Critics of placing too much emphasis on technical execution” apparently argue in favor of scoring both, or favoring both, or considering both, or something.
—It’s not your job to pick a position for “critics.”
—It’s your job to choose a specific argument you can Refute.
—So, here’s your place to NAME and cite a specific Critic and let the critic declare a position, in their own words, by quoting them or very closely paraphrasing them in a way that your reader, will recognize you’ve been fair in your summary when I go to your source to find the quote or the paraphrasable material.
—Apparently, those “critics” cite Chen and Kim as examples of “both/and” skaters who can and SHOULD (is that part of their position? that both should be scored equally? or something? what is that something?)
—You’ve chosen a very bad example when you named gymnastics as a cold, mechanical sport. Gymnasts are absolutely judged on the artistic merits of their performances.
—So, here you seem to be advocating that artistry should be PRIORITIZED. Does that mean scored higher than technique? Is that a shift of position for you? I haven’t been clear what your position is to date, so I’m unsure.
P3. This perspective also pushes back against the idea . . . .
—When you say, “This perspective,” readers will look back to the most recently-named perspective, which was, “By prioritizing artistic elements, figure skating can remain a performance-driven art form that connects emotionally with audiences.”
—Just clarifying. That makes it twice that you appear to be arguing in favor of “prioritizing artistry” and “emphasizing artistry.”
—And for probably the third time (in this essay; we’ve heard it in other essays as well) you insist that art and technique can coexist.
—So, imagine my surprise and confusion when you follow up by declaring “my argument” that “artistry should take a backseat to technical execution.”
—You have lost me. At this point, if I were not your professor, I would not read further.
P4. At first glance, it’s hard to argue with this.
—When you say “it’s hard to argue with this” I confess I don’t have a clue what “this” is.
—You go on to suggest, in an illegal Rhetorical Question for which you do not have a license, that what we all really want is a combination of technique and goosebumps.
—Because I’m confused, I don’t know which position you should support with a citation from one of your sources, but, with 6 of them to squeeze into 9 paragraphs, you should find a source to Quote here as evidence for SOMEBODY’s point of view.
—But now you return to the ambiguous position first stated in your Introduction, that it’s darned difficult to balance both.
—Which, again, is neither a viable thesis nor a refutation of anything except that being both technically excellent and artistically thrilling is easy.
P5. The reality is that skaters are already under enormous pressure . . . .
—I’m taking it as a clue that when you declare a statement as “the reality,” that you are claiming it as your Thesis.
—Which I would paraphrase as: “both/and” scoring (We ARE talking about SCORING, aren’t we? You haven’t actually said so yet.) is a bad idea. But that’s all it says.
—Now you offer a nice example of the quadruple jump, clearly favoring the technical side of the sport.
—Such feats will automatically dilute the artistic quality of the routine, you suggest, and you mention, but you do not DEPLOY, the example of the 2022 Olympics.
—Surely here, among your 6 sources, you will find a very specific example you can QUOTE of a skater whose technique cost them points or a medal or which caused them an injury.
I’ll start a new Reply for the rest. I don’t want to lose what I’ve typed so far.
STEP 2 CONTINUED
P6. On top of that, the judging system doesn’t make things any easier.
—I like the turn you’re taking here, GOAT. After 5 paragraphs of VERY VAGUE claims, a critique of the “judging system” is exactly what your essay needs to be persuasive.
—I’m not clear what “things” need to be made easier, but I’ll give you some rope.
—WONDERFUL. Quote me the “official guidelines” so I can finally see, after 2500 words of me wondering, how are judges supposed to decide who “wins” a competition?
—Not only THAT, you’re promising to show me how judges VIOLATE the guidelines by NOT giving equal weight to technical and artistic elements.
—Still waiting for those guidelines . . . but in the meantime, a new claim, that judges reward technically challenging routines because “they’re easier to measure.”
—But surely, if they wanted to ADVANTAGE ANYONE it would be easier to award a surprisingly high score for ARTISTRY since their judgment on that side of the ledger would be harder to impugn. Right?
—So, what’s the logic for your position?
—I’m very grateful for a name here: Jason Brown. You’ll of course want to Quote whichever of your sources provided you with this bit of evidence and maybe somebody’s reaction to his losing despite his artistry. We can’t just trust you for all the details.
—Meanwhile, since you haven’t told us how judging works, are prizes awarded on the basis of a single number? I’d be very surprised if that were the case. Don’t judges have to disclose their scores in several categories? Or at least two categories? Artistry and Technique or Difficulty?
—If they don’t, that would be a good fix for your “difficult” dilemma.
—But if they do, then JB could score 10/10 on artistry and still lose out to someone who scored just as high on technique and beat him on the aggregate score.
—Either way, you owe your readers an explanation. Otherwise, they won’t be persuaded.
P7. Overemphasizing artistry also comes with long-term risks . . . .
—This may be a shift in whatever position you’re trying to Refute, GOAT. I really can’t tell.
—I didn’t know you objected to OVERemphasizing artistry. Is that your Worthy Opponent’s position?
—Can you quote your Worthy Opponent on that? It would help.
—It does appear that you think the sport SHOULD—is that too strong? I shouldn’t be in doubt—always favor technical achievement over artistry.
—Although, I think you’ll agree, the origins of the sport were much closer to a dance competition than a spin-counting sport.
—You must have a Quote somewhere from a skater (maybe not a natural “dancer”) whose career was derailed by an injury and who blames the scoring “guidelines” for compelling him to risk a Quintuple to compensate for his “two left skates.”
P8. Finally, there’s the mental toll this balancing act takes on skaters.
—Now you’re just using words.
—No matter what the judging guidelines say, there will always be at least two criteria for figure skating, unlike pole vaulting, for which there are no style points.
—You can have a skating event based solely on who can jump higher, or faster (actually there IS one for that), or spin more often between landings, but it wouldn’t be FIGURE skating, would it?
—That constant pressure is baked into international competition.
—Use one of your sources to push this position. It won’t persuade readers coming only from you.
P9. The idea of balancing technical skill and artistic expression . . . .
—This is your best paragraph because it is your clearest expression of your point of view. Thank you for ending on a strong note.
—If one of your sources contains a quote similar to your summary here, you could really nail the landing on this essay by citing it.
OK, GOAT. I have accepted your challenge. You said:
I have met your request. The next move is yours.
The semester is over. Your Final Grade Conference is TUE DEC 17.
Make substantial revisions to your Rebuttal Rewrite. Use my advice here as a model for how to improve another of your short arguments as well (you need two Revised essays in your Portfolio). I will NOT be spending another two hours to provide you detailed feedback on the second essay.
I hope to see wonderful work from you.
Nice work, GOAT.
I don’t know why you couldn’t have done this in the first place, but I don’t care. Your work is competent, and I’m willing to acknowledge that it’s hard to argue with your response.
Not that I’m persuaded by your argument, mind you. All you’ve really claimed persuasively is that technical achievement measured by how many times a skater can spin is quantifiable and therefore less subject to dispute than the more subjective measurement of aesthetic satisfaction.
That won’t convince any reader that such a regimen is necessarily how skating SHOULD BE judged. THAT decision really does depend on subjective personal preference.
I’ll grade your short arguments on the basis of their inherent merits. This one will do MUCH BETTER than the others, which lacked specific claims and failed to provide citations as evidence.