Sic 'em, MGoMafia.
(Note: OTIWTPTAOTA = Off-Topic, I Want To Punch The Author of This Article)
Sic 'em, MGoMafia.
(Note: OTIWTPTAOTA = Off-Topic, I Want To Punch The Author of This Article)
simply for "OTIWTPTA"
Edit: But yeah, I have to agree with you. My parents taught me to never hit women, but this one is just ASKING for it. (sarcasm intended...)
I wonder if she considers Figure Skating a sport? If so, the skills are quite similar. And the lifts they do take a lot of strength and coordination. Sounds like a sport to me.
Did you read the article? The author specifically says that figure skating is a sport that ice dancing is ruining by being closely associated with it.
but only because I completely disagree with the premise. I will go and read it though.
But to that point, ruining it? Because they're related? Is 4-man bobsled ruining 2-man bobsled because they're associated with each other? Honestly...that's a dumb point on the author's part, imo.
I don't understand her argument at all. It seems like she thinks figure skating is a sport but that ice dancing isn't, and that by being similar, ice dancing is degrading figure skating. Or something, the article doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
To be honest, I'm not sure it's worth reading. Seems like she thinks ice dancing is superficially silly (e.g., the costumes, the terminology like "twizzle"), which seems to be the entirety of her issue with it.
There's been a lot of good discussion in this thread, so I'm not going to hammer anything home too hard. But I will leave this here for anyone who comes across this thread again:
That's a screenshot of how Meryl and Charlie received their free dance score at the Olympics. You can see that each element has a 'base value' from which they can deviate from +3 to -3, called the 'Grade of Execution' or GOE. This is basically graded like the inverse of golf. If they execute the element as perfectly as it can be executed (factors including speed, strength, quickness, etc.) then they will receive a +3 on top of their base value, like a hole-in-one. If they fall, they will receive a -3 on top of the base value...triple bogie. One thing to note is that a +3 may not really be a '+3'...it may be as small as +0.5 or as high as +3 depending on what kind of element it is.
One other thing to note is that each element has 4 different levels, each with a different base value. You achieve a higher level (level 4 being the highest) by adding difficulty to a given element (for example, in pairs skating, doing a 1-handed lift would give you a higher level than a 2-handed lift).
Where a lot of the "subjective" discussion comes in is in the 'artistic mark', where a judge can give the skater a seemingly-arbitrary point value based on what they deem to be better style, creativity, etc. However, as other have mentioned, 4 out of 9 of the judges' scores are thrown out, so you're left with a solid core of the median of the judges' opinions. It really isn't that subjective when it all comes down to the final score.
Hope this helped people understand a little better.
this author apparently has never tried figure skating/ice dancing, otherwise they would not have written this garbage
I view it the same as cheerleading. Not a sport by itself, but when judged against other teams it becomes one. The key to something being a sport is having competition.
I am not an ice skating fan by any stretch of the imagination. I don't necessarily enjoy it and I certainly don't understand it, but I can at least respect it as a sport. More so than that, I respect my wife's opinion on the topic. As I mentioned yesterday in an Olympic thread, is that my wife was a figure skater (she skated competively, nationally and internationally, mostly in synchronized skating, which is not an Olympic sport at the moment, but certainly seems like it will be). Thus, when she says something about figure skating, I shut up and listen.
Her opinion, based on first and secondhand experience is that ice dancing (as compared to pairs, or individual or synchro) is the most difficult and requires the most skill of all the other skating mediums. If that's what she thinks, then by god, ice dancing is a goddamn sport.
I promise that the Misses was not standing over my shoulder with her hand cocked back in slapping ready position as I wrote that last post...
My daughter skated with Ann Arbor's Hockettes for several years, and participated in national and international competitions. I can't say that I find any variety of figure skating truly interesting as a sport, but to deny the athleticism and teamwork of synchronized skating or pairs ice dancing is stupid.
Small world, my wife competed for the Hockettes!
My daughter's final years with the Hockettes were 1999-2000-2001, but she was skating with them for a bit before that too.
If I'm not mistaken, one of my daughter's coaches at the time was/is Andrew Copp's mom.
Yep, that was who my wife said her coach was. I believe your daughter probably knows my wife then. My wife was the team captain in 2003 (maybe it was 2004...), but had been skating with the Hockettes for long time before then.
I bet she does. When you have the chance, ask your wife if she remembers a skater on the team named Marta.
Yep, she absolutely knows your daughter and they were on multiple teams together since '94/95. Laura is my wife if you want to name drop to your daughter. Hockette girls seem to love to talk about all things Hockettes every freakin' chance they get.
There are a number of team photo posters for competitions in '99/2000 still up on the wall in my daughter's bedroom (my wife would skin me if I even suggested taking them down) and I bet your wife is in some or all of them. I'll mention her name to my kid (who will be 30 this year-arrgh.)
You are a wise husband . . . "If that's what she thinks, then by god, ice dancing is a goddamn sport."
There are just some hills that it isn't worth dying on. This is one of them. I considered my time watching ice dancing last night next to my wife a prudent investment of time. It wasn't unenjoyable, was better than much of the drivel on TV, and my better half enjoyed that I was with her.
freaking rhythmic gymnastics is.
Well, according to Business Insider (truly the final arbiter of all things...wait, what!?):
I don't consider any event thats outcome is decided by a panel of judges to be a sport. Sorry. Ice Dancing is an athletic competition that takes great skill and grace, but it's not a sport.
have no idea how hard dancers work at their craft either, I imagine.
Does something have to be labeled as a sport to indicate that it takes some level of commitment or is difficult?
it just needs to fit the definition of sport.
Mr Webster says: "an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment."
I think all the sports that have judges fits this definition.
You must hate Olympic boxing then. I've never seen such mind-bogglingly criminally-inept or openly corrupt judging as in Olympic boxing.
They should make them fight until one of them can't stand up anymore.
Roy Jones Jr would agree........
was in its own way every bit as outrageous as what the refs allowed the Soviet basketball team to do in 1972 against the USA.
For those too young to remember:
"The final, on the last day of boxing at the Games, was a rout, Jones, barely bothering to raise his guard, landed 86 punches to Park's 32. The Korean took two standing eight counts and was twice warned by the referee. NBC's Count-A-Punch recorder scored the rounds 20-3, 30-15 and 36-14 in Jones's favour. Watch the footage – it's an utterly one-sided affair.
where the outcome is totally determined by a panel of judges. And the bigger problem becomes when there's an almost total lack of objective criteria used to decide a score. Boxing at least has some objective criteria they can use (# of punches landed, whether they got knocked down or not, etc.) But with ice dancing and figure skating, I guess I don't understand what, if any, objective criteria they're using. As you say, it seems pretty biased and random a lot of the time. When "style" starts to become a big part of the scoring, that's what loses it for me.
You not understanding the criteria doesn't mean there aren't any. Basically, they have a number of elements, some required, some optional, each with a maximum score. What each element consists of and requires is pretty well defined. And what NOT to do is also fairly well defined, with specific point deductions for each category of failure. Do A with no errors, get X points. There is certainly some subjectivity in that, but it's not like the judges sit back, watch, and say, I liked that a lot, 10 points!
Now that said it does take an expert to decipher all of that (and I am definitely not one at all), so I can see the unapproachability of it being a challenge to enjoying it as a sport (that's part of why I don't tend to watch it myself). But frankly most of the scoring in figure skating / ice dance / gymnastics / freestyle skiing / synchronized diving is less subjective than say, whether or not to call holding in football or a charge in basketball.
Actually those are decent comparisons - a successful triple toe loop is more rigidly defined than what constitutes pass interference, twizzle synchronization or lack thereof no harder to spot than a charge/block call. Yet the latter examples don't automatically make you dismiss their respective sports.
Gymnastics isn't a sport?
Diving isn't a sport?
I think some folks in Michigan's Atheletic Department find your definition of a "sport" a bit narrow.
Well it's not the Michigan Sport Department is it... WOO SEMANTICS
It has dancing in it's title. Ice dancing it's less of a sport than cheerleading and slightly more thanballroom dancing or ballet.
I kind of put everything that has "judges" in a different category. If you're not competing against a clock, opponent or team it's just a different animal if one is being judged. I'm not taking anything away from anyone just my Opinion.
all this talk about judges.
Aerial ski jumping has judges. Half pipe has judges. Diving has judges.
You people amaze me.
They're also not sports. There's a reason it's called the Olympic Games and not the Olympic Sports.
give me a break.
I'll say it again...obviously the realization of how hard ALL those athletes (Yes, I'm calling them athletes) put in on their craft is most definitely sport-worthy. As a former high school and college swimmer, I can tell you without a doubt that diving is indeed a sport.
Has anyone said that these events don't require skill or take a lot of hard work? What does that have to do with it being classified as a sport or not?
but my reason is because it fits the definition of sport.
Unfortunately, a competition being physically demanding doesn't automatically make it a sport. It's not an insult to the people that compete in those events, it's just a different form a competition.
"an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment."
that I feel the need to downvote the hell out of any of you for disagreeing with me.
football is obviously not a sport, as it requires "judges" and "referees" to make "judgements" about whether a play is valid or not, often based on arcane and non-sensical rules. Ditto basketball and baseball and hockey and soccer. A strike is a strike is a strike, unless it's called a ball. It's a fumble unless it's not. The only REAL sports are races and track events (and I'm sure some others I've forgotten about which are as black/white as you can get).
Here's the problem with that analogy. Everything from pass interference to the strike zone to a charge/block call has very specific instructions about what defines that. The job of the referees and umpires is simply to watch and make a yes/no determination. Yes, there's judgment involved, because that's unavoidable when watching in real time - but that's still a world apart from "Here are three jumps which all fit the definition of a triple axel. Which triple axel was best?"
Hell, even in the racing events there are umpires making "judgment" calls, like, did someone false start. If there are rules, there has to be an enforcer of the rules, which is what a referee is, not a determinant of the score.
There's one guy in charge of watching any particular play at any given time. You don't have five umpires watching the strike zone and then voting on each pitch. In judging events like halfpipe, diving, figure skating, etc., the judges can all look at literally the exact same move and assign different scores. There's a very good reason most judging events eliminate the top and bottom scores.
So you're saying that every single umpire calls exactly the same strike zone in every game? Every football ref allows exactly the same amount of grabbing before he calls pass interference, every play, every game?
Clearly, you CAN show the same play to different refs and get different outcomes - we see it every year. And skating jumps are actually at least as well defined as penalty calls - must jump from a certain edge, rotate exactly the right number of times, land on a certain edge. And the form is somewhat subjective, but not undefined. You are just unfamiliar with the definition.
No, I didn't say one word of that. What I said was that one umpire looks at one pitch and calls it a ball or a strike. Whereas five judges look at literally the exact same McTwist and offer different opinions. I'm not talking about a different trick from the same boarder or the same trick from different boarders, or a similar jump from the same boarder with different judges, like you're talking about pitches and pass interference. I'm talking about one, and only one, jump, with five different opinions. There is no such equivalent in baseball, hockey, football, etc.
Now I did talk about "three different triple axels." But here's the thing that you missed. A triple axel has a definition. Pass interference has a definition. If a ref sees something that fits the definition, he throws the flag. Period. He doesn't go, "OK, that was pass interference, but let me assess how much and what yardage is deserved and so on." Three skaters can land a jump that is defined to be a triple axel, and still there's room to say, "well, that was a pretty good triple axel, that one sucked and was all sloppy, and that one was awesome." A referee has no such discretion. His only job is to decide whether it was pass interference.
Don't be a condescending dick about how familiar I am with definitions when you're setting up straw men like that first paragraph.
Actually, football has multiple refs, and often they see different things. Hence the ref huddles that occur multiple times per game. Certainly we see cases where the former ref commentator or the replay guy sees the same thing and calls it something else. That's not a straw man, that's a legitimate part of the argument that you want to skip over based on the number of officials involved.
And saying that baseball is less subjective because there's only one umpire is silly. That means one guy's opinion has full force. If anything, having 9 judges, of which 4 are thrown out, is less subjective because any 1 judge's subjective opinion plays a lesser role. Are the calls "simpler" in baseball/football? I guess, but the fact that opinion sways a call from strike to ball, safe to out, rather than from 9.50 to 10.0, does not automatically make the baseball ump more objective. Doesn't it just make each subjective call weightier?
Do skating judges differ? Sure, but not by as much as you'd think - 10% maybe? Enough to swing a close competition, to be sure, but show the same element to 9 judges and the scores look pretty consistent. So subjective is true, but that's a far cry from just random, unpredictable opinion. Is it more subjective that baseball? Probably. But my point is that the amount of subjectivity you're willing to accept is inherently arbitrary, so drawing a hard sport/not sport distinction is a flawed exercise.
I'm not setting up straw men, I'm following your argument to its logical conclusion. The reality is that refs differ from call to call, game to game, despite your assertion that there is a firm definition and a simple up/down call. That's inherent subjectivity that can sway a close game. And if pointing out that your argument reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how modern judged sports actually operate makes me a condescending dick, then I guess that's just your subjective opinion, man.
The refs in football, baseball, soccer, and hockey do not determine the actual score as much as they enforce rules. A touchdown is worth 6 points, however it happens, a field goal is always 3 points, a run is always one point, and goals are always 1 point. You may debate what preceeded the scoring of those points, but if you say touchdown I say 6 points.
After a figure skating (or diving or moguls or ice dancing or gymnastics) routine, you do not know the score unless you are deciding what the score is. Football refs may huddle on a PI or other penalty, but they do not huddle on the value of a touchdown. As for bobsled, it's timed with no other scoring component, just like the alpine skiing disciplines.
Certainly we see cases where the former ref commentator or the replay guy sees the same thing and calls it something else.
When the former ref commentator says "I disagree with that call" it doesn't have any bearing on the game. And replay has no place in this discussion because replay is never used to change what you are calling a subjective call. It is only used in the most absolutely objective cases. Did a guy step out of bounds, did a knee hit the ground, did the ball cross a line, etc. It corrects errors in objective decisions, so it has no place in your argument.
Opinion does not sway a ball/strike call or a safe/out call. Errors in perception do. That is the fundamental difference that you're not grasping. The strike zone is very, very clearly defined. Either the ball passes through it or it doesn't. It is black and white and by its nature, objective. The umpire does not offer his opinion on whether the ball passes through the strike zone; he tells you whether it did or not. He doesn't give his opinion on whether the tag was applied in time, he tells you whether it was or not. The fact that they are sometimes wrong does not make it subjective. It just makes them wrong. The fact that technology exists to electronically call balls and strikes is proof positive that there is no subjectivity there.
I do not have a "fundamental misunderstanding of how modern judged sports actually operate." You have a fundamental misunderstanding of my argument. I think you've invented a logical conclusion that fits your narrative. In fact I think it's you that is misunderstanding the word "subjective." Whether the ball passed through the strike zone, whether the defender got in place before the ballcarrier "rises up" for the shot, whether the tag was applied in time, whether the ball was loose before the runner hit the ground - these are facts, provable and verifiable, "belonging to the object of thought rather than the thinking subject," per the dictionary definition of objective. If the referee is incorrect, then he's incorrect, but he's not applying an opinion. Whether a double somersault is in fact a double somersault per the definition in the rulebook is objective as well; whether that double somersault is worth 9.2 points or 9.1 points is subjective - i.e., "belonging to the thinking subject rather than the object of thought."