Skaters Need a Competition Structure That Allows Them to Become  as Good as They Can as Fast as They Can

(7 April 2023)  One thing we learned about the rules of skating long long ago, is that the more things change, the more things change, and in doing so a fundamental rule of systems is ignored time and again - complexity is not your friend.

Starting out with a relatively simple structure in the distant past, skating in the U.S. is now overwhelmed with numerous MITF tests, free skate tests, pairs tests, dance tests of multiple types, adult tests and Learn to Skate tests.  A singles skater starting in Learn to Skate and advancing to the senior level ends up taking close to 30 tests.  A single competition structure has now morphed into a standard track, Learn to Skate, Excel and adult, with two different scoring systems and a rulebook that has gone from a quarter inch booklet into hundreds of documents and handbooks, consisting of thousands of pages that are revised continuously on a nightmare of a website so that it is barely possible anymore to keep up with what the current rules are.

 In the meantime none of this has contributed to the development of higher skilled elite skaters, the core mission of U.S. Figure Skating.  Rather than promoting the development of skaters to become as good as they can as fast as they can, the current test and competition structure throws one impediment after another at aspiring champions and slows down their progress compared to the rest of the world.  Except for perhaps the Canadians, no other skating power in the world has retained such a cumbersome system of skater development as the U.S.  Though long gone, skating development in the U.S. is still tied to a system tied to compulsory figures developed in the 1950s that has no relevance to skating today.  Skaters in the other skating powers develop much faster than in the U.S. and reach their full potentials years ahead of American skaters, thanks to the archaic development structure U.S. Figure Skating clings to, and the failed myths that prop it up.

In our opinion, if American skaters are to reach their full potential on the world stage, it is time to sweep away the cobwebs of the past and fundamentally rework the development system in the U.S.  Key to that we believe is uncoupling the test and competition structures and to replace the entire plethora of competition categories with a simplified modern competition structure that allows skaters to develop as fast as they are capable of and to become a good as they can as fast as they can.

We offer here some thought on what such a modernized competition structure could look like, how the transition would work from the current competition structures to the new, and how skaters would advance through the competition structure without having to test.  With this change, the test and competitions would be completely decoupled.  The test structure would still remain for those recreational skaters who want to test as a personal challenge and as a way to measure their progress in developing as skaters.

Revised Competition Structure Concept

This is a competition structure concept where the structure is defined by a matrix of difficulty for each category (competition level) and age groupings.  The goal is to have a competition structure where all skaters are able to compete against their near peers in age and skill set for their entire competition career.  It eliminates the current problem where skaters often end up forced to compete against other skaters of significantly different age or skill set.

All skaters regardless of ability and development path have an appropriate skill-age category for their entire competition career.

Neutral names are used for each skill category to avoid having older skaters compete in events they might find have embarrassing names, such as a teenager competing in a Pre-Preliminary event.  Instead they would compete in events named by skill level, for example the Single Axel Level, Double Loop Level, etc.

This structure would eliminate the need for a separate Excel track, as those skaters with the skill sets serviced by the Excel events would be captured in the lower skill categories and their appropriate age group.

Age groups for adult skaters could be added to the structure presented here, though more than likely adults will probably want to keep their own competition structure separate.  It seems that is just the way the adults are.

Qualification to compete at any given skill-category would not be based on testing.  The test structure would be completely decoupled from the competition structure.  Moving up through the skill levels would be based on competition scores, and is described later in this document, in two variants.  Skaters would b e able to move up through the competition structure as fast as their skills develop and not be impeded by the need to pass test.

The test structure would be retained for those persons who want to test as a personal goal.

Skill-Category and Age Group Competition Matrix

Column 1: Stigma-less neutral sounding category name.

Column 2: Nearest equivalent in current competition structure.  Skaters self-select from current competition qualification for some categories.

Column 3: Well balanced program requirements from the nearest equivalent category in the current competition structure.

Column 4: Points needed to score in the current skill-category for a skater to advance their qualification to compete to the next higher skill-category. (Requires an analysis we are not motivated to do at this time, but would be based on scores in competition in recent seasons for the current categories.)

Column 5 – 8: Age groups for which the skill-category is offered.  Categories would not be offered for ages groups where the difficulty of the jumps exceeds what is safe for the physical development of the skater at that age.

For age limits, U17 (for example) means under (not yet) 17.

Categories in blue would become the qualifying competition categories.  Double Axel through Senior skill-categories compete in one age group each in qualifying competition.

Short program requirements would directly transfer over to the five qualifying categories in the new structure.

Notes:

Empty cells are skill-age categories not offered.  Not all age groups to be offered for each difficulty level, based on physiological development of skaters for each age group.

Skaters who have never competed in a standard track singles event self-select for their initial competition skill-category.  For example, those new to skating or coming out of Learn to Skate.  They may not skate down thereafter.  Skaters may change their self selection prior to entering their first competition.  One they skate in that skill-category they may not skate down in subsequent competitions.

Skaters who have previously competed in a standard track singles event transition to the new competition structure as indicated by the options in column 2.  Examples: A Novice skater may self-select to enter the competition structure at the 3Lo-level or 3A-level.  A Juvenile skater may self-select at the 2A-level or 3Lo-level.  A Pre-Juvenile skater must enter the competition structure at the 2A level.

Foreign skaters self-select their competition level each time they enter a U.S. Figure Skating competition.

2A-level and above offered in qualifying competition structure, with merged age groups.

Any two adjacent age columns can be combined in non-qualifying competition when entries are low.

EMS tracks skaters’ designated competition skill-category qualification to compete, based on competition history.  Age group is automatic.

Variant 1: Advancement through the skill-categories based on competition scores at the skater’s current skill-category

• Skaters compete in qualifying competition in their current skill-category only, and may not skate up or down.

• Skaters who have not scored enough points in prior competition to move up (column 4) may skate in a non-qualifying competition in their current designated skill-category or one higher (skate up).  Skating one higher does not change their designated skill-category for subsequent competitions.

• Skaters who have scored enough points in prior competition to move up may skate in a non-qualifying competition in their current skill-category or one higher.  Competing one skill-category higher automatically advances their designated skill-category. Skaters may not then revert to the previous lower skill-category in subsequent competitions (skate down).

• Skaters who earn enough points in a competition to move up to the next skill-category may request their designated qualification to compete be updated in EMS without having to skate in an actual competition at the higher skill-category.

• The points earned to move up may be earned in any competition at the skater’s current level, and not necessarily in the last competition in that level before they decide to move up.

• Skaters who earn enough points in a competition to move up in skill-category are not required to do so, so long as they do not skate up.

Advancement Examples

A skater enters the competition structure for the first time self-selects for the 1A-level.  They compete in that skill-category but do not earn enough point to qualify for the 2Lo-level.  In one competition they decide to skate up and compete in the 2Lo-level.  In subsequent competitions they return to skating in the 1A-level.

A skater in the 1A-level enters a competition and earns enough points to qualify for the 2Lo-level.  In subsequent competitions they continue to skate in the 1A-level.  Their designated qualification to compete does not change simple by having scored the necessary points.  Later in the season they enter a competition at the 2Lo-level.  At that point, their designated qualification to compete advances to the 2Lo-level.  In subsequent competitions they must enter the 2Lo-level or one higher (skate up).  If the skater competes in several competitions at the 1A-level, it does not matter in which of those competitions the skater earns the points needed to move up.  If the skater earns the points to move up in one 1A-level competition, but not a subsequent one, they remain qualified to move up to the 2Lo-level when they decide to take that step.

A skater has a designated qualification to compete in the 2A level.  In a 2A-level competition they earn enough points to move up to the 3Lo-level.  The skater requests that their designated qualification to compete be updated in EMS to the 3Lo-level.  At that point the can no longer compete at the 2A-level.  They must enter at least the 3Lo-level.  In addition, they could also skate up in the 3A-level.  Thus, a skater who earns enough points in the 2A-level to move up could next skate up in a competition at the 3A-level.  In doing so, however, their designated qualification to compete remains the 3Lo-level.  The skater can enter either the 3Lo-level or 3A-level in subsequent competitions.

Variant 2: Advancement through the skill-categories based on competition scores by skating up

• Skaters compete in qualifying competition in their current skill-category only, and may not skate up or down, thus advancement through qualifying competition scores by skating up would not be possible.

• Skaters may compete in non-qualifying competition in their current designated skill-category or one higher (skate up).

• Skaters who score the requisite points when skating up in a non-qualifying competition may request their designated qualification to compete be updated in EMS by their test chair to the next higher skill-category.

• Skaters who earn enough points in a competition to move up in skill-category are not required to do so.

A disadvantage of this approach is that skaters cannot skate up in qualifying competition, and thus could not use qualifying competition scores to advance to the next skill-category. One workaround for this is allowing skaters who medal in the highest qualifying competition at their skill-category can self-select to the next higher skill-category.  For example, a 3A-level medalist at Sectionals could self select to Junior, or a Junior medalist at Nationals could self select to Senior, etc.  Moving up, however, would not be required.