Table of Contents
The Milano Cortina Olympics produced one of figure skating’s most talked-about moments when the rhythm dance left fans and commentators questioning a narrow scoring margin. The U.S. duo Madison Chock and Evan Bates, coming into the Games as heavy favorites after winning three consecutive world titles, received an 89.72 for their Feb. 9 performance. Their French rivals, Laurence Fournier Beaudry and Guillaume Cizeron, earned a marginally higher 90.18 skating to Madonna’s “Vogue.” The result highlighted how, in ice dance, a handful of numerical judgments can determine Olympic destiny.
Both athletes and analysts reacted to the score with measured pride and open surprise. Chock described being “really happy with how we skated tonight,” while Bates suggested their execution felt even stronger than in the earlier team event, where they had scored 91.06. Despite their confidence, broadcast commentator and former Olympic champion Scott Hamilton admitted he was “surprised” by the panel’s evaluation. With the free dance scheduled for Feb. 11, the rhythm dance left the podium up for grabs and the spotlight on the sport’s inherently subjective scoring system.
What made the rhythm dance controversial
The core of the debate comes down to the role of the nine-panel judging system in a sport where technical calculation intersects with artistic impression. In ice dance, every element is assigned a baseline, and judges adjust values with a grade of execution and component scores. That structure can produce tight differentials: a few pointed markings from one or two judges can sway placements. Spectators and commentators noted that Chock and Bates had previously received higher marks for the same routine, prompting questions about consistency and transparency in judging decisions.
Scoring mechanics and perception
Understanding why a score feels unexpected requires some familiarity with the sport’s nomenclature. The Grade of Execution (GOE), the program component scores, and the base value of elements combine to produce a final mark. When a high-profile team like Chock and Bates performs cleanly yet receives lower-than-anticipated numbers, it invites scrutiny not only of individual judges but of the process as a whole. In subjective sports, public faith depends on consistent criteria and clear communication about why small differences arise.
The broader story behind the competitors
The scoreboard did not exist in isolation: both pairs brought complex recent histories into the rink. Cizeron returned from retirement to contend in 2026 after previously winning gold in 2026 with Gabriella Papadakis. Papadakis published a memoir alleging troubling patterns in their partnership and professional relationship; Cizeron publicly disputed those claims in January. Meanwhile, Fournier Beaudry’s pairing with Cizeron is relatively new at the elite level, and her earlier split from longtime partner Nikolaj Sørensen followed high-profile allegations that led to a suspension later overturned in. These backstories altered the narrative around the performances, creating additional emotional and media layers to what would normally be a technical contest.
How off-ice issues affect on-ice judging
Off-ice controversies often seep into on-ice perceptions. Documentary commentary and social media conversations framed the Cizeron-Beaudry partnership as provocative or divisive; some observers described the dynamic as having a “sinister energy.” Whether such characterizations influence judges is difficult to prove, but they undeniably color public reaction when scores deviate from expectation. For athletes, competing under an intense media microscope adds pressure that can complicate both performance and reception.
Implications for the sport going forward
This episode underscores long-standing tensions in figure skating: the balancing act between objective technical requirements and subjective artistic appraisal. It also magnifies calls for greater transparency in scoring and better protections for athletes. Beyond the numerical debate, the Games have highlighted conversations about athlete welfare—especially when careers intersect with allegations of abuse, memoir revelations, or shifting partnerships. Fans and federations alike are being reminded that results on a scoreboard are only one part of a larger, often messy human story.
As free dance decided the final medals on Feb. 11, viewers left with questions about fairness and a renewed interest in the scoring formulas that govern the sport. For now, Chock and Bates’ poise and public remarks reflect a common athlete perspective: do your part on the ice, then accept that panels of judges ultimately hold a large share of influence. The episode will likely prompt renewed calls from commentators and stakeholders for clearer communication on judging rationale and for the sport to reconcile its technical complexity with the expectations of a global audience.