After reading the boards here since the Olympics, I notice that all upsetting results can be divided into three categories (although I'm sure you can think of more.)
In order:
Bronze--Done in by instant replay. "Mirai is the new US champion--oh, wait, she didn't actually go around 3X on those jumps."
Why it seems unfair: A great-looking performance scores much lower than the spectators think.
Concern: Are everybody's jumps being scrutinized like this? Do they do it sometimes but not others? I always thought that if Mirai had skated earlier in the Olympics--and could potentially beat an underperforming Joannie or Mao, for example--they would have found something to pick on to keep her down. It was odd that she UR'd all season, but in the Olympics, out of medal contention, she didn't do it. But I may be paranoid.
Silver--they won, but didn't do the hardest jump! (Carolina from the Grand Prix is an example of this phenomenon this season, as well as the two individual gold medalists from Vancouver)
Why it seems unfair--they won, but they didn't do the hardest jump!
Concern--are the hardest jumps not getting enough points? (May have been corrected).
Gold--They fell, but they still won. (We all know who did that this season, 4 times no less)
Why this seems unfair--it should be obvious.
Concern--is the penalty for falling too high? Are too many points awarded for "deep edges" and "transitions" so that someone who is good in those areas is untouchable, even when skating poorly?
Can anyone else think of another category for an "upsetting" victory or defeat? (Even if you yourself are not upset by it--a case could be made that the judges made the right decision in all these cases, or that the COP is correct to value the elements as it does.)
In order:
Bronze--Done in by instant replay. "Mirai is the new US champion--oh, wait, she didn't actually go around 3X on those jumps."
Why it seems unfair: A great-looking performance scores much lower than the spectators think.
Concern: Are everybody's jumps being scrutinized like this? Do they do it sometimes but not others? I always thought that if Mirai had skated earlier in the Olympics--and could potentially beat an underperforming Joannie or Mao, for example--they would have found something to pick on to keep her down. It was odd that she UR'd all season, but in the Olympics, out of medal contention, she didn't do it. But I may be paranoid.
Silver--they won, but didn't do the hardest jump! (Carolina from the Grand Prix is an example of this phenomenon this season, as well as the two individual gold medalists from Vancouver)
Why it seems unfair--they won, but they didn't do the hardest jump!
Concern--are the hardest jumps not getting enough points? (May have been corrected).
Gold--They fell, but they still won. (We all know who did that this season, 4 times no less)
Why this seems unfair--it should be obvious.
Concern--is the penalty for falling too high? Are too many points awarded for "deep edges" and "transitions" so that someone who is good in those areas is untouchable, even when skating poorly?
Can anyone else think of another category for an "upsetting" victory or defeat? (Even if you yourself are not upset by it--a case could be made that the judges made the right decision in all these cases, or that the COP is correct to value the elements as it does.)