Fumie's technical score was lower than Sasha's

[dorispulaski]

It has always been a requirement for the ladies (as far as I can remember). A spiral is one of the most beautiful moves in ladies skating. I want to see it retained but the way it is being marked needs improvement.

Actually the spiral sequence was added some time after the 1988 Olympics and before the 1992 Olympics, AFAIR. Ladies had of course been doing spirals for ever, but they were completely optional before that. The fear at the time was that ladies' skating was getting too 'athletic' and there were too many jumps. There was harking back to the skating of Janet Lynn, and how skating like Janet Lynn should be encouraged. It was probably a reaction against:

1. The loss of figures, which were removed about the same time.
2. The possible coming dominance by Midori Ito, and skaters like Midori Ito, who had a complete set of triples including the triple axel.

Somewhere in there the short was lengthened from 2 minutes to 2 and a half minutes to accommodate the spiral as much as for any other reason.

At first the neither the coaches nor the skaters had a clue about what a spiral sequence should involve exactly. Some of the earlier versions aren't great. In the US, Bobek and Kerrigan developed spirals that became the patterns for later US ladies.

I wish I could pinpoint the time for you better. I know there is no spiral sequence in 1982, because I have a clip of an SP from that time frame. I know they were doing it by 1992 because Kerrigan was doing a spiral sequence at that time. Bobek as a junior was doing a sequence in 1991. Midori Ito's 1990 season program has a MITF sequence with one spiral in it. I don't think that was intended to be a spiral sequence, so my guess would be the 1991 season.

I hope someone that has the exact date will speak up!

[Mathman]

Sasha did attempt 7 triple jumps and got full credit for completing the rotations. But she got big negative GOEs on her Lutz (-3), which was intended to be in combination, on her flip (-2.86) and on her 3T+3S sequence (-1.14).

Together with the -1 for the fall, this is a total of 8 points lost (the equivalent of a triple toe-triple toe combination).

So I think the scoring came out OK. She was rewarded for what she did and punished for what she did badly.

MM

[R.D.]

Well, if she lost 8 points, I think Shiz won by nine, right? So would it not have mattered if she was clean- shiz would still win...?

[slutskayafan21]

Well, if she lost 8 points, I think Shiz won by nine, right? So would it not have mattered if she was clean- shiz would still win...?

Sasha lost a total of 9.6 from the two jump misses I believe when you add the 2.8 she lost by not doing the two double jumps after the triple lutz. Then if her PCS scores were raised .3 per component that would be another 2.4. So a total of 11 potentialy.

However Shizuka doubled her triple loop. She won by over 8 points. The triple loop late in the program would have been another 3.8, plus probably atleast 0.5 in GOE since Shizuka unless Sasha gets +GOE on her jumps so another 4+ points for her. If you add 12 points for Sasha and over 4 for Shizuka Shizuka still wins.

Sasha still would have lost even with a clean performance if Shizuka had also not doubled her triple loop. On top of that Shizuka could have done a triple-triple while Sasha could not have added any more jumps and does not triple-triples anyway.

If Sasha had skated cleanly she would have won only because Shizuka doubled her triple loop.

[Mathman]

It's hard to conjecture about how the PCS would have turned out. In the SP, with both Sasha an Shizuka skating fairly cleanly and with similar technical content, the judges gave Shizuka an average of only 7.52 in component scores, to Sasha's 7.85.

In the LP, even with Sasha making two program-interrupting mistakes, the average PCSs were close: 7.87 for Shizuka and 7.80 for Sasha.

I have a feeling that if Sasha had skated cleanly the judges were ready to give her whatever marks were necessary for the win.

MM

[slutskayafan21]

It's hard to conjecture about how the PCS would have turned out. In the SP, with both Sasha an Shizuka skating fairly cleanly and with similar technical content, the judges gave Shizuka an average of only 7.52 in component scores, to Sasha's 7.85.

In the LP, even with Sasha making two program-interrupting mistakes, the average PCSs were close: 7.87 for Shizuka and 7.80 for Sasha.

I have a feeling that if Sasha had skated cleanly the judges were ready to give her whatever marks were necessary for the win.

MM

I think Shizuka would have won on TES scores anyway. Her spin and step sequences scored higher than Sasha to begin with and her jumps are much higher quality and would have easily gained higher GOE scores.

[R.D.]

I agree. However, let's remember we don't know how Shiz would have skated if Cohen skated clean. Maybe she would have done the 3-3 and had a brilliant performance, or maybe she would have succumbed to pressure. Who knows? It's that horrible X-factor again. But I'm sure this will be discussed until 2010, anyway.

[slutskayafan21]

I agree. However, let's remember we don't know how Shiz would have skated if Cohen skated clean. Maybe she would have done the 3-3 and had a brilliant performance, or maybe she would have succumbed to pressure. Who knows? It's that horrible X-factor again. But I'm sure this will be discussed until 2010, anyway.

All true. Irina would have skated better had Sasha skated well and Shizuka skated more spectacularly too I believe. Her performance was tight and tenative, even aside from the mistakes, and after the 2nd mistake she allowed the remaining elements and performance level to dip further knowing the gold was gone and losing the silver as well(that and Sasha`s usual inflated PCS scores).

[Zuranthium]

Why should it matter if it is rotated all the way in the air if the person can't land it?

Because it's hard to rotate a Triple jump. Being able to rotate a Triple jump but not knowing how to land it consistently at least shows more skill than someone who can't a rotate a Triple jump at all. The problem with the rating system comes into play with Quads and 3Axles...they need to have a higher negative GOE (I'd say 1.5 and 1.2, respectively).

[Mathman]

The problem with the rating system comes into play with Quads and 3Axles...they need to have a higher negative GOE (I'd say 1.5 and 1.2, respectively).

Oh, I don't agree with that at all. A fully rotated quad toe, with a fall on the landing, gets you 5.0 points after deductions. This is the same as a pretty good triple toe with a +1 GOE.

But any 12-year-old boy at the novice level can do a triple toe, whereas only a small handful of the best athletes in the sport can fully rotate a quad.

Same with the ladies and a triple Axel. Only a half dozen or so so ladies in the history of the sport have ever landed a triple Axel in competition. But every junior miss is required to do a double Axel. A triple Axel with a fall gives you 3.5, versus 3.3 for a double with 0 GOE.

I think that's about right. If anything, I would like to see the show-stopping elements rewarded even further, and I would not like to see skaters penalized too harshly for attempting them.

MM

[Zuranthium]

Eh...it's more impressive to watch someone land a beautiful (+1 GOE) Triple than it is to watch someone fall on their *** with a Quad.

Plenty of people can rotate a Quad Toe. SASHA can. Lol. But if they can't land it, they don't know how to do it. You shouldn't get so many points for TRYING to fall, if you so choose (like Jeffrey Buttle at this past Oylmpics; he does not know how to do a Quad, but was told to do one anyway just because it really isn't a penalty if you fall).

[SeaniBu]

I have read and thought about this. It sounds to me that fall needs to have a mandatory deduction. .

[Mathman]

There is a mandatory deduction (-1.00) for a fall. In addition there is a mandatory -3.00 Grade of Execution.

[Mathman]

Z, I don't quite understand your position.

RubyNV asks, about triple jumps, "Why should it matter if it is rotated all the way in the air if a person can't land it." Your answer:

Because it's hard to rotate a Triple jump. Being able to rotate a Triple jump but not knowing how to land it consistently at least shows more skill than someone who can't a rotate a Triple jump at all.

Yet you say about quads:

But if they can't land it, they don't know how to do it.

To me, the New Judging System is quite consistent on this. A fall on a fully rotated quad is worth about the same as a well-executed triple. A fall on a triple is worth about the same as a well-executed double.

MM

[SeaniBu]

There is a mandatory deduction (-1.00) for a fall. In addition there is a mandatory -3.00 Grade of Execution.

OOps, duh again sean....:banging: I did now that too. Brain ____
I just read over your breakdown on a different thread and came here to see if I really did do the stupid maneuver again. Maybe what I should have said there should bee no points given at all for the attempt if the jump ends in a fall. Now I am going to go back and see how the points work out...hummmm. If the best you can get is 5 (I think) then it is strange to think you can get anything out of the jump at all....? Well I will just go read and shut up now