Hamilton Shares His Thoughts on Judging System

hockeyfan228 · Jul 3, 2006

Mathman said:
You've got a ton of points, no Zayak problems, you're on your way to a medal!

Assuming you can land without hurting yourself or getting the wind knocked out of you. The Zhangs risk-taking should have had them eliminated from the Olympics, because it took them longer than the rules allowed for them to recover, but the after-effects lost them the gold medal at Worlds.

Mathman · Jul 3, 2006

soogar said:
Personally I think Buttle is one of the toughest competitors out there because he can plan a fall and then continue with his program...

Plan a fall? I don't see how we can give serious consideration to a program where the skater choreographs deliberate falls, or to a judging system that rewards it. Do deliberately choreographed falls count as a new kind of moves-in-the-field, with extra GOE for particularly impressive ones? Frick and Frack would have loved it!

Do we want a new definition of a "balanced program?" Six jumps, four spins, two step sequences and two falls (5.0 for your planned 4T fall and 5.5 for your planned 4S fall).

As for getting the wind knocked out of you or sustaining serious injury, they could amend the costume rules to allow more substantial butt pads.

Seriously, though, I think the suggestion made above by Zuranthium simply to increase the value of negative GOEs on elements with super-high point values would satisfy the critics while still giving the quad the reward it deserves. For lower-valued elements (like double jumps and spins) a -1 really means -.7 or -.5, consistent with the point value of these elements.

If the ISU followed the same principle, and took off, say, -1.5, -3.00 and -4.5 for a badly performed quad, this would encourage skaters not only to attempt these elements but to do them well. (A fall on a quad toe would give you a total of 3.5 points -- less than a well executed triple, but still not nothing.)

MM

Joesitz (RIP) · Jul 3, 2006

As Yagudin said at that infamous Euros, that it doesn't matter whether Abt skated better than me. I will have my name in the books for winning Euros. (or something to that affect)

One can't help liking an athlete that takes risks. I'm not so sure credit should be given for effort or attempt on an unsuccessful element. Maybe the penalty should be more severe. Not completing the revolutions but landing a jump will be penalized by the double whammy of downgrading and then more for overrotating. Completing the rotations of a quad but falling on the questionable landing apparently gets a skater higher results than an underrotated triple. Am I correct?

Joe

soogar · Jul 4, 2006

attyfan said:
I have to agree with Scott regarding eliminating the "reward" for falling on a quad. Unless the ISU likes TV ratings and ticket sales in the "abysmally low" rang, the ISU needs to encourage clean programs. No one likes to watch splat fests. One thing that stimulates interest in skating after a strongly skated Olys is the idea that "I want to see more of this..." However, no one is going to watch skating to see falls -- especially after these Olys when the falls (especially
D & L) posed the risk of serious injury (if people want to watch athletes get hurt, they will watch boxing or rugby, instead). Furthermore, a lot of people get their idea of skating from Olys -- if the programs are not clean, no one will want to watch pro shows, either, since they have no way of knowing how the pro shows/events differ from the Oly eligible.

Well it's a sport and athletes fall. To encourage clean programs at the expense of risk.. well that's an exhibition not a competition.

And there is a lot of risk in putting in a quad that you don't really have. Jeff had to hope that he had that thing fully rotated or else it wouldn't even count as a quad and that the rest of his jumps would go well or else he would take too many deductions. And if Joubert or Lambiel fell on their quads, would anyone want them to be docked severely for the falls? It's just Jeff getting the heat because of the "planned" fall. However you could look at it in another way that if he doesn't try the jump, he'll never land it. If he does enough jumps , eventually he will land it in competition. He had already landed a quad before in competition. At the point of the games, Jeff had landed a competition quad and Weir hadn't, despite the fact that Weir has a much better quad then Jeff will ever have. But if you don't try the jump, you'll never get the reward.

JonnyCoop · Jul 4, 2006

I'm a little tired of this argumenent that under CoP, the programs are "cookie cutter" and "all look alike" and "you can't be different." If a skater is of the innovative mindset when it comes to his/her/their choreography (or if their choreographer is), then the programs will be different. JUST LIKE IT'S PRETTY MUCH ALWAYS BEEN. I would say the percentage of "different" programs out there is just as high, if not higher, than it was under 6.0 and CERTAINLY higher than in Hamilton's heyday. And on that note, what was so "different" about Hamilton's amateur skating, anyway? He just happened to do the same thing better than everyone else, IMHO. Really, from his era, the only "innovater" I can think of in the Men's field was Norbert Schramm, and in his autobiography, tho he does praise Schramm to a certain extent for "not being afraid to be different", I still detected a rather snide tone when he talked about some of Schramm's trademark "different" maneuvers.

re Buttle/"planning" a fall: I wouldn't say that he PLANS to fall, but there's certainly no real inititiative to really care if you land the thing or not, except maybe for personal pride reasons. [This applies of course not only to Jeff but to everyone else out there who keeps sticking in elements they only have about a 50% or less success rate with, knowing that they'll at least get partial credit if they revolve the thing around in the air enough.]. What I have a problem with is the deduction system, taking 1 point off for each fall. I think it should range from 1-5 points depending on the type of fall. The Zhangs, for example, only got a 1-point deduction for something that stopped the program dead, which is the same as someone else would get for one of those light plops where they get right back up and keep at it. Under those circumstances, gee, why deduct at all?

Mathman · Jul 4, 2006

Soogar, do you really think that Jeff "planned" to fall on his quad? That's the part I can't get around. If he said, "I've landed this jump before, I've landed it in pactice (but not every time), I'm going to go out there and give it everything I've got" -- well, sure, that's great.

But the way you are talking, he said to himself, "He, he, my first elment will be my camel spin (2.5 points), my second element will be my pratt fall (5.0 points) -- oh, I've got the CoP down pat! -- all those suckers out there who are trying to stay on their feet, they just don't get it!"

Joesitz (RIP) · Jul 4, 2006

I can't believe Buttle would plan a fall. He has a top skater in his own back yard that when he hits, he hits big. Sandhu will take the risk and it's 50-50. Buttle is aware of this and will go for the quad.

I'm not crazy about Falls. I just think they should be penalized more than a -1. They make an element look terrible and ruin the flow of the program, whereas many underrotated jumps landed do not interfere with the flow of the program.

Something should be said about esthetics, here.

Joe

soogar · Jul 5, 2006

Mathman said:
Soogar, do you really think that Jeff "planned" to fall on his quad? That's the part I can't get around. If he said, "I've landed this jump before, I've landed it in pactice (but not every time), I'm going to go out there and give it everything I've got" -- well, sure, that's great.

But the way you are talking, he said to himself, "He, he, my first elment will be my camel spin (2.5 points), my second element will be my pratt fall (5.0 points) -- oh, I've got the CoP down pat! -- all those suckers out there who are trying to stay on their feet, they just don't get it!"

Jeff has a horrible land rate on the quad. HIs success rate on the quad is 20% in practices. He fell on every quad he has attempted in competition except for 1. Even the commentator (I believe it was Tracy Wilson) said that Jeff had to rotate the jump or else it wouldn't count as a quad. Jeff is a smart guy who knows COP and exploits it to the fullest. That's why he does so well in competitions with his gimpy jumps.

attyfan · Jul 5, 2006

soogar said:
Well it's a sport and athletes fall. To encourage clean programs at the expense of risk.. well that's an exhibition not a competition.
...
.

I agree that it is a sport and athletes do fall, but that doesn't mean it is a good idea to encourage athletes to fall by encouraging them to do quads they can't do -- which is the critical difference Jeff's tactic and what occaisionally happens to Stephane or Brian. Under the 6.0 system, when falls were punished more harshly, the judges still had ways of rewarding "risk" -- but no one used a fall as a "tactic" back then

SeaniBu · Jul 5, 2006

Why not just a flat out Half the points - Quad "failed"(for what ever reason) 2.5 or less? ??

That also might make more sense to the "average viewer." "Dude, like they get half the points 'cause, like, there are only so many things they can do, so they give'em som'thin. Ya Know? They did get some of it done. And the chance to make it up isn't there."

JAT

Mathman · Jul 5, 2006

SeaniBu said:
Why not just a flat out Half the points - Quad "failed"(for what ever reason) 2.5 or less?

That's basically what they do. The point value for a quad toe is 9.0. If you fall you get 5.0.

Joesitz (RIP) · Jul 5, 2006

Mathman said:
That's basically what they do. The point value for a quad toe is 9.0. If you fall you get 5.0.

That is provided the Caller sees 4 air rotations. Am I correct? It's not just a statement on paper that the skater is going for a quad.

Yet a triple lutz that the caller sees as not complete in its air rotations, and then is downgraded to a double lutz goes from 6.0 to 1.9 or -4.1 points and then is judged on how the downgraded jump was executed.

Apparently, the disruptive process in the skating flow is immaterial with the quad toe. Maybe some judge will take off -1 in the PCS scores. am I correct?

It never worked for Michael Weiss but nowadays if a skater can turn 4 times in the air, it's worth the risk. In fact, it's not much of a risk.

Joe

antmanb · Jul 5, 2006

attyfan said:
I agree that it is a sport and athletes do fall, but that doesn't mean it is a good idea to encourage athletes to fall by encouraging them to do quads they can't do -- which is the critical difference Jeff's tactic and what occaisionally happens to Stephane or Brian. Under the 6.0 system, when falls were punished more harshly, the judges still had ways of rewarding "risk" -- but no one used a fall as a "tactic" back then

But how do you ever get a consistant quad if you can't put in a program before you truly have and not come under fire?

Joubert had at least one season where he hardly ever (if ever) landed a clean quad in competition - i don't see why he should get the benefit of the doubt and buttle not.

I can't see that Buttle plans his quad to fall - he plans to land it but often does fall. Should we complain about Miki and her quad attempts too?

Ant

antmanb · Jul 5, 2006

attyfan said:
I agree that it is a sport and athletes do fall, but that doesn't mean it is a good idea to encourage athletes to fall by encouraging them to do quads they can't do -- which is the critical difference Jeff's tactic and what occaisionally happens to Stephane or Brian. Under the 6.0 system, when falls were punished more harshly, the judges still had ways of rewarding "risk" -- but no one used a fall as a "tactic" back then

Sorry just adding to say i think they were treated the same under 6.0 - remember i think it was 1995 worlds were Stojko stepped out of his quad attempt but still wound up with one or two 5.9s?

The skaters with flawed quad attempts including falls always came out ahead of teh 8 clean triple crowd in the few seasons leading up to the introduction of CoP...in this regard i don't think the judging systems are that different.

Ant

antmanb · Jul 5, 2006

Joesitz said:
That is provided the Caller sees 4 air rotations. Am I correct? It's not just a statement on paper that the skater is going for a quad.

Yet a triple lutz that the caller sees as not complete in its air rotations, and then is downgraded to a double lutz goes from 6.0 to 1.9 or -4.1 points and then is judged on how the downgraded jump was executed.

Apparently, the disruptive process in the skating flow is immaterial with the quad toe. Maybe some judge will take off -1 in the PCS scores. am I correct?

It never worked for Michael Weiss but nowadays if a skater can turn 4 times in the air, it's worth the risk. In fact, it's not much of a risk.

Joe

Actually, that's a really good point - Mike Weiss would do really well under CoP with his two footed quads - the quad Lutz he did in Nagano was fully rotated and just had the free toe go down for support on the landing.

I'm guessing now but maybe the punishment for downgrading a triple to a double being very harsh is intentional, taking the line, these are supposed to be great athletes who can do triple jumps, so if thhey mess it up and have it downgraded to a double then fair enough, but the quad being a riskier element should be penalised so much??

Or perhaps not enough thought went into it and the ISU don't like eating humble pie.

Ant

SeaniBu · Jul 5, 2006

Mathman said:
That's basically what they do. The point value for a quad toe is 9.0. If you fall you get 5.0.

Basically?

Just thinking of the "dudes" that think that half might be 4.5 or less. Stupid it could be - likely most of what I say might be, but like I say it was Just A Thought.:agree:

Kwanford Wife · Jul 5, 2006

antmanb said:
I can't see that Buttle plans his quad to fall - he plans to land it but often does fall. Should we complain about Miki and her quad attempts too?

Ant

Since Buttle's quad is a major beef I have with CoP, here's a question ~ has he ever landed a clean quad in competition? I don't remember seeing one, but since I'm not a big Buttle fan, that doesn't mean I could've missed it...

Mathman · Jul 5, 2006

Joesitz said:
That is provided the Caller sees 4 air rotations. Am I correct? It's not just a statement on paper that the skater is going for a quad.

Yet a triple lutz that the caller sees as not complete in its air rotations, and then is downgraded to a double lutz goes from 6.0 to 1.9 or -4.1 points and then is judged on how the downgraded jump was executed.

I think that's correct. If the jump is downgraded AND you fall, then you're out of luck:

Quad Toe downgraded to a triple, with a fall:

9.0 base value, downgrade to 4.0 for short rotation, -3.00 GOE (mandatory), -1.00 fall penalty (mandatory) = 0.00 total for the element.

Triple Lutz downgraded to a double, with a fall:

6.0 base value, downgrade to 1.9, -1.00 GOE, -1.00 fall penalty = -0.1 for the element.

To me, that's fair enough. If you totally screw up you get 0 points.

I think that the basis of our complaint about the fall on the fully rotated quad is that it throws the rating scale out of balance, giving way too much credit for one aspect of the jump (rotating in the air) compared to others (landing shiny side down, for instance).

MM

Mathman · Jul 5, 2006

Kwanford Wife said:
Since Buttle's quad is a major beef I have with CoP, here's a question ~ has he ever landed a clean quad in competition? I don't remember seeing one, but since I'm not a big Buttle fan, that doesn't mean I could've missed it...

I just checked Olympics, Worlds, GP Final and all GP events for the last three seasons, and it looks like the answer is no, Jeff has never landed a quad in competition.

2005-2006 season. No quad attempt in any Short Program (or qualifying round at Worlds). LP: Olympics = fall. Worlds = no attempt. GP Final = no attempt. Eric Bompard = fall. Skate Canada = fall.

2004-2005 season. No quad attempt in any SP or qual. Worlds = no attempt. GP Final = no attempt. Cup of China = no attempt. Skate Canada = fall.

2003-2004 season. Worlds (not there -- Sandhu and Ferreira made the Canadian team). GP Finals (withdrew). NHK SP = fall (it was his intended combo, but he didn't do the second jump. In that season there was only a -3.00 GOE deduction and no extra -1.00 fall deduction. After the 2003-04 season the ISU decided to penalize falls more heavily by tacking on the extra -1.00.)

NHK LP = Solo triple toe (2nd element, probably intended to be a quad).

Skate Canada SP = fall, no combo. Skate Canada LP = Solo 3T.

So basically, I would have to say that the quad is not Jeffrey's friend.

Kwanford Wife · Jul 5, 2006

Mathman said:
I just checked Olympics, Worlds, GP Final and all GP events for the last three seasons, and it looks like the answer is no, Jeff has never landed a quad in competition.

So basically, I would have to say that the quad is not Jeffrey's friend.

Thank you MM!!! And as a former Detroiter, my heart goes out to all of you in the Motor City two days after Black Monday - Stevie AND Ben?!? very sad...

Hamilton Shares His Thoughts on Judging System

hockeyfan228

Mathman

Joesitz (RIP)

soogar

JonnyCoop

Mathman

Joesitz (RIP)

soogar

attyfan

Custom Title

SeaniBu

Mathman

Joesitz (RIP)

antmanb

antmanb

antmanb

SeaniBu

Kwanford Wife

Mathman

Mathman

Kwanford Wife

Similar threads

Connect with us