Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 97

Thread: Calgary Worlds revisited on ESPN2

  1. #46
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,055
    Quote Originally Posted by Kwanford Wife
    Too bad there aren't protocols for sheer hotness... Joubert would be the OGM!!
    If there were protocols for sheer hotness, how would you score 2002 Olys ice dance (Gwendal P vs. Peter T)?

  2. #47
    Go NJ Devils
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    2,700
    Quote Originally Posted by Ptichka
    But Z&Z did not medal because of FS. In fact, they placed 4th in FS, behind I&B. They won due to their lead in SP. So, I'd say that under the old system the Russians should have won, but under CoP it was fair.
    The question is whether Zhang/Zhang were overscored so that despite being 4th in the FS, they were close enough in points to capture silver.

    Total LP:
    Pet/Tik: 124.22
    Z/Z: 120.84
    Difference: 2.34

    Total TCS:
    Pet/Tik: 64.50
    Z/Z: 64.39
    Difference: 0.11

    Total PCS:
    Pet/Tik: 58.60
    Z/Z: 57.45
    Difference 1.25

    Were Z/Z really within .11 in technical elements? Were Z/Z really within a little over a point in PCS? Were Z/Z really closer to Pet/Tik in the LP than Pet/Tik were to Z/Z in the SP?

    Were Z/Z really 2.80 better in PCS than Inoue/Baldwin?

    Under ordinals, a difference of .01 and 10 is the same.

  3. #48
    Shoe Diva
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Detroit, MI - So Glad to be Home!
    Posts
    2,837
    Quote Originally Posted by attyfan
    If there were protocols for sheer hotness, how would you score 2002 Olys ice dance (Gwendal P vs. Peter T)?
    Oh... Gwendal P is simply hotter than hot... i have a preference for french men...

  4. #49
    Forum translator Ptichka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    4,430
    Quote Originally Posted by hockeyfan228
    Were Z/Z really 2.80 better in PCS than Inoue/Baldwin?
    No. But IMO not because Z&Z were overscored but because I&B were underscored. And if I&B got fair PCS, that still wouldn't help

    Under ordinals, a difference of .01 and 10 is the same.
    Under ordinals (assuming placements in each segment were the same), the Zhangs would have had 1+4+4=9, and Pet & Tik would have had 3+2+2=7. So the Russians would have won the silver.

  5. #50
    Go NJ Devils
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    2,700
    I definitely understand why Pet/Tik would have won under ordinals, although I don't understand the math. (I thought it would have been Pang/Tong 1+1=2, Pet/Tik 1.5+2=3.5, Zhang/Zhang .5+4=4.5). It doesn't matter by how much more Pet/Tik scored over Zhang/Zhang in the LP -- it could have been the equivalent of 2 points, it could have been the equivalent of .02 points -- they still would have scored 2 vs. 4 in the LP.

    However, just because Z/Z were 4th doesn't make the scoring correct under CoP, if the relative worth of both programs is incorrect. If Pet/Tik had actually been judged to be .21 points better than Zhang/Zhang, Zhang/Zhang would have won bronze instead of the silver even with the same 4th place finish.

    My question is whether the scoring was correct.

  6. #51
    Forum translator Ptichka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    4,430
    Quote Originally Posted by hockeyfan228
    I definitely understand why Pet/Tik would have won under ordinals, although I don't understand the math. (I thought it would have been Pang/Tong 1+1=2, Pet/Tik 1.5+2=3.5, Zhang/Zhang .5+4=4.5).
    You're right, I just usually double the FS placement instead of halving the SP one. Amounts to the same thing.

  7. #52
    Custom Title Joesitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    20,185
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman
    And not only that, what's even more cool about opinions is that they are never wrong and they are never right!
    And the Caller is, and his quiet cohorts are, and the Judges are never wrong. Katerina Witt, Paul Wylie, Nancy Kerrigan are wrong but not the officials. Skaters don't mean much up against an official. He studied all one needs to know to judge. Yeah.

  8. #53
    Custom Title Joesitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    20,185
    Quote Originally Posted by hockeyfan228
    My question is whether the scoring was correct.
    Wouldn't that be an opinion? Wouldn't that mean you are questioning the gospel according to St. CoP?

    Joe

  9. #54
    Shoe Diva
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Detroit, MI - So Glad to be Home!
    Posts
    2,837
    Quote Originally Posted by Joesitz
    Wouldn't that be an opinion? Wouldn't that mean you are questioning the gospel according to St. CoP?

    Joe
    Classic!!!

  10. #55
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,828
    Quote Originally Posted by Joesitz
    And the Caller is, and his quiet cohorts are, and the Judges are never wrong. Katerina Witt, Paul Wylie, Nancy Kerrigan are wrong but not the officials. Skaters don't mean much up against an official. He studied all one needs to know to judge. Yeah.
    Joe, I think you are confusing "opinions" with "beliefs" or "judgments."

    If Kerrigan, Wiley, etc. give an opinion then they are neither right nor wrong. I like tulips, you like daffodils.

    If they express a belief or make a judgment, later evidence (obtained from instant replays, for instance), may establish whether they are right or wrong. (I believe that Lambiel fully rotated his triple Axel.)

    If they state a fact (Lambiel's triple Axel was downgraded by the caller to a double, so he only got 3.3 base points for it) -- well, that's a fact.

    The judges and the callers are on the same ground. An opinion is neither right nor wrong. A judgment is subject to further review before we can decide definitively if it is correct or not.

    Callers and judges whose "calls" and judments are later shown to be in error should be subject to censure and suspension. (In my opinion, LOL.)

    Anyway, the topic that raised this question (see post 42) was, "Is Joubert a hottie?" Kwanford Wife said yes, and you praised her for stating her opinion without referring to judging protocols. (?)

    That's an opinion. The judging protocols won't help.

    MM
    Last edited by Mathman; 07-13-2006 at 04:43 PM.

  11. #56
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,828
    Quote Originally Posted by Kwanford Wife
    Classic!!!
    No, that's not classic, that's confusion. Hockeyfan's'' question is whether the judging is following the stated rules, not whether the rules are good ones or bad.

    The rules about a flutz are good, that's opinion. The rules about a flutz are bad, that's opinion.

    Judge number four gave an incorrect GOE to Sasha's triple Lutz, according to the rules. That's a judgment. It can -- at least in principle -- be resolved by examining the rules carefully, looking at the videotape, etc.

    This does not say whether the rules are good or bad, just whether they are being followed.

  12. #57
    Custom Title Joesitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    20,185
    Without going beyond your second sentence, I have to say I was not thinking all this through properly.

    If Katerina said she did a good camel, and Paul said he did a good 3A and Nancy said, it looked like a perfect combo, these are beliefs which I share. Those 3 and many other skaters who do not judge and are not afraid of the consequences for speaking out, I enjoy listening to these veterans who actually executed all those elements, and know exactly what technique is used.

    Of course if a caller downgrades a jump, it is a fact of his doing. But does one have to believe the caller was correct?

    The fact that in the rules, if a caller or a judge errs he will be called to explain. Has that ever happend? If not, then callers and judges never make mistakes regardless of what veteran skaters say.

    My old chestnut: If there were two sets of judges judging the same contest - 10 on one side of the oval and 10 on the other side. Of course there would be no agreement in the details in either side and I question the consensus of the two different set sof judges (if there is a consensus).

    Once a fan sees a competition and arrives at a certain belief of who he/she thinks to be the winner and those on the podium, that fan could then go check the details and see if the judges agree with him/her. Not check the details and see if the judges disagreed with them. But there is room for enlightenment in the reviewing. Maybe the Caller rightfully downgraded a jump but that does not mean that the skater in question should lose the competition on one element.

    I and many other fans of figure skating have our own mindset of beautiful and athletic figure skating. It's nice when the judges agree as in the recent Olys.

    Joe
    Last edited by Joesitz; 07-13-2006 at 05:10 PM.

  13. #58
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,828
    I think everyone in the whole world would agree with that, Joe. No one, not even Speedy -- certainly not anyone who contributes to this board -- would ever say that the caller is infallible, or the judges are infallible, or anything of the sort.

    We can only hope that the ISU will follow through on its promise to subject the decisions of the callers and judges to a review process as mandated by their bylaws.

    About commentators offering their views, someone once criticized Dick Button for being so opinionated, and he replied, "That's what they pay me for, to give my opinion!"

  14. #59
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    755
    Kimmie - How bad was the performance, if you think it was?
    Not really bad, just very forgettable.

    Fumie - Without doubling the jump could she have won?
    Without that mistake I would have given it to her, yes.

    Sasha - Will she continue to be gold worthy?
    I think so.

    Stephane - Was the Caller correct in downgrading the 3A?
    No. For a 3A it didn't have much height but he got the rotations in.

    Joubert - Even with Stephane's downgrade, can he beat him without a downgrade?
    Not unless he has an artistic breakthrough. Lambiel is more fluid and original. Besides that, Joubert needs to start doing a third combination in his program. Joubert may be a little better as a jumper overall, but Lambiel has a harder program not only because of doing a third combination but also because of putting more jumps in the second half of his program.

    Lysacek - Will he continue to be the perenniel bronze against all those skaters?
    I think he has the potential to be World Champion. Needs more consistency.

  15. #60
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    755
    Quote Originally Posted by Joesitz
    I'm big on Lambiel, and he deserved his first place, but I must confess, if it had been 6.0, Joubert would have gotten it.
    I don't know about that. I imagine Joubert would have been a .1 higher on the technical mark since Lambiel two-foot the Loop, but he also would have been .1 less on the artistic mark, which would still give Lambiel the win.

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •