Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Results 106 to 115 of 115

Thread: Is Yu-Na more similar to Katarina rather than Michelle?

  1. #106
    Shoe Diva
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Detroit, MI - So Glad to be Home!
    Posts
    2,837
    Quote Originally Posted by shine View Post
    I believe Tinymavy15 was not trying to compare how good a skater Joannie is when compared to Michelle. I think she was trying to point out that as a skater Joannie has similar advantages and shortcomings as Kwan, and the fact that her competitive strategy which has successfully used her strengths to maximize her score under COP has encouraged Kwan, because of their similarities.
    Whether Joannie's programs are as good as Kwan's is an entirely separate discussion.
    Maybe I'm too much of an uber to see this rationally, but I do not see how Joannie and Kwan are similiar espcially in terms of their strengths & weaknesses...

    Consistency is the main area where this is apparent. Mental toughness is another point. Also in terms of the 3/3, up until recently, Kwan was the little known holder the most 3/3 performed in competition. Now, if the the idea that Michelle is currently where Joannie is - then that makes sense but we don't know where Kwan is ... if she's anywhere. She might be where Sarah Hughes was on SOI...

    And if its a carriage, style issue - then Susanna Poiko is much more Kwan like than Joannie...

  2. #107
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,828
    Moderator's note: Personal bickering back and forth along the lines, "You are, too," "I am not," "So's your mama," is not of interest to the genral readership of this board. We are here to dicuss figure skating, not each other.

    Be the bigger person and stop first -- or take it to Personal Messaging.
    Last edited by Mathman; 06-11-2009 at 05:34 PM.

  3. #108
    Custom Title antmanb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    UK - Manchester
    Posts
    4,913
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    Still, I think it could be rewarded under skating skills, perfromance/execution, choreography and interpretation.

    Jumps should punctuate thematic choreographic highlights, and should be matched to the music.

    Although...I am not sure how a spectacular triple flip on the resolution of a big crescendo would differ from a spectacular triple loop in the same place.

    But then again...if the musical theme were repeated and you have already established the expectation of the audience by doing a flip last time, then this time you come out with a loop instead! Wow!
    But are subtleties like that really noticed by the judges as they're hammering in scores onto their screens, as the 23rd skater of the night is doing their LP?

    Ant

  4. #109
    Custom Title antmanb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    UK - Manchester
    Posts
    4,913
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    Thanks.

    Actually, what I proposed was:

    2.00 bonus for including six different takeoffs as doubles or better.

    4.00 bonus for including six different takeoffs as triples or better.*

    *Up for discussion whether female skaters should qualify for it if they do five triples and double axel. I didn't propose an intermediate bonus for that jump content, which would also apply to men without triple axels. What do you think -- 3.00 for that content? Or just define the 4.00 bonus that way for everyone, since having the triple axel is already rewarded sufficiently in its base mark?

    4.00 bonus for including eight different takeoffs as doubles or better (if double walley and double inside axel would be added to the scale of values)

    No extra bonus for doing quads, but a quad could count toward the higher bonus instead of a triple of the same takeoff.

    So even if you do no triples at all you could still earn the 2.00 bonus.

    [snip]

    Downgraded quads count as triples. Downgraded triples count as doubles. Downgraded doubles don't count. Lutzes and flips with "e" calls don't count.
    That was it!

    I really like this idea, especially because of the way you're phrased the bonus so that it applies to levels below senior and junior. I actually like the idea exactly as you've stated it, without the need for an intermediate bonus.


    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    GOE must average -1 (i.e., basically completed with a minor flaw or a moderate flaw and other good aspects to compensate) or better for the jump to count toward the bonus.
    But I realized there is a problem with that criterion. What do you do for a jump combination in which there are two flaws or a moderate-to-serious flaw on one jump, even a fall on the second jump, but the other jump is clean and correct? The GOE would be lower than -1 because of the bad jump, but should the good jump count toward the bonus? If the bad one was repeated successfully in a different jump pass, would the skater still be eligible for the bonus? I'm not sure how to solve that apart from having the technical controller or the referee verify each jump manually to determine who does or doesn't earn the bonus.
    That is a difficult one. My gut feeling is that if a skater did e.g. a 3F/3T, but falls on the triple toe, then the skater should get credit for landing the triple flip for the purposes of the bonus. But i suppose programmes being what they are it maybe wouldn't matter because that triple toe might be the only one planned int he programme and there would be too much brain work required on the part of the skater to try to fit another one in, and there might not even be space for zayak reasons if the skater as already repeated their two triple when the mistake on the toe occurs?

    Ant
    Last edited by antmanb; 06-12-2009 at 03:51 AM.

  5. #110
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,977
    Quote Originally Posted by antmanb View Post
    But are subtleties like that really noticed by the judges as they're hammering in scores onto their screens, as the 23rd skater of the night is doing their LP?

    Ant
    I believe the little things count when discerning between the first 5 spots and who gets the medals.

  6. #111
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,964
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    Still, I think it could be rewarded under skating skills, perfromance/execution, choreography and interpretation.

    Jumps should punctuate thematic choreographic highlights, and should be matched to the music.
    Quote Originally Posted by antmanb View Post
    But are subtleties like that really noticed by the judges as they're hammering in scores onto their screens, as the 23rd skater of the night is doing their LP?
    Quote Originally Posted by soogar View Post
    I believe the little things count when discerning between the first 5 spots and who gets the medals.
    program components explanations

    If the program is especially good at matching phrasing and highlights of the skating the phrasing and highlights of the music, I think judges would notice and score the Choreography and Interpretation marks accordingly. Or if it were particularly bad (no evident relation at all between music and movement).

    If there are two programs that are generally pretty similar in their use of the music but everyone would agree one is slightly better if focusing specifically on that criterion, I think it's very possible that many judges would not notice that small superiority and reflect it in their scores.

    Say you've got two skaters with Skating Skills marks around 7.00, and similar technical content.

    If both programs/performances do a pretty good job of reflecting the music, maybe most judges will give them the same CH and IN marks or 0.25 higher for the one who does it slightly better, so those scores probably won't be the deciding factor.

    On the other hand, if one skater is clearly good in these areas and the other clearly not as good, maybe the former would be earning CH and IN marks around 7.5 and the latter around 6.5. Taking into account both of those scores and the 1.6 (ladies) or 2.0 (men) PCS factoring in the long program, that's enough of a point difference to make up for the less musical skater including an extra double axel or triple toe.

  7. #112
    Custom Title antmanb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    UK - Manchester
    Posts
    4,913
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    program components explanations

    If the program is especially good at matching phrasing and highlights of the skating the phrasing and highlights of the music, I think judges would notice and score the Choreography and Interpretation marks accordingly. Or if it were particularly bad (no evident relation at all between music and movement).

    If there are two programs that are generally pretty similar in their use of the music but everyone would agree one is slightly better if focusing specifically on that criterion, I think it's very possible that many judges would not notice that small superiority and reflect it in their scores.

    Say you've got two skaters with Skating Skills marks around 7.00, and similar technical content.

    If both programs/performances do a pretty good job of reflecting the music, maybe most judges will give them the same CH and IN marks or 0.25 higher for the one who does it slightly better, so those scores probably won't be the deciding factor.

    On the other hand, if one skater is clearly good in these areas and the other clearly not as good, maybe the former would be earning CH and IN marks around 7.5 and the latter around 6.5. Taking into account both of those scores and the 1.6 (ladies) or 2.0 (men) PCS factoring in the long program, that's enough of a point difference to make up for the less musical skater including an extra double axel or triple toe.

    I absolutely agree with this, but my comments have been specifically about the variation of jump types used in programmes, and while i do think the judges can and do take the things you've written above into consideration I don't think the judges are saying to themselves - the fact they did a triple loop to that particular part of the music is so much better than doing e.g. a double axel.

    Ant

  8. #113
    Custom Title Joesitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    20,185
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    program components explanations

    If the program is especially good at matching phrasing and highlights of the skating the phrasing and highlights of the music, I think judges would notice and score the Choreography and Interpretation marks accordingly. Or if it were particularly bad (no evident relation at all between music and movement).

    If there are two programs that are generally pretty similar in their use of the music but everyone would agree one is slightly better if focusing specifically on that criterion, I think it's very possible that many judges would not notice that small superiority and reflect it in their scores.

    Say you've got two skaters with Skating Skills marks around 7.00, and similar technical content.

    If both programs/performances do a pretty good job of reflecting the music, maybe most judges will give them the same CH and IN marks or 0.25 higher for the one who does it slightly better, so those scores probably won't be the deciding factor.

    On the other hand, if one skater is clearly good in these areas and the other clearly not as good, maybe the former would be earning CH and IN marks around 7.5 and the latter around 6.5. Taking into account both of those scores and the 1.6 (ladies) or 2.0 (men) PCS factoring in the long program, that's enough of a point difference to make up for the less musical skater including an extra double axel or triple toe.
    That's a good take on music, but isn't musicality covered by the overall criterium of Interpretation? Ice Dance takes musicality much more serious than Singles.
    If the skater is interpreting a story at the beginning and ending of his program, isn't that enough to say the skater has fulfilled the requirement? If some judges look into what Ice Dance looks into, tempo, rhythm, etc, I doubt that would hold water for much of an added judgement on Interpretation.

    I think it is sad for a Sport that insists on using Music as part of it's game-play and not considerate it more than we see. Even our GS fans never write about how musical a skater is unless someone else brings it up, and few do bring it up. It's those spirals and quads which tower over music, yet these fans cannot wait to see their musical programs.
    Last edited by Joesitz; 06-12-2009 at 10:39 AM.

  9. #114
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,964
    Quote Originally Posted by antmanb View Post
    I absolutely agree with this, but my comments have been specifically about the variation of jump types used in programmes, and while i do think the judges can and do take the things you've written above into consideration I don't think the judges are saying to themselves - the fact they did a triple loop to that particular part of the music is so much better than doing e.g. a double axel.

    Ant
    Yeah.

    In general, the explosiveness of a jump at a musical climax would be pretty much the same regardless of which jump is used. Edge jumps blend better with more legato, lyrical passages and toe jumps may work better with strong beats.

    Except triple axels tend to be telegraphed in ways that make highlight them rather than blending in.

    But it's possible to integrate the nature of the takeoff with other moves preceding (and following) that don't fit the stereotype for that jump. A skater who's in control of the technique and its relation to the music can make any given jump work with all different kinds of music.

    I think where variety of jump takeoff would fit in would be more in the "Pattern and Ice Coverage" criterion of the Choreography component, and a little bit in the multidirectional skating criterion of the Skating Skills component. Again stereotypically, toe jumps tend to occur at the ends of the rink and edge jumps along circular setup paths closer to center ice.

    "Simple" lutz setups with crossovers have the advantage of traveling in the opposite direction to most of the rest of the stroking and putting the jump in the corner, whereas lutz setups from a mohawk and cross step, popularized by Kwan and Slutskaya, are more often in the middle of the short side of the rink, similar in placement to most flips and toe loops, so there are pluses and minuses to either approach. And either can be preceded by additional steps and turns if the skater wants to enhance the setup.

    So it's possible that a skater who relies on a limited jump repertoire heavily emphasizing either toe jumps or edge jumps would also have a limited variety of traffic patterns throughout the program in setting up those jumps and could be penalized for having all/most of the jumps in the same general areas of the rink or for spending too much of the time traveling back and forth between the ends in straight lines (especially if the step sequence was also a straight-line pattern) or going around and around in circles in the skater's preferred direction (especially if a circular step sequence did the same).

    But a savvy choreographer could choose to vary the patterns and jump placements even if they're all toe jumps or all edge jumps. And if the skater is only leaving out one kind of takeoff rather than three, or if all the toe loops or loops are at the ends of combinations, then there can still be some variety of jump approaches even without all of the standard setups.

  10. #115
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    440
    Quote Originally Posted by Kwanford Wife View Post
    Maybe I'm too much of an uber to see this rationally, but I do not see how Joannie and Kwan are similiar espcially in terms of their strengths & weaknesses...
    I don't think the OP meant style but rather just skating. Both have excellent basics. Joannie has a similiar carriage in her controlled COE spiral, whether anyone agrees or not that it moves them to tears. Both present high quality jumps, except on a questionable lutz-flatz. Both have workable spin positions/levels and footwork.

    To answer the thread question:

    Yu-Na is similar to Katarina in theatrics. I notice there is a significant difference in expression for Yu-Na competitively and exhibition-wise. I think there is a Youtube clip with Wilson talking about working with her and he was saying that she's an excellent actress.
    Last edited by DarkestMoon; 06-12-2009 at 12:24 PM.

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Posting Permissions

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