10-25-2009, 06:24 AM
Exactly. Apart from confidence, it is not excluded that poor outings in GP can hurt Mao's marks later this season (PCS), especially if her rivals perform very well. Has not happened yet, but who knows.
Originally Posted by bekalc
Definitely, something is wrong with the jumps. Not only she makes mistakes, but even if she lands a jump, it does not have a 'wow' factor like it used to. Her jumps are VERY average now. No height, no speed when she apporaches them. I also doubt that she can manage 3-3 at this point.
Originally Posted by ks777
She might need spoilers and some withdrawal from GPF.
Originally Posted by life684
You are right in one aspect - this is your opinion
Originally Posted by Enthusiast
How can you even judge Rachel's outings right now? She did not even perform yet in GP this season??? And Leonova performance was uncharismatic compared to Mao's??? What were you watching? Body lines aside, Mao's performance was really unispiring and uncharismatic in Moscow. And that should show in PCS.
10-25-2009, 06:30 AM
Regarding the PCS, am I giving the judges too much credit when I speculate that they probably had the same reaction as most of the other viewers and just didn't want to slam her further? Yeah, I know, totally unprofessional behaviour, but something I probably couldn't totally suppress... But then I would make an exceptionally poor judge, wanting to give everybody medals and make everyone feel good...
10-25-2009, 09:26 AM
Katha, I'm with you on both counts! Maybe the judges, knowing Mao's capacities and wanting to keep her in the game, gave her the unusually high PC numbers. It's not as though they deprived anyone of a gold medal. They were probably playing favorites, yes, but Mao is such an unusual skater (at least she was) that I think they were trying to preserve some shred of her hopes to keep her going.
And, like you, I couldn't possibly hand out scores to skaters, who work so hard for hours on end, for years at a time. When they gave out the second gold medal to Sale and Pelletier at SLC, I was rapturous. I would have given Michelle and Tara a tie in 1998! So I'm plainly not judge material.
10-25-2009, 09:46 AM
It's a good thing I wasn't drinking alcohol during yesterday's CBC broadcast of the ladies' LP because I would've been hammered within the first five minutes if I had to take a sip every time one of the commentators say something less-than-flattering about Mao's LP music.
Originally Posted by Mevrouw
Thanks to everyone who posted alternative arrangements of the music. I hope Mao will at least switch to one of those before the Olympics if it's too late for her to start from scratch with a brand new LP to different music.
10-25-2009, 09:51 AM
The judges are probably giving Mao the benefit of the doubt, because they know what she has been and is capable of. I am not sure why people are obsessing about it for, because her PCS was not completely outrageous, and it doesn't change the the medalling outcome.
It is just like when certain YuNa haters complained about her inflated PCS at TEB - it doesn't change the results.
The inflation is not more than 2-3 points for either, in both cases.
I just wanted to point out to figurejennah, that also that TES and PCS are not required to be linearly related. That is, PCS are not required to follow high TES or low TES. PCS is supposed to be independent of TES (although we know that is not completely true in practice), and it has a much lower ceiling than TES. That is, you can keep increasing the technical difficulty of a program and achieve higher and higher TES (up to a certain point), as well as skate around the rink doing absolutely no technical elements and get a 0. You cannot do that with PCS - some PCS will always be awarded as long as you do something coordinated to the music, and at the same time, you cannot easily add things that make PCS higher and higher.
I thought Ashley was lovely, especially in the FS. And, she was thrilled with her mark. If Mao had gotten Ashley's score, she would still be depressed. Why? Because she--and everyone else in the skating world--knows that she has already done so much more. In a sense, you can almost argue that Mao has deserved this "benefit of the doubt" -- because she has proven how amazing she can be. It's not that great of a PCS score. I don't see what the nitpicking is about.
10-25-2009, 10:12 AM
Very sensible post especially Paragraph 4. Thank you.
Originally Posted by prettykeys
10-25-2009, 11:07 AM
First, Let me make it clear that I am not particularly interested in Mao's PCS. I just hope that she will recover soon.
Originally Posted by prettykeys
That said, I don't agree with you. I believe I fully understand your point but your argument is incomplete, IMHO. I know many people think that way but I never agree. The reason is very simple. Skating skills, performance/execusion, choreography, interpretation and so on, these program components have to be all related to how a skater executes the technical elements. You can say that it is not linearly related but it does not mean that they are totally unrelated. If a skater fails some of his jumps, then the performance score should be lower because his whole performance is worse. It should also make bad effects on choreography and interpretation. Otherwise, the program should have no contents from the very beginning.
For example, If success or failure of a jump does not make any difference in performance or interpretation, then the program must be very badly choreographed because the jump is not effectively positioned in the right place of the program to make it look spectacular.
The whole performance including technical elements, transitions, flow, edge quality and so on, all should make a single complete program. You cannot simply detach technical elements in evaluating PCS. They do make huge difference. The better a program is, the more PCS should depend on TES. If not, something is wrong; either the score is wrong or the program itself is empty.
10-25-2009, 11:43 AM
ITA that PCS and TES are not linear, but I also think figurejennah's point is valid and that there should be some correlation. Ashley and Alena skated with vim and vigour - they might not have the streamlined elegance of some of the top-tier skaters like Joannie and Yuna, but I'm sure it will come with time - and I was shocked to see their PCS so low, while Mao who looked harassed and distracted for a good deal of her program received PCS higher than anyone else. Moreover, in the first minute where the 3As are packed, the program is basically devoid of choreography aside from some arm-flailing.
Originally Posted by prettykeys
Most importantly, I feel like giving Mao such high PCS at this point just because she deserves benefit of the doubt is actually doing more harm than good. She needs a wake-up call, badly, and giving her a little pat on the back saying 'you had a meltdown but we're still giving you fifth place because we know you're talented' is not helpful at all. No one denies Mao has talent, but talent is nothing unless you nurture it and make sure it is channeled in the right direction. I read a Japanese article this morning that said she's STILL putting in all the 3As in all her programs and there will be no changes, so any warning signs this competition might have given her was lost; if anything the Russian cup placement reassured her that the 3As are the only problem (which is clearly not the case).
10-25-2009, 12:25 PM
I've just managed to get the courage up to watch Mao's long program. Not pleasant viewing. She's really a lost soul this week. I can understand why she's feeling overwhelmed. But the grownups around her shouldn't be overwhelmed. They should be taking action. It's not as if she's the first skater ever to take to the ice! Experienced people such as her coach and the Japanese federation should have some inkling of what to do, and they should be doing it. Shame on them, letting her go to waste like this--and letting her suffer like this.
Something sprang out at me as I watched it all the way through. I don't know much about skating technique, though I understand the points people make when I hear them. I don't know how to detect such things myself--whether she's over her legs or her hips are in the right position or whatever. But one thing I do understand is music. Several of you have pointed out that the Rachmaninoff is a powerful piece. Yes, it's a powerful piece--in its entirety. But Tarasova's choice of orchestration has left out the allegro section and just used the andante portion. (Musicians among you: I'm not sure those are the exact terms for this piece--please feel free to correct me. I mean that there's a rapid section that's missing from this version. The original piece goes from A to B and back to A. This orchestration is just A...A...A.) So there is no melodic narrative, just an insistent dirgelike pounding. And Mao has to do the rapid footwork pass to that music! No wonder the footwork looks hectic and forced. Rachmaninoff, the master of scherzo writing, must be turning over in his grave. What I'm saying is that there's a fundamental weakness in this program even before Mao gets out there and skates--even before she puts on that fussy dress. (Vera Wang, where are you when skating needs you?)
I don't give up on Mao by any means, even for this Olympic cycle, but I just wish she didn't have to go through this when there are so many ways to give her a chance to improve her performance.
10-25-2009, 12:27 PM