Page 28 of 37 FirstFirst ... 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 LastLast
Results 406 to 420 of 552

Thread: Ladies LP

  1. #406
    Edgy Details
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Cracow
    Posts
    797
    Quote Originally Posted by bekalc View Post

    And while peaking is Tarasova's game plan, I don't think her game plan is to see her skaters having disasterous skates right before the Olympics either. I mean Illia had a bit of a disasterous season prior to his Olympic seasno. But he was looking incredibly strong in the Olympic season. So was Yagudin. Yagudin's win against Plushenko at the GPF helped his confidence a LOT.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by ks777 View Post
    because she can barely do a double loop now, I highly doubt that she can do a 3-3 still. She evern got her 3flip downgraded, which never happened until this season. Mao got .20 GOE on her best jump, 3loop. She used to get 1.0 or so on that jump.. She is losing her jumps, she really needs a jump coach now.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by life684 View Post

    What helps Mao is athletes like cohen,who are only competing in one GP. if she finishes in top 2, she is acting as spoiler by cutting others points. If Carolina Kostner finishes second ahead of rachel she again could do spoilers job.
    She might need spoilers and some withdrawal from GPF.

    Quote Originally Posted by Enthusiast View Post
    Yes, ann, Now that is something I want to stress. Failed jumps, okay, that should be penalized in the TES which it did. Remember Tanith Belbin taking a horrible fall in the CD at Worlds in Sweden, and ended up with like the 2nd highest PCS that event. A performance may be marred by failed jumps but I think it's unfair, IMO to penalize a skater's PCS based on this. I think it's too 'easy" for girls like Leonova, Flatt to just get high PCS with such uninspiring, uncharismatic presentation level and just less than stellar basic skills, in skating and lines, body awareness, spazzy arm movements, just because a top-level skater had a few botched jumps (which again, is reflected already in the TES)IMO.
    You are right in one aspect - this is your opinion
    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.

  2. #407
    Medalist
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    91
    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...

  3. #408
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    9,490
    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.

  4. #409
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    217
    Quote Originally Posted by Mevrouw View Post
    Kurt actually said (and said that he didn't say it lightly right on television) that Mao HAD to get rid of that program. Tracy agreed.
    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.

    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.

  5. #410
    Custom Title prettykeys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,803
    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.

  6. #411
    Custom Title demarinis5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,234
    Quote Originally Posted by prettykeys View Post
    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.
    Very sensible post especially Paragraph 4. Thank you.

  7. #412
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by prettykeys View Post
    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.
    First, Let me make it clear that I am not particularly interested in Mao's PCS. I just hope that she will recover soon.

    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.

  8. #413
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    151
    Quote Originally Posted by prettykeys View Post
    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.
    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.

    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).

  9. #414
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    9,490
    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. #415
    I like pie. Tonichelle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Kenai, AK
    Posts
    18,728
    loved Ashley's LP and she looked so grown up! fantastic.

  11. #416
    L'art pour l'art Medusa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,752
    Just rewatched Leonova - she is the best bet for the European title. If she skates like this weekend or a bit better at Europeans, she should win. Between Carolina Kostner, who seems totally lost, and the Finnish girls, who rarely land more than 3 or 4 Triples in their programs - and those are often the easy ones, Leonova is the best European Lady out there. I just enjoy seeing her skate. Yes, she is not refined or anything, her edging is rather mediocre, her spins average - but she gets the job done, and delights large portions of the audience with her job.

  12. #417
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    NJ, USA
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by figurejennah View Post
    I agree with your post goPC2018.




    I don't think her movement of the body and lines were great there either. And you think jumping is unrelated to PCS that much? So... Basically you are saying that no matter how much you mess up the entire performance by popping the jumps, you can still make up the points in PCS.... That doesn't sound right to me because jumps are the most critical parts of the program. According to that logic, a skater who can't do any triple jump could get on ice, and then end up on the 1st position because she gets tremendously high pcs. Hmmmm.. I really enjoyed Mao's jr years, and I thought she was talented. But receiving such high PCS when she messed up the whole program is not fair to the other ladies, who executed their programs so much better by completing their required elements much more successfully. It was painful to watch Mao on the ice, and it looked to me as though she wanted to run away from the ice. Moreover, her spins were slower than usual, and her spiral looked like she was gonna stop on the ice. Don't forget that she didn't meet the 6 second requirement on her spiral in sp, and she still received that ridiculously high pcs.




    ............... See, this is what I am talking about. We are talking about Mao's PCS being inflated, and you again have to bring in Yuna. Sigh. Some fans say that Yuna's PCS is inflated, but Yuna always received PCS that is LOWER than her TES. On the other hand, Mao here received PCS that was 18-19 points HIGHER than her TES. So, applying that calculation, since Yuna got 43.80 on her sp TES in France, then she should have gotten around 52 on her PCS, which would make her SP to come to a total of 95. WOW. You think that makes any sense???

    In reality, Yuna's PCS in sp was 32.28 with a clean performance, whereas Mao's sp PCS was 28.84 with a fall, and 2 jumps missing.... Not even 4 point difference.

    Now, let's look at their LP programs. Yuna missed one flip jump, but everything else was flawless. Her TES was 67.55, and her PCS was 66.40, again her PCS being lower than her TES. I remember reading on this forum that some people were saying that her PCS was too high, since she missed that one jump. On the other hand, Mao missed.... gosh I don't even know how many jumps she missed... She missed more than 5... Her TES was only 40.06, but yet her PCS was 59.28.... HUH???

    I am sorry, but I cannot agree with you on "whose score is clearly inflated." With a performance like that, Mao should not have gotten a high PCS such as that, and you really cannot compare Mao and Yuna's PCS on the same level.
    I just feel bad for Miki, Ashley and Alissa, who performaned so much better than Mao. Especially Miki, I respect that she fixed her edge problems, and she is now clearly improving herself tremendously with her fairly new coach. I don't think Miki deserves any less than Mao. When I saw Mao's PCS, I really doubted what I was seeing.

    And for your info, Mao also opens her mouth in "O" shape during bells of moscow...........And during her interview, the media praised her to be extremely expressive...
    the other ladies who executed programs better by completing their required elements were justly rewarded in the TES. That's my point.

  13. #418
    Custom Title prettykeys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,803
    Quote Originally Posted by bmelanie View Post
    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.

    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).
    I honestly agree with everything you said.

    Quote Originally Posted by steyn View Post
    You can say that it is not linearly related but it does not mean that they are totally unrelated. 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.
    I was not disagreeing with those statements.
    Last edited by Tonichelle; 10-25-2009 at 04:04 PM. Reason: merging - please use the multiquote feature, thanks.

  14. #419
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,826
    About the correlation between technical scores and program component scores, I think sometimes people are looking back to the old division rather than at the new.

    In the 6.0 system the two scores were technical and presentation (to avoid that much maligned term, "artistic.")

    Under the new system, the technical part comprises the individual element scores together with Skating Skills and Transitions. Thus the split in the new system is 70%-30% in favor of tech, compared to 50-50. Supposedly, this new emphasis makes the sport more "sporty."

    The skating skills are supposed to be about edges, speed, blade control, etc., appart from jumps, spins and footwork. Transitions means, do some interesting moves in the field, or at least some nice turns and steps, between scored elements.

    By the way, Transitions seems to be the program component that the judges are most confident about, and thus it is amost always the lowest of the five component scores.

    So I think the intent is that Skating Skills and Transitions are indeed almost completely independent of success of the jump and spin elements. If you fall on every jump you can still do wonderful transitions.

    For the other three, I think Steyn's point is valid. If you spend half the program on your backside you are not interpreting the music or executing the choreography very well.

    Mao Asada, by the way, has astonishing "Skating Skills," and IMHO always deserves huge marks in that component whether she completes her triple Axel or not. This is not "protocol" judging. It's just the way it is.

  15. #420
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    214
    Quote Originally Posted by Enthusiast View Post
    Exactly, skating and basic skills are a part of the PCS too, too many of us armchair fans associate PCS=performance + failed jumps. Mao's skating, and her lines and posture is execellent
    So in that case, Mao won't have to worry about her jumping techniques as much as other skaters. Of course she will have to get those jumps back to win, but she's always got that insurance that she can depend on I guess. Whether she completes the program flawlessly or not, she will be guaranteed to receive high PCS, so how nice is that? As we all know, sometimes the rank can be determined by very little score difference, and PCS often plays the role in determining that. I just think it's so funny how some people think that it's not ok for a skater who delivered a perfect program to receive a high PCS, but a skater who basically bombed the entire program deserved a high PCS. Yes, Mao's PCS score would not have changed who would have gotten the medals, but it did affect who performed in LP and gala. Let's not forget that 2008 world champion was determined by 1 point difference.
    Last edited by figurejennah; 10-25-2009 at 03:04 PM.

Page 28 of 37 FirstFirst ... 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 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
  •