By the time the men were done they asked me to quit explaining some of the new rules because they did not understand my explanations and said they missed the judges' scores being shown after each skater.
They thought Laura was very cute and lively and liked her alot. They did not care as much for Alissa but said they liked her dress better than Laura's. Could have been than "panty thing" Spun just mentioned.
They thought Mirai was the best and thought Joannie made so many mistakes they couldn't believe she was the winner.
My guests are around my age and they remember Scott very well and enjoyed his commentary. (I did not make that up )
From their comments and general reaction I don't get the feeling skating is on the right path. Not as far as having much appeal to casual fans from the USA.
They said they will watch some skating on the Olympics but said it is not the same since Michelle has retired.
There's no longer that tension, that nervous anticipation for me while watching the skaters skate. I do miss that feeling...it was at its height at Nats and Worlds 03, 04...things started to slip in '05 (I blame the NJS) but after '06 it's simply going through the motions ...
Last edited by R.D.; 11-22-2009 at 06:24 PM.
Here is where I think the point-total judging system has produced disapointing results.
In the olden days, it might go like this. Skater A gets a string of 5.7s and 5.8s and wins, while skater B gets 5.4s and 5.5s and loses. Why? Because skater A did a triple Lutz, whereas skater B only did a triple Salchow -- an easier jump. Plus, skater B had a two-footed landing, while skater A's spins were more intricate and she skated better to the music.
Now we say: Skater A got 110 points and won, while skater B got 96 points and lost.
Why? Because skater A did a triple Lutz (6.0 points), whereas skater B only did a triple Salchow (4.5 points). Plus, skater B had a two-footed landing (minus 1 GOE), while skater A's spins were more intricate (level 3) and she skated better to the music (7.25 in Interpretation.)
OK. so I just wrote the same paragraph twice. Do the numbers inserted in bold really have any meaning or purpose?
Last edited by Mathman; 11-22-2009 at 07:04 PM.
Tara Lipinski was regularly marked down in the 1997-98 season , even though she was world champion, for wrong edge take-offs on her Lutzes. The 6.0 commentators were not shy about pointing out cheated landings.
Many times a skater with a fall was placed over a skater who seemed to deliver a clean program. So this possibiltiy is not something that the CoP can stake sole claim to. Not at all.
Last edited by Mathman; 11-22-2009 at 07:45 PM.
I do love that logical leap.
I still watch skating the way you describe it in the first paragraph. It is not some form of rebellion but just a habit developed over the years.
I don't think of levels when I watch steps - I think of the blade work and control, beauty of the motion and if musicality is being expressed.
I look at jumps differently and if I can't see an edge problem I feel resentment at the tech callers when they downgrade a skater I like.
Rotations completed in the air are totally without value to me if the skater falls or has a very shaky landing - two footed or a hand on the ice.I downgrade that skater for what I consider to be a failed jump.
Now it feels like the judges are saying, "well atleast they tried, let's give them some points."
That is not much different than saying "look at my pretty dress. My family spent alot of money on it so please be sure to boost my presentation marks for trying so hard to be pretty for you." There is effort that should be rewarded and then again .............there is nonsense,
I don't get too carried away with comparing numbers from different events and see that as another hallucinatory bi-product of CoP scoring and logic.
In your second paragraph the numbers you show seem to have an impact and deeper meaning to newer fans than I feel. The pcs scores feel not only redundant but give the top skaters a clear and sometimes unfair advantage.
I find myself feeling gyped watching a competition and not understanding why certain numbers/point totals don't seem to reflect what I just saw on the ice.
To be honest 6.0 used to disappoint me at times too and the ordinals could be tricky and very treacherous at times.
But in the past when the event was over I knew who won and why. And if it felt unfair I could see how the different federations marked each skater and where they placed them with the ordinals.
Today I need to wait until I can find a YouTube clip and go back and search for edge calls and urs that are not always so easy to spot on internet clips.
I find myself looking at columns of numbers and then think "what does this have to do with figure skating."
Last edited by janetfan; 11-22-2009 at 07:46 PM.
I find that many people here are blaming CoP for the downhill popularity of FS in the US. I don't agree with them. If FS is less popular than before, it's because you don't have a star skater in ladies field currently who will be able to present your country a gold medal, a national pride, like Michelle, Sasha were. Wasn't ladies part traditionally the most popular field (and we can easily see that by comparing the number of posts here between ladies and mens, etc.)? The absence of a strong potential podium candidates after Sasha is definitley the reason. The transition from 6.0 to CoP simply happened to coincide with that from Sasha to the generation after her. Simple as that. If America brings up another Michell, another Sasha, the popularity will recover. So don't worry.
Just look at the situation in Japan and Korea. FS wasn't ever more popular than now. The reason? Because they have strong star power: Mao and Yuna. And the rivalry (which has been partly made up by media) between them made FS even more exciting in these countries than ever, coupled with the historical backgrounds between the two countries! Therfore, if these countries too do not continue to have podium skaters, I think the popularity (in terms of casual fans) will cool down.
Ah, Mathman, I'm sorry to see that you erased your original post, even if it was meant to be flippant, or not. ***edited to add: lol, it wasn't, good for you. But don't feel ashamed about taking it back & redoing your post, we can't all be perfect. :D ***
You said something about how the public was excited to see Sarah Hughes do two 3/3 combos., but then COP exposed her underrotations, flutzes, was a hot mess, crap. eh?
Lol, if we were to go all the way back in history we might as well take away 99% of the gold medals awarded, even Dick Button's. He has said numerous times in the past that his jumps were underrotated (which you can see on old movies), even the ones at the Olympics. Not to forget to mention another fav of mine (Sonja Henie) had underrotated jumps. And I'm sure others as well. Let's get out the super slo-mo & deduce it piece by piece by piece for ALL the gold medal winners in ALL the disciplines throughout history.
That said, I'm with Dick Button, whom said as long as it's not visible to the naked eye, what does it matter?
But, no, here come the *#@!(*) Canadians that started this mess in the first place because S&P didn't win gold.
There was nothing wrong with the 6.0 system, never was, rather it has ALWAYS been about the judges cheating, and that continues on to this day but with another system that's supposedly better. Lol, it wasn't about the system to begin with, it was about the judges. Good way to convolute the whole issue though by changing the system, not the judges.
Final note, I won't be surprised to see a skater fall several times (like Sasha Cohen did at the 2006 Olympics) & win gold against another skater that skated without falls. Arakawa was lucky back then, the system has advanced to the point that if somebody like Sasha falls multiples times she will still win due to her lead from the SP. Watch, wait & see..
Last edited by Nadine; 11-22-2009 at 07:50 PM. Reason: added info., of course. ;)
Yeah, Mathman, I was responding to it.
You know, janetfan, your passion for figure skating, both presently and from a more historical standpoint (your namesake, as an example) is exemplary. You clearly want to like figure skating today (unlike other rosy-eyeds), and I almost wish I disliked COP as much as you do simply so we'd be on the same side. I don't know why I see beauty where so many others see simply math. I don't know why people cry about lack of risk taking when a skater like Kevin Reynolds will attempt a 3-3-2 at the end of his program, or Joannie Rochette will jam her program with technical content in the form of transitions. I don't know how programs as wonderfully light and comic and Takahashi to La Strada or Oda's Chaplin routine aren't creative. I don't understand how people can decry a system that produces the beauty of Virtue and Moir. I don't.
2. It's good to know that you're pissed off with the Canadians for not winning gold as opposed to the actual cheating that was going on. It takes a wonderfully difficult position (level four, GOE = 3) to achieve that. Bravo!!!!!