Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 41

Thread: Thoughts on U.S. Nationals judging?

  1. #16
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,781
    Quote Originally Posted by silverlake22 View Post
    Among the top 6 though, it will come down to PCS. If someone like Maxwell, Gao, or Bulanhaugi skates really great, I can see something like what happened to Adam Rippon happening to them, getting bumped down in the rankings to like 4th or below even when if they outperform the favorites.
    I thought Adam Rippon overscored in both programs.
    His long had 2 faulty triple axels, which are his two hardest jumps. That LP didn't deserve 150+.
    He was 4th after the SP for a faulty lutz and crashed into the board over a flawless Armin.

  2. #17
    At the rink. Again. mskater93's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,237
    Agree with Flattfan - there was no "holding up" PCS marks in the men's SP over the "new guys". They looked pretty fair and on par with what these guys should see internationally if they skate the same. Johnny a little lower due to being slower (SS) than Abbott and Lysacek. Abbott - you can really see the figures work he's done in his clear and solid edgework.

  3. #18
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    2,616
    I wouldn't praise the judges to high Heaven just yet. Let's wait until the ladies produce a result the USFSA and NBC don't expect or want, then I will heap the praise upon them that they deserve.
    Last edited by Mathman; 01-20-2010 at 02:50 PM.

  4. #19
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,965
    Quote Originally Posted by silverlake22 View Post
    The inflation will come later I think. In the ladies event, there are what, 24 entries? And I'm sure half of those entries will attempt a 3lz-2t, 3f, and 2a in the short, and probably 6 or 10 will be clean on the jumps, meaning PCS will decide who gets what place.
    So how do we think those PCS should be decided?

    Not on reputation, right?

    But on how each skater actually fulfills the criteria for each of the components.

    I predict that, for the most part, the skaters who are already considered to have better reputations will earn higher PCS because they will meet most of those criteria better. That's a lot of what earned them good results in the past and therefore the good reputations they enjoy.

    Some of the top skaters also have persistent weaknesses in some of the PCS criteria, and some of the criteria are subject to significant variation between an "on" performance and "off" one from the same skater. So some of those component scores may end up being very different from what the skaters have sometimes earned in the past and what earned them their reputations.

    GOEs will also make a difference in total scores and results, especially if everyone lands the same jumps and earns approximately the same levels on non-jump elements. We know which skaters tend to have the best positions and extension, spin fastest and longest, cover the most ice with their spirals, achieve the deepest and most secure edges in their step sequences. If they execute those elements approximately as well as they usually do, we know which skaters should earn higher points on those elements.

    Just landing the same jumps doesn't put everyone on the same footing either. Quality of the jumps will matter as well -- height, speed in and out, correctness of takeoff and landing edges, full rotation, control of body positions in the air and on the landings, etc. The skaters who do those things well will earn higher GOEs and therefore more points for the jumps than the skaters who just squeak them out.

    Only after you account for all those differences in the actual skating can any remaining discrepancy be attributed to reputation.

    In long programs, does landing one or two more harder or cleaner jumps make up for less power and projection, for example, throughout the 4 or 4 1/2 minutes?
    Last edited by gkelly; 01-20-2010 at 01:27 PM.

  5. #20
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,840
    Quote Originally Posted by PolymerBob View Post
    I wouldn't praise the judges to high Heaven just yet. Let's wait until the ladies produce a result the USFSA and NBC don't expect or want...
    I think we saw that in pairs. Coca-cola wll have to throw away a million cans of coke with McLaughlin and Brubaker on them.

  6. #21
    Custom Title Joesitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    20,185
    they picked the correct podiums (or is it podii) regardless of any inflation. Cheers for the US judges.

  7. #22
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    2,616
    Quote Originally Posted by Joesitz View Post
    they picked the correct podiums (or is it podii) regardless of any inflation. Cheers for the US judges.
    Yes, I have no problem with inflation. But let's inflate everyone equally.

    And I think it's "podia".

  8. #23
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    320
    podii? podia? I have no idea but

    some of you guys on this board just crack me up. Love it.

  9. #24
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    169
    Quote Originally Posted by PolymerBob View Post
    Yes, I have no problem with inflation. But let's inflate everyone equally.

  10. #25
    Custom Title Moxie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    224
    Quote Originally Posted by PolymerBob View Post
    Yes, I have no problem with inflation. But let's inflate everyone equally.

    And I think it's "podia".
    I cannot agree more. And "podiums" works just as well.

    Here's an article about how Evan was upset his scores weren't inflated. lmao

  11. #26
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,163
    I am still scratching my head when I look at the protocol sheets and see a -2 GOE for a fall (when it's obviously supposed to receive an automatic -3), or a +3 for an element that had no business getting that score... Ugh. This sometimes happens worldwide as well.

    If the U.S. insists on continuing to pick it's Olympic teams based on one competition, in which skaters are sometimes separated by tenths of a point, I really wish we could at least make sure that skaters who fall actually receive the automatic -3 GOE from every judge.

  12. #27
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,840
    I think the rule for falls is now that the fall contributes -3 to the GOE, but that positive features of the jump can raise it, as long as the total GOE for the element is negative.

    http://isu.sportcentric.net/db//files/serve.php?id=1427

    IIRC the automatic -3 rule was changed starting with the 2008-09 season.

    http://isu.sportcentric.net/db//files/serve.php?id=934

  13. #28
    Tripping on the Podium
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by Mrs. P View Post
    With all this chatter about score inflation, I've been pleasantly surprised that we didn't see that at this Nationals.

    Jeremy Abbott certainly got a really high score, but I would expect so after he did 8 triples and a quad. Patrick Chan didn't do nearly that much technically and he got a similar score for his FS.

    And it looks like PCS has only been a minor factor here. I think Lysacek and Weir got some reputation PCS during the FS, but it's not much higher than what Ryan Bradley or Adam Rippon got.

    Any thoughts on why the U.S. judges aren't inflating scores so far?
    In terms of the top US male skaters, I agree that the inflation was minimal, which was very impressive after comparing with the other nationals (e.g., Canadian, Russian, Japan, all around the world in this Olympic season).

    Well...but for the lady's SP, I think the top 4's scores were inflated. No edge call for the obvious case (i.e., Sasha's Flutz), generous GOE and levels on the other elements, and relatively high PCS. Let me see in LP. Who know there would be a US lady receiving over 200
    Last edited by so_proud; 01-22-2010 at 08:39 PM.

  14. #29
    Dreaming and dancing Bennett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Watching the sunset
    Posts
    2,793
    I think that Sasha's 3l-2t should have received "e" or at least "!" and also deducted for the shaky landing that looked like being URed, too. That combo should have gotten minus GOE.

  15. #30
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    2,070
    Wagner's another one who didn't get an edge call and we all know her flutz is as big as Sasha's.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 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
  •