- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
My scores (keeping Michelle and Irina in mind)
That does kind of keep things in perspective.
Now I want to change my scores to yours.
My scores (keeping Michelle and Irina in mind)
My scores (keeping Michelle and Irina in mind)
Rachael - 5.8 and 5.6
Mirai - 5.7 and 5.8
That does kind of keep things in perspective.
Now I want to change my scores to yours.
So Janetfan disagrees with the judges. Why does that make you so angry? It's a forum, that's allowed. It's not like her so-called "prejudices" are based on any dislike for the person that Rachael is. From what I gather, she is arguing that even IF Mirai underrotated 3 jumps, the rest of her skating was so superior to Rachael's that she should have won. It's a valid argument. I agree. Rachael may land difficult jumps. But she does nothing else very well that I can see. The judges disagreed and I can definitely see their argument. But why can't we disagree?
Exactly! She's a lady and not dwelling on the scores of 1 competition. BTW, did she not win the SP? To all those posters who thought Mirai wuzzrobd, I suggest you reread and understand the 5part directive on the Program Component Scores. There is no Performance Score as there was in the .6.0 system. The PC scores cover a multitude of requirements. Compare and contrast with Rachael.Mirai seemed so happy with her scores and seemed to think they were appropriate. She did not come across as someone who thought she wuzrobbbed. I think she knows what she needs to work on. I'd love to see her skate lights out in Vancouver. I'm just loving her comments about blowing the competition away. BAM, BAM, BAM, indeed!
Several posts have mentioned Mirai's respect for Rachael as a competitor and maybe even friend. I do remember when Mirai won 2 years ago, Rachael mentioned in an interview (she was standing there bouncing up and down a little and grinning ear to ear [still with braces then, it was cute]) after the LP I think that she had watched Mirai skate and was so happy for her. Now, I'm not naive enough to think that all among competing athletes is nicey-nice and sweet, but I do think it appears that there is clearly respect between the two but also some genuine camaraderie. Anyone else see that, or am I imagining?
I like the report of Mirai's "Bam, bam, bam!" comment, too. Gotta go out there with confidence! :agree:
Exactly! She's a lady and not dwelling on the scores of 1 competition. BTW, did she not win the SP? To all those posters who thought Mirai wuzzrobd, I suggest you reread and understand the 5part directive on the Program Component Scores. There is no Performance Score as there was in the .6.0 system. The PC scores cover a multitude of requirements. Compare and contrast with Rachael.
To me, Rachael's lutz edge seemed to flip over at the last second.
Mirai can improve her IN closer to Michelle before I would give her a 5.9 for presentation. But her skating really sparkled imo - and her spins are better now than Sasha. Her spirals are also close to being in a class of their own.
Rachel - hmmmm is she really the equal of Irina and Michelle technically? Irina scored many 5.9's for her technical mark but her skating was faster and her jumps so much bigger.
.
Rachael landed more triples than Mirai and Sasha in the short program but was in third.
Rachael shorted the rotations on her layback spin and got only L1. If she hadn't made that mistake, an L3 on that spin would have given her an additional 0.9 and she would have been in first place in the SP by 0.19. You can be sure you won't see that mistake in Vancouver.
I think the dismissal of CoP by some posters and the yearning to return to 6.0 is the ostrich burying its head in the sand to avoid reality. CoP isn't going anywhere, and if anything, URs will be more closely monitored than ever.
It makes no sense to say beautiful flexible skating with multiple technical errors should win over correct technique with less flexibility. Basically, it's Rachael's lack of flexibility which seems to annoy posters. Rachael has a chronic back problem and she is unable to do some of the more complex spin positions. As a result, she gets lower GOE on spins and spiral than skaters who are more flexible. And that probably is not going to change much in the future.
But by the same token, skaters who cannot fully rotate triples should not be given credit for jumps that are basically overrotated doubles. Rachael doesn't get high GOE for her spins, and Mirai should not get the base value of triple jumps for jumps that are not triples.
Really, a chronic back problem? I never knew that. But it would make sense why her layback seemed to suffer this year. I don't thinks he ever did a beillmann, but she had a gorgeous traditional layback position, and it seemed lacking at Nationals. Dorothy said it best:chuckm said:Rachael has a chronic back problem and she is unable to do some of the more complex spin positions.
'Get the image of being a tiny little bird out of your head,' " Hamill said in an interview after Flatt's victory. " 'You are an amazing athlete, and you have to build on your strengths. You can't wish and hope and pray for something that you don't have.'
and with that high pitched voice screaming constantly "she held on to it" as if no one noticed. All I could think of was to say, oh shut up.I think it is incumbent on the TV commentators to review the protocols after the marks are posted, and inform the public as to what caused a seemingly puzzling result. BTW, I think Scott Hamilton is a poor commentator because he reacts emotionally to what he sees instead of being an objective reporter. I dread his Olympic coverage (and Bezic's, too).
I think it is incumbent on the TV commentators to review the protocols after the marks are posted, and inform the public as to what caused a seemingly puzzling result. BTW, I think Scott Hamilton is a poor commentator because he reacts emotionally to what he sees instead of being an objective reporter. I dread his Olympic coverage (and Bezic's, too).
I was in the audience and there wasn't an outcry against the result because so many of the audience members were wearing the earbuds and heard the technical specialist commentator remark that 3 of Mirai's jumps had been rated UR by the technical panel. While the audience loved her performance, they did understand that Mirai didn't have sufficient technical content to win.
I think it is incumbent on the TV commentators to review the protocols after the marks are posted, and inform the public as to what caused a seemingly puzzling result. BTW, I think Scott Hamilton is a poor commentator because he reacts emotionally to what he sees instead of being an objective reporter. I dread his Olympic coverage (and Bezic's, too).
I was in the audience and there wasn't an outcry against the result because so many of the audience members were wearing the earbuds and heard the technical specialist commentator remark that 3 of Mirai's jumps had been rated UR by the technical panel. While the audience loved her performance, they did understand that Mirai didn't have sufficient technical content to win.
Maybe NBC should be feeding the earbud audio to their broadcasts. It sounds like you were getting better information than the TV viewers were.