Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Meaning of 200 at Nationals

  1. #1
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    311

    Meaning of 200 at Nationals

    Since the wall of 200 in Ladies is broke, it is now not strange to see some ladies get a total score of 200 or above at their Nationals. Yea, many people say nationals is nationals, but it is clear that there are some score inflations among some skaters. Some people say the reason for this is to encourage skaters and give them a sort of confidence. But are these reasons really reasonable? I think this phenomenon may make some skaters take their inflated scores as granted. Well, nobody can do anything about national judges giving high scores, but I am just wondering what other people think about this score inflation trend and its effects.
    Last edited by ehdtkqorl123; 01-24-2010 at 12:14 AM.

  2. #2
    Medalist
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    79
    I don't like it at all. I mean I see no point in judges/federations trying to demonstrate at nationals that they have a skater who is able to broke 200 points, when in reality they don't have one. They come to international competition and score 30-40 points less for the same kind of performance. I also don't think that it's good for the sport. For years there is a fight to increase the popularity of figure skating among audience & TV viewers. How do you explain to someone who is not following figure skating regulary but watches just, nationals, olympics & worlds. That a skater who got 200 points at nationals, suddenly gets 160/170 points at worlds for the same kind of performance? I don't think that nationals is nationals will help.

  3. #3
    Off the ice Buttercup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Left field
    Posts
    3,428
    High scores at Nats? there is no meaning.

    A 200 is no more reflective of Rachael Flatt's skating than a 100+ was for Plushenko's SP at Russian Nats, or Patrick Chan getting the score he did this year in Canadian Nationals, or Stephane Lambiel's marks at Swiss Nats. I'm fine with generous scores but they shoudl still be within reason (e.g. Abbott at US Nats). Some in the US media have suggested that Flatt is now on the level of Asada/Kim, when really, she can only be competitive with them if they screw up. A lot of casual viewers and journalists simply don't understand that in many countries, Nationals scores are worthless in predicting international scoring.

    What happens next month when Flatt doesn't get near 200? Rachael herself has a great attitude, but I'm sure many will start circulating conspiracy theories. Last year Patrick Chan got similar scores in most events, then was given crazy high scores at Nats and 4CC. At Worlds he just couldn't understand why he wasn't getting anything near his PB - when really his scores just returned to their normal range. That sort of thing is not good for skating and it's not good for the skaters to create ridiculous expectations they can't meet. it's interesting because the scoring at US Nats last weekend was actually pretty reflective of what we saw on the ice. I wonder why that wasn't maintained for the ladies and dance teams.

    What does concern me is that the international scoring has also been pretty wacky this season, with Skate Canada, the GPF and Europeans being the worst. The scores have to mean something or there's really no point in having PBs/SBs and using them for anything. If this is supposed to be a more objective judging system, the scoring criteria must be applied more objectively and consistently.

  4. #4
    Banned janetfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    6,889
    Quote Originally Posted by Buttercup View Post
    High scores at Nats? there is no meaning.

    A 200 is no more reflective of Rachael Flatt's skating than a 100+ was for Plushenko's SP at Russian Nats, or Patrick Chan getting the score he did this year in Canadian Nationals, or Stephane Lambiel's marks at Swiss Nats. I'm fine with generous scores but they shoudl still be within reason (e.g. Abbott at US Nats). Some in the US media have suggested that Flatt is now on the level of Asada/Kim, when really, she can only be competitive with them if they screw up. A lot of casual viewers and journalists simply don't understand that in many countries, Nationals scores are worthless in predicting international scoring.

    What happens next month when Flatt doesn't get near 200? Rachael herself has a great attitude, but I'm sure many will start circulating conspiracy theories. Last year Patrick Chan got similar scores in most events, then was given crazy high scores at Nats and 4CC. At Worlds he just couldn't understand why he wasn't getting anything near his PB - when really his scores just returned to their normal range. That sort of thing is not good for skating and it's not good for the skaters to create ridiculous expectations they can't meet. it's interesting because the scoring at US Nats last weekend was actually pretty reflective of what we saw on the ice. I wonder why that wasn't maintained for the ladies and dance teams.

    What does concern me is that the international scoring has also been pretty wacky this season, with Skate Canada, the GPF and Europeans being the worst. The scores have to mean something or there's really no point in having PBs/SBs and using them for anything. If this is supposed to be a more objective judging system, the scoring criteria must be applied more objectively and consistently.
    Thanks for sharing your views on this.
    I think you raise valid points that go right to the heart of an important issue for ISU and their member federations - which is the integrety of the sport and more specifically the IJS.

    IMO this is something that needs to be addressed and as you correctly pointed out this problem goes beyond National events.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •