Stojko opposes the ladies result | Page 23 | Golden Skate

Stojko opposes the ladies result

Figure88

On the Ice
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
I never said the rule changes should be applied to both men and women. Anyway, men and women have different rules.

I do feel that the results of this Olympics did indicate that GoEs have too much weight in the overall score. GoEs gave such a huge benefit to Yuna that she could have fallen once or twice and she still would have won! Another case in point. People couldn't understand why Yukari did not win against Caro a few years back, and it was that Caro got alot of GoEs simply because her jumps were big and the fact that she fell didn't affect the score as much as Yukari's underrotation.

And another thing is, the argument that encouraging skaters to try for the more difficult jumps will make the sport more dangerous is one that I think is debatable. It could be that the present weight of the GoEs will make the sport dangerous. The kind of speedy, huge jumps that are demanded to get good GoEs are the style of jumping that will wear out the body most quickly in the long run, I think. So as of now, GoEs award skaters for putting themselve through most physical stress. I think it can be argued that while it's important to award quality in jumps, if you award it to the point that that becomes the end-all, you'll invite shorter figure skating careers.

As for raising the value of the triple-axel (for women) and quads for men, whether that's fair and valid can be best determined by comparing scores against different jump elements. It comes down to asking what the actual difficulty of 3-axel against 3-lz (for women), or 3lz-3t against 3a-2t, or any quad over other triples, and that determining should be done by skaters themselves.

Anyway, I do agree that a balance is needed and the more I think about the scoring system, the more I understand why there are so many discrepancies in the present system.

You do realize that Mao was given a freebee when the judges didn't deduct for her cheated 2 footed landing during her Olympic performance. Why should the rules be changed to benefit this type of skater? Her programs are too ambitious and she tries receive credit for jumps in that she can barely do. Judges also have been very lenient with her, giving her credit for her 3A's which are barely rotated.
 
Last edited:

antmanb

Record Breaker
Joined
Feb 5, 2004
I never said the rule changes should be applied to both men and women. Anyway, men and women have different rules.

Some of the rules are different but the scale of values, GOE, levels etc are not - those have been determined "objectively" with all of men, ladies and pairs in mind.

I do feel that the results of this Olympics did indicate that GoEs have too much weight in the overall score. GoEs gave such a huge benefit to Yuna that she could have fallen once or twice and she still would have won! Another case in point. People couldn't understand why Yukari did not win against Caro a few years back, and it was that Caro got alot of GoEs simply because her jumps were big and the fact that she fell didn't affect the score as much as Yukari's underrotation.

GOEs are definitely something i can get on board with in terms of amending the criteria/application. To me it is non-sensical that you can go up to +3, but there is a list of 6+ things that can contribute to it. Some amendment of the system should be made, especially for the 3A and Quads, where the impact of -GOE was increased but the impact of +GOE was not nicreased with the proportionate decrease in - GOE.

Ultimately though, I think GOE is a good thing - the elements that are being executed should be scored according to how well an element is executed or how poorly. I think the under-rotation is another thing that needs looking at because right now under the current system, no error is as costly to a skater as an under-rotation, not falling not any other error.

And another thing is, the argument that encouraging skaters to try for the more difficult jumps will make the sport more dangerous is one that I think is debatable. It could be that the present weight of the GoEs will make the sport dangerous. The kind of speedy, huge jumps that are demanded to get good GoEs are the style of jumping that will wear out the body most quickly in the long run, I think. So as of now, GoEs award skaters for putting themselve through most physical stress. I think it can be argued that while it's important to award quality in jumps, if you award it to the point that that becomes the end-all, you'll invite shorter figure skating careers.

I think the danger argument has always been a difficult one at best to argue since no matter what you do, kids love to jump and spin and regardless what you say to them they will continue to try the jumps. In reality the GOE only rewards (and punishes) good (and bad) technique. Speed and height might cause more injuries when the jumps go wrong, but speed and height often translate to less injuries in terms of tweaked joints, muslces etc because if you motor down the ice to set up a toe jump for example, you need only place your toe pick in teh ice correctly to valut up for a high jump. If you crawl down the ice slowly and set up the same jump you will have to force the toe pick into the ice with greater force in an attempt to valut up to the same height and that causes more injury.

As for raising the value of the triple-axel (for women) and quads for men, whether that's fair and valid can be best determined by comparing scores against different jump elements. It comes down to asking what the actual difficulty of 3-axel against 3-lz (for women), or 3lz-3t against 3a-2t, or any quad over other triples, and that determining should be done by skaters themselves.

Agreed, and i think any useful deabte with the ISU on the matter should be from both skaters and coaches and from an over-all wide spread of opinions. The ideas that only skaters who have done the quad, or only females that have landed the triple axel should have a say or a vote in any rule change, IMO is not right - a cross section of all skaters/coaches shoudl be consulted.

Anyway, I do agree that a balance is needed and the more I think about the scoring system, the more I understand why there are so many discrepancies in the present system.

The main problem I have with COP is that everytime i think i have found a good suggestion/solution for a problem i find that an implementation of my suggested rule causes five new ones.

Ant
 

Sk8n Mama

Final Flight
Joined
Jan 23, 2004
The more I read, the more I agree w/ antman.

And another thing is, the argument that encouraging skaters to try for the more difficult jumps will make the sport more dangerous is one that I think is debatable. It could be that the present weight of the GoEs will make the sport dangerous. The kind of speedy, huge jumps that are demanded to get good GoEs are the style of jumping that will wear out the body most quickly in the long run, I think.

Speaking as a former skater, I can say this is not true. Speed and height cause you to fall harder, that's all. If a jump is done properly, with good height and flow, the ice will absorb more of the landing than the body. It's physics. When a jump is executed poorly, that's when the hips, back and knees take more of the shock of the jump. Tara Lipinski's bowling-ball style jumps meant hip surgery.

I don't want to get into (again) why I think the CoP works and disagree with the statements that it needs major amending based on what happened in Vancouver. I want to see well-balanced programs, good jump technique, good spins, good footwork in an interesting program that suits the skater. There are skaters who can do that. They just didn't in Vancouver. I don't think that means the entire system needs to change. Doing so, to me, would be a knee-jerk reaction. And, I think Mao, under a new coach, will come to a style that suits her more and will have programs that don't focus so heavily on one jump that she doesn't have the power/stamina to carry off the rest. I'd like to see the ISU give it a few years and see what the skaters do after seeing how Vancouver went. I really don't think they will abandon the big tricks altogether. And once we have a few skaters who can do the big tricks and everything else, all of these arguments will become moot.
 

key65man

Rinkside
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Problem is, this issue will go on as long as there exists a skater who can hit triple axel but has a difficulty with other high scoring jumps including combinations. Give more pts for triple axel and quad. Not to the extent that anyone who hits it can win the 4 minute program without having to do anything else well enough. Just be more strict about prerotation and under-rotation, which is the key to retain the integrity of the revised scoring system.
 
Last edited:

FlattFan

Match Penalty
Joined
Jan 4, 2010
antmanb said:
Again - if the value of the triple axel was raised, then the converse effect would be that the men would no longer have to risk 3/3s in their programmes if they know that they can complete a 3A/2T and come away with more points.

Michael Weiss said if you asked ANY male figure skaters if they prefer to do 3-3 vs. 3A-2T, all will pick the 3-3.
Another fundamental misunderstanding in your part is the men would still do 3/3 to max out all possible jumps in 8 jumping passes and squeeze a few more 2A in there to gain more points. Don't you worry they would stop risking 3/3 in their programs.
 

Figure88

On the Ice
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Michael Weiss said if you asked ANY male figure skaters if they prefer to do 3-3 vs. 3A-2T, all will pick the 3-3.
Another fundamental misunderstanding in your part is the men would still do 3/3 to max out all possible jumps in 8 jumping passes and squeeze a few more 2A in there to gain more points. Don't you worry they would stop risking 3/3 in their programs.

The results of this Olympics has been uncontroversial. Everyone basically agress that ice skating events at the Olympics has been one of the most successful in years. Many people on this site picked the ladies events as the most liked of the 4 events. As someone else said above, why fix something that isn't broken? Those who want to tweak the system want to do so because their favorite didn't win the gold rather than for a genuine concern over the system. Who does the proposed changes benefit except ONE skater?
 

janetfan

Match Penalty
Joined
May 15, 2009
The results of this Olympics has been uncontroversial. Everyone basically agress that ice skating events at the Olympics has been one of the most successful in years. Many people on this site picked the ladies events as the most liked of the 4 events. As someone else said above, why fix something that isn't broken? Those who want to tweak the system want to do so because their favorite didn't win the gold rather than for a genuine concern over the system. Who does the proposed changes benefit except ONE skater?

I have to agree with that. The Ladies had no real controversy because Yuna won by such a large margin. If we were to give Mao 5 more points each for her three 3A's she still would have lost.
Not only that, but if Team Yuna knew the value of 3A's would have been as high as I just mentioned she would have added a second 3x3.

In which case she still would have won by a comfortable margin. Mao's problem to an extent was that her team did not focus enough on the existing rules and Yuna's team did.

We also saw Yuna skate two clean programs and Mao made technical mistakes in her LP.

I see no controversy here. I saw two great skaters and one had a superior strategy that was designed to win the Olympic Gold medal. The other did not.
 

key65man

Rinkside
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
I have to agree with that. The Ladies had no real controversy because Yuna won by such a large margin. If we were to give Mao 5 more points each for her three 3A's she still would have lost.
Not only that, but if Team Yuna knew the value of 3A's would have been as high as I just mentioned she would have added a second 3x3.

In which case she still would have won by a comfortable margin. Mao's problem to an extent was that her team did not focus enough on the existing rules and Yuna's team did.

We also saw Yuna skate two clean programs and Mao made technical mistakes in her LP.

I see no controversy here. I saw two great skaters and one had a superior strategy that was designed to win the Olympic Gold medal. The other did not.


For the ladies, the issue is more about what about next time than about what happened last time. The issue needs be settled, so that there will be no controversies in future when the winning marginis smaller than that of Yu-Na vs. Mao. If Yu-Na turns pro, however, there may not be controversies at all in the ladies side.
 

Figure88

On the Ice
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
For the ladies, the issue is more about what about next time than about what happened last time. The issue needs be settled, so that there will be no controversies in future when the winning marginis smaller than that of Yu-Na vs. Mao. If Yu-Na turns pro, however, there may not be controversies at all in the ladies side.

There were no controversies of the ladies' results. I mean, do you see anyone makes a big deal out of this except Mao fans, who obviously have biases? Most people liked the results and regarded the ladies events as successful. Otherwise why would you see people voting that the ladies event was the best of the four disciplines, even over dance, which many thought was very successful? If it isn't broken, it shouldn't be fixed.

I don't think this is particularly a Yuna only issue. There are other female skaters like Joannie Rochette, Mirai Nagasu etc. that the proposed rule changes would obviously detriment. It would not be in their favor if any changes are made. The proposed rule change really benefits only ONE skater.
 
Last edited:

key65man

Rinkside
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
There were no controversies of the ladies' results. I mean, do you see anyone makes a big deal out of this except Mao fans? Most people liked the results and regarded the ladies events as successful. Otherwise why would you do see people voting that the ladies events was the best of the four disciplines, even over dance, which many thought was very successful? If it isn't broken, it shouldn't be fixed.

I don't think this is particularly a Yuna only issue. There are other female skaters like Joannie Rochette, Mirai Nagasu etc. that the proposed rule changes would obviously detriment. It would not be in their favor if any changes are made. The rule really benefits only ONE skater.

I agree that there were no controversies in the ladies. But, the issue will surface in future when the margin may be smaller like what happened in the mens. If talking about quad at all for the men, why not settling 3A for the ladies now?

I was being sarcastic about Yu-Na because some people are making it into an issue of a skater or two, and they don't really talk about it in the context of fundamental issues and causes.
 

Figure88

On the Ice
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
I agree that there were no controversies in the ladies. But, the issue will surface in future when the margin may be smaller like what happened in the mens. If talking about quad at all for the men, why not settling 3A for the ladies now?

I was being sarcastic about Yu-Na because some people are making it into an issue of a skater or two, and they don't really talk about it in the context of fundamental issues and causes.

But you have to ask, who is making a big issue of this other than Mao fans? As janetfan mentioned above, Mao lost because she made mistakes and she didn't have CoP friendly program--not necessarily because she was "underscored" for her 3A.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Well, rules changes for the future cannot affect Mao Asada's placement at the 2010 Olympics. But I don't see anything wrong with considering now the possibility that in the future other skaters will come along who can do a triple Axel.

Suppose the ladies short program rule is changed to allow a double or triple Axel for the Axel requirement. In order to take advantage of this rule change a lady would have to do both a triple Axel and a triple-triple. If she did one but not the other, she would not be much ahead of a skater who did the other but not the first.

Example: 3A, 3F+2T, 3Lo = 20.0 base points.

Versus: 3Lz+3T, 3F, 2A = 19.0 base points.

In order to take a commanding lead, Axel Girl would have to do something like 3A, 3Lz+3Lo, 3F = 24.7 base points. She would deserve every bit of her jumping-passes advantage if she could do all of that!
 
Last edited:

key65man

Rinkside
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
But you have to ask, who is making a big issue of this other than Mao fans? As janetfan mentioned above, Mao lost because she made mistakes and she didn't have CoP friendly program--not necessarily because she was "underscored" for her 3A.

I guess we differ in how we see the situation in the mens. I see it as problematic, and it deserves at least some consideration and discussion. If we can find a way of make it better, then that will be good. Therefore, if we are going to talk about the issue of quad, we may as well about 3A for the ladies as it is a relevant issue. We may be better off discussing it not because there is an legit controversy about it right now but because it can serve as a pre-emptive measure. If you see no need for discussion on quad, then 3A for the ladies may have no place in the discussion. That's how I see it.
 

Figure88

On the Ice
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
I guess we differ in how we see the situation in the mens. I see it as problematic, and it deserves at least some consideration and discussion. If we can find a way of make it better, then that will be good. Therefore, if we are going to talk about the issue of quad, we may as well about 3A for the ladies as it is a relevant issue. We may be better off discussing it not because there is an legit controversy about it right now but because it can serve as a pre-emptive measure. If you see no need for discussion on quad, then 3A for the ladies may have no place in the discussion. That's how I see it.

No, I never thought the ladies or men's competition was that controversial. Plushenko would have roundly beaten Evan if he was clean---he was leading in the short even though you could tell he was being more conservative than Evan who pretty much went all out in his short program. The judges would have given the competition to Plushenko. The reason he lost is because he made mistakes in the long. The quad would not even be a matter for discussion if he had won.

Also, you said judges should just be stricter about pre-rotation/under-rotation. Would you even trust them to do that? If you haven't noticed in the past season, the tech panel has been extremely inconsistent with their calls. In addition to the power that the tech panel already have now, you want to give them more?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
I guess I do not see the urgency of discussing the quad/triple Axel question yet again this year. It comes up before the ISU Technical Committee every year, and every year the same arguments pro and con are brought forth. The last time was when Buttle beat Joubert for the 2008 World championship. The ISU decided, hey, that's not right, let's raise the value of quads and triple Axels for 2009, which they did.

Now here we are again. No matter how high we raise the base values of these elements there will always be someone who finishes second but might have won if the quad were a few points higher.
 

key65man

Rinkside
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
No, I never thought the ladies or men's competition was that controversial. Plushenko would have roundly beaten Evan if he was clean---he was leading in the short even though you could tell he was being more conservative than Evan who pretty much went all out in his short program. The judges would have given the competition to Plushenko. The reason he lost is because he made mistakes in the long. The quad would not even be a matter for discussion if he had won.

Also, you said judges should just be stricter about pre-rotation/under-rotation. Would you even trust them to do that? If you haven't noticed in the past season, the tech panel has been extremely inconsistent with their calls. In addition to the power that the tech panel already have now, you want to give them more?


Thanks for confirming our difference. I know where this may lead to. So, I will leave with one more thing. You are right that the tech panel has been inconsistent on pre-rotation and under-rotation, which is a problem. But, I don't see why enforcing it more strictly would make it more inconsistent or is same as giving the tech panel more power.
 

cosmos

On the Ice
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Now here we are again. No matter how high we raise the base values of these elements there will always be someone who finishes second but might have won if the quad were a few points higher.

ITA.

That said, YuNa receives high GOE because her jumps are huge and good quality. YuNa receives high PCS because she has speed, good skating skill, better choreo. Simple and fair. Quality is YuNa's biggest tool just like 3A is Mao's biggest tool.
 

hurrah

Medalist
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Well, rules changes for the future cannot affect Mao Asada's placement at the 2010 Olympics. But I don't see anything wrong with considering now the possibility that in the future other skaters will come along who can do a triple Axel.

Suppose the ladies short program rule is changed to allow a double or triple Axel for the Axel requirement. In order to take advantage of this rule change a lady would have to do both a triple Axel and a triple-triple. If she did one but not the other, she would not be much ahead of a skater who did the other but not the first.

Example: 3A, 3F+2T, 3Lo = 20.0 base points.

Versus: 3Lz+3T, 3F, 2A = 19.0 base points.

In order to take a commanding lead, Axel Girl would have to do something like 3A, 3Lz+3Lo, 3F = 24.7 base points. She would deserve every bit of her jumping-passes advantage if she could do all of that!

Duh, uh! But of course! How did I not realize this? Just shows I'm not CoP-smart.

So Mathman, you managed to hold your tongue for five-hours, eh? ;>
 

FlattFan

Match Penalty
Joined
Jan 4, 2010
I have to agree with that. The Ladies had no real controversy because Yuna won by such a large margin. If we were to give Mao 5 more points each for her three 3A's she still would have lost.
Not only that, but if Team Yuna knew the value of 3A's would have been as high as I just mentioned she would have added a second 3x3.

Add a second 3x3 for what? Then violate the Zayak rule? Yuna doesn't have a loop. Adding a second 3x3 doesn't do anything for her. Do you just say anything that come to mind? Lest you forget, this isn't a CoP thing.
 

antmanb

Record Breaker
Joined
Feb 5, 2004
I guess I do not see the urgency of discussing the quad/triple Axel question yet again this year. It comes up before the ISU Technical Committee every year, and every year the same arguments pro and con are brought forth. The last time was when Buttle beat Joubert for the 2008 World championship. The ISU decided, hey, that's not right, let's raise the value of quads and triple Axels for 2009, which they did.

Now here we are again. No matter how high we raise the base values of these elements there will always be someone who finishes second but might have won if the quad were a few points higher.

Where did the smilies go? I was going to say :clap: :clap:

Because any changes to the rules that are knee jerk reactions to one situation, to me, are never going to be particularly sound. (like COP being knee jerk reaction to SLC pairs :laugh:) I think the COP is getting right now. One element should not be the be all and end all - we saw it with Joubert/Buttle in 2008 (the correct result) and again in Vancouver IMO the correct result, Evgeni was slightly off - his jump went up all wonky, it's testament to the incredible skater he is that he landed those jumps on one foot. So what did the system do? Well there were two programmes that were pretty evenly matched technically, one did have a harder element in it which would tip the scales in that favour, but for the fact the overall quality of the other programme was better - so the sacles tipped back (only by a small margin) to give the win to the "cleaner" programme.

I can only speak for myself but that is what I have always wanted from the scoring system.

Ant
 
Top