Stojko opposes the ladies result

[antmanb]

You could argue that any judgement criteria will benefit one skater---the skater that wins under that system.

I don't think that's a valid argument because many different people can win under any system, clearly that is the case since we haven't had one skater win every single competition. The proposal to change the SP requirements for the ladies would beenfit one skater and only one skater at the moment. Can you give any other examples of rules and how they might be changed where only one skater would benefit from the rule?

The only other rule change i can think of that might fit in to this category was the rule change on repetition of triples and double axels in pairs right before the Torino Olympics. In short the rule said that even if you did a triple (or double axel) in combination you could not repeat the same triple (or double axel) again later in the programme. The rule seemed to be extremely biased in favour of Totmianina and Marinin who were doing SBS 3S and 3T in their LPs. I believe that there were a couple of other couples showing two different triples in the LP, but Shen & Zhao were doing two 3Ts. The rule had it's supporters that explanied that the rule was for the benefit of the pairs - pushing the limits of the pairs to include more than one type of triple. Others felt it was unfair politicking by the Russian fed in order to get their pair who at the time had no chance of beating S&Z artistically by changing the rules to favour their team technically. As it happens because of the way the rule was worded S&Z decided to try 3T/3T (as the rule said you could do the same triple twice if it was in combination with itself, hence the 2A/2A sequences you see in pairs now) and that's how he reptured his achilles tendon.

Anyway other than that rule (which in addition to the Russians benefitted a couple of other pairs) I can't think of a single rule change that would benefit just one skater such as changing the SP requirement for women.

If the rule says that the winner is determined by who runs the fastest 100-meter, then the person who can run the fastest 100-meter benefits from that rule, and on, and on, and on.

But skating isn't simply a who ever skates the fastest wins. So the comparison is not helpful.

I think you can only decide on the rules based on if it can be considered fair. Is it fair to give someone who's way ahead of the pack in terms of being able to rotate more quickly in the air, the chance to use that ability to have more chance at winning?

The rulse have been written with (at least an attempt at) fairness in mind. What you are asking for is a change in the rules that benefits one skater, and one skater only - is that fair? That's up for debate, but you assessment that someone who is "way ahead of the pack in terms of being able to rotate more quickly" should follow with - on one jump only, because in terms of rotating 3/3s that is not the case and the combination jump is the biggest technical point getter in the SP.

Or, you could consider what the best rules are from the point of view of promoting advancements in the sports. It's far harder to do a triple-axel with steps preceding it, or as a combo. If you want to encourage female skaters to incorporate this technique, giving them the option to do it the easiest way means that they are more likely to practice it. Being able to put in a triple-axel in both short and long means that more skaters wiould be willing to devote their time training for it.

Those are all things that are up for debate though I'm not sure that the ISU goes into their thought process on COP with advancement of the sport in mind as it's sole purpose. I would suspect taht ISU looks at the COP in terms how can the scoring system be best used to fairly determine the winner of skating competitions. Triple axels were first landed what 20 years ago? There has always been the option to include them in the LP - it is a big point getter even now under COP (argue with the value increase as much as you like but 8.2 compared to the next triple of 6 is a big point getter). Still women are not including them. I don't think giving the option in the SP would encourage skaters to do it any more than it does now. Look at the men - they can do quads in the SP but a skater starts by encorporating them into the LP first. If the skaters gets compfrtable with them there, they put them in the SP. That's precisely what Mao has done with the 3A. But unless more ladies skaters come out with the triple axel in the LP i cannot see the ISU changing their rules, and personally i'm happy with that. For me figure skating is not about one element - either the quad or the triple axel.

Or, you could argue that since men are allowed to do it, why not women? And just end it there.

Obviously you can argue that, but the ISU has never seen it that way - the men's demands in the SP have always been different from the ladies. The list of examples is long, but simply from the solo triple from steps being a solo double or triple for the ladies for a long time. Number of rotations in the combination (including the quad now), Junior ladies requirements being different from junior men. The argument that the ladies should have the same requirements as the men has never been a flyer with the ISU, more's the pity since i'd rather have the ladies have the option to ditch layback spins and sprial sequences in the SP!

Ant

[hurrah]

I don't think that's a valid argument because many different people can win under any system, clearly that is the case since we haven't had one skater win every single competition. The proposal to change the SP requirements for the ladies would beenfit one skater and only one skater at the moment. Can you give any other examples of rules and how they might be changed where only one skater would benefit from the rule?

Anyway other than that rule (which in addition to the Russians benefitted a couple of other pairs) I can't think of a single rule change that would benefit just one skater such as changing the SP requirement for women.

But skating isn't simply a who ever skates the fastest wins. So the comparison is not helpful.
Ant

I'm afraid I'm not conversant enough with the rule system to give specific examples, and I realize that figure skating is not speed skating; in figure skating, the winner is decided by a complex set of rules that set the criteria. But I would argue that every singular rule will benefit one skater, the skater who can fulfil that rule the best.

But you are saying that in this case, it is clearer implementing this rule would only benefit Mao (for the time being) because no one else can do a triple-axel. To this, I would say that it seems that any rule change that would encourage triple-axel attempts for women are opposed in terms of: well, it would only benefit Mao. And my response to this is that this argument is made from a myoepic perspective.

Mao did not lose the Olympics because she did the triple-axel; she lost because she did not have the lutz and 3-3's despite having the triple-axel. Even if the value of the triple-axel were to go up a couple of points---which I think it should purely because I think it is that much more difficult to do and should be reflected numerically---Mao still needs the lutz and 3-3's to become the champion.

Mao is the only woman now who can do the triple-axel, and it is actually in her personal interest that the triple-axel is systematically discouraged from being mastered by others, so that she has sole possession of the points associated to the triple-axel. As soon as she masters the lutz and 3-3's that garner good GoEs---and I think it is entirely possible that she'll do that, she'll become unbeatable against those who may have good lutz/flip and 3-3's but no triple-axel.

So this perspective---that rule changes that make the triple-axel easier to attempt would only benefit Mao---is valid only for another year or two. When Mao masters the lutz/flip and 3-3's, the present system that discourages triple-axel attempts and thus makes it difficult for others to master, is more beneficial for Mao.

Anyway, Mao can already do the triple-axel-double-toe combo, and I think it is possible for her to do the triple-axel from steps---she already did it one season. So for Mao, the rule change under discussion is quite irrelevant.

While I am Mao's fan, I just think a system that seems to systematically discourage and even punish skaters for mastering the most difficult jumps is too strange.

Also, while I am on the topic of rule changes, I've thought and argued that the zayak rule should be applied to the double-axel, particularly since I think it helped in a huge way for Yuna to win against Mao. However, even the present rule, that the double-axel jump can be incorporated three times, is, in the long run, better for Mao. It will help Mao avoid the triple salchow if she so wishes, and still garner huge base points.

But from the point of view of encouraging advancements in the sports, the zayak rule should be applied to the double-axel because it will encourage women skaters to attempt a more technically challenging program. And help reflect the difficulty of the triple-axel against the double-axel.

[Mathman]

The most startling example of a proposed rule change to benefit one skater only came up in the 2005-2006 season.

Fifteen-year-old Mao Asada beat everybody in sight (in particular Arakawa, Cohen and Slutskaya, the eventual Olympic podium.) There were a lot of people who argued that the age restriction rule should be set aside in Mao's case, on the grounds that if you're the best, you're the best -- what does age have to do with it?

[antmanb]

I'm afraid I'm not conversant enough with the rule system to give specific examples, and I realize that figure skating is not speed skating; in figure skating, the winner is decided by a complex set of rules that set the criteria. But I would argue that every singular rule will benefit one skater, the skater who can fulfil that rule the best.

But that isn't a benefit - the rules are what they are and all the skaters compete to win. Every single skater "benefits" from the rules because if there were no rules there would be no event. Do you not think Rochette benefitted from the rules as the winner of the Bronze medal? You seem to suggest only the winner can benefit from the rules?But that is simply not true - the rules apply fairly and equally to all skaters, the winner under any system is not the only beneficiary of the rules. There isn't any one single rule that benefits only one single skater and that is the whole point of the scoring system. The rules have been drafted (and amended - in particular see the increase in value for all of the quads, the triple axel and the double axel) with an even playing field in mind. Everyone knows the rules in advance and tailors their programmes to their strengths and weaknesses. The rules "are what they are" if you will, and if changes are made to those rules, they go to committe and a committee decides on it. The current rules do not favour any one skater over another as has been seen by the results of competitions this season.

But you are saying that in this case, it is clearer implementing this rule would only benefit Mao (for the time being) because no one else can do a triple-axel. To this, I would say that it seems that any rule change that would encourage triple-axel attempts for women are opposed in terms of: well, it would only benefit Mao. And my response to this is that this argument is made from a myoepic perspective.

The myopia is all yours my friend! For starters i am not arguing against encouraging skaters from doing triples axels at all. I have explained that the ISU has never changed it's short programme requirements just because one skater in the world is able to complete a particular element. I have explained the history of the 3A and quad allowances in the Men's SP to show that I do not think the ISU is going to change the axel requirements in the SP for the ladies because history tells us they won't. The didn't fall over themselves to allow ladies to do a quad when Ando landed a quad salchow. Ultimately though i have no vested interest in what the ISU does with the decision because even if only one skater does the harder element that is now allowed, every skater has to put down the elements they can do in order to win the points so the result still comes down to who skates the best with the most diffcult overall content, that is judged qualitatively by the judges.

In addition to this I have also explanied why raising the value of the triple axel (and the quad) skews the points for those particular elements in a way that to me is unnacceptable. The quad toe-loop already is currently worth nearly twice a base value triple loop. I don't think that, that particular element should have so much emphasis placed on it. Similarly I have explained how the same is true of the triple axel - it currently worth more than twice a base value triple toe-loop, to raise it any higher puts it in a siilar bracket to the quad and I don't think that is right. It has nothing to do ith Mao, however, since you raise the point the only argument I have heard for increasing the value of the triple axel is Mao.

Mao did not lose the Olympics because she did the triple-axel; she lost because she did not have the lutz and 3-3's despite having the triple-axel. Even if the value of the triple-axel were to go up a couple of points---which I think it should purely because I think it is that much more difficult to do and should be reflected numerically---Mao still needs the lutz and 3-3's to become the champion.

Mao didn't lose the Olympics, she WON the silver medal. 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. By trying to plug a perceived unfairness in ladies (unfairness to just the one skater i hasten to add), you would skew the difficulty of the men's programme. That seems nonsensical to me if you are an advocate of raising the bar and advancing the sport....unless of cuorse the effect on the Men's competition is of no concern because you are only a fan of the ladies event.

Mao is the only woman now who can do the triple-axel, and it is actually in her personal interest that the triple-axel is systematically discouraged from being mastered by others, so that she has sole possession of the points associated to the triple-axel. As soon as she masters the lutz and 3-3's that garner good GoEs---and I think it is entirely possible that she'll do that, she'll become unbeatable against those who may have good lutz/flip and 3-3's but no triple-axel.

But that is the case right now too. If she did have a 3/3 and a 3S and 3Lz then under the current system she would be the only woman in the world able to do a programme with e.g. the same jump content as Lysacek. If that was the jump layout she had used, there is not question she would have won he TES hands down...she didn't do that, but increasing the point value of the 3A, or allowing a 3A in the SP would not have made any difference. As you rightly point out she needs more jumps and harder jump combinations....that is it, no need to "fix" something that isn't broken in the first place. I've written in several places the changes i fell woul dbe useful to the scoring of combos and sequences, and some re-jigging of the Zayak rule that i think would benefit all skaters going forward, but to my mind the raising of the points of any jump triple or quad is not the answer. I'm ambivalent about the allowing of 3As in the SP for ladies at the moment but am fairly sure the ISU is unlikley to consider taht change any time soon.

So this perspective---that rule changes that make the triple-axel easier to attempt would only benefit Mao---is valid only for another year or two. When Mao masters the lutz/flip and 3-3's, the present system that discourages triple-axel attempts and thus makes it difficult for others to master, is more beneficial for Mao.

So then let's leave the system as it is, allowing skaters, coaches and choreographers to get their heads around the system, what skaters need to do to achieve their best and let the judges decide who does what best on any given day.

Anyway, Mao can already do the triple-axel-double-toe combo, and I think it is possible for her to do the triple-axel from steps---she already did it one season. So for Mao, the rule change under discussion is quite irrelevant.

I agree - let her do the 3A from brackets in the SP so that she can maximise on the combination jump with a 3/3 and do the comparatively easy (for her) double axel with superior qualities and difficult entries and exits so that she maximises her points unde the rules. I never understood why this wasn't her tactic this year, but as you rightly point out, she is more than capable of doing so, and leaving the scoring system as is will push her to push herself in this regard - something all of the skaters are trying to do.

While I am Mao's fan, I just think a system that seems to systematically discourage and even punish skaters for mastering the most difficult jumps is too strange.

But as you have pointed out yourself the system doesn't discourage or punish the most difficult jumps. If you mean, a skater lands one jump and should automatically win by default, then you are right, there isn't a bonus element that one skater can do and then not complete the rest of the programme but still win. The point is to do what you can do and earn the highest points you can. One element does not a good skater make, e.g. Tim Goebel. A cumulative scoring system means you need to do alot of high content (not just one single element) and do them all well in order to come out on top. There is nothing that discourages skaters from trying elements. I have yet to hear of a male skater busting a gut to get a quad axel because, after all the points for it are immense.

The only things actively discouraged by COP are those things which are banned. Anything else that is expected in a programme has a point total and it is down to the skater whether they go for a particular element based on their ability to do so.

Do you think the Zayak rule should be changed so that the men can do their routines with 8 quad toe-loops, or the ladies could do four or five triple axels? Obviously that would be harder to do than anything we see under the current system? But i think that question draws out whether the system shoudl reward the most difficult thing at all costs, or balance difficulty with well-roundedness etc etc. If it's difficulty we want, we could scrap the PCS and music and simply go for faster, higher, longer. Some people are in favour of this but I personally am not.

Ant

[hurrah]

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.

[Figure88]

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.

[antmanb]

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]

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]

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.

[FlattFan]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[key65man]

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.