Results 1 to 15 of 17

Thread: Dan Hollander has an interesting view on the Lysacek/Plushenko debate

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Medalist
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    76

    Dan Hollander has an interesting view on the Lysacek/Plushenko debate

    First of all, let me start out by saying I do not want to start another debate about the whole Lysacek/Plushenko debate--there's been enough of those.

    I was reading on Dan Hollander's website where he commented about this very issue. I thought he gave a creative and interesting way to look at the situation.

    Here's the article http://danhollander.com/olympic-gold...-evan-lysacek/

  2. #2
    can't come down to Earth prettykeys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,801
    It is a valid position, but I don't believe he's applying it correctly. Personally, I feel that judges gave Lysacek too much credit (especially in the SP) to keep him competitive; I think Takahashi and Plushenko should have been been 1 and 2 after the Short, with a few points' difference ahead of Lysacek (others will disagree, but whatever.) Furthermore, Plushenko did not previously enter a competition where his quads and PCS were discredited, so it's not as if he was playing the game wrong all along and suddenly experienced a rude awakening in Vancouver. What Plushenko was doing served him fine (IMO); it just so happened at the Oly's, the judges saw it differently from what Plushenko (and MANY others) expected. So, don't blame Plushenko. He played what he believed were his best cards in a game he thought he understood, and he's just pushing his interpretation of the rules.

    On the other hand, for those who think Mao should have won because of her 2 triple axels omgomgomg, it's plain as day that the base value of what she was doing (technically) was worth less than several other options (3-3's) she could have taken up. But she didn't, for whatever reason, and now her Ubers are ubermiffed. Team Mao was definitely not playing the game right. They saw what YuNa was getting on her GoE's and PCS, and insisted on going with...what they did.

    And I, too, believe the base values of the 3Axel and quad jumps needs to be raised, and other crap fixed in the CoP.

  3. #3
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,113
    I don't think Hollander is saying that Plushenko's team played it all wrong. I think he is just saying that Plushenko and Lysacek both played to their strengths, and we should not discredit Lysacek for playing his own game instead of Plushenko's

  4. #4
    can't come down to Earth prettykeys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,801
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    I don't think Hollander is saying that Plushenko's team played it all wrong. I think he is just saying that Plushenko and Lysacek both played to their strengths, and we should not discredit Lysacek for playing his own game instead of Plushenko's
    Nah.

    But when you say Lysacek is not the rightful champion because he did not attempt a quad, or just because he had a superior strategy in the current system to gain more points is insulting to Evan Lysacek, who in my opinion IS the rightful and well deserved Olympic Champion.
    I don't believe Lysacek had a superior strategy and that Plushenko went with an inferior one. The judges merely preferred Lysacek's strategy & execution in Vancouver. There was no clear-cut indication that it would go that way, to either Lysacek or Plushenko. It's more like they were bartering for the same good (i.e. the Gold medal), and the sellers preferred what Evan was offering that day.

    When Plushenko is objecting, he is saying that what he offered had more value than what the sellers accepted from Lysacek, and that the sellers should have realized/agreed with that.

    On the other hand, Team Mao did not have a good strategy, but it was respectable.
    Last edited by prettykeys; 03-02-2010 at 12:28 AM.

  5. #5
    Go marry the quad if you love it so much DesertRoad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    646
    Quote Originally Posted by prettykeys View Post
    I don't believe Lysacek had a superior strategy and that Plushenko went with an inferior one.
    Under the current scoring system, there are many things that are outside a judge's preference and have clear and defined point values. Plushenko only did 3 jumping passes after the halfway mark, and easier jumps at that. Whereas Evan did 5, including 2 of his most diffcult ones. In fact, Evan did 8 jumps after the halfway mark, while Plushenko only did 4. You can quibble over GOE and PCS (although I wouldn't, all those things have clear and defined guidelines from the ISU, as well). But in a pretty basic and glaring way, Plushenko gave up a ton of points, and one and a half of those made the difference. He absolutely did go in with an inferior strategy.

  6. #6
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,113
    Quote Originally Posted by DesertRoad View Post
    But in a pretty basic and glaring way, Plushenko gave up a ton of points, and one and a half of those made the difference. He absolutely did go in with an inferior strategy.
    I think there is another way to look at it. I think that Plushenko did what he could. A skater front-loads his jumps for a reason -- it is easier to land them on fresh legs.

    I don't think Plushenko said, "I know, I'll put my quad first so I will get fewer points for it." "I will only do one quad instead of two because I cannot figure out how many extra points a quad is worth in the CoP." "I will deliberately do only average spins because I don't want those extra GOE points (GOEs are for sissies.)."

  7. #7
    Yeah! Lets get this party started. enlight78's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,025
    Quote Originally Posted by prettykeys View Post
    Nah.

    I don't believe Lysacek had a superior strategy and that Plushenko went with an inferior one. The judges merely preferred Lysacek's strategy & execution in Vancouver. There was no clear-cut indication that it would go that way, to either Lysacek or Plushenko. It's more like they were bartering for the same good (i.e. the Gold medal), and the sellers preferred what Evan was offering that day.

    When Plushenko is objecting, he is saying that what he offered had more value than what the sellers accepted from Lysacek, and that the sellers should have realized/agreed with that.

    On the other hand, Team Mao did not have a good strategy, but it was respectable.
    I would have to disagree; Plushenko did very little to maximas his point potential; One he had no three jump combo; Two he frontloaded his program missing out on the 10% bonus ; Three he had no difficulte transitions into his element that adds to GOE; All these things are stated in the rule book; It was obvious after Cup of Russia and the GPF that a skeaky clean quadless program could beat his if he had any missteps. I would have to say someone mess up because he only did enough to barely win; when he and his team could have made sure it was impossible for anyone to match him technically like Yu-na did

Posting Permissions

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