Again the judges disagree with you. And Rachael was far from her best in Vancouver. She looked nervous and skated nervous. Almost every single jump she took had a problem. Plushy landed his jumps - and so did Rachael - but as the judges and tech panel correctly saw these were not good jumps.Originally Posted by FlattFan
That is the one place where I cannot agree. The whole idea of the CoP is that you get credit for each thing you do. If you do a quad, you get credit for a quad. If you do a sit spin, you get credit for a sit spin. If you do transitions, you get credit for transitions.
I would never go along with a scoring system that says, well, he did a quad, so we should give him credit for a sit spin, too, even though he didn't do one.
Now if the argument is that quads should be scored higher than they are, with sit spins and transitions given lesser relative weight, that would be an OK change for the ISU technical committee to consider for next year. And maybe they will, as they did last year.
That's quite a stretch to say he did a quad, he should get credit for the sit spin, too.
What I said was a quad needs a lot of pre and post prep work, it does not make sense to expect a lot of transitions. Something's gotta give. If someone does a quad and has transitions, sure, give him more credit for his transitions since it's apple to apple comparison. But if he doesn't do a hard element and claim he has more transitions then it's not a valid argument anymore. Did Chan's transition score go down when he couldn't connect the elements and had falls all over? No. So transitions score is just a way to prop certain skaters.
That is not so clear. The technical specialist downgraded two of Rachael's jumps, costing her about eight points. The judges, however, gave her the +.60 GOE on the first of the downgraded jumps, and mostly 0s on the second, so the judges did not seem to have thought that the jumps were under-rotated or that they had other problems or showed nervousness.
With those extra 8 points Rachael is far ahead of Laura and Miki and pulls even with Mirai. So I think the judges liked her performances just fine, but she ran into bad luck with the technical caller, who called Rachaels' LP jumps a little more severely than the jumps of the other girls.
Well, of course it doesn't. Just like in American football, if you score a touchdown it does not make sense to expect you to kick a field goal at the same time.
You get points for what you do, not for what you might have done if you were an apple instead of an orange. If you score a touchdwn you get six points. If instead you kick a field goal you get three. Each team has to decide which to go for. Joubert went for a quad, Chan for transitions.
Anyway, if the purpose of your posts is to convince the ISU that they ought ot raise the value of quads and triple Axels, i think you are preaching to the choir. The ISU agrees with you, and at the meeting of the ISU Technical Committee last year they did raise the base values of these jumps. Very likely they will raise them some more at their next meeting in a couple of months. Everyone will be happy.
Except Patrick. :(
Last edited by Mathman; 03-25-2010 at 06:34 PM.
Maybe if your English wasn't so bad, wallylutz wouldn't have poked at it and questioned your thinking ability by association. "Murakami [still] has good companies", I'm sure.
The problem with FlattFan's railing against quadless skaters in the case of skaters having 1 quad vs. those having 0 quads in a program is that it's inconsistent with his assertion that Yagudin was a deserving champion over Goebel in the 2002 Olympics (3 quads vs. 4 quads.). The difference is still the same: 1 quad. Apparently Yagudin had enough artistic ability to overcome Goebel's 1 quad advantage over him, but other skaters (with 0 quads) don't deserve to be able to be credited over less-artistic skaters with 1 quad?OK, whatever.
However, I do agree with the assertion that Transitions need to be credited differently between elements of different difficulty levels. The concept should at least factor in; that is, it shouldn't merely be an arithmetic process of e.g. transition + jump as independent processes, because they are not independent elements. A Transition score should take into consideration what can be reasonably expected out of transitioning into a more difficult 4T vs. the easier 3T. Besides, unlike individual jumps, the Transitions score is an overall assessment of the whole program.
If someone does a somewhat easier transition into a 4T and another skater does a somewhat harder transition into a 3T...and the rest of their programs is exactly the same, I do believe they merit the same Transition score.
Last edited by prettykeys; 03-25-2010 at 06:46 PM.
It's tricky. The "transitions" that you do leading up to a jump are not part of the "Transitions" program component score, but part of the GOE for that element.
Under the bullets for positive GOE on jumps it says (ISU publication1505), " "clear recognizable steps/skating movements immediately preceding element."
The program component "Transitions," is, I believe, more about what you are doing in the rest of the program when you are just skating along, not necessarily preparing for a scored technical element. The four criteria are "variety, difficulty, intricacy, and quality" of incidental steps and turns, as well as non-scored elements like Ina Bauers and split jumps.
I assume there is overlap in the minds of the judges, as for instance if a skater rose into a triple jump directly from a spread eagle.
Maybe the right way to do it would be to increase the positive GOEs for quads, using the same scale as negative GOEs. For a quad toe the GOEs are +3, +2, +1, 0, -1.6, -3.2, -4.8.
Ix-nay on comments about posters' language skills, even in retaliation. One big happy family.
Maybe if you are so smart and have higher IQ you would understand what I said. 22yo and 2 years into some advanced degree. LOL. I need not defend my academic achievement, unlike someone who's so insecure and resorted to IQ and advanced degree to make a point.Maybe if your English wasn't so bad, wallylutz wouldn't have poked at it and questioned your thinking ability by association. "Murakami [still] has good companies", I'm sure.
The problem with FlattFan's railing against quadless skaters in the case of skaters having 1 quad vs. those having 0 quads in a program is that it's inconsistent with his assertion that Yagudin was a deserving champion over Goebel in the 2002 Olympics (3 quads vs. 4 quads.). The difference is still the same: 1 quad. Apparently Yagudin had enough artistic ability to overcome Goebel's 1 quad advantage over him, but other skaters (with 0 quads) don't deserve to be able to be credited over less-artistic skaters with 1 quad?
However, I do agree with the assertion that Transitions need to be credited differently between elements of different difficulty levels. The concept should at least factor in; that is, it shouldn't merely be an arithmetic process of e.g. transition + jump as independent processes, because they are not independent elements. A Transition score should take into consideration what can be reasonably expected out of transitioning into a more difficult 4T vs. the easier 3T. Besides, unlike individual jumps, the Transitions score is an overall assessment of the whole program.
If someone does a somewhat easier transition into a 4T and another skater does a somewhat harder transition into a 3T...and the rest of their programs is exactly the same, I do believe they merit the same Transition score.
Ok, ignore list.
I believe it goes like the logarithm: ln(4) - ln(3) = ln(4/3) = 0.29 extra points for Goebel over Yagudin.
But ln(1) - ln(0) = infinity extra points for Joubert over Chan.
bwahahaha. Strangely enough, that's not a terrible way of looking at it. Or even extra points=quads^1/2
1) Diss English majors/degrees 2) Tell me to get one 3) Have me correct you about what I actually study, and challenge you to share your background, while showing how you are deficient 4) Dodge 5) Fail to understand the basis of mockery
Hmm, ok. I did forget about the GOEs. I can see how the system has worked it in...sometimes it is difficult to see how proportionately the rewards and penalties are translated into the scoring.It's tricky. The "transitions" that you do leading up to a jump are not part of the "Transitions" program component score, but part of the GOE for that element.
Under the bullets for positive GOE on jumps it says (ISU publication1505), " "clear recognizable steps/skating movements immediately preceding element."
The program component "Transitions," is, I believe, more about what you are doing in the rest of the program when you are just skating along, not necessarily preparing for a scored technical element. The four criteria are "variety, difficulty, intricacy, and quality" of incidental steps and turns, as well as non-scored elements like Ina Bauers and split jumps.
I assume there is overlap in the minds of the judges, as for instance if a skater rose into a triple jump directly from a spread eagle.
Maybe the right way to do it would be to increase the positive GOEs for quads, using the same scale as negative GOEs. For a quad toe the GOEs are +3, +2, +1, 0, -1.6, -3.2, -4.8.
Ix-nay on comments about posters' language skills, even in retaliation. One big happy family.
Off topic, but I think one of the most beautiful things about language is when people share (or attempt to share) kind words, praise, or ideas through a language that is not their most fluent. It means that they are putting in that extra effort to learn and transmit those good thoughts and feelings across that invisible obstacle. Conversely, when people are putting in that extra effort to say nasty or rude things...
Oh, Mathman, I wish you were the ISU president. Everyone will be happy.... and at the meeting of the ISU Technical Committee last year they did raise the base values of these jumps. Very likely they will raise them some more at their next meeting in a couple of months. Everyone will be happy.
Except Patrick. :(
Why Patrick won't be happy? He's going to have a quad anyway, ... or it's just a talk of quad?
Joubert with three quads and lower than the dancer Chan! Unbelievable... This scoring system sucks, with its GoE, blah-blah....
So sad.
Mathman: The TR score definitely includes these as does the GOE. The quote below is from the ISU document "Components with Explanations"
"In singles, pairs, and synchronize skating this also includes the entrances and exits of technical elements."
The GOE accounts for the fact that you did movements leading into a jump. The TR mark is more about the quality of those movements as well as the other non-element movements throughout the program.
Based on this I would assume that if skater A did transitions into a quad (I can't think of any skater actually doing this currently) that the judges would definitely consider the fact that a quad followed the transitions as being more difficult than if the jump had been a triple.
Most of the current crop of quadsters simply don't do much in the way of transitions likely due to that fact that most of their training energy is focused on the quad and not transitions. That's their choice and they shouldn't and likely don't expect to be gifted extra marks in that area.
^ Thank you for that explanation, sk8erdad.
No problem... Having a skater in the system has given me cause to read the IJS documents over many times trying to understand why the marks are what they are.
Absolutely. The plus GoEs belong in the PC scores under skating ability which is the only designation in the whole of the CoP to register Technique! However for errors, and the concept of 'partial credit', there is no choice but to score errors on minus GoEs.
IMO, the Short Program should be kept as a Technical contest and not go bananas over someone putting hand in the aire while doing a lutz, or doing a 3 turn into a flip. Embellishments belong in the PC scores for the opinions of the judges. Plus GoEs are the remains of the 6.0 system.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks