Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Pairs long - placements 2-4

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Forum translator Ptichka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    4,430

    Pairs long - placements 2-4

    So everyone has ideas on what placements 2 - 4 should have been. Some believe S&S were held up, others that M&T were held down... Let's bring the discussion "in" a bit. The link here is to a table comparing specific elements and components of those three teams: http://ptichkafs.livejournal.com/48286.html. Underlined elements are the ones performed with that 2nd half bonus. Which SPECIFIC marks do you disagree with? Which SPECIFIC levels you think were too high/ too low? Where do you think the CoP levels are unfair?
    Last edited by Ptichka; 03-25-2010 at 01:06 PM.

  2. #2
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    419
    Very good post. I will have a closer look soon.
    For the first sight, I trhink that K-S got much higher PCs, than they worthed compare to M-T, who I always prefer to them ( and still do)

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    106
    S&S deserve to be in 2nd place. They had a terrific free skate. K&S wouldn't be in top 10 if they skated for Japan as she did a decade ago.

    A fall on throw 4S or 3A should get more deductions. In singles, it generally is not a problem since UR call usually accompanies a fall on a quad jump, the actual points a single skater can garner for a quad jump with a fall are close to ZERO. However, in pairs, men can generally throw female partners around for sufficient rotations, K&S and I&B always got some ridiculously high scores on failed 4thS and 3thA.They need to change that.

    The technical controllers also need to start downgrading triple twists. I've never seen a 3twist getting downgraded even many of those attemps were clearly URed. K&S' 3twist has a chronic UR problem but they continue to garner those ridiculous +goe.

    K&S' lifts and spins are also inferior, and they shouldn't get +goe.
    Last edited by watchvancouver; 03-25-2010 at 05:51 PM.

  4. #4
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,673
    K/S 73 in SP 125 in LP = 198
    M/T 69 in SP 128 in LP = 197
    S/S 65 in SP 130 in LP = 195

    K/S 2nd
    M/T 3rd
    S/S 4th

  5. #5
    Custom Title bekalc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    3,073
    Quote Originally Posted by FlattFan View Post
    K/S 73 in SP 125 in LP = 198
    M/T 69 in SP 128 in LP = 197
    S/S 65 in SP 130 in LP = 195

    K/S 2nd
    M/T 3rd
    S/S 4th
    Oh please that you would give S/S who had the best long performance of the night. only a 130.

  6. #6
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,673
    Quote Originally Posted by bekalc View Post
    Oh please that you would give S/S who had the best long performance of the night. only a 130.
    The Zhangs should have been in front of S/S as well now that I think about it.
    S/S = Patrick Chan when it comes to unfair judging.

  7. #7
    Forum translator Ptichka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    4,430
    Quote Originally Posted by watchvancouver View Post
    A fall on throw 4S or 3A should get more deductions. In singles, it generally is not a problem since UR call usually accompanies a fall on a quad jump, the actual points a single skater can garner for a quad jump with a fall are close to ZERO.
    I agree there. Then again, remember Buttle's silver with that almost planned fall on the quad?

Posting Permissions

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