Page 52 of 53 FirstFirst ... 2 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 LastLast
Results 766 to 780 of 782

Thread: MENS LP and the Results

  1. #766
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    798
    Quote Originally Posted by magicalwords View Post
    late comment.. but
    Allez Brian!

    5 consecutive podium finish @ Worlds, so impressive!
    True. He's the only one to be on the Men's podium for the last 5 years. He deserves recognition for that level of consistency.

    We'll see how many other men can do that in the coming years.

  2. #767
    Custom Title bekalc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    3,083
    Now, I don't think that's true at all. At his first Worlds, Patrick Chan finished 9th. At his first GPF, he finished dead last whereas Mao Asada immediately won her first GPF. He paid his dues all right. By the time he won his first world medal, he is actually older than Kim when she won her first medal. Since both Kim and Chan have been skating for the last 10 years or so, it seems to me your claim that Chan is getting a short-cut preference vs. other skaters is just baseless. If your claim is true, then Chan should have won his first World medal at a younger age than Yu-Na Kim or say Mao Asada. But that's not the case. I think you really need to re-examine your bias against this skater, it's obviously coloring your reasoning.
    Mao and Yu-na started dominating immediately because they were clearly technically stronger than everyone else. Mao didn't win her first GPF title due to higher PCS than everyone else. She won because of the triple axel and the 3flip/3loops. Yu-na also got the judges attention due to her extraodinary jumps.. The only lady who could compete with them technically was Ando-and they were more artistic than Ando.

    By 2006 GPF, Mishin summarized what everyone else knew: Mao Asada and Yu-na Kim were the two best skaters in the world and nobody else comes close.

    None of this is the case for Patrick. He never established himself as one of the best technically. As I said before when Jeff retired, suddenly Patrick's PCS suddenly became quite big. And he won Skate Canada because of a HUGE PCS advantage over the others. Even Patrick was incredelous when he won Skate Canada. And he won the free in Paris over kozuka due to PCS- certainly not TES. And well if you want to look at Worlds-Kozuka finished higher at worlds the year before.

    I'm not saying the judges didn't have a reason to reward Patrick for his inbetweens. But Patrick's sudden PCS rise was well quite sudden. And it doesn't compare to Mao and Yu-na because they made their rise due to TES.

    If a man comes onto the scene with good skating skills and landing quads in the short, and quads in the long. He's going to rise up extremely quickly on the world stage. And nobody's going to call it "shocking".

    And as for why I think Kozuka should have finished ahead of Chan at the Olympics. Well its because of the fact that Kozuka did two clean triple axels in the competition to Chan's one. And Kozuka also had that quad in the long. Kozuka has incredible skating skills. Something the guy is not rewarded for. And while his program does not have as many transitions as Chans-he does have them. So I thought it was quite unfair given the circumstances that Chan scored higher than Kozuka.
    Last edited by bekalc; 03-29-2010 at 01:50 AM.

  3. #768
    Skating is art, if you let it be. Blades of Passion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Hollywood, CA
    Posts
    3,989
    Kozuka was such a nice surprise at Olympics. Big respect from me for landing the Quad AND going for a 3Axel-3Toe even though it's not worth any extra points AND skating an emotional, engaging program. In general he is quite underrated (didn't skate well at this Worlds, though, unfortunately).

  4. #769
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,560
    My impression for the men's LP:

    Abbott: He was still nerous but a lot better than he was in SP. His 4T success rate at competition was very low. Good for him to have the determination to put it out there everytime! Other than the quad, his LP program was fully packed (if I am not mistaken) to the maximum capacity with 8 triple jumps and jump combos, a 2A, and tons of transitions, footworks. Despite the full technical difficulty, his program was beautiful to watch. Not many world top skaters could skate his program. He also skated with more power and attack in the second half of his program. (By the way, his SP has grown on me too. I didn't like it that much at first, but I love it now.) I feel that he didn't get enough credit in TR, and SS.

    Kozuka: I like him but not crazy about his skating yet. I don't like his "Patrick Chan hands" when he skates. Shocked for him, but confess, I was hoping that he, or Rippon, or Brezina would not be placed on top of Abbott. He's young. He's the future of Japan.

    Rippon: Haven't had a chance to rewatch the details about his jump content of his LP. So I can only say it from my first impression. He was great with a lot of energy. The Rippon Lutz was a beauty. But his back pumps during his backward crossovers bothers me to no end.

    Brezina: He impressed me at Skate America, but from there, my feeling for his program was going downhill. I don't like his Jazz music program much. He is so impressive though.

    Chan: Take a deep breath and choose apropriate words. I was mad at his scores. He was amazing with his deep edges and transitions and a dramatic music. He skated with power and command. But how come with Jeremy fell on a 4T (he still has other 8 triples including two 3As), fell on a 2A, just leaned over a little but a clean 3F, and a struggled but clean 3Lo, he got TES 77.15. But with Patrick total 8 triples including two 3As, and a 2A, fell on a 3Lo, stepped out a 3S, a bad landing on a 3A, and a shaky landing on another triple jump, he got TES 78.02? How come Jeremy's TR was 7.45 but Patrick's was 8.15? Jeremy's SS was 7.65 but Patrick's was 8.35? Not to mention CH, IN which are purely subjective. I also hate his what Johnny Weir called "starfish hands".

    Joubert: I am so proud of him to skate two clean 4Ts one with a 2T. Again, Brian's TES was 73.84 with two clean quads, total 6 triples (two in combos) including a 3A, fell on a 3L, a couple of shaky landings, compared with Chan's TES 78.02.

    Joubert really tried hard to skate with great presence. Great ending for the season, Brian!

    Takahashi: Near perfect! Everything, gutsy 4F! He will make it a clean 4F in the future. I believe it. Just love his program! He was so amazing. Finally, finally, he got the title to match his talent.
    Last edited by jennylovskt; 03-29-2010 at 11:31 PM.

  5. #770
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    123
    I still just don't get Patrick Chan's program. The music cuts make absolutely no sense to me; the music doesn't even end on a real cadence. You have Phantom, a fantastic piece of music that could be so expressive and beautiful and a skater who really has the capability of being quite artistic...and yet the program doesn't utilize either to the fullest and really just falls flat for me.
    And Chan's TES was too high. He really only landed 2 jumps "cleanly" and the ones that were shaky were really quite shaky and tight.
    Joubert's program this season, in my opinion, in one of his best. He actually utilized the music for once. Shame about the 3L...
    And Takahashi...love love loved that program. I don't even care that the 4F was UR'd. It was still really cool. And the straight line step sequence at the end was fantastic.

  6. #771
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,560
    My conclusion is - TES is subjective too because GOEs can be used as a place holder as well.

    In the protocals, Patrick's total base value for his program was 74.70. Jeremy's total base value was 79.75.(Jeremy got -4.9 GOE to punish him for trying a quad. That's another issue which has pissed me off.) Chan got +0.8 GOE for his tilted-in-the-air 3F-3T. +0.4 GOE for his sit-back, ugly but landed 3L. His total base value for step squences and spins were 16.7. He received +4.6 GOEs for them. Jeremy's perfect landed jumps received either no +GOEs or very little +GOEs. Jeremy's total base value for step squences and spins were 15.2. He received +2.3 GOEs for them. The higher level step squences and spins from Chan were just a tiny part of the contribution here between Patrick and Jeremy, only 16.7 - 15.2 = 1.5 difference.

    Brian's situation was similar. His total base value for his program was 75.54, a little higher than patrick's. Without cutting back Brian's GOEs and raising up Patrick's GOEs, Brian would have definitely gotten in front of Patrick in TES. Therefore, the final standings might be altered.

    So in the end, Patrick Chan's super generous, sometimes outragous GOEs has given him the edge for his TES scores.

    Chan has been unfairly held up by GOEs in TES as well as PCS.
    Last edited by jennylovskt; 03-29-2010 at 10:33 PM.

  7. #772
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,818
    Quote Originally Posted by bekalc View Post
    None of this is the case for Patrick. He never established himself as one of the best technically. As I said before when Jeff retired, suddenly Patrick's PCS suddenly became quite big. And he won Skate Canada because of a HUGE PCS advantage over the others. Even Patrick was incredelous when he won Skate Canada. And he won the free in Paris over kozuka due to PCS- certainly not TES. And well if you want to look at Worlds-Kozuka finished higher at worlds the year before.

    I'm not saying the judges didn't have a reason to reward Patrick for his inbetweens. But Patrick's sudden PCS rise was well quite sudden. And it doesn't compare to Mao and Yu-na because they made their rise due to TES.
    Sorry, I think you have some pretty serious personal bias against Patrick Chan for whatever reasons, you are just in denial. It's quite obvious you are completely dismissive of everything he achieved to the point of selectively omitting facts and revised history to achieve that. Here the facts:

    - Chan defeated Buttle at the Canadian Nationals before any news of Buttle's plan to retire was made public, he also qualified for GPF that same season by winning TEB prior to defeating Buttle for the Canadian title

    - In the 2008-2009 season, he achieved the highest SP Score of any men at an ISU Championship, of which he scored over 50 in TES while his PCS was relatively low. This accomplishment of breaking 50 in TES in a SP has only been surpassed by one man alone during the entire 2009-2010 season and that is Evgeni Plushenko who had a Quad-Triple in his SP.

    - Patrick Chan's strength has always been his TES, not the other way around. He won both of his World Silver medals by achieving higher TES than the Bronze medalist. Even in the Vancouver Olympics, judges gave him lower PCS than Lysacek, Plushenko, Lambiel and Takahashi even though his FS was judged as the 4th best.

    It's pretty obvious your bias has driven you to make things up in your own mind and colored your perception. That's fine, nothing I said would change your mind and I don't plan to say anymore than I do. Let's just try to get at least get the facts right please...

  8. #773
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,818
    Quote Originally Posted by bekalc View Post
    If a man comes onto the scene with good skating skills and landing quads in the short, and quads in the long. He's going to rise up extremely quickly on the world stage. And nobody's going to call it "shocking".
    Well, nobody landed more Quads than Kevin Reynolds in any ISU Championships this year, not even Plushenko. Yet, he is not even in the Top 10. I don't recall seeing you cry foul over that.

  9. #774
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,818
    Quote Originally Posted by bekalc View Post
    And as for why I think Kozuka should have finished ahead of Chan at the Olympics. Well its because of the fact that Kozuka did two clean triple axels in the competition to Chan's one. And Kozuka also had that quad in the long. Kozuka has incredible skating skills. Something the guy is not rewarded for. And while his program does not have as many transitions as Chans-he does have them. So I thought it was quite unfair given the circumstances that Chan scored higher than Kozuka.
    I really hate to break it to you on your Kozuka love fest, but your account of the Vancouver Olympic history appeared to be severely "revisionist" like some people who still claim that holocaust never took place.

    Claim #1: Kozuka did two clean triple axels in Vancouver

    Fact: Kozuka missed his 3A in the SP: http://www.vancouver2010.com/olympic...m010201uH.html

    Kozuka fell on his second Triple Axel in the LP: http://www.vancouver2010.com/olympic...m010101eh.html

    So, where does the two clean Triple Axels come from, eh? Seriously, it's one thing to recall something incorrectly, but to use it as a bogus reason to justify your claim...why don't you check your facts first?

    Claim #2: Kozuka also had a Quad in the long

    Fact: Kozuka missed his Quad in the long, it was given credit for a Quad but not a clean jump

    http://www.vancouver2010.com/olympic...m010101eh.html

    Since you are so keen of crying foul re: Chan's results, why not post the whole picture? In addition to missing his Quad, falling on a Triple Axel, Kozuka also stumbled on Triple Flip and fall out on a Triple Loop, with a total of 4 errors on jumps.

    In comparison, according to the judging panel, Chan only had two errors vs. Kozuka's four:

    http://www.vancouver2010.com/olympic...m010101eh.html

    Since they both fell on the 2nd Triple Axel, an identical error, the two errors canceled each other out. That leaves Chan with only one stumble on his Triple Lutz whereas Kozuka had 3 stumbles on his Quad Toe, Triple Flip and Triple Loop. Are you trying to argue now that the stumble on the Lutz should cost him more than the 3 errors made by Kozuka combined? And if Kozuka's skating skills is so good, why didn't he get any Level 4 on his step sequence, eh? :sheesh: Do you mean the Technical Specialist is biased against him too? Geez, it seems everyone is out to prop up Chan I guess. But then, the Technical Specialist at the Worlds, Ravi Walia, who is a former Canadian skater in men's singles did give Takahashi two Level 4 step sequences so how do you justify that, eh? I think I'll rest my case here to avoid any more exercise of futility.

  10. #775
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    3,633
    How come some judges can give Kozuka plus one on his quad and others can give him -2? Maybe to prop up others? Judges should be forbidden from given negative GOE to jumps that are ratified.

  11. #776
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,818
    Quote Originally Posted by gmyers View Post
    How come some judges can give Kozuka plus one on his quad and others can give him -2? Maybe to prop up others? Judges should be forbidden from given negative GOE to jumps that are ratified.
    To answer your questions, please consult the page 1 of this document: http://isu.sportcentric.net/db//files/serve.php?id=1427

    In deciding negative GOE, the errors skaters commit can be separated into two types. One type of errors is those in which the final GOE must be negative. But there is another category which even if a skater makes an error, the final GOE doesn't have to be negative. Unless Kozuka's error falls under one of the types where the GOE must be negative such as fall, stepping out or touching down with both hands, the judges do have the liberty not to give negative GOE on a lesser error, subject to other mitigating factors. Mitigating factors, in the context of positive GOE, are things that skaters have done well such as difficult hand positions in the air (e.g. Tano or Rippon variation), difficult transition into the jump, jump immediately out of a spin or creative exit on a jump and etc. that would normally merit them positive GOE. In the case that a skater's error falls under the type where final negative GOE is optional, judges are allowed to use these mitigating factors to compensate and reduce the expected GOE to a zero or even a small positive GOE. But the justification has to be strong however. Even when the error type is the more severe one like a fall where the final GOE has to be negagtive, the concept of mitigating factors still apply and we see that all the time. For example, we tend to think a fall on a jump is an automatic -3. In the vast majority of the cases, it's a given. But in a few cases, judges have used that to reduce the negative GOE on a fall to less than -3 such as Patrick Chan's fall on his Triple Loop in Torino where one judge chose to reward him for the exceptionally difficult entry into the jump by reducing the negative GOE to -2. Personally, I wouldn't do it, I think it's a little daring to do that and just imagine what would happen to the usual suspects when they see that - they will hold that up as yet another evidence that judges are out to prop up The One. :sheesh: In reality though, that's entirely within the rules - the final GOE is negative, a -2, that's all the rules required the judge to do. But in other lesser cases, such as when Davis/White stumbled on their twizzles in the OD at U.S. Nationals but no negative GOE, or when Crone/Poirier, she fell on her twizzles at the Canadian Nationals yet most of the negative GOE were less than -3 or Virtue/Moir not receiving a single negative GOE in his stumble on the twizzle. All are cases of application of the "mitigating factors" concept in GOE. You weight both the positive and negative. To the average fans, this can be confusing but this is really nothing more than judges applying the mitigating factor concept or simply a case of judges missed the mistakes as judges are human they can make mistakes too especially when things happen so fast on the ice, it's very easy to miss things.
    Last edited by wallylutz; 03-29-2010 at 11:57 PM.

  12. #777
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    3,633
    I see what you are saying about what the rules state-but just look at the application. Some get plus GOE for something while others get negative GOE for the same exact thing! The judges have great leeway to do whatever they want to do!

  13. #778
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,818
    Quote Originally Posted by gmyers View Post
    I see what you are saying about what the rules state-but just look at the application. Some get plus GOE for something while others get negative GOE for the same exact thing! The judges have great leeway to do whatever they want to do!
    Yes and no, you are right that in some cases, judges do have some leeway and that was intended as such in the design. Because nothing is ever entirely black or white in a judgment call, especially in the context of a complex sport such as Figure Skating. Somebody recently joked that the ISU rule book on figure skating is 3000 pages thick. The leeway is there to recognize that every situation is unique and there is no one single good answer to each situation. So yes, judges have leeway but that leeway has definite limits. In most cases, it requires the judge to be able to justify his/her decision. For example, if a judge wants to use exceptional transition move as justification to mitigate not giving a fall -3, he/she better really saw such great move prior to the jump because on review, that kind of make up answer will not hold up if no such move was ever made by the skater. Likewise, somebody who ditched out +3 for a seemingly average jump better have at least 5 positive aspects bullet points clearly met or else...haha, good luck. In most cases, it's a common sense test. The justification isn't hard in most cases but judges can't just make up things or reasons that never existed though so the leeway would be limited by that. And if a judge used a non-objective or inadmissible reason to justify a call, that's even worse. See, some judges who failed their review have known to be demoted, barring them from judging ISU and/or International competitions. Believe it or not, this actually happens. There was a report during the Vancouver Olympics how the ISU let Irina Nechkina of Azerbaijan back on the dance panel after she was deemed to make too many errors and removed from the Torino 2006 panel - well, it appears, Ms. Nechkina has learned her lessons and she earned her designation back and she seemed to do just fine in Vancouver, as opposed to the fear of many that she was just another Russian judge in disguise since she actually lives in St. Petersburg, Russia.

    I think in most cases, the GOE for singles skating has been handled fairly professionally. Sometimes, you get a call that is all over the map and a recent example was Carolina Kostner's Triple Flip + Triple Toe combo from the Torino Worlds just two days ago. I would love to be a fly in that judges' meeting on that call. You just have to shrug at that particular one, it was like -2, -1, 0, +1, +2, all over the place. That's really one of the few cases where it truly was bizarre but that's very rare. The system works just fine because the balance & check in place ensured that the leeway given to judges are not abused. Have more faith!

  14. #779
    Rinkside
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by wallylutz View Post
    Yes and no, you are right that in some cases, judges do have some leeway and that was intended as such in the design. Because nothing is ever entirely black or white in a judgment call, especially in the context of a complex sport such as Figure Skating. Somebody recently joked that the ISU rule book on figure skating is 3000 pages thick. The leeway is there to recognize that every situation is unique and there is no one single good answer to each situation. So yes, judges have leeway but that leeway has definite limits. In most cases, it requires the judge to be able to justify his/her decision. For example, if a judge wants to use exceptional transition move as justification to mitigate not giving a fall -3, he/she better really saw such great move prior to the jump because on review, that kind of make up answer will not hold up if no such move was ever made by the skater. Likewise, somebody who ditched out +3 for a seemingly average jump better have at least 5 positive aspects bullet points clearly met or else...haha, good luck. In most cases, it's a common sense test. The justification isn't hard in most cases but judges can't just make up things or reasons that never existed though so the leeway would be limited by that. And if a judge used a non-objective or inadmissible reason to justify a call, that's even worse. See, some judges who failed their review have known to be demoted, barring them from judging ISU and/or International competitions. Believe it or not, this actually happens. There was a report during the Vancouver Olympics how the ISU let Irina Nechkina of Azerbaijan back on the dance panel after she was deemed to make too many errors and removed from the Torino 2006 panel - well, it appears, Ms. Nechkina has learned her lessons and she earned her designation back and she seemed to do just fine in Vancouver, as opposed to the fear of many that she was just another Russian judge in disguise since she actually lives in St. Petersburg, Russia.

    I think in most cases, the GOE for singles skating has been handled fairly professionally. Sometimes, you get a call that is all over the map and a recent example was Carolina Kostner's Triple Flip + Triple Toe combo from the Torino Worlds just two days ago. I would love to be a fly in that judges' meeting on that call. You just have to shrug at that particular one, it was like -2, -1, 0, +1, +2, all over the place. That's really one of the few cases where it truly was bizarre but that's very rare. The system works just fine because the balance & check in place ensured that the leeway given to judges are not abused. Have more faith!
    In another words, judges are much more worried about their own job security than propping up, say, PChiddy You guys seemed to give too much credit to judges.

  15. #780
    Custom Title bekalc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    3,083
    Quote Originally Posted by jennylovskt View Post
    My conclusion is - TES is subjective too because GOEs can be used as a place holder as well.

    In the protocals, Patrick's total base value for his program was 74.70. Jeremy's total base value was 79.75.(Jeremy got -4.9 GOE to punish him for trying a quad. That's another issue which has pissed me off.) Chan got +0.8 GOE for his tilted-in-the-air 3F-3T. +0.4 GOE for his sit-back, ugly but landed 3L. His total base value for step squences and spins were 16.7. He received +4.6 GOEs for them. Jeremy's perfect landed jumps received either no +GOEs or very little +GOEs. Jeremy's total base value for step squences and spins were 15.2. He received +2.3 GOEs for them. The higher level step squences and spins from Chan were just a tiny part of the contribution here between Patrick and Jeremy, only 16.7 - 15.2 = 1.5 difference.

    Brian's situation was similar. His total base value for his program was 75.54, a little higher than patrick's. Without cutting back Brian's GOEs and raising up Patrick's GOEs, Brian would have definitely gotten in front of Patrick in TES. Therefore, the final standings might be altered.

    So in the end, Patrick Chan's super generous, sometimes outragous GOEs has given him the edge for his TES scores.

    Chan has been unfairly held up by GOEs in TES as well as PCS.
    Actually Jenny, I'm going to defend Patrick and point out that Patrick actually has difficult entries going into all of his jumps (accept for the 3axels, I believe) And for that reason when the jump is done, he actually quite fairly gets some nice GOE for the elements. Joubert does not have a lot of difficult entries into his jumps, and Brian also had some messy landings.

    My biggest issue with the system, though is that I think it doesn't reward clean performances/well executed performances enough. Under this system, I feel like skaters are encouaged to pack in the dififculty. Hard entrances etc, but they aren't really that punished when they don't execute their programs cleanly. What I mean is that it seems like PCS marks aren't really affected that much by programs that aren't well executed. I actually truly hate this about the system. If a skater falls multiple times, the system should really factor that in.

    And Wally as for Patricks' strength being his TES, that's actually Not True. I don't think I was ever complaining about Patrick's two world medals. I don't have issue with them. But there have been times when Patrick has won competitions based on high PCS. AT that skate Canada I keep on pointing out. Patrick was seventh in TES, but won due to having way higher PCS than anyone else... And so what if he was Canadian National champion, at that time he hadn't accomplished much internationally. This being said I did see the argument for Patrick winning which wasn't really that well of a skated competition to begin with.

    Since skaters get credit for transitions in GOE. I actually agree with Urmanov's sentiment that there is no need for their to be a choregraphy AND transition mark. Rather there should be just a choregraphy mark. I'd also like to see the system make it so Performance/Execution and Skating Skills should be made to take into account the actual performance. I.e so we don't see crazy situations where Yu-na with a messy performance winning the long program, over a great performance by Mao. That's just ridiculous. Or Abbott finishing ahead of Rippon. Abbott may have great choregraphy/transitions but that performance was ridden with several major errors.

Page 52 of 53 FirstFirst ... 2 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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