Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 149

Thread: Rachael defers Stanford, skates for another year?

  1. #106
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,176
    Quote Originally Posted by janetfan View Post
    OK, I appreciate your analysis and thoughts on this.
    But since you are the "mathman" others might look at a simpler or more direct comparison.

    What was the point difference between Rachael's score at US Nats and at the Olympic?

    Was it only a few points as you seem to be implying? Then your analysis and opinion would be spot on.
    I don't think the point difference was so small and I don't believe you make a convincing case.

    Mirai's score was almost identical at Natls and the Olympics.
    Rachael's was not. There was a substancial difference.
    Rachael's score was lower at the Olympics because she was downgraded on two of her triples. Whether she was fairly downgraded is open to debate. But no one to my knowledge has claimed that her jumps at Nationals were under-rotated. The simple fact is that, with 7 triples and the various point-garnering moves she did at Nationals, she scored higher than Mirai, whose had several downgrades. People can debate all day which skater is prettier or has better posture but those things don't gain points. It seems to me that your problem, Janetfan, is with the system. A lot of us don't like COP but as long as it's the way things are judged, skaters like Rachael will do well when they land their difficult jumps and perform all the COP moves, like foot-grabbing spins and spirals.

  2. #107
    Banned janetfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    6,889
    Quote Originally Posted by silverlake22 View Post
    The way I see it:

    - Rachael deserved to win 2009 US nationals
    - Mirai deserved to win 2010 US nationals
    - Rachael deserved to be 6th in Vancouver, ahead of Lepisto but behind Ando

    I actually thought Rachael's overall FS SCORE at the Olympics was pretty fair, I would have had it a few points higher, but I would have not downgraded either of her flips and just made the PCS lower. Her program components aren't up to snuff with Ando, Lepisto, Nagasu and very close to Rochette and Asada. I would have had her PCS be down with Makarova, Leonova, Korpi and Gedevanishvilli as that is who I see Rachael as comparable to at this point in terms of components. So she lost what, 7 points on the downgraded flips? I would have made her PCS 3 points lower (55) and her TES 7 points higher which would have given her 121 for the FS and wouldn't have changed the overall placement but would have been less controversial.
    I like your math better than mathman's

    BTW, I am glad Rachael is sticking around full time for another season. I think Natls will be a fierce battle next season between Rachael, Ashley and Mirai. Maybe Christina will have improved enough to join the mix or a few others. (Go Caroline ).

    Let me be clear about the scores. Had Rachael received say a 194 at Natls to Mirai's 190 I might have disagreed - but would not see reason for too much controversy. The size of Rachael's victory seemed hard to comprehend. This is just not my opinion and many skating experts felt the same way.

    So after Natls we had a new US champion, the first US Lady to crack 200 points - but what we saw at Vancouver and Torino was not a skater like Mao who looks to be in the 200 point scoring range.

    Sorry to bring up Mao, it is only because her scoring potential is in the 200 range. I don't think in an honest and fairly judged event Rachael is in the same range,,,,yet.

    I hope Rachael has a great season, don't mind if she beats Mirai or any other US Lady as long as it seems fair and the difference in skills on the ice is reflected quite a bit more accurately in the scores.

    Please consider that it gets tiring hearing the same poor excuse:
    1.Mirai had dg's at Natls and that is why her score was not higher.
    2. Rachael had UNFAIR dg's at Vancouver other wise her score would have been like Natls.

    The second point is not true. Even without the dg's on her flips Rachael's Natls score would still have been much higher than Vancouver.

    I have been called unfair but is it fair to assume any dg's against Mirai have been ratified by a higher power just as any dg's against Rachael are of course wrong.

    Some like to have it both ways but such convenient logic fails to convince me.

    Let's count the dg's for both girls- just for the sake of reality
    Last edited by janetfan; 05-07-2010 at 01:06 PM.

  3. #108
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    27,063
    Quote Originally Posted by janetfan
    Please consider that it gets tiring hearing the same poor excuse:

    1. Mirai had dg's at Natls and that is why her score was not higher.

    2. Rachael had UNFAIR dg's at Vancouver other wise her score would have been like Natls.
    #1 is obviously true. Indeed, it is true of all skaters at all competitions: their scores would be higher if they did not have any of their jumps downgraded than if they did. Mirai had three jumnps downgraded and lost a slew of points for it.

    #2. UNFAIR is in the eye of the beholder. At the Olympics the only beholder who counted was the tech specialist. On the first flip combination Rachael got +.60 GOE, meaning that of the five scoring judges, three evidently did not see any under-rotation. YMMD. That's life.

    As for the rest of sentence #2, you are just making things up. Can you kindly direct me to any post, any web site, any commentary in the known universe where anyone has asserted that if Rachael had saved those 7 points she would have scored as high as she did at Nationals?

    What is true, though, is that without the downgrades at the Olympics her score would have been comparable to Mirai's score at the Olympics. This is simple addition. Take Rachael's score and add on 7 points.

  4. #109
    Banned janetfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    6,889
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman;

    What [i
    is[/i] true, though, is that without the downgrades at the Olympics her score would have been comparable to Mirai's score at the Olympics. This is simple addition. Take Rachael's score and add on 7 points.
    We seem to be on a totally different page. For the third time, I am comparing Rachael to Rachael.
    Rachael's scores at Natls were higher than Rachael's Olympic scores and by a substancial margin.

    Sorry if I have been unclear - but what part of that don't you seem to understand? ..........
    The sarcasm about being able to add or subtract 7 points serves only to deflect away from my point that something feels very wrong about the huge point differential in Rachael's Natls vs Olympic scores.

    Why not agree or disagree instead of posting off-point comments?

    Here is a good starting point: Rachael's performances at Natls and the Olympics were very comparable.
    She skated well at each event yet her scores at one event were much higher than the other.

    It went beyond any rationaliztion of the "Natls boost" IMO which is what leads me to question it.

    ETA: Let's leave the "universe" out of it and stick to the GS forum.
    On your post # 96 you wrote:

    "So in both of these events the result was wholly determined by downgrades which were discernible only to the tech specialist in slo-motion. I do not see any support for claims that the U.S. judges picked on Mirai and boosted Rachael, .........
    "Mirai got some unlucky calls at Nationals and Rachael got some unlucky calls at the Olympics, that's all."

    Is that all? I think Rachael's score differential between Natsl and Vancouver is not so easily explained away.

    Since I am actually trying to rationalize Rachael's scores and not Mirai's then Mirai's dg's are not what is at issue. Sure they made the gap bigger but don't really explain how Rachael scored over 200 points at Natls when her skating at the Intl level has never come close to approaching that before.
    Last edited by janetfan; 05-07-2010 at 02:25 PM.

  5. #110
    Tripping on the Podium
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by janetfan View Post
    We seem to be on a totally different page. For the third time, I am comparing Rachael to Rachael.
    Rachael's scores at Natls were higher than Rachael's Olympic scores and by a substancial margin.

    Sorry if I have been unclear - but what part of that don't you seem to understand? ..........
    The sarcasm about being able to add or subtract 7 points serves only to deflect away from my point that something feels very wrong about the huge point differential in Rachael's Natls vs Olympic scores.

    Why not agree or disagree instead of posting off-point comments?

    Here is a good starting point: Rachael's performances at Natls and the Olympics were very comparable.
    She skated well at each event yet her scores at one event were much higher than the other.

    It went beyond any rationaliztion of the "Natls boost" IMO which is what leads me to question it.

    ETA: Let's leave the "universe" out of it and stick to the GS forum.
    On your post # 96 you wrote:

    "So in both of these events the result was wholly determined by downgrades which were discernible only to the tech specialist in slo-motion. I do not see any support for claims that the U.S. judges picked on Mirai and boosted Rachael, .........
    "Mirai got some unlucky calls at Nationals and Rachael got some unlucky calls at the Olympics, that's all."

    Is that all? I think Rachael's score differential between Natsl and Vancouver is not so easily explained away.

    Since I am actually trying to rationalize Rachael's scores and not Mirai's then Mirai's dg's are not what is at issue. Sure they made the gap bigger but don't really explain how Rachael scored over 200 points at Natls when her skating at the Intl level has never come close to approaching that before.
    Okay, let's compare Mirai with Mirai. She got three downgrades at Nationals and none at the Olympics and her scores were almost identical. do you think that if she had three downgrades she would have scored the same at the Olympics? It's Nationals, right before the Olympics no less, everybody got some points kicked they're way.

  6. #111
    Banned janetfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    6,889
    Quote Originally Posted by mandykane21 View Post
    Okay, let's compare Mirai with Mirai. She got three downgrades at Nationals and none at the Olympics and her scores were almost identical. do you think that if she had three downgrades she would have scored the same at the Olympics? It's Nationals, right before the Olympics no less, everybody got some points kicked they're way.
    Compare away. Mirai has what - a 10 point difference if we count the 3 dg's from Natls?

    Can we say the same for Rachael' scores - only a 6-7 point difference if we include 2 dg's from the Olympics?

    I don't have the exact figures for the dg's but if that is the case it makes a good point.
    Last edited by janetfan; 05-07-2010 at 03:28 PM.

  7. #112
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    27,063
    Quote Originally Posted by janetfan
    We seem to be on a totally different page. For the third time, I am comparing Rachael to Rachael.

    Rachael's scores at Natls were higher than Rachael's Olympic scores and by a substancial margin.

    Sorry if I have been unclear - but what part of that don't you seem to understand? ..........
    The part where you mention Mirai in every post. You wrote:

    Let's count the dg's for both girls- just for the sake of reality.
    And

    Mirai's score was almost identical at Natls and the Olympics.
    Rachael's was not. There was a substancial difference.
    I was trying to explain how this came about by appealing to the protocols. Mirai lost 10 points at Nationals due to under-rotations. Rachael lost 7 points at the Olympics due to under-rotations. This accounts for most of the reason why there was a big swing in Rachael’s scores from one event to the other, but not so for Mirai. Do the math.

    However, if you agree not to bring up Mirai again and just want to look at Rachael’s scores, here they are (I’ll just do the LP – you can research the SPs if you want)..

    U.S. Nationals: --Base values 62.41, GOE 6.64, PCS 61.71
    Olympic Games: Base values 54.13, GOE 5.25, PCS 58.48

    Difference, Nationals – Olys: 8.28, GOE 1.39, PCS 3.23

    So on the part of the score that was under the control of the national and international judges, the GOEs and PCSs, Rachael scored 4.62 points higher at the Nationals.

    To you, this means that the international judges are “sending a message” to the U.S. judges that they won’t tolerate bad posture, ugly spins, wonky picks on toe jumps, skating that would be slow even in juniors, and weak presentation skills. The U.S. judges are embarrassed, and Rachael’s fans are chagrined.

    To me, this 4.62 point is normal grade inflation as expected in any national championship, compared to international competitions.

    But wait. Rachael got a huge 130.76 for her free skate – Mao Asada numbers -- but only 117.85 at the Olympics. How do you account for that gigantic spread?

    It’s all in the numbers. The biggest chunk of the difference is that 8.28 in base values. Except for minor tenths of a point in levels, etc., this is entirely the result of the downgraded elements. At U.S. Nationals she got base values for 3F+3T and for 3F+2T+2T. At the Olympics she only got base values for 2F+3T and 2F+2T+2T.

    That’s the difference.

    Without the downgrades Rachael would have gotten around 200 points at Nationals and 190 at the Olympics (and so would Mirai -- well, 198 anyway -- do the math).

  8. #113
    Tripping on the Podium
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by janetfan View Post
    That is a fair point (which I hoped would be overlooked )

    So here is what we can consider:
    At the Olympics and Worlds Mirai scored more points than Rachael.
    Is it fair to say the Intl judges favor her skating over Rachael's as opposed to just throwing her free points?

    Since Mirai was judged to be superior to Rachael at the two biggest events of the year it seems a case could be made she is atleast as good if not better than Rachael.

    But Rachael beat her by what, 12-15 points at Natls?
    I did not see the results anywhere near that.
    I thought they were fairly even. At Worlds and the Olympics they were not even.

    That is part of that puzzles me. Coach Carroll apparently got into a shouting match with the tech panel at Natls so he did not agree either. We all saw Rachael muff up here 3x3 in the LP. Did she get a dg or negative GOE for losing her balance and turning out of the 3T ? Seems Mirai was grilled for less obvious mistakes - in fact they had to find them in slow-mo replay.

    Tell you what - we will see next time Rachael scores over 200 points, and if she does we won't have to guess where it might happen.

    I didn't see Racheal 'muff up' her 3f-3t, in fact they didn't show her feet at Nationals did they? And Rachael lost almost a point in negative GOE's on that combo. Also, several people that were there claimed that they saw at least two of Mirai's downgrades and weren't surprised by them. Add that to the fact that Mirai was placed above Rachael in the short even though Rachael had a triple-triple. To compare them at Olympics and Worlds you have to stop looking at things they way you want to see them. Rachael was placed above Mirai in the SP whether other people agree or not and if she had not been downgraded in the LP she would have been alot closer to Mirai than she was. Who's to say they wouldn't have even put Rachael ahead if the two had been switched in the order they performed? It sounds to me more like, different judges have different opinons. If you want to say that Mirai is a better skater than Rachael, say it, but don't act like Nationals was some huge conspiracy against Mirai.

  9. #114
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,672
    Quote Originally Posted by silverlake22 View Post
    Yeah agreed. Although I don't think Rachael should have been 5th in Vancouver, Miki had a clean LP too and clean Miki trumps clean Rachael any day - Miki has better speed, better jumps, better spins, better stretch. I think Rachael should have been 6th though ahead of Lepisto because Laura had the 3t-2t as her combo in the SP and doubled a jump in the long, while Rachael landed and seemingly rotated all her triples.
    Are you kidding? Miki URed the combo jump in the short program. URed the lutz in the short program. Her LP was slow and labored. Did you watch her at all? Miki was so much slower, and as soon as she was on ice, Sandra couldn't stop saying she has no stretch and her extension sucks, and she's basically a jumping bean. Miki should be in 8th or 9th, even after Laura.

  10. #115
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,672
    Quote Originally Posted by Bennett View Post
    You mean her high school was not that good?
    Her high school, average SAT is 1000/1600 (M+V only)
    Stanford, average SAT is 1440/1600

    Her high school, 10% in the top 10% of the class
    Stanford, 95% in the top 10% of the class.

    She might be able to do it in high school where a reasonably hard working kid can outperform 70-80% of the class and a smarter kid would be in the top 10%. At Stanford, she's up against intense kids, I suspect, most are a lot smarter than she is.

    I don't quite get the context. Could you please explain a little more? Does Stanford allow you to go to another college to get certain credits, like taking summer courses?
    Yes it does. Which is ridiculous. They don't just take summer courses, they just run off to Santa Clara and take fall, winter, spring courses. So I said even some full time Stanford students couldn't handle the competition, Rachael definitely cannot with her skating schedule.

  11. #116
    Banned janetfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    6,889
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    The part where you mention Mirai in every post. You wrote:



    And



    I was trying to explain how this came about by appealing to the protocols. Mirai lost 10 points at Nationals due to under-rotations. Rachael lost 7 points at the Olympics due to under-rotations. This accounts for most of the reason why there was a big swing in Rachael’s scores from one event to the other, but not so for Mirai. Do the math.

    However, if you agree not to bring up Mirai again and just want to look at Rachael’s scores, here they are (I’ll just do the LP – you can research the SPs if you want)..

    U.S. Nationals: --Base values 62.41, GOE 6.64, PCS 61.71
    Olympic Games: Base values 54.13, GOE 5.25, PCS 58.48

    Difference, Nationals – Olys: 8.28, GOE 1.39, PCS 3.23

    So on the part of the score that was under the control of the national and international judges, the GOEs and PCSs, Rachael scored 4.62 points higher at the Nationals.

    To you, this means that the international judges are “sending a message” to the U.S. judges that they won’t tolerate bad posture, ugly spins, wonky picks on toe jumps, skating that would be slow even in juniors, and weak presentation skills. The U.S. judges are embarrassed, and Rachael’s fans are chagrined.

    To me, this 4.62 point is normal grade inflation as expected in any national championship, compared to international competitions.

    But wait. Rachael got a huge 130.76 for her free skate – Mao Asada numbers -- but only 117.85 at the Olympics. How do you account for that gigantic spread?

    It’s all in the numbers. The biggest chunk of the difference is that 8.28 in base values. Except for minor tenths of a point in levels, etc., this is entirely the result of the downgraded elements. At U.S. Nationals she got base values for 3F+3T and for 3F+2T+2T. At the Olympics she only got base values for 2F+3T and 2F+2T+2T.

    That’s the difference.

    Without the downgrades Rachael would have gotten around 200 points at Nationals and 190 at the Olympics (and so would Mirai -- well, 198 anyway -- do the math).
    OK, thanks - I understand your points here.
    When i said let's count "both girls dgs" - it was simply because I was interested in comparing their actual overall point totals as a point of reference. They both had dg's so it seems odd not to include them if comparing their scores. But I didn't compare scores when taking away the dg's.

    What I saw and wondered about is the almost 20 point spread between Rachaels two scores. And how her international scores have never approached 200 before.

    For me it feels a little tweaky using dg's as the justification. Dg's occur - like you said sometimes it can even be a matter of luck.

    One girl was dg'ed by her own judges - the other by Intl judges. Maybe that is inconsequential and just a coincidence. I do not really believe much in coincidences but not everything has to be a conspiracy.


    I wasn't as interested in arguing as I was in understanding why this appeared to be so off to me.
    Posts from you, Mrs P and Mandy helped.

    I still think the Natls outcome was wrong - but maybe I can see it was within a reasonable difference of opinion - particuarly a fans possibly biased opinion.
    Last edited by janetfan; 05-07-2010 at 04:07 PM.

  12. #117
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,672
    Quote Originally Posted by janetfan View Post
    Compare away. Mirai has what - a 10 point difference if we count the 3 dg's from Natls?

    Can we say the same for Rachael' scores - only a 6-7 point difference if we include 2 dg's from the Olympics?

    I don't have the exact figures for the dg's but if that is the case it makes a good point.
    Mao got massive score at Nationals for her watered down program. The international judges clearly sent her a strong message. They hate her posture, hate her spins, spirals, her 3A-2A-look-alike suck *** big time. So, again, WTH?

  13. #118
    Banned janetfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    6,889
    Quote Originally Posted by FlattFan View Post
    Mao got massive score at Nationals for her watered down program. The international judges clearly sent her a strong message. They hate her posture, hate her spins, spirals, her 3A-2A-look-alike suck *** big time. So, again, WTH?
    Actually Mao had a 3A dg'ed at Natls this season. Her score was not massive by her standards - or should I say by US Natls standards.

    Her scores at the Olympics were good despite a few mistakes - just not nearly as good as Yuna's scores.

  14. #119
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,672
    Quote Originally Posted by janetfan View Post
    Actually Mao had a 3A dg'ed at Natls this season. Her score was not massive by her standards - or should I say by US Natls standards.

    Her scores at the Olympics were good despite a few mistakes - just not nearly as good as Yuna's scores.
    Mao got 207 at Nationals for a DGed 3A in the SP. 1 3A and 2 2A in the LP.
    At the Olympics, she got 203 or something for 3 3As. How do you say inflation in Japanese? Mao Asada. The US is by far the least inflated, true for its currency and true for figure skating.

  15. #120
    Banned janetfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    6,889
    Quote Originally Posted by FlattFan View Post
    Mao got 207 at Nationals for a DGed 3A in the SP. 1 3A and 2 2A in the LP.
    At the Olympics, she got 203 or something for 3 3As. How do you say inflation in Japanese? Mao Asada. The US is by far the least inflated, true for its currency and true for figure skating.
    Atleast Japan got the most important thing right - the placements!

    And it feels more normal to see Mao with 200 scores. She has done it several times now at Natl and ISU events.

    The US has one skater with marks that stick out like a polar bear in Panama. 200 at Natls but 180 or less at most ISU events. Talk infllation all you want but the 20 points I refer to make Japan look much more consistent. And Mao has many ways to score points besides her 3A because her skating is of the highest quality.

    Only skaters with exceptional skills can get 200 points at ISU events.
    Last edited by janetfan; 05-07-2010 at 05:33 PM.

Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 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
  •