Hersh: Nagasu not on par with Flatt? HUH? | Page 11 | Golden Skate

Hersh: Nagasu not on par with Flatt? HUH?

R.D.

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
I believe most honest folks scoring the opening 3lz+2T that we saw from Sasha and Mirai at the Natls SP would not have given Mirai only a .43 edge. Sasha had a problem on both jumps but our tech panel must have had pixie dust in their eyes when Sasha jumped. And it is no secret that NBC was spotted giving away free pixie dust that evening. ;)

Nagasu deserved to be much farther ahead than the other skaters, IMO. At least 4 points. As much as I liked Flatt, she was probably scored a TAD bit high. I'd have had (with Nationals inflation scoring) Nagasu 71, Flatt 66, Cohen 64, Wagner 59. Something like that, anyway.
 

janetfan

Match Penalty
Joined
May 15, 2009
Nagasu deserved to be much farther ahead than the other skaters, IMO. At least 4 points. As much as I liked Flatt, she was probably scored a TAD bit high. I'd have had (with Nationals inflation scoring) Nagasu 71, Flatt 66, Cohen 64, Wagner 59. Something like that, anyway.

You agreed with me last week and now it is my turn to agree with you :agree:

but switch Sasha and Rachael :biggrin:
 
Last edited:

R.D.

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Anyway, if the judgees gave Sasha a break in the short program they made up for it in the long. Sasha received a total of minus 9.15 GOE total on her jump elements.

Still, that mess of a skate should not have gotten over 100 points. Then again, I still think Nagasu should have eeked out that victory. She skated with a fire and intensity that even Flatt was lacking (and I thought the latter did very well). DG jumps aside that is. (So glad they changed that "rule")
 

R.D.

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
You agreed with me last week and now it is my turn to agree with you :agree:

but switch Sasha and Rachael :biggrin:

Hey! You snuck in that last part didn't ya ;) I saw it when you just had the top line...

No. Rachel was on in that short. Did a 3-3 as well.

Cohen botched a 3-2 attempt. Even her solo jump was a bit iffy IIRC (?). I stick by my placements and scores above.
 
Last edited:

janetfan

Match Penalty
Joined
May 15, 2009
Hey! You snuck in that last part didn't ya ;) I saw it when you just had the top line...

No. Rachel was on in that short. Did a 3-3 as well.

Cohen botched a 3-2 attempt. Even her solo jump was a bit iffy IIRC (?). I stick by my placements and scores above.

Geez, I can't get anything past you RD. :)

OK, I will agree with you - if you will agree Rachael had a problem on her 3x3 in her LP. Remember the weak air position, scratchy landing and the way she did a complete 360 spin out of it?
She probably got big GOE for it too even though it looked to be a UR with a stepout.
 
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
This thread is so entertaining. I am constantly giggling reading it.

To begin with... We had no golden star entered in the Olys and NBC had to do something about keeping its ratings up. So... we got Ms Vonn as America's sweetheart and Rhodes as her Prince Charming.

One should know that maligning Browning just doesn't go for me. Ok, he retries with no OGM but he had multiples Worlds' Golds. Not unlike Ms Kwan who never won an Oly but had multiple Worlds' Golds.

As I recall both SP and LP were arranged by NBC so as to keep the country interested in Figure Skating. If it started at 4pm on the West Coast, it would hit the East Coast by 7pm and we did get Tugba. Since she was in an early grouping, NBC went on to more Alpine Skiing, Curling, and the Nordic which two American won gold and silver till the Final Group of skaters hit the warm up at 11pm, Groups inbetween Tugba and the Last Group were zapped. Remember we wanted to see Laura Lepisto. We didn't, and she got a bronze medal. It was very late night TV if one watched the Awards Ceremony. I supposed NBC was good for the last group, but it aint like it used to be.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
She probably got big GOE for it too even though it looked to be a UR with a stepout.

Rachael got negative GOEs from six judges, and three 0s.

Where Rachael got generous scores at Nationals was in the GOEs for the non-jump elements.

In the SP, Sasha cleaned up on GOEs on her spins, step sequence and spiral. On her spiral sequence she got six +3's and three +2's. :eek: On her combination spin she got three +3's, five +2's and one +1.

But Mirai was right up there, too. She got six +3's on her layback, four more on her combination spin, and one more on her spiral.

Well, it is Nationals. ;)
 
Last edited:

janetfan

Match Penalty
Joined
May 15, 2009
Rachael got negative GOEs from six judges, and three 0s.

Where Rachael got generous scores at Nationals was in the GOEs for the non-jump elements.

In the SP, Sasha cleaned up on GOEs on her spins, step sequence and spiral. On her spiral sequence she got six +3's and three +2's. :eek: On her combination spin she got three +3's, five +2's and one +1.

But Mirai was right up there, too. She got six +3's on her layback, four more on her combination spin, and one more on her spiral.

Well, it is Nationals. ;)

Thanks for the info on Rachael's jump.

As to the generous goe on the non-jump elements I agree that Sasha and Mirai deserved them.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Thanks for the info on Rachael's jump.

As to the generous goe on the non-jump elements I agree that Sasha and Mirai deserved them.

On the average, there seems to be about a 6% "grade inflation" across the board, comparing national championships to international results. The judges have the most leeway in two categories, GOEs for non-jump elements and program components. It is interersting to break down the numbers for different skaters.

Here are Mirai and Rachael, comparing the short programs at U.S. Nationals with the Olympics (all four programs were excellent and represent pretty close to the skaters' best.)

Total SP scores:

Mirai: Olympics 63.76, Nationals 70.06, inflation factor 9.8%.
Rachael: Olympics 64.64, Nationals 69.35, inflation factor 7.3%.

Program components:

Mirai: Olympics 26.76, Nationals 29.86, inflation factor 11.6%.
Rachael: Olympics 29.96, Nationals 27.84, inflation factor 7.6%.

So overall, Mirai profited somewhat more from Nationals inflation than Rachael.

However, if you look at the total GOEs for non-jump elements, the situation is quite different.

Mirai: Olympics 5.00, Nationals 5.14, inflation factor 2.8%.
Rachael: Olympics 2.50, Nationals 3.50, inflation factor 40.0%.

Comparatively speaking, Rachael got a huge break from U.S. judges on GOEs on spins, spirals and step sequence, compared to international standards.

(I did the short programs because the scores in the long programs were dominated by under-rotation calls, which statistically overwhelmed these small discrepancies in GOEs and PCSs.)
 

PolymerBob

Record Breaker
Joined
Feb 17, 2007
Factored placements, as in the 6.0 system. The point totals for the SP would be used only to determine the placements in the short program. LP point totals determine placement in the LP. Final score = LP + 1/2 SP ordinals, lowest wins, LP break ties.

For Polymer Bob's mom, if only the LP were televised they could begin the broadcast by showing the top three SPs.

Edited to add: So from the television spectators point of view it would go like this. Among the top three, whoever wins the LP wins the gold medal.

If someone should strike from fourth or fifth place, it would be like the 2002 Olympics. That skater skated great in the LP and the top three all made visible serious errors. Either way the audience goes home feeling that the best performance won.

If you do the ...... um ...... mathematics on this theory, you end up with the result that the winner of the long program always wins the event. If that is the case, why have a short?
 

janetfan

Match Penalty
Joined
May 15, 2009
On the average, there seems to be about a 6% "grade inflation" across the board, comparing national championships to international results. The judges have the most leeway in two categories, GOEs for non-jump elements and program components. It is interersting to break down the numbers for different skaters.

Here are Mirai and Rachael, comparing the short programs at U.S. Nationals with the Olympics (all four programs were excellent and represent pretty close to the skaters' best.)

Total SP scores:

Mirai: Olympics 63.76, Nationals 70.06, inflation factor 9.8%.
Rachael: Olympics 64.64, Nationals 69.35, inflation factor 7.3%.

Program components:

Mirai: Olympics 26.76, Nationals 29.86, inflation factor 11.6%.
Rachael: Olympics 29.96, Nationals 27.84, inflation factor 7.6%.

So overall, Mirai profited somewhat more from Nationals inflation than Rachael.

However, if you look at the total GOEs for non-jump elements, the situation is quite different.

Mirai: Olympics 5.00, Nationals 5.14, inflation factor 2.8%.
Rachael: Olympics 2.50, Nationals 3.50, inflation factor 40.0%.

Comparatively speaking, Rachael got a huge break from U.S. judges on GOEs on spins, spirals and step sequence, compared to international standards.

(I did the short programs because the scores in the long programs were dominated by under-rotation calls, which statistically overwhelmed these small discrepancies in GOEs and PCSs.)

Thanks for the stats.
Joesitz has reminded me more than once that "skating order" can be very important at these events.

Your comparison is interesting but is it fair to suggest that if Mirai had skated her Olympic SP much later - as opposed to as early as she did - her SP score might have been different?

After seeing Miki and Rachael far from clean, and skating so slowly and cautiously I think Mirai would have been scored a few points higher in her Vancouver SP had she skated later.

You can say maybe not - but a lot of years of skating history might show otherwise.
It does make the analysis questionable, as Mirai scoring a 65 or 66 changes the percentage boost your stats presented.

But I agree it is interesting to consider these scores.
I think the biggest reason Natls resulst were disputed was due to the wide scoring gap between Rachael and Mirai. If Rachael won by a closer margin it would have seemed more realistic.
Rachael was given a big boost in the areas where she is the weakest. It not only assured her victory but made the margin questionable - and unfortunately to some put the fairness of the judges under a cloud of suspicion.
 
Last edited:

PolymerBob

Record Breaker
Joined
Feb 17, 2007
Since we are on the subject on inflation; here is an analysis I did last year. It is the top 5 ladies' National scores from 2008 and 2009, followed by the scores their next ISU competition ( whatever that happened to be ) Since Mirai had not yet had an ISU event since 2009 Nationals, I took her previous ISU result.

skater .............. Nats score ..... next ISU .... difference ( inflation )

2008

Mirai Nagasu ...... 190.41 ........ 162.89 ....... 27.52
Rachael Flatt ..... 188.73 ........ 172.19 ....... 16.54
Ashley Wagner ... 188.56 ........ 152.46 ....... 36.10
Caroline Zhang ... 173.16 ........ 171.84 ........ 1.32
Bebe Liang ......... 164.87 ........ 144.25 ....... 20.62

2009

Alissa Czisny ..... 178.06 ........ 159.81 ....... 18.25
Rachael Flatt ...... 173.78 ........ 162.83 ....... 10.95
Caroline Zhang ... 171.08 ........ 171.22 ....... -0.14
Ashley Wagner ... 165.33 ........ 153.57 ....... 11.76
Mirai Nagasu ...... 159.99 ..........124.22 ....... 35.77

So most of the girls seem to get double digit National inflation.
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Factored placements, as in the 6.0 system. The point totals for the SP would be used only to determine the placements in the short program. LP point totals determine placement in the LP. Final score = LP + 1/2 SP ordinals, lowest wins, LP break ties.

If you do the ...... um ...... mathematics on this theory, you end up with the result that the winner of the long program always wins the event. If that is the case, why have a short?

Not always. This is how it worked under the 6.0 system with factored placements for two programs (pairs 1981-2004; singles 1991-2004).

The winner of the long program was guaranteed to win the event if that skater had been among the top three in the short program.

If the winner of the long program had not been top three in the short, then whether or not that skater won the event would depend on what order the higher-ranked skaters from the SP finished in the LP.
 

janetfan

Match Penalty
Joined
May 15, 2009
Since we are on the subject on inflation; here is an analysis I did last year. It is the top 5 ladies' National scores from 2008 and 2009, followed by the scores their next ISU competition ( whatever that happened to be ) Since Mirai had not yet had an ISU event since 2009 Nationals, I took her previous ISU result.

skater .............. Nats score ..... next ISU .... difference ( inflation )

2008

Mirai Nagasu ...... 190.41 ........ 162.89 ....... 27.52
Rachael Flatt ..... 188.73 ........ 172.19 ....... 16.54
Ashley Wagner ... 188.56 ........ 152.46 ....... 36.10
Caroline Zhang ... 173.16 ........ 171.84 ........ 1.32
Bebe Liang ......... 164.87 ........ 144.25 ....... 20.62

2009

Alissa Czisny ..... 178.06 ........ 159.81 ....... 18.25
Rachael Flatt ...... 173.78 ........ 162.83 ....... 10.95
Caroline Zhang ... 171.08 ........ 171.22 ....... -0.14
Ashley Wagner ... 165.33 ........ 153.57 ....... 11.76
Mirai Nagasu ...... 159.99 ..........124.22 ....... 35.77

So most of the girls seem to get double digit National inflation.

Thanks for the stats Bob.

Poor Caroline :eek: :cry:
 

R.D.

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
But you have to be careful with doing that...did they perform identically? If not there's going to be some variation in the numbers. Or if they had a rough Nationals and good comp the next time (i.e. Zhang) then the numbers will look even more skewed. JMO
 

PolymerBob

Record Breaker
Joined
Feb 17, 2007
But you have to be careful with doing that...did they perform identically? If not there's going to be some variation in the numbers. Or if they had a rough Nationals and good comp the next time (i.e. Zhang) then the numbers will look even more skewed. JMO

Fair enough. Let’s see how much inflation Caroline got this year. Her National score was 138.27, while her 4CC score was 160.78 . So her Nationals inflation this year was ….. -22.51 points. Well, at least this time it’s double digit. :sheesh:
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
I think the biggest reason Natls resultss were disputed was due to the wide scoring gap between Rachael and Mirai. If Rachael won by a closer margin it would have seemed more realistic.

Rachael was given a big boost in the areas where she is the weakest. It not only assured her victory but made the margin questionable - and unfortunately to some put the fairness of the judges under a cloud of suspicion.

I wish I had some way to get you to look at the numbers before making statements like that.

Downgrades, downgrades, downgrades.

Downgrades, downgrades, downgrades.

Downgrades, downgrades, downgrades.

If you click here

http://www.usfigureskating.org/leaderboard/results/2010/64740/results.html

and scroll down to third place you will see at a glance why Rachael's score was ridiculously higher than Mirai's, and why, in fact, Mirai -- given the handicap of all the downgrades -- was lucky to hold off Ashley Wagner for second place overall.

The tech specialist laid three downgrades and an edge call on Mirai. :cry: Rachael picking up a few tenths of a point for generous GOEs on her spins, etc., really played no significant role in the margin of victory. The reason that the audience "put the fairness of the judges under a cloud of suspicion" is that they did not realize at the time that Mirai had been taken out of the competition by UR calls.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
If you do the ...... um ...... mathematics on this theory, you end up with the result that the winner of the long program always wins the event. If that is the case, why have a short?

The short is like the semifinals. If you win the semifinals, your reward is that you get to advance to the finals. The three top finishers in the short program win the "control your own destiny" pole positions for the big race.

There is still a chance for an underdog to compete in the final, but that person needs a little luck to win the event, having failed to qualify top tier in the semis.

That's the theory. ;) As gkelly pints out, this is not a new idea; it is how things were done under 6.0 ordinal judging. The saying was, "You can't win the event in the short program, but you can lose it."

By the way, the question, "why have a short program at all" is far from rhetorical. I liked the old cheesefest format just fine. One program, winner take all, and the whole contest fills a nice television slot.

The biggest drawback to eliminating the short program is that it would be too boring to skaters to just practice the same one program over and over all season.
 

FlattFan

Match Penalty
Joined
Jan 4, 2010
It seems like janetfan continued to spew the same crap about nationals score being fixed and Mirai was the undisputed winner.
Her downgraded lutz had 5 -2s.
Her solo 3T had 5 -2s.
The judges saw it without knowing whether or not the technical specialist would downgrade the jumps. Viewers at home saw it. She only had 6 triples and 3 were downgraded.
 

janetfan

Match Penalty
Joined
May 15, 2009
I wish I had some way to get you to look at the numbers before making statements like that.

Downgrades, downgrades, downgrades.

Downgrades, downgrades, downgrades.

Downgrades, downgrades, downgrades.

.

^ What's your point ;)

What in the world makes you think I don't share Frank Carroll's view on this. I read he got into a pretty loud shouting match with the tech panel and after looking at the replay he said only the solo 3T deserved a dg. I am with Frank on this one. And I also agree with Scott, Sandra and Button that Mirai skated the best and deserved the title. Come to think of it I am in some pretty good company about this. :yes:

I don't get your "Rachael beyond any doubt was unfairy penalised in Vancouver - and Mirai without doubt deserved her dg's at Natls." That is your opinion and mine is different.

The calls have to be consistent at an event to have credibilty and they were not at Natls. We could see Sasha was treated differently. Was Ashley clean in her LP? Did she get hit as hard as Mirai for those two footed and scratchy landings? Did Ashley get an edge call she rarely avoids at Intl events?

The results of the SP made it clear something was up. I am not the only poster here who thinks Mirai won the SP and as RD said yesterday by 4-5 points.

Maybe we just see it differently. If I ever get the sense that scoring for whatever reason is being manipulated at an event I simply don't trust the results of the whole event. How can anyone who follows skating see it any differently?

As to the mythical fairness of US judging - why is it posters here still get unsettled about Alissa's '09championship? Why do they question it? Because they saw Rachael and Caroline skate and it does not take an Einstein to realize something seemed off with the way the scoring went down.

1980 Natls was a bad one - but this time it was Carroll and Linda who were gifted by a judging panel that wanted Linda to go to Lake Placid as the Natl champion and didn't care that she had an off night and that Lisa Marie should have won the title.

It looked to me that US Skating wanted Rachael, the highest finisher from '09 Worlds to go to Vancouver as the Natl Champion and did everything possible to make it happen. Sasha with even a decent skate would have been given 2nd. When she faltered it was Ashley who had mistakes overlooked so she would go with Rachael.

They never expected Mirai to skate the best and to win so they had to give her second. Nothing unusual about this and it happens all the time in skating. Or have you missed that part :think: :)
 
Last edited:
Top