Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4
Results 46 to 54 of 54

Thread: Chan talks about the quad

  1. #46
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,635
    Quote Originally Posted by wallylutz View Post
    My hunch is that Chan is endearing to a lot of judges b/c the vast majority of them are women and Chan, a talented & good looking 19 year old teen...
    But is he as cute as Kevin van der Perren?

  2. #47
    Banned janetfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    6,889
    Quote Originally Posted by wallylutz View Post
    My hunch is that Chan is endearing to a lot of judges b/c the vast majority of them are women and Chan, a talented & good looking 19 year old teen who floats across the ice will impress them more than another man who can jump but otherwise boring to watch.

    However, Chan got the scores he got b/c he deserved them and any positive impression is merely icing on the cake. Now that he can land Quad in competition, it will make him very difficult to beat.
    A while ago I made comments that said if Chan skated a clean LP with two 3A's he would be unbeatable.
    After watching SC I can see I was right. A clean Chan does NOT need a quad to beat the others.

    What I don't get is what happened to the old "technical program." It is no more and what we have are two programs with one being longer than the other.

    Can you or anyone tell me that Yagudin could have fallen twice in his SP and then again in his steps and still won in SLC?
    I think of Yags as perhaps the most complete male skater I have seen - but as great as he was if he made the mistakes Chan made in the SP at SC Yags would not win.

    What am I missing here? I happen to be a Patrick fan and love his skating. That doesn't mean I think he can make multiple mistakes in his SP, another in his LP and still win against a skater like Oda.

    Maybe we need a press release from ISU stating the SP is nothing but a shorter version of the LP. Mistakes that in the past were costly no longer matter if a skater has good edges and superior TR.

  3. #48
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,819
    Quote Originally Posted by janetfan View Post
    A while ago I made comments that said if Chan skated a clean LP with two 3A's he would be unbeatable.
    After watching SC I can see I was right. A clean Chan does NOT need a quad to beat the others.

    What I don't get is what happened to the old "technical program." It is no more and what we have are two programs with one being longer than the other.

    Can you or anyone tell me that Yagudin could have fallen twice in his SP and then again in his steps and still won in SLC?
    I think of Yags as perhaps the most complete male skater I have seen - but as great as he was if he made the mistakes Chan made in the SP at SC Yags would not win.

    What am I missing here? I happen to be a Patrick fan and love his skating. That doesn't mean I think he can make multiple mistakes in his SP, another in his LP and still win against a skater like Oda.

    Maybe we need a press release from ISU stating the SP is nothing but a shorter version of the LP. Mistakes that in the past were costly no longer matter if a skater has good edges and superior TR.
    Your question is serious and very good question so I'll do my best to answer it.

    One of the issue with the old Short Program in the 6.0 era is the relativity of marks were out of proportion especially when a skater does an element that is far more difficult than anyone else's, notably Ito's 3 Axel in a SP or Stojko's 4t+3t when it was first introduced. It was very difficult to be exact in the old system. How much is a 4t worth more than a 3Lz in the SP? Nobody knew for sure. Everything else being equal, someone who does a 4t over a 3Lz may score only 0.1 or 0.2 more than another skater. Was that fair?

    the 2nd issue has to do with the system limitation. Whereas COP has a much higher theoretical ceiling, the old system can't go higher than 6.0 no matter what. Worrying about running out of room was a major concern among judges in the past, not so under the COP, which is a huge improvement IMO. No more worrying about holding marks back and etc.

    In a nutshell, the nostalgia you expressed based on your years of experience as a fan watching the greats like Yagudin taught you that SP acts as in or out system. With a -0.4 for falls in the past, someone who fell on a Quad is pretty much doomed, let alone two falls in a SP. However, the old system was also unfair in failing to properly account for the value and risks of high value elements.

    I realize that the system may have changed but to many people, their mentality and understanding hasn't been up to date with time. Given that standings are no longer used as it was in the past, it is only normal that you should also get rid of that in/out SP mentality. there were a lot of things that were inequitable in the past and COP is invented as a mean to address those concerns and IMO, doing a very good job, save the nostalgic factors.
    Last edited by wallylutz; 11-03-2010 at 02:52 PM.

  4. #49
    Banned janetfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    6,889
    Quote Originally Posted by wallylutz View Post
    Your question is serious and very good question so I'll do my best to answer it.

    One of the issue with the old Short Program in the 6.0 era is the relativity of marks were out of proportion especially when a skater does an element that is far more difficult than anyone else's, notably Ito's 3 Axel in a SP or Stojko's 4t+3t when it was first introduced. It was very difficult to be exact in the old system. How much is a 4t worth more than a 3Lz in the SP? Nobody knew for sure. Everything else being equal, someone who does a 4t over a 3Lz may score only 0.1 or 0.2 more than another skater. Was that fair?

    the 2nd issue has to do with the system limitation. Whereas COP has a much higher theoretical ceiling, the old system can't go higher than 6.0 no matter what. Worrying about running out of room was a major concern among judges in the past, not so under the COP, which is a huge improvement IMO. No more worrying about holding marks back and etc.

    In a nutshell, the nostalgia you expressed based on your years of experience as a fan watching the greats like Yagudin taught you that SP acts as in or out system. With a -0.4 for falls in the past, someone who fell on a Quad is pretty much doomed, let alone two falls in a SP. However, the old system was also unfair in failing to properly account for the value and risks of high value elements.

    I realize that the system may have changed but to many people, their mentality and understanding hasn't been up to date with time. Given that standings are no longer used as it was in the past, it is only normal that you should also get rid of that in/out SP mentality. there were a lot of things that were inequitable in the past and COP is invented as a mean to address those concerns and IMO, doing a very good job, save the nostalgic factors.
    Thanks for your explanation. I think I have been looking at this too much through 6.0 eyes.
    I thought mistakes on the the required elements, particularly the required axel jump, solo jump and combination jump in the SP were more costly than missing a jump in the LP.

    If the SP is just a shorter version of the LP then I guess I can see how Chan can make mistakes on two of the three jumps and still only be a few points behind skaters who hit their jumps.

    Not sure if I really like it - maybe it is nostalgia for the tension the old SP used to provide.

  5. #50
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by janetfan View Post
    If the SP is just a shorter version of the LP then I guess I can see how Chan can make mistakes on two of the three jumps and still only be a few points behind skaters who hit their jumps.

    Not sure if I really like it - maybe it is nostalgia for the tension the old SP used to provide.
    It was still bad scoring/judging, even with the inflated value for the quad this season and lessened penalty for negative GOE. Chan managed to score as high as he did in the short because he was held up, period - on both his PCS and on the GOE for his other elements. All this comparison to 6.0 and discussion of the relative merits or lack thereof is a smokescreen. Does anyone think that any other skater in the world, skating at any other competition, could have fallen three times in the short and still been in medal contention, when their competitors went relatively clean? There are lots of fudge factors in COP, and they were abused to their limits in both segments.

    Falling in the SP should not automatically take you out of contention just because you fell, it's true. And sometimes, COP rightly allows skaters who make mistakes in the short to redeem themselves in the long, or capitalize on the mistakes of their competitors, and that's a good thing about the system.

    But that is not what happened at Skate Canada. What happened is that Patrick Chan turned in two highly flawed performances, and was awarded a gold for them, over skaters who made fewer mistakes and delivered programs that were just as hard, when you only look at the base value of the elements they actually completed. That's not "looking at things through 6.0 eyes", that's knowing what it looks like when someone is held up.

  6. #51
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    4,147
    Quote Originally Posted by janetfan View Post
    A while ago I made comments that said if Chan skated a clean LP with two 3A's he would be unbeatable.
    After watching SC I can see I was right. A clean Chan does NOT need a quad to beat the others.
    "Others" as in guys like Rippon and Oda. What he needs to do to long shot pretenderes like Rippon and Oda at Skate Chanada is a far cry from what he will need to hope to beat Takahashi, Joubert, and others at Worlds in Japan.

    Based on the scoring protocals at Worlds last year Chan probably would have lost even with 2 clean performances to Takahashi who essentialy skated a clean quadless short as well and a quadless long with a missed triple flip (which is what his failed quad flip attempt went down in points as after the downgrade and the -GOE). And that wasnt in Japan either. And if Takahashi's quad flip attempt which turned into a missed triple flip in points was replaced by a clean quad toe which would still have been his only quad of the 2 programs combined and Chan's 3 mistakes including the 1 fall had been removed, the scoring gap between them would have been about the 10+ point margin it already is.

    So in a real event with actual real competition a clean Chan without a quad is far from unbeatable.
    Last edited by pangtongfan; 11-03-2010 at 10:56 PM.

  7. #52
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Japan
    Posts
    2,188
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    But is he as cute as Kevin van der Perren?

  8. #53
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,208
    Quote Originally Posted by doubleflutz View Post
    It was still bad scoring/judging, even with the inflated value for the quad this season and lessened penalty for negative GOE. Chan managed to score as high as he did in the short because he was held up, period - on both his PCS and on the GOE for his other elements. All this comparison to 6.0 and discussion of the relative merits or lack thereof is a smokescreen. Does anyone think that any other skater in the world, skating at any other competition, could have fallen three times in the short and still been in medal contention, when their competitors went relatively clean? There are lots of fudge factors in COP, and they were abused to their limits in both segments.

    Falling in the SP should not automatically take you out of contention just because you fell, it's true. And sometimes, COP rightly allows skaters who make mistakes in the short to redeem themselves in the long, or capitalize on the mistakes of their competitors, and that's a good thing about the system.

    But that is not what happened at Skate Canada. What happened is that Patrick Chan turned in two highly flawed performances, and was awarded a gold for them, over skaters who made fewer mistakes and delivered programs that were just as hard, when you only look at the base value of the elements they actually completed. That's not "looking at things through 6.0 eyes", that's knowing what it looks like when someone is held up.
    Exactly. A three-fall performance is a bad performance whether the the three falls took place in a SP or a LP, or under 6.0 or CoP, and should be penalized accordingly.

  9. #54
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Texas, United States
    Posts
    4,969
    Quote Originally Posted by wallylutz View Post
    My hunch is that Chan is endearing to a lot of judges b/c the vast majority of them are women and Chan, a talented & good looking 19 year old teen who floats across the ice will impress them more than another man who can jump but otherwise boring to watch.

    However, Chan got the scores he got b/c he deserved them and any positive impression is merely icing on the cake. Now that he can land Quad in competition, it will make him very difficult to beat.
    I mean I guess Chan is cute, but I mean I don't think his appeal is as universal as that of say, Brian Joubert. Not everyone is into small, bug-eyed Asian men with boyish faces.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4

Posting Permissions

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