Not getting into all the minutiae ... but a win with 4 falls is ludicrous.
As for having penalities on the quad, will stop people from trying I disagree. I think people weren't trying the quad because it wasn't rewarded enough. Falling on the quad versus not trying it at all only loses someone really the points of an easy double axel. If you do everything else well you can make it up. Giving someone six points for falling on a quad, takes away the point advantage of the person who actually landed the quad.
Under 6.0 of all the men essentially did the quad in the short, even though there was huge penalities for falling in the short program. They did it because they knew they needed it to win. If you offer men a HUGE advantage for landing a clean quad, many will think its worth the risk to go for it, versus going for the easy double axel.
And I'm sorry I doubt Jeff Buttle ever truly mastered the quad, he was falling due to falling. Love Jeff but I was thrilled he didn't win worlds quad falling.
Last edited by bekalc; 11-01-2010 at 04:15 PM.
I am a couch potato, too. And I don't even know how to skate, whether on ice or on concrete. And in general, I agree with what you said. Those visible hiccups that interrupt the flow of the program bother me very much. In my own ideal world, they contribute to the "Deduction" category, e.g., two-foot -0.5, step-out -0.5, one hand down -0.5, wobble landing -0.5, minor stumble -0.5, both hands down -1, major stumble without fall -1, fall with quick recovery -1.5, fall with ugly, awkward, or long recovery -2. And the more hiccups a skater makes, the more severe the penalty should be: Deduction x 1.5 if 2 < D (the raw total deduction) < = 3, and x 2 if 3 < D < = 4, and x 3 if .......
PCS should be judged as if those hiccups never occur, so there will be no double penalty (because they have been accounted for in the Deduction category). TES remains the same principle as it is now. Will it constitute a double penalty for a hand down both in TES and in Deduction category? No, one (TES) is for the jump, the other (Deduction) reflects its impact on the program presentation as a whole. It is deducted for two different reasons. In other words, I see Deduction as an extension of PCS, which I will term as "PCS Deduction", in contrast to rule deduction (such as time violation, e.g.). It is just a thought from the view of a layman.
In dance, if your errors interrupt the flow of your program, you get dinged in PCS as well. Check out the Skate Canada FD thread for a look of what happens when a team has a bad competition vs a good competition. Arnold & Trojek did very well at Nebelhorn, but made more errors at Skate Canada in both the FD and SD. They lost points vs. Nebelhorn, in base value, GOE and PCS.
unlike most people here, it seems to me that the system works fine 90% of the time. MOst skaters are penalized harshly for falls on the quad and that is why almost nobody attempted them last year. I do like that they are worth more now and I like that so many of the men are trying them. What I do not like is how all rules go out the window when Chan takes the ice. No matter what he does, the judges worship at his feet. Does he have good chreography? Yes. Smooth edges and speed? Yes. But so do many other skaters, Rippon being one of them. Chan has yet to really prove himself to be consistant when it counts, a trait the judges usually appreciate with rewarding PCS. Jeremy Abbott has suffered cases of nerves when it mattered most and seems to be paying the price in PCS. no so with Chan. Chan does not get the flow out of his jumps that the japanese men get, and is re-using his program for the second year in a row (SP was used for two years, now LP is). Even Chan was stunned by his scores. Both Commentatros thought Oda was the winner.
If I were SC, I'd definitely make the most of my GP event to help the Canadians get good rankings have be well positioned for a GPF slot, even if it means taking on weaker skaters, especially from those seeded (though I imagine Lepisto would have placed better than Mao at NHK). Do you think USFSA should have Asada (current form not withstanding) and Ando at Skate America against Flatt instead of Lepisto and Kostner, two relatively inconsistent skaters? Or either D/W / V/M and P/B at CoR against I/K and B/S? With F/S and the Kerrs, they have a good shot at Silver, maybe even Gold if F/S makes mistakes, which isn't unheard of. With the former combination, it'll probably be Bronze. Really, as long as the federations play by the rules, I'm perfectly fine with whoever they pick. SC isn't the only one playing the game.
^ In most years, host federations are limited in how much they can water down the field to help their own skaters. The year after the Olympics typically features a lot of retirements from the top ranks, but under the rules each Grand Prix event must have one of the top three from the previous worlds and one of 4th through 6th.
Plus, skaters meeting certain qualifications are guaranteed two GP events, so host federations often have no choice but to invite a strong field.