it doesn't matter what system.. we always find a way to complain..
it doesn't matter what system.. we always find a way to complain..
But there are differences. Some skaters get to the top 10 with adequate-senior-level skating skills and lots of clean/difficult jumps. Others who make it to top 10 have quite good skating skills, and a very tiny handful have excellent skating skills.When we are looking for a champion, the top ten skaters easily have good edges, etc. and that should not be the point of Skating Skills.
If it's appropriate to distinguish between inadequate and adequate basic skating, then why not between adequate and excellent?
But then you'd have skaters who often fall on triple jumps choosing to do doubles instead in the LP, and you'd have skaters medaling with more doubles than triples (cf. Lepisto last year).
Suppose that only two skaters manage to skate clean programs with 7+ triple or quad jumps, and they take silver and gold.
Which would or should cause more outrage -- bronze going to a skater who skates clean but only attempts 3 triples or to a skater who attempts 6 or 7 triples but falls on 2 or 3?
At a ladies' Grand Prix event, that might be the choice even for gold.
Should the sport reward risk or lack of disruptive mistakes?
That's the debate that keeps going back and forth. There needs to be a way to balance out both sides, which is why the rules keep getting tweaked one way and then the other. But whatever rules are in place, there will always sometimes be occasions when decisions come down to clean program vs. difficult program. The jump content might cancel out between the two programs and other elements or components may be the deciding factors.
As long as the contest is being billed as skating contest and not just a jumping contest (or a staying vertical contest), I'm happy with Skating Skills being a deciding factor.
Why do you think "skating skills" is an unfortunate name for, well, skating skills? What would you call it instead? Something like Stroking and Edgework?
Last edited by gkelly; 11-01-2010 at 02:18 PM.
2009 TEB FS
ASADA 115 (TES 55.1) -> 121.6 (61.6)
KIM 134 (TES 67.6) -> 130.2 (63.8)
2009 Worlds FS
ASADA 122.0 (TES 60.2) -> 124.6 (62.8)
KIM 131.6 (TES 63.2) -> 127.6 (59.2)
The final placements of LA worlds change to Kim > Ando > Asada > Rochette
Last edited by NMURA; 11-01-2010 at 01:38 PM.
So what is the point of this? As an argument against the original poster's hate of the new CoP? Bringing up another Kim vs. Asada argument?
Please don't do that. Each skater has their own problematic jump. Kim is not consistent with the triple loop, but Asada herself has problems with the lutz (which she omitted entirely last season) and the salchow.
"Stroking and Edgework" would be fine.
Anyway, whatever we call it, this component is fine, especially when we consider that the scoring system must be appropriate for the whole range of skaters and skating competitions. I can easily imagine an intermediate whose coach tells him, OK, you got a 3.2 for Skating Skills in your last competition. Today we are going to work on stroking and more efficient acceleration.
The component that I have the most trouble understanding is Performance and Execution. "Performance" is OK -- it means the "Ta-da!" factor (or the "Aw, aint that purdy" factor.) But execution ought to mean something like, did the skater carry out his planned program or not? If you plan a triple Lutz but then bail with a double, you haver not "executed" your program.
Then there is the problem of how P&E relates to CH. You could have the world's greatest choreography, but be unable to execute it.
I am not overly worried about this scenario. When two programs are not-very-good, but not-very-good in different ways, then no outcome is particularly satisfying. That's life.Originally Posted by gkelly
Personally, I would give the nod to the Laura Lepisto easy clean program. But the big jumper, even if the rules were changed to zero on the falls, could still win by landing his other hard jumps. Quad (fall), 3A (fall) 3 Lz (OK), 3 F (OK) would still score higher than 3S, 2A, 2Lz, 2 Lo.
Last edited by Mathman; 11-01-2010 at 02:16 PM.
Cool.Originally Posted by mathman
I don't think it loses relevance at the top levels either, though.
You have a senior skater who gets 7.2 for skating skills and comes in 4th, perhaps with the cleanest or most difficult jumps. That's a good score for senior level, this skater is clearly a strong basic skater. But if s/he is losing to skaters who get 8.2, there is obviously room for improvement, to make up the difference between "very good" and "great."
Patrick Chan's scoring is questionable. But I appreciate his quad attempts (and one success). The quadless men like Rippon will face difficulty of even winning GPS. More men are doing the quads, and more ladies are doing 3-3s. I think the new rules are better than the older ones. The COP is developing into the positive way.
Despite many changes in technical aspects, the PCS part is untouched. Rather, cutting down of technical elements and +GOE have raised the weight of the PCS. If people's resentment to Patrick Chan Scores continue to rise, there could be some "positive" changes after this season.
I personally prefer flawed programs with more technical difficulties to clean programs with easier contents. The rules that make men like Lysacek or Rippon can't win are "positive", I can understand American fans' frustrations though.
Last edited by janetfan; 11-01-2010 at 04:19 PM.
"So what is the point of this? As an argument against the original poster's hate of the new CoP? Bringing up another Kim vs. Asada argument?"
I'm the original poster, and I don't hate the COP. In fact, i used to like it a lot!
But this year I have seen a lot of "holding people up because they are famous", imo. I mean Carolina doesn't do the hardest jumps and lands even the easier ones not quite right (understandable, due to her knee) and she beats Rachael? I know, CK is faster and more beautiful and RF underrotated and had one step out. But does anyone think if an unknown skated CK's program she would have won? Would they have given a break to a newcomer with a bad knee? I seriously doubt it.
Enough has been said about Patrick Chan's short program. There's nothing I can add. As for other controversies--when it's two clean, excellent programs (as the gold and silvers were in all disciplines in the Olympics, iirc), well, it can go either way. A case could be made in all four disciplines (in the Olympics) that the silver coulda/shoulda/woulda been the gold and vice versa. But there was nothing egregiously bad in that scoring because the gold medalists actually skated extremely well.
What I saw in these Grand Prix's is stars being held up when they don't skate well. And I didn't see that the first few years of the COP. Maybe it's better this way. Maybe interest was waning when the stars lost to upstarts who disappeared a year later, idk. But the veneer of fairness of this new system is fading.
E.g., look at the short program from NHK. Murakami, a newcomer to the senior circuit, beat top-10 senior Flatt on the strength of GOEs and PCS (her 3-3 was underrotated so she ended up with slightly lower technical base score than Flatt had).
In the long program Murakami had many underrotations and other mistakes, and she still (barely) beat Flatt on PCS.
She didn't get those scores because of reputation. She sure did look faster, though. (I won't comment on beauty, which is in the eye of the beholder. )
I want an Ice Dance Oly champ... or another repeat champion (*ahem* Lysacek, take note, you're the only one with that ability at teh moment seeing as how you are the reigning champ).
honestly I don't care what country does it, I just want to see a two time (consecutive) olympic champ!
I don't think the judges really cares if a top 10 girl loses to a newcomer. But they do pretty much care about holding up favorites. Just look at the difference Chan got in GOES in his spins in the short program vs the long. Its ridiculous.
Last edited by bekalc; 11-01-2010 at 05:47 PM.