This is where my head totally implodes. The difficulty in ranking (or awarding points and thus declaring 1st to least best programs) a hard program with mistakes versus a good but easy program is something that I understand to be a real issue, but can't figure out "what to do with." I, too, feel that two not very good programs, even if not very good in different ways, are simply not very good. But it is figuring out how to put one of the not good above the other that troubles me (and yes, there could be a numerical tie, but then there will be criteria to break that tie); and then more, how to put a crazy difficult program with lot's of "plus points" and lot's of mistakes in this mix too. Perhaps this scenario is rare; but as it applies to Chan now, it means that unless he starts landing his jumps cleanly, we will continue to see the dilemma and ponder what to tdo (and we have seen versions of this before too, so it is not just one skater or the exception to an otherwise problem free rule).
So, I think I "hear" mathman saying, fall on jumps should be 0 for the element. But, I suspect gkelly will point out there is more to the jump than then landing AND in so doing, we will end up with easier jump content winning over more difficult. So, I think my question to gkelly is (but to all as well), is there an obvious out? Is there a way to not have a 3 fall short program no matter how spectacular the rest of the content ends up on the podium? Or do you (all readers) feel that nothing should limit the possibilities of who wins...or...?
If this is unclear, I will just say that I think Chan to be a spectacular crazy good - excellent even - skater - his stroking and edgework, I feel, are among the best of the best if not the best of those out there today. But, it was really hard as a fan to watch those 3 falls in the sp and see him on the podium; that he was ontop just didn't feel right. And, I'm trying NOT to just 'react' but understand...So, thanks for any insight.