I used to love the COP | Page 5 | Golden Skate

I used to love the COP

dorispulaski

Wicked Yankee Girl
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Country
United-States
I surely know that Sherwin Williams has a hundred shades of white :)

And that my success rate matching them by eye is low.

Thank goodness they have that paint analysis machine these days.
 
Last edited:

NMURA

Medalist
Joined
Jul 14, 2010
Let's not get carried away with how things would have turned out had the rules been different. You cannot fairly say that had the current rules been around during the Olympics, Mao would have done a solo 3A in the SP and won. When comparing such changes, you either do it ceteris paribus (other things equal) or allow everything else to adjust accordingly to the changes. So while Asada might have done a solo 3A in the SP in light of the new rules, you cannot assume that Kim would not have changed anything in her program or jump layout, either in the short or the long program, to remain competitive.

I was not carried away. Kim could include the 3Lo to counter Asada's "difficulty". Actually, the track record shows she has never landed a 3Lo in any competitions with Asada. Her "anxiety" and a likely fall could affect the PCS. Avoiding the 3Lo means no 2A-3T and lower base values (plus GOE). In either case, the judges would hesitate to give out more than outrageous PCS and GOE when Kim is skating before Asada.

The point is, the base value is more important now, and arbitrary uses of GOE can be checked to some extent. No more milking points with 3 2axels. Look at the juniors. All ladies qualified for JGPF have five different triples, and 5 of them have 3-3s. In last season, only Shelepen had them. The new rules made a visible change. Ladies need to master the full set of triples and 3-3s, and senior men need the quad to be competitive now.

The new CoP rules are rewarding effort, not result. That Patrick Chan could fall four times and still get so much credit for his quad and triple axel attempts is proof of this. My philosophy for a judging system is totally contrary to this. Results--not effort--should be rewarded. If that means not busting out an element you can't confidently and consistently execute with mastery, then that's a very good thing. Perhaps I'm just less tolerant of seeing mistakes, flaws and falls, but my gut feeling tells me it is an injustice that today's judging system would value Chan's quad with a fall equal to or more than Boitano's triple lutz.

"Effort" is very valuable. Programs with quads (or, 3A or 3-3s for ladies) require more stamina and concentration than easier ones. Higher PCS and somewhat generous GOE can be justified. Patrick Chan's quad attempt in the SP will encourage (force, more exactly) other men to follow the same path. If he is the one heralded the new quad era, a gifted gold medal at a small competition is not anything to fuss. IMO, a fallen quad is more valuable than point begging Rippon lutz.
 

evangeline

Record Breaker
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
"Effort" is very valuable. Programs with quads (or, 3A or 3-3s for ladies) require more stamina and concentration than easier ones. Higher PCS and somewhat generous GOE can be justified. Patrick Chan's quad attempt in the SP will encourage (force, more exactly) other men to follow the same path. If he is the one heralded the new quad era, a gifted gold medal at a small competition is not anything to fuss. IMO, a fallen quad is more valuable than point begging Rippon lutz.

I completely disagree. A fall on a quad is more valuable than a perfectly done, double-tano 3Lz? Please. What's wrong with Adam's lutz, anyways? It's an impressive feat and I don't see how it's more "point begging" than the quad.

And let's see if Patrick lands another quad before we anoint him as The One Who Heralded the New Quad Era. Right now he has a 50% success rate, which isn't all that impressive, especially if he keeps on skating messy programs. And besides, I don't see the advent of a new quad era anyway. Skaters were incorporating the quad into the programs long before this year's rule changes.
 

lycan

Rinkside
Joined
Oct 8, 2010
I was not carried away. Kim could include the 3Lo to counter Asada's "difficulty". Actually, the track record shows she has never landed a 3Lo in any competitions with Asada. Her "anxiety" and a likely fall could affect the PCS. Avoiding the 3Lo means no 2A-3T and lower base values (plus GOE). In either case, the judges would hesitate to give out more than outrageous PCS and GOE when Kim is skating before Asada.

i guess that "anxiety" didn't show at the olympics when she had sooo much pressure from her country. you're assuming that she will crack because she's not doing the 3loop in the actual competition. it's just a "what if" theory. i think orser and her team would have prepared her for that.
 

NMURA

Medalist
Joined
Jul 14, 2010
i guess that "anxiety" didn't show at the olympics when she had sooo much pressure from her country. you're assuming that she will crack because she's not doing the 3loop in the actual competition. it's just a "what if" theory. i think orser and her team would have prepared her for that.

I'm talking about the different scenario. Kim had a 5 point lead and she didn't need the incredibly difficult 3Lo. She has no reason to be "anxious". I understand the judges appreciate "confidence".
 

lycan

Rinkside
Joined
Oct 8, 2010
I'm talking about the different scenario. Kim had a 5 point lead and she didn't need the incredibly difficult 3Lo. She has no reason to be "anxious". I understand the judges appreciate "confidence".

like what Krislite said on her post, yuna and her team woud have prepared her for the rules if it was implemented.
 

NMURA

Medalist
Joined
Jul 14, 2010
I completely disagree. A fall on a quad is more valuable than a perfectly done, double-tano 3Lz? Please. What's wrong with Adam's lutz, anyways? It's an impressive feat and I don't see how it's more "point begging" than the quad.

And let's see if Patrick lands another quad before we anoint him as The One Who Heralded the New Quad Era. Right now he has a 50% success rate, which isn't all that impressive, especially if he keeps on skating messy programs. And besides, I don't see the advent of a new quad era anyway. Skaters were incorporating the quad into the programs long before this year's rule changes.

Rippon is doing tano-Lutz three times. One of them is a tano-tano-tano combination. That's too much. He gives the impression of a point begger than a technical master. Some of the judges may feel the same way. He'd better getting serious about the quad, if he wants to be competitive at the top level.

A fallen quad worths 6.3 point now. The base value of a 3lutz is 6 points. I'd like to see more quad attempts than beautiful triples. Patrick Chan is a good demonstration that it "pays".

like what Krislite said on her post, yuna and her team woud have prepared her for the rules if it was implemented.

Preparing is one thing. Landing the incredibly difficult jump actually under the most tense situation is another.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
^ Me, too.

But about the Skating Skills component, on that one for once I do think that the ISU rules are pretty clear as to what they are talking about:

“Balance and rhythmic knee action and precision of foot placement..

“Flow and effortless glide.

“Cleanness and sureness of deep edges, steps and turns

“Power/energy and acceleration.

“Mastery of multi-directional skating.

“Mastery of one-foot skating.

(I’m not 100% sure on the “rhythmic knee action,” but I think I understand the rest to some extent.)
A good list if this is what is shown as bullets although most of the list is common sense. However, there are probably more items regarding Skills that are not listed. Much of the athletics show skills including one foot mastery, e.g. take-off and landing of a jump. To do a difficult jump (e.g. Lutz) are the skills working? Likewise on a convoluted spin is it centered? So much of skills is carried in the definitions. I would leave Skating Ability to stroking and turning on the ice although Seniors should not have a problem with stroking and basic turns. One could admire Laura Lepisto's stroking and basics under Interpretation.

Oops... rhythmic knee action, I presume to be the old 'soft knee landings'. A look at Oda's jump landings explains it all. He completes the jump without 'selling it'. It's just plain old skate-by-definition. But other skaters get excited when they land a difficult jump and show it with some sort of reaction, e.g. flexing an arm. Oda's jump looks like a dance step, the selling jump looks like a trick. One can choose between the two.
 
Last edited:

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
A good list if this is what is shown as bullets although most of the list is common sense. However, there are probably more items regarding Skills that are not listed.

That's the list of what is officially considered in Skating Skills. Those are the things that every judge is supposed to consider. The references to edges can apply to jump takeoffs and landings, but those are only 10 or 20 edges out of hundreds throughout the program.

Spins are not really about the edges, so that wouldn't apply.

Oops... rhythmic knee action, I presume to be the old 'soft knee landings'.

Rhythmic knee action refers to the action of the knees throughout the stroking, including crossovers, and steps.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
i guess that "anxiety" didn't show at the olympics...

:thumbsup: I love what-ifs. Actually, I am pretty sure that if the rules had been different then Yu-na's "anxiety" on her triple loop would have caused a surge of adrenalin and she woiuld have done a quad loop instead of a tripl;e. Thus beating the competition by thirty points instead of a paltry twenty. ;)
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
I actually really like CoP. I don't think the system is at fault; it's the messy judging and rewarding scores not according to the requirements, but to the skaters' reputation.

Which I think there is less of with this system than the old system.

The system is never going to be perfect. If it ever got tweaked to satisfy one person completely, everyone else would find at least one thing to be dissatisfied with.

Even when/if the system ever gets as satisfying to as broad a range of stakeholders as it possibly could be, everyone will always have some quibbles they don't like about some of the specific current rules. But we can dislike specific rules without giving up on the system as a whole.

And even when/if the system itself ever gets as satisfying as it possibly could be, we're never going to agree with all the judges at every competition, so whenever we disagree with most of the judges we won't like the results, but that doesn't mean the fault is in the system. Maybe there was bad judging at that particular event. Maybe our evaluation of the judging and what should have happened instead is where the fault lies. Or maybe it's just an honest disagreement and everyone is "right."

A fallen quad worths 6.3 point now. The base value of a 3lutz is 6 points. I'd like to see more quad attempts than beautiful triples.

So a good 3Lz would be worth more than a fallen 4T. An enhanced 3Lz (difficult entry, difficult air position, etc.) would be worth more than a fallen 4T. A very good and also enhanced 3Lz, deserving of +3 GOE, would be worth several points more than a fallen 4T.

And a just-OK or almost-OK 4T would be worth more than the best possible 3Lz.

And the skater who can pull off both will have a big advantage over the skater who can't do any excellent and/or enhanced triple jumps or who can't rotate a quad at all.

That all seems to me as it should be.

The real point of controversy is whether the rotated fallen quad should in fact be worth more than the just-adequate plain 3Lz. I'm not sure what I personally think about that point.
 

NMURA

Medalist
Joined
Jul 14, 2010
again you're assuming that she won't deliver... who knows?!? :laugh:

IIRC, Kim's Vancouver FS is the only clean FS of her career. And of course, it doesn't include the incredibly difficult jump. Yes, I assume she couldn't deliver with that.

The real point of controversy is whether the rotated fallen quad should in fact be worth more than the just-adequate plain 3Lz. I'm not sure what I personally think about that point.

I think that's OK, as long as the rule encourages men to attempt the quad in the SP. In due course, only skaters with consistent quads will remain at the top.

In fact, Rippon has contributed a rule change before. After Rippon's 3A-less win at Jr worlds, a solo 3A was finally allowed in Jr men's SP. Two years later, three 3A's are needed to win a medal at Jr worlds.
 
Last edited:

jaylee

Medalist
Joined
Feb 21, 2010
Actually, the track record shows [Yu-Na] has never landed a 3Lo in any competitions with Asada.

This statement is incorrect (see 2004 JGPF SP, 2005 Junior Worlds QR). But in any case, what does it matter if a jump is landed at a competition where another competitor appears? So since Patrick landed a quad at Skate Canada, but Brian Joubert wasn't there to see it, it didn't happen? It doesn't exist? :think:

In either case, the judges would hesitate to give out more than outrageous PCS and GOE when Kim is skating before Asada.

The point is, the base value is more important now, and arbitrary uses of GOE can be checked to some extent.

I get the distinct impression that you think PCS and GOE is "outrageous" and "arbitrary" only in relation to a skater that you are clearly hostile to. :scowl:

IIRC, Kim's Vancouver FS is the only clean FS of her career. And of course, it doesn't include the incredibly difficult jump. Yes, I assume she couldn't deliver with that.

Define "clean." Not falling? Not receiving a downgrade? Not popping? Including all five basic triples? Even if your answer to these questions is "yes" to all of the above, Yu-Na has done that more than a few times (Cup of Russia 2007, 2006 Korean Nationals, 2005 JGPF off the top of my head). If you mean clean as in not falling, she has far more clean FS performances than just Vancouver. But I'm sure you'll keep tailoring your definition of "clean" uniquely so you can hammer home Yu-Na's limitations. Perhaps Cup of Russia 2007 doesn't count as a "clean performance" because Asada wasn't there.

I wasn't aware that a triple loop was considered an "incredibly difficult jump." Every skater has their tricky jump for them, and it happens to be Yu-Na's. It's not an isolated case; Mirai does not have a consistent salchow (very Yamaguchi-like of her); Mao did not include her lutz, salchow at the Olympics. (Psst. By the way, the Olympics are over.) I'm curious to see how Mirai will adjust her layout to the new rules, since last season she had three double axels and no salchow.

---

Back on topic, in terms of what's good and bad about the COP...I would definitely love some kind of bonus for the five basic triples for the ladies, juniors and seniors (or perhaps all six edge take-offs, allowing doubles to fulfill the requirement?). :cool: Or a flat-out requirement that all of the triples be attempted in the LP. *shrug* I know it didn't pass before, but still...

I like COP, I find it far easier to understand than 6.0. I understand that it is constantly evolving and as they try to address certain issues (the quad being undervalued), they create another (the quad+fall is now overvalued). I get that. The biggest problem with COP--as well as any scoring system in figure skating history--is simply the gap between the audience perspective/casual judging of a performance and the judge's knowledgable perspective and thus the results of the competition. It's always been a problem, but has that gap widened or decreased under COP?

After going over the results and everyone's arguments for Skate Canada, I understand the case for Patrick Chan being on the podium and agree with his PCS being higher than everyone else's. But CoP also takes some (not all) of the excitement out of the FS and the importance of the SP/required elements, in more than a few ways. Under 6.0, it was winner take all if you won the FS for the top 3, so you had to do well in the SP if you wanted to "control your own destiny," and you still had to win the FS in order to win overall. That's no longer the same, hence Patrick can bounce back from his 4th place SP finish to win everything, which then perplexes many considering he had 4 falls overall.

The other way the excitement is sapped is when a skater landing all their jumps thrills the audience, and is dinged with underrotations and edge calls and receives a score quite lower than expected. I'm not saying that edge calls and UR shouldn't be punished. They should be. But that is where I see the divide, between the impact of obvious errors on the audience (a fall) and the errors that only a judge and technical panel with a HD camera can catch. There will always be (and there should be) a gap, but I don't think that divide should be TOO wide, and I freely admit I don't know where to draw the line. I don't know what to think about, say, Sarah Hughes, who thrilled the home crowd and audiences watching on television in SLC 2002; I am not entirely sure how COP would've treated that skate, though I can guess. Under 6.0, it ended being a magical night for her...under COP, it would have been quite confusing for everybody. But considering the amount of debate about SLC ladies afterwards, that is just one example that 6.0 didn't always produce clearly understandable results either.

I know that back in the days of figures and Janet Lynn there were always discussions over the results, why the audience was confused that such a beautiful skater could never be in contention to win a major title due to figures. I think that confusion over results was there under later versions of 6.0, and it is still there with the modern version of CoP, and cases like Skate Canada show that it's even increased. The more things change...
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Back on topic, in terms of what's good and bad about the COP...I would definitely love some kind of bonus for the five basic triples for the ladies, juniors and seniors (or perhaps all six edge take-offs, allowing doubles to fulfill the requirement?). :cool:

That would make sense.

Or a flat-out requirement that all of the triples be attempted in the LP.

Definitely not that. It's hard enough getting some of the bottom-ranked senior ladies even to attempt the required triples in the short program. Many of the middle-ranked seniors, even some who do well at senior B internationals, only have two, three, or four different triples.

And they may be too old for juniors. So basically you'd be saying, if you're over 19 and can't attempt five different triples, you're not allowed to compete in singles figure skating. Even if you have great skating skills and great spins and two or three pretty good triples. Even if your orthopedist gave the OK to return to training after an injury provided you never again attempt a specific jump. Even if you're the best skater in your country, maybe the best skater your country ever had, and are capable of beating skaters who have all the triples but not much else. Sorry, this sport is only for the elite of the elite, or the not-quite-elite skater who happens to have a knack for triple jumps.

Sure, maybe offer a bonus for attempting all the different triples, or better yet for completing them all with no worse than -1 GOE. Or build in some other kind of incentive for skaters to try them all if they can. But I would hate for skaters to be unwelcome in senior-level competition just because they lack one or two or three of the harder jumps.

The biggest problem with COP--as well as any scoring system in figure skating history--is simply the gap between the audience perspective/casual judging of a performance and the judge's knowledgable perspective and thus the results of the competition. It's always been a problem, but has that gap widened or decreased under COP?

Probably depends on each audience member. Do they go out of their way to learn about the sport by reading or going to the rink, or do they rely only on what they can learn from TV? Are they inclined to believe that results they don't understand represent a problem with the judging (bias, cheating, incompetence, or whatever) or the limitations of their own knowledge of the sport?

There were always competitions where performances fans saw as cleanest, most difficult, or most enjoyable lost to performances that were more obviously flawed. And there was always a tendency to blame that discrepancy on bad judging.

Personally, I found that once I started really studying the sport I understood more and more of the results based on the skating, even when I didn't necessarily agree.

The question is, do audiences want to become educated about the technical details of the sport, or do they want to sit back on their couches, enjoy the pretty skating, maybe count the jumps and the falls, and believe they know more than the judges about who deserves to win.

For the television audience, the tone of the commentary can make a big difference in how the audience perceives the results. Do the commentators respect the judging and also respect the audience's intelligence? Do they focus only on a few obvious points or do they delve into the more subtle details? Do they set up their own opinions as arbiters of good skating and more valuable than the judges', or do they

In the old system, good commentary could look at multiple points of view about how to compare different programs at the same level and offer arguments in favor of both the winner and the runner up. In the new system, it's more valuable to look at where each skater gained or lost points, both in technical content as called by the technical panel and in execution of the elements and various aspects of the program as a whole as scored by the judges.

Once audiences have that knowledge, then there's room for debate over whether the scale of values or other rules should be changed to favor certain skills less or more, whether technical calls on some borderline elements could have gone the other way and produced a different final result, whether judges as individuals or as a group were favoring certain qualities from certain skaters more than many observers thought appropriate. Much better to be able to identify whether the disagreements are with the rules or with the technical panel officials or with the judging officials than just lumping them all together. Good commentary should be able to make those distinctions for the viewers.

Under 6.0, it was winner take all if you won the FS for the top 3, so you had to do well in the SP if you wanted to "control your own destiny," and you still had to win the FS in order to win overall. That's no longer the same, hence Patrick can bounce back from his 4th place SP finish to win everything, which then perplexes many considering he had 4 falls overall.

Even if you don't "control your own destiny" from 4th place after the short, you can still win as long as someone else also beats the short program winner in the long program.

Rippon beat Oda in the long. Chan would still have won Skate Canada under factored placements.

The other way the excitement is sapped is when a skater landing all their jumps thrills the audience, and is dinged with underrotations and edge calls and receives a score quite lower than expected. I'm not saying that edge calls and UR shouldn't be punished. They should be. But that is where I see the divide, between the impact of obvious errors on the audience (a fall) and the errors that only a judge and technical panel with a HD camera can catch. There will always be (and there should be) a gap, but I don't think that divide should be TOO wide, and I freely admit I don't know where to draw the line.

I think the line is drawn in a better place this year than it used to be, now that jumps with 91-179 degree rotation get 70% of the base value instead of getting downgraded completely. That was one of my pet peeves with the system before this year. It should now be less common for an apparently clean and superior performance to lose just because of a few somewhat cheated jumps.
 

Krislite

Medalist
Joined
Sep 22, 2010
[...]

So a good 3Lz would be worth more than a fallen 4T. An enhanced 3Lz (difficult entry, difficult air position, etc.) would be worth more than a fallen 4T. A very good and also enhanced 3Lz, deserving of +3 GOE, would be worth several points more than a fallen 4T.

And a just-OK or almost-OK 4T would be worth more than the best possible 3Lz.

And the skater who can pull off both will have a big advantage over the skater who can't do any excellent and/or enhanced triple jumps or who can't rotate a quad at all.

That all seems to me as it should be.

The real point of controversy is whether the rotated fallen quad should in fact be worth more than the just-adequate plain 3Lz. I'm not sure what I personally think about that point.

Actually, the rules do not say that fallen 4T is worth 6.3 points. The new rules on GOE only require that the final GOE be reduced by 3 points from where it otherwise would be without the fall, and must be negative. So the highest value a fallen 4T gets is BV+GOE+Deduction = 10.3+(-1)+(-1) = 8.3. On the other hand, the best possible triple lutz is BV + 0.7*GOE = 6.0 + 2.1 = 8.1.

So yes, a fallen quad can still be worth more than the very best triple lutz.
 

jaylee

Medalist
Joined
Feb 21, 2010
All great points, gkelly. Thank you for taking the time to respond to my post.

Definitely not that. It's hard enough getting some of the bottom-ranked senior ladies even to attempt the required triples in the short program. Many of the middle-ranked seniors, even some who do well at senior B internationals, only have two, three, or four different triples.
...
Sure, maybe offer a bonus for attempting all the different triples, or better yet for completing them all with no worse than -1 GOE. Or build in some other kind of incentive for skaters to try them all if they can. But I would hate for skaters to be unwelcome in senior-level competition just because they lack one or two or three of the harder jumps.

Understood. I just sort of threw that out there to see what kind of response it would get. Now I know. Heh. ;) I like the idea of a bonus for completing all triples with -1 GOE.

Personally, I found that once I started really studying the sport I understood more and more of the results based on the skating, even when I didn't necessarily agree.

As just a casual fan, I also find the protocols that are provided under CoP much easier to understand and over the years, I was able to learn a lot more by comparing the protocols to the performance, and then reading up on the online debate.

I learn very little from the media reports of the competitions though. They rarely offer any genuine insight into why a result happened.

In the new system, it's more valuable to look at where each skater gained or lost points, both in technical content as called by the technical panel and in execution of the elements and various aspects of the program as a whole as scored by the judges.

The broadcasts, have, from time to time, shown short segments that explain what is a cheated jump and other key parts of the scoring system, and made attempts to explain why such-and-such result happened, but I feel they need to do them over and over again at every competition. Build up a whole library of these segments that tie into the current scoring sytem and host them online. That would help educate people.

I thought NBC did a great job with the Olympics website for skating. They had the "You be the judge" section that walked the user through the scoring system (it was quite hilarious to see whom the American users of this knocked off the podium and placed there instead, but for quite a few placements, it was the same), as well as the side by side comparison for the ladies that showed how Yu-Na and Mao received the GOE for each of their elements.

Even if you don't "control your own destiny" from 4th place after the short, you can still win as long as someone else also beats the short program winner in the long program.

Rippon beat Oda in the long. Chan would still have won Skate Canada under factored placements.

True, I forgot about that, since Rippon and Oda were just about tied in the FS points wise.

Sorry, my argument was a bit muddled there when I mentioned Skate Canada, since that inspired this whole discussion. (I'm not a Patrick hater; I've seen him live and was very impressed by his flow/edges/skating skills, it was simply gorgeous.) I understand the argument for why Patrick won.

I'll have to think about this more, but there is something about the way factored placements worked under 6.0, with the general pressure on everyone to place in the top 3 of the SP, with continuing pressure to win the FS to win overall (though of course there were ways to win without fulfilling both of these criteria, depending on how everyone else did) that generated excitement unique to the SP and unique to the LP that I liked, and doesn't exist in the same exact way under CoP.

That doesn't mean I want 6.0 back...I just liked that aspect.

I think the line is drawn in a better place this year than it used to be, now that jumps with 91-179 degree rotation get 70% of the base value instead of getting downgraded completely. That was one of my pet peeves with the system before this year. It should now be less common for an apparently clean and superior performance to lose just because of a few somewhat cheated jumps.

I understand the need to tweak, and I think the UR/DG rules are a move in the right direction. I do wonder if the line will always keep moving. You mentioned the need for audiences to be educated, and well, it is a bit of a challenge to become educated in the basic rules of figure skating in addition to keeping up to date with the rule changes every other season. All sports have changes ongoing, but we don't see the NFL saying that a touchdown is now worth 8 points this season, and then changing it to 10 points the next. :frown:
 
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
The question of bonus came up earlier in the debut of CoP. We have never seen one, afaik. It's never been explained as to what determins a bonus except that it should be unusual. Also, what will the reward be. It doesn't have a base value for a GoE.

Maybe it's better to let sleeping dogs lye and not wake them up.
 

Krislite

Medalist
Joined
Sep 22, 2010
I was not carried away. Kim could include the 3Lo to counter Asada's "difficulty". Actually, the track record shows she has never landed a 3Lo in any competitions with Asada. [FALSE] Her "anxiety" and a likely fall could affect the PCS. Avoiding the 3Lo means no 2A-3T and lower base values (plus GOE). In either case, the judges would hesitate to give out more than outrageous PCS and GOE when Kim is skating before Asada.

Kim could have done more than just fix her triple loop and include it in her program. During the practice runs in Vancouver she was landing both 3Lz+3T and 3F+3T, so she was easily capable of two triple triples.*

I'm sorry, but blaming Asada's loss on the rules is just making excuses. Asada had ample opportunity and ability to be competitive against Kim under the old rules. She could have fixed her flutz and her salchow. She could have done two triple triples and repeated both the triple lutz and the triple axel. Had she done that, she could have won against Kim, but she didn't do it. Asada and her team made costly miscalculations and mistakes.

The point is, the base value is more important now, and arbitrary uses of GOE can be checked to some extent. No more milking points with 3 2axels. Look at the juniors. All ladies qualified for JGPF have five different triples, and 5 of them have 3-3s. In last season, only Shelepen had them. The new rules made a visible change. Ladies need to master the full set of triples and 3-3s, and senior men need the quad to be competitive now.

Look, there are aspects of the new rules I do agree with, such as the smaller penalty for under rotations and the 2 double axel limits. But there are many others I highly dislike. I don't agree that the new rules necessarily encourage more 3x3's or a complete set of triples. Under the old rules both Yu-Na and Mao were doing 5 triples (and Asada the 3A) and 3x3's in competition when they were right out of juniors.

Newcomers are doing more 3x3's but that's very recent and in only a few competitions under the new rules, and who's to say it's because of the new rules or because Yu-na dominated the last 2 years and she was practically the only one doing 3x3's? The new rules may seem less punitive of under-rotations but already the judges are showing how much more "<" calls they're making because of it. I suspect some ladies will lose their 3x3's under the now less forgiving tech panel.

"Effort" is very valuable. Programs with quads (or, 3A or 3-3s for ladies) require more stamina and concentration than easier ones. Higher PCS and somewhat generous GOE can be justified. Patrick Chan's quad attempt in the SP will encourage (force, more exactly) other men to follow the same path. If he is the one heralded the new quad era, a gifted gold medal at a small competition is not anything to fuss. IMO, a fallen quad is more valuable than point begging Rippon lutz.

A quad splat fest is not my idea of an good figure skating competition. I'll just disagree with you here on what a good program consist of.

---------------
*(Her "anxiety" about her triple flip didn't affect the judges' marks her PCS, and let me remind you she skated before Asada. And no, Avoiding the 3L does not mean no 2A+3T either. And you are wrong to say she never landed the 3L while competing against Asada.)
 

miki88

Medalist
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Why are we still talking about the Olympics? * Yawn *

I think there should be an automatic deduction in the execution and interpretiation sections of the PCS whenever there are multiple falls in a program (like over one). These factors are tied into the spectator point of view of the performance and they should definitely reflect what is seen on the ice when mutilple splats occur.
 
Last edited:
Top