Page 7 of 12 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 172

Thread: I used to love the COP

  1. #91
    On the Ice
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by NMURA View Post


    Preparing is one thing. Landing the incredibly difficult jump actually under the most tense situation is another.
    again you're assuming that she won't deliver... who knows?!?

  2. #92
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,935
    Quote Originally Posted by inskate View Post
    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."

    Quote Originally Posted by NMURA View Post
    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.

  3. #93
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,060
    Quote Originally Posted by lycan View Post
    again you're assuming that she won't deliver... who knows?!?
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    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 by NMURA; 11-02-2010 at 11:28 AM.

  4. #94
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    838
    Quote Originally Posted by NMURA View Post
    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?

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by NMURA View Post
    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?). 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...

  5. #95
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,935
    Quote Originally Posted by jaylee View Post
    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?).
    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.

  6. #96
    Six Point Zero Krislite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Yunaverse
    Posts
    1,552
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    [...]

    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.

  7. #97
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    838
    All great points, gkelly. Thank you for taking the time to respond to my post.

    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View 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.

  8. #98
    Custom Title Joesitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    20,185
    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.

  9. #99
    Six Point Zero Krislite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Yunaverse
    Posts
    1,552
    Quote Originally Posted by NMURA View Post
    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.)

  10. #100
    Mashimaro on Ice
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,419
    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 by miki88; 11-02-2010 at 06:06 PM.

  11. #101
    Custom Title hurrah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,148
    Quote Originally Posted by Krislite View Post
    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.
    I think it ought to be that a cheated quad is slightly worth more than the very best triple lutz.

    A fall on any jump should be worth zero, because if someone fell on a jump, there was already something fundamentally wrong with the take off, which would mean there was something wrong with the air position.

  12. #102
    On the Ice
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    28
    [QUOTE=miki88;525439]Why are we still talking about the Olympics? * Yawn *

    You better ask to NMURA. Do you think he/she is really Maofan? just curious.

  13. #103
    Six Point Zero Krislite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Yunaverse
    Posts
    1,552
    Quote Originally Posted by hurrah View Post
    I think it ought to be that a cheated quad is slightly worth more than the very best triple lutz.
    I agree with you here, 3.5 to 3.75 revolutions is still greater than 3 revolutions, assuming the cheated quad was landed.

    A fall on any jump should be worth zero, because if someone fell on a jump, there was already something fundamentally wrong with the take off, which would mean there was something wrong with the air position.
    A fall on a 4T gets you between 6.3 and 8.3 points, more than any decent triple besides a triple axel. That's a travesty, I think. While I don't think the value should be zero, it should be pretty low.

    Personally I think the judging system should be more punitive towards falls and less on under-rotations. Falls are far more disruptive and it's obvious even to the layman that there is a flaw in the execution when a skater falls.

  14. #104
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    428
    "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."

    I completely agree, Jaylee, and I'm glad they changed the rule. It seemed unfair that you got less points doing a clean "double and two-thirds than you did if you fell but went around twice. Many people will become educated about the sport. There are people who can watch a baseball game and know what pitch was thrown, and know when the infield should play in, and when to call the bunt sign, and which way does so-and-so drive the ball, and when you should pitch inside, etc. However, if you don't reach that level of knowledge, you can still follow the game. You see the ball go out, it's a home run. Only in rare circumstances (like a ball getting caught in a dome, or fan interference) is it overruled.

    What we have in some cases in figure skating is someone who looks great (as Jaylee mentioned), only to lose to someone who didn't look so great based on technicalities that the casual fan can't see. There is no way that any education will convince me that butt on the ice is not as bad as landing a little bit early.

    Figure skating has to keep the integrity of the sport, but it also can't become such a niche sport that only the obsessed can understand the judge's decisions. It is a sport, and it is entertainment, and if people aren't entertained, as Joe (I think) pointed out elsewhere, the skaters will suffer in terms of endorsements and shows. Already it's been downgraded from the showy, basic-cable ESPN to the digital back-cable Universal Sports.

    As for Sarah, Jenny Kirk wrote in her blog that she landed all (or most) of her jumps that night. I don't know, and don't want to reopen an 8 year old fight, but she was magical that night, skating much better than she ever has before or since, and if Irina had beaten her on a "technicality," I would have thrown a pillow at the tv. (If Michelle had beaten her, I wouldn't have minded--well, I'm biased towards Michelle. )

  15. #105
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,060
    Quote Originally Posted by Krislite View Post
    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.
    There's no sense of doing two 3-3s point-wise. Kim stopped the 3F-3T because she can't avoid edge calls with that. The 2A-3T is easier and produces better GOE .

    I agree Asada has made many wrong decisions. Why didn't she attempt the 3F-3T, which gained +1.4 GOE at 2008 worlds. I suspect Kim's switch to the 3Lz-3T comes from the fear for Asada's 3F-3T. Abandoning the Lutz was totally unwise. A 3flutz is better than no lutz anyway. This decision must have given very bad impressions to the judges, and the rivals are benefited as a result. Many people complained her choices of music. Since this is not "Asada's faults" thread, I'd better stop here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Krislite View Post
    *(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.)
    Unlike the incredibly difficult 3loop, Kim is doing the not-so-easy flip jump at every competition. Her level of "anxiety" must be different. Sorry, I didn't waste time to check protocols of Jr competitions which I've never seen.

Page 7 of 12 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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