Page 10 of 14 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 LastLast
Results 136 to 150 of 198

Thread: Serious Question about Patrick Chan's skating ability compared to other skaters

  1. #136
    Custom Title Joesitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    20,185
    ^^ I think we are amending the rules of competition to include: Judges' Human Element; and Skaters' Height, and Reputation with a nod to tech and components.
    Last edited by Joesitz; 11-09-2010 at 02:35 PM.

  2. #137
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    27,077
    Quote Originally Posted by Joesitz View Post
    Is there a bullet in the PC scores for Judges-Are-Human?
    I think we can all agree that reputation and past results should not play a role in how a competition is scored. But I haven't heard any suggestions about what we can do to bring about better judging, except -- "make the judges do a better job."

    Well, we are all for that, of course.

  3. #138
    leave no stone unturned seniorita's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,579
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaana View Post
    Huh, I don´t get where you are coming from... Well, I´m trying to be more clear: I started to understand what judges saw in Chan´s skating and obviously started to see the same myself, gradually. That is why I became a fan. With some skaters one may become a fan at once and with some other skaters it takes a while.
    i was not quoting you and replying directly, your post was just an occasion to say something myself. Many dont understand me, it is not the first time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman
    But I haven't heard any suggestions about what we can do to bring about better judging
    I think the two different pannels for TES and PCS would have been a great start as we had discussed also in the past, but since it we agreed it is not too realistic, we can keep complain?
    Last edited by seniorita; 11-09-2010 at 02:42 PM.

  4. #139
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    3,008
    Quote Originally Posted by Joesitz View Post
    If we already know about Reputation and Corridor, why do we need to have a competition? Is it solely for entertainment only?
    It's been like it from the beginning of this sport I suspect. It surely hurts competitions and enthusiasm of the skaters and the viewers. But it won't prevent them, at least not totally prevent them, from loving this sport. That's why we are still here arguing, discussing, commenting, and watching.

  5. #140
    Constable , Costume Police colleen o'neill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    1,779
    I can totally relate to what jaana says about being able to appreciate some skaters sooner than others..And Patrick is definitely one of those that it really helps to see in person.
    I first saw him on TV, heard all the raving , and thought " Yeah, I can sort of see what they're on about , but..is it really that great ? " For me, it really did take seeing him in person to get the full impact , while with many other skaters , while it's always wonderful to see any of them in person , it didn't really alter my opinion to any great degree.

    I like the idea of two separate panels , but realize it's probably cost prohibitive.. I'm also in the camp that says let's have judges ( with them and their marks fully identified ) that are only ISU representatives, not tied to any federation , and answerable for the marks they give...(not holding my breath). But in the meantime, am I correct that this year the marks from more of the panel will be used to calculate the outcome ? Even with the dang corridor , won't this be some help ?..And ,if I'm correct , has that kicked in yet?

  6. #141
    Banned janetfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    6,889
    Quote Originally Posted by seniorita View Post
    i was not quoting you and replying directly, your post was just an occasion to say something myself. Many dont understand me, it is not the first time.



    I think the two different pannels for TES and PCS would have been a great start as we had discussed also in the past, but since it we agreed it is not too realistic, we can keep complain?
    As informative as posts from gkelly can be - when I suggested a panel for tech and for components it seemed to draw a blank.

    There are more complaints at GS about the marks for components than for the tech.

    Some fans think that is OK and we should just continue with the pcs being little more than reputation marks. Perhaps some of these fans are artistically challenged people in real life.

    I may not have the answer but know the biggest problem with the IJS is the way the pcs are categorized and scored.

    Who can honestly say it is more important to call out levels for spins while putting up with a system that can barely differenciate between SS, TR, CH, IN and PE. And understanding how they must work together to create a satisfying presentation.

    I do not believe in 9 for TR, 7 for IN and 8 for CH because they are all part of the same thing.
    Chan does more TR than most skaters but as a musician I can safely say he does not yet put it all togther musically and as far as true artistry goes. He is still learning and his skates appear to be going through the CoP motions rather than expressing anything meaningful as it relates to his music.

    Doing more - the curse of skating by numbers - works in Chan's favor. Doing less, but creating a mood and having balance the way Weir at his best can do is penalized because the judges just don't know the difference - or the rules seem to be bent against good taste or anything different.

    I am not a judge but I know style when I see it. Miki gets high pcs at times and for what?
    Evan was getting huge pcs last season and I say for what? Who is the CoP kidding? Because Lori is Evan's choreographer she sold some people who should not be judging on his "artistry?"

    Giime a break...and a half

    The politics and reputation still rule skating.
    Besides the FACT that artistry is subjective .........I say that no matter what we like it is purely comparitive, and never based on a number for IN, CH,r TR or SS - but ONLY on how they are blended together to create the intended effect. Obviously no one plans to fall down three times in an SP - but please don't tell me that deserves top pcs when it happens. That is a wreck of an SP and it demonstrates clearly the weakness of the CoP.

    For now I call it the "Kwan factor" because if anyone thinks Patrick Chan is a more artistic skater than Michelle Kwan I would say - holy cow!

    I can easily see how the CoP would rate Kwan as average artistically - basically for the crime of actually interpreting the music and not throwing in all the worthless CoP point getting gestures and moves.

    Of course ultimately it would depend on who was politicing for her.........
    Last edited by janetfan; 11-09-2010 at 07:01 PM.

  7. #142
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    289
    Quote Originally Posted by wallylutz View Post
    For the sake of argument, say my objectivity has indeed been compromised for X reason as some angry and emotional fans here are alluding to. Just ignore what I say, what about gkelly's attempts to educate some of the ineducable posters here? It's almost hilarious if not sad that some people are threatening to quit this sport over the result of a GP? I think some fans are good at criticizing but often failed to realize the judges' job under IJS is to detach themselves from the ordinal outcome, hence, they may end up producing results that they emotionally disagree with at the end. I'd like to remind myself of Laura Lepisto in 2010 Worlds, my assessment was she should be 3rd in the LP in my book even though emotionally, like a lot of other people, it felt wrong to put her 3rd.
    Or some posters made their decisions based on their emotions first and are only using logic as a mere tool for argument to justify their positions.

    I recall one of your posts where you differed with the judges, arguing that Yuna should have placed second over Mao in the LP at 2010 Worlds. I’m not sure how those circumstances differ much from here since both Chan and Yuna are similar in that they both have those invisible qualities that judges generously reward in their scores; hence, their high scores. Aren’t you employing a double standard? How do you reconcile these positions?

  8. #143
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    289
    Based on the history of the way ISU judges score, I think reputation scoring is a plausible explanation for the results at SC. Take the case of Lysacek at the Olympics. One of the reasons he defeated Plushenko was because of his comparable PCS, and he received the score most likely because he was reigning world champion that year since many people were arguing that he lacked superior skating skills and didn’t deserve those scores.

    For me, SC results would be easier to swallow if Chan’s scores had been in fact based on his reputation rather than performance-based. After all, reputation-based scoring is fair in its own way, since it’s preferable for a skater with sustainable talent to win rather than someone who just got lucky that day. If PCS was already predetermined, based on reputation, I think that would explain why Chan’s scores were not really affected by his mistakes.

    If Chan’s PCS holds up, I think his only challenger would be Takahashi, since both receive comparable scores in the low to mid eighties (in LP). I’ll call them tier one skaters. Then there are tier two skaters---Oda, Abbott, Rippon etc---who score around mid to upper seventy range. At the outset, tier one skaters have ~7 point advantage in PCS over tier two, which will be difficult to surmount, except if tier one makes noticeable blunders.
    Last edited by Figure88; 11-09-2010 at 07:24 PM.

  9. #144
    leave no stone unturned seniorita's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,579
    Quote Originally Posted by wallylutz View Post
    For the sake of argument, say my objectivity has indeed been compromised for X reason as some angry and emotional fans here are alluding to. Just ignore what I say, what about gkelly's attempts to educate some of the ineducable posters here?
    Yeap ignore sounds good.
    Maybe I must be the only one to think so but do we celebrate the rude week here, after the Halloween and people emerge like mushrooms? This was not the case even in Olympics, we had intense talks about skaters but we didnt insult eachother that way. It gets annoying.

  10. #145
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    27,077
    Quote Originally Posted by Figure88 View Post
    After all, reputation-based scoring is fair in its own way, since it’s preferable for a skater with sustainable talent to win rather than someone who just got lucky that day.
    Oh, I don't agree with that at all. The skater who gets lucky that day wins that day's competition. That skater goes home with the gold medal, and the skater with the big reputation goes home with his reputation.

    Quote Originally Posted by janetfan
    As informative as posts from gkelly can be - when I suggested a panel for tech and for components it seemed to draw a blank.
    Actually, I composed a long reply about that, but when I had finished I realized that I didn't really have anything to contribute.

    When the proposal comes up to have two separate judging panels, one for GOEs on technical elements and the other for Program Components, it is usually felt that the GOE panel doesn't have enough to do to justify bringing another nine people on board.

    About a separate expert "artristry" panel, like the technical specialist and his group, GKelly didn't really address that question. He/she ("Grace or Gene? ) wrote that the technical specialists, being for the most part recent top level competitors, can better determine technical matters like the level of a footwork sequence than judges can, even well trained. By the same token, the "performance" panel might consist of expert professionals in the performing arts -- maybe they don't have to be skaters at all.

    I do not believe in 9 for TR, 7 for IN and 8 for CH because they are all part of the same thing.
    Sport or art? We should take into account that the premise of the CoP is that Skating Skills and Transitions are part of the technical mark, along with base values and GOEs on individual elements. The other three take the place of the 6.0 second mark. I can easily imagine a program where the athlete does myriad counters, rockers, 3-turns, twizzles, spread eagles, Charlottes, split jumps, etc., etc., etc. -- but none of that contributed in any way to the performance, choreography and interpretation. That skater might indeed deserve a 9.0 in Transitions as a technical component, but a 4.5 on P/E, CH, and INT.

    Edited to add: In fact, I think a better way to organize the program compenents is to give just two marks instead of five. One mark for SS and TR to cover stroking, edging and the variety, complexity and difficulty of non-listed elements, and a second mark for Performance Values, covering the old P/E, CH. and INT. (These marks could be scaled from 0.0 to 6.0 and we could call them the first mark and the second mark. )
    Last edited by Mathman; 11-09-2010 at 08:20 PM.

  11. #146
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    27,077
    Quote Originally Posted by colleen o'neill View Post
    But in the meantime, am I correct that this year the marks from more of the panel will be used to calculate the outcome ? ... Hhas that kicked in yet?
    Yes. I just checked it out

    Here is how you can tell. If you look at the protocols from last year, you will see PCSs like 7.95, 6.35, 5.80. All of these are twentieths (7.95 = 7 and 19/20th, etc.)

    The protocols this year have scores like 7.04, 6.57, and the like. These are 28ths. (7.04 = 7 and 1/28.)

    This is because last year they used only five scores after the random draw and discarding the highest and lowest. The PCSs are graduated in fourths, so one forth divided by 5 is 1/20th. But this year there is no random draw, so it is 1/4 divided by 7 = 1/28th.

    ...won't this be some help?
    I don't think it will help solve the issues that are up for grabs on this thread. For what it is worth it gives results that are slightly more statistically reliable (about 18% more accurate).

    But the main thing is, the random draw was ridiculous on its face, so good riddance just on general principles.

  12. #147
    Rinkside
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by Figure88 View Post
    For me, SC results would be easier to swallow if Chan’s scores had been in fact based on his reputation rather than performance-based. After all, reputation-based scoring is fair in its own way, since it’s preferable for a skater with sustainable talent to win rather than someone who just got lucky that day. If PCS was already predetermined, based on reputation, I think that would explain why Chan’s scores were not really affected by his mistakes.
    It is impossible for me to swallow reputation-based socring for "sports".
    I strongly believe someone who just got lucky that day should win, even if s/he is not considered to have that ability.
    “Sports competition” is all about who performs the best in the day of competition. A strong contender, like Shaun White in skateboarding, “almost” always win because he not only has superior technique but also the ability to show it when it counts. If the placement is determined heavily by the competitor’s reputation before the competition is even started, much of fun and excitement that sports have to offer us are already lost. The way figure skating is scored now seriously undermines its credibility as a sport.

  13. #148
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,579
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    About a separate expert "artristry" panel, like the technical specialist and his group, GKelly didn't really address that question. He/she ("Grace or Gene? )
    I'm a she, but the screen name was mainly inspired by Gene.

    And so was Tomas Verner's SP choreography.

    I can easily imagine a program where the athlete does myriad counters, rockers, 3-turns, twizzles, spread eagles, Charlottes, split jumps, etc., etc., etc. -- but none of that contributed in any way to the performance, choreography and interpretation. That skater might indeed deserve a 9.0 in Transitions as a technical component, but a 4.5 on P/E, CH, and INT.

    I can imagine that too. It would be a very unbalanced skater/program, so we wouldn't see it very often, but theoretically possible. Maybe someone who's very shy and focused on technique, someone who would have loved school figures more than freeskating back in the day, and who has no interest in music or performance.

    Edited to add: In fact, I think a better way to organize the program compenents is to give just two marks instead of five. One mark for SS and TR to cover stroking, edging and the variety, complexity and difficulty of non-listed elements, and a second mark for Performance Values, covering the old P/E, CH. and INT. (These marks could be scaled from 0.0 to 6.0 and we could call them the first mark and the second mark. )
    It would make sense to group them that way. But how would the math work out?

    In the current system, it seems that the designers set the base marks for the elements based on their relative difficulty -- and there are still debates about exactly how much harder some elements than certain other elements; witness the major changes to the Scale of Values this season.

    Those initial element values produced an expectation of how many points to expect from a typical short program and free program in each discipline and skill level. So then the program components were set up so that adding the scores for a skater's various components together and multiplying by the factor assigned to that discipline, level, and kind of program would produce a number similar in value to the elements score. Skaters with balanced skills can be expected to earn TES and PCS within a couple points of each other. Skaters who fall more on the "athlete" side of the athlete/artist dichotomy will earn much higher TES (except when they make several major mistakes), and skaters who are more on the "artist" side will tend to have higher PCS even when they don't make mistakes.

    Before factoring, or in the men's short program where the factor is 1.0, the maximum PCS that a skater could earn would be 50.0, if he got 10.0 from all the judges from all the components. No one has come close to that, but if the system sticks around in approximately the same form until the next John Curry or Torvill & Dean comes along, maybe someone will.

    Meanwhile the TES is open ended, especially in the long program.
    Plushenko got 49.69 TES in the short program at 2006 Olympics (and 40.97 PCS), with eight elements and one quad. How soon till someone surpasses that with seven elements and 2 quads by today's rules and today's quad-generous Scale of Values?

    If we use two component marks instead of five, on a scale of 0 to 6.0, then the maximum unfactored total for perfect component score would be 12.0. How would you want to factor that in the men's SP, so that those two scores can balance TES of 50+ for an extraordinary technical performance? How about in the LP and other disciplines?

    I assume that judges would have increments of 0.1 to work with instead of 0.25.

  14. #149
    Custom Title bekalc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    3,073
    Personally, I can more easily put up with seeing some controversial results here and there than seeing talented athletes ending their career far too early because of injuries. Thinking about those 'quad jumpers' of the past and their injury-ridden careers and post-competitive physical conditions makes me really sad. Figure skaters competitive career is relatively short, compared to other sports, and if the rules are there not only to protect them from career-ending injuries but also to ensure their well-being in the life after FS, then I am all happy for that.
    Well I have to ask this Patrick Chan falling multiple times in a program is hardly a "flukish occurance." And I'll say that its not like Nobunari Oda is some no name skater. At Cup of China last year, Nobunari Oda defeated the reigning World Champion (and eventual Olympic Champion) The only time Evan got defeated last year internationally (Abbott defeated him at Nationals). And Evan skated MUCH better than Patrick Chan skated at Skate Canada. Oda was on the Grand Prix Final podium last year too.
    And didn't Rippon recently beat Daisuke and Plushenko. I guess what I'd say is that Oda and Rippon both have defeated skaters with more of a reputation than Chan.

    And in the end the whole point of sports is the idea that you have to perform well that day in order to win. Now sure, in a close call things are likely going to go to the skater with more of a reputation. But if the reputation athlete performs poorly why shouldn't they lose. Everyone has a bad day once in awhile, but you still have to deliver.

    I think the best way to institute a little more fairness is to introduce more penalities for falls. And Mandatory deductions in Performance/Execution. These open ended rules can make it difficult for judges many who face a ton of pressure from their own federations.
    Last edited by bekalc; 11-09-2010 at 09:13 PM.

  15. #150
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    27,077
    [Responding to GKelly's post #148]

    About factoring, first IMHO there is nothing particularly sacrosanct about arranging things so that individual elements add up to about the same number of points as the value given to the program as a whole.

    On the element side, the weight between "sport" (base values) and "art" (GOEs) is about what? 5 or 6 to 1? (Hard to measure because of plus and minus GOEs).

    On the program side, the split is tech 40%, artistry 60%.

    If there were two program scores, roughly one score for SS and TR and one score for P/E, CH and INT, these two scores could be weighted any way we liked to satisfy whatever notion of "balance" we wished, either between sport and art or between elements and program.

    Joesitz doesn't like the name "Skating Skills" as one of the components because the name sounds like it should include everything the skater does on the ice. I have the same problem with the "Execution" part of Performance and Execution. How well you "execute" your program -- isn't that everything? If you have great choreography but fail to execute it, how can you get any points for that, either in P/E or in CH? If you have in your mind a wonderful interpretation of the music, but do not bring it to the ice -- how can that be judged?
    Last edited by Mathman; 11-09-2010 at 09:34 PM.

Page 10 of 14 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 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
  •