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

[trains]

You seem to be saying that the competition was judged on the Tech and separately, on the Skating Skills. And that none of the other Components matter in the total score. Should not at least Musicality be included? It is an innate quality that a skater brings to the competition. Otherwise why should music count if it is not used according to its own rules of music.
Of course each of the components is judged and counted. I was discussing skating skills only.
Here are competition report cards. This is what the skaters receive after the competition. The first one happens to be Tomas Verner, but only for an example. You can see how all the components are evaluated, and the technical score, element by element, is added together.
http://www.skatecanada-centralontari...02010/smde.pdf

[Dodhiyel]

In the Short Program protocols, it shows that Patrick Chan got a final score of 7.75 for Performance/Execution.

He did not just have three falls; the third fall was during *footwork*.

The lowest mark any judge gave him for P/E was a 7.00. All the other judges gave him marks higher than that, and one judge even gave him 8.00. No way is that following the supposed rules. An 8.00 on P/E for three falls, one of which was in footwork? On that day, Patrick surely deserved no more than 6.00 for Performance/Execution. He did not execute well at all. That's the true description of what he did; he executed his programme poorly. I would have given him a 5.00. If he's not primarily a jumper, okay; but he has said much about how he concentrates on his footwork. It did not show in that performance. It was a *sloppy* performance, but it was not marked as such.

The new system, CoP/IJS, is touted as fair and purely arithmetic, unbiased, etc. Patrick Chan's Short Program at Skate Canada demonstrates that it is not necessarily fair, not necessarily unbiased, and above all, not honest.

[blair]

Are you a judge? So knowlegeable about skating but with only 42 posts on the forum since 2004. Hm, a mysterious expert that speaks out once in a while!!! I really appreciate your posts and sincerely hope that you can share your thoughts with us more often.

Why does one need to be a frequent poster on a message board in order to be knowledgeable on a given subject? I seem to detect a note of unwarranted sarcasm in your post. Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm no knowledge expert on sarcasm or anything.

I do, however, agree with trains original post.

[gkelly]

In the Short Program protocols, it shows that Patrick Chan got a final score of 7.75 for Performance/Execution.

He did not just have three falls; the third fall was during *footwork*.

The lowest mark any judge gave him for P/E was a 7.00. All the other judges gave him marks higher than that, and one judge even gave him 8.00. No way is that following the supposed rules. An 8.00 on P/E for three falls, one of which was in footwork?

Where in the actual 2010-11 rules does it say anything about how falls are supposed to affect the Performance/Execution score or how when each fall occurs is to be considered?

http://www.isu.org/vsite/vnavsite/pa...v-list,00.html
http://www.isu.org/vsite/vnavsite/pa...v-list,00.html

Back in the first year or so of the new judging system, there was indeed a rule or guideline that judges were supposed to one point from Performance/Execution for each fall. But they didn't do it consistently (there was no way to tell whether they were doing it at all, but in most cases apparently not), so the rule was changed so that the tech panel would deduct one point from the total score for each fall. The judges have the option to reflect falls in the P/E score or any of the other component scores, but they are not required to do so.

Here are the guidelines for marking program components:
http://www.isu.org/vsite/vfile/page/...-0-file,00.pdf

Notice that there is not a single word about falls.

There is a word about "clarity of movement." That tends to be lacking during a fall or other gravity-related error. But how would that affect the score for a skater with especially good clarity for most of the program, aside from a couple of seconds here and there during technical errors, vs. a skater who makes no outright errors but is less precise in blade placement and/or body alignment throughout the whole program?

Each judge would have to balance that out for each individual performance. But a judge who ignores the rest of the program and the written Performance/Execution criteria to judge that component primarily on the number of errors would be the one who would be ignoring the rules.

So the real question is how did those falls affect the skater's physical, emotional, and intellectual involvement? the carriage? the style/personality? the clarity of movement? variety and contrast? projection?

Maybe most of those qualities went out the window for a couple of seconds during and after each fall, maybe a total of 10 seconds out of approximately 2:50. How about the other 2:40?

The new system, CoP/IJS, is touted as fair and purely arithmetic, unbiased, etc.

Well, obviously it's not purely arithmetic. There's always still judgment involved.

[Phoenix347]

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/GFqEzxqpd7c/0.jpg No way is Lambiel 5'9". He only looks to be at most 3 inches taller than Yuna, making him in between 5'7" and 5'8", the same size as Brezina, Rippon, and Buttle. A lot of ISU heights are inflated by a few cm at least. Also, Abbott's bio on icenetwork says he is 5'9", meaning Joubert would be about 5'8", which seems about right looking at this picture of him next to Yu-Na and David Wilson http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/...66.53417067377. Takahashi also looks shorter than Mao Asada most of the time, meaning his listing as 5'5" may be overstated. I tend to think most of these skaters are an inch or two shorter than what they are listed as on the internet, it's not that surprising, celebrities inflate their heights too.

Also, skates add about 3 inches and the camera about 10 pounds so most of these male figure skaters probably look really small/thin in person. Even Brian Joubert who looks like one of the more muscular guys out there is apparently is wiry in person.

I think Yuna and Michelle might be wearing heels... that's all I'm saying...

[Dodhiyel]

"Where in the actual 2010-11 rules does it say anything about how falls are supposed to affect the Performance/Execution score or how when each fall occurs is to be considered?"

That's why I said "supposed" rules. It is painfully obvious what the words Performance and Execution really mean. I reiterate, the performance was sloppy. The execution of the programme was inadequate. Maybe I can spare it a P/E of 5.50, but that's all.

[skatinginbc]

Why does one need to be a frequent poster on a message board in order to be knowledgeable on a given subject? I seem to detect a note of unwarranted sarcasm in your post. Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm no knowledge expert on sarcasm or anything.

I do, however, agree with trains original post.

You read too much in between the lines and totally misinterpreted my post. His obvious expertise plus his infrequent posting make him intriguing and "mysterious" (as said in my post). I suspect a possibility that he is either a judge or an established figure skating celebrity. I said I sincerely enjoyed his post and you questioned my sincerity. That certainly made my integrity sound cheap.

[Mathman]

So the real question is how did those falls affect the skater's physical, emotional, and intellectual involvement? the carriage? the style/personality? the clarity of movement? variety and contrast? projection?

Maybe most of those qualities went out the window for a couple of seconds during and after each fall...

When you put it that way, sometimes those qualities go out the window for a few seconds even while doing a quad or other element successfully.

I think the judges ought to up the P&E when the jumps contribute the to overall performance (timed to the music, rousing the audience) and lower it appropriately when highlight elements are poorly performed or are disconnected from the concept of the program as a whole.

Example -- Ryan Bradley's jumps in his chamber music LP last year totally made the program.

[Nadine]

Lol, this thread has taken all sorts of twists & turns.

My only contribution to the height debacle is that one should also take into account this scenario:

you've been invited to a private after-party, amongst hundreds of other invitees, to see your favorite singer/actor/etc. (you pick), and in walks this phenomenal creature whom simply radiates this "aura", which makes him/her appear larger than life! You're so spellbound you think s/he is taller than s/he really is.

Seriously, I'm sure you have all met people in your life (not necessarily big shots) that simply radiate, glow, and as a consequence appear bigger than they really are.

And as it relates to skating, hey Scott Hamilton is only like 5'2" tall, so there's no specific body type or height that makes one a champion! Lets hear it for the small guys! *clapping*

[wallylutz]

Where in the actual 2010-11 rules does it say anything about how falls are supposed to affect the Performance/Execution score or how when each fall occurs is to be considered?

http://www.isu.org/vsite/vnavsite/pa...v-list,00.html
http://www.isu.org/vsite/vnavsite/pa...v-list,00.html

Back in the first year or so of the new judging system, there was indeed a rule or guideline that judges were supposed to one point from Performance/Execution for each fall. But they didn't do it consistently (there was no way to tell whether they were doing it at all, but in most cases apparently not), so the rule was changed so that the tech panel would deduct one point from the total score for each fall. The judges have the option to reflect falls in the P/E score or any of the other component scores, but they are not required to do so.

Here are the guidelines for marking program components:
http://www.isu.org/vsite/vfile/page/...-0-file,00.pdf

Notice that there is not a single word about falls.

There is a word about "clarity of movement." That tends to be lacking during a fall or other gravity-related error. But how would that affect the score for a skater with especially good clarity for most of the program, aside from a couple of seconds here and there during technical errors, vs. a skater who makes no outright errors but is less precise in blade placement and/or body alignment throughout the whole program?

Each judge would have to balance that out for each individual performance. But a judge who ignores the rest of the program and the written Performance/Execution criteria to judge that component primarily on the number of errors would be the one who would be ignoring the rules.

So the real question is how did those falls affect the skater's physical, emotional, and intellectual involvement? the carriage? the style/personality? the clarity of movement? variety and contrast? projection?

Maybe most of those qualities went out the window for a couple of seconds during and after each fall, maybe a total of 10 seconds out of approximately 2:50. How about the other 2:40?



Well, obviously it's not purely arithmetic. There's always still judgment involved.

Very well said as usual, gkelly. However, I am concerned that logic and a discourse based on the actual rules are not possible given how emotional and agitated some people are here.

[Joesitz]

Of course each of the components is judged and counted. I was discussing skating skills only.
Here are competition report cards. This is what the skaters receive after the competition. The first one happens to be Tomas Verner, but only for an example. You can see how all the components are evaluated, and the technical score, element by element, is added together.
http://www.skatecanada-centralontari...02010/smde.pdf

Well, I'm not totally dumb about the CoP scoring system. But I am not sure you understand the Component Skating Skills any more than most.

You seem to be saying that all the components cover the presentation of a skater, and that skating skills is just one more. That's ok, if you can explain what it is in Skating Skills that is not in the other components?

Most fans think it is only about basic school figure turns and flow over the ice. I do too, but at the Senior Level, that's not a problem for the elite skaters. And it also takes in opinions of judges and fans.

There is a skating skill when music is played. Check out Ice Dance. Timing, rhythm, beat, are all apart of it. Sad that all this is covered under Interpretation along with story lines, antics, pseudo ballet, etc. and which assumes all the skaters have musicality.

One other thing, if a skater is held up because of Skating Skills, does it mean the others did not score well in Skating Skills in that one component. I do not want to mention names but Nobi's Skating Skills in that recent comp were second to none.



Elite skaters have an advantage over others based on nationality, favoritism and prior competitions. The component Skating Skills is a useful tool for the elite. Nothing less than elite will benefit from Skating Skills.

[gkelly]

You seem to be saying that all the components cover the presentation of a skater, and that skating skills is just one more. That's ok, if you can explain what it is in Skating Skills that is not in the other components?

Um, the skating skills? The skill with which the skater uses the blades across the ice.
That's not really "presentation" in the old sense, but rather the technical merit of the basic skating that happens in between the elements and other highlight moves. The steps and edges and stroking.

Most fans think it is only about basic school figure turns and flow over the ice. I do too, but at the Senior Level, that's not a problem for the elite skaters.

It's not just a question of "Are turns and flow on the ice a problem for this skater? Yes/No" and then everyone who gets the answer No gets the same score. :rolleyes:

It's a question of How much speed can the skater generate over the ice and with what kinds of techniques? How smoothly do the blades flow across the ice? How deep and steady are the edges? How much control does the skater have over the rhythm of the strokes? How fluid (or stiff) is the movement? How much time is spent on one edge and transitioning between edges all on one foot, vs. gliding on flats or on two feet? How much time is spent executing difficult turns vs. simple stroking, threes, and mohawks? How much time is spent turning in the skater's nonpreferred direction (e.g., clockwise turns and forward crossovers by a counterclockwise jumper) and how often, how easily and unexpectedly can the skater change direction between clockwise and counterclockwise edges?

Those are not yes/no answers and the answers are not going to be the same for every skater who is competent enough to reach the elite levels.

If the answers are mostly OK, good enough, sometimes, occasionally, a little bit, etc., maybe the skater would deserve 5s for skating skills. If the answers are more like very good, a lot, wow, excellent, most the time, etc., that skater might deserve 9s.

There is a skating skill when music is played. Check out Ice Dance. Timing, rhythm, beat, are all apart of it. Sad that all this is covered under Interpretation along with story lines, antics, pseudo ballet, etc. and which assumes all the skaters have musicality.

No, it doesn't assume that all skaters have musicality. It's supposed to measure how much musicality each skater shows in each performance.

On a structural level (was the jump planned to land on an accented beat? was the step sequence planned to start and end with a new phrase of music?) that would be part of the Choreography component, among other things. On the more micro level, how well the skater expresses the nuances of each phrase of music is reflected under Interpretation. The skater who is always on the beat and always finding little details in the music to express with a turn of the head or hand or a sway of the hips or lilt in the knees will deserve higher scores for Interpretation than the skater who smiles and hits a few obvious highlights.

There's definitely room for many judges to improve the way they score these components, and for many skaters to improve the way they skate so as to deserve higher scores.

[Tonichelle]

And as it relates to skating, hey Scott Hamilton is only like 5'2" tall, so there's no specific body type or height that makes one a champion! Lets hear it for the small guys! *clapping*

according to his book he's 5'3 and 3 quarters" tall... "when you're short every little bit counts"

had to throw it in there.

[Joesitz]

Um, the skating skills? The skill with which the skater uses the blades across the ice.
That's not really "presentation" in the old sense, but rather the technical merit of the basic skating that happens in between the elements and other highlight moves. The steps and edges and stroking.

That is your opinion as is the whole concept of Skating Skills as opinions. I have not seen anything about edges and strokings which I believe the elite skaters have in the Senior division. However, they could be evaluated in Juveniles, Novice and maybe Juniors. The subject of Skating Skills has come up with relation to a Senior skater as cause for his rise to 1st place. It never mentioned other skaters having skating skills which were equal to or better than the skater in question. A high scoringt Tech and PC skater was pushed aside to make room for the senior skater in question based on skating skills. Steps, Edges, and Stroking are important in Tech and other Components as well.

It's not just a question of "Are turns and flow on the ice a problem for this skater? Yes/No" and then everyone who gets the answer No gets the same score. :rolleyes:

I don't think I said that, but I do agree with your note. Everything about figure skating is built on skills and at the senior level those steps, edges and strokings are well covered by the Elite Senior Skaters. If that is what is meant by Skating Skills I will agree with you but are the judges actually looking at the skills or are they supposed to look at these skills? Personally, I think the name of the component should be changed to Basic Skills because Skating Skills are needed in every facet of figure skating.

There's definitely room for many judges to improve the way they score these components, and for many skaters to improve the way they skate so as to deserve higher scores.

We can all agree with this.

[mskater93]

I don't think I said that, but I do agree with your note. Everything about figure skating is built on skills and at the senior level those steps, edges and strokings are well covered by the Elite Senior Skaters. If that is what is meant by Skating Skills I will agree with you but are the judges actually looking at the skills or are they supposed to look at these skills? Personally, I think the name of the component should be changed to Basic Skills because Skating Skills are needed in every facet of figure skating.

Not all elite level skaters have the same quality of skating skills, hence the reason why there is a wide disparity of scores (in the same way all Juvies or Intermediates have the same quality of skating skills). Skating skills have actual bullets that supposed to be judged/taken into account when scoring. If you go and watch skaters live, you can SEE the difference between what you might score a 4 and a 5 or between a 6 and a 7. The biggest problem with the PCS mark is that they are supposed to be independent but I think Mathman did a regression analysis and there's too much commonality across the scores to think that judges weigh each separately. Also, when the judges are asked to start with different components (start with TR instead of SS) the marks change.