Maybe when Joubert was skating well the judges awarded him with big PCS scores, possibly because he could churn out those big quads. Same with Verner. But both men bombed big time in Vancouver. And in the GP last year Joubert and Verner each had one good and one bad competition. Verner made the GPF only because Joubert withdrew, and then finished last in both SP and FS.
Anyway, Joubert is not exactly a skater's skater: his spins and footwork aren't that great, he consistently gets "e" on his flip, he skates on two feet most of the time, and there's no special finesse to his presentation. His big selling point is his jumps, so when his jumps aren't quite there, his PCS scores suffer.
Last edited by chuckm; 11-08-2010 at 12:24 AM.
Bias towards Kozuka? Don't be ridiculous. Kozuka has been consistently lowballed since the GPF 2008. And it's not like he got any scores worth mentioning here.
We cannot analyse every judging decision to death. I think the the skaters were ranked just about right. Yes, the irregularities concerning the downgrades are not pretty or necessary, the requirements for spins have been debatable since the introduction of COP and overall one could desire more consistency in judging. But I don't think anyone got really screwed here.
Brian's skating is worth nothing when he is not skating with power and confidence. Unfortunately that has been missing during this competition (and several others). Verner on the other hand has lots of (as in lots of lots of) practise in selling his programs even when things are going wrong, even when they are going terribly wrong. That might have been a factor here.
That being said, I do think their inconsistency affects their PCS, while other skaters seem to get pretty constant PCS, Joubert and Verner seem to have more of a range, almost like the judges don't want to hold them up PCS wise unless they deliver the goods, however for Chan the PCS always remain sky high regardless of how he performs.