Men - Short Program

[skatinginbc]

I realize there's no point in even trying to debate this with you because you are so pro-Chan that you can't even begin to have a non-biased discussion on the matter. Therefore, there's no point in even trying. Good day!

You are so anti-Chan that you can't even engage in a non-baised discussion on the matter. Good Day to you, too!

[wallylutz]

This is where I have a big problem with taking off only -1.00 for a fall. The fall deduction should be much more severe and particularly in the short program.

Actually, it's more than -1.00. He already lost -3.00 on the GOE, and the -1.00 is an extra deduction, so the total impact is -4.00

And no way is Chan's PCS that much better than someone like an Abbott. Overscored, as usual.

uh...Chan's PCS is not even 2 points higher than Abbott, http://www.isuresults.com/results/gprus2010/SEG001.HTM

You really think 40.42 vs. 38.54 is a lot, in Men's skating where the total score among elites is usually 220~240 points in total?

Chan will win this even if he falls 5 times in the free.

Now, I don't think you really believe that's true.

[bigsisjiejie]

How funny that I saw a herd mentality on anti-Chan comments. You are right, the herd does not always get it right.

Can't speak for others, but my comments are not anti-Chan the skater. My comments are directed at the judging.

I find the pro-Chan crowd on this board almost scary--close to bot-dom.

[wallylutz]

Can't speak for others, but my comments are not anti-Chan the skater. My comments are directed at the judging.

I find the pro-Chan crowd on this board almost scary--close to bot-dom.

I don't know what is pro-Chan crowd you are talking about here but I do know that there is so much Chan bashing here that even spilled over to Ice Dance threads and they have to be shut down by Mods.

[museksk8r]

Can't speak for others, but my comments are not anti-Chan the skater. My comments are directed at the judging.

I find the pro-Chan crowd on this board almost scary--close to bot-dom.

I totally agree with you; it's not Chan's fault, it's the fault of the judging system and current rules in place. As for some of Chan's fans, it's not close to bot-dom; it is Kim level bot-dom IMO, and before I get lynched for making that comment, I happen to really like Yu-Na. No skater is without their flaws though.

[bigsisjiejie]

Actually, it's more than -1.00. He already lost -3.00 on the GOE, and the -1.00 is an extra deduction, so the total impact is -4.00

uh...Chan's PCS is not even 2 points higher than Abbott, http://www.isuresults.com/results/gprus2010/SEG001.HTM

You really think 40.42 vs. 38.54 is a lot, in Men's skating where the total score among elites is usually 220~240 points in total?

Now, I don't think you really believe that's true.

The penalty for falling is still not severe enough for my liking, and that would apply to any skater, not just Chan. Falling on any jump in the short program, should be a major sin in my book.

And yes, I think the PCS spread is a lot over Abbott and Verner. I'm looking at the component scores. If Chan got lots of 8.00+, Abbott especially should have gotten them too.
Don't downplay a 2-point spread. Competitions have been won or lost over less of a spread.

[wallylutz]

GOE padding/cheating is definitely possible....I'm not saying that it has happened here, but it is possible. When it comes to GOEs, TES can just be as subjective as PCS.

I think you need to read a little more on how GOE is scored. Judges follow a bullet point system in awarding GOE, that's how they justify when put under review. GOE also has mandatory rules such as when certain errors have to result in negative GOE no matter what or a missed combo in the SP is an automatic -3 for example, completely non-negotiable. Any otherwise would be noted as an error on the part of the judge(s) and they could be reprimanded.

[herios]

Excuse me, who is the "we" here? Only the Queen of England refers to hersels as we.

I was certainly not "alone", when I was wondering why Patrick got those marks, as you can see on this board, that is why I used "we".

While I appreciate your detailed explanations about the reasons he is getting the marks, I don't appreciate your arrogant tone.

[skatinginbc]

Can't speak for others, but my comments are not anti-Chan the skater. My comments are directed at the judging.

I find the pro-Chan crowd on this board almost scary--close to bot-dom.

Just to make my position clear: I am pro-skaters, pro-judges, but anti-rules. Poor Oda was "robbed" of the Gold medal twice in this year's GP series, not by judges but by the stupid rules. Mr. Chan should not have won the gold at Skate Canada. I will be very happy when people channel their energy to the improvement of the rules (e.g., more severe penalty on falls) and actually make it happen as soon as possible. It is just so wrong that a 3 falls program could score so high, urgh!

[evangeline]

I think you need to read a little more on how GOE is scored. Judges follow a bullet point system in awarding GOE, that's how they justify when put under review. GOE also has mandatory rules such as when certain errors have to result in negative GOE no matter what or a missed combo in the SP is an automatic -3 for example, completely non-negotiable. Any otherwise would be noted as an error on the part of the judge(s) and they could be reprimanded.

I have read the many of the PDFs provided by the ISU on how GOEs are scored, thank you very much, but I don't think it's outrageous at all to say that GOEs can be subjective. How else do you explain wide spreads in GOE--for example, Patrick's SlSt in his SP at the Skate Canada: 4 -3s, 4-1s and 1 -2.

Plus, isn't the bullet point system technically a guideline (as in, you don't need to necessarily fulfill 4 of the bullets to get a +2 on a jump, for instance), though many judges do follow it literally?

[wallylutz]

The penalty for falling is still not severe enough for my liking, and that would apply to any skater, not just Chan. Falling on any jump in the short program, should be a major sin in my book.

In other words, your complaint is strictly a question of personal taste. Since what you are saying is everyone follow the rules, and judging panel simply applied the existing rules accordingly and there is no cheating or anything inproper.

And yes, I think the PCS spread is a lot over Abbott and Verner. I'm looking at the component scores. If Chan got lots of 8.00+, Abbott especially should have gotten them too.

OK, then can you please justiy your position under the rules? I am interested in hearing your explanation.

[euroskate]

I think you need to read a little more on how GOE is scored. Judges follow a bullet point system in awarding GOE, that's how they justify when put under review. GOE also has mandatory rules such as when certain errors have to result in negative GOE no matter what or a missed combo in the SP is an automatic -3 for example, completely non-negotiable. Any otherwise would be noted as an error on the part of the judge(s) and they could be reprimanded.

thank you for claryfing. That´s just want i meant.
It´s not only chan bashing it´s also judges bashing all the time and that from pepple who don´t know the rules properly.

a single fall does not nececerily affect any program component score if the fall does not bothered the overyll impression. There is no rule that even the P/E score has to go down by a certain amount of points because of a fall. Sometimes falls just don´t affect PCS sometimes they do. And I am talking about today´s single fall and not about Chans SP at SC. The more falls the more it really affects PCS.

[bigsisjiejie]

I don't agree with, or care for, many aspects of the COP, it's as simple as that. Particularly with GOE's and with the entire PCS setup. I believe there is still wide enough latitude for unhealthy manipulation to take place. And I have always been against judge scoring anonymity, it abets the possibility (probability) of manipulation.

Wally, you can spout GOP rules and regulations like an Army drill sargeant all day long, but it still doesn't obscure the issue for me--that Chan was overscored (or others were underscored).

[euroskate]

I have read the many of the PDFs provided by the ISU on how GOEs are scored, thank you very much, but I don't think it's outrageous at all to say that GOEs can be subjective. How else do you explain wide spreads in GOE--for example, Patrick's SlSt in his SP at the Skate Canada: 4 -3s, 4-1s and 1 -2.

you want explanation:
all the -3s are wrong marks because Chans SlSt was for sure no GOE 0 to start the evaluation from. If you think the SlSt was +1 and then reduce for the fall the obligory -3 you end up in GOE -2, or a judge started from +2 then -3 and endet up in -1
You have to be in Minus because of the fall, but both GOE -1 and GOE -2 are both a rule correct mark for this SlSt

[wallylutz]

I have read the many of the PDFs provided by the ISU on how GOEs are scored, thank you very much, but I don't think it's outrageous at all to say that GOEs can be subjective. How else do you explain wide spreads in GOE--for example, Patrick's SlSt in his SP at the Skate Canada: 4 -3s, 4-1s and 1 -2.

Mistakes could have happened, unintentionally, or some judges saw things that others didn't depending on where they sit.

Re:SlSt2 that Chan had in his SC SP, given that a fall is not an automatic -3 GOE, the judges certainly was within in their rights to consider mitigating actors in diminishing the impact of the falls. In fact, judges are instructed to consider the element as a whole and score the element as though it's error free before considering the impact of the error. So say a judge would have given Chan +2 without the mistake, then +2 - 3 = -1 In Step Sequences, more than jumps, and we see it in Ice Dance mostly - falls don't and shouldn't result in automatic -3. Crone/Poirier and Davis/White are examples of that. Why? Because unlike jumps, which lasts about 1-2 second or so in the air, + maybe 2-3 seconds on landing, a step sequence is a lot longer and relatively, a fall on a St is a much smaller part of the whole element vs. a fall on a jump. Hence, it is not a surprise different judges come up with more varied GOE when an error happens on a St. In my opinion, those judges who gave Chan -3 on the SlSt erred by not considering the element as a whole since it was unlikely the element would have scored 0 GOE without error.

Granted, not everyone look at a same thing in the exact same way, hence there are usually 9 judges, not just one person. However, so long as they are following the correct underlying principles. does it really matter there are reasonable difference in opinion?