How much should U.S. Nationals count for World team selection?

Layfan · Dec 1, 2010

R.D. said:
Hmm. Still, personally I don't see too much of a point to that because you've already skated nationals. Unless there's the bizarre situation of a tie, but other criteria, such a point totals from another competition, or what I outlined above, might be easier and less costly than arranging a "skate-off".

I think you might have misunderstood Mathman point a little. He was describing nationals as the "skate-off," not suggesting that there should be another competition afterwards. Meaning that he prefers skaters to compete against each other rather than let a committee decide who is the best behind closed doors.

Then there is the "maximize your earnings" way, which means you pick the two who you think have the greatest chance of placing well at worlds or Olys. To do this, you weight National results, but also consider the background of the skaters to ensure you are sending your two best skaters overall instead of simply the two skaters who happened to come out on top that night. Yes, many times both situations are one and the same-but I think as we've seen recently, this is not always the case.[/B][/B]

Not sure what you mean. Didn't the best skaters come out on top last year?

Leaving raw talent aside, I think Mirai and Rachael proved that they were the best trained and most competitive skaters the U.S. had at the time. There is not one girl I would have even considered sending instead of Mirai and Rachael. There is not one girl I think would have done better at the Olympics than those two did.

In 2009 I don't think there is anyway any committee could possibly know if Caroline or Ashley or Mirai _ or whoever you are thinking was the "best skater overall" _ would have finished 5th, 8th or 17th at those worlds.

Factoring in the GP series that year might have been a little tricky:

Alissa finished 3rd and 4th at her events.
Rachael: 2nd and 4th
Zhang: 3rd, 5th
Ashley and Mirai failed to medal at both of their events.

Who should have gone to worlds instead of the two who did?

Tonichelle · Dec 2, 2010

Mathman said:
OT: By the way, I think Tara is doing great as a commentator.

Agreed, as is Michael Weiss - which I didn't even consider as commentator material, but I'm happily surprised! he's pretty dang good!

Though, honestly, i'm just glad to hear Terry's voice again, even though he's still doing the ABC thing of prompting the skaters to talk more than they need to. Trust me Terry, if the person is watching on UniSports, they're a tried and true fan, we don't need to you to ask what the difference between a spin and a spiral is. (now, Disney Channel, yeah they need a few lessons)

R.D. · Dec 2, 2010

Layfan said:
Who should have gone to worlds instead of the two who did?

Many folks were saying Zhang should have gone in place of Czisny. I think AT THE TIME that team would have maximized our chances (I didn't, and don't, however, agree with those who say we would have surely had 3 spots had they gone).

In 2010 the right team went. Too bad they couldn't capitalize at worlds. At least they both stayed in the top 10, so that's a step in the right direction.

Mathman · Dec 2, 2010

R.D. said:
Many folks were saying Zhang should have gone in place of Czisny.

I don't remember anyone saying that AT THE TIME. There was a debate about whether Alissa or Rachael should have won first place at Nationals.

Would any "committee" have chosen Caroline over Alissa? In retrospect, yes, they might have said, gee, as it turned out Caroline did pretty well at Four Continents and at the World Team Trophy. Maybe she would have done better than Alissa at Worlds.

But that's hindsight. All they had to go on at the time was: At Skate Canada Alissa finished third and Caroline fifth. They both got a fourth in their other GP event; neither made the finals.

Ar Nationals, Alissa got first in the short program. with Caroline 3rd. In the LP Alissa got 3rd and Caroline 4th.

Joesitz (RIP) · Dec 2, 2010

Mathman said:
But that's the whole point, Joe. Your choice would be Mirai and Rachael. My choice might be Alissa (the highest finisher so far in the Grand Prix) and Ashley (she has geater potential than any of the others, INHO.) R.D. and janetfan might have yet a dfferent opinion.

My point is that I have my own criteria for naming the best skaters to represent the US at the Worlds, and within that criteria I consider consistency paramount in selecting the team as well as showing talent for many competitions. The Committee should consider that also, and imo, not rely on a 'lucky night'. I can understand several fans who want to rely on the US Nats to determine the Team. The Worlds is much more prestigious than the US Nationals. Why is the Nats more important than other competitions?

Oh yes, I do think the winner of the Nats should have an automatic ok for the Team, and maybe the placements at the Nats show that they too, are capable of skating well at Worlds so I would not negate them. But that will come after the Nats' results. Wonky jump landings are not forgiveable.

Sylvia · Dec 2, 2010

Joesitz said:
The case of Mroz/Weir is veeeerrrrry interesting.

My selection for the Ladies would be Mirai, Rachael, with Agnes as first substitute. So if one of them wins the Nats, they automatically go to Worlds.
for the Men, I would select Mroz, Mahmahdoozadeh, either Miner or Abbott. I require skaters who are good under fire.
...

My point is that I have my own criteria for naming the best skaters to represent the US at the Worlds, and within that criteria I consider consistency paramount in selecting the team as well as showing talent for many competitions. The Committee should consider that also, and imo, not rely on a 'lucky night'.

How do you measure "consistency"? I'm curious why you pre-selected Agnes Zawadzki, Brandon Mroz, Armin Mahbanoozadeh, and Ross Miner as potential 2011 World team candidates?

Which 3 U.S. men would you have selected for 2009 Worlds and why?

mskater93 · Dec 2, 2010

Nationals is more important than any other competition because that is the one and only time that all the skaters in question take the ice in the same competition. It's also the competition that is closest in time to the championship events (4C and Worlds) and the time when skaters should be most trained and ready. Ice is different in different rinks so spins or speed or jump height can be affected at TEB versus Coc versus SC which makes it difficult to compare (along with different tech and judging panels). If someone won their GP event versus Mao (when she's on) and Yuna, that is different than winning versus Korpi and Phaneuf, so "results" of a GP event can be skewed by entrants. That is why historically, US Nationals is THE qualifier.

Layfan · Dec 2, 2010

R.D. said:
Many folks were saying Zhang should have gone in place of Czisny. I think AT THE TIME that team would have maximized our chances (I didn't, and don't, however, agree with those who say we would have surely had 3 spots had they gone).

In 2010 the right team went. Too bad they couldn't capitalize at worlds. At least they both stayed in the top 10, so that's a step in the right direction.

Mathman replied to this for me and i don't have much else to add (#144.)

Zhang didn't go to worlds so there's really no way to debate your point - you think she would have done better. Who am I to say otherwise? Maybe, maybe not. But there's no way some committee could have looked at the GP results of that year and fairly decided that Zhang should have gone instead of our national champion.

janetfan · Dec 2, 2010

mskater93 said:
Nationals is more important than any other competition because that is the one and only time that all the skaters in question take the ice in the same competition. It's also the competition that is closest in time to the championship events (4C and Worlds) and the time when skaters should be most trained and ready. Ice is different in different rinks so spins or speed or jump height can be affected at TEB versus Coc versus SC which makes it difficult to compare (along with different tech and judging panels). If someone won their GP event versus Mao (when she's on) and Yuna, that is different than winning versus Korpi and Phaneuf, so "results" of a GP event can be skewed by entrants. That is why historically, US Nationals is THE qualifier.

I agree. I also wonder why some object to Natls as being only one event - a lucky type of one shot deal.
Last time I checked Worlds and the Olympics were also one competition - and not a best two out of three event - and certainly not a lifetime achievement event that gives medals for what you did in the past.

Seems to me Natls is exactly the same type of one shot deal that we see at Worlds, 4CC and the Olympics.

If some posters think it is only a matter of luck to go out and skate two good programs under pressure then we could say all World Champions were lucky to have skated well when they won.

That feels too much like a fear of competition to me. Yuna and the others in Vancouver had one chance to get it right. Those who skated the best under Olympic pressure won the medals. I don't think Yuna, Mao and Joannie were lucky in Vancouver. They were the best three skaters who performed the best when it counted the most.

Is that luck :think:
I think calling it luck trivializes a skater's abilty to perform at their best which is what they train for and why they pay coaches to prepare them for the big moments.

Some might say Sarah was lucky. All she did was skate her best. Was she lucky that Irina and Michelle were not at their best? I can see that POV - but what are we supposed to do?

Should Sarah give back her OGM because Kwan and Slutskaya failed to skate their best?
Not in my universe........

R.D. · Dec 2, 2010

Layfan said:
Mathman replied to this for me and i don't have much else to add (#144.) Zhang didn't go to worlds so there's really no way to debate your point - you think she would have done better. Who am I to say otherwise? Maybe, maybe not. But there's no way some committee could have looked at the GP results of that year and fairly decided that Zhang should have gone instead of our national champion.

Well yes, exactly. Who knows what would have happened? Personally I think she would have done better than 11th but probably not high enough to get the result we wanted. Maybe she would have bombed just like Czisny did. But you must realize it's about odds here, NOT guarantees. You never know until you hold the event and let the chips fall.

Anyway, enough about 09 and let's look forward to 11.

R.D. · Dec 2, 2010

Luck, IMO, in skating comes into play like this: you are up against your biggest rival, whom you couldn't beat at her best even if you were at yours. Say you face each other at Olys or Worlds. Your rival goes first, but gives into the pressure and puts out a flawed performance, one that you can top if you skate your best. If she was able to hold it together, you wouldn't have had a chance, but due to events out of your control, now you do. THAT is luck.

Hughes benefitted from luck in her Oly victory, no question about that. But it wasn't her fault her competitors failed to rise to the occasion, meaning she's not any less deserving of it than another skater that did not need "help".

Meissner at WC 2006 was another one to benefit hugely from luck. All Cohen had to do to win was stand up, maybe even get away with a single fall. But she didn't, and left the door wide open. Again, I don't mention this to downplay the achievement, but just to point out that luck DOES exist, and there are events outside your control that can either make your task easier or harder.

Bluebonnet · Dec 2, 2010

Mathman said:
If you want to know their email addresses so you can send them nasty letters after they make their selection in January, that information is available, too. (I filed this bit of information under, “why I will never volunteer to be on a USFSA committee. )

Mathman said:
But that's the whole point, Joe. Your choice would be Mirai and Rachael. My choice might be Alissa (the highest finisher so far in the Grand Prix) and Ashley (she has geater potential than any of the others, INHO.) R.D. and janetfan might have yet a dfferent opinion.

But neither you nor I not R.D. nor janetfan is on the committee. Are you content to let Tamie Campbell and Jeremy Mast make this decision based on their preference? (They are on the committee. We are not.)

Or would you rather have the athletes settle the matter in a skate-off?

That's why that you cannot be on the committee. :laugh:

The committee members are supposed to choose them based on the performances of the skaters in the current season, and vote for them. Not based on their own preferences.

Mathman said:
What if Lysacek had finished fourth at 2010 Nationals?

There are occasions in which such a committee is truly necessary. This was one of them. Lysacek should be on the world team, regardless if he finished second, third, or fourth at the Nationals.

Layfan · Dec 2, 2010

R.D. said:
Luck, IMO, in skating comes into play like this: you are up against your biggest rival, whom you couldn't beat at her best even if you were at yours. Say you face each other at Olys or Worlds. Your rival goes first, but gives into the pressure and puts out a flawed performance, one that you can top if you skate your best. If she was able to hold it together, you wouldn't have had a chance, but due to events out of your control, now you do. THAT is luck.

Hughes benefitted from luck in her Oly victory, no question about that. But it wasn't her fault her competitors failed to rise to the occasion, meaning she's not any less deserving of it than another skater that did not need "help".

Meissner at WC 2006 was another one to benefit hugely from luck. All Cohen had to do to win was stand up, maybe even get away with a single fall. But she didn't, and left the door wide open. Again, I don't mention this to downplay the achievement, but just to point out that luck DOES exist, and there are events outside your control that can either make your task easier or harder.

:disapp: This sounds so much like reputation skating. I am not so naive to believe it doesn't exist but it is not sporting to go into a competition like nationals with the idea that certain skaters can only win because they are lucky and therefore should eliminated from worlds team consideration even before the they step onto the ice.

If Alissa wins it will not be because she is lucky but because she is an extremely talented skater who brought it on when it counted most.

Figure skating has a long history of amazing and upsets, comebacks and surprising victories that is exactly what makes the sport exciting.

And those moments happen because skaters are not counted out beforehand and have a chance to show they too are the very best no matter what the pundits and fans are saying. Going into nationals with the idea that Alissa or Cristina or even Alexe shouldn't be on the team even if they beat Rachael or Mirai by a mile would take the excitement, suspense, competition and the sport out of the event IMO.

Joesitz (RIP) · Dec 2, 2010

Bluebonnet said:
That's why that you cannot be on the committee. The committee members are supposed to choose them based on the performances of the skaters in the current season, and vote for them. Not based on their own preferences.

That's why I used the term "preference" and not as a Committee member. As a Committee member, I would deep down to the bottom of my soul and think of ways other skaters may rise to the occasion and not just happen to hit a good one.

There are occasions in which such a committee is truly necessary. This was one of them. Lysacek should be on the world team, regardless if he finished second, third, or fourth at the Nationals.

That is my point and the Committee must act on the stronger possibilities.

Joesitz (RIP) · Dec 2, 2010

Sylvia said:
How do you measure "consistency"? I'm curious why you pre-selected Agnes Zawadzki, Brandon Mroz, Armin Mahbanoozadeh, and Ross Miner as potential 2011 World team candidates?

All three showed determination in trying to win Juniors and all three made an auspacious Senior debut. I tend to judge a skater as either highly competitive or showy. Think Lysacek and Bradley, Sometimes a skater is both showy and competitive but usually it is one or the other A look at US Nats will say more, and the GPF too for those Americans who are Finalists.

Which 3 U.S. men would you have selected for 2009 Worlds and why?

Weir, Lysacek and probably Carriere. All thre would have not folded at Worlds. I do think Abbott is the best skater, but he will not rise to the occasion outside of his home country. I think his change to Dungeon/Sato was especially good for him though.

Bluebonnet · Dec 2, 2010

For 2009 US world team, I would have chosen Abbott, Lysacek, and Weir. Abbott was and is the best. It's the sole reason that he could not be replaced by any other US man. Lysacek was no doubt one of the best US got, and so was Weir.

Sylvia · Dec 2, 2010

Re. Joesitz's selection for the 2009 U.S. men's World team:

Joesitz said:
Weir, Lysacek and probably Carriere. All thre would have not folded at Worlds. I do think Abbott is the best skater, but he will not rise to the occasion outside of his home country.

But one could argue that Carriere's season appeared to be on a downward trend starting in the late fall of 2008. Carriere was a respectable 10th in his 2008 debut at Worlds and won a silver at Cup of China (his first GP, behind Abbott's gold) but was 6th at Skate Canada and then only 9th at Nationals. I don't see how anyone could have predicted how Abbott would have fared at 2009 Worlds after he won his biggest international title to date at the Grand Prix Final followed by his first title at 2009 Nationals because momentum seemed to be on his side at that point in time.

Mathman · Dec 2, 2010

Bluebonnet said:
That's why that you cannot be on the committee.

Reason #874 on the list of why they didn't ask me to be on the committee.

The only thing worse would be to serve as a judge. I would just automatically give all my favorites 6.0 and everyone else 5.9. That is the only fair way to judge a skating contest. :yes:

The committee members are supposed to choose them based on the performances of the skaters in the current season, and vote for them. Not based on their own preferences.

But it still comes down to the opinions and preferences of the committee members. One committee member might weigh heavily the fact that Alissa Czisny won 2010 Skate Canada, medalled at Cup of Russia, and qualified number two for the Grand Prix Final.

Another committeeperson might say that Mirai's just-off-the podium finish at the Olympics trumps all. Yet another might say, that's yesterday's news, what has she done for us lately?

One committeeperson might want to look to the future and give heavy consideration to impressive results achieved at the junior level by skaters moving up to senior level this year, like Ross Minor or Christina Gao. Another committeeperson might say, let's wait and see.

It should never come down to: if Sam Smith is on the committee then Rachael Flatt goes to worlds, but if Pete Jones is on the committee instead, then it will be Agnes Zawadski.

To me, there are only two ways to take all these opinions and personal preferences out of play.

(1) What we have now. Top skaters at Nationals go to Worlds. Or

(2) Some kind of fixed point system, like Rachael gets x number of points for finishing ninth at 2009 worlds, y number of points for her placement at the 2010 GP final, etc.

The problems with #2 are (a) a "committee" still has to decide, based on personal opinion, how many points ought to be given for which accomplishments, and (b) there will still be cases where the formula picks the "wrong" person.

Brothers and sisters of skatedom unite! Do not surrender your fate, your future, and your fortune to "The Committee."

Seize your fate in your own two hands (I mean feet)!

janetfan · Dec 2, 2010

Mathman said:
But it still comes down to the opinions and preferences of the committee members. One committee member might weigh heavily the fact that Alissa Czisny won 2010 Skate Canada, medalled at Cup of Russia, and qualified number two for the Grand Prix Final.

Another committeeperson might say that Mirai's just-off-the podium finish at the Olympics trumps all. Yet another might say, that's yesterday's news, what has she done for us lately?

One committeeperson might want to look to the future and give heavy consideration to impressive results achieved at the junior level by skaters moving up to senior level this year, like Ross Minor or Christina Gao. Another committeeperson might say, let's wait and see.

It should never come down to: if Sam Smith is on the committee then Rachael Flatt goes to worlds, but if Pete Jones is on the committee instead, then it will be Agnes Zawadski.

Brothers and sisters of skatedom unite! Do not surrender your fate, your future, and your fortune to "The Committee."

Seize your fate in your own two hands (I mean feet)!

As far as I can tell the "committee" is doing a great job. They mostly keep out of sight and let the results of Natls stand.

I am sure they like it that way and see no reason based on results or anything I read on this thread to make any changes.

Let them skate for it :rock:

R.D. · Dec 2, 2010

Layfan said:
If Alissa wins it will not be because she is lucky but because she is an extremely talented skater who brought it on when it counted most.

OK, how about this? Say Czisny, Wagner, Flatt, Nagasu, Gao all go clean. Does Czisny win? (Maybe, maybe not.)

Say Czisny goes clean, but Wagner, Flatt and Nagasu have rough nights. Does Czisny win? (She should.)

What's the difference between both cases? In the first case, Czisny rose to the occasion, but so did everyone else.

In the second case, the others made mistakes to make room for her, but Czisny still had to get out there on the ice and deliver in order to take advantage of the situation. THAT is my whole point. When I say a skater was "lucky" I don't mean it just fell into her lap, or that she was gifted the victory.

Going into nationals with the idea that Alissa or Cristina or even Alexe shouldn't be on the team even if they beat Rachael or Mirai by a mile would take the excitement, suspense, competition and the sport out of the event IMO.

You are certainly entitled to that opinion. However, I see it somewhat differently...The US Nationals is the US Nationals, and has a certain level of excitement no matter who gets chosen to the world team. (Oly years are another story, though.)

How much should U.S. Nationals count for World team selection?

Layfan

Tonichelle

Idita-Rock-n-Roll

R.D.

Mathman

Joesitz (RIP)

Sylvia

mskater93

Layfan

janetfan

Match Penalty

R.D.

R.D.

Bluebonnet

Layfan

Joesitz (RIP)

Joesitz (RIP)

Bluebonnet

Sylvia

Mathman

janetfan

Match Penalty

R.D.

Similar threads

Connect with us