there is no SpSq in ladies' SP, yu-na 's score is not high like 76.44. it would be around 72, i think.Originally Posted by dlgpffps
there is no SpSq in ladies' SP, yu-na 's score is not high like 76.44. it would be around 72, i think.
Only Liza has shown one in practice thus far (and it was quite good!)
Mainly I want Alissa to skate 2 clean programs regardless of placement, and perhaps put the last of her naysayers to rest.
Unline Ando, Kim must prove she's THE absolutely better skater than Asada. If the result turns out "Kim could win thanks to Asada's errors", that's tantamount to a defeat. The base value difference of 9 points is practically impossible to fill by factored down GOE, or extremely diffucult even with the 3loop. I don't think Kim can expect the PCS advantages in Tokyo when Asada skated (visibly) clean with "expected" standing ovations. Asada's programs of this season are not so difficult as "three 3axels". Her solo 3A is less prone to UR than the 3A combos. Japan has two (gold) medal contenders now. At least, the pressure on Asada was reduced, and she has the higher motivation "to beat Ando".
Asada's comments after 4CC:
"It's getting better now. There's no problem as long as I can keep the momentum."
"I want to show the best performances at worlds."
Last edited by NMURA; 03-01-2011 at 11:55 PM.
Yes, yes, how silly of me. Then the Olympic scores would be around 72 for Yu-na and 68 for Mao. Yu-na has lost her comfty SP cushion (Mao's 71.XX). She better step it up in the Long if she plans on winning.
What is "SpSq"? I'm getting excited to see the World Competition, I enjoy watching all four categories but the Ladies is almost always my favorite competition. I really don't know what to expect this year considering how many of the Olympic skaters are retired or taking the year off, the rule changes, arrival of new skaters up from the junior ranks, coaching changes, etc. The year following the Olympics is always one where the ground shifts a bit more than usual. I'm most anxious to see Yu-Na skate competitively again, I need the fix of more exquisite performances from her.
The new rule eliminate +3 GOE. Right now the highest +GOE is 2, so assuming Yuna did her 3Lz+3T the same quality as before (this is the jump Kim rackup the +GOE mark the most on average), the most she can is +2. Factor that with eliminating, highest and lowest GOE, plus two random GOE, skaters will get +1.8 most. None of the female skater so far get +2 GOE that i can think of.
If both skate clean with, with no <, Asada will come out ahead bc she has higher base value (now that is assuming they both get close PCS mark). If Asada has one < call, it will be close by a margin, depends on who did better none jump elements wise. But I don't think Kim is going to have huge 4-8 points margin from the rest of the field.
Last edited by wonderlen3000; 03-02-2011 at 11:57 AM.
It's the code for "Spiral Sequence", which is no longer considered as a technical element. I wonder if/how Yuna will use her spiral in the programs.
Joesitz, dlgpffps, I'm glad to know there are other posters feeling the same way about lip/flutz, though I don't really see it happening anytime soon. I agree that young skaters need the incentive to learn the correct technique. We engineers say it like this; they don't debug a code when the bug doesn't affect the revenue from the software.
It is actually quite interesting that all the changes in the rules this season work to the disadvantage of Kim. The one proposed change that would have helped her -- a bonus for jumps done in combination -- was defeated in the ISU congress.
They don't want her scoring 3,000 points again in ANY competition.
What was the reasoning for eliminating the bonus for jumps done in combination? Sounds wrong to me. Could this be for political rather than athletic reasons? Was any commentary justifying this decision published? If so, does anyone have a pointer to it?
^ It is practically impossible ever to get any reliable information about the inner workings of the ISU. Someone can please correct me if I am remembering it wrong, but as I recall it went down something like this.
Every year the ISU technical committee reviews all the technical rules and recommends various changes. These recommendations must then be voted on by the full congress of members. The recommendations of the technical committee are almost always approved.
In addition, any member federation can also introduce proposed rules changes directly to the full congress. Some of these proposals are not very well thought out, and in any case they are usually opposed by the ISU hierarchy and are usually voted down by the membership.
Last year a number of proposals were recommended by the ISU technical committee. They included
(a) increasing the value of the triple Axel. This obviously helps skaters who have a triple Axel, relative to those who don't. Only one lady skater has a triple Axel at the moment, but maybe the increased base value will encourage younger skaters to try it.
(b) The points awarded for GOEs were reduced. This obviously hurts those skaters who consistently get sky-high GOEs, especially on jump elements.
(c) Only two quadruple Axels are allowed. This hurts skaters who do a triple-triple and then rely on the extra pass to do another double Axel.
(d) The penalty for flutzing was decreased to allow the judges more leeway in deciding how much to take off for a wrong edge take-off. The distinction between "e" and "!" was eliminated.
(e) An extra ten percent bonus would be awarded to all jumps done in combination.
(a), (b), (c), and (d) were passed. (e) was voted down. Note that (a), (b), (c), and (d) benefit a skater who has a triple Axel and who flutzes and hurts a skater who gets high GOEs and who relies on an extra double Axel to take full advantage of her triple-triple. (e) would have helped the latter skater at the expense of the former, but (e) was voted down.
What the member federations were thinking about as they cast their votes, no one knows for sure. Maybe R.D. is right.
Last edited by Mathman; 03-02-2011 at 09:16 PM.
^ Well, the way I see it is, is this:
a) good rule change b) good rule change c) only two DOUBLE Axels allowed in LP (please fix this Mathman!) = good rule change
d) lame rule change e) good rule change cockblocked, make final decision lame.
f) bonus for complete set of triples (or 5 different triples) = good rule change = not proposed
What you said isn't true at all. +3 GOE is very much alive and well. Who gave you the idea that +3 GOE was eliminated? Did you miss any of the recent competitions where +3 GOE were still given out in all disciplines with no exception? What has happened is the actual value of the GOE for certain jumps have been reduced. +3 GOE = +++ This can mean different point value for different jumps. +3 GOE on a Double Axel is worth 1.5 points extra whereas it is wroth 3.0 points on a Triple Axel. For a Triple Lutz+Triple Toe, it is worth 2.1 points as opposed to 3.0 points last year. That said, Kim didn't get 3.0 bonus points for 3Lz+3T last year either, it averaged around +2 for her on that element, so the net loss this year would be about 0.6 point, hardly the end of the world assuming everything else is still there.
What you also erred in stating that 2 random marks are still being eliminated. That has changed this year. Only the highest and lowest marks are thrown out, no more random elimination of 2 marks prior to excluding the highest and lowest marks. This was approved after Skate Canada submitted a proposal to the ISU Congress re: the reliability of results using just 5 marks. In any event, random elimination has no impact on the ceiling of marks as you stated. I don't know how you come with such explanation but it is simply incorrect even though it's a moot point anyway.
Whether women can score +2 GOE is a matter of execution, not a question of CoP limitation. Frankly, none of the women have been skating that well to deserve very high GOE is my opinion. Plus, since women typically do not do Triple Axels or Quads, that would lower their GOE received as well. For the men however, some have been getting pretty big GOE bonus still.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks