Bluebonnet, the short answer: what score would you have given Plushenko for that skate without a quad? Long answer coming later.
^ No, but give it a chance. If a person can do a quad in ten seconds, then he can do 27 quads in four and a half minutes.
Would there be any question as to who's the king?
My problem with the SP is the perceived artistry that will be lost. There is a longer program for skater to demonstrate their artistry and it should be more meaningful. The LP however, is all about opinions, and messing up is ok for partial credit, but it has all the artistry that a fan needs for his addiction. No need to see a preliminary.
On the sporting side, the three jumps, the spins and footwork, are put under pressure to be executed by definition but the chance of falling behind is diminished with the partial credit, and 'artistry' will probably win over anyway. So, I'll do my Flutz and with the credit that comes with it, plus my great LP performance will get me gold.
Such a Sport! Only in Figure Skating.
Plushenko is such a good jumper if he did a 3flip/3toe and the lutz out of steps or a 3lutz/3toe 3flip out of steps I am sure the GOE would have been great and he could could have got near 90 as well. It was not a real competition or anything but at the Japan Open in 2010 Plushenko did a 3lz/3toe and it was worth 3Lz+3T BV 10.10 GOE + 1.40 equaling 11.50. With the bonus at russian nationals pushing plushenko to 100 and his euros score being 91 and like everyone else got olympic inflation 93 or 94 for plushenko seemsd like it would have been more proper - maybe even going to a 95!
Olympics, 2010, Men's SP
Olympics, 2006, Men’s SP
1. In 2010, the quad is worth 0.8 more.
2. In 2010, Plushenko has three level four spins. In 2006, he has one. The difference in base value is 1.6, to 2010
3. In 2010, Plushenko had two level three step sequences. In 2006, he had one level three, one level four. However, the base value is such that 2010 level three is worth more, so credit 0.1 to 2010 as the difference.
4. The triple axel is worth 0.7 more.
So, what do those facts mean? In 2006, Plushenko had a 4.4 base value advantage. That advantage comes largely from doing the quad (the 4-3 + 3Lz vs a lutz/flip combo and solo flip/lutz gives him a 4.5 point advantage, so he only lost 0.1 of that advantage).
In 2010, Plushenko has a 4.1 base value advantage (3.7 over Takahashi, who didn’t have the GOEs Lysacek got). Those same jumps give him a 4.3 advantage, so he squandered only 0.2 of the advantage given to him.
In 2010, Plushenko scored 7.00 points in GOE. In 2006, he scored 8.8
In 2010, the next competitors matched Plushenko on spins. In 2006, second placed Wier did a level one spin. Third placed Lambiel did not match Plushenko on base value either.
In 2010, Plushenko scored 40.97 for PCS. In 2006, he scored 39.75. That difference was due to transitions scores (1.02 difference in years), and let’s be honest, he was overscored for those in Turin, big time.
Another way of putting it. Without the quad, in 2006, Plushenko still would have led, and he would’ve been ahead of quad skaters (Joubert, for example). The quality of his other elements and his command of the ice would’ve assured that. In 2010, his skill had detiorated somewhat. The rest of the field was better in the SP (remember, of the eventual top five, Buttle and Lysacek had placed 6th and 10th in the SP). His dominance had to do with his excellence as a skater, not just the quad.
Another example to disprove gmyer’s assertion.
The top five men at Worlds 2007 all did quads. Joubert, Takashi, Lambiel, Verner, Lysacek. With the next three seasons, the quad was increased in value. No changes to UR calls were made. Edge calls were shifted but that didn’t affect the quad. Levels three and four footwork WERE worth more, but that impact was largely neglible because level four footwork is rare and most of the champions didn’t do it (except Lysacek at Olympics, of course, and some might argue that made the difference, but the difference in quad value is greater than the difference in level three/four footwork). Backloading already existed, and as pointed out before, skaters like Joubert backloaded more than someone like Buttle or Chan. IJS/COP made NO CHANGES that would've helped the non-quad skaters significantly over the quad skaters.
No, the greatest issue affecting the quads? The injury (Takahashi, Lambiel), inconsistency (Abbott, Verner, Joubert), and absence (Voronov, Ponsero, Preaubert) of quad skaters. Remember 2008 worlds? Oda wasn't there (and he had landed quads), Verner bombed, Lambiel was injured, Takahashi inconsistent ANd had that non-counting combo, Joubert fell in the SP and thought a 2A-1t combo was technically difficult. 2009? No Takahashi or Lambiel. Joubert fell on a 2A. Verner doubled a few jumps, etc.
So now we've swung too far in the other direction. Falls on a quad now contribute the same to a program as a textbook triple lutz (6.0 points even after the GOE loss and fall deduction).
However, would you negate all the Medals earned during the school figures eras because you did not get emotionally involved?
I contend that the Long Program may show everything one needs for an emotional lift. My only correction would be the LP should change into the Free Skate as it used to be; and the SP be converted into a Test of Element Skills as the original figure skating rules applied.
Last edited by Joesitz; 04-14-2011 at 08:54 AM.
I know this is not "the way it used to be," but change is not always a bad thing.
Isn't it time for a new name for skating.
Should we call it "PointSkating" or "LevelSkating" or maybe copy Ballroom and call it "SkateSport."
If skating officially changed it's name to "SkateSport" who would dare question whether it is a real sport or not?
Besides a few hockey players
Post the new name "SkateSport" on the internet and it will be a acknowledged the same as the protocols as being infallible.
Last edited by janetfan; 04-14-2011 at 09:50 AM.
However, I do think that the short program format has the potential to provide a setting for a nice little artistic gem, and there have been quite a few short programs that I have enjoyed, even in the current era.
Not so the long program. It seems more like a marathon through an obstacle course.