Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 77

Thread: Three kinds of upsetting results

  1. #1
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    428

    Three kinds of upsetting results

    After reading the boards here since the Olympics, I notice that all upsetting results can be divided into three categories (although I'm sure you can think of more.)

    In order:
    Bronze--Done in by instant replay. "Mirai is the new US champion--oh, wait, she didn't actually go around 3X on those jumps."

    Why it seems unfair: A great-looking performance scores much lower than the spectators think.

    Concern: Are everybody's jumps being scrutinized like this? Do they do it sometimes but not others? I always thought that if Mirai had skated earlier in the Olympics--and could potentially beat an underperforming Joannie or Mao, for example--they would have found something to pick on to keep her down. It was odd that she UR'd all season, but in the Olympics, out of medal contention, she didn't do it. But I may be paranoid.

    Silver--they won, but didn't do the hardest jump! (Carolina from the Grand Prix is an example of this phenomenon this season, as well as the two individual gold medalists from Vancouver)
    Why it seems unfair--they won, but they didn't do the hardest jump!

    Concern--are the hardest jumps not getting enough points? (May have been corrected).

    Gold--They fell, but they still won. (We all know who did that this season, 4 times no less)

    Why this seems unfair--it should be obvious.

    Concern--is the penalty for falling too high? Are too many points awarded for "deep edges" and "transitions" so that someone who is good in those areas is untouchable, even when skating poorly?

    Can anyone else think of another category for an "upsetting" victory or defeat? (Even if you yourself are not upset by it--a case could be made that the judges made the right decision in all these cases, or that the COP is correct to value the elements as it does.)

  2. #2
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,928
    Well, it's upsetting when a skater I like has a bad day and places lower than everyone expected, but that's not unfair.

  3. #3
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    428
    Maybe "controversial" or "complained about" would be a better term than "upsetting." Of course anyone would be upset if their favorite lost if she/he skated badly, and was beaten by someone who skated well. But they wouldn't still be discussing it on message boards a year later, like quadless Evan vs. quadful Evgeni, or Patrick Chan's medal winning meltdowns earlier this year!

  4. #4
    Banned janetfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    6,889
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    Well, it's upsetting when a skater I like has a bad day and places lower than everyone expected, but that's not unfair.
    How about when a skater has what would have been seen as an absolute disaster of an SP under 6.0 with three falls including a hard fall on their specialty which is footwork?

    That along with the "deer in the headlights" expression we all saw would not be overlooked under a rational and unbiased scoring system.

    Please, CoP lovers just admit the Men's event at SC was a farce and a perfect example of CoP voodoo. In 40 plus years of watching skating I can't recall such horrible judging.

  5. #5
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    5,609
    No, I won't admit that the judging at Skate Canada was a farce. Hernando, I could post all the evidence from a half dozen competitions this season to prove you wrong and you'd still ignore it. So why bother?

  6. #6
    Banned janetfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    6,889
    Quote Originally Posted by ImaginaryPogue View Post
    No, I won't admit that the judging at Skate Canada was a farce. Hernando, I could post all the evidence from a half dozen competitions this season to prove you wrong and you'd still ignore it. So why bother?
    Of course you won't admit it and to an extent I admire your FAITH. But not your judgement.

    I was not taking the stance that there were NO other bad podiums under CoP this season or in Vancouver or '09 Worlds.

    I just thought the Men's event at SC was a particularly offensive and certifiable Hall of Fame rotten tomato, making skating as a sport virtually unrecognizable to me.

    When I think of SC I think of this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoAXW30mMAg

    I still like skating, and also think Patrick is a dandy skater. I just prefer him better when he is not falling down every 20 seconds. :sheesh:
    Last edited by janetfan; 04-19-2011 at 11:54 AM.

  7. #7
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    3,008
    Quote Originally Posted by ImaginaryPogue View Post
    No, I won't admit that the judging at Skate Canada was a farce. Hernando, I could post all the evidence from a half dozen competitions this season to prove you wrong and you'd still ignore it. So why bother?
    Quite right! No one can change such one way thinking no matter what you say.

  8. #8
    Custom Title Joesitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    20,185
    What about posters like me who blame everything on the System and not on the Skaters? Since the judges and the tech panel know quite well the capabilities of the competitors before a championship, to what extent are they using their expertise?

  9. #9
    Custom Title Kitt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    St. Paul, MN
    Posts
    478
    Hmmm, I usually find myself agreeing with Hernando. I'm not quite a fan of CoP. And as far as upsetting results, who can forget the audience reaction to Johnny Weir's scores at the Olympics?

  10. #10
    Banned janetfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    6,889
    Quote Originally Posted by Kitt View Post
    Hmmm, I usually find myself agreeing with Hernando. I'm not quite a fan of CoP. And as far as upsetting results, who can forget the audience reaction to Johnny Weir's scores at the Olympics?
    I had Johnny 3rd or 4th in Vancouver.

    He skated two solid programs which is more than I can say for Chan.

  11. #11
    Custom Title demarinis5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,171
    In answer to the first post I can think of many, many, many instances in the past where "I" (emphasis on the "I, here) thought the judging was poor, incorrect and just plain bad in 6.0 and COP. I yelled wuz robbed, shook my head, stomped my feet and complained to anyone who would listen, but in the end we must accept what we cannot change, that does not mean I like it tho....

    Oh, I see we are back to the Voodoo again. lol

  12. #12
    Banned janetfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    6,889
    Quote Originally Posted by Joesitz View Post
    What about posters like me who blame everything on the System and not on the Skaters? Since the judges and the tech panel know quite well the capabilities of the competitors before a championship, to what extent are they using their expertise?
    Joesitz, if I wasn't clear I apologize. I don't blame Patrick, Evan,Plushy or any skaters for the marks they recieve from judges. They are skaters trying to do their best.

    I do think we see some pretty laughable results under the CoP.

    Two words come to mind: "bungee cords"

  13. #13
    Tripping on the Podium
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    58
    I do agree that some of the recent results under the new system are highly suspect. Where there is a will, there is a way -- if some of these judges still want to cheat, I'm sure they have figured out a way to do so -- all the easier now with anonymity. Can't say, after ardently following skating for 20+years and reading countless biographies (who almost all mention the political nonsense that goes on behind-the-scenes), that it would surprise me. Also, judges are human, humans can be petty and so it just wouldn't shock me if they decided they didn't like a certain skater (Johnny Weir) and they didn't want to give him a medal (or visa-versa, maybe they really like a skater and want to support them, like Chan).

  14. #14
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,640
    Quote Originally Posted by Hernando View Post
    How about when a skater has what would have been seen as an absolute disaster of an SP under 6.0 with three falls including a hard fall on their specialty which is footwork?

    That along with the "deer in the headlights" expression we all saw would not be overlooked under a rational and unbiased scoring system.
    But that could happen under ordinal judging, too. In the 1997 U.S. Nationals LP Michelle Kwan fell three times and provided the very definition of "deer in the headlights." The judges placed her second, over creditable skates by Nicole Bobek and Angela Nikodinov.

  15. #15
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,928
    Cheating and pettiness are certainly possible in any group of people.

    But isn't it also possible that the judges (or the comparative number of points available in IJS) that produce results you disagree with simply place high value on skills that aren't important to you as a viewer, or low value on qualities that are most important to you? Why assume it's personal when it might just be a difference in emphasis in how to evaluate the skating?

Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •