Three kinds of upsetting results | Golden Skate

Three kinds of upsetting results

Poodlepal

On the Ice
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
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):laugh:

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.)
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Well, it's upsetting when a skater I like has a bad day and places lower than everyone expected, but that's not unfair.
 

Poodlepal

On the Ice
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
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!
 

janetfan

Match Penalty
Joined
May 15, 2009
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.
 

ImaginaryPogue

Record Breaker
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
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?
 

janetfan

Match Penalty
Joined
May 15, 2009
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:

Bluebonnet

Record Breaker
Joined
Aug 18, 2010
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.;)
 
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
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?
 

Kitt

Final Flight
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Country
United-States
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?
 

janetfan

Match Penalty
Joined
May 15, 2009
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.
 

demarinis5

Gold for the Winter Prince!
Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 23, 2004
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
 

janetfan

Match Penalty
Joined
May 15, 2009
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" :disagree:
 

Snoopy

Rinkside
Joined
Feb 7, 2011
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. :disapp: 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).
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
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.
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
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?
 

fscric

On the Ice
Joined
Oct 28, 2004
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?

There's really no need to waste your time and energy on this. I'm surprised they never get tired of beating this dead horse everyday and in different threads.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
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.

I don't think there is any remedy for that one. It's like the (American) football player who runs 90 yards for a touchdown. Then it's called back when instant replay shows that he stepped out of bounds.

The most crowd-pleasing performance is not necessarily the performance that deserves the gold medal.

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.

That is a very interesting point. Certainly, all things considered, it was utterly necessary for Joannie to win the bronze medal. I am sure the whole Olympic apparatus breathed a collective sigh of relief when she delivered a clean and excellent program. (Personally, I didn't see anything wrong with the jumps they dinged Rachael Flatt for, but what do I know?)

In any sport it is always bad when the buzz afterward is on the officiating instead of on the performances of the athletes.
 

Snoopy

Rinkside
Joined
Feb 7, 2011
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?

I'm not assuming, I'm just saying it is possible, especially considering the history of cheating in the sport.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Gold--They fell, but they still won. (We all know who did that this season, 4 times no less):laugh:

Why this seems unfair--it should be obvious.

Concern--is the penalty for falling too [low]? 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?

That is indeed a dilemma, but IMHO a delicious one. There are some skaters that are just so good at basic blade-to-ice skills that you can watch them all day, even if all they do is skate back and forth and don't do any tricks at all. (Example, for me: Charlie White.)

They say about skaters like that, "they have a one-fall, or a two-fall, advantage over the field" -- and I think they do, under either CoP or 6.0. Somewhere along the line, with the increased emphasis on jumping after the elimination of school figures, we forgot what the sport of figure skating is all about.
 

Snoopy

Rinkside
Joined
Feb 7, 2011
Perhaps there should be a slight bonus given for a clean performance. Under the current rules, a skater can fall doing a cross-over and get no deduction - but that fall takes something away from the overall performance. This is why the fans get annoyed - when they see one of these very rare clean performances not being rewarded.
 
Top