Did the USFS Send the Right Mens Team to Worlds?

[CARA]

I laugh at the fact that you put Christianity as espousing the belief that "human nature is basically good", when one VITAL PART of its core includes the concept of Original Sin such that Jesus had to rescue us all from our innate badness. But go ahead and put Obama on "the wrong side."

Sigh - I know that I was inviting poralizing comments when I brought religion and politics to the mix. Suffice to say the answer to your question regarding the relationship between Christianity and the human nature is a very complex one, so any extented discussion has to be done somewhere else except to say that for the concept of Origianal sin to exist, one has to be able to recognize that which is good, and one is capable of turing to the good.

Also, I never said anything about President Obama on "the wrong side." Not my words, it's yours.

[prettykeys]

Sigh - I know that I was inviting poralizing comments when I brought religion and politics to the mix. Suffice to say the answer to your question regarding the relationship between Christianity and the human nature is a very complex one, so any extented discussion has to be done somewhere else except to say that for the concept of Origianal sin to exist, one has to be able to recognize that which is good, and one is capable of turing to the good.

Also, I never said anything about President Obama on "the wrong side." Not my words, it's yours.

I never said Obama was on the wrong side, and that's why I put it in quotes. It was what your post implied by what it was arguing for. Also, your analogy of "turning to the good" being the basis for original sin in Christianity is like talking about the freedom in societies who elect/choose to stand behind fascist/authoritarian regimes.

Yes, please keep religion and politics out of figure skating threads.

[CARA]

Your misunderstood my points. Laying out the selection criteria clearly but use a combination of various assessments and opportunities to decide the outcome as opposed to rely on a single event is what for instance Japan does and they do it very well. That way, everyone knows what to do and everyone has an equal chance but Nationals is not the only consideration. This seems both fair and sensible to me.

I see what you mean. As long as "a combination of various assessments and opportunities" are clearly spelled out, your propositions sound fairer. I am still not certain what those assesssments are and how objective they are though.

[Mathman]

Here is my favorite quote from a famous Christian theologian:

"The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of hell." -- St. Augustine.

And St. Augustine didn't even know about the CoP!

[prettykeys]

I always knew you were evil, Mathman. I mean Devilman.

[SkateFiguring]

Now you scare me, Mathman.

[evangeline]

Joesitz, I know that you are a big fan of the experts selection system espoused by the old USSR in constrast to the "democratic" American system. Here are the "objective facts." During the existence of the USSR (1922-1991), the democratic US system produced:

6 Olympic golds, 2 silvers, & 4 bronze, totalling 16 medals. In constrast, supposedly superior Soviet system produced 0 Olympic gold, 2 silvers, and 1 bronze medals, totallying 3 medals.

Now, here's the kicker. Ever since the fall of the authoritarian state (1992 - present), and under the "more or less democratic" Russia, she produced: 5 Olympic golds, 2 silvers and 0 bronze, totalling 7 medals. During the same period, perennially democratic USA produced the total of 3 medals (one color each). Guess all knowing experts are not so all knowing, but who am I to say.

I know which way I side, but I leave that decision and debate up to the others.

This is a ridiculous comparison when historical context is taken into account. THe Soviet Union was an international pariah for years after its formation in 1922 and didn't even participate in the Olympics until 1952. Whereas the United States has sent a team to every modern Olympics (except for 1980) and won a large chunk of the medals in the list you produced during the much less competitive era of the early 20th century. Not to mention that Russian skaters who won in the post-Soviet era (Urmanov, Kulik, even Yagudin and Plushenko to an extent) were clearly products of the old Soviet sports system. That being said, this is far from an endorsement of the Soviet sports system--cases like Elena Mukhina illustrate how terrible the relentless pursuit for sports glory can be.

(Also, the modern Russian Federation is a democracy as much as the Soviet Union was a democracy)

[CARA]

This is a ridiculous comparison when historical context is taken into account. THe Soviet Union was an international pariah for years after its formation in 1922 and didn't even participate in the Olympics until 1952. Whereas the United States has sent a team to every modern Olympics (except for 1980) and won a large chunk of the medals in the list you produced during the much less competitive era of the early 20th century. Not to mention that Russian skaters who won in the post-Soviet era (Urmanov, Kulik, even Yagudin and Plushenko to an extent) were clearly products of the old Soviet sports system. That being said, this is far from an endorsement of the Soviet sports system--cases like Elena Mukhina illustrate how terrible the relentless pursuit for sports glory can be.

(Also, the modern Russian Federation is a democracy as much as the Soviet Union was a democracy)

I agree that the better comparison might have been after the 1952 Olympics. I also agree that Yagudin & Plushenko et.al, are recipients of the pre-Sovient era to a certain extent. However, we never know whether they would have produced the same glorious results under the Soviet regime as they did under Russia.

Regarding the modern Russian federation, I share your concern re: how authoritarian they had been and they are now.

[CARA]

...So, yeah, appointing a world team selection Czar to hand pick the “best team” – that is never going to fly.

[ImaginaryPogue]

At the time, I felt not. I thought sending Miner and Dornbush over Abbott was a mistake. A difference of 0.19 as well as a junior-eligible (and still skating as junior internationally) competitor over the best ranked American internationally and the guy with the most potential. It didn't make sense to me, and the consequences are immediate (loss of JGP slots, for example, though that might not be the case with the proposed rule changes). Now, honestly, I don't know.

The reason I think using a sole competition to determine who gets to go to Worlds is that Worlds isn't just a competition. It affects how many slots you get at the future worlds/Olympics. It determines seeded entrants into the GPs. Mathman has related it to Wimbledon (you get sick after the first round, you don't get a bye to the second/third. You lose). But one doesn't play Wimbledon to get to the French Open. One plays Wimbledon to win Wimbledon. No one's arguing otherwise. You don't skate at Nationals, you don't win Nationals.

But I'd point out that arguing Nationals exists as some kind of objective standard is actually wrong as well. How many people complained about the scoring at this season's nationals and how the scoring affected the ranking? The idea that some people got breaks that others didn't get certainly percolates. I truly believe that Bradley is exactly the type of American champion the US Federation would want: cute, masculine, entertaining, with some big tricks. Therefore I do wonder if that would play in some minds (for example, his quads not being UR'ed, his PCS being much higher for his flawed LP than his clean SP).

Additionally, I disagree that Nationals would be devalued without being the sole determinant. Countries where Nationals aren't significant (in relation to figure skating) tend not to have actual... competition. I mean, there are countries where there aren't two rounds of skating to determine who makes it to the actual event. I'm pretty confident that if I took a glance at the prediction threads, I'd find quite a few men and women making the podium, and I'm entirely confident no one predicted Miner. More than that: the USA is a country where the title "National Champion" means something. There's pride in that title that's not connected to going to Worlds, or seeding on the GP or whatever. That title means that the best in your country got together, had it out, and you emerged victorious. Patrick Chan dreams of being a National Champion the same way Michelle Kwan was. Some of the greatest skates of the decade are performances at Nationals (Chan, Abbott, V/T, etc). Does anyone feel that if Worlds was cancelled this year, Czisny's title would mean less?

I find Hernando's comment interesting: Canada essentially went with their top three skaters for the team. And we lost our third spot. The question remains: was any team from Canada capable of maintaining three spots on their own? Doubtful. Sawyer would need an even stronger skate than he had at Nationals, and he's not had two clean programs this season. Balde wasn't actually eligible to compete as he hadn't had a SB/qualifying score. Firius is age eligible, but he's only done junior programs internationally (I believe he just scraped into the LP at World juniors by the skin of his teeth). But on the other hand, if Canada followed the USA, we wouldn't have a World Junior Champion this season, as Firius and Morais beat him at Nationals (Nguyen won juniors, but was too young. Firius, Morais and Rogozine all competed seniors Nationally). Rogozine made the junior team on the strength of his JGP season, which was two gold medals and a JGPF bronze, far stronger than the international records of any of his compatriots.

In the end, I think any secret committee/set of objective rules/Nationals would actually come out with the same group nine times out of ten. That's simply because the best skaters are able to demonstrate that within a range such that making a decision isn't really necessary.

But I'm also agreeing with those who feel that federations should have only partial control with those who are sent to worlds. Try to get that one passed.

[lavender]

I think the scoring at Nationals was so far off that if they actually score things right then perhaps it would have been a different result.

I personally think Ryan's national long program was bad. It was sloppy. I think the scores that they gave Ryan gave him the idea that he would actually be competitive and medal.

[Bluebonnet]

Put it this way, if Russia had followed the same way that USFS decides who gets to send to the World Championship, Gachinsky would not have his chance to go since he didn't win Russian Nationals and Russia had only one spot for 2011 Worlds.

The reason why Gachinsky was sent at the end was due to superior results at the Europeans. Given that Abbott actually medaled at the 4CC, equivalent of the Europeans, and placed better than Kozuka who is now the World Silver Medalist, it's conceivable that Abbott could have much better results than the 1 man and 2 boys team that USFS sent.

Sending Dornbush was not in question, it was the decision to send Ross Miner over Abbott that was hotly contested. Given that Dornbush finished 9th, it was conceivable that should Abbott ended up in the final group, the U.S. certainly could have a much better chance of getting the magic number 13.

to Wally's analysis.

What would Bradley have placed at the Nationals if the Tech Panel were strict as at Worlds, which they should be since the Nationals was the QR for Worlds? Then maybe the US would have sent the right team.

To be prestigeous and fit as the qualification for Worlds, US Nationals need to adopt the Worlds standard in judging. When there is a big discrepancy between international and national results, something is not all right and it does not bode well for optimal results at Worlds.

I totally agree with Wally and SkateFiguring's above posts!

I think another problem is determining who to cut. Ryan's SP at Nats was one of the best skates of his life; IMO, he deserved the Nat title. Therefore, under the existing rules, he would not have been the one cut. Usually, the bronze medalist would be cut, but I think it would be unfair to "punish" Ross Miner for bringing it on in the Nats FS to win bronze by ending his season prematurely -- which would have happened if he wasn't sent to Sr Worlds since he was age ineligible for Jr Worlds. IMO, both Ross and Ricky did well for themselves ... and getting two promising young skaters with the mental toughness will stand the US well. I also am not so sure that Adam or Jeremy would have done any better.

I think if they really followed the international standard, Bradley wouldn't have been a National champion. Dornbush would. The champion could automatically go to the Worlds. The rest could be decided by the skater's season performances with other considerations. Therefore, the Worlds team might have been Dornbush, Abbott, and Bradley.

I truly believe that if Abbott were there at the Worlds this time, he could finish higher than any of these three.

As Mathman and others note earlier, perhaps optimal results at Worlds is not the priority of USFS.

What is the priority of USFS?

It's a very human reaction to want to change the rules in response to a recent disaster (not that losing 1 spot is that much of a disaster). For many upon many years, the US was the only federation that consistently scored 3 spots for men at Worlds. The system worked great all those times, I don't think it's wise to chuck it out one time it didn't.

You can only say that the existing system works sometimes, but not other times.

However, I don't think US could change the existing rules. Too many "mother-in-laws" here.

[CARA]

It's interesting in that the question of the selection process only comes up when things don't go well.

Currently I hear no one complaining about the Ice Dance team selection process, i.e., who cares when things are going good! ;

I also don't hear posters complaining about the US pair team selection process, i.e., who cares when we know we are unlikely to win ;

On the other hand, ladies and male skating, i.e., help! We need to recapture the old glory. Do something, anything!

Remedy for the single skating team situatioin - Win!, and we shall extricate ourselves from the selection process question - until, of course, things go south, again.

Just a thought, I'm just sayin'.

[SkateFiguring]

^^Well you are right but it's a bit more IMO. Two other factors make the selection for US Mens and Ladies selection controversal: the depth and the inconsistencies of the talents. IOW, too many choices with no clear winning picks.

[CARA]

^^Well you are right but it's a bit more IMO. Two other factors make the selection for US Mens and Ladies selection controversal: the depth and the inconsistencies of the talents. IOW, too many choices with no clear winning picks.

I agree. No clear reliable winner(s) make it harder to designate US representatives. On the other hand, we might simply be in a transitional phase and clear winners may emerge for the next three years.

It may make better sense simply to wait; to seriously reconsider the selection process if we have a disastrous Sochi outing.