However, since rising to the senior ranks, he has tended to give most of his best performances early in the season before fading or breaking down later. So this may be his best chance to shine if the recent past is any indicator. I wish him the best of luck and hope he succeeds.
ISU Recognizes Mroz's Quad Lutz!
- Thread starter jcoates
- Start date
Did the ISU throw a ticker tape parade for any of the other skaters who set other jumping milestones? No. Silly to assume they would do more than they have done in recognizing this feat.
As for how they may or may not have gone about ratification. It is possible that their process takes the written account of the officials as primary evidence and then used video for sight verification. I suspect that if that is the case, then it's possible that they may choose to resort to slow motion replay only if there is a question of full rotation among the ISU officials. Since they do not mention such additional steps in their release, it is reasonable to assume that they felt confident enough in the sworn statement of the tech panel and the face value of the public video to declare the jump complete. The ISU does not go around calling into doubt the sworn judging records of tech panels by reviewing video of every jump from every event. They accept the records of these comps as accurate unless there are serious doubts or questions brought to their attention. As of now, the only doubts that I've seen publicly mentioned have been here on this board, by one person who is neither an active international competitor nor an active national or international official, judge or tech specialist/controller.
BTW, it should be noted that the ISU has a long history of giving the benefit of the doubt to the skater in these type of situations as my links recalling those moments demonstrate. Given how scratchy those jumps appear in hindsight, Brandon's lutz looks like an absolute dream comparatively.
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2008
- Country
-
I would describe your attitude as "gullible". This minor competition took place in Brandon Mroz's home town. If you don't think the tech specialist might have been overly lenient and/or not fully observant then I would have to question your perception of how these things tend to play out.
Oh, but I am a tech specialist, and I assure you that the seminars which tech specialists go to are not sufficient in training them to look at jumps with complete objective accuracy.
Vern Taylor's 3Axel and Kurt Browning's 4Toe were unquestionably rotated. Brandon's 4Lutz does not look like an "absolute dream" comparatively if you are familiar with spotting these things.
It seems that the ISU may not have even bothered to fully scrutinize this attempt, which is pretty ridiculous. I shall await and see Mroz's attempts at Grand Prix events.
If you are in fact a tech specialist, then good for your. I have no way of proving that assertion. No credential has been submitted to me for my inspection and no verifying info has been given. If said status is correct, I can't prove that it is still status in good standing, accredited by the appropriate body. I can only go by your word along with your vehemently held position on the matter. So I will remain skeptical about it since I find it fairly suspicious that any tech specialist would feel the need to seek out agreement on such matters with a bunch of fans of varying levels of experience/expertise who can affect zero outcome on this or any other situation involving possible questionable judgment. Wouldn't a real tech specialist, or at least one making proper use of his time and energy, be writing letters of appeal directly to the USFSA and ISU rather than having an online argument with me? If you have done so, why have you not mentioned such action before? If you did, your complaint has obviously been ignored.
Is that good enough to prove my lack of gullibility?
As for my actual point in all my posts on this thread (along with several other members), whatever governing body is in place has to be given sufficient power to make decisions, otherwise the sport will come to a halt or be balkanized into its various factions. Conspiracy theories are utterly useless in the long run and only make their creators look desperate, excessive and terribly in need of a good hug.
As for Taylor, the video quality is so poor so you can't change camera angles (and use slow mo and zero in to 1000x magnification and blah blah blah...); and you can only see it on youtube; and Taylor did his 3a on home ice, so judges might have given in to crowd sentiment. Is he really all the way around? Did he pre-rotate the jumping edge? Who knows and more importantly who cares? I choose to accept it as completed and so does everyone else.
This is a silly and tiresome argument. Let the kid have his moment and move on. What do you have against him anyway? This comes across as not just being about the jump.
BTW, it's interesting that you ignored all the other examples I brought up of jumping firsts. Given your fervor for exactness and precision, I can assume that a campaign will begin immediately to have their designations as first time accomplishments rescinded post haste. After all, we certainly cant allow such affronts to stand any longer. The sport could never survive those grievous errors staying in the history books.
Moving on...
Is that good enough to prove my lack of gullibility?
As for my actual point in all my posts on this thread (along with several other members), whatever governing body is in place has to be given sufficient power to make decisions, otherwise the sport will come to a halt or be balkanized into its various factions. Conspiracy theories are utterly useless in the long run and only make their creators look desperate, excessive and terribly in need of a good hug.
As for Taylor, the video quality is so poor so you can't change camera angles (and use slow mo and zero in to 1000x magnification and blah blah blah...); and you can only see it on youtube; and Taylor did his 3a on home ice, so judges might have given in to crowd sentiment. Is he really all the way around? Did he pre-rotate the jumping edge? Who knows and more importantly who cares? I choose to accept it as completed and so does everyone else.
This is a silly and tiresome argument. Let the kid have his moment and move on. What do you have against him anyway? This comes across as not just being about the jump.
BTW, it's interesting that you ignored all the other examples I brought up of jumping firsts. Given your fervor for exactness and precision, I can assume that a campaign will begin immediately to have their designations as first time accomplishments rescinded post haste. After all, we certainly cant allow such affronts to stand any longer. The sport could never survive those grievous errors staying in the history books.
Moving on...
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2006
NPR is abuzz with Brandon, too
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...inning-u-s-skater-nailed-first-quadruple-lutz
Tom Z must be happy. His only student left is generating buzz for him.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...inning-u-s-skater-nailed-first-quadruple-lutz
Tom Z must be happy. His only student left is generating buzz for him.
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2011
Just had a non-skate fan acquaintance ask me about this after he heard about it on NPR. "Is Brandon Mroz a big deal? Is a quad lutz a big deal?" My answer was basically no and yes.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2009
Interesting.
My problem with this is really two fold.
1. jcoates, you mentioned tennis. Well, the speed gun in tennis has no affiliation. No flag. No goal, other than to measure speed. As long as it's working, then it's accurate. Technical panels certainly don't work that way. I'm pretty sure that the tech panel here was American, right?
2. But, as you say, the tech panel only said he landed a 4Lz. The ISU was the one that homolgated it as the first 4Lz ever. So, a process in COP that is actually quite fair, if imperfect, has now become political. Who knows the motivations of those that took two months to ratify what a tech panel did in 4 minutes. Now, you might say I'm engaging in conspiracy theories, but the simple fact is the process is political. Does that affect my enjoyment of Browning's quad too? A little.
My problem with this is really two fold.
1. jcoates, you mentioned tennis. Well, the speed gun in tennis has no affiliation. No flag. No goal, other than to measure speed. As long as it's working, then it's accurate. Technical panels certainly don't work that way. I'm pretty sure that the tech panel here was American, right?
2. But, as you say, the tech panel only said he landed a 4Lz. The ISU was the one that homolgated it as the first 4Lz ever. So, a process in COP that is actually quite fair, if imperfect, has now become political. Who knows the motivations of those that took two months to ratify what a tech panel did in 4 minutes. Now, you might say I'm engaging in conspiracy theories, but the simple fact is the process is political. Does that affect my enjoyment of Browning's quad too? A little.
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2006
And the icing on the cake ?
Brandon's "The Best New Thing In The World Today " on the Rachel Maddow show...
( I hope this doesn't mean Fox News will rush to cast doubt on his acheivement )
Brandon's "The Best New Thing In The World Today " on the Rachel Maddow show...( I hope this doesn't mean Fox News will rush to cast doubt on his acheivement )
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2011
Mroz is becoming quite a star outside skating. Now I really wish it was a better skater who did the quad lutz, just so people new to skating who try to follow Mroz will see something of higher quality. And those n00bs may be similarly disappointed when Mroz doesn't rank that well in competitions even when he lands his famous jump. Although, I also wish Mr. Mroz will prove me wrong.
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2009
Oh, I wouldn't worry. Anything to get n00bs to start watching skating will inevitably lead to them watching more than one or two skaters...
And hopefully they will like what they see, even if it's not what they initially came for. For sure. For sure.
You are taking this discussion/debate way. too. personally.
1. Golden Skate is not Everyskater's Fan Forum. Diverse posts including both support and dissent, celebration and skepticism are allowed and definitely what I come here for and I am probably not the only one. I have nothing against Mroz at all, and I do not care if "first ratified 4Lz" would have gone to any other male skater; however, FWIW, I also replayed the little YouTube video several times to get a better look at the jerky landing. It looks like 12:13 to me (within the 1/4 allowance) but it could be more because the footage isn't clear. I don't care enough to make a huge fuss about it, but BoP as usual lives up to his name and probably doesn't like the ISU's apparent loose standards from time to time. You are White Knight'ing where no White Knight'ing is needed.
2. BoP does not need to post his resume here. If you want to continue to assume he has no certified technical knowledge that's your prerogative and he can continue to assert that he does. Also, as far as I am aware, some of his complaints made on this forum have actually translated into real changes to the CoP.
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2008
- Country
-
I have submitted quite a few things to the ISU, sometimes with various other coaches and specialists joining in and signing their names to the submissions, and to answer your question - ISU doesn't care. They do what they want to do. They don't even consider anything not submitted by a member nation or their own tech panel (unless there is a big media huff made), so any individual's proposal must first be seen and proposed in that way. It's great when my ideas get pushed forward and voted upon but ultimately there is no guarantee.
I'm happy to join in discussion about skating on a public forum as someone who has spent a great deal of time being involved with it first-hand and loves to talk about it and hear other reactions, even though my contributions here may not change anything within the sport. As someone who is also involved within the film industry, I similarly enjoy engaging in conversation with other people and hearing different perspectives, even if my discussions may not change the way Hollywood thinks about matters.
It's quite clear that Taylor's jump was fully rotated (although he had very scary technique) without any kind of closer inspection. There's no need to question it.
Something that is false being proclaimed as true is hardly a "silly and tiresome argument". Perhaps the truth doesn't matter to you? I wouldn't say I have anything against Mroz, per say, all I can do is react with my best judgement. I would deem this 4Lutz attempt as questionable regardless of the person who attempted it; I can see in real time how it is flawed and further inspection of my own resulted in more evidence to support that notion.
Obviously it's fruitless to try and officially rescind something that is so far past, don't be patronizing. Dick Button's first 2Axel was definitely cheated, though. Miki Ando's 4Sal was not complete either. The point is that the sport has changed in a large way and it is currently a sport about nitpicking very closely when it comes to technical elements. The standards of the day must be met.
IP, perhaps I should have used a better analogy. I initially used the speed gun because it was a simpler, more straightforward example.
A more accurate example is line calling in tennis and its conversion from entirely human action and judgment to full fledged electronic calls featuring a computer generated instant-replay review system used to call serves and settle challenges. I think my point is better suited to all the intended and unintended consequences it created. First, let me point out that line calling is a collaborative process in tennis. In case you don't know, linespeople each have their own line to call, but there are redundancies built in to protect against occasions when their vision might be blocked by a player or debris. If that happens, either the other linesman standing directly opposite on the same line can make the call, or the chair umpire can step in and either make a call or order the point replayed. Before today's current replay system, such occasions, though rare, could be comical, especially if they happened on clay where opinion of what is in or out can be virtually subjective and can involve multiple people, from the linesman, to the umpire, to player, to event the tournament referee as the final arbiter. Most linespeople are also not a usually a professional core who work for the international governing body rather than their federation or local organizer. They tend to be local volunteers at most tournaments who are active in the community tennis association, where they frequently perform the same service at challenger, junior and amateur age group tournaments. So at even big events like the US Open, while some linesmen are employees of the ITF, most are volunteers with the USTA and are American. Claims of home cooking with linesmen have always been a part of tennis. That's why the ultimate arbiter, the chair umpire, is barred from being from the same country as either of the players in the match he is calling.
As far as electronic systems go, let me point out that the debate over various forms of electronic line calling in tennis has been going on for several decades now. It basically started at Wimbledon 1980 when the Cyclops service line calling system was introduced. It would issue a high pitched beep if the serve landed outside the service box and would remain silent otherwise. It was highly controversial because initially it's ruling was the default and the service line judge (who was still on the court) acted first as just the operator of the equipment and only gave his/her own call if it malfunctioned. The relegation of a human's judgment below that of a machine was a major affront to many purists back then. Of course, the technology never worked very well and broke down often. But it remained in use for more than 20 years until it was replaced with the current and far more accurate system.
The next major change was the elimination of the net judge, who used his finger on the net cord and his vision and hearing to determine if serves touched the net before landing in the court. If so, the serve doesn't count and must be repeated. Today, that is all done by an IBM-made electronic cable affixed to the net cord that sends a signal to the chair umpire's computer and issues a beep if a let happens. The problem with it is that it is so hypersensitive, that it frequently calls lets that no human could possibly sense, thus giving the impression that it may be malfunctioning. In other cases, some other outside object, perhaps an insect, may set off the device. The problem when that occurs is the the rules as written don't allow the chair up discretion to overrule the device. So even if the error is obvious, the serve must still be repeated.
Today, line calling for all parts of the court is done by humans and verified by a system called Hawk-Eye. It uses cameras mounted at multiple angles around the court to created a 3D replication image of the court. It is integrated with the speed gun and records official records of where each ball struck during the match lands to within (IIRC) 2mm. Created in the early part of the 2000s, it was a just curiosity for fans and players alike, initially only used by the TV networks to enhance their own replays of calls. During that early period however, everyone knew the commentators had it and suggestions began to be made to make use of it on tight calls. Sometimes players would even shout or signal up to the booth to request unofficial verification of the call from the announcers. In some cases at the biggest events, the TV feed would even be shown on the jumbotron on the court so that everyone (fans, players, officials) could see that some calls were blatantly incorrect. Yet up to that point, nothing could be done to correct the mistake, despite the visual evidence. That was the case until the 2004 US Open women's quarterfinal between Serena Williams and Jennifer Capriati forced its introduction as an official line calling tool (sort of our SLC 2002 or Athens 2004).
It was a night match (which can impair vision for players and officials alike) and the various linesmen made several incredibly poor calls which all went against Serena (in that case she did not melt down btw). The chair umpire even intervened on two calls which tv audiences were able to see as inaccurate on normal speed instant replay without even needing a Hawk-eye replay. The calls were at significant enough points in the match that it was more than arguable that they affected the outcome. After that, the tide changed and consensus grew quickly that Hawk-Eye's time had come. A period of official testing of the equipment ensued over the next year and it was finally and gradually introduced at smaller tournaments in 2006 with players give a set limit of incorrect challenges they could make in each set played. Eventually it made its debut at a major near the end of that season at the US Open. Wimbledon and the Aussie Open followed suit the next year.
Like our current replay system in skating, Hawk-eye sees things we had never tried to see before and has actually changed the way the sport is played. It's taken power away from human judgement (at the behest of the player in the form of a challenge to the original call) and infused an air of infallibility into a very complicated camera and software system that is dependent of adequate light, sufficient numbers of camera positions, etc. to be fully accurate. Still there are occasions when human judgment from the unseen system operator high above the court and not a linesman or umpire has been used to determine a call. That usually happens when the jumbotron or broadcast display fails. The internal system itself is still working, but unseen by the players and spectators. In that case the system operator radios the call down to the chair umpire who is bound to accept and impose it. Such a situation, could certainly be one where suspicion of undue influence could occur. Another problem is that the technology is still very expensive and is not available at all tournaments. Even where it is used, it's usually only on the TV courts rather than all those used in play. Even at the majors. That presents an unlevel playing field for lower ranked players who are not on show courts or big events very often and will therefore be less experienced in correctly choosing the best times to challenge calls.
Ironically, stats have shown that the vast majority of the time, the linespeople get the call right and the players get it wrong, yet their authority has been diminished by the same system that is validating them.
So as you can see, line calling in tennis is just as convoluted at times as judging in skating. Human error, excessive reliance on technology, possibility of bias, etc. all play a role.
In the end technology is playing an increasingly large role in all sports. They are all struggling with how best to use it while also maintaining some aspect of the human element in how they are conducted/overseen. So far an ideal solution has yet to be found.
A more accurate example is line calling in tennis and its conversion from entirely human action and judgment to full fledged electronic calls featuring a computer generated instant-replay review system used to call serves and settle challenges. I think my point is better suited to all the intended and unintended consequences it created. First, let me point out that line calling is a collaborative process in tennis. In case you don't know, linespeople each have their own line to call, but there are redundancies built in to protect against occasions when their vision might be blocked by a player or debris. If that happens, either the other linesman standing directly opposite on the same line can make the call, or the chair umpire can step in and either make a call or order the point replayed. Before today's current replay system, such occasions, though rare, could be comical, especially if they happened on clay where opinion of what is in or out can be virtually subjective and can involve multiple people, from the linesman, to the umpire, to player, to event the tournament referee as the final arbiter. Most linespeople are also not a usually a professional core who work for the international governing body rather than their federation or local organizer. They tend to be local volunteers at most tournaments who are active in the community tennis association, where they frequently perform the same service at challenger, junior and amateur age group tournaments. So at even big events like the US Open, while some linesmen are employees of the ITF, most are volunteers with the USTA and are American. Claims of home cooking with linesmen have always been a part of tennis. That's why the ultimate arbiter, the chair umpire, is barred from being from the same country as either of the players in the match he is calling.
As far as electronic systems go, let me point out that the debate over various forms of electronic line calling in tennis has been going on for several decades now. It basically started at Wimbledon 1980 when the Cyclops service line calling system was introduced. It would issue a high pitched beep if the serve landed outside the service box and would remain silent otherwise. It was highly controversial because initially it's ruling was the default and the service line judge (who was still on the court) acted first as just the operator of the equipment and only gave his/her own call if it malfunctioned. The relegation of a human's judgment below that of a machine was a major affront to many purists back then. Of course, the technology never worked very well and broke down often. But it remained in use for more than 20 years until it was replaced with the current and far more accurate system.
The next major change was the elimination of the net judge, who used his finger on the net cord and his vision and hearing to determine if serves touched the net before landing in the court. If so, the serve doesn't count and must be repeated. Today, that is all done by an IBM-made electronic cable affixed to the net cord that sends a signal to the chair umpire's computer and issues a beep if a let happens. The problem with it is that it is so hypersensitive, that it frequently calls lets that no human could possibly sense, thus giving the impression that it may be malfunctioning. In other cases, some other outside object, perhaps an insect, may set off the device. The problem when that occurs is the the rules as written don't allow the chair up discretion to overrule the device. So even if the error is obvious, the serve must still be repeated.
Today, line calling for all parts of the court is done by humans and verified by a system called Hawk-Eye. It uses cameras mounted at multiple angles around the court to created a 3D replication image of the court. It is integrated with the speed gun and records official records of where each ball struck during the match lands to within (IIRC) 2mm. Created in the early part of the 2000s, it was a just curiosity for fans and players alike, initially only used by the TV networks to enhance their own replays of calls. During that early period however, everyone knew the commentators had it and suggestions began to be made to make use of it on tight calls. Sometimes players would even shout or signal up to the booth to request unofficial verification of the call from the announcers. In some cases at the biggest events, the TV feed would even be shown on the jumbotron on the court so that everyone (fans, players, officials) could see that some calls were blatantly incorrect. Yet up to that point, nothing could be done to correct the mistake, despite the visual evidence. That was the case until the 2004 US Open women's quarterfinal between Serena Williams and Jennifer Capriati forced its introduction as an official line calling tool (sort of our SLC 2002 or Athens 2004).
It was a night match (which can impair vision for players and officials alike) and the various linesmen made several incredibly poor calls which all went against Serena (in that case she did not melt down btw). The chair umpire even intervened on two calls which tv audiences were able to see as inaccurate on normal speed instant replay without even needing a Hawk-eye replay. The calls were at significant enough points in the match that it was more than arguable that they affected the outcome. After that, the tide changed and consensus grew quickly that Hawk-Eye's time had come. A period of official testing of the equipment ensued over the next year and it was finally and gradually introduced at smaller tournaments in 2006 with players give a set limit of incorrect challenges they could make in each set played. Eventually it made its debut at a major near the end of that season at the US Open. Wimbledon and the Aussie Open followed suit the next year.
Like our current replay system in skating, Hawk-eye sees things we had never tried to see before and has actually changed the way the sport is played. It's taken power away from human judgement (at the behest of the player in the form of a challenge to the original call) and infused an air of infallibility into a very complicated camera and software system that is dependent of adequate light, sufficient numbers of camera positions, etc. to be fully accurate. Still there are occasions when human judgment from the unseen system operator high above the court and not a linesman or umpire has been used to determine a call. That usually happens when the jumbotron or broadcast display fails. The internal system itself is still working, but unseen by the players and spectators. In that case the system operator radios the call down to the chair umpire who is bound to accept and impose it. Such a situation, could certainly be one where suspicion of undue influence could occur. Another problem is that the technology is still very expensive and is not available at all tournaments. Even where it is used, it's usually only on the TV courts rather than all those used in play. Even at the majors. That presents an unlevel playing field for lower ranked players who are not on show courts or big events very often and will therefore be less experienced in correctly choosing the best times to challenge calls.
Ironically, stats have shown that the vast majority of the time, the linespeople get the call right and the players get it wrong, yet their authority has been diminished by the same system that is validating them.
So as you can see, line calling in tennis is just as convoluted at times as judging in skating. Human error, excessive reliance on technology, possibility of bias, etc. all play a role.
In the end technology is playing an increasingly large role in all sports. They are all struggling with how best to use it while also maintaining some aspect of the human element in how they are conducted/overseen. So far an ideal solution has yet to be found.
It's interesting how jumps advanced through skating. I guess the first ones were often kind of like a Model T, and the Ferrari came later, as more people studied and perfected the technique. (Or, going with movie allusions, sometimes people start with The Great Train Robbery and don't get to advanced D.W. Griffith or Fritz Lang until much later.) When you think about it, before a jump exists, even the coaches might not know how to achieve it. I distinctly remember Timothy Goebel's coach at the time, Carol Heiss, saying that not only had she never coached a quad jump, she'd never even seen one.
The other jump pioneers we're talking about (Button, Browning, and Ando) count their pioneering jump as just one among an array of achievements. But Vern Taylor is known for just one milestone. Can anyone tell me more about him, because I'm not really aware of what else he's done, if anything.
By the way, BoP: good for you for trying to submit requests for reforms. You may not get heard every time, but you can't know how your letters influence people who can make things happen. You might be planting a seed, and in any case, it's never a bad idea to bring up something important to people who have the power to make changes.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2003
- Country
-
May I thank you all for an interesting discussion of something that could have been very cut and dried, and instead has involved into a really stimulating discussion of the effect of technology in sport?
to you all!
to you all!Similar threads
- Sticky
- Sticky
- Sticky
- Sticky
