And I really don't expect his skating to be universally applauded. As long as the skaters who are more artistic than Chan don't win over Chan, people will complain.
Last edited by Bluebonnet; 11-21-2011 at 04:27 PM.
I think this is one of Chan's lowest scores in the last couple of years, right? I think his was always in the around 270+? So yeah, his mistakes did cost him around 20-30 points. But of course, that's not enough to some people. He won this time because of weaker field. But some people seem to focus on how many mistakes Chan made, and he still won, instead of looking at the whole facts.
I hope Chanflation will "chanflate" his way to another World record, LOL
So Tech is the entire TES (50%) plus 20% more from SS and TR, and Presentation is only 30% of the total.
This still isn't quite accurate because the GOEs on elements are both technical and artistic in nature (maybe 70% technical and 30% artistic ).
Whatever scoring system they come up with, skaters will use those rules as bases and aim at maximizing the score potential. That's what Chan and other skaters are doing. But then, it ends up being accused that the rules are set up for Chan only
The fact is, getting Quads credited as such is so hard that the risk of trying something you haven't really mastered is just not a feasible strategy no matter how good you are at math. If it were so simple, we would have seen so many men doing two Quads in the SP by now because in theory, a fall on a Quad - any Quad - minus GOE penalty, would still be stronger than their respective Triple. But we haven't. So that tells you why your proposal is only sound mathematically but does not make sense from the perspective of the athlete.
Again, I am confused as to whom you are referring to. In Men, each of the winners of the 5 GP so far had fallen in their programs, I think you need to speak your mind a little more clearly so not to leave people guessing what you are referring to. As for your point re: skaters making mistakes = not skilled. I cannot agree with this. Recently, I went to a show featuring the best juggler in the world, he is from Mexico. He can juggle multiple objects simultaneously at a lightning speed and the audience was in awe, so was I. But you know what, a few times in the show, he actually missed. Would you say he is not a skilled juggler or that his world's best reputation is fake? I don't think anyone in the audience doubted for a second about his ability or skills because they know, mistakes happen and they understand how difficult what he was doing. The difference in figure skating I think is that some people in the audience are too partisan and that clouded their judgement as to what they would normally understand as reasonable persons. I think that's really unfortunate and disrespectful towards these accomplished skaters.If the skater is all that skilled, one would think falls would be a rare thing instead of commonplace at every event.
^^^ If you don't mind, wallylutz, I have a small question about PCS. I think some aspects of PCS should be somewhat fixed within a range--for instance, skating skills: Patrick Chan's skating skills marks should remain high even if he underperforms like he did this weekend.
But sometimes, I see big jumps in certain aspects of PCS within the same competition, and not just in more flexible things like PE and IN, which are more tethered to how a skater performed that day. I'm talking about things like Javier Fernandez at Skate Canada this year, when his SS mark jumped from 7.68 to a considerable 8.14 within the span of 24 hours from the SP to LP, yet I saw no clear improvements in this regard within the 24-hour timespan, and if I recall correctly, Fernandez actually skated with more speed and flow in the SP. I noticed this same phenomenon also happens when a lower-tiered skater unexpectedly makes the final group of a competition.
How is this justified?
I don't disagree with what you said about the 6.0 era.
Last edited by evangeline; 11-21-2011 at 04:08 PM.