Page 16 of 19 FirstFirst ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 LastLast
Results 226 to 240 of 272

Thread: Men's Free Skate, Sat. 11/19 at 7:30 am EST

  1. #226
    leave no stone unturned seniorita's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,579
    Quote Originally Posted by Buttercup View Post
    Well, that's what makes it hard, isn't it? To do both in the same program... clearly Plushy was the true pioneer when it came to quads and footwork, and his place in history must be acknowledged!
    Oh ok, yes I remembered the comments when 4 level was achieved back then, I think there wasnt a skater to get level 4 is step sequence before with quad or no quad, but I think Daisuke was the very first in NhK 2005, and then Plu in Olympics.

  2. #227
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    3,008
    Quote Originally Posted by Spun Silver View Post
    and I'm glad Chan beat Song.
    Me too. The flawed but skating skill wise and artistically superior skating won over pure technical skating.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spun Silver View Post
    I think what I want is for Chan and his team to stop trying to crush, rather than just defeat, the competition. One quad or 4-3 is fine in this field, he doesn't need two. If he thins out his programs just a little we'll see him with fewer falls and his winning programs (and scores) will be universally applauded.
    I don't think Chan has the habit of changing his programs around at the last minute or last seconds like Johnny Weir. Besides, he is aiming for the bigger prize and closer competitions like worlds. He's got to get his tech heavy programs more mileage. If he could win with a flawed skating in a weaker field, then let it be flawed. He'll get it better and better later in the season like we've seen last year. I think he should go for it.

    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.

  3. #228
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    552
    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

  4. #229
    Wicked Yankee Girl dorispulaski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Staring at the ocean and smiling.
    Posts
    15,948
    Charlie White in juniors got level 4 steps...I'm not sure, but I believe it was at sectionals 2005/2006 season, which would be in November 2005?
    This video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6f3ow-4au8.

  5. #230
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluebonnet View Post
    Ooops! Thanks! Mathman! Go to sit in the corner and timeout myself, then go to study more about PCS.
    I think where the 70-30 ratio comes in is trying to match up the scores with the old "technical mark" and "presentation mark." Of the five Program Components, two of them (Skating Skills and Transitions) belong on the "technical side," while Presentation, Choreography and Interpretation comprise the "artistic" part.

    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 ).

  6. #231
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Spun Silver View Post
    I think what I want is for Chan and his team to stop trying to crush, rather than just defeat, the competition.
    Every athlete wants to crush the competition.

    Michigan State 55, Indiana 3.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman
    The point is to come up with a scoring system that is more in tune with our intuition about what constitutes a good skating performance.
    Quote Originally Posted by ImaginaryPogue View Post
    Which, admittedly, is quite difficult.
    Very difficult. Very difficult. Maybe impossible for any add-up-the-points system to achieve.

  7. #232
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    552
    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

  8. #233
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,819
    Quote Originally Posted by Poodlepal View Post
    If someone falls doing a jump unique to him or herself, that should be taken into account. When skater A lands a jump but skater B falls on the same jump, it is different. When skater B falls a few times on jumps that skater A landed successfully, skater A should have a comfortable margin. Maybe skater B can make up a few points by being more musical or whatever, but he should not beat him, in my opinion.
    That's because a program has more than just jumps and interpreting the music. Nan Song's program is still relatively simple and his ability to skate beyond jumps are still not at the level of elite skaters. Besides, he had mistakes of his own - whereas Chan had two clean Quads, Song missed one of his two Quads. Maybe it would be helpful for you to read the ISU Technical guidebook, they do a very good at explaining the various elements and components considered. It's also fairly easy to read and should help you to look at things besides jumps and music interpretation next time you watch. Hopefully, you'll appreciate this sport more as a wholesome sport.

  9. #234
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,819
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    I do not consider that a big risk. Let's say he gets 3 points for a failed 4 flip, as opposed to 5.3 points for a successful 3 flip. That's a penalty of only 2.3 points.

    If he rotates the 4 flip but then falls, the penalty is approximately 0.

    If he succeeds with the 4 flip he gets 10 points or so -- double the value of the 3-flip.

    There certainly isn't any additional penalty in the PCSs, as we just saw.
    What you suggest is sound mathematically but your reasoning failed to consider one important fact - it is incredibly difficult to rotate any kind of Quad. To be able to take advantage of a fall on a fully rotated Quad, you will need to be able to actually do it to begin with. Notwithstanding that it is easier said than done, Takahashi has never actually got credit for a fully rotated 4F.

    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.

  10. #235
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,819
    Quote Originally Posted by skateflower View Post
    I have no idea how his final score would be. It's not about Chan. It's about the system. Chan is just a prime example of how badly designed this system is. They also need to reduce the weightings of pcs. The pcs is almost fixed. What's the point to have 50% of your final score being predetermined anyway?
    Do you feel Oda had a fixed PCS at TEB?

  11. #236
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,819
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckm View Post
    There IS something wrong with a system where a skater falls multiple times in a FS and still gets SS and PE in the mid to upper 8s.
    So Chuck, who fell multiple times in a FS this season and got SS and PE in the mid to upper 8s?

    If the skater is all that skilled, one would think falls would be a rare thing instead of commonplace at every event.
    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.

  12. #237
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,198
    ^^^ 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?

  13. #238
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,819
    Quote Originally Posted by evangeline View Post
    That's because both Lambiel and Takahashi were injured/recovering from severe injuries by the time the Vancouver Olympics rolled around. They had been able to do both quads and footwork well in the same program in the past--e.g. 2006 Worlds for Lambiel, 2008 4CC for Takahashi, 2007 Worlds LP for both--though I recall Takahashi's quad in his LP in Tokyo was not quite so perfect, but it was landed and given full credit with only a little negative GOE.

    As for Worlds and controversies, well, like Chan at TEB this weekend, Lambiel and Takahashi had their bad days, and for them, it so happened to have occurred at a World championships (2007 Worlds SP, 2008 Worlds as a whole for both of them, I guess).

    But no offence, saying Chan is the first to combine the ability to do quads and quality footwork is tantamount to re-writing skating history.
    I think you missed SF's point. While the examples you gave re: Lambiel and Takahashi are good ones - they were however off context and rather the exceptions rather than the norm of their times and slightly earlier. Both of these emerged as elite skaters after COP. If the argument is that 6.0 system overly simplified judging that produced "dull programs" and that skaters didn't need Quad and Footwork at the same time to be successful - I think such argument have some merit. Looking at skaters who actually emerged during the 6.0 era, which disqualified both Lambiel and Takahashi, the likes of Chenginang Li, Tim Goebel, Elvis Stojko - they were indeed Quad masters but otherwise, mediocre skaters. And if you landed Quads, your "Artistic Imression" mark automatically goes up to near or higher than your Technical Merit score. Interesting choreography or solid composition was rather secondary and showmanship is pretty much all you need.

  14. #239
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,198
    Quote Originally Posted by wallylutz View Post
    I think you missed SF's point. While the examples you gave re: Lambiel and Takahashi are good ones - they were however off context and rather the exceptions rather than the norm of their times and slightly earlier. Both of these emerged as elite skaters after COP. If the argument is that 6.0 system overly simplified judging that produced "dull programs" and that skaters didn't need Quad and Footwork at the same time to be successful - I think such argument have some merit. Looking at skaters who actually emerged during the 6.0 era, which disqualified both Lambiel and Takahashi, the likes of Chenginang Li, Tim Goebel, Elvis Stojko - they were indeed Quad masters but otherwise, mediocre skaters. And if you landed Quads, your "Artistic Imression" mark automatically goes up to near or higher than your Technical Merit score. Interesting choreography or solid composition was rather secondary and showmanship is pretty much all you need.
    I think you missed my point, actually. Also, I don't think Lambiel and Takahashi were exceptions to their times any more than Chan is an exception to the playing field today. Lambiel and Takahashi pushed their competitors forward much like Chan is doing so today. I really don't think someone like Evan Lysacek was doing quads in his programs for fun in 2007-8, right? And his Carmen program back then was probably the best one he ever had. Lysacek knew he couldn't beat the likes of Lambiel and Takahashi without a quad and a real program.

    I don't disagree with what you said about the 6.0 era.
    Last edited by evangeline; 11-21-2011 at 04:08 PM.

  15. #240
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,819
    Quote Originally Posted by evangeline View Post
    I think you missed my point, actually. Also, I don't think Lambiel and Takahashi were exceptions to their times any more than Chan is an exception to the playing field today. Lambiel and Takahashi pushed their competitors forward much like Chan is doing so today. I really don't think someone like Evan Lysacek was doing quads in his programs for fun in 2007-8, right? And his Carmen program back then was probably the best one he ever had. Lysacek knew he couldn't beat the likes of Lambiel and Takahashi without a quad and a real program.

    I don't disagree with what you said about the 6.0 era.
    My apologies if I missed your point, I tried to filter through comments very quickly after coming back from France this weekend. RE: your question on PCS of JF @ SCI, I will need to review the tapes in order to get back to you. Generally speaking, speed of the skater on ice is one thing but how the speed is achieved tells me more about the skills than the actual speed. A hockey player can be fast but their skating technique tend to be more brute force rather than skill.

Page 16 of 19 FirstFirst ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 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
  •