Page 17 of 19 FirstFirst ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 LastLast
Results 241 to 255 of 272

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

  1. #241
    Custom Title CassAgain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by dorispulaski View Post
    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.
    I love that video. Not only his hairdresser knows for sure. Great skating, too!

  2. #242
    leave no stone unturned seniorita's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,579
    ^ He is not blond BLOND??

    I finally watched men, yey Song, the 2010 Juniors in full force, I hope him and Hanyu have a great season. Liked his ex also!
    From all the stuff I had read here I was waiting Chan worse, but I didnt think he was that bad, he just lost focus after the fall in steps. I liked the last minute of his program, he seemed to skate free. Btw I dont get the hair comments either, he looked the same to me as SC, no?
    Ugh Brezina Lp is not my fav, music masacre, but I like his sp a lot so...

  3. #243
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,819
    Don't remember who said it but there is no +SEQ penalty for 2A not in combo, unlike Triples and Quads

  4. #244
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,330
    Quote Originally Posted by wallylutz View Post
    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.

    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.
    One of the advantages of putting in a quad< in the LP is that you avoid Zayak problems. As I look at Takahashi's jump layout, the other seven passes are pretty much maxed out: two triple Axels, two triple flips, Lutz, loop Salchow and toe (in combination). plus a 2A. What would be a good choice for his eighth jumping pass?

    This is not a factor in the SP.

    I agree, though that no one plans to fall. That would be a ridiculous strategy no matter what.

    But the question was about risk. Score-wise, the risk factor goes down considerably when you have a good chance of getting half credit even if you fail. A skater might feel that it is worth going for the quad if his seccess rate in practice is only 50%, instead of waiting until it is 80%.
    Last edited by Mathman; 11-21-2011 at 06:48 PM.

  5. #245
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    5,609
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    Very difficult. Very difficult. Maybe impossible for any add-up-the-points system to achieve.
    I'd argue that a holistic system doesn't do a better job.

  6. #246
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    5,609
    Quote Originally Posted by evangeline View Post
    ^^^ 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 think, while not justification, one thing worth mentioning is that judges tend to feel more comfortable awarding higher PCS for the long than the short program. I think the most obvious example would be Chan at Worlds 2011. His short program was superbly skated, clean and not an edge out of place. His LP was a little more tentative in terms of everything. But his PCS was nearly 0.8 points higher per component.

  7. #247
    Skating is art, if you let it be. Blades of Passion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Hollywood, CA
    Posts
    4,011
    Quote Originally Posted by evangeline View Post
    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?
    It's not justified, it's just further proof of how judges score based upon politics more than anything else. The same thing happened here at TEB with Nan Song - his SP was better but he received significantly higher PCS in the LP as a result of the momentum of doing so well in the SP and being solidly in 2nd place after that segment.

    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.
    Not entirely accurate considering those "Quad King" skaters often suffered in the presentation mark, especially Chengjiang Li. The idea you posit of the quality of the judging being bad because of the 6.0 system doesn't really have any supporting argument. It is not the 6.0 system's fault that poor programs may have been overly scored in the presentation mark, it is the fault of the judging and the powers that be. If skaters had been told under the 6.0 system that their presentation score would drop if they didn't include enough transitions, then we would have seen more transitions. If skaters had been told their technical score would drop if they didn't include difficult spin variations and plenty of difficulty in the footwork, then those elements would have become more robust.

    "Interesting choreography and solid composition" hasn't really improved with CoP. The composition of programs has arguably become worse, actually, with elements placed in such a way to maximize technical points rather than to maximize the choreography and meaningfulness of the program. The choreography itself is now much more packed with additional steps, turns, and edges in comparison to the past but that doesn't necessarily mean it's more interesting. Do you think G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1046173/) is a better film than Lost in Translation (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0335266/) since the former had non-stop action sequences that required a lot more manpower and money and complex CGI to create?

    Like most things in life, there needs to be a good balance and a sense of purpose. Complexity/difficulty/"busy work" just for the sake of it does not a great sport make. It's good that CoP has brought greater emphasis on pure skating ability back into the sport but that should not be allowed to overwhelm and diminish what makes figure skating truly inspirational - conjoining wonderful movement and positions on ice with music and performance art.

  8. #248
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,330
    Quote Originally Posted by ImaginaryPogue View Post
    I'd argue that a holistic system doesn't do a better job.
    I think that one's intuition about what constitutes a great performance is holistic. I almost always have a strong intuition about which skater was best, second best, etc., even though I cannot tell you what jumps the skaters did, much less whether a competitor turned in the opposite direction at least 33.3% of the time during his footwork sequence.

    The CoP has many virtues and I can see why the majority of skaters, judges and skating experts like it. But it does place a barrier between the performances and the fans. To me, there is a loss of immediacy. (I know, I know -- the cure for what ails me is to study the rule book some more. )

  9. #249
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    5,609
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    I think that one's intuition about what constitutes a great performance is holistic. I almost always have a strong intuition about which skater was best, second best, etc., even though I cannot tell you what jumps the skaters did, much less whether a competitor turned in the opposite direction at least 33.3% of the time during his footwork sequence.

    The CoP has many virtues and I can see why the majority of skaters, judges and skating experts like it. But it does place a barrier between the performances and the fans. To me, there is a loss of immediacy. (I know, I know -- the cure for what ails me is to study the rule book some more. )
    More accurately, I should state that one's intuition isn't always correct. I'll agree with you about the loss of immediacy and the barrier. We all know how much I care about that.

  10. #250
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,198
    Quote Originally Posted by ImaginaryPogue View Post
    I think, while not justification, one thing worth mentioning is that judges tend to feel more comfortable awarding higher PCS for the long than the short program. I think the most obvious example would be Chan at Worlds 2011. His short program was superbly skated, clean and not an edge out of place. His LP was a little more tentative in terms of everything. But his PCS was nearly 0.8 points higher per component.
    I see what you mean, but at the same time, I don't understand. We are told that PCS is, unlike 6.0, not used as a tool to rank skaters or reflect their reputations. These values, especially in categories like TR and SS, are supposed to be somewhat objective and quantifiable. Yet with this jump in PCS between the long and short programs, does this mean that skaters magically gain better SS within a 24-hour time period?

    I chose Javier as an example because (although I do like his skating and am a fan), to me, he is an especially egregious example of this phenomenon. Last season (e.g. 2011 Worlds), Javi was a 6-range skater in PCS. After his short program at Skate Canada, Javi's score shot up to firmly in the 7-range. Now, he skated very well and I see how he has improved in many areas in his skating over the summer, like in CH. So the 7s seemed justified to me. But after the LP, BOOM! All 8s, except for TR. And he really didn't skate as well as he did in the SP either. Even as a fan, I didn't think the 8s were justified.

    And yet we are told reputation, momentum, how you jumped, blah blah blah, aren't supposed to affect PCS like that under CoP. So what gives?

  11. #251
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,330
    Quote Originally Posted by ImaginaryPogue View Post
    More accurately, I should state that one's intuition isn't always correct.
    The intuition of the fans is often askew -- they always think that their favorite skated better than his rival. (That's what makes them fans. )

    But I think that the intuition (if that's the right word) of a panel of expert judges is just as "correct" as the mathematical sums that determine the winner in the current system.

  12. #252
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,819
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    One of the advantages of putting in a quad< in the LP is that you avoid Zayak problems. As I look at Takahashi's jump layout, the other seven passes are pretty much maxed out: two triple Axels, two triple flips, Lutz, loop Salchow and toe (in combination). plus a 2A. What would be a good choice for his eighth jumping pass?
    I assumed you are talking about his LP protocol from NHK 2011. Don't know where you saw the 2A because it is not listed that he has done that jump in the protocol. Takahashi didn't max out his jump content. Although he did have 8 Triples, he failed to take advantage of:

    1) The opportunity to have up to two Double Axels in the LP, potentially worth a little more than 7 points in BV (if done in the 2nd half), or more than that of a Triple Lutz

    2) Utilizing a slot for a 3 jump combination

    The 2T behind the 3Lz was unnecessary as he had no plan of repeating the 3Lz. There are many choices he could have done in lieu of the 4F attempt. For one, he could do a 2A+1Lo+3S combo in lieu of the stand alone 3S and by not doing the 2T off the 3Lz. But more directly, the entire 4F pass could also be replaced by a 2A+2A sequence and pushed to the 2nd half for a 5.80 in BV, more than that of a 3F. I am sure you can agree that 2A+2A is far easier than any 4F attempt, hence he has a much higher chance of getting positive GOE than an almost certain negative GOE from a 4F attempt. Not to mention, the psychological bonus of having a "clean skate" which is a big plus when you are Daisuke Takahashi knowing his PCS potential.


    But the question was about risk. Score-wise, the risk factor goes down considerably when you have a good chance of getting half credit even if you fail. A skater might feel that it is worth going for the quad if his seccess rate in practice is only 50%, instead of waiting until it is 80%.
    I think your logic is flawed and no better example to illustrate this than Mao Asada's elusive Triple Axel attempt. You actually get less than half of the credit for a Quad or Triple Axel attempt when you receive a << notation. The value is approximately 40% of the Quad. For example, while a 4T is worth 10.3, a 4T<< is worth only 4.1. And if the 4T<< resulted in a fall, the value is most likely = 4.1 - 2.7 - 1.0 = 0.4 From 10.3 down to 0.4, I think it's hard to support your argument of "half credit even if you fail". You could fail a jump in many ways, falling on a Quad is hardly the only or necessarily the most serious way of ruining it. And if Asada's 3A is almost always fully rotated, her coach wouldn't be telling her to skip that jump for now. Because her 3A is seldom fully rotated, not because she falls that much on that jump. Many ladies have practiced doing 3A but few are willing to put it in competition because the whole argument that you get half credit even when you fail is simply untrue unless you are confident to actually rotate and land the jump. I feel the penalty for failing a high value jump is still quite severe.

  13. #253
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,819
    Quote Originally Posted by evangeline View Post

    I chose Javier as an example because (although I do like his skating and am a fan), to me, he is an especially egregious example of this phenomenon. Last season (e.g. 2011 Worlds), Javi was a 6-range skater in PCS. After his short program at Skate Canada, Javi's score shot up to firmly in the 7-range. Now, he skated very well and I see how he has improved in many areas in his skating over the summer, like in CH. So the 7s seemed justified to me. But after the LP, BOOM! All 8s, except for TR. And he really didn't skate as well as he did in the SP either. Even as a fan, I didn't think the 8s were justified.

    And yet we are told reputation, momentum, how you jumped, blah blah blah, aren't supposed to affect PCS like that under CoP. So what gives?
    I'll look into this, just give me some time. I am too tried to do this tonight but should be able to review this sometimes this week.

  14. #254
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,330
    Quote Originally Posted by ImaginaryPogue View Post
    We all know how much I care about that.
    No, actually I don't. Are you saying that you do care about the audience, or that you don't?

  15. #255
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    5,609
    Don't.

Page 17 of 19 FirstFirst ... 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
  •