12-04-2011, 03:08 PM
I probably should clarify that I personally think it was fine. I only make the point to point out that Mao's 3-triple jump program would have been fine in 6.0, when in 6.0 they didn't really hyperanalyze the jumps to the level they do under COP.
Originally Posted by prettykeys
All I'm saying is that I could see a strict tech caller could call it < and if Michelle vs. Tara played out in COP, I could see people analyzing that combo and nitpicking at it for days.
Also, I have heard others have the same discussion about whether Lipinksi's 3-loop combos would have fared as well under COP. Some feel she would have had them ratified, others not so much.
Last edited by Mrs. P; 12-04-2011 at 03:11 PM.
12-04-2011, 03:18 PM
can't come down to Earth
That's fine, but I get tetchy when Tara's skating is torn apart often by fans of another skater (not you, Mrs. P), when their favoured skater's weaknesses aren't likewise mentioned.
Originally Posted by Mrs. P
That's further proof that I'm not hallucinating or creating a conspiracy theory.
I haven't seen all of her performed 3Lo-3Lo's to comment on them as a whole, but the one at the Olympics was mint, and I'd question the bias of those others who said it should be decreased in value. (Perhaps it wouldn't get high GOE, but other than that it looks clean as any 3Lo's could be.)
Originally Posted by Mrs. P
12-04-2011, 04:03 PM
I think you are making a couple of assumptions. First, if a home team or athlete's performance meets statistical standards, it is good enough to win. Second, the assumption is that the opponent will not produce a greater than average performance thus affecting the presumed result. So the conclusion is that judges/officials must be responsible for fouling up the result.
Originally Posted by Mathman
Yet the inclusion of team sports overlooks the fact that they often compete at the same venue (home field) for at least half of their games. That familiarity with the nuances of the venue (sight lines, noise, wind, quality of surface (grass, ice, hardwood), sloping, temperature, humidity, etc. can affect performance. Of course that could also explain why athlete in individual sports perform well at certain non home venues over time. They simply become used to them. However, in skating such familiarity with competition venues is less common, since many events are held in multi-purpose arenas not used for everyday training. (Trust me, as lost Redskins fan, I am quite familiar with the total uselessness of home field advantage.) In golf, arguably the major sport least affected by regular intervention by officials, the design of the course, it's length and width, type of grass, etc. are far more determinative of success than national of local origin. Even in the Olympics when home athletes outpace the usual medal counts for the host nation, that is arguably due as much or more to having used many of the venues for training prior to the event than to any boost in crowd support.
Still, I find the assumptions above to be a far too restrictive point of view. Your statistical examples from the sports you mentioned assume that those winning percentages are indicative of the performance of all athletes across all other sports. Note that in tennis, despite vast institutional riches, the largest permanent venue in the sport, massive crowds that break annual attendance records and are highly partisan, a favorable surface which is usually tweaked to suit American players, favorable scheduling of matches to ensure maximum support, etc., the US has failed to produce a men's champion at the US Open since 2003. (In fact, each of the majors has a current lengthy streak of failure in spite of similar structural and financial advantages.) There have been men who have performed well over that span (chiefly Agassi and Roddick). Sometimes that performance is to expectations (Roddick F 2006). In others it is above expectation (Agassi F 2005, Ginepri SF 2005). Yet no tournament victories. American men traditionally have had very strong summers leading into the Open, winning many of the US Open series events or placing well in them. Yet no US Open titles. Are the chair umpires to blame for this raft of quarterfinal and semifinal finishes? What about the linesmen? Could it be that other factors are at play rather than the easy assumption that the officials are at fault? Could it be that the quality and depth (Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray) of competition has risen relative to the period when Americans were dominant? Could it also be true that the former advantage that the quick cement surface once provided is no longer relevant because top foreign players have adjusted their games to handle it? Is it also possible, that those foreign players enjoy the rowdy NYC crowd more than foreign players of the past, thus negating them as a distraction? What about technical changes, like the fact that racquet technology and physical training have combined to make return of serve so potent that huge servers like Roddick are less of a factor than in the past? In fact, all of these things have proven to be true and are more likely factors to explain the American drought than so called home field advantage.
Also the assumption among many posters here has been that home ice advantage will either boost performance above normal levels, or it will affect judging to inflate scores. Home field advantage only matters when the athlete is winning or close to winning. It can serve as a potential emotional boost or spark an adrenaline rush just as much as it can lead to cramping and underperformance in the crucial moment. It is not the cause of the athlete winning or losing. It is simply another factor in the process.
12-04-2011, 04:12 PM
Thoughts on the GP Season thus far, junior and senior
1. Doesn’t it feel like the promise from last year’s worlds has been reneged upon this season? The battle we were promised between S/S and V/T has withered. Not only have S/S not posted a long program score to beat V/T, B/L’s highest LP score beats them too. Now, it would be okay if V/T were dazzling themselves, but they really aren’t – their programs aren’t great. And what makes it even worse is that S/S’ long program is one of the best ever – so ambitious and different that I forgive all the flaws, but of course – the judges can’t.
..... That’s what I wrote before Cup of Russia. And this is why we never prejudge things. Not only have S/S posted a score that is higher than V/T’s best, K/S have broken the 130 barrier, their best LP score tops V/T’s. Triggers a massive level of excitement for the GPF, doesn’t it? And to be fair, I’m more disappointed by V/T’s programs (I expected masterpieces for the all time list) then I expected to be.
Is anyone else getting a Petrova/Tikhonov type feeling surrounding Kavaguti/Smirnov? They’re not the Russian number ones, and it’s unlikely they’ll ever be. They’ve won a couple world bronzes and Euros gold, so nothing to be dismissive about. And I wouldn’t have said they were capable of much more.... except they have two sensational programs this year and are skating with more confidence than before. V/T (like B/S in P/T’s time) are gonna be the number one and the big guns heading into Sochi, but I really do hope that K/S can sneak through and win the World title I was hoping for last year.
2. But not only that – the absence of Pang/Tong shows you just how close to an end the Chinese domination of pairs is coming. Wait, that’s wrong. The domination is done. The real question now; are they going to go back to the days where S/Z would score medals throughout the season, but cede the ground to the Russians (or Canadians then/Germans now). The Zhangs greatest strength – some explosive elements – is gone and all the praise of their newfound artistry seems vacuous at best. And Sui/Han... well, it’s nice that they just go for it, but so many weaknesses mar what they do. Pang/Tong are strong skaters, but they aren’t strong enough to skip half a competitive season and come out on top. I’m more curious about where Zhang/Zhang stack up next to the second tier teams as the season heats up.
3. The story in Canada and the USA is the exact same story we saw last season. Canada had two teams start separating themselves from the rest, and it’s those two teams that are doing the same. The USA was a muddle and it remains so. Yes, E/L are pretty and should be fine. Yes, D/C have some strong elements. Yes, blah blah blah – American pairs is an oxymoron (except on the junior circuit. Fingers crossed). Mt/M came on a lot stronger than I expected, and I think they may defend their National title. D/R have that 60+ point base value that means they can absorb a lot in mistakes (see the TEB LP if you doubt me). I’m actually glad that D/R made it to the GPF over Mt/M – I think the former needs to get a lot more mileage on the program before it peaks, but both are basically gonna be challenging the 120 mark, which is awesome. Lawrence/Swiegers.... needed to be more consistent. They also were one of the teams majorly affected by the change in the GP rules. Being the third team in a nation of two slots will likely be the story of this season as well.
4. Little disappointed with Takahashi/Tran, I have to say. They have lovely programs, but the consistency doesn’t seem to be improving. I assumed having fewer competitions to skate this season would’ve helped (recalling they did both the junior and senior grand prix events last season, junior worlds long with senior worlds, 4CC, etc). The other interesting teams from Worlds last season seem to be in a rut as well.
(I'll post more later)
12-04-2011, 04:30 PM
It's not an accusation of being a racist, I doubt evangeline would ever do that. There's only one section that talks about that, did you read the parts before it? Anyways, here's what it said: "Hasty generalization can also be a basis for racist beliefs and prejudices." I promise I'm not trying to sound like an annoying person, but you just made a hasty generalization right there by assuming she was calling you a racist without reading the whole thing...
Originally Posted by os168
Definitely COP has its downfalls but humans are humans and until there is some computerized way to judge difficulty and quality (which is what the judges are for), there will always be some gray areas. For example, in tennis, there have been many technological advances like with the instant replay challenge system, but there still are and will be mistakes made by the umpires/judges. If only we were all free of bias...world peace and acceptance wouldn't be such a far-fetched idea.
Also, I don't know why you keep pointing at Mao's NHK score this season. When you go down the season's best chart...
2. Alissa Czisny, with VERY minimal GOE on jumps (only +1.59) as well as lucky not to get UR on some of her jumps. Total GOE of spins, spirals, and steps was 6.46 (the spiral's GOE alone was more than all her jumps' GOE). For a program that we have all agreed is pretty much devoid of transitions, a PCS TR score of 6.96 (and two 8s in other categories)...where was this located? TEB.
3. Elizaveta Tuktamisheva, opposite of Czisny. Tons of +GOE on jumps (by the way GOE on spins are worth way less than GOE on jumps, straight +3 across the board on a spin only nets +1.5 while straight +3s across the board on a triple jump gains +2.1, on a quadruple jump it gets +3), minimal on spins. Her PCS is much higher than at Skate Canada despite almost the same performance here (lower than Czisny, Kostner, Asada, Suzuki, etc. as IMO it should be at this point, Elizaveta is lacking a bit in SS, TR, and CH, and IN/PE is attached to CH and somewhat SS). Also at TEB.
4. Carolina Kostner: Decent GOE across the board, a few negatives. High PCS, great SS, strong CH/PE/IN (TR lacking a bit too). Actually if you want to know why she got level 1 on two spins in Skate America and level 4s here, definitely message mskater93 and ask. During a JGP I noticed a few people got level 1s for spins/steps that I thought were just fine and I asked and she responded quickly and analyzed the reasons as to why the levels were low. This was at COC.
You can go on and on but you can also find reasons. And to answer another one of your questions, through Alissa and Elizaveta's programs you can see how much non-jump elements can contribute a person's score (IMO spins should be worth more), as with Alissa 80% of her extra points on TES was from non-jumps. I think this is fair, because it shouldn't all be about jumps, but also all the non jump elements as well as SS, TR, etc. (figure skating, originally mostly about tracing figures on the ice).
BTW, I know you definitely have good intentions, but you're coming off a bit...I guess dismissive(?) of others' opinions. They have merit too. Variety is the spice of life, after all.
Last edited by burntBREAD; 12-04-2011 at 06:04 PM.
12-04-2011, 04:37 PM
I guess I misunderstood the point of your previous post. When you said that studies show that athletes don't perform better at home, I though those studies took into account all the things you mention here -- they are more used to the venue, they have or don't have an adrenaline rush, they do or do not like the rowdy crowd, the opposition does or does not rise to the occasion , the cement is harder or softer -- etc. All of these thing affect performance.
Originally Posted by jcoates
If athletes perform just as well at home and away, after taking all these performance-affecting variables into account, yet still the home team wins more than its share, what variable remains?
Last edited by Mathman; 12-04-2011 at 04:47 PM.
12-04-2011, 04:42 PM
Mental toughness. The quality of the competitors. How many times has a team from a deeper conference in the NFL but weaker record come through to beat the team from a weaker conference but with a stronger record and home field advantage once the playoffs begin?
Originally Posted by Mathman
12-04-2011, 05:15 PM
Weaver & Poje skated brilliantly in Kitchener at Skate Canada in 2009, winning their first GP medal (bronze) and beating Bobrova & Soloviev for the first time. This truly was "home ice" for Andrew as he trained at the Aud in Kitchener for years. The hometown fans roared for them when they took the ice and the building was electric. W&P fed off that energy and skated with energy and intensity.
Originally Posted by ImaginaryPogue
12-04-2011, 05:15 PM
It seems like mental toughness would be one of the factors that affect performance. As for strength of opposition, over the course of many seasons and averaged over all teams, the typical team would play just as many good teams as bad, at home and away, and this would be a statistical wash. Yet still the home team wins 60% of the time.
Originally Posted by jcoats
Anyway, in figure skating the strength of the opposition should not (in principle) affect your score.
So the question still remains: after setting aside all the factors that affect skaters performances, what non-performance factors remain that help to determine their scores?
12-04-2011, 05:27 PM
Yes, but mental toughness comes from within the competitor and is not a product of the environment. So it does affect performance, but it is one of the few things that is entirely within the control of the athlete.
Originally Posted by Mathman
As to performance across seasons/meetings, you are correct. Of course that ignores the fact the players in team sports change year to year. It also ignores the examples of non-team sports which I mentioned. But that actually negates the argument many are making specific to this upcoming event that it's location in Canada for this one competition will necessarily change the outcome which is what I have been focusing on. There is a difference between a statistical trend over time and an individual outcome.
12-04-2011, 07:05 PM
They had a massive stumble during the footwork in their FD - I felt they were better in CoC that season in the FD. Though technically, their CD and OD were good, but their FD wasn't.
Originally Posted by Dragonlady
12-04-2011, 11:12 PM
Judges determine the scores!
Originally Posted by Mathman
For most part, CoP is good at controlling subjectivity in judgment, but controversy can arise in areas where quality is marked. One aspect (which has been addressed and is far less problematic now) is the degree to which GOEs determine outcome; some skaters appeared to be getting more and more GOEs for doing the same and winning on the strength of their GOE. Another aspect (which has not been addressed yet) is underrotation; depending on the technical caller, what qualifies as full rotation is variable and leaves question marks.
There's also reputation marking.
Because of the leeway in CoP system for subjectivity in judging, anonymous judging will always be controversial.
12-05-2011, 06:17 AM
Based on your statement, it appears what the research studies are suggesting:
Originally Posted by jcoates
Mean performance in competition at home (μhome) = Mean performance in competition afield (μafield), although performance variance in competition at home (σ2home) > performance variance in competition afield (σ2afield)
If that's indeed what the studies have shown, I would argue that the increase of variance could increase the chance of getting on the podium. Say, a skater competed three times abroad and three times on home ice and received the following ordinal scores or placement:
Abroad: 4, 5, 6 (μafield = 5, σafield = 1)
Home: 3 (crowd-boosted performance), 5, 7 (crumbled under stress) (μhome = 5, σhome = 2)
Although the two distributions have an identical mean performance, the skater had 33.33% chance of getting onto the podium while skating at home, whereas he had no chance while skating abroad.
Stefan LINDEMANN, a German skater who won the bronze medal at the 2004 World championships in Dortmund, Germany, seems to be a fitting example. He had the skate of his life on home ice, a performance that was not in his "normal" distribution when skating abroad.
The home field advantage in performance may not concern so much the mean as the increase of variance.....It's just my intuition or guess.
Of course, the home advantage in judging will further increase the skater's chance of getting onto the podium.
Last edited by skatinginbc; 12-05-2011 at 08:06 AM.
12-05-2011, 06:24 AM
Judges mark the PC scores based on their opinions. Entertainment can not be quantified. It's in the mind of the beholder. Some like it hot; others like it cool, and that varies frm discipline to discipline. Somelike Dai's firery approach; somelike Evgeny's showoff approach while still others like Lambiel's classic approach, and these traits go into the scoring. Pick your choice.
12-05-2011, 09:19 AM
At the rink. Again.
You are neglecting the scoring corridor in your comment, Joe. If you aren't in the corridor for the given skater, you will be questioned...