Men - Free Program

[SkateFiguring]

I see nothing wrong in what Stojko said. It is rather a reaction to the praises of the others, calling Chan the best skater ever. We know which part of figure skating matters the most to Stojko and it is his right to think that way. For him the best skater ever has to be technically far above all, which also means doing jumps and combinations and spins that have not already been shown 12 years ago.

Twelve or two years ago nobody skated a program with multiple quads and the kind of complex transitions and footwork sequences of today. Should figure skating progress the way Stojko deems fit, there would be jumping contests filled with quads and quints and not much of anything else.

Nobody would complain if Chan got 270 points or so, but reaching 300 subjectively demands more, for Stoijko and people who judge figure skating like he does. He is quite right though in saying that Chan is "the poster child of the new scoring system, with the ability to chalk up points with all facets of skating."

Getting no complaints is impossible and not the basis for scoring a performance. How did you come up with 270 anyway besides that it might perhaps stop your complaints? Can you demonstrate and rationalize such a mark with scoring protocols of your own for discussion here?

Saying somebody is a poster child of the current scoring system is a dismissive statement about that person's accomplishments. Stojko was judged by the 6.0 of his days and he won legitimately by the system. Nobody has deemed him unfit champion because his skating would not win by COP. But why should today's skaters skate as if they were competing under the same system as he did? That would be utterly ridiculous and moronic.

[skatinginbc]

I see nothing wrong in what Stojko said.

Agreed. Stojko presented his thoughts in a very logical way: First, he defined what "the best skater ever" meant according to his dictionary--"a skater who blows the doors off" in every aspect of skating, and he pointed out the fact that Chan is not the best throughout figure skating history in terms of jumps and spins. I think he was correct in saying that.
Of course, one may have a different perspective and define "the best skater ever" as the most well-balanced skater who might not be the best in every element but is unmatchable as a whole. Under this definition, Chan is arguably the best ever.

Give Stojko a break. He has a valid albeit different point of view.

[SkateFiguring]

There is no one single skater who is the very best in every aspect. "A skater who blows the doors off" in every aspect of skating does not exist. And anybody close to this ideal would more likely emerge under COP which Stojko has no respect for.

[skatinginbc]

There is no one single skater who is the very best in every aspect. "A skater who blows the doors off" in every aspect of skating does not exist.

And therefore in Stojko's mind there is no best skater ever. Chan is one of the best but not the best ever.

[jettasian]

Even without quads, Patrick is still miles ahead and better than Stojko ever be.

Chan is "the poster child of the new scoring system, with the ability to chalk up points with all facets of skating."

This quote has been brought up many times. I do wonder why's Patrick the only one taking advantage of this "new" scoring system? I mean, there are many skaters out there, why don't the others do the same? Or maybe they are not capable of doing so? It's funny that this quote makes it looks like the system's designed FOR Patrick despite it was there long before Patrick doing competition.

[skatinginbc]

Even without quads, Patrick is still miles ahead and better than Stojko ever be.

Well, Stojko was once the poster child of the old scoring system, whereas Chan the one of the new scoring system. So they are even.
Also, based on his own definition, Stojko pretty much excluded himself from being the "best skater ever". So it is not discriminatory against Chan.

[SkateFiguring]

And therefore in Stojko's mind there is no best skater ever. Chan is one of the best but not the best ever.

The point in my original post was not about who the best skater is or whether or not Chan is the best. I admire Stojko for his grittiness, hard work, jumping ability and some other fine qualities as a winner. But I'm no fan of his skating or his opinion of what constitute great skating, which seems to be a common view and a sore point with him that he is still reacting to. My original post stated it was how I felt about his comments over the last few years, before Chan was ever considered for the status of the best skater. Stojko just comes across as having a tunnel vision about how Men's skating and skaters should be judged. It's about quads, quads, and more quads.

eta

Also, based on his own definition, Stojko pretty much excluded himself from being the "best skater ever". So it is not discriminatory against Chan.

I've been wondering: Whom has Stojko considered an excellent or the best skater, either an idol of his or someone during or after his competitive days? Recent media reports are usually his criticism of other skaters and the IJS, no doubt because his reactions about recent events are sought.

etaa

Well, Stojko was once the poster child of the old scoring system, whereas Chan the one of the new scoring system. So they are even.

No, he was not. In fact, he was much criticized for lack of artistry which was the more important half of the scoring. Thus my statement that he was still reacting to the criticism and probably resentment about being unfairly judged.

[skatinginbc]

I've been wondering: Whom has Stojko considered an excellent or the best skater, either an idol of his or someone during or after his competitive days?

I forgot where I got this idea (they had drinks together or something), but my impression is that Stojko thought highly of Plueshenko.

[SkateFiguring]

I forgot where I got this idea (they had drinks together or something), but my impression is that Stojko thought highly of Plueshenko.

He naturally sided with Plushenko during the last Olympic, but I didn't read direct praises. However, it would most likely Plushenko if Stojko had to choose. Outside of himself.

[Florian]

Getting no complaints is impossible and not the basis for scoring a performance. How did you come up with 270 anyway besides that it might perhaps stop your complaints? Can you demonstrate and rationalize such a mark with scoring protocols of your own for discussion here?

Saying somebody is a poster child of the current scoring system is a dismissive statement about that person's accomplishments. Stojko was judged by the 6.0 of his days and he won legitimately by the system. Nobody has deemed him unfit champion because his skating would not win by COP. But why should today's skaters skate as if they were competing under the same system as he did? That would be utterly ridiculous and moronic.

I haven't had the time to fill out an own scoring protocol for Chan. I might do once I have the opportunity for it. 270 was just a number I choose as maybe the "felt" maximum for a perfectly executed program with those elements. That's why I used the word "subjective". And this was not supposed to be a big criticism of Chan, rather of the scoring system and/or judging.

For me, saying somebody is a poster child of a scoring system is not a dismissive statement about that person's accomplishments. No, the system was not invented for Chan, but he is just the one who perfectly takes advantage of it, like Trixi Schuba once did with the figure skating system of her time. And that rather can be seen as a praise, about him being quite clever or at least lucky to favour the skating the system rewards. And I don't hate the skating that is rewarded today. I don't want a jumping contest either. For me an ideal skater has to be the best in every aspect of skating and art. If this ideal has ever existed is another question. Nevertheless do we compare the skills of skaters independently of the the system they had to skate in. And the most concrete and objective measure throughout history are the jumps, if one likes it or not. With Chan as champion, we are back at a good level after we had a rather unsatisfaying decade there, but as the big champion he is, breaking scoring records after records, one can demand that he levels up this, as Button, Browning, Stojko, Goebel, Pluschenko once did. That he is the more complete skater of at least two of them is clear. And he surely is someone who challenges himself and isn't easily satisfied, so I am optimistic. Those demands naturally appear because he is not just a champion, one of many, but because he is miles away of the rest given the scores and can usher in a new era. And he and also his fans have to live with those high expectations I think.

[Florian]

I forgot where I got this idea (they had drinks together or something), but my impression is that Stojko thought highly of Plueshenko.

Yes, after the Olympics he appeared together with Pluschenko and Katarina Witt in a show on German tv and defended him. He also praised Goebel in that discussion.

[SkateFiguring]

BTW, Men's SP and Ladies' Free, the complete show, is up on www.CTV.ca. Much nicer full screen than Youtube videos. The Pairs Free and Ladies' SP was on the site yesterday but not to be found today, so watch this segment of the competitions now if you wish.

[Mathman]

I haven't had the time to fill out an own scoring protocol for Chan. I might do once I have the opportunity for it. 270 was just a number I choose as maybe the "felt" maximum for a perfectly executed program with those elements. That's why I used the word "subjective". And this was not supposed to be a big criticism of Chan, rather of the scoring system and/or judging.

I tried it, just for fun. I did not give any negative GOEs. The only +3 I gave was on the 3Lz+half-loop+3S, which was absolute perfection. I do not see why he got so many +3's on his spins, which seemed to me to be fine but unexceptional. Maybe I don't know what I should be looking for.

On the program components, the scores for Interpretation (five perfect 10s out of 8) and P/E (also five perfect 10s out of eight) seemed too high. His interpretation of the the music was fine but I think 9.0 would have covered it, and the same with performance and execution. I thought the choreography was super, though. So 285 with 15 homer points seems OK to me.

[skatinginbc]

On the program components, the scores for Interpretation (five perfect 10s out of 8) and P/E (also five perfect 10s out of eight) seemed too high. His interpretation of the the music was fine but I think 9.0 would have covered it, and the same with performance and execution.

I'm more generous. I would have given him 9.25. Choreography was not perfect either. "As a choreographer, I saw small details that need to be fixed,” said Lori Nichol.

[jettasian]

I tried it, just for fun. I did not give any negative GOEs. The only +3 I gave was on the 3Lz+half-loop+3S, which was absolute perfection. I do not see why he got so many +3's on his spins, which seemed to me to be fine but unexceptional. Maybe I don't know what I should be looking for.

On the program components, the scores for Interpretation (five perfect 10s out of 8) and P/E (also five perfect 10s out of eight) seemed too high. His interpretation of the the music was fine but I think 9.0 would have covered it, and the same with performance and execution. I thought the choreography was super, though. So 285 with 15 homer points seems OK to me.

I'd add the solo quad and the 3A, and the 7th jump, Lutz?, and the 2A exit, all of these were gorgeous as well. So at world, I'm sure he will get many +GOE on these jumps, so I think he will probably get 290 to 295?