Huh? Chan's Quad was 1/4 turn short? Wouldn't that be considered under rotated? No, those judges wouldn't do that, tsk tsk tsk, bad judges, baaaad judges!
Takahashi's SP vs. Chan's
- Thread starter skatinginbc
- Start date
In the investment management industry, we also call such practice as "data mining". For example, someone who selectively pulled together the historical data of a security to give it a rosier picture than it really is with the intent of misleading investors. Suffice to say, it is completely unethical and many have been sued or even gone to jail for such misleading practice. Coming from someone who claims she does not have enough time to compile a more comprehensive list of data points to evaluate the statistical significance not so long ago in order to support a debated point, she surely has lots of time to go and selectively dig out all the falls that Chan had over a period of time while selectively omits the ones from the skater she is obviously trying to "support". I think I am seeing a behavioral pattern here based on these events and I am not liking it at all. To me this is dishonesty, very biased yet trying to pretend one isn't.
I have been watching this sport for a very long time and even was formally educated by the Royal Conservatory of Music in piano as a child well into my late teens. Even I have no clue what this is supposed to mean, in connection to the rythm issue raised, which you didn't quote.
But you know what, people can hold whatever opinion they want. If you want to split hair, there is will then there is a way.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2010
I thought we were playing judges, scoring them element by element or ranking them in a holistic approach. When I saw your results, I thought you assigned those levels as well. Little did I expect that you actually took it literally: Playing judges means playing judges, not the technical panel. And why did you get so mad? All I did was pointing out that your conclusion contradicted your assessment given that I mistakenly thought you assigned the levels as well. I even deliberately gave you a
in order not to offend you for the very reason that I like you as a person. I didn't even argue with the GOEs you assigned to their jumps. If that's your opinion, then I respect that's your expert opinion. No argument needed. I always said I am no expert and it is never my intention of trying to impress you with my "skating knowledge". Why did you get so mad and insult me with a Chinese 4-word idiom? Why?What makes you say that?
Do you have specific elements which you feel Takahashi's should have been higher and/or Chan's should be lower? If you point out the specific elements which you question, we can all take a look together and discuss. That's the point of this forum, right? I fully expect others to question the GOEs I gave and as you can expect, I am ready to defend them because I know how to justify them and know they stand on very firm grounds. Also, I must point out that the GOE on the Step Sequence is automatically higher for Chan because he scored a Level 4 vs. Takahashi who is a Level 3. One of the "kill factor" of getting Level 4 Step Sequence is that corresponding GOE from +, ++, and +++ are higher than Level 3 and below. Prior to the 2011-12 season, they were double of Level 3. This year, ISU adjusts it down to a scale of 0.7, 1.4 and 2.1 vs. 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 last year. Nonetheless, it is a difference that would help to explain why Chan's GOE are higher, which have nothing to do with whether Canadian judges are more lenient or not.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2010
I hope you are not talking about me. "Coming from someone who claims she does not have enough time to compile a more comprehensive list of data"--definitely not me because I never said that. So, who are you talking about?
Hey, I never said Lori's choreography was non-creative. There is a big difference between the lack of showing creative field moves and claiming one's choreography as a whole as non-creative.
Anyway, you guys started to put words in my mouth. And I hope the intention is not trying to blacken my characters, or it is extremely unfair. And I will be offended.
Last edited:
Even if that's the case, it is clear you don't get Levels do not equal technical proficiency in spins. Even if I were to assign a higher level for a spin to X skater over Y skater, it does not, in any way, contradict any statement regarding the overall technical superiority of a skater. Since you don't know what Levels mean, whether I assigned the Level or the Tech. Panel assigned the Level is completely irrelevant. If you had understood what that means, you wouldn't have seen a contradiction where there isn't.
I am not mad and I don't think you can read emotions from some IBB posts. If you are psychic, please let us know.
I am sorry you took that as an insult, it is meant as an advice for you because frankly, you have been getting on the nerves of a lot posters here lately with this thread with unclear intentions. It's for you own good yet I am sadden to see that you failed to learn from it and choose to get defensive over this. From your Chan and the Star on Ice comment = his stream of consciousness, please don't be surprised when some people take that as a mocking Patrick Chan. Then you went into an argument with SF, then you used that Level argument to suggest SF erred. Well, SF is a casual fan, she may not understand what Level actually is for Spins and I didn't want to reply to that either even though I knew back then you were incorrect. It is when you kept repeating the same thing over and over and now, use it to claim I somehow contradicted myself, I feel obligated to point out a mistake you have been making for quite some time because you are on the verge of misleading a lot of people with an often repeated yet incorrect comparison. You shouldn't be speaking about something that you didn't do enough reading or aren't sure. Hence, my advice for you - be modest.
Last edited:
Do you really want me to dig it up or maybe you want to recall harder before you force me to do it?
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
What makes you say that?
I misunderstood your post. I though you were reporting the average GOEs that the actual panels gave. I was just noting that the elements were the same, the only difference being the GOEs.
periperi said:
Very nice. I think the CoP does not reward that sort of thing as much as it does choreography done on quick feet.
I think what people object to is that there does not seem to be much in the way of adverse consequences in scoring when Chan falls. Takahashi fell three times in the long program, and as a result he finished third instead of first.
The argument that Chan's falls are OK because he pops right back up -- well, OK -- but some folks seem to think his falls are so amazing that they deserve a base value and positive GOEs in their own right, apart from the element that they are attached to.
Falling in figure skating is not good. Do not include your falls in your highlight reel, however praiseworthy they may be.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2009
Mathman said:
Patrick Chan's score for a three fall long at the Japan Open: 159.93
Patrick Chan's score for a three fall long at the Cup of Russia, 2010: 145.25
Daisuke Takahashi's score for a three fall long at Japanese Nationals: 158.55
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
^ Numbers, schmumbers. What I am reacting to are fans who delight in taking out their stopwatches, then waxing lyrically about the wonderfulness of a fall where the skater spends only 0.4 seconds on his rump.
No, guys, Falling down while skating is not a good thing, not even when it is your favorite skater who is doing it.
No, guys, Falling down while skating is not a good thing, not even when it is your favorite skater who is doing it.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2009
....nevermind.
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2008
- Country
-
It has to be more than a 1/4 short to get the deduction. It was close but definitely not more than a 1/4. Still a good combination jump for Patrick (ie - worthy of +1 GOE) but you don't deserve +2 GOE when the rotation is that close, unless you're doing a difficult arm position in the air or a very difficult entrance or it was one of the biggest jumps ever.
My understanding is that when Lori designed a program for Patrick, it's the whole package, from the first move, to the next jump, down to the last spin. Basically, what Patrick skates is what's designed for him. So your criticism about Patrick's lack of creativity on some part of the program, to me, it is talking about his choreography as well.
And admit it, after this, I'm sure you will come up with another "topic" to dissect every move on Patrick's skate. I wonder what's next.
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2010
I didn't pay attention on this bolded sentence the first time. So I'll respond it this time. You said you didn't see Chan demonstrating long edge holding in his program. I said if you demand to see spread eagle in every program, that's not going to happen because spread eagle kind of movement does not fit in every single program. Then you challenged to say that why can't Chan do that once in a while to show he has the ability. I questioned whether you've seen that he has done spread eagle in both POTO LP and Aranjuez LP. And then you responded me with this. I've never said it is insufficient. It was you who thought spread eagle uncreative and couldn't be used to demonstrate the true ability of keeping an extended edge. You wanted to see one-foot field work like Takahashi's double-edged one-foot move.
Something mixed up here.
This is turning ridiculous. Will you question whether skaters truly have the ability to do the level 1 spin because they only do the level 3 and level 4? So they maybe reluctant to demonstrate and might be afraid of exposing their weakness in basic level 1 spin?! Will you question why skaters won't show their abilities in single jumps or double jumps? So they might be busy hiding their weaknesses in the basic jumping technics?!
You think Takahashi's one-foot, double-edged long glide showed that he was brave to show his basics, and you challenged Chan to do the similar move?! And you said Chan's spread eagle was using both feet on the ice so it was not as challenge as Takahashi's and Buttle's "one-foot field work"? Think again how ridiculous your sound was!
Math, that spread eagle of Boitano's wasn't good enough for skatinginbc's requirement because that was a two-foot move and uncreative.
Last edited:
I think what people object to is that there does not seem to be much in the way of adverse consequences in scoring when Chan falls. Takahashi fell three times in the long program, and as a result he finished third instead of first.
The argument that Chan's falls are OK because he pops right back up -- well, OK -- but some folks seem to think his falls are so amazing that they deserve a base value and positive GOEs in their own right, apart from the element that they are attached to.
Falling in figure skating is not good. Do not include your falls in your highlight reel, however praiseworthy they may be.
But some people just see Chan falls, why's he still leading. They don't see how it was fallen, did it rotated fully, and how well the others have skated. Dai was third after the 3 falls maybe because the other two skated better? Chan won GPF in the long with 2 mistakes (or 3, I don't remember) but the rest made mistakes as well.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2010
Wallylutz, if one skater receives "CCoSp4 +2" and the other "CCoSp3 +2" from you, is that wrong for me to assume that you think (1) one is higher than the other in Level, (2) they are equally well-executed, and (3) as a whole the first skater is better than the second in that element? Out of respect, I've been trying to be extra polite to you, but I have to be honest with you: It is your own fault to say "technically superior in every way" when it can be interpreted as "technically superior in every element".
To be specific, I used not only the Level but also GOEs as my argument. And what I said was 100% correct: It has been an element where Dai consistently beat Chan.
Proof:
Skate Canada: Dai 4.64 vs. Chan 3.93.
NHK: Dai 4.57 vs. TEB: Chan 4.00
GPF: Dai 4.36 vs. Chan 3.93
Japanese National: Dai 4.50 vs. Canadian National Chan 4.17.
What's wrong with my telling the truth? Or do I have to shut up because I'm telling the truth? Why am I the only one that has been providing the concrete proof and footage while others can simply bla bla bla and attack my characters?
Do you want to know the truth? I am not a Japanese as you first assumed. I am not really a Dai fan although I like his skating once in a while. I did not read nor write any post in the Japanese National thread. I watched his SP (Japanese national) only a couple days ago. I had never watched his LP and didn't know he had three falls until today when ImaginaryPogue pointed that out. And I don't like your speaking in riddle. Yes, I thought hard and finally realized that "coming from someone who claims she does not have enough time to compile a more comprehensive list of data" was me. It was long time ago in a different thread. I said that as a polite way of telling you that your idea of statistical analysis was pointless and wasting my time. Do you want to know the truth? There is more: I joined Goldenskate for the very purpose of defending Chan's skating. The first private message I received was from Skatefiguring who thanked me for refuting Chan's opponents. I was soon turned off by Chan's foot-in-the-mouth disease and his overaggressive fans that as an angry swarm of bees attacked naysayers, intimidating and exhausting them by number of negative responses, not by logic, to effectively silencing others. It took me a long while to finally accept Chan's streams of consciousness. And yes, I was just starting to say nice things about Chan again (e.g., I said, "Dai does not always excel in artistry"). Unfortunately, I saw propaganda here and there, little by little, mixed in well-articulated arguments. And it turned me off.
Anyway, in response to your "data mining", I have mentioned in Post #95 that even if we include Dai's three falls in nationals, Chan still out-fell Dai this season in terms of number and the longest recovery time (where recovery is defined as the moment when a skater actually resumes the planned choreography).
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2010
I may not be an expert but I do know very well about what levels mean and that they are determined by the Tech Panel. I have avoided responding to irrational arguments because it's so pointless and also just because a great skater like Takahashi has irrational fans ridiculing his chief rival for him, I don't want to be baited into disrespecting Takahashi himself. I may analyze and even criticize, but I also pay the skaters due respect and do not resort to mocking and creating myths to build up another skater.
Mathman, the only good thing said about falls was from Let's Talk, supported by skatinginbc:
When Takahashi fell three times in his LP right after this near flawless SP, just about everybody was respectful enough not to dwell on it. Those who had declared him God after the SP were quiet and didn't gush about his "perfect impression" and "well delivered program". It is way too cheeky to make such declaration which no one has ever said about Chan, fall or no fall. Anybody who has watched them skate can tell Chan doesn't stay down or stroke around for up to 10 seconds to resume the program. He even does his jump even when he stumbles or falls during the entry. It is completely opposite to reality to say Takahashi delivers his program with multiple falls while Chan's falls are greatly exaggerated both in number and in disruption.
As well, Chan have had some fluke falls which incur only the mendatary deduction, and his falls from jumps are after full rotations, even over-rotation, while Takahashi often falls from two footed and/or under-rotated quads. As well, he fell on the first jump of his combo, missing out the second jump as in GPF SP, and in his Nationals LP which also reduced his 3A BV as it was repeated without combination. That's why he came in third in LP in Japan Nationals in spite of much higher PCS over a clean Hanyu and Kozuka with one fall. Like it or not, the system rewards and adds up what are accomplished. If Chan wins with falls, it's because he still does more than the others. And he has not had 3 falls in a program this season like Takahashi.
skatinginbc said:
You demand a one foot spread eagle? skatinginbc said:
You talk like you never watch him skate or know nothing about skating. That's exactly what he does in every program better than any one in the world.
Last edited:
Chan Zayakked at the Cup of Russia, 2010, and received zero for the 2A+3T combo.
http://www.isuresults.com/results/gprus2010/gprus10_Men_FS_Scores.pdf
If he hadn't Zayakked, he would have won the competition with four falls (one in SP and three in FS).
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2010
Takahashi fell 3 time at Japan Nationals and still beat the Worlds Silver Medalist to win the competition. It's not just about number of falls. His fallen 4T was credited. His second fall took out the combo so he missed one jump completely as well as incurring reduced BV for the 3A repeated without combination. His third fall was on a 3F with <. That was why he came in 3rd in FS even though his PCS was 5.4 points more than Kozuka and 7.9 points over Hanyu the FS winner. Had he fallen after completion of fully rotated combo and the 3F without <, he would have gained (6.38 + 4.46=) 11.26 BV and won the FS as well without additional PCS likely awarded.
The number of falls alone doesn't tell the whole story.
The number of falls alone doesn't tell the whole story.
- Joined
- May 11, 2011
I agree.
I think what people object to is that there does not seem to be much in the way of adverse consequences in scoring when Chan falls. Takahashi fell three times in the long program, and as a result he finished third instead of first.
The argument that Chan's falls are OK because he pops right back up -- well, OK -- but some folks seem to think his falls are so amazing that they deserve a base value and positive GOEs in their own right, apart from the element that they are attached to.
Falling in figure skating is not good. Do not include your falls in your highlight reel, however praiseworthy they may be.
It seems to me as though Takahashi benefits from PCS when he doesn't do well too tho. It's not like his component marks plummet because he's had a few falls. :confused2: Also, Takahashi's falls on his jumps tend to be costlier than Chan's as SF explained why:
Honestly, I've never seen anyone make an argument that Chan's falls are OK because he recovers quickly. SF's quoted argument above is the argument I've seen people make. I think we can all agree that falls are not good.
what I was really leaning towards with my comment is pretty much what SF has had to say about this whole issue. When Chan wins a competition with falls, people all over the the place in different skating boards don't let it go and mock and exaggerate his falls at every chance they can get. When Takahashi won with some falls, we had disgruntled posters, but no one that I can think of crossed the line and downright disrespected Takahashi. Soon enough everyone got over it.
...Really hope you weren't completely serious with that post and actually took my comment so literally. But yeah... Takahashi has a noticeably longer recovery time = more distracting. That simple. I still enjoy his skating.
Last edited:
