Men's LP

[Mrs. P]

^^ I agree Doris. Ross has shown me something this season with his steady approach to improvement. His coaches are bringing him along at the pace that's right for him rather than rushing his progress to keep up with particular trends. I think that lends itself to developing the consistency he's displayed. He's gaining comfort with his skating through the consistency hes achieved. With his success this season, he's no longer a skater to be overlooked or seen as a fluke or fill in skater. Once again Peter and Mark prove what fine developmental coaches they are.

Your comments are exactly why I posted the "slow-and-steady" comment in the SP thread. Everyone is obsessing over the quad, which is why people overlook Ross. But Ross and his coaches, as you said, has been smart to allow him to get an awesome 3A — I find it hard to believe this is the same guy that struggled with them early last season — and work on other aspects of his program.

Also to Ross' advantage is that he did not have to did with the same hype as Rippon. I think he'll probably have to learn how to deal with more expectations next year, but I think he'll do fine.

[ImaginaryPogue]

re: Miner

I dunno. There's no denying that medalling at 4CC is a significant accomplishment for him and that's worthy of applause. But at the same time, I recall assumptions at the beginning of the season assuming that Dornbush would be the de facto number one and that Abbott was on his way out. Well, Abbott had a stronger season than many (including myself) expected, Rippon came back stronger than he was in the 10/11 season, and Dornbush disappointed. The reason I bring Dornbush up is because I recall a lot of people thinking that Gambill (right?) was being appropriately cautious. They weren't rushing the quad, but clearly trying to get it. They weren't broadcasting to the press about massive success (see Mroz). Meanwhile, the US Federation recently seems a lot more capricious.

And for all the talk of trends, I'd argue that at least until 2018, the quad will be very important.

[SkateFiguring]

Among the US Men, Abbott is unquestionably above everyone else in just about every aspect, like Patrick Chan in Canada. He had a bad year with mostly extrinsic factors so I believed in him and his status relative to other skaters. My concern was the intrinsic mental factor which he has improved greatly. So it's no wonder he swings back strongly once the boot issue was resolved. After him, nobody jumps out as a sure future great, each with his strengths and weaknesses, and sporadic success prompting short lived buzz and hype. I think we still have to wait to see who among them will break out of the pack to prove himself not only above the rest of the US Men but a world class contender for major international medals. Getting the Bronze in 4CC is certainly a big step but Miner didn't distance himself from Rippon, and this medal does not assure continuing success. He and a few others are still great potential waiting to be proven. At age 20 - 22, it's time for somebody to make a leap forward.

[Mrs. P]

re: Miner

I dunno. There's no denying that medalling at 4CC is a significant accomplishment for him and that's worthy of applause. But at the same time, I recall assumptions at the beginning of the season assuming that Dornbush would be the de facto number one and that Abbott was on his way out. Well, Abbott had a stronger season than many (including myself) expected, Rippon came back stronger than he was in the 10/11 season, and Dornbush disappointed. The reason I bring Dornbush up is because I recall a lot of people thinking that Gambill (right?) was being appropriately cautious. They weren't rushing the quad, but clearly trying to get it. They weren't broadcasting to the press about massive success (see Mroz). Meanwhile, the US Federation recently seems a lot more capricious.

And for all the talk of trends, I'd argue that at least until 2018, the quad will be very important.

Among the US Men, Abbott is unquestionably above everyone else in just about every aspect, like Patrick Chan in Canada. He had a bad year with mostly extrinsic factors so I believed in him and his status relative to other skaters. My concern was the intrinsic mental factor which he has improved greatly. So it's no wonder he swings back strongly once the boot issue was resolved. After him, nobody jumps out as a sure future great, each with his strengths and weaknesses, and sporadic success prompting short lived buzz and hype. I think we still have to wait to see who among them will break out of the pack to prove himself not only above the rest of the US Men but a world class contender for major international medals. Getting the Bronze in 4CC is certainly a big step but Miner didn't distance himself from Rippon, and this medal does not assure continuing success. He and a few others are still great potential waiting to be proven. At age 20 - 22, it's time for somebody to make a leap forward.

Both of you make very good points.

However that doesn't change my assessment that Miner is on the slow-and-steady path to success. So far — and that's all I can base it on at this point— Miner has made steady improvements in his two seasons on the senior international scene. He started with a disappointing GP season with 7th and 9th place finishes due to his nemesis at the time — the 3A. He went home worked on it and came back with that bronze medal at Nationals. He was 11th in Worlds, which is not too shabby for your first try

This season, despite not having a quad, he finished 6th in his first and came back with the bronze in the NHK trophy. A stellar comeback? Hardly, but steady improvement, yes.

I don't discount the quad at all — as I said in the SP thread, Ross will absolutely need to have one if he wants to break out even further and be on the top. But my gut says we need to watch for this guy.

ETA: As for the "age" to be successful not everyone can be Patrick Chan and start winning things at 19 or even a Johnny Weir that advanced quickly despite a late start. Jeremy Abbott didn't win his first title until he was 23.

[SkateFiguring]

I expect few to start winning things at 17 like Chan and Plushenko, but the successful ones usually have made an impression and distinction by 20 or soon after. They would have been recognizable and memorable to the experts and fans at large as a super talent, not just one of the talents. By no means am I writing any of them off or dispute the slow and steady approach. But still waiting for a clear break from the rest.

[ImaginaryPogue]

Mrs. P, I guess I wonder what you mean by "top" then?

[Mrs. P]

Mrs. P, I guess I wonder what you mean by "top" then?

Top is first place, of course, IP. And I'm not saying he's there yet! I'm just saying that my assessment — SO FAR (again I emphasize, I can only speak of what I see) — is that I think he could sneak in there an be a contender in the next few years. And yes all that depends on the quad.

And also I'm saying his 4CC win — not expected by anyone here, btw — is an example of that path in action. Nothing saying he's arrived. He knows he hasn't arrive. Just saying he's moving.

I expect few to start winning things at 17 like Chan and Plushenko, but the successful ones usually have made an impression and distinction by 20 or soon after. They would have been recognizable and memorable to the experts and fans at large as a super talent, not just one of the talents. By no means am I writing any of them off or dispute the slow and steady approach. But still waiting for a clear break from the rest.

But here's the thing, Ross has been in seniors for two seasons. And he came into that first season off an injury from the second half of his last junior season. So really he's only had 1.5 seasons to show off so far. I think he'll be knocking on the door soon but he's trying to make sure he's prepared for it when that times comes.

[Mathman]

Last night he stayed clean and pretty by omitting one jump, albeit and luckily the least valued one in the program. People liked it or didn't notice it. But he can't afford to miss the big jumps by omitting, popping, or under-rotating them, even if he falls. It's the risk he and other top Men have to take. It takes guts. The system awards this risk but so many fans don't. To them, omitting, popping, and under-rotating, as well as wrong edge take off, are all rather acceptable, ignorable, and certainly preferable, but not falls, even with heavy penalties.

I think there are two separate questions. (a) What do the fans like and (b) How should the scoring system address risk, reward and errors.

For (a), the fans want a great performance with no falls. They want to see big jumps and fast spins and no falls. They want to see amazing footwork and eye-catching moves in the field and no falls. They want to see graceful movement performed to beautiful music and no falls.

To the average fan the only thing thing in Patrick's performance that wasn't perfect was that he kind of stubbed his toe on the landing one one of his jumps. (He lost a point or two in GOE for that, says the commentator -- fair enough.)

OK, so who cares what the fans want or don't want, right? Let's get on to the important question, (b).

The basis of the CoP is that you get points for what you do. Obviously, no scoring system can give out points for what you plan to do, but don't.

If you omit a jump, that's zero points. Patrick got 0 points for not doing a double toe. He did not receive a penalty for not doing it. He did not receive a reward for not doing it. He didn't do it. His program was not "less perfect" for omitting that element. The idea of "perfection" has been superseded by the idea of getting points for everything you do.

If you totally pop a jump, that's zero points.

If you pop an intended triple into a double or a single (all else being OK) you get credit for the jump that you did.

As for flutzing, a case can be made that if you don't do a Lutz then you should not get credit for doing a Lutz, whatever you might have "planned." But people holding that view have long since been shouted off the rostrum. There is no point bringing that up again.

When it comes to falls, the reason that I think that the current IJS rules are too lenient is this. Rotating four times in the air is a skill but not a skating skill. It is, indeed, a skill that can be done on dry land. Landing on a smooth secure edge after having rotated four times in the air, that is a skating skill.

(I admit that sort-of-falls, like Patrick's hands down in the short program, exposes the difficulty with being too dogmatic about this.)

[SkateFiguring]

It's all back to Art vs Sport and esthetics vs athletics. Many people just want to be entertained and to judge based on their personal enjoyment level, which is not all skill based.

I say it's a sport first and foremost in competitions, thus the levels of skills and difficulties, the content and its physical demands on the athlete matter in judging and comparing. Skating is supposed to be pretty, but sports are not always pretty. That makes figure skating very special but athleticism should not be sacrificed just to appeal to the public. I like figure skating to stay an Olympic sport rather than shows run by Ice Capades or Disney.

[Mathman]

^ But it is not clear that scoring falls leniently makes skating more sportsy.

[SkateFiguring]

^ But it is not clear that scoring falls leniently makes skating more sportsy.

Falls are not scored but penalized with deductions. But what they are deducted from is important, i.e. what has actually be accomplished and scored. It's fans who focus on falls and base the ranking on the number of falls. But the ranking is decided with scoring, on all that have been performed. I already offered explanation to charges that Takahashi and others don't win a program with the same number of falls as Chan, which is because of the >, >>, e, etc. they also incur and sometimes even missed jumps whereas Chan hardly ever have those other errors, even when he has falls. It's about how much and how well the athlete does overall. Falls are not rewarded or scored, whether leniently or not. One may say a superior athlete like Chan falls because of high risk he takes while maintaining the rest of the technical elements at a high level whereas many fall because of an overall lower technical level which shows up in other errors as well, which many people don't notice, care, or count. Now that's not very sporty of them.

[skatinginbc]

I admit that sort-of-falls, like Patrick's hands down in the short program, exposes the difficulty with being too dogmatic about this.

Sometimes a "fall" is less disruptive and more skillful than a "non-fall". For example: Chan's fall on 4T3T in SP at GPF received -2.29 GOE (-1, -3, -2, -1, -3, -2, -2, -3, -3) whereas his "non-fall" at 4CC received -3 across the board. To me, the mandatory -1 deduction on a fall serves little purpose other than punishing whatever falls into the arbitrary and subjective definition of a fall. I suggest they should get rid of the mandatory deduction and increase the range of GOE (e.g., to -5) and let the judges decide based on degrees of disruption and skills.

[let`s talk]

If anyone finds Misha Ge's video, let me know!! I really like him but I fell asleep and missed his performance!!

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xok...-2012-lp_sport

[Mathman]

... a superior athlete like Chan falls because of ...

That's the part I can't quite embrace with full enthusiasm. "The athlete messed up; but he messed up because."

To me the bottom line is this. If you complete four revolutions in the air and then fall, have you demonstrated enough ice skating skill to deserve 7 points or whatever?

[ImaginaryPogue]

7 points? No.

or whatever? Maybe.