If Dai skates two perfect programs and Patrick makes multiple mistakes, it is possible for Dai to beat him. The problem with Dai is he hasn't skated two near perfect programs yet. And Patrick tends to peak at worlds. It's going to take a miracle for Dai to beat him.
Last edited by Boeing787; 02-23-2012 at 12:10 PM.
As for a perfect or near perfect Dai, he hasn't shown us yet these last two seasons. He has his perfect SP at NHK and Japan Nationals, but blew it big at other events. He best LP was at GPF with a badly flawed 4T. He received 3 < at his winning NHK LP, including a bad 4T. IOW, he hasn't been able to skate two near perfect programs at one competition. The closest was at NHK with pretty flawed LP.
Chan, OTOH, has shown two near perfect programs at the Nationals, and a darn good, and clean, LP at 4CC. His falls on quads have been due to factors not likely to be repeated, such as hitting the board or that fluke blade click during the entry at SC. He has shown the resolve to get right back to skating and jumping immediately even with mishaps instead of letting the program go. Huge attribute of a champion.
I guess some fans can hope for two perfect programs from Dai while Chan has multiple falls on underrotated quads. Neither of these has happened yet.
Last edited by SkateFiguring; 02-23-2012 at 01:01 PM.
Taking Four Continents as a guide, Patrick beat Daisuke by almost 30 points in the LP. Daisuke lost a total of 10 points with his three errors (negative 2 GOE on his quad, popped a 3A. and under-rotated his 3A in combination). Give those 10 points back and Patrick is still ahead by some 19 points.
A fall on a fully rotated jump loses only 4 points (can you believe it!? ), plus whatever positive GOE he might have picked up otherwize. So If Patrick fell four times and was penalized 16 points, he still wins against a perfect Takahashi.
Well, in practice it wouldn't work out this way because the judges would knock off a little on Choreography, etc. Still...
So then Dai's choice is to play it safe and settle for silver or go all out, threaten for gold, but maybe land off the podium. Personally, if Dai asked me, I'd say concentrate on staying clean and getting silver, accept gold if it happens. Consolidate your place as the strong #2 and look to next season to threaten more.
If both Dai and Pat skate a clean SP, it's going to be a tie. The TES will be the same, Patrick doens't have much PCS advantage over Dai in SP or Patrick might lead by 1 point. In GPF, Dai skated a near perfect LP and Patrick's mistakes were equivalent to two falls. Their scores were almost the same. That's why I think Patrick can afford two falls.
A fall on a fully rotated quad or triple axel loses only 4 points, and the "only" applies because the base values for these jumps are so high that even after losing points the skater is still left with more than half of the initial value of the jump.
In other words, the complaint that skaters can get more points by falling on quads and triple axels than by standing up on easier jumps is a valid one, but it is not universally applicable outside of those very difficult jumps.
A fall on a fully rotated triple now only loses 3.1 points including the fall deduction, leaving the skater with less than half the value of the jump -- for a triple toe or salchow, about one quarter.
A fall on a double axel or double lutz loses 1.9 or 2.5 points, respectively, leaving a few tenths of a point net value.
A fall on a single or other double jump, or downgraded triple, loses between 1.3 and 1.9 points including the fall deduction. The points lost are greater than the base value of the jump, so the attempt with fall contributes negative net points to the total score.
I.e., the easier the jump you fall on, the more it costs you.
Even if one of the quad guys falls on an easier jump, he will not get many if any points for that easier jump. Successful harder jumps might compensate, though.
Dai's quads have improved significantly this season.
Chan's fall on a quad is usually his only flaw on the jump but others, including Takahashi, often incur more than a flaw when they fall. If Takahashi would fall without UR, or UR without fall, or two foot without UR, the penalty would not be so severe.
4T = 10.3 BV
4T< = 7.20
4T with fall = 6.30
4T<< = 4.10
4T< with fall = 3.20
4T<<with fall = 1.00
Negative GOE may reduce the marks of 4T, 4T< and 4T<<. Two footed 4F<< nets Takahashi 3.50.
I may compare Chan's and Takahashi's quads this season later to see how "go big or go home" plays out for each of them.
eta. To illustrate gkelly's point, 4T<< is basically an over-rotated 3T worth 4.10 points. A fall on the 3T (or 4T<<) leaves just 1 point, more than 3/4 of BV lost.
Last edited by SkateFiguring; 02-23-2012 at 02:58 PM.
Fall on a rotated 4T ==> receiving at least 61.17% of the base mark (10.30 -3 -1)/10.3
Fall on a rotated 3A ==> receiving at least 52.94% of the base mark (8.5- 3 -1)/8.5
Fall on a rotated 3Lz ==> receiving at least 48.33% of the base mark (6.0 -2.1 -1)/6.0
Fall on a rotated 3F ==> receiving at least 41.51% of the base mark (5.3 - 2.1 -1)/5.3
Fall on a rotated 3Lo ==> receiving at least 39.22% of the base mark (5.1- 2.1 -1)/5.1
Fall on a rotated 3S ==> receiving at least 26.19% of the base mark (4.2 - 2.1 - 1)/4.2
Fall on a rotated 3T ==> receiving at least 24.39% of the base mark (4.1 - 2.1 - 1)/4.1
Fall on a rotated 2A ==> receiving at least 24.24% of the base mark (3.3 - 1.5 - 1)/3.3
Fall on a rotated 2Lz ==> receiving at least 0.2 point the base mark (2.1 - 0.9 -1)
Fall on a rotated 2F ==> no worse than 0 (1.8 - 0.8 -1)
Fall on a rotated 2Lo ==> no worse than 0 (1.8 -0.8 -1)
Fall on a rotated 2S ==> no worse than -0.2 deduction (1.4 - 0.6 -1)
Fall on a rotated 2T ==> no worse than -0.2 deduction (1.4 - 0.6 -1)
Conclusion 1: The higher the difficulty level, the less execution or quality weighs. Difficulty outweighs quality in Senior competitions where high-level jumps (2A or higher) are expected.
Conclusion 2: The CoP places quality and difficulty on a more equal footing to differentiate the rankings among those who "may compete but cannot win".
I think we could just as well look at it this way:I.e., the easier the jump you fall on, the more it costs you.
If you fall on a quad you lose four points.
If you fall on a triple you lose 3.1 points.
Four points is more than 3.1 points.
In the CoP you add up the points. You don't add up the percentage of base value that you won or lost. My statement should have been, "if you fall on a fully rotated jump you lose at most 4 points."
Example: A skater's first two jumps are 4T and 3Lz. He rotates both jumps but falls on one of them.
Scenario A: He falls on the 4T. His score is 6.3 + 6.0 = 12.3
Scenario B: He falls on the 3Lz. His score is 10.3 + 2.9 = 13.2
His fall on the quad was more costly. The business about percent of base value is a red herring. In the CoP, points are points, whatever they are a percentage of.
But any way you slice it, if Chan's actual performances score 20 points above Takahashi's theoretically best program, then Chan can fall a lot of times and still be ahead on points.
Not sure what you mean by "may compete but cannot win." Whether a skater can win or not all depends on the level of competition and the strength of the field. Or by "win" do you mean only "win the world championship"?Conclusion 2: The CoP places quality and difficulty on a more equal footing to differentiate the rankings among those who "may compete but cannot win".
E.g., in US juvenile competitions (not sure if the same holds true in Canada or elsewhere), triple jumps are not allowed, so all the skaters will be doing jumps up to but no higher than double axel. In any competition at that level, quality and difficult may be on a more equal footing to differentiate rankings, and also someone is going to win with that content.