# Thread: Can Takahashi Close The Gap On Patrick Chan?

1. 0
Originally Posted by Mathman
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."
OK.

Keeping in mind, of course, that the skaters who start with higher base marks may still have more points even if they lose more 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.
OK.
Looking at it this way, this principle would be even more true if falling on a jump meant 0 points toward the total score, which I think is what you would prefer. Falling on a harder jump would lose you more points than falling on an easier jump.

But the planned total that those points are lost from is higher for a skater who attempts harder content to begin with. So if two skaters fall on different jumps and lose different amounts from their planned base mark, they still might come out the same.

With a fall = no cigar (no points) system, then these two skaters would earn the same total for their jumps, assuming they got the same GOEs and the same distribution bonuses:

4T+3T, 4T (fall), 3A+2T, 3A, 3Lz, 3F+2T+2Lo, 3Lo, 3S

4T, 3A+2T, 3LZ+3T, 3A, 3Lz (fall), 3F+2T+2Lo, 3Lo, 3S

The first example attempted a harder repeat jump. They both fell on the repeat jump and got no credit for it. So the jump content will not be the deciding factor here.

The same would be true if skater B popped the lutz before falling:
4T, 3A+2T, 3LZ+3T, 3A, 1Lz (fall), 3F+2T+2Lo, 3Lo, 3S

No credit for jumps with falls means that falling on a 1Lz is worth the same as falling on a 4T.

If skater B popped the lutz so badly he earned -3 GOEs but rotated the single and stood up, he'd get more points for jumps than the guy who rotated the quad but fell down.

And at my level of competition, if it were scored by IJS, if I did a 1Lz that deserved -3 GOE (highly likely if I tried one), I'd darn well want those 0.3 points.

Under 6.0, there was also a rule that jumps landed on two feet should not be scored. I think this referred to jumps landed with weight about equally distributed between both feet, not to an incidental touchdown or step out after landing on one foot. So if we want to change the IJS to give no points for jumps with falls, should there also be no points for jumps landed on two feet? And leave it up to the tech panel to decide which jumps qualify as "landed on two feet" and hence ineligible for any points at all, vs. jumps landed with errors in which the other foot touches the ice and hence eligible for base value according to amount of rotation, minus the applicable negative GOE?

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.
True. If we were talking about the best skater in the world and the 200th-best skater, there would be no outrage here. The problem is in expecting that the 2nd-best skater in the world should always be within easy reach of the best (assuming we can define Chan and Takahashi as definitively the best and 2nd best -- which is always subject to change as they and other skaters continue improving or start to decline).

2. 0
Originally Posted by gkelly
by "win" do you mean only "win the world championship"?
Of course. I'm talking about major international Senior Competitions, the World Championship in particular. This is a thread discussing whether "Takahashi can close the gap on Patrick Chan". It is inconsequential for us to argue that falling on the lower-level jumps receives zero or a negative point because not many elite male skaters who are eying for the gold would attempt them anyway. Even if Takahashi falls on a downgraded triple flip and receives 0 for that element, it just proves my argument that difficulty (full rotation) matters the most.
Originally Posted by gkelly
there are other gradations of quality besides fall/-3 GOE or base mark, and most jumps don't end in falls, so quality will be a distinguishing factor over the course of each program.
But the worst possible GOE is -3. Even if one has a wrong edge entrance, double footing, hand-down, and then falls forward and backward and upside-down and falls again while crawling up halfway, the worst penalty is -4 (fall penalty included). Though quality is one of the deciding factors of the final scores, it is the difficulty level that matters the most.

3. 0
But the rules have to work for everyone they apply to, not only the world medal contenders.

There are different rules for different competition levels and different disciplines. E.g., senior ladies aren't allowed to do quads in their short programs. And how quads are scored doesn't have much effect on the ladies' long program/overall results either.

But all senior men compete under the same rules. And at a senior men's competition where no one is successfully landing quads, someone is still going to win.

Mathman and others have used general terms to discuss the principles of the scoring, and that's what I'm addressing. If you object specifically to how quads are scored, then make sure you specify "quads" and not just "jumps." Because the objection might not be generalizable to all jumps, might not apply to the IJS as a whole.

4. 0
Originally Posted by Mathman
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.
Your theoretically best program from Takahashi did not include positive GOE he would likely get. From your calculation

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.
His 3As from NHK were 10.64, 9.48 points more than the 1.16 for the 1A at 4CC. His 3A+3T from GPF was 15.43, 5.18 more than 10.25 from 4CC, while his quad from Japan Nationals was 11.90, 3.6 in GOE difference. Give him the same mark for the 4T in his SP and it would increase the score by 8.7. Thus you can add 26.96 to Takahashi's 4CC total TES if he had jumped as well as he could. With a little higher PCS from the increased TES, Chan probably can't afford a fall against a near perfect Takahashi, unless maybe he is actually perfect other than a fall.

I see a lot has been written since I started this post, with interruptions, so I need to read them. However, I want to point out that values of GOE go both ways. The flip side of proportionately lower penalties on low quality is lower rewards for higher quality. If GOE value for a quad is increased for the purpose of penalty, it will also increase the difference between a front runner with quads of high quality from those attempting to close the gap. An unintended consequence?

5. 0
Originally Posted by gkelly
But all senior men compete under the same rules.
But the same rules produce different effects on different levels of skaters. Under the same rules, women may hold a different strategy from men, senior different from junior, podium-hopeful different from top-twenty seekers. It lacks a consistent principle or value within the same rules.

6. 0
I see a lot has been written since I started this post, with interruptions, so I need to read them. However, I want to point out that values of GOE go both ways. The flip side of proportionately lower penalties on low quality is lower rewards for higher quality. If GOE value for a quad is increased for the purpose of penalty, it will also increase the difference between a front runner with quads of high quality from those attempting to close the gap. An unintended consequence?
Not necessarily. A couple of years ago the way the GOE values were set for quads and triple axels was in increments of 1 point (1, 2, 3) for positive GOES, same as for triples, but in increments of 1.5 (1.5, 3.0, 4.5) for negative GOEs.

To me, that was the best approach and I wish they would go back to it. Apparently quad proponents were successfully able to argue against it, however.

And at the same time the negative GOE values for triples have also been reduced, although the positive ones are still in 1-point increments.

For lower-value elements, it had already been the case that the negative GOE values were smaller than the positive ones.

The precedent already exists that the values of positive and negative GOEs for the same element are not the same.

If anything, I'd like to see the positive GOE values raised for some elements to encourage quality, or nonquantifiable difficulty of execution, by making +2 or +3 on an easier element worth more than base value on a more difficult element. (How much more difficult to be negotiated)

7. 0
Originally Posted by Mathman
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.
PCS is actually affected by the TES. If Patrick falls 5 times, his PCS will be reduced by about 7 points. So the 20 point lead is not equivalent to 5 falls. I'd say 3 at most.

8. 0
Originally Posted by gkelly
Looking at it this way, this principle would be even more true if falling on a jump meant 0 points toward the total score, which I think is what you would prefer. Falling on a harder jump would lose you more points than falling on an easier jump...

With a fall = no cigar (no points) system, then these two skaters would earn the same total for their jumps, assuming they got the same GOEs and the same distribution bonuses:

4T+3T, 4T (fall), 3A+2T, 3A, 3Lz, 3F+2T+2Lo, 3Lo, 3S

4T, 3A+2T, 3LZ+3T, 3A, 3Lz (fall), 3F+2T+2Lo, 3Lo, 3S
Let's simplify the jump layout so the difference is pinpointed.

First skater: 4T(fall) = 0 points, 3Lz 6.0. Total 6.0
Second skater: 4T = 10.3 points, 3Lz (fall) = 0 points. Total 10.3 points.

Is this fair? Of course it is. The first skater did a triple Lutz, while the second skater did a quadruple toe!

The first example attempted a harder repeat jump.
That is the question. Should you get any points at all for attempting to do something,

They both fell on the repeat jump and got no credit for it.
The theory is, you get credit for what you so, not for what you attempt. What the first skater did was a triple Lutz. What the second skater did was a quadruple toe. Should the second skater complain, "Yes, but I tried to do a 4T. I tried really hard."

So the jump content will not be the deciding factor here.
The jump content on paper will not be the deciding factor. The deciding factor will be the (successful) jump content on the ice.

[Caveat: I am arguing the case for 0 credit for a fall just to see where it leads. As to what I personally think about the whole thing, I don't know.

It is easy to stand on the sidelines and criticize. It is quite another to create, more or less from scratch, a scoring system for figure skating. My hat is off to the ISU and national skating federation folks who put in the hours -- however fun it may be to nitpick this and that detail afterwards.]

9. 0
Comparing this season's scores:

Takahashi SP

84.66 SC
90.43 NHK
76.49 GPF
83.44 4CC
Average 83.755

LP

153.21 SC
169.32 NHK
172.63 GPF
161.74 4CC
Average 164.225

Chan SP

83.28 SC
84.16 TEB
86.63 GPF
87.95 4CC
Average 85.505

LP

170.46 SC
156.44 TEB
173.67 GPF
185.99 4CC
Average 171.64

Takahashi's average Total = 247.98
Takahashi's best SP + Best LP = 90.43 + 172.63 = 263.06
Takahashi's lowest SP + Lowest LP = 83.44 + 153.21 = 236.65

Chan's average = 257.145
Chan's best SP + best LP = 87.95 + 185.99 = 273.94 (4CC)
Chan's lowest SP + lowest LP = 83.28 + 156.44 = 239.72

Momentum: Takahashi's scored his second lowest in both SP and LP at the latest (4CC). Chan scored his highest in both programs at 4CC. With the exception of TEB LP (when he was sick), he has improved his scores in both programs progressively with the season. However, 4CC being held in high altitude may have contributed to Takahashi underperforming.

The average difference is 9.165 favoring Chan.

Takahashi's best combination (263.06) beats Chan's worst combination (239.72) by 23.34. That's the scenario many are hoping for, right?

10. 0
Originally Posted by SkateFiguring
That's the scenario many are hoping for, right?
I'm hoping for the following:
Takahashi's best SP + Best LP > Chan's average
or Chan's best SP + best LP > Takahashi's best SP + Best LP
or Mao's best SP + best LP > Chan's lowest SP + lowest LP

11. 0
Originally Posted by Mathman
I am arguing the case for 0 credit for a fall just to see where it leads. As to what I personally think about the whole thing, I don't know.
I'm inclined to argue that a "failed" jump should receive 0 credit. We can define "failure" from three aspects: (1) entrance, (2) rotation, and (3) landing. If a skater fails on all three (wrong edge, downgraded, and fall), he fails, PERIOD.

12. 0
Originally Posted by SkateFiguring
Comparing this season's scores:

The average difference is 9.165 favoring Chan.
So statistics prove me right. Patrick is two falls ahead of Dai.

13. 0
Originally Posted by Boeing787
So statistics prove me right. Patrick is two falls ahead of Dai.
Depends on the falls. Random falls incur only one point deduction each but a bunch of them will likely kill the PCS. OTOH, one fall on a downgraded quad will put him behind an average Takahashi.

14. 0
Originally Posted by Boeing787
Patrick is two falls ahead of Dai.
That's why there come the complaints: "They can compete, but they cannot win." "The winner is already decided before the competition."

15. 0
Comparing their head to head competitions tells a different story because Takahashi did his best and Chan did his worst in their separate events.

Chan won every event with the score difference of

SC 15.87

GPF 11.18

4CC 28.76

Page 14 of 39 First ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ... Last

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•