They have competed head to head three times this season. In which event(s) do you think Takahashi should have won? If we go back to last season too, did Chan win GPF and Worlds over Takahashi because he was held up?Originally Posted by Vash01
They have competed head to head three times this season. In which event(s) do you think Takahashi should have won? If we go back to last season too, did Chan win GPF and Worlds over Takahashi because he was held up?
I am not the hugest Chan fan - though I think he is quite an all around skater but I can see how he can beat Tak even with some errors. Its like how Lambiel could win even over Buttle who ithought was undermarked comparatively. I guess you are saying the same thing except it is Tak. I just can't figure out why such outrage and none about Carolina being constantly held up or how come no one is attacking Davis and White - they aren't built for the spanish type skates yet the judges hold their marks over those including Virute and Moir who are much more suited to such music and it should show at least in interpretation and then what about S and S in pairs; they often make a mistake and get held up over the Russians (both V and T and K and S) Obviously the majority of the judges see things the majority of don't agree with. Skating is subjective and it all depend what side you are on.,
Based on the above, I read your conclusions as follows:
1) Dai is not third rate skater hence he should be placed above Chan - how does not being a third rate skater ensures that noone else should be placed above that skater?
2) Dai made one mistake and Chan made four hence Dai should be placed above Chan - a competition is not just based on the no. of mistakes one made. The type of mistakes, the marks allocated to each mistake and the total no. of marks which the skaters have accummulated in other components. (Think how you are being marked in an essay assignment, if you have done any before. You always start off your assignment by understanding the set of marking criteria and the marks allocated to each criteria. Your final marks is highly dependent on how well your essay meets these criteria and how much you get out of each criteria .. not soley on how many errors you made.) I hope I have not confused you.
3) Dai is not an immature and know no basics skater - I am not disputing that but does it mean that a matured and capable skater cannot lose in a competition?
4) It is biased and caused anti-reactions from fans - just because Chan won does not mean the judges were partial. If all fans think like that, all judges are indeed partial because in every competition there will be winners and losers. Chan has lost to Dai and other skaters before so as an unhappy fan, shall I blame the judges for being partial? Why is it that it only when Chan wins that the judges are partial but when he lost, the judges are impartial? Anti-reactions? Perhaps as poster pointed out, unhappy fans should throw eggs at the judges after the competition if it makes the fans of the losing skaters feel better?
5) What makes you think that Chan 'didn't pay for his mistakes'? Marks were deducted.
6) Chan knows he will win no matter how anyone skates - did he tell you that? Surely only a fool will think so. It doesn't take an Enstein brain to know that competition is every fluid and noone is unbeatable forever. Winning today does not guarantee winning tomorrow. You may not improve, but other skaters will.
I hope your favourite skater does not make excuses like you do because no skater will ever win any competition by constantly blaming the judges for losing.
Skater boy was correct in pointing out the reverse: It is not that Dai has not caught up...it is that Patrick caught up in 2011 because of his quads. Don't forget that Dai beat Patrick pre-2011. Similarly, Dai (or any other skaters) can catch up and beat Patrick in future. More likely 2013 and beyond because it takes some time to improve one's skills.
For your information, I like Dai and Patrick but that does not mean I have to border on hysteria and accusations on judges' partiality when my favourite skaters lose to the other skaters.
Outstanding post and very well said on all counts. All it will do is continue draining the almost non existent popularity of figure skating to virtually nothing in North America, so they cook their own goose it turns out. Funny how even Golden Boy Chan complained about sometimes not being able to afford a taxi ride home earlier this year, so even he isnt really benefitting from the sheer stupidity that figure skating is spitting out (especialy regarding scoring) these days.
Well, why are you watching and talking figure skating if you hate figure skating? Turn off the t.v. I don't think the skating officials will miss you. What stupidity is the figure skating world spitting out? Tough elements where your favourites cannot master? Too bad if they are not up to mark.
And what has Chan's saving on taxi fare got to do with so called figure skating 'stupidity'. In fact, I like the fact that he is prudent.
If I didn't know that Vash01 is a long-term poster on FS forums, I would say that it's a let`s talkbot who wrote a summary of what I have been saying in a gramatically correct English.
Obviously, because some true FS fans are worried about the future of the sport. It has nothing to do with "hate". On the contrary.
It is ironic how complaining about bad judging which is subjective in the first place and can often be argued in favour of your skater of choice is what probably in part destroys or hurts figure skating from being popular. COP arguably requires so much knowledge (and by the way probably explains how Chan can win with many errors or a lutzless and often flipless Kostner can win and how S and S can win often with errors) that the average watcher would get confused and lost - only diehards who often go on these sites would know or probably really care. When we talk of injustice right now some of you arguing Chan is overmarked (to be blunt) and people look at 2002 with Sale and Pelletier and the Russians who I believe could have won gold legitimately as artistry was the tiebreaker back then. Really I am sure there are other injustices probably in 1994 the greatest or greater than 2002 was M and D losing to G squared in pairs. I wonder if skating wouldn't have reached such a popular level if that scandal had been brought to the media's attention and followed with such vigor as 2002??? It may be that there was so much going on in 1994 at the olympics - return of the retired, Nancy and Tanya, the orphan waif Oksana Baiul, the ice dance scandal of the no. 1 and 2 teams having affairs with each other and physically fighting. Pangtonfan may have a point about draining the almost non existent popularity of fs - though rather harsh. It's a double edged sword whining and complaining versus...
It is cute how the Chan squad is so insistent on declaring his wins with 4, 5, or 6 mistakes over good skaters who make 0 or 1 are all valid, how that doesnt mean he is a lock to win every event are events are guaranteed in his favor, how everything is perfect, blah, blah.. Just adoreable how one can be so delusional and persistent in repeating such delusion. Meanwhile figure skating audiences especialy in North America dwindle down to next to nothing. Soon the 12 member Chan quad (the only quad in the arean at that moment, as Chan per usual will have fallen or stumbled out of his) will hear chirps as they sit in an empty arena which they will be the only 12 people sitting at, insisting on inciting the same things as a 6 fall Chan is given a 200 LP at a competition.
It is so cute how some fans would like to make paranoid delusional accusations about judges(they never met) instead of taken the time to acknowledge the rule book and apply simple mathematics of a scoring system to two skaters objectively and respect the outcome. Of course Patrick Chan is beatable. That is common logic. If Patrick Chan stands on the ice and completes no elements I am sure he will score low enough for someone to beat him. It doesn't matter how many time he falls if no one else scores more points. I can skate a brilliant clean program with double jumps. Should I beat patrick three quads? People open mind and eyes will take you places, just saying.
If I didn't know that Vash01 is a long-term poster on FS forums, I would say that it's a let`s talkbot who wrote a summary of what I have been saying in a gramatically correct English.
I'm not saying I agree with you and Vash, but that was funny.
Nobody is doing a program with only double jumps, and nobody is saying a program full of only double jumps deserved to beat Chan, so your point is moot.
As for the bolded part: Of course Patrick Chan is beatable. That is common logic. If Patrick Chan stands on the ice and completes no elements I am sure he will score low enough for someone to beat him. This example only makes the situation all the funnier, as A) that is literally what Chan would have to do for the judges to not put him 1st in any competition at this point. B) I wouldnt even be too sure on that even then. They might decide his slight nose or hair twitching was so full of transitions, interpretive, and displayed such skating skills he deserves all 10s for PCS, then gives him credit for some of the elements he visualized in his head, dock others GOE and PCS further to compensate, and voila Chan standing on centre ice doing nothing is year winner once again.
On another note an earlier poster mentioned Buttle and Lambiel. I liked both skaters but I dont see where there was any controversy over their results. Both were weak and inconsistent jumpers who usually missed several jumps per competition. Both were considered excellent artists who outscored the whole field, minus PCS inflation days Plushenko. The acknowledged difference seemed to be Lambiel was attempting quads (some of them landed) and Jeff was not, giving Lambiel a higher base value. Lambiels spins were also better, Jeffs were excellent, but Lambiels were above all other men at the time. I dont recall one instance Lambiel beat Jeff, or where Jeff beat Lambiel where the result was controversial either way. If one can think of a single example feel free to do so.
Compared to the likes of Plushenko and Joubert, maybe a handful of other top jumpers at the time. Compared to the whole senior men's field, they were quite strong jumpers. It's all in your perspective.
They did sometimes manage to win medals ahead of other skaters who landed more clean or more difficult jumps but who had less content and/or quality in other areas where Buttle or Lambiel excelled. So those results might be considered controversial, especially from the perspective of someone who thinks jump count should be the most important determinant. Or who just liked Joubert better in general.
who usually missed several jumps per competition. Both were considered excellent artists who outscored the whole field, minus PCS inflation days Plushenko. The acknowledged difference seemed to be Lambiel was attempting quads (some of them landed) and Jeff was not, giving Lambiel a higher base value. Lambiels spins were also better, Jeffs were excellent, but Lambiels were above all other men at the time. I dont recall one instance Lambiel beat Jeff, or where Jeff beat Lambiel where the result was controversial either way. If one can think of a single example feel free to do so.[/QUOTE]
Never mind Patrick Chan, this is the one knock on the CoP that its supporters just cannot rationalize away.
At the International Challenge Cup going on right now, Jeremy Abbott visualized himself rotating and standing up on a quad, then he visualized himself landing a triple Axel. He got 77 points.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks