Can Takahashi Close The Gap On Patrick Chan? | Page 8 | Golden Skate

Can Takahashi Close The Gap On Patrick Chan?

spikydurian

Medalist
Joined
Jan 15, 2012
Patrick was only 19 when he did those photo shoot. Still he was such a heart-breaker already. I like the one on the top left which he wears suit very much.



I'll stop right here. There is no winning or losing. So let's move on.

LOL ... this thread has taken an interesting turn. Let's start another thread on "Can Dai beat Patrick in sex appeal".:laugh:
 

mikeko666

Final Flight
Joined
Apr 27, 2011
From the interview Patrick gave to ice.network after he won 2010 Skate Canada with four falls in total:
(GS board doesn't allow me to paste the direct link here.)

Chan acknowledged his role as a judges' favorite, saying he's grateful to be recognized for his skating skills.
"It's a good position to be in," he said. "I know [coach and choreographer] Lori [Nichol] speaks highly of me to judges, and I want to perform the way she says I can.
 
Last edited:

hurrah

Medalist
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Well, I'm kind of relieved to know that there was some basis for my fuzzy mis-recollection that Patrick said that he didn't need a quad because his Federation supported him.

Now, let's get back to sex appeal issue! Far more interesting! AND important! :laugh:
 

ImaginaryPogue

Record Breaker
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Well, I'm kind of relieved to know that there was some basis for my fuzzy mis-recollection that Patrick said that he didn't need a quad because his Federation supported him.

Now, let's get back to sex appeal issue! Far more interesting! AND important! :laugh:

I recall that statement. Of course, he had landed the quad in the LP, so it had nothing to do with him not needing a quad (nor was it before Vancouver)
 

spikydurian

Medalist
Joined
Jan 15, 2012
The rules apply the same to all skaters.

However, skaters who are attempting quads get more benefit than skaters who don't attempt them, and skaters who rotate the quad attempts get more benefit than those whose attempts are called as underrotated or downgraded.

Also, if the difference in difficulty level is high enough it can outweigh smaller differences in quality -- under any judging system, although the specifics will vary, just as they will vary with a different Scale of Values under the same IJS rules.

And if the quality of everything else is good enough, that can outweigh the points lost by a few major mistakes. The amount of points lost to those mistakes will vary depending on which year's Scale of Values is in effect.



Assuming everything else is comparable, yes. And the way the SoV is set up, that would be the case.

However, to take a somewhat extreme example, suppose a skater of poor novice quality who deserves PCS in the low 3s and executes level 1 spins and steps with 0 or negative GOE, but 7 clean double jumps. And a skater of pretty good senior quality who deserves PCS in the 6s executes more difficult spins and steps with quality worthy of positive GOEs, and flubs 7 attempted triple jumps.

It's certainly possible in that situation that the second skater would win. (How serious are the flubs? What scoring system are we using? If IJS, what year's rules and SoV?)

In theory skaters that far apart in basic skating ability shouldn't be competing at the same competition, but it will happen sometimes. You could easily see a similar range of PCS and jumps attempted at a JGP event or at a US regional event.

However, if the skater with the doubles has much stronger skating and spins and high-quality doubles, s/he could conceivably beat even a skater who stands up on 7 rotated but mildly flubbed triples, let alone underrotated ones.

On the other hand, because of the high values of quads even with falls, if one skater lands 7 clean triples and another falls on 7 rotated quads, the quad guy is pretty much guaranteed to win. Especially since it's unlikely that a skater capable of attempting 7 quads would have weak skating skills.

Thanks gkelly. Well articulated. It makes sense to me! :)
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
For those who insist that the sins of winning with falls and unaffected Performance values are unique to COP and never an issue under 6.0, let's look at Plushenko's 2004 Worlds FS and the results...

Here is the difference, to me. Under 6.0 you could say, well, that was a fluky result, what were the judges smoking?

But in CoP it's right there in the rules. You can easily construct on paper a performance that has many falls but still scores a bucketful of points. So instead of asking what the judges were smoking, you have to ask what the authors of the scoring system were smoking.

(Of course in either system one can imagine a situation where a performance marred by a fall is still better than the other guy's.)
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Here is the difference, to me. Under 6.0 you could say, well, that was a fluky result, what were the judges smoking?

But in CoP it's right there in the rules.

Under 6.0 it was right there in the rules as well: a fall is no bar toward winning (paraphrased).

Multiple falls would make winning less likely, but there was still nothing in the rules to forbid it and an actual statement in the rules to allow it. It all depended on what else the skater did right, and what the other skaters did and how well. Everything, not just the jumps.

(Of course in either system one can imagine a situation where a performance marred by a fall is still better than the other guy's.)

Exactly. So there's no need for rules that allow the program with fall(s) to beat one without falls to have been designed after smoking mind-altering substances.

But to get more specific about particular performances, you have to look at multiple examples of performances with falls beating out performances without and see where the skater who fell was better. And ask whether the rules or guidelines that shape judges' preferences should favor awarding partial credit for partial completion of difficult skills, whether falls should always be penalized more than other types of mistakes that are equally serious technical failures but don't affect the surface aesthetics of the performance, whether surface aesthetics should always outweigh technical content, etc.

ETA:

For example, here's the performance with the most successful jump content from the men's LP at 1998 Worlds, which, IIRC, placed 10th, a good result for this skater.

Here's a performance with three falls that placed 4th in the free skate and won the bronze medal.

Aside from staying on his feet, what about the former performance can you point out that was better than or even as good as the latter?
 
Last edited:

Violet Bliss

Record Breaker
Joined
Nov 19, 2010
I brought up the poll not to start a sexiness contest but to show there is a diversity of views on the subject that should be accepted instead of declaring one's feelings as an universal truth. Eagerly discrediting the polls does not invalidate others' opinions that are different from yours. I also brought it up as an example among other unsubstantiated statements made by the poster as factual premises for absurd suggestions.

Mathman said:
Here is the difference, to me. Under 6.0 you could say, well, that was a fluky result, what were the judges smoking?

But in CoP it's right there in the rules. You can easily construct on paper a performance that has many falls but still scores a bucketful of points. So instead of asking what the judges were smoking, you have to ask what the authors of the scoring system were smoking.

(Of course in either system one can imagine a situation where a performance marred by a fall is still better than the other guy's.)

I didn't bring up the video to dispute the win, though you all can watch Brian Joubert's performance at the same competition for comparison and judgement. Would it be controversial on skating boards of today? I meant for it to show winning with a fall is not the exclusive domain of evil COP system, which, at least, as you mentioned, accounts for the decision. Keep in mind it wasn't just a fall from a jump, it was a fall that negated a whole jump.

As well, looking at the Gold and Silver skates of 2004 Worlds under 6.0, I can't help noticing how empty they were compared to today's winning programs, in the number of jumps, other elements, as well as all moves between the elements, i.e. transition. How much skating skills were demonstrated there? How much artistry was expressed via skating skills instead of arm movements on rather still moments?

Methinks the nostalgic lenses many wear while exalting the old system as vastly superior are heavily rose colour tinted.
 

seniorita

Record Breaker
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
^ Thats because Neo and Nijinkski didnt have transitions either:)

How was less in jumps in comparisson to today? 4 Toeloop - 3 Toeloop - 2 Loop, 4 Toeloop, 3 Axel, 3 Axel - ½ Loop - 3 Flip, 3 Lutz, 3 Salchow, 3 Loop (boom fell)

You find all and all one video that Plush missed a loop and won, even Dick Button thought it wouldnt change the result :D Joubert was upcoming skater with three euro medals and the upset of Euros, and Plushenko was the world champion, olympic medalist etc etc who slipped in one jump. You 'd think the same wouldnt happen today?
In Worlds 2005 he became 5th-6th I dont remember in sp after the fall on quad. If you want to give an example I would say Euros 2004 was an example of despite multiple falls they gave him the silver.:cool:
 

Violet Bliss

Record Breaker
Joined
Nov 19, 2010
^^^ I'm not discrediting Plushenko or Joubert, but rather arguments that such winning only happens under COP or that COP encourages and rewards falls. At least results under COP are justified and explainable with rules applicable to all and open protocols of how judges mark each element and component. Such openness and today's online forums simply provide more opportunities for debates and creating controversies, as well as establishing false assumptions, accusations, and other internet memes and beliefs.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
How surreal. In the midst of this fevered and apparently super important discussion about sex appeal and certain skaters....nobody yet noticed that according to that Rankopedia poll DAVID DUCHOVNY (what is this, the 90s?) of all people is ranked NUMBER ONE.*

A recent poll by Men's Health magazine chose Jennifer Aniston as the sexiest woman of all time.

Sexier than Cleopatra? Sexier than Helen of Troy? Sexier than the Queen of Sheba? Sexier than Eleanor of Aquitaine? Sexier than Marilyn Monroe? Sexier than Elizabeth Taylor playing Cleopatra?

OK, whatever, but here I have to draw the line: Sexier than Sophia Loren?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Methinks the nostalgic lenses many wear while exalting the old system as vastly superior are heavily rose colour tinted.

To me, the difference is this.

When Plushenko hit a rut and fell even before lift-off, my reaction was, "Oops, ha ha, ice is slippery even for the Great One! Well, he won't get any credit for that failed attempt, but he can still pull out the win overall."

When a skater falls on a quad attempt in the current system my reaction is, "Ooh, too bad. Well, it was a valiant effort anyway. Good for him for trying it. Close...but no cigar."

It's the "no cigar" aspect of sports that the ISU does not get.

(JMO of course.)
 

Violet Bliss

Record Breaker
Joined
Nov 19, 2010
A recent poll by Men's Health magazine chose Jennifer Aniston as the sexiest woman of all time.

Sexier than Cleopatra? Sexier than Helen of Troy? Sexier than the Queen of Sheba? Sexier than Eleanor of Aquitaine? Sexier than Marilyn Monroe? Sexier than Elizabeth Taylor playing Cleopatra?

OK, whatever, but here I have to draw the line: Sexier than Sophia Loren?

It's just common hubris to decide for all Ages, societies, cultures, races, etc. who or what is best in areas of subjective and variable values. It's the egocentric human nature to often describe how nature, astral bodies, and other species fall for human beauties, who might incur no mercy in being munched down by beings higher on the food chain the way we kill and eat different species.
 

skateluvr

Record Breaker
Joined
Oct 23, 2011
It might possibly create something like the Trixie Schuba/Janet Lynn phenomenon. Trixie Schuba got gold but Janet Lynn was more beloved.

Trixie won because of figures and she was not the lovely elf like Janet Lynn who smiled thru her Olympic fall and the Japanese in Sapporo adored her, as did we. She is one of the best free skaters of all time. Janet Lynn defines what was best about free skating right up until 6-7 triples became the "ideal" skate.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
A recent poll by Men's Health magazine chose Jennifer Aniston as the sexiest woman of all time.

Sexier than Cleopatra? Sexier than Helen of Troy? Sexier than the Queen of Sheba? Sexier than Eleanor of Aquitaine? Sexier than Marilyn Monroe? Sexier than Elizabeth Taylor playing Cleopatra?

OK, whatever, but here I have to draw the line: Sexier than Sophia Loren?

I know, Math. That one completely floored me. Even just choosing between her and Angelina Jolie, it seems an lamebrained decision. But when you factor in Sophia Loren, words cannot express. I mean, for me, that's like someone choosing—oh, I don't know, one of the Jonas Brothers as the sexiest man of all time. I'll tell you something: from a woman's point of view, if someone gave me the magical power to look like anyone I chose, "Jennifer Aniston" would not be the first words out of my mouth. (Maybe Marina Klimova....)
 

skateluvr

Record Breaker
Joined
Oct 23, 2011
A recent poll by Men's Health magazine chose Jennifer Aniston as the sexiest woman of all time.

Sexier than Cleopatra? Sexier than Helen of Troy? Sexier than the Queen of Sheba? Sexier than Eleanor of Aquitaine? Sexier than Marilyn Monroe? Sexier than Elizabeth Taylor playing Cleopatra?

OK, whatever, but here I have to draw the line: Sexier than Sophia Loren?

What, MM what about Angelina Jolie? Has Brad heard he divorced the sexiest woman of all time (LMAO) to marry the plain but sweet Angelina? (never skinnier but increasingly voluptuous-only a Goddess to make that happen! Because none of these sexy people will stoop to plastic surgery, of course! ) LOL David Duchovny? He wasn't*all that*:) 20 years ago, what a poll! Very entertaining thread despite the usual CoP debate.
 

Violet Bliss

Record Breaker
Joined
Nov 19, 2010
To me, the difference is this.

When Plushenko hit a rut and fell even before lift-off, my reaction was, "Oops, ha ha, ice is slippery even for the Great One! Well, he won't get any credit for that failed attempt, but he can still pull out the win overall."

When a skater falls on a quad attempt in the current system my reaction is, "Ooh, too bad. Well, it was a valiant effort anyway. Good for him for trying it. Close...but no cigar."

It's the "no cigar" aspect of sports that the ISU does not get.

(JMO of course.)

In this particular example, it was not a rut that caused the fall but a loss of control of the edge. There was nothing to indicate that he wasn't given credit for that jump. It seemed to be simply ignored like it didn't happen. Who knows how the judges really thought? Their judgement was simply accepted. Under COP, Oda wasn't given any benefit of consideration when he fell after landing his 2A because of a rut at Worlds 2010. Heavy penalties were imposed on the jump. When Chan has fluke falls during transition or footwork he is duely penalized, even incurring fall deductions on stumbles, rut or no rut. His fall after beautifully landing 4T+3T combo because he bumped into the board incurred full penalties. There is no consideration of the cause of a fall. No falls are ignored. A missed jump? Well, so far no one could have won a Worlds title with it. COP is tough and unforgiving. You go clean with low level jumps, you will lose on low BV. You want to rest during the program? You pay for it when someone else is going gung ho. You try to fool the judges by going 95 degree short of the rotations, the tech panel will nail you. There is no hiding wrong edge take off either. No cigars for no actual performance.

They gave out cigars more inexplicably under 6.0 with the "Ooops, ha ha, ice is slippery even for the great one", maybe simply because the great one should get a cigar no matter what.
 
Last edited:
Top