Should Gracie or Caroline or Agnes or Mirai replace Alissa for Worlds?
- Thread starter skateflower
- Start date
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
Skaters who skate through their elements will lose.
Skaters who fall a lot should lose.
The champion would be the person who lands his quads and other jumps.
Here is risk and reward: Fall = 0, land a quad = 10.
Here is no risk, reward only: fall = 5, land it =10.
No one should go into a competition with the attitude, "I'll toss up a half-baked quad. If i make it, cool. If I don't, cool."
Here is why falling is bad and full rotations are meh. Rotating in the air is not a skating skill. An acrobat could go out there in stocking feet and rotate in the air a bunch of times, winning big CoP points and never put on skates.
That's why backflips and weird moves like Michael Weiss' tornado are not scored. They are not skating skills.
Landing on an edge. That's a skating skill. :yes:
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
As a fan of Patrick Chan, you should be saying, men's skating means trying quads and landing them. Anything can happen, but I predict that the men's champion in Nice will be the man who does exactly that. The others, those who attempt quads but are unsuccessful, and those who do not attempt them, will not win the championship.
Why is everyone so afraid of success? So eager to pre-excuse failure and offer rewards for it?
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2009
So do you believe that only things that demonstrate skating skills should be scored/rewarded?
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
? That seems do obvious I never thought to question it. In basketball, only basketball skills are rewarded. In golf, only golf skills are rewarded. In competitive kite-flying,...
I do not think that men would become wimps if a no risk, no reward scoring system were used. Suppose you got zero points for falling on a quad. Wouldn't the men say, just as they do now:
(a) If my opponent doesn't do a quad and I do, then I will win.
(b) If my opponent does do a quad and I don't, then I will lose.
Guess I better get to work on my quad.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2009
Choreography isn't a skating skill. A dancer could go out there in stocking feet, perform a bunch of moves in the field and get a bunch of COP points. Choreography isn't a skating skill.
Intepreting music isn't a skating skill, etc.
Intepreting music isn't a skating skill, etc.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
Thank you. That is the point I am trying to make. By giving partial credit for falling on quads, you take the risk out.
I think you are undervaluing the competitive spirit of these athletes. They are not mathematicians
. They will always want to go higher, faster, stronger.I don't agree. Using your blade skills to interpret music and to translate the vision of the choreography is an important and traditional part of the sport. Falling down -- well, I guess that's part of the tradition of skating, too, but not in a good way.
While it might be a traditional part of the sport, I would like to see choreography eliminated because it really isn't a true element for the skater. You can say it is the skater translating the "vision" of the choreography, but it really is the choreography that's being marked. Since that usually isn't the responsibility of the skater, it seems irrelevant to me.
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2011
as far as falling down and credit goes, i think still getting some points for the attempt is necessary. zero points would be like you just omitted it, or popped it. it gives you credit for ATTEMPTING the jump even if you screw up. i think -3 GOE's across the board and a 1 point deduction is enough.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
That's a good point. But the reason I don't mind a mark for choreography is this.
The coach or choreographer works with the skater to construct a program that is within the skater's skill set to perform, while at the same time pushing the skater to acquire more skills and greater mastery of the skills he already possesses. The most skillful skaters are capable of presenting the most intricate and subtle choreography. So in that sense I think rewarding the skater for taking on a substantive choreographic challenge and executing it with assurance and aplomb deserves consideration in the scoring system. JMO.
Well, I might agree with you if I felt that all the skaters had coaches/choreographers who are equal in their desire and/or ability to do what you describe, but unfortunately, I don't think that's the case. I think there may be reasons/constraints on the skaters that have nothing to do with their ability to present great choreography if provided with the opportunity.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
^ A little bit off topic, but to me it seems like the current CoP rules allow for the possibility that a skater might have simple and uninspired choreography, but give a roof-raising performance of the program she does have.
In that case, she should get, say, 8.50 in performance/execution, but only 5.75 in choreography.
But this never happens. The judges do not distinguish among P&E, Choreography and Composition, and Interpretation hardly at all. If that is the case, then there does not seem to be any reason to pretend to have three different scoring categories.
In that case, she should get, say, 8.50 in performance/execution, but only 5.75 in choreography.
But this never happens. The judges do not distinguish among P&E, Choreography and Composition, and Interpretation hardly at all. If that is the case, then there does not seem to be any reason to pretend to have three different scoring categories.
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2010
My post was about taking smart risks, which requires calculation. Stupid risks guarantee losses.
Not entirely. Just enough to make the risk worthwhile. There has to be some reward for such a difficult and risky element. Just training for it is a huge, possibly permanent, health risk with no guarantee of rewards.
I think you are undervaluing the competitive spirit of these athletes. They are not mathematicians
Credit Patrick Chan for leaving no choice for the ambitious contenders. We had Worlds Champions and even an Olympic Champion without a quad for years until Chan stepped up. He didn't need it, and still doesn't. I said that when the one who didn't need a quad had one, nobody could win without it. I was right and it has been proven. Unless the ISU takes a purposeful measure to discourage it, the standard is forever raised and a floodgate has been open, with a new generation of young guns capable and quads and intricate choreography coming up.
In contrast, there is no female Patrick Chan yet to do the same for the Ladies. Thus the opposite complaints and criticisms on these athletes. They are not going higher, faster, stronger.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
Here is the situation I have in mind. Let's say a skater can rotate a quad pretty dependably and has mastered the art of getting up quickly after a fall. (I am surprised the CoP doesn't award two points for that skill.
)This skater falls half the time. Here is his option:
Plan (a). Do the quad. Succeed, get 10 points, fall, get 5 points.
Plan (b) Forget the quad, do a triple loop. Reward, 5 points.
Where is the risk in choosing plan (a)? There is no risk, just a big reward for success and a smaller reward for failure.
Abbott is not in this situation because he cannot count on being able to get the rotations. For him, the quad really is a risk. He has a definite choice to make. Attempting the quad carries both risk and reward.
I think the second statement answers the first, without the need to leave a candy trail of m&ms to lure skaters into training the quad.
The reward for training a quad is that you need it to win the world championship against Patrick Chan and all the Patrick Chans that will come after the original.
I agree. That's why we don't need to give partial credit for falling in order to entice skaters to give it a shot.
Quite so. I do not think that giving ladies more points for falling on triple-triples will produce the female Patrick Chan. I do not believe that Patrick decided to train the quad because, "oh well, why not, even if I fall, I still get half credit."
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
Added in proof: This is another matter altogether. If it turns out that male skaters are ending up crippled by age forty, hobbling about on destroyed knees and replaced hips, that would be a reason for banning the quad altogether for the health and safety of the athletes.
Personally, I do not think the sport would be harmed by such a decision. The most talented skaters would still wow us with their skill, the best would still win championships, there would just be less emphasis on who can rotate in the air twenty-nine times in four-and-a-half minutes.
I agree with you regarding the lack of distinction in PCS and one can only hope that will improve in the future.
Didn't mean to go off-topic, but don't really think all this discussion of quads in a thread regarding replacements for Alissa Czisny is on topic either.
Didn't mean to go off-topic, but don't really think all this discussion of quads in a thread regarding replacements for Alissa Czisny is on topic either.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2009
Wait - so you don't use blade skills to jump into a quad because someone can do that off the ice in stocking feet but the fact that one can interpret music in stocking feet off the ice doesn't negate that blade skills can be used to interpret music/choreography?
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2012
If Alyssa could rotate a quad it would be worth it with her jumps even with a fall lol. here's hoping she is ready to go to worlds
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2008
Even in the years that there was a World Champion without quad (thats two years),most of the rest of the field did the quad, it is not like because Buttle and Lysacek didnt need it to win, nobody did, and it suddently reappeared in 2011. The skaters who never actually had it like Weir didnt do it anyway but 10 men tried the quad in the Lp in Vancouver, Pfeiffer did it and do you remember the best quad of Olys by Schultheiss? All the usual suspects who had the quad tried it anyway, they didnt back off because it was not needed to win. I think the before Vancouver field was somewhere mixed from CoP but mostly 6.0 skaters who tried to squeeze in the CoP rules, but the new skaters all grown up with CoP with skills and jumps, skaters like Nan, Hanyu or Gatsinksi would do the quad anyway.
All the usual suspects who had the quad tried it anyway, they didnt back off because it was not needed to win. I think the before Vancouver field was somewhere mixed from CoP but mostly 6.0 skaters who tried to squeeze in the CoP rules, but the new skaters all grown up with CoP with skills and jumps, skaters like Nan, Hanyu or Gatsinksi would do the quad anyway.Similar threads
