Men Free Skates | Page 48 | Golden Skate

Men Free Skates

SGrand

Final Flight
Joined
Dec 22, 2011
If we step back i wonder if how childish and silly we all look. First, who really cares about figure skating compared to most sports - sad to say but true. Second, this isn't life or death. Third, do we forget we are dealing with real people with real feelings. Patrick had 1 fall and a deduction for the music issue. But he did 2 quads and a 3 axel along with some great spins and footwork. As has been argued he does COP well Some of the things I think the judges can see but not the average joe or josephine is that he did skate faster than Takahashi, he has wonderful transitions and skating skills and it is not like he killed Hanyu, Takahashi - it was close. Takahahsi skated extremely well and |i like his performance better but if you break down what the judges see I can see what Patrick won. I doubt all these judges could constanatly be wrong. The problem is we don't understand cop We are but mere armchair coaches.

^ This.
 

Violet Bliss

Record Breaker
Joined
Nov 19, 2010
Why no outrage that Hanyu won the FS with a (very disruptive) fall over a clean Takahashi and everybody else?

BTW, Chan netted -1 for his fall. He got zero for his non executed 2A plus one point penalty. Should a fall after a fully rotated quad be considered equivalent to this fall?
 

Skater Boy

Record Breaker
Joined
Feb 24, 2012
Sadly figure skating enthusiasts are destroying their own sport from being on tv or being popular. Yes, COP is complex. People booing is not only inappropriate, childish, rude - like a host making horrible comments to their guests but gives the public the perception skating is corrupt and shouldn't be watched. Even on this board yes free speech is a wonderful thing but don't be surprised folks if it comes back to all us skating enthusiasts. And even us enthusiasts for the most part and I mean the very most part despite what we might think are not the judges and are probably not trained - there are a few I am sure skaters and trained judges out there but I doubt they are at the level of the judges at worlds.

Patrick had 1 fall but he still landed and nicely in the free two quads and a triple axel. I agree his interpretation doesn't reach out to the audience and I much prefer Dai's routine. But if you forget preference it is still very possible for Chan or the routine you didn't like as much to win. Better example. There is a debate tournament and you really support the pro side ie. smoking should be banned from hospitals. However the negative side you believed were the better debater they technically had the better speech, better repesentation, better cross ex etc. I have no idea why Chan is so villainized. Blame the judges - yes but really go back to that debate example and like it or not one can see how with COP chan could and would win. It's useless arguing this because you can't change a leopard's spots; people have their faves and reasoning. Even presentation, and I said I billion times prefer Dai!!! an introvert style can still score well or even better if they do it well. it is like the debate example I gave. Also PCS aren't solely interpretation.

I think I hear the people who say why Dai should have won; I guess when the judges broke it down the still scored component for component Chan higher. Like it or not, think back to the Plushy days I guess, TES wise Chan still had some big jumps and even if you want to criticize you don't like his spins or footwork - the number of turns, positons, edges and such on both garner big points- whether you like the moves or not and whether you thought it was attractive or to the music. A quad toe triple toe is still worth a lot of points whether you like where it was placed in the program or not (though it might garner more points if it was placed somewhere more attractive (goe with music or pcs) but it is still worth a lot of point. Doing one underrotated quad is going to score less...

In fairness yes Hanyu's fall was more disruptive it wasn't horrific; chan's fall was really odd actually but was less disruptive - he go this penalty fall and no points - he paid his speeding ticket so to speak.

I know I am just an uneducated skating fan. I guess we are no better than football, soccer, baseball, basketball or hockey fans who become so entranced to their team we start making outrageous comments, accusing refs of bias, someone tanking a game etc. Granted skating has another element - judges and it matters how things are done (elements) whereas football soccer did the ball, puck go in - doesn't matter pointed feet or what.

Listen gang freedom speech is a gift; I may be reading some posts wrong but I do sense more than anger, frustration about the system, judging or sadly skaters - but lets not make this personal. Believe it or not Patrick is someone's kid just as Dai.

I am really sorry if i offended anyone. I don't want to be seen as an uber fan of Patrick especially - I dislike his brashness and some of the comments whether they be youthful exuberance or what. And I certainly have my own biases but I can see why the judges could pick him. Even if you gave the free to Dai it probably wasn't enough of a win to get gold anyways.

That's my two bits again though it ain't worth a dime because I really know nothing about skating; just enjoy it. Peace people!!!:)
 

Becki

Medalist
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Why no outrage that Hanyu won the FS with a (very disruptive) fall over a clean Takahashi and everybody else?

BTW, Chan netted -1 for his fall. He got zero for his non executed 2A plus one point penalty. Should a fall after a fully rotated quad be considered equivalent to this fall?

I actually found Hanyu's 'disruptive fall' very suiting to the choreography for some reason...it was like a fallen Romeo who had to pick himself up and fight for love haha.

But I still think Daisuke was underscored in the LP, especially in PCs. Perhaps the judges are sending him a message that he needs to work on PCs now? :S Notice Hanyu's PC was 83....only 2 points lower than Daisuke's.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
BTW, Chan netted -1 for his fall. He got zero for his non executed 2A plus one point penalty. Should a fall after a fully rotated quad be considered equivalent to this fall?

To me, falls are errors of a more fundamental nature than other skating miscues like underrotation. Skating means gliding along and staying on your feet. If a five-year-old is learning to skate for the first time and can make it from one side of the rink to the other without falling, that is a successful skate. All the rest -- rotatiing in the air, etc. -- are just add-ons.

What I would rather see is a system that reduces the base value for elements that end in a fall. (The precedent would be the way URs are handled.) To me the issue is not so much what a skater did before he fell, but rather the nature of the fall itself. Maybe something like this.

Complete prattfall on the ice, 0% of base value.

Some sort of reasonable attempt at landing the jump, 25% of base value.

Save landing by hands down, 50% of base value.

Save landing by teetering and tottering, extra turns, step out, 75% of base value.

Land on solid running edge, required for 100% base value.

It is true that rotating in the air and then falling badly shows more skating skill than flubbing the jump altogether. But I think there has to be some sort of floor in the scoring system that says, sorry, that element was not successful.
 

yuki

Final Flight
Joined
Mar 2, 2012
Why no outrage that Hanyu won the FS with a (very disruptive) fall over a clean Takahashi and everybody else?

BTW, Chan netted -1 for his fall. He got zero for his non executed 2A plus one point penalty. Should a fall after a fully rotated quad be considered equivalent to this fall?

Hanyu didn't win the FS, Chan did. Also, Hanyu's fall was not on an element (he had finished his step sequence by then), so he only got the -1 deduction for it. His TES was also the highest of the night, and his lead over Dai in the FS was only .04 (i.e. Dai would have surpassed him in the FS if only he had received a bit higher PCS, which he arguably deserved). So I guess I don't really see your point here.

It's not really Chan's TES and fall that are being argued about, but his PCS, some of which should be lower (especially PE and IN, since he was behind the music at times). The overall result was OK on account of the SP, but he really shouldn't have won the FS.

Also, when in doubt: http://www.isuresults.com/results/wc2012/SEG006.HTM.
 

Violet Bliss

Record Breaker
Joined
Nov 19, 2010
I actually found Hanyu's 'disruptive fall' very suiting to the choreography for some reason...it was like a fallen Romeo who had to pick himself up and fight for love haha.

So Hanyu's fall was his artistic interpretation of "falling in love"? :)

It is true that rotating in the air and then falling badly shows more skating skill than flubbing the jump altogether. But I think there has to be some sort of floor in the scoring system that says, sorry, that element was not successful.

There is. The tech panel calls how many rotations are actually done and the judges awards or penalize the execution with GOE points.
 

wallylutz

Medalist
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
To me, falls are errors of a more fundamental nature than other skating miscues like underrotation. Skating means gliding along and staying on your feet. If a five-year-old is learning to skate for the first time and can make it from one side of the rink to the other without falling, that is a successful skate. All the rest -- rotatiing in the air, etc. -- are just add-ons.

What I would rather see is a system that reduces the base value for elements that end in a fall. (The precedent would be the way URs are handled.) To me the issue is not so much what a skater did before he fell, but rather the nature of the fall itself. Maybe something like this.

Complete prattfall on the ice, 0% of base value.

[...]

It is true that rotating in the air and then falling badly shows more skating skill than flubbing the jump altogether. But I think there has to be some sort of floor in the scoring system that says, sorry, that element was not successful.

In the case of Chan's botched 2A, he got exactly what you proposed: Fall = 0 points. Worse than that, he got -1 for falling, so the net impact of the fall is -1, which is < than 0. If we were also to infer the seconds he lost for falling contributed towards him exceeding the 4m40s time limit, then the additional -1 can also be counted as a direct result of the fall, making the penalty a net -2. Considering that a successful 2A would net him 3.63 + about 1 in GOE = 4.63, the total penalty for falling is 6.63, calculated as 4.63 - (-2). This costs more than losing the base value of a Triple Lutz, almost equal that of a Triple Axel. It seems he got severely penalized for a seemingly freak error to me. So effectively, the panel was NOT lenient nor did they ignore his error just because who he is or anything like that. But of course, unless Chan got dinged with -20 for that error and missed the podium, the panel of judges will still be blamed and sent to the guillotine regardless.
 

Becki

Medalist
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
So Hanyu's fall was his artistic interpretation of "falling in love"? :)



There is. The tech panel calls how many rotations are actually done and the judges awards or penalize the execution with GOE points.

Nah, the fall was a fluke. But for some reason, I thought it wasn't too disruptive.
 

Violet Bliss

Record Breaker
Joined
Nov 19, 2010
Hanyu didn't win the FS, Chan did. Also, Hanyu's fall was not on an element (he had finished his step sequence by then), so he only got the -1 deduction for it. His TES was also the highest of the night, and his lead over Dai in the FS was only .04 (i.e. Dai would have surpassed him in the FS if only he had received a bit higher PCS, which he arguably deserved). So I guess I don't really see your point here.

My point was not why a fallen Hanyu won over a clean Takahashi but about the lack of outrage which always errupts and lasts forever when a fallen or almost fallen Chan wins over a clean and sometimes not clean Takahashi. You see it fit to explain for Hanyu but such analysis is usually angrily rejected when done for Chan.

It's not really Chan's TES and fall that are being argued about, but his PCS, some of which should be lower (especially PE and IN, since he was behind the music at times). The overall result was OK on account of the SP, but he really shouldn't have won the FS.

Different points are always found to argue against Patrick's win and to be focused on and imprinted forever, disregarding all that he has actually done to win and ignoring the various errors of his rivals.
 

yuki

Final Flight
Joined
Mar 2, 2012
"It seems he got severely penalized for a seemingly freak error to me. So effectively, the panel was NOT lenient nor did they ignore his error just because who he is or anything like that."

You're making it sound like it's completely extraordinary that he got dinged for an element he didn't do. Since you insist that the panel was not lenient, I'm asking you: what way is there to be lenient on an element that wasn't completed? Should he have gotten the base value for a 2A just because it was, in your words, a "freak fall"?
 

euroskate

Final Flight
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
I would love to see a clip where you see how hanyu reacts as he realises that he medaled. Anyone?
 

Skater Boy

Record Breaker
Joined
Feb 24, 2012
Sometimes it seems if we like the skater the fall for whatever reason is artistic; if we don't like them it is disruptive? Okay I am mocking because I know arguments are being made as to whether they are disruptive or not but really it is up to the trained judges. I can only hope for example a fall on an element or other wise doesnt become "Oh wow that fall was timed perfectly to the music and was obviously a metaphor for the butterfly ending its life suddenly and the rising from the fall is the last desperate burst of life of the butterfly reaching for the warmth of the sun....
 

FTnoona

Final Flight
Joined
Dec 26, 2009
Nah, the fall was a fluke. But for some reason, I thought it wasn't too disruptive.

Falling is still falling, fluke fall or not. Chan's fall on the axel was a fluke too. The only unfortunate thing for Chan is that he fell on a required element while Hanyu was luckier and finished his step sequence then ate it on a transition step. Chan was just unlucky.
Looking at Hanyu's protocols, it looks like he skated a clean program. It's interesting that he got higher PCS for this FS compared to his fall-less GPF FS.
 

Violet Bliss

Record Breaker
Joined
Nov 19, 2010
^ You're making it sound like it's completely extraordinary that he got dinged for an element he didn't do. Since you insist that the panel was not lenient, I'm asking you: what way is there to be lenient on an element that wasn't completed? Should he have gotten the base value for a 2A just because it was, in your words, a "freak fall"?

Not sure this is directed to me or who "he" is exactly. But I think Chan deserved his big zero for "2A" and the fall penalty. But I also knew by then he had won because it was a relatively minor element in his program after he had already successfully completed more high value difficult elements exquisitely. In COP term, even without the 2A, he has had more rotations in the air than most and has landed almost all of those beautifully. And of course he has skated with greater skills than everybody else and continued to demonstrate that after the fall.

Chan did not make excuses for his fall but took full responsibility for it just as the judges had made him fully accountable. He and the judges always do.
 

yuki

Final Flight
Joined
Mar 2, 2012
My point was not why a fallen Hanyu won over a clean Takahashi but about the lack of outrage which always errupts and lasts forever when a fallen or almost fallen Chan wins over a clean and sometimes not clean Takahashi. You see it fit to explain for Hanyu but such analysis is usually angrily rejected when done for Chan.

Different points are always found to argue against Patrick's win and to be focused on and imprinted forever, disregarding all that he has actually done to win and ignoring the various errors of his rivals.

I explained it for Hanyu because the question was about Hanyu. The only reason I answered you in the first place was because you made an incorrect argument. Unfortunately, you don't seem interested in any kind of argument that's even a little critical of Chan, regardless of what's being actually said.
 

Violet Bliss

Record Breaker
Joined
Nov 19, 2010
I explained it for Hanyu because the question was about Hanyu. The only reason I answered you in the first place was because you made an incorrect argument. Unfortunately, you don't seem interested in any kind of argument that's even a little critical of Chan, regardless of what's being actually said.

I have not questioned Hanyu's marks and placement at all and have acknowledged his amazing accomplishments.

I never discount Chan's errors or respond to all criticism about him. That's impossible and I am not a masochist. I don't argue against people's personal emotional reactions to skaters and their performances. I do explain why Chan wins by rules, the way you just explained for Hanyu, and correct wrong declarations about him, the way you just did my statement that Hanyu won the FS.
 
Top