Czisny: FB Post and Hip surgery

[Layfan]

I disagree with anyone that says Caroline or Agnes could not finish top ten at worlds. Also Flatt. Review top ten. We have worthy skaters. That is all.

Sure, I don't think any of us fans would be frustrated if the USA ladies DIDN'T have the potential not just to make top 10 but to get the third spot back ... even medal. If only Alissa had performed the way she did in 2011. And in 2011, if only Rachael had performed the way she did in 2009. And in 2010, if only Rachael and Mirai had performed the way they did at the Olympics that same year. Always, something seems to happen. If it's not one lady it's the other.

I agree that no other team would have been any more of a guarantee this year than Ashley/Alissa. But it's also true that any number of teams MIGHT have done well. That is what is so frustrating. We all want these ladies to show what they can really do at worlds.

We don't have a Michelle or a Sasha, it is true. But we have sent good ladies to worlds and if they had just skated up to their potential we might even have eked out a medal or two. I still love them though. ONE of them is bound to have their day one of these years.

[SkateFiguring]

As Jeff Buttle explained, a champion is someone who keeps the difference between his best and his worst very small. Lysacek is a good example. But no American Lady fits that description today. Hopefully Wagner and Gold will step up.

[Mrs. P]

As Jeff Buttle explained, a champion is someone who keeps the difference between his best and his worst very small. Lysacek is a good example. But no American Lady fits that description today. Hopefully Wagner and Gold will step up.

I couldn't have said it better. I will always root for every U.S. Lady to live up to her potential. But that doesn't change fact that again, we have many good skaters (again something that a lot of nations cannot claim) among hte U.S. Ladies, we do not have a ton of GREAT skaters. Great skaters that can stand the pressure. The ability to come to every competition and do well and as SF pointed out do well even when they're not at their best. Again, there's potential. But potential only matters when it's reality. We saw that glimmer of greatness from Ashley this season. If she continues on that path, she still has the opportunity to leave the sport as a GREAT skater. (And I hope that is the case).

(And SF, I think I got the depth but not breadth thing from you, so I have to give you credit).

[skateluvr]

As Jeff Buttle explained, a champion is someone who keeps the difference between his best and his worst very small. Lysacek is a good example. But no American Lady fits that description today. Hopefully Wagner and Gold will step up.

Wagner got 4th but she deserved a silver medal. She was so much better/is so much better than Leonova. She just did not have the itnt credits built up. She should have been on the wolrd podium. Now back to poor Alissa channel. Wink.

[Olympia]

As Jeff Buttle explained, a champion is someone who keeps the difference between his best and his worst very small. Lysacek is a good example. But no American Lady fits that description today. Hopefully Wagner and Gold will step up.

That's a wonderful description, SF. And I think you're right about Lysacek being an example and Wagner and Gold as possibilities at this moment. I suspect that Caroline Zhang may join that group. Her problems have not been with either consistency or temperament; they've been with a technique that wasn't strong enough to sustain her during a growth spurt. I have hopes that if she has smoothed out her technique, her drive and poise will keep her on an even keel. Fingers are crossed!

[kwanatic]

Trying to get back to updating my blog. I gave some quick thoughts on Czisny as well as the other GP assignments for the US ladies.

http://thenakedice.blogspot.com/

[skateluvr]

Caroline will have a great season-I feel very positive for her.

[os168]

Here's a list of the committees:
http://www.usfigureskating.org/conte...dership&id=202

The International Committee would be the group responsible for deciding which skaters to assign to international competitions, and whether to pull them off the team if appropriate. That committee has 35 members.

GKelly, thank you very much for the informative post as always. Wow 35 members just to decide on assignments putting their own stamp all over these decisions. I wonder how that would work in reality. This thread has less than a dozen regular posters and it already makes it hard to agree on things.

Alot of these speculations are in 'hind sight'. Of course there could always be 'better' monitor systems, more 'rigorous' control, 'fairer' national competitions, 'possible' better results sending someone else 'less injured '. Reality? Easier said than done in a linear timeline. Would anyone taken a gamble on Caroline a year earlier unless she proved herself?

[Olympia]

From your mouth to God's ear, skateluvr! I have a good feeling about Caroline as well. As I've said, the thing that most impresses me about her is that she seems to remain cool under pressure. This is how she came back from the ashes with not a speck of dust on her. That glorious long program to the Dvorak cello concerto! That spiral. Go, Caroline!

[mskater93]

i look forward to next year when gracie gold goes up against AC. would your definition of 'severe' overscoring change if gracie becomes the one slighted by those who continue to favor AC?

why is it only a problem if AC is 'severely' overscored? wasn't the difference between ross miner and jeremy abbott last year a mere sliver? any over-scoring is unfair, when the slightest difference might mean a world spot or staying at home.

to chuckm, i think it's just as wrong to read the tea leaves and give AC lower nationals score based on competitions prior to nationals. why can't the judges just judge what is on the ice fairly?

again to mskater, you are entitled to your view that AC deserves those scores. i don't usually argue with AC fans, who don't see the flaws i see with her spiral, spin positions, stiff grin, eyebrows yanked up to her hairline, 1 note musical expression, crooked-in-the-air and underrotated jumps... though she certainly has lovely arm and hand movements. arguing with AC fans would be like pissing into the wind. i would not have posted in this thread if i didn't again encounter someone talking about the other u.s. ladies, a.k.a. that lot of unworthy who don't deserve 3 shots at a worlds spot. it wouldn't surprise me if AC fans think AC did the other u.s. ladies a service by tanking so hard they get another year to practice at home without embarrassing themselves abroad.

First of all, I am not a super Alissa fan. She's a very nice person, beautiful to watch in practice (which I wish she could put out in competition more often), but my comment is not an uber's comment, it started as a very real question. Which of those skaters would you have placed ahead of her overall? She was the "best" of a "meh" group behind Wagner who was on fire and totally deserved her title. Each of the skaters in the 2-7 range had issues and hers that weekend were the least of the bunch overall between two programs. I really want to know who you all would have put in second overall NO HINDSITE SCORING OF KNOWING THE RESULTS OF 4CC AND WORLDS.

The point I was attempting to make before you decided to pick on a specific word in the comment and try to invalidate what I am asking is that Alissa's marks were overscored as were everyone else's so RELATIVE TO ONE ANOTHER, I don't feel she was overscored (that would be "severe") but I do feel that EVERY skater in the last group was overscored on an absolute scale (meaning I don't think any of them would have pulled down an equivalent score at an international for what they put on the ice). Does that make more sense in my use of the word "severe" (which in this case would mean overscored more than the others were overscored)?

FWIW, I will be PO'd if any skater skates lights out and isn't rewarded justly for it at Nationals. I was concerned that Wagner was going to get screwed this year out of a win in favor of Nagasu if she'd put an 80% effort out there instead of a 50% or Czisny if she'd stayed on her feet. If I were to choose my two favorite ladies in the US, they haven't changed in the last couple years: Wagner and Gold (before anyone else has gotten on her bandwagon).

[gkelly]

GKelly, thank you very much for the informative post as always. Wow 35 members just to decide on assignments putting their own stamp all over these decisions. I wonder how that would work in reality. This thread has less than a dozen regular posters and it already makes it hard to agree on things.

Ah, I see that

The International Committee shall have a nine-member Management Subcommittee (ICMS), which is responsible for nomination and entry of athletes to compete in all international competitions and the World University Games, based on the approved criteria. Additionally, the ICMS shall name athletes to the team envelopes based on the approved criteria.

So it's only 9 people making the actual assignment decisions. Still plenty of room for disagreements, though.

[Mathman]

Wow. 35 members just to decide on assignments putting their own stamp all over these decisions. I wonder how that would work in reality.

In "reality" these decisions are made by the International Committee Management Subcommittee (ICMS). This committee has 8 members: a chair, four regular members, two athlete representatives, and one coach member. Here is a list of the current subcommittee (scroll down to page 28).

http://www.icejudge.com/documents/di...-directory.pdf

In principle this subcommittee makes "recommendations" to the full committee, which are then passed on to the executive council and president for final approval. It is my strong impression that these recommendations are essentially never overturned at higher levels. The members of the subcommittee are well distributed geographically, I assume by intent. Looking at the names of the individuals on the committee, none of them has a reputation, as far as I am aware, of being involved in political infighting or of having a personal agenda to advance the fortunes of particular skaters (although people are people.)

I do not know if it is the practice for coaches, local club officials, and USFS office holders to lobby the members of the committee on behalf of select skaters. (Again, people are people.) Politics plays a role in any organization, but I cannot think of any reason why the USFSA would think it was in their interests to send someone to worlds who they didn't think would give us the best shot at earning medals and placements.

Edited to add: In view of the discussion on this thread, I will amend that last sentence to this. I think that the ICMS almost always follows the principles that the USFSA thinks, in the long run, are most beneficial to figure skating in the United States. The committee does not generally make exceptions to these principles along the lines, well, this skater screwed up and finished 4th at nationals, but we think she is better than the skater who finished 2nd.

Anything's possible, but I don't think the USFSA is in the business of instructing their judges to make sure that Nationals comes out in a particular way. I suppose there are some pressures associated with expectations, momentum, reputation, and the like that play a role. We cannot eliminate that possibility altogether.

PS. I see gkelly beat me to the punch on the iCMS.

[gkelly]

Anything's possible, but I don't think the USFSA is in the business of instructing their judges to make sure that Nationals comes out in a particular way. I suppose there are some pressures associated with expectations, momentum, reputation, and the like that play a role. We cannot eliminate that possibility altogether.

I've never heard of federation officers or referees instructing judges on which specific skaters to place in the top positions. Doesn't mean it never happened, but it wouldn't be publicized if it did.

I have heard that judge training and referees' instructions under 6.0 included advice such as "Consider who you think should move on" (to sectionals from regionals; to Worlds from Nationals).

I think the way such statements were intended to be interpreted was more along the lines of "When weighing the strengths and weaknesses of all the performances you saw today, keep in mind the pervasive strengths that skaters will continue to demonstrate at future competitions, and not just the success of the risk elements today. We want to send on the skaters with the best overall skill sets." I.e., judge the skating and everything that the skater does, don't just count the jumps and falls. But they still have to balance out everything they see on the ice today and not second guess what might happen next month.

I can see how some judges might interpret that to mean "give first place marks to the skater you think will do best at the next level of competition, not necessarily to the skater who performed best today." So that interpretation may have result in those judges giving top marks to favorites based on what they had done in the past and might do in the future, even if that's not what the referee meant by the instructions.

Under IJS it's more complicated. If someone really wanted to make sure a specific skater made the team it would be more effective to get the tech panel to play favorites than the judges.

[Mathman]

Under IJS it's more complicated. If someone really wanted to make sure a specific skater made the team it would be more effective to get the tech panel to play favorites than the judges.

Off topic, but at the internationals level I remember that one of the selling points of the IJS went something like this. Of course judges are biased in favor of skaters from their own countries, of course judges will be under the influence of their federation chiefs, of course federations will make deals with each other. That's just human nature.

But the technical panelists work only for the ISU and do not represent any nation or national federation. Therefore, in contrast to judges, the tech panel will automatically show less favoritism, be less subject to outside influence, etc.

I wonder how that has worked out in practice.

[Mrs. P]

Wagner got 4th but she deserved a silver medal. She was so much better/is so much better than Leonova. She just did not have the itnt credits built up. She should have been on the wolrd podium. Now back to poor Alissa channel. Wink.

I am definitely not a Leonova fan, but Leonova hit all her jumps in both programs. Ashley had a lower base value in the SP due to not doing her 3-3 and having a TO on the flip. In TES (where crappy choreo is less of a factor), Leonova was six points ahead.

One could argue that Ashley perhaps should have received bronze over Akiko.