Mishin Slams Skating Judges

[Buttercup]

This always comes up, but if you read the definition of PCS very carefully, 'charisma' isn't listed as a criteria. I think PCS basically is just skating skills as they are displayed through the choreography and through how much you embody the music through the full use of your body as you skate. That's why Patrick Chan last season, without showing too much charisma, got great PCS scores in all of the categories. I would say the one element that seems to measure charima in PCS definition is 'projection', which is one bullet point out of six in P/E. So if charisma figures in PCS at all, it is minimal.

What you think PCS are doesn't match what the ISU has up on its website*. If you look at them - not even all that carefully - you will also see that skating skills (and transitions) are not prerequisites for high marks on every other component. That fans seem to think otherwise is annoying; I'm tired of pointing out that there are five program components, and they do not all have the same criteria. That the judges don't seem to understand this is troubling. I used charisma along with performance ability in general, because the ability to reach out the the audience is an obvious part of P&E and a strength of Plushenko's. BTW, power/energy is listed under skating skills here, along with acceleration. I don't think every skater who scores highly in that component has great power and energy.

The suggestion that Patrick Chan is superior at embodying "the music through the full use of your body as you skate" is one I disagree with. He's good enough, but there are skaters who are far better than him in this regard - including ones that people often complain are overscored. Having great skating skills and lots of transitions =/= having top notch-musical interpretation. Having fewer transitions or merely decent skating skills does not necessarily lead to weaker interpretation and performance. And this is exactly what Mishin was getting at: the marks are bunched together and used as placeholders, just like the second mark was under 6.0, only supposedly objective.

* If ever there was any doubt that the IJS was developed primarily by Canadians, the reference to "cross-cuts" in the explanation of transitions certainly makes it clear.