Asada, Kim begin road to second Olympic showdown | Page 4 | Golden Skate

Asada, Kim begin road to second Olympic showdown

Mrs. P

Uno, Dos, twizzle!
Record Breaker
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
3Lz-3T and 3F-3T!! :eek:
But she doubled her 3Lo, so it's not a clean program.

Ah well, you're right. Still, there's a lot to appreciate about that program. I do hope she goes for the tough layout because I've come to admire her other qualities.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjBtanpTYTY <---- the audience in Nice went wild even though it was "just a 5-triple program." That says something.
 

naan

Rinkside
Joined
Oct 6, 2012
Ah well, you're right. Still, there's a lot to appreciate about that program. I do hope she goes for the tough layout because I've come to admire her other qualities.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjBtanpTYTY <---- the audience in Nice went wild even though it was "just a 5-triple program." That says something.
Carolina has one of the best jumps (along with Yuna) when she's on. Her other qualities are amazing, that's why I like her even if she can't skate a clean program.
I just hope that she goes for tough layout this season as you said. Glad that she brings back 3Lz this season!! :)
 

mary01

Final Flight
Joined
Nov 20, 2011
Carry on.... you are getting more adorable every time you post, clearly a VIP in the Kim's party that makes it the most lively one around. ;) So let's see... quality of execution and performance shouldn't be important, and UR/Wrong edge means even less. Gee... no wonder it explains the poor state of ladies today.

For the record, Kim's BV during the Olympics was highest on both her SP (34.90 vs 34.40) and LP (60.90 vs 55.86)[/B] compare with Mao,
so was her TES from her SP(44.70 vs 41.50) and LP (FS: 78.30 vs 65.68) with no negative GOEs. She was clean and put on a performance of a life time. You should give credit where credit is due. Regardless of the NEW adjusted scale value due to the rules changes that seems to design repress one skater and prop another against the better judgement of this sport. She beat Mao fair and square there. Mao now has all the rules and new scale of values in her favour, let's see if she can bring it when it count. All these other talk and hysterics are pretty useless.

lol those numbers you brought are from the actual performance in Vancouver, where Mao made some mistakes in the fs, so the BV in the fs is useless because that wasn't correct and fully intended layout, well those from the sp are useful because both where clean there, but the BV number you have brought from the fs is useless, when you have to compare the two BV layouts, to see which layout has the highest BV, you have to look only at the BV layout both skaters intend to do, and there you will see that Mao's BV in the FS was 64 (assuming she went clean) Kim FS would have been 60.90 (when clean), meaning Mao had the highest BV in the fs if both where clean there.

My purpose with mentioning the BV in my previous post, was to show and to remind that kims BV is not that high , it's mostly her goe and PCS that racks her the points, like in Vancouver!
 
Joined
Mar 11, 2011
If you look at all the scores from Vancouver, it's quite clear thaMao and Joannie were also the beneficiaries of those "generous" goes and pcs in Vancouver olys. The one thing Yuna stood out was that she did everything perfectly with the highest difficulty and quality while Mao and Joannie faltered severely. So what Yuna received in Vancouver is not undeserving at all compared to what Mao and Joannie were given in that event.
 

mary01

Final Flight
Joined
Nov 20, 2011
If you look at all the scores from Vancouver, it's quite clear thaMao and Joannie were also the beneficiaries of those "generous" goes and pcs in Vancouver olys. The one thing Yuna stood out was that she did everything perfectly with the highest difficulty and quality while Mao and Joannie faltered severely. So what Yuna received in Vancouver is not undeserving at all compared to what Mao and Joannie were given in that event.

well wheter "you" think that yuna had the highest difficulty and quality doesn't change the fact that Mao's layout had the highest BV between the two (assuming both having a clean skate), and it also doesn't change the point I was making earlier, which was that it's mostly the Goe and PCS where kim racks points, that's an undeniable fact!
 

jaylee

Medalist
Joined
Feb 21, 2010
well wheter "you" think that yuna had the highest difficulty and quality doesn't change the fact that Mao's layout had the highest BV between the two (assuming both having a clean skate), and it also doesn't change the point I was making earlier, which was that it's mostly the Goe and PCS where kim racks points, that's an undeniable fact!

Mao had a higher planned BV between the two, but Yu-Na had the higher executed BV. Even had you taken away all the GOEs and PCS from the Olympic games, and judged it solely on executed BV, Yu-Na still wins (Mao only lost a half-point for the DG on the 3F/2lo/2lo). You seem to cling to the fact that Yu-Na had a lower planned BV as if it means something (what?), while discounting the fact that that Mao's mistakes meant her higher planned BV took a real hit.

If you want to keep arguing that having a higher planned BV is more significant than what your executed BV and the positive/negative GOE you earn based on how you executed everything...then basically you are giving the most credit to the skater who submits the more difficult planned element sheet to the judges.
 

petrenko

Spectator
Joined
Dec 19, 2012
well wheter "you" think that yuna had the highest difficulty and quality doesn't change the fact that Mao's layout had the highest BV between the two (assuming both having a clean skate), and it also doesn't change the point I was making earlier, which was that it's mostly the Goe and PCS where kim racks points, that's an undeniable fact!

I'm really sick and tired of some post about past. I want to talk about Sochi. How players will do well based on "NOW" and "Possiblilily of Improvement".

You just talk about Mao based on 2010 Olympic and WC, but how was she from 2009 to now? Yes, she is one of top skaters, but she was best when she was young (Untill 2007~2008 season)

Please, i want to discuss about future;;;
 

Nadia01

Final Flight
Joined
Nov 10, 2009
Mao had a higher planned BV between the two, but Yu-Na had the higher executed BV. Even had you taken away all the GOEs and PCS from the Olympic games, and judged it solely on executed BV, Yu-Na still wins (Mao only lost a half-point for the DG on the 3F/2lo/2lo). You seem to cling to the fact that Yu-Na had a lower planned BV as if it means something (what?), while discounting the fact that that Mao's mistakes meant her higher planned BV took a real hit.

If you want to keep arguing that having a higher planned BV is more significant than what your executed BV and the positive/negative GOE you earn based on how you executed everything...then basically you are giving the most credit to the skater who submits the more difficult planned element sheet to the judges.

What matters the most is HOW A SKATER IMAGINES HER ROUTINE TO BE. How she ACTUALLY does is utterly immaterial.
 
Joined
Mar 11, 2011
well wheter "you" think that yuna had the highest difficulty and quality doesn't change the fact that Mao's layout had the highest BV between the two (assuming both having a clean skate), and it also doesn't change the point I was making earlier, which was that it's mostly the Goe and PCS where kim racks points, that's an undeniable fact!

No one's denying that. Who says otherwise? Her BV might not be the highest, but it was certainly one of the highest, and the way she executed was everyone's dream-come-true.

Mao had a higher planned BV between the two, but Yu-Na had the higher executed BV. Even had you taken away all the GOEs and PCS from the Olympic games, and judged it solely on executed BV, Yu-Na still wins (Mao only lost a half-point for the DG on the 3F/2lo/2lo). You seem to cling to the fact that Yu-Na had a lower planned BV as if it means something (what?), while discounting the fact that that Mao's mistakes meant her higher planned BV took a real hit.

If you want to keep arguing that having a higher planned BV is more significant than what your executed BV and the positive/negative GOE you earn based on how you executed everything...then basically you are giving the most credit to the skater who submits the more difficult planned element sheet to the judges.

Yes, that's every skating fan's dream.:rolleye:
 

mary01

Final Flight
Joined
Nov 20, 2011
Mao had a higher planned BV between the two, but Yu-Na had the higher executed BV. Even had you taken away all the GOEs and PCS from the Olympic games, and judged it solely on executed BV, Yu-Na still wins (Mao only lost a half-point for the DG on the 3F/2lo/2lo). You seem to cling to the fact that Yu-Na had a lower planned BV as if it means something (what?), while discounting the fact that that Mao's mistakes meant her higher planned BV took a real hit.

If you want to keep arguing that having a higher planned BV is more significant than what your executed BV and the positive/negative GOE you earn based on how you executed everything...then basically you are giving the most credit to the skater who submits the more difficult planned element sheet to the judges.

I am not giving any credit, just stating the facts as they are nothing more and nothing less!
 

kwanatic

Check out my YT channel, Bare Ice!
Record Breaker
Joined
May 19, 2011
^LOL!

I think that'd be awesome! And what's funny is, that's not too far of a stretch. Vancouver was the only time in a loooong time where the person who was expected to win actually won.

If the stars aligned (which they sometimes do at the Olympics) Adelina could go in under less pressure, have the skate of her life, scare the bejesus out of everyone else and end up winning gold! :D

IDK but in skating, much much stranger things have happened. ;)

As for the Mao versus Yu-Na situation, I think it's clear that both are question marks right now.

Yu-Na doesn't seem to have lost her jumps in her absence but who knows how she'll hold up? That hungry motivation she had in Vancouver has be sated, so she's had to find something else to motivate her...will it be enough to get her back to where she used to be? How is her consistency? Yu-Na has never been known for being 100% clean; she's had a very solid 3-3 which usually gives her a lead going into the LP and she's able to have a mistake or two and still come out on top. What are the chances she'll be able to replicate the perfection she achieved in Vancouver?

Mao's jumps have declined in recent years. I don't doubt she's still capable of executing 3-3s and that 3A but the issue is she hasn't produced one in competition in a very long time. In skating your potential to do something counts for nothing...it's all about what you do at go-time and right now, Mao is struggling technically. Everything else is wonderful. Her spins are great, her footwork, programs, etc. but without the jumps, she's in trouble. I hope she's able to get back to where she was but she's not getting any younger.

I think this showdown b/w Mao and Yu-Na is awesome! :) I like a little drama mixed in and nothing is better than old rivals rekindling a rivalry.
 

OS

Sedated by Modonium
Record Breaker
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
My purpose with mentioning the BV in my previous post, was to show and to remind that kims BV is not that high , it's mostly her goe and PCS that racks her the points, like in Vancouver!

Yeah except Kim 100% delivery her BV that time have have generally been close to it consider the level of difficulties in her programs. When is the last time Mao did this? Her TES in the last 3 seasons have been consistently well below what her 'ideal' BV. She has consistently over promised, under deliver the technical content. I personally think anyone under deliver what they set out to do should be penalize more, there should be a proportionate risk and reward system. Otherwise everyone might as well as go for the biggest BV, then close their eyes, fingers cross, hoping they will get lucky! And given how PCS are inaccurately awarded, these major failures are hardly registered in the system for reputable skaters which makes the whole judging system even more wack.

That is why I find the PCS and GOEs rule changes extremely questionable and somewhat ridiculous. While GOEs are reduced by 30% to lessen penalty for under rotations, it makes wrong edge are almost negligible as well, especially compares previous of the Olympics. Which is fine for the quads since it was designed to incentivise, but why should it apply to all other jumps even doubles? Why did they ALSO reduce 30% reward to someone who CAN actually do fully rotated jumps properly but did not compensate/redistributed the marks to the jump's base value? Surely quality should count more in this sport? PCS marking have been suffering from cognitive psychology problem with its the latency effect means judges are not always mark what the skaters did ON THE DAY but base more on impressions and reputations.

The ridiculous 'logic' behind how PCS are awarded is really pathetic and feeble at best; highly theoretical and worthless in practice. It renders the principle of good presentation or the holistic value of a well conceived program (Intellectual, Creative, and Emotional qualities) impotent and goes against the very principles of good performance art which it is designed to reward. It shows why delusional self appointed mathematicians should have no business trying to proportionate anything to do with artistry since not having the proper knowledge or background shows their incompetence and unfamiliarity in this matter.

How can intended choreography done with several major mistakes however minor or major not affect the overall presentation, choreography, interpretation, performance/execution mark and not shows weakness in the skills of a skater on the day? Is jumps not an integral part of the choreography and performance/execution? In every other performance art competition, misread your lines, miss cues/timing, missed out the proper arrangement and unable to deliver what it says on the brochure/script/score, missed even a note or chords here and there could certainly be the death of performance and the difference between winning and loosing. It should especially affects the overall impressions of a precision sport, that is suppose to reward accuracy and high success rate. Instead it is now seems to be used as place holders, where the difference between 1 small mistakes or 5 major mistakes hardly made much of a difference proportionally in the PCS, since it variables of +-0.25 and +-0.5 is are generally accepted by consensus among the judges which makes a very narrow corridor that made the the number of mistakes almost negligible. Add judge's own biases in the mix, now you have some weird marking for those skaters with strong federation and with reputation and how much they can get away from under performing, vs a nobody who have 100% deliver what she set out to do on the day.
 
Last edited:

hurrah

Medalist
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
As for the Mao versus Yu-Na situation, I think it's clear that both are question marks right now.

I totally agree! Of course, I also think that other skaters including Adelina are equally or even more 'question marks' in terms of where they will be and how they will perform at Sochi.

This person who writes for The Japan Times is very provincial imo. It must be his juvenile attempt at 15-minutes of fame or something.
 

drivingmissdaisy

Record Breaker
Joined
Feb 17, 2010
How can intended choreography done with several major mistakes however minor or major not affect the overall presentation, choreography, interpretation, performance/execution mark and not shows weakness in the skills of a skater on the day?

Those mistakes are compensated for in TES, and PCS is not intended to measure success or failure in technical elements. This is why it took me a long to to grasp why someone like Chan could win with several mistakes. But based on the system, he should. I don't like that PCS can give you a several fall buffer against other top competitors, but the ISU has decided not to penalize errors as much as I would if I made the system. PCS really shouldn't vary much based on falls or mistakes because those moments only account for a few seconds of a four minute program. As long as the other 3:55 is skated as planned the marks should reflect that.
 

OS

Sedated by Modonium
Record Breaker
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Those mistakes are compensated for in TES, and PCS is not intended to measure success or failure in technical elements. This is why it took me a long to to grasp why someone like Chan could win with several mistakes. But based on the system, he should. I don't like that PCS can give you a several fall buffer against other top competitors, but the ISU has decided not to penalize errors as much as I would if I made the system. PCS really shouldn't vary much based on falls or mistakes because those moments only account for a few seconds of a four minute program. As long as the other 3:55 is skated as planned the marks should reflect that.

Yes I understand the argument but disagrees it in principle. It is about disproportionate quantification without scientific or mathematical basis. It is like false maths and false art judging moonlight as a credible judging system that is suppose to accurately reward technical marks (which fails with reduced GOEs) and artistry.

While you may consider these qualitative components only consist of few seconds equivalent during the program, but when you consider the amount of 'effort' and the 'value' of these components are integrated to the other 3m55sec as well especially when it is a multiple of major errors that disturbed the presentation of the program. These critical components are the life blood that impact on the overall presentation. Surely they deserve to weigh heavily than 0.25, 0.5 narrow set of corridor for PCS, especially when factor it in during the SP (0.8 factors for ladies), it matters even less. Let's say tomorrow we are blessed with an amazing newbie from nowhere who just did perfect 10 with her SP along with the best artistry we have ever seen, and certainly the best at the event, do you think she deserve more than just +0.25 across the board in PCS. And what does that worth exactly?

0.25 x 5 x 0.8 (factoring) = 1.0 points
That would only works out 1 measly points to be gain in PCS for the rare perfectly executed program by a newbie without federation support. Does that sound right, fair or just?

As a newbie, her GOEs are likely to be conservatively marked as well. The reduced 30% GOE values is huge and messed up with the TES scoring over all since it is suppose to reward good quality and penalize poor quality, now with factoring, and human error, it get even more murky. It doesn't help when the judges are rewarding GOE with even less strictly over all these days. Regardless of protocols and bullet points of how you are a suppose to reward GOEs, it seems a reputable skater generally get get like -1, 0 for mistakes, maybe -1, -2 for falls, while someone like Liza or Akiko might will get -2, -3s generally for not being federation favs. For example at GPF, Mao only got -0.2 for under rotating her 3flip and Ashley only got -0.3 deduction for her 3lz with edge call. These 2 are clearly going to have high PCS anyway which can more than compensate for mistakes compare with the newbies who just did perfect 10 with no federation support, or reputation. One would like to think if the system been designed correctly, the newbie would have won on her own merit and what has been performed on the day. The fact she can't win says a lot about this sport, and why someone might be put off by it.

The thing is I feel the judges should perhaps use their own common sense to adjust the PCS corridor to something beyond +- 0.25 to +-0.5 consensus to reflect more accurately on how the skater actually skated ON THE DAY. May be to something like +-0.5 to -+2 corridor instead at their own discretion. By expanding the consensus corridor, they can compensate the inadequacy of the TES risk rewards due to reduced scale of GOEs, that despite it is suppose to be reward technical merit marks, they made UR/Wrong edge/Qualitative standards virtually negligible over all. Cheated jumps should be more penalized more, Perfect jump from a nobody should be rewarded more regardless, otherwise how are sporting qualities ever going to improve and give the new kids half a chance?
 
Last edited:

ImaginaryPogue

Record Breaker
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
More than that - can't it be said a skater has significantly better interpretation than transitions? Or skating skills vs choreography?

If you look at all the scores from Vancouver, it's quite clear thaMao and Joannie were also the beneficiaries of those "generous" goes and pcs in Vancouver olys. The one thing Yuna stood out was that she did everything perfectly with the highest difficulty and quality while Mao and Joannie faltered severely. So what Yuna received in Vancouver is not undeserving at all compared to what Mao and Joannie were given in that event.

The scoring in Vancouver was generous, and I don't see how anyone can argue otherwise. When Lepisto scored 126, you realize just what sort of night it was gonna be. Yeah, if Asada was perfect she would've had higher base value, but she still would've been behind on GOEs and PCS, and fairly so. But Asada wasn't perfect, and her errors lowered her base value (and GOE). And Kim skated her difficult program perfectly.

And speaking of awesome, 7-triple skates, how about Joannie Rochette? Nationals 2009 and 2010 (you can see the latter on CBC, not youtube, alas). I'd argue Rochette's "Aranjuez" is as beautifully choreographed as anything Kim or Kostner has done.
 
Last edited:

Tinymavy15

Sinnerman for the win
Record Breaker
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
I just keep wondering if Pyeongyang had not won the bid would Yuna be even considering returning to competition???
 
Top