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 by OS; 12-20-2012 at 10:25 PM.
More than that - can't it be said a skater has significantly better interpretation than transitions? Or skating skills vs choreography?
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 by ImaginaryPogue; 12-20-2012 at 08:20 PM.
I just keep wondering if Pyeongyang had not won the bid would Yuna be even considering returning to competition???
I think so. She's not gonna be competing in 2018, and her commitment to Pyeongyang is arguably hindering her ability to compete now.