Osmond vs. Kim in PCS, a huge gap? | Page 5 | Golden Skate

Osmond vs. Kim in PCS, a huge gap?

Mrs. P

Uno, Dos, twizzle!
Record Breaker
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
a) The transitions thing stands out a lot, but I'd argue that she really is world class. If transitions were the only thing scored (and scored correctly), she would be a contender for gold. Just like how Chan's skating skills tended to dominant discussion, or Takahashi's performance quality. I believe the focus on performing comes from the fact that she is considered a great performer, relative to the history. Mirai's Carmen doesn't stand out as a notable American Lady LP. I'd argue that Osmond's Carmen does stand out as a notable Canadian Lady LP.

b) Ignoring the overhype, basically, Osmond medals if she's exceptionally clean and everyone else is exceptionally.... NOT. But only if the competition makes the specific type of point-losing errors (popping jumps, combination errors, downgrades) that make up for the PCS gap she'll have to overcome.

c) But gold medalists have poor competitions sometimes - Asada's a two time World champion, and she hasn't made the top five since she last won Worlds (and Osmond's score at Nebelhorn beats Asada score at the 2012 Worlds). The reigning silver medalist is Alena Leonova. Carolina Kostner won silver in 2008 (who was beaten by senior debutante.... Alena Leonova). But it would take four of six skaters (Kim, Kostner, Asada, Suzuki, Wagner, and Korpi) having poor skates for her to make the podium. Anyone rooting for an event like that must hate figure skating, frankly. I'll be honest, if it's an awesome competition and she skates well but doesn't make the top ten (ie, no two spots), I think I'd be okay with it (provided that China and France do have two spots - I really want to see Zijun Li/Kexin Xhang and Yretha Silethe/Mae Berenice Maete at Sochi) - it's not as if I really want to see Daleman/Chartrand etc at the Olympics, you know?

c) That said, if she does somehow earn the silver medal (or yegads, Gold) and gets Canada three spots, I will laugh so hard.

Don't dispute the transitions. In fact, I'd agree they're pretty awesome. I particularly like them in the short program because it seems that she's dancing into the jumps. They are solid in the FS, but not as integral as the SP.

I agree regarding points b & c. A lot of skaters would have to screw up and yes if that happen, that would be pretty awesome. And I also agree that I would love to see Zijun/Kexin and Yretha/Mae Bernice at Sochi.
 

Buttercup

Record Breaker
Joined
Mar 25, 2008
I also agree that I would love to see Zijun/Kexin and Yretha/Mae Bernice at Sochi.
I think Yretha Silete might have been able to get into the top ten this season had she not been injured; after all, she was close last year, and seemed to be improving. But Meite, for all that she has improved too, will need some help to make top ten.

I'll be thrilled if she manages it, though.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
No need for apologies, jaylee. That was one of the most closely observed, compellingly argued, and absorbing series of posts I've read in a while (but then, I am partial to nuts-and-bolts expositions).

There is, to my mind, nothing wrong with feeling passion for a skater or skate. Where the articulation of such passion goes wrong, IMO, is when it lacks 1) rigor of logic and understanding, and/or 2) intellectual honesty and good faith. The lack of the former is generally termed "naive", while the absence of the latter is the sophistic, the casuistic, even, shall we say, the Mephistophelean.

There are examples of both in this thread, but happily, yours is not one of them ;).

:bow: Anyone who can work Mephistophelean into a post on figure skating has got my vote!
 

hohoho

On the Ice
Joined
Nov 20, 2010
I wonder how much longer she will stay with Ravi.

Why would she change? Things are working for her, she is out of the mainstream locations regarding hype, and has a great choreographer in Lance.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
:bow: Anyone who can work Mephistophelean into a post on figure skating has got my vote!

Agreed!

As for YuNa, I'm so thrilled that her comeback is so substantial. Few skaters besides her have been able to show so much of their former gifts after time away from competitive skating. Plushy comes to mind, and I can't think of anyone else right now. I would love to see YuNa on the podium this year, whether gold, silver, or bronze. I have two reasons: it's great when an athlete beats the odds, and she is one of history's great gifts to skating. The longer we get to keep her, the better.
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
As for YuNa, I'm so thrilled that her comeback is so substantial. Few skaters besides her have been able to show so much of their former gifts after time away from competitive skating. Plushy comes to mind, and I can't think of anyone else right now.

The biggest group of skaters returning to competition after years away was in 1993-94.

Of those, Gordeeva/Grinkov were obviously closest to their former form and able to win another Olympic gold. The other former champions who made it to the 94 Olympics did fairly well but not as quite as well as when they had been winning ca. 1984-92.

Elaine Zayak didn't make the Olympic team but her 1994 performances probably would have done just as well in 1984 as what she actually performed then; the sport had just changed too much in between.

Susie Wynne (turned pro 1990), and Renee Roca and Gorsha Sur (having last competed in the 1980s, Sur for USSR) reinstated to compete starting in 1993 and seemed to be skating just as well . . . but meanwhile the Soviet Union had split and there were a lot more Soviet-trained teams they had to compete against, so the international results weren't as high.

Todd Eldredge was out of competition between 1998 and 2000, but he was able to come back to win bronze at 2001 Worlds and the 2002 US national title.
 

Buttercup

Record Breaker
Joined
Mar 25, 2008
As for YuNa, I'm so thrilled that her comeback is so substantial. Few skaters besides her have been able to show so much of their former gifts after time away from competitive skating. Plushy comes to mind, and I can't think of anyone else right now.
Shen and Zhao are an obvious example. :)
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003

I was trying to come up with a suitable literary reference that describes my own attitude toward skaters and skating. So far I've got Pollyanna, Candide, Don Quixote, and Leibnitz. :)

E.g., when I take notes about a program, if a skater goes directly from one element to another with no extra strokes in between I would write

StSq
(
2A

How do you find all of these examples? You must have either an amazing (and well-catelogued) video library or a prodigious memory! :bow:

This is amazing. The whole step sequence is a "transition" into the jump.

Skaters should be allowed to do that and end with an unscored double jump outside the 8 jumping passes as part of the footwork sequence. :yes:
 

prettykeys

Medalist
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
This is truly a remarkable discussion, and I love that it encompasses CoP beyond either Kaetlyn or YuNa's skating.

I particularly appreciate wallylutz, jaylee, little_meatball and gkelly's contributions because I'm learning SO much and my eyes are being opened to little gems I was blind to, before. :)

And...thanks for reminding me of Mirai's Carmen! Ashley looks so not thrilled after Mirai finishes, LOL (I'm not laughing spitefully; I totally understand it from a competitor's point of view.)

gkelly. I suspect you must have a pad of notes somewhere with references to specific skaters' performances?? You are like a figure skating dictionary.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
The biggest group of skaters returning to competition after years away was in 1993-94.

Of those, Gordeeva/Grinkov were obviously closest to their former form and able to win another Olympic gold. The other former champions who made it to the 94 Olympics did fairly well but not as quite as well as when they had been winning ca. 1984-92.

Elaine Zayak didn't make the Olympic team but her 1994 performances probably would have done just as well in 1984 as what she actually performed then; the sport had just changed too much in between.

Susie Wynne (turned pro 1990), and Renee Roca and Gorsha Sur (having last competed in the 1980s, Sur for USSR) reinstated to compete starting in 1993 and seemed to be skating just as well . . . but meanwhile the Soviet Union had split and there were a lot more Soviet-trained teams they had to compete against, so the international results weren't as high.

Todd Eldredge was out of competition between 1998 and 2000, but he was able to come back to win bronze at 2001 Worlds and the 2002 US national title.

Thanks! And thanks to Buttercup for bringing up Shen/Zhao--definitely shining examples of an effective and glorious comeback. (Love that pair.) My mind is in work mode and had emptied out as I was writing. Still, it's definitely a challenge to return after a break and regain or even exceed one's original quality and ranking. Takahashi is probably another example, considering the severity of his injury in 2008 or so. Even with that list, however, YuNa is still a standout.
 

Robeye

Final Flight
Joined
Feb 16, 2010
I was trying to come up with a suitable literary reference that describes my own attitude toward skaters and skating. So far I've got Pollyanna, Candide, Don Quixote, and Leibnitz. :)
Channeling Chris Matthews, I'm getting a thrill up my leg in anticipation of the next Mathmanism :laugh:. I find myself smiling just reading that list.


How do you find all of these examples? You must have either an amazing (and well-catelogued) video library or a prodigious memory! :bow:

This is amazing. The whole step sequence is a "transition" into the jump.

Skaters should be allowed to do that and end with an unscored double jump outside the 8 jumping passes as part of the footwork sequence. :yes:
I think I've been pretty vocal in the past in my admiration for gkelly's posts. They exemplify the rigor and good faith that I was talking about.
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
How do you find all of these examples? You must have either an amazing (and well-catelogued) video library or a prodigious memory! :bow:

gkelly. I suspect you must have a pad of notes somewhere with references to specific skaters' performances?? You are like a figure skating dictionary.

Mostly from memory -- my video library (tapes and DVDs) is not well catalogued at all. If I remember something, I look for it on youtube and may or may not find it there.

You'll notice that a lot of my examples are from the 1990s, and a few from before then. That's when I became obsessed with skating and started collecting tapes of whatever I could get my hands on. When I had dozens and then hundreds of performances to draw on, the memorable performances became lodged in my memory, especially favorites that I would watch many times.

Twenty years later I've seen thousands and thousands of performances, and access to many more each year with online video, so I don't have time to rewatch the same ones over and over again and therefore I'm less likely to remember details of the more recent performances.

This is amazing. The whole step sequence is a "transition" into the jump.

Skaters should be allowed to do that and end with an unscored double jump outside the 8 jumping passes as part of the footwork sequence. :yes:

The problem is, the same rules apply to skaters who can do six different triples and a quad or two and also to those who can only do a couple of triples at best.

If the rule for all is that men get 8 jump passes and women get 7, then a skater who can use up all his or her triples in 4 or 5 jump passes already has extra passes in which to do double jumps, including double axel. So those skaters might very well choose to do steps into a double jump, and they could also choose to do a double in the middle of a step sequence if they can do it well and if the possibility occurred to them. That would certainly be a way to set themselves apart from others at similar skill levels with similar jump content.

This also applies to top jumpers who can do two triple-triple combos, a triple-quad combo, and/or a triple-triple-triple, or men who don't have quads and can do one triple-triple, or who only have five different triples to work with to begin with. They already have an extra jump pass available to them. They're welcome to use it on a double (axel or otherwise) in the middle of a step sequence if they so desire.

So that option is kind of a consolation for not having the full range of jump content, or a bonus for being able to do the full range of jump content in fewer passes because of harder combinations.

A jump for points immediately following a step sequence is always legal, anywhere in the program. The only doubtful place would be the solo non-axel jump in the short program, which is supposed to have its own preceding moves; I'm not sure how doing it right out of the step sequence would go over.

Jumps in the middle of a step sequence had better be saved for the long program. They would fill jump boxes (unless all the allowed jump slots had already been filled), so a skater who can do good triples with more preparation would be better off doing all their triples first before adding easier jumps to a step sequence. And if it's the leveled step sequence, they should also make sure the added jump(s) won't interfere with the other skills they need to include to earn the level they want.

The senior men's choreo step sequence would be a good place to do this, since it will often come at the end of the program after all the difficult jumps are out of the way anyway. A ladies' choreo sequence could also work well with a double edge jump or even enhanced single axel connected to the spiral(s) and other steps, edges, and field moves.

If all the jump boxes had not been filled before the sequence with the jump, then the jumps would get points according to their base marks and GOEs, as well as whatever effect they have on the step sequence GOE and the choreography component.

If the jump-within-sequence occurs after all the jump slots were filled, then the jump itself won't earn points, but again it could add to the sequence GOE and the choreography component -- if placed wisely and executed well.

There wouldn't be any penalty for adding an extra single or double jump at the end of the program, connected to a step sequence or just for the effect of a creative or spectacular air position, etc.; it just wouldn't earn TES points.
 

Robeye

Final Flight
Joined
Feb 16, 2010
As for YuNa, I'm so thrilled that her comeback is so substantial. Few skaters besides her have been able to show so much of their former gifts after time away from competitive skating. Plushy comes to mind, and I can't think of anyone else right now. I would love to see YuNa on the podium this year, whether gold, silver, or bronze. I have two reasons: it's great when an athlete beats the odds, and she is one of history's great gifts to skating. The longer we get to keep her, the better.

Last season, there were posters who profferred with a quite breathtaking certainty that Yuna could not come back, or that she would lose all her skills (particularly jump difficulty), or that she would never score above 70 again in the SP, etc. etc. Wherefore such certainty, and where did it all suddenly disappear to? :p As some may recall, I argued that the facts did not support such views, and certainly not the amazing certitude in which they were couched.

In the event, Yuna has come back, her skills (particularly jump difficulty) are more or less intact, she has scored well above 70, and no one but a zealous maniac would argue that she does not have similar or even higher scoring potential at Worlds.

I make this point not primarily to pat myself on the back (OK, maybe just a little ;)), but to also illustrate a broader point. Prognostication in this sport is hard even when the facts are not running against you. Further handicapping yourself by disregarding (whether by omission or commission) those pesky little things wholesale usually does not end well.

To use another political metaphor (since Mathman provided the opening), such an approach is akin to the Republicans having a monumental brainfart during the recent election in regard of the conclusions to be drawn from the sequence of polling data. A whole bunch of people, both expert and non-expert, collectively engaged in an exercise in wishful thinking and denial (naivete), yoked to a program of sometimes subtle and often deliberate mischaracterization of the facts (intellectual dishonesty and bad faith), resulting in many Republican predictions of a massive Romney victory (400 electoral votes, according to certain well-known pundits) right up to the day of the election. Apparently even the Romney campaign itself drank the Kool-Aid. Those who followed a rigorous and reasoned approach designed to systematically minimize data bias (e.g. Nate Silver of Fivethirtyeight, Dr. Sam Wang of Princetion Election Consortium, Dr. Drew Linzer of Votamatic) knew that this was simply impossible.

To connect this back to the thread topic: in my view, Kaetlyn Osmond is a tremendous talent, and a budding personality. Again IMO, she may have the potential to do great things in the future, and conceivably could even medal at this year's Worlds in certain (possible though not probable) scenarios.

BUT: let's not drink the Potential-Flavored Kool-Aid quite yet (aren't people tired of that particular flavor? It's been around almost unchanged for decades). To say that almost any aspect of her PCS points potential is far superior to Yuna's at this point is, in my very strong opinion, not supported by fact or analysis of fact.

Could Kaetlyn conceivably break Yuna's ceiling in one or all component(s) of PCS as she develops in the future? Many things are conceivable, and I have nothing against personal speculation, so long as it's appropriately couched as such. However, to say that this is already the case as of this season is, I believe, exceedingly improbable.

Anytime we get a new talent of Kaetlyn's caliber, she should be cherished and brought along carefully, even by fans. Let's not turn her into a Mitt Romney.
 
Last edited:

prettykeys

Medalist
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Anytime we get a new talent of Kaetlyn's caliber, she should be cherished and brought along carefully, even by fans. Let's not turn her into a Mitt Romney.
Hah. I don't mind anyone's fans doing the "Yes, we can!" ;) With, or without careful analysis. I love enthusiasm - especially the kind that isn't tied to putting other skaters down.
 

Mrs. P

Uno, Dos, twizzle!
Record Breaker
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Last season, there were posters who proferred with a quite breathtaking certainty that Yuna could not come back, or that she would lose all her skills (particularly jump difficulty), or that she would never score above 70 again in the SP, etc. etc. Wherefore such certainty, and where did it all suddenly disappear to? :p As some may recall, I argued that the facts did not support such views, and certainly not the amazing certitude in which they were couched.

In the event, Yuna has come back, her skills (particularly jump difficulty) are more or less intact, she has scored well above 70, and no one but a zealous maniac would argue that she does not have similar or even higher scoring potential at Worlds.

I make this point not primarily to pat myself on the back (OK, maybe just a little ;)), but to also illustrate a broader point. Prognostication in this sport is hard even when the facts are not running against you. Further handicapping yourself by disregarding (whether by omission or commission) those pesky little things wholesale usually does not end well.

To use another political metaphor (since Mathman provided the opening), such an approach is akin to the Republicans having a monumental brainfart during the recent election in regard of the conclusions to be drawn from the sequence of polling data. A whole bunch of people, both expert and non-expert, collectively engaged in an exercise in wishful thinking and denial (naivete), yoked to a program of sometimes subtle and often deliberate mischaracterization of the facts (intellectual dishonesty and bad faith), resulting in many Republican predictions of a massive Romney victory (400 electoral votes, according to certain well-known pundits) right up to the day of the election. Apparently even the Romney campaign itself drank the Kool-Aid. Those who followed a rigorous and reasoned approach designed to systematically minimize data bias (e.g. Nate Silver of Fivethirtyeight, Dr. Sam Wang of Princetion Election Consortium, Dr. Drew Linzer of Votamatic) knew that this was simply impossible.

To connect this back to the thread topic: in my view, Kaetlyn Osmond is a tremendous talent, and a budding personality. Again IMO, she may have the potential to do great things in the future, and conceivably could even medal at this year's Worlds in certain (possible though not probable) scenarios.

BUT: let's not drink the Potential-Flavored Kool-Aid quite yet (aren't people tired of that particular flavor? It's been around almost unchanged for decades). To say that almost any aspect of her PCS points potential is far superior to Yuna's at this point is, in my very strong opinion, not supported by fact or analysis of fact.

Could Kaetlyn conceivably break Yuna's ceiling in one or all component(s) of PCS as she develops in the future? Many things are conceivable, and I have nothing against personal speculation, so long as it's appropriately couched as such. However, to say that this is already the case as of this season is, I believe, exceedingly improbable.

Anytime we get a new talent of Kaetlyn's caliber, she should be cherished and brought along carefully, even by fans. Let's not turn her into a Mitt Romney.

Exactly. The issue for me is that we lack comparable data points for Yuna and Kaetlyn. It's been made clear to me that it's really difficult to compare across competitions. But forget that, if you do careful data analysis of the entire field and probabilities it's pretty apparent to me you can't definitely say she will medal or not.

To be fair, however, Nate Silver sadly incorrectly guessed that the Seattle Seahawks would be going to the Super Bowl. :sad: (Though I'm thrilled that it's a Harbaurgh Bros. Super Bowl; their father, Jack, was a football coach at my alma mater).

Likewise Kaetlyn can prove us wrong and shake up our Nate Silver predictions (that's why March Madness, for example, is so thrilling!).

That said, I have no problem with enthusiasm! :)
 

pangtongfan

Match Penalty
Joined
Jun 16, 2010
The biggest group of skaters returning to competition after years away was in 1993-94.

Of those, Gordeeva/Grinkov were obviously closest to their former form and able to win another Olympic gold. The other former champions who made it to the 94 Olympics did fairly well but not as quite as well as when they had been winning ca. 1984-92.

Elaine Zayak didn't make the Olympic team but her 1994 performances probably would have done just as well in 1984 as what she actually performed then; the sport had just changed too much in between.

Susie Wynne (turned pro 1990), and Renee Roca and Gorsha Sur (having last competed in the 1980s, Sur for USSR) reinstated to compete starting in 1993 and seemed to be skating just as well . . . but meanwhile the Soviet Union had split and there were a lot more Soviet-trained teams they had to compete against, so the international results weren't as high.

Todd Eldredge was out of competition between 1998 and 2000, but he was able to come back to win bronze at 2001 Worlds and the 2002 US national title.

Yes all those skaters, their success or lack thereof was understandable.


G&G had been out of amateur competition only since 1990, M&D only since 1992, and the pairs event had made no forward progress since then. Thus it is easily understandable they were able to return and dominate.

Zayak had already been passed by by 84 when she left amateur skating, and womens skating had undergone a whole transformation since then, she was never going to be anymore competitive than she was in her return. I am shocked she even managed 4th at the Nationals but that was mostly since it was a poorly skated Nationals, and that she had inspired and surprisingly very good performances. Witt also was not going to do any better than she did, womens skating had changed too much technically since 1988.

Torvill & Dean had been gone 10 years but they are probably the best ever, and dance had gone through a whole shift of style changes as opposed to any major upgraded technical standards, so no surprise they were very competitive in their return. The field was also weaker than 1992, and neither Usova & Zhulin (divorce proceedings, loss of their 90-93 artistry due to the personal rift, he had a groin injury too I think), nor Gritschuk & Platov (very young, greatly improved from 92-93, but still not at their 95 and beyond level yet) were really in their primes either.

Eldredge in his prime couldnt even beat a quadless Stojko even when he skated cleanly, so needless to say he was never going to be competitive with Yagudin and Plushenko upon his return, even had he done quads, let alone without them, and with the much deeper field he was going to struggle to make podiums most times.

As you said the Soviet breakup had exploded the dance depth so no returning U.S dance team, especialy relatively newly formed pairings, were going to do all that well.

Kim in her 2010 Vancouver form is atleast 40% better than anything that has come since then so she only needs to be 70% of her old level or more and she wins, period, unless someone else improves.
 

wallylutz

Medalist
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
It's just a standard entry into a spin and shouldn't add anything, IMO. But I wouldn't consider it accidental -- just not added difficulty. If the back inside edge is held for a really long time, telegraphing the choctaw (step forward) onto the outside edge to begin the spin, then it would be a negative in my view.

I used the term accidental because many skaters don't realize they have performed a Choctaw in the process. One way or the other, doing a few Choctaw without nothing else beside it then stroke into a jump/spin does not merit any special mention at this level of competition.



Where do the GOE rules say that? The "Break between required steps/movements & jump/only one step/movement preceding jump" GOE reduction of -1 to -2 applies to the short program jump out of steps only. The rules for positive GOEs on jump elements just give "unexpected / creative / difficult entry" as a positive bullet point, with no mention of the number of skating moves involved in said unexpected/creative/difficult entry.

It is explicitly spelled out in the SP rules that a single free skating movement or its equivalent is insufficient to meet the requirement for connecting steps into the solo jump. See here : http://www.isu.org/vsite/vfile/page/fileurl/0,11040,4844-197593-214816-125742-0-file,00.pdf "A single spread eagle, spiral/Free Skating movement cannot be considered as meeting the requirements of connecting steps and/or other comparable Free Skating movements the lack of which must be considered by the Judges in the GOE."
However, in the LP rules, the rules are not explicitly spelled out in the same language though the same intent is there. Put it this way, would you consider that a skater who performed a series of Choctaw and nothing else prior to a solo jump to have met the "unexpected / creative / difficult entry" bullet point knowing that even novice level skaters can do the same thing without much difficulty?

As I posted in the Quantity vs. Quality thread, I think that just holding a long forward outside edge for half the ice surface and then jumping up directly into a double axel would qualify as unexpected, creative, and difficult and that doesn't even involve any "recognizable skating movements" except high quality to an edge that even beginners should be able to hold for a couple of feet.

I have to disagree with your opinion here. Although I would agree that a move that cannot be easily identified as a recognizable free skating movement can indeed be considered to be "unexpected, creative or difficult" which should merit extra consideration for both GOE and TR component, such validation however carefully take into consideration both the level/standard of the competition in question and the ability demonstrated by the skater(s). A question I would ask myself is : "What is being demonstrated or showcased in this particular move?" In other words, what does holding a long forward outside edge demonstrate preceding an Axel jump? Similar to the control, sureness and acceleration demonstrated by elite level skaters who went from a jump/spin into a step sequence with little or no rest or from a jump combo straight into a spin, without a doubt, these demonstrate high skating skill as they showcase the skater's ability to control their lower and upper body in secure manner while changing speed and therefore showcase skill that only people who have mastered strong skating skills can do. To me, this means skaters who can do this have high skating ability that they are pretty much at least 6.00 worthy in SS or higher. But what that demonstrates, in the context of a World Championship is that you have at least 12-15 if not more skaters who can do that and by doing so, it only proves that they deserve SS = at least 6.00, everything else being equal. It does not however help to differentiate those 12-15 skaters any further. So it's a good filter but it's not refined enough simply because too many skaters at the elite level can do that with ease. The point is just because something is deemed "positive" in general, it doesn't mean it can necessarily be reflected in an equally weighted fashion because CoP is not an exact science where one can say 1 + 1 = 2 and there is simply not enough time for a human being to sit there and compute all that in his/her head and come up with a number. This leaves us with the unfortunate reality that more often than not, the scoring will have to be a relative curve based on the level of the competition, which means it's not going to be exact.
 

wallylutz

Medalist
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Are people arguing she's a great performer because of her LP? Her short program is getting a lot more credit in that department and her long is universally thought to be lesser. I'd also arguing that the great performer aspect comes from comparing her to the field in Canada, where great performers weren't all that common. Sorta like how Flatt was consistent compared to Czisny/Nagasu, but if you compared her to Kwan/Hughes/etc, she doesn't quite measure up.

I don't agree. People have been talking about Osmond long before she went to the Canadian Championships this year. If her ability to perform turned some heads, it isn't because most people are comparing her to other Canadian women. First of all, not many people outside of Canada have seen other Canadian female competitors. Even Yu Na fans have suggested she reminded them of a younger Yu Na in many ways. Secondly, I'd argue Canada has produced some fairly decent female skaters who can perform - even Phaneuf was a great performer - just not a great jumper.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Some thoughts on my understandings of the Transitions rules:

I don't think it likes busy for the sake of busy.

The criteria for the Transitions component are variety, difficulty, quality, and intricacy. Nowhere is "quantity" listed as a criterion.

It is easier to get variety if you throw in a lot of different moves, but often quality is better demonstrated with a single move that covers more ice, holding an edge or a position for more time.

If you hold the quality constant, then more transitional moves is probably worth more than fewer. But any given skater might lose quality in the attempt to do too much too quickly. And the skaters with higher skill can So the best skaters will often incorporate their transitional moves judiciously in ways that highlight the quality of each rather than the sheer quantity.

I think I am zeroing in (in my own mind) on just what it is that bugs me about transitional steps and turns into a jump.

A triple Axel possesses a certain gravitas, even a majesty. Pimping it out with frivolous adornments diminishes the artistic and athletic statement that the element makes in isolation.

And please don't tack on a double toe-loop. That's like drawing a little Mickey Mouse in the corner of a Rembrandt. :)

(A quad on the other hand -- that's just showing off. ;) )
 
Top