Osmond vs. Kim in PCS, a huge gap?

[Olympia]

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]

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 . 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!

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.

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]

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

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.

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]

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? 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.

[prettykeys]

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]

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? 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]

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]

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/...-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]

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.

[Mathman]

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. )

[Mathman]

PS. This is why people used to like to watch figure skating back in the 1990s.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFurTW8OHxM#t=1m3sec

[prettykeys]

I don't agree. People have been talking about Osmond long before she went to the Canadian Championships this year.

Yes. They were talking about her from Skate Canada, 2012. LOL I didn't hear much chatter about her on the forums before that.

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.

Eh..."great performers"? For me, personally, the last captivating Canadian Ladies singles skater was Josee Chouinard. That's going wayyyy back. I can't believe it's been like, 20 years since I saw her skating (on TV).

Kaetlyn Osmond is remarkable for me in that sense. Finally, another Canadian lady with a ton of personality and spunk on the ice!

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.

Hah. Aesthetically, I agree. But--we have to respect the athletic aspect, too. Although I might be able to name one mod who potentially would consider the Rembrandt elevated for having a Disney doodle drawn next to it...

[wallylutz]

I still don't see how these suggest in any way that Kaetlyn could realistically close the PCS gap with Yuna. Last year Kostner had a fantastic season and at Worlds she averaged in the low 8's for PCS--the highest all year. The previous season Miki Ando likewise had a fantastic season and built up momentum, and her PCS peaked at around 8 at Worlds. These were veterans who had built up a reputation over many years--Miki was herself a previous World Champion.

I am not sure where you saw any suggestions I made that referenced to "Kaetlyn could realistically close the PCS gap with Yuna" in my reply. I think you completely misunderstood my post. The points I made and I will spell them out in plain English :

1) PCS marks can change quite a bit for a same skater within the same season, this occurs quite frequently and not specific to any person or discipline

2) In my opinion, based on Osmond and Kim's respective FS at their Nationals, I noted certain aspects of their skating where Osmond is already doing better than Kim, notably TR and CH. Further to that, I have some concerns about Kim's interpretation of Les Misérables.

3) Reputation judging is a two-way street for both fans and judges. Use history as your guide but don't assume they are the limits.

If these veteran heavy weights could not touch Yuna's PCS ceiling of 9 in their very best season, how can an utter neophyte--even of Kaetlyn's caliber--get that high? And your example of Tara Lipinski does not quite work. Yuna to Kaetlyn is not Michelle to Tara. Kaetlyn's jumps and combinations are hardly superior to Yuna. She Flutzes, does no combo harder than a 3T/3T and likewise cannot do the loop. Tara was a jumping bean who truly out-jumped Michelle. The same cannot be said of Kaetlyn. The most you can argue is that her choreography and transitions are superior, but these alone cannot close the PCS gap especially when reputation is taken into account.

Take a deep breath and now read my post: "I do not believe Kaetlyn is going to challenge Yuna at the 2013 World Championships." I think you are confusing my thread with the other one started by someone else in December re: Osmond being the 2013 World Champion. That was from a passionate fan of Kaetlyn Osmond but I don't think such expectation is realistic. Now that this is clear, I will say this : You are relying way too much on past results and reputation in your reasoning. One of the main intentions of this thread is to get people to forget about reputation and historical results for a few minutes and simply look at these two skaters, one after the other and come up with an opinion. In other words, say these two people are not Yu Na Kim and Kaetlyn Osmond, but instead they are simply skater A and B - what can you (2nd person, plural) say re: each of their components? Indeed, many members independently came up with similar comments, which you also conceded is the Transition and Choreography. Some people went as far as giving the Performance aspect to Osmond as well. And now, re-read my post #1 - what are the 3 aspects I identified that I felt Yu Na left the door open for Osmond and others to challenge her on? TR, CH and IN. Setting aside IN because it can indeed be somewhat subjective, the consensus here seem to always circle back to TR and CH. Clearly, I saw something concrete enough that when I identified them here, many people said: "Hey, I think I noticed that too." Within a few days, this thread gathered almost 10000 views, I'd say this is not possible unless we are making some good points in here.

With that said, it doesn't change the fact Kaetlyn is not going to challenge Yu Na this year. Kim will have some competition but it will likely be from other more veteran skaters. Yes, some aspects of Kaetlyn's skating are showing great promise - one can even say it's starting to catch up if not surpassing Yuna's but at this point, it's only fractions - not the whole picture. This is why when you made that comment in the Canadian Championship sub-forum "of course big gap on PCS...", I decided to challenge you on that comment because I know what I saw and I am telling you, the gap is not as big as you might think and this thread served to validate just that.

Since when were components measured against each individual skater's potential? Isn't it supposed to be a kind of distribution, where 5 is "average" for a senior lady? That is at least what the ISU guides suggest. If so, then the right comparison is not what Yuna herself is potentially capable of, but what senior ladies these days are actually doing with respect to transitions. Considering the dearth of complex, intricate or difficult transitions even among the top ladies, giving Yuna 6.5 or less for transitions in her free program is hardly just. How many of them even attempt both the Lutz and the Flip and do any kind of preceding moves to these jumps?

You confused the question I asked you with the standards. Components are not measured against each skater's potential but they can however be compared to what other skaters are doing though judges aren't required to do so. When Yu Na is skating at about 60% of her ability while others are giving their 90%, the door will be open for others to challenge her. Take example of their respective solo Triple Flip jump in their Free Skate. Yu Na did a series of Choctaw, which based on an in-depth discussion with gkelly here, I do not see how that that could satisfy the creative / difficult entry bullet for GOE and its equivalent in the TR component. Yet, if you look at what Kaetlyn did, for the same jump, the whole sequence was packed with steps and turns, adding an Ina Bauer in the middle, then the jump. It's not hard to see why unanimously, many here are suggesting the young Canadian has better transitions already - it is that obvious.

[Robeye]

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!

I agree with you that the concept of uncertainty looms rather large in skating. Of course, if one takes this too much to heart, a la Wittgenstein ("Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent"), one might be in danger of relocating to the Norwegian countryside and not speaking for six months. Commenting on future figure skating events would, of course, be out of the question. (Volleying the ball back into Mathman's rhetorical court, this would not be my preferred approach to figure skating commentary ).

On the one hand, I understand that pushing somewhat beyond the bounds of the (strictly) factually supportable can be a good thing, that there is a role for being "provocative" and a gadfly in stimulating discussions. On the other hand, there is the danger that controversy is pursued for controversy's sake, and it becomes a kind of empty intellectual baiting (a form of mental master baiting, in fine ).

The line between the former and the latter is not always clearly visible, as Nate Silver and his ill-fated football prediction demonstrates. (I'm a longtime Patriots fan, and am still mourning the woulda-coulda-shouldas of this season).

[ImaginaryPogue]

Yes. They were talking about her from Skate Canada, 2012. LOL I didn't hear much chatter about her on the forums before that.

In fairness, people did comment on her at Nationals 2012 (where she won the SP, beating out LaCoste and Phaneuf) and after Nebelhorn (where she outright won). But I don't really see how the initial point is germane to this discussion.