Page 27 of 27 FirstFirst ... 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Results 391 to 403 of 403

Thread: 2013 Europeans Ladies LP

  1. #391
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    184
    Quote Originally Posted by CanadianSkaterGuy View Post
    Not to add fuel to the fire, but it's totally evident that the judges totally kept up Kostner for the title.

    Her FS at Worlds last year got 65 pts of PCS and here she lands 4 triples in a program with worse choreography and gets 70.28 points. For comparison, Yu Na got 71.76 points at the Olympics with a perfect, way more technically demanding and certainly better choreographed and executed skate.

    I think the most infuriating this is that Carolina has done better programs with wayyy better choreography than Bolero and with more speed and yet she's being rewarded with higher points.

    You only need to look to her SP for blatant judging errors -- 4 out of 9 judges gave her -2 on the 3-3 combination that had a fall -- which is an automatic -3 in the SP.

    That she wins with 4 triples is frankly a joke. And people's attitudes here (she should get at least xx points higher than so-and-so, even if she does badly) are the exact reason people vilify figure skating and its judges (who have the same notion that because she's a veteran she's automatically given an advantage). Think about what you say when you say she should be given a 15-point advantage... you're saying even if Kostner leaves out her 3Z, 3F, and a 3S, she should still get enough PCS to make up for that.
    She has speed, elegance and lightness. You should give her a chance.

    At Worlds, she will be performing a 7-triple-program, her practices were awefully good (3F-3T; 3Lz-3T).

  2. #392
    Thank God for Stephane Lambiel and Matt Savoie! shine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Itcaip View Post
    Mao on the other hand has transitions before every single jump element. For me a bit overdone. If she did a little less I believe we wouldn't see the "<" sign after every second jump.
    If you look closely at all of Mao's "transitions" into her jumps, they really are not that complicated. Mostly mohawks and done over and over. IMO those don't really add that much to the difficulty of the jumps, nor the overally impression.

    For those who claim Asada's program is filled with transitions. I'd really like a breakdown, for I really can't see how her program is so much more difficult than Kostner's, or anyone else's program. IIRC, she has a couple of moves in fields here and there, but are they linked to any difficult element? Or are they precedded and followed by a bunch of stroking?
    Last edited by shine; 01-30-2013 at 07:10 PM.

  3. #393
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    5,609
    Quote Originally Posted by CanadianSkaterGuy View Post
    Not to add fuel to the fire, but it's totally evident that the judges totally kept up Kostner for the title.

    Her FS at Worlds last year got 65 pts of PCS and here she lands 4 triples in a program with worse choreography and gets 70.28 points. For comparison, Yu Na got 71.76 points at the Olympics with a perfect, way more technically demanding and certainly better choreographed and executed skate.
    1. PCS increase over the years as a general trend. Kim's PCS for Bond > Kim's PCS for Danse Macabre, and I have yet to hear a single person single out Bond as a better skated/choreographed program. But it's clear that judges have been instructed to use the upper register - something they only started in the Olympic season.

    I think the most infuriating this is that Carolina has done better programs with wayyy better choreography than Bolero and with more speed and yet she's being rewarded with higher points.
    I'd be willing to debate as I tend to agree. The one advantage that Carolina has (and Mao, for that matter) is that the end of the program is so awesome that it leaves the judges inclined to improve their PCS.

    You only need to look to her SP for blatant judging errors -- 4 out of 9 judges gave her -2 on the 3-3 combination that had a fall -- which is an automatic -3 in the SP.
    No, it's not. An automatic -3 is given in the short program if the solo triple doesn't come out of steps OR if the combo doesn't adhere to rules (A quad or a triple with a triple or double attached. 2-3's okay, 3-1's not). Taking away three GOE levels must happen if a fall occurs and the final GOE must be negative, but if you decide that the combo had enough good qualities to be a plus one, than -2 is legitimate.

    That she wins with 4 triples is frankly a joke. And people's attitudes here (she should get at least xx points higher than so-and-so, even if she does badly) are the exact reason people vilify figure skating and its judges (who have the same notion that because she's a veteran she's automatically given an advantage). Think about what you say when you say she should be given a 15-point advantage... you're saying even if Kostner leaves out her 3Z, 3F, and a 3S, she should still get enough PCS to make up for that.
    Okay, lets make the reverse comment that you're saying.

    Skater B leaves out transitions, complex choreography and has no feeling for the music. Should that affect her TES? Of course not. If she lands a gorgeous triple, we should still call it a triple and give her good GOE, right? If you believe that's fair, then you have to state equally that a program with all these things should be marked high in the PCS regardless of the element difficulty.
    Last edited by ImaginaryPogue; 01-30-2013 at 08:25 PM.

  4. #394
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    307
    Quote Originally Posted by shine View Post
    If you look closely at all of Mao's "transitions" into her jumps, they really are not that complicated. Mostly mohawks and done over and over. IMO those don't really add that much to the difficulty of the jumps, nor the overally impression.

    For those who claim Asada's program is filled with transitions. I'd really like a breakdown, for I really can't see how her program is so much more difficult than Kostner's, or anyone else's program. IIRC, she has a couple of moves in fields here and there, but are they linked to any difficult element? Or are they precedded and followed by a bunch of stroking?
    There is definitely not "a bunch of stroking" in Mao's program. A lot of mohawks and simple turns, that's right, but it's still more difficult to gain speed doing those than with crossovers like Carolina. And again, even if Mao doesn't have super difficult transitions before flips and lutz, steps and turns she does are harder and better than straight, telegraphed entrances that Kostner has.

    What Mao has between her jumps is not of a very high difficulty but at least there is something and its quality is first rate. She does steps and turns all the time and other "little transitions" like short spread eagle, short ina bauer, brief spiral etc and it is certainly more demanding than just doing crossovers like Carolina or Akiko. What's more, I would take her moves in the field perfectly matching the music and its theme any day over posing that Carolina does.

    Having said that, I must say I like Carolina's Bolero a lot but I acknowladge higher difficulty of Mao's program.
    Last edited by Bartek; 01-30-2013 at 07:44 PM.

  5. #395
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    5,015
    Quote Originally Posted by ImaginaryPogue View Post
    1. PCS increase over the years as a general trend. Kim's PCS for Bond > Kim's PCS for Danse Macabre, and I have yet to hear a single person single out Bond as a better skated/choreographed program. But it's clear that judges have been instructed to use the upper register - something they only started in the Olympic season.

    2. I'd be willing to debate as I tend to agree. The one advantage that Carolina has (and Mao, for that matter) is that the end of the program is so awesome that it leaves the judges inclined to improve their PCS.

    3. No, it's not. An automatic -3 is given in the short program if the solo triple doesn't come out of steps OR if the combo doesn't adhere to rules (A quad or a triple with a triple or double attached. 2-3's okay, 3-1's not). Taking away three GOE levels must happen if a fall occurs and the final GOE must be negative, but if you decide that the combo had enough good qualities to be a plus one, than -2 is legitimate.


    4. Okay, lets make the reverse comment that you're saying. Skate B leaves out transitions, complex choreography and has no feeling for the music. Should that affect her TES? Of course not. If she lands a gorgeous triple, we should still call it a triple and give her good GOE, right? If you believe that's fair, then you have to state equally that a program with all these things should be marked high in the PCS regardless of the element difficulty.
    1. I'm okay with a PCS increase, but only if a skater deserves it. I fear that giving judges encouragement to use the upper register means judges have applied it to veteran skaters and not the whole field, leaving more of a gap between skaters instead of everyone simply moving up. Or a veteran skater gets 1.50-1.75 higher PCS and everyone else 0.25-0.50. I don't see the point in giving skaters higher PCS if they don't earn it. Also, IMO, Kostner's Euros free skate certainly didn't deserve to earn higher PCS than her Worlds freeskate last year, even if it was given a boost. PCS should also reflect how well a program was skated too. If a skater doubled all of her jumps, you would hope that she wouldn't be given the same PCS mark as the same program where she did all triples. But this isn't the case with Kostner/Wagner/Asada receiving the same if not better PCS marks for programs that have errors, i.e. holding them up. This is wrong and getting back to the days of wary judging.

    2. Yes, I agree that the end of Carolina's long program is excellent, but I wish it were more balanced (as her SP is). Right now it's like she "comes to life" only when her footwork sequence begins. I realise that's also how the music goes, but I find that the first half still lacks intricate turns and choreography (deep edges and difficult turns in the 1st half and leaps and toework in the spryly 2nd half would make a wonderful Bolero program). And obviously skaters turn it on at the end to leave a lasting impression, but Carolina is so capable of a complete, well-choreographed program, and I feel her FS is just resting on that final minute and her reputation to garner PCS.

    3. Thanks for clarifying. In that case, yes, the -2 does make sense given the execution of the first 3-toe.

    4. Oh I'm not saying if a skater leaves out choreography, etc. they should be given high PCS. But if a skater lands 7 triples with not as sophisticated choreography, they should be placing higher than skaters who complete 3 or 4 triples. Otherwise what's the point of the first skater even competing as there's no way they could win? Don't get me wrong, I want a skater to have developed artistry, but I think judges are using artistry as a way of bailing out flawed skates from top skaters much to the chagrin of less-artistically-developed skaters who skate lights out. e.g. Radionova in her GP assignments should have beaten Kostner's Euros freeskate. It's still a sport. If anything the artistic component should separate two technically excellent skaters, but if a skater has a technically mediocre skate then they should be placed behind an artistically deficient skater with a great skate... not the other way around. You could say "Kostner has so much more speed, artistry etc. than the rest of the field, so why not give her a 9.5 and Sotnikova a 6.5?)" -- well that essentially negates any technical aspects of the competition reducing it from who skates the best to who is the best all-around skater in general.

    A good example is Yan Liu in the 2006 Olympics. Lovely skater, but because she wasn't popular or as developed artistically and was accordinly robbed of a top 10 placement. Hammered both on GOE (when her jumps were actually nice!) and PCS. Here's the FS protocol (http://www.isuresults.com/results/ow..._FS_Scores.pdf)... 11th in the FS and being the only one to land 7 triples (Kostner landed 2 triples in the FS and was 9th in the segment). How is that even justified?

    I doubt we will ever see another GPF like 2006 where Mao defeated Irina because she actually outskated her. Under the CoP right now, you can bet the judges would have given Irina PCS through the roof over a "junior skater" like Mao to ensure a win. Even though Irina had much better skating skills/choreo/etc. the judges still gave credit to Mao for more technically demanding and well executed skates and didn't create such a huge PCS gap.

  6. #396
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    5,609
    Quote Originally Posted by CanadianSkaterGuy View Post
    1. I'm okay with a PCS increase, but only if a skater deserves it. I fear that giving judges encouragement to use the upper register means judges have applied it to veteran skaters and not the whole field, leaving more of a gap between skaters instead of everyone simply moving up. Or a veteran skater gets 1.50-1.75 higher PCS and everyone else 0.25-0.50. I don't see the point in giving skaters higher PCS if they don't earn it. Also, IMO, Kostner's Euros free skate certainly didn't deserve to earn higher PCS than her Worlds freeskate last year, even if it was given a boost. PCS should also reflect how well a program was skated too. If a skater doubled all of her jumps, you would hope that she wouldn't be given the same PCS mark as the same program where she did all triples. But this isn't the case with Kostner/Wagner/Asada receiving the same if not better PCS marks for programs that have errors, i.e. holding them up. This is wrong and getting back to the days of wary judging.
    Ah, now you're getting to two separate issues

    a) I'm gonna argue that a good performance now would be scored the same as a great performance from the 2008/2009 season, PCS wise. Stephane Lambiel could barely break 8s for "Poeta"

    b) I don't think that veterans inherently "get" a benefit. I do think that those people who have been skating around in COP longer have a better understanding of how to skate WELL in it. Equally, I believe there are some people who haven't made the effort to adapt to it's demands.

    c) I absolutely would want a program of the same program quality (interpretation, performance, etc) to score the same PCS regardless of whether a skater landed all doubles or all triples. To make an analogy, if a skater did three level one spins and one level one footwork, would you want them to score higher PCS for the "same program" with all level four elements? Patrick Chan's highest PCS come from the skate where he doubled three jumps; the skate where he

    2. Yes, I agree that the end of Carolina's long program is excellent, but I wish it were more balanced (as her SP is). Right now it's like she "comes to life" only when her footwork sequence begins. I realise that's also how the music goes, but I find that the first half still lacks intricate turns and choreography (deep edges and difficult turns in the 1st half and leaps and toework in the spryly 2nd half would make a wonderful Bolero program). And obviously skaters turn it on at the end to leave a lasting impression, but Carolina is so capable of a complete, well-choreographed program, and I feel her FS is just resting on that final minute and her reputation to garner PCS.
    Fair enough.

    4. Oh I'm not saying if a skater leaves out choreography, etc. they should be given high PCS. But if a skater lands 7 triples with not as sophisticated choreography, they should be placing higher than skaters who complete 3 or 4 triples. Otherwise what's the point of the first skater even competing as there's no way they could win? Don't get me wrong, I want a skater to have developed artistry, but I think judges are using artistry as a way of bailing out flawed skates from top skaters much to the chagrin of less-artistically-developed skaters who skate lights out. e.g. Radionova in her GP assignments should have beaten Kostner's Euros freeskate. It's still a sport. If anything the artistic component should separate two technically excellent skaters, but if a skater has a technically mediocre skate then they should be placed behind an artistically deficient skater with a great skate... not the other way around. You could say "Kostner has so much more speed, artistry etc. than the rest of the field, so why not give her a 9.5 and Sotnikova a 6.5?)" -- well that essentially negates any technical aspects of the competition reducing it from who skates the best to who is the best all-around skater in general.
    1. The skater that did land seven triple beat the skater that landed four triples, in that phase. But, the skater that landed six triples beat the skater that landed nine over two phases as well as the skater that landed eight. Intriguingly the skater that landed eight outPCSed the skater that landed nine.

    2. Is the difference merely "not as sophisticated" choreography? To what extent?

    3. And you've hit the other nail on the head. Program Component scores, as written, really give only about 40% weight to the skate itself - the other sixty percent comes from the program and skater. But PCS aren't artistic scores. Skating skills is technical. Choreography and transitions can be artistic, but they are often technical as well (why Patrick Chan is justified in huge scores). So Kostner excels at one technical aspect of the competition if you argue she excels at skating skills. But that's only one part of the competiiton.

    4. No way should Radionova beaten Kostner, though. So it seems we just have different opinions on what we want the sport to celebrate.

    A good example is Yan Liu in the 2006 Olympics. Lovely skater, but because she wasn't popular or as developed artistically and was accordinly robbed of a top 10 placement. Hammered both on GOE (when her jumps were actually nice!) and PCS. Here's the FS protocol (http://www.isuresults.com/results/ow..._FS_Scores.pdf)... 11th in the FS and being the only one to land 7 triples (Kostner landed 2 triples in the FS and was 9th in the segment). How is that even justified?
    I'd have to watch the programs and give my impression.

    I doubt we will ever see another GPF like 2006 where Mao defeated Irina because she actually outskated her. Under the CoP right now, you can bet the judges would have given Irina PCS through the roof over a "junior skater" like Mao to ensure a win. Even though Irina had much better skating skills/choreo/etc. the judges still gave credit to Mao for more technically demanding and well executed skates and didn't create such a huge PCS gap.
    Eliza won two GP events beating, among others, Carolina Kostner her debut season. Katelyn Osmond beat a world bronze medalist and the level of screaming has been epic. Sui/Han scored epically well in their senior events their debut season because of huge TES (and poor scoring on PCS not holding them down far enough, imo).

  7. #397
    Custom Title Slowdive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    123
    Were LP videos ever posted?

  8. #398
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    3,703
    Quote Originally Posted by ImaginaryPogue View Post
    Ah, now you're getting to two

    I'd have to watch the programs and give my impression.



    Eliza won two GP events beating, among others, Carolina Kostner her debut season. Katelyn Osmond beat a world bronze medalist and the level of screaming has been epic. Sui/Han scored epically well in their senior events their debut season because of huge TES (and poor scoring on PCS not holding them down far enough, imo).
    You know Liza never won a free skate that season. She always lost them because of pcs and he same thing almost happened at euros. Beat kostner by nearly nothing- got lucky because of double salchows by kostner.
    Last edited by gmyers; 01-30-2013 at 11:38 PM.

  9. #399
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Japan
    Posts
    2,188
    Quote Originally Posted by FlattFan View Post
    I have fact for you: the best 2 Russian babies went and lost.
    They didn't. The Russian babies won both, SP and FP. It's Caro who won nothing.
    Comparing some National inflated scores to a legitimate score is so nonsense.
    And how my charming one BV that I was referring to was inflated at RN? They gave double jumps the BV of triples? Or they did what exactly? Oh please.
    Quote Originally Posted by ImaginaryPogue View Post
    No, it's not. An automatic -3 is given in the short program if the solo triple doesn't come out of steps OR if the combo doesn't adhere to rules (A quad or a triple with a triple or double attached. 2-3's okay, 3-1's not). Taking away three GOE levels must happen if a fall occurs and the final GOE must be negative, but if you decide that the combo had enough good qualities to be a plus one, than -2 is legitimate.
    I wonder when people say "No, it's not", do they really think that no one else can read? CanadianSkaterGuy is right on this one: fall is an error for which final GOE must be in the minus of -3 reduction. Other errors of this kind recheck in ISU Communication 1724. Your info is not entirely right.

  10. #400
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,707
    Quote Originally Posted by let`s talk View Post
    They didn't. The Russian babies won both, SP and FP. It's Caro who won nothing.
    And how my charming one BV that I was referring to was inflated at RN? They gave double jumps the BV of triples? Or they did what exactly? Oh please.
    I wonder when people say "No, it's not", do they really think that no one else can read? CanadianSkaterGuy is right on this one: fall is an error for which final GOE must be in the minus of -3 reduction. Other errors of this kind recheck in ISU Communication 1724. Your info is not entirely right.
    Take your own advice, read, and then take my advice, read between the line. BV is not be all end all. Look at all of Mao Asada's 2A-3T in Japan. her 3T should have been URed, but they gave it to her anyway.
    Same thing at US Nat, the caller gave Ashley two full credited triples.
    Same thing at Russian Nat, the caller can just give BV to anyone. oh, you didn't realize that?

    Let's talk less and think more, eh?

  11. #401
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    5,609
    Quote Originally Posted by let`s talk View Post
    They didn't. The Russian babies won both, SP and FP. It's Caro who won nothing.
    And how my charming one BV that I was referring to was inflated at RN? They gave double jumps the BV of triples? Or they did what exactly? Oh please.
    I wonder when people say "No, it's not", do they really think that no one else can read? CanadianSkaterGuy is right on this one: fall is an error for which final GOE must be in the minus of -3 reduction. Other errors of this kind recheck in ISU Communication 1724. Your info is not entirely right.
    Me too - I hate it, especially when accused of it. So lets go look, let's talk. Page 12 for jump errors

    IF the jumps is "One more or less revolution than required", the score: GOE -3. No ifs, ands or buts. It says the GOE must be -3.
    IF the jump, in the short program, the jump doesn't have any steps behind it, GOE - 3. There it is again

    HOWEVER, the fall doesn't say GOE -3. It says - 3. The heading: reduction/other.

    Notice that for every error, it lists the reduction that should be applied after taking into the positive aspects. Everything else says -1 to -3, or -1 etc. There are two types of errors: those that are so bad the element must be scored as a negative (The first column) and those that the GOE must be lowered by not necessarily to negative (the third). The second and fourth column is the reductions, as mentioned earlier. However, within the first type, there are errors that are so bad that the GOE must be -3. There are three of them, and they are noted in the "Reduction/Other" column as stating "GOE -3."

    Falling on an element isn't one of them.

  12. #402
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    156
    Quote Originally Posted by mary01 View Post
    Actually Mao didn't use the 3lutz as a combination, so there was no edge call in her 3-3, some may have been marked slightly underrotated but she certainly has had PLENTY
    Actually it was in combo with the 3 loop, and it was pre cop so there were no such thing as edge calls or under rotations per se.

  13. #403
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Japan
    Posts
    2,188
    Quote Originally Posted by FlattFan View Post
    Take your own advice, read, and then take my advice, read between the line. BV is not be all end all. Look at all of Mao Asada's 2A-3T in Japan. her 3T should have been URed, but they gave it to her anyway.
    Same thing at US Nat, the caller gave Ashley two full credited triples.
    Same thing at Russian Nat, the caller can just give BV to anyone. oh, you didn't realize that?
    Okay, gotcha. All nationals are inflated and BV is given for doubles/UR jumps/whatever as if they are clean triples, etc.
    Let's talk less and think more, eh?
    I am waiting for you to set and example.
    Quote Originally Posted by ImaginaryPogue View Post
    An automatic -3 is given in the short program if the solo triple doesn't come out of steps... Taking away three GOE levels must happen if a fall occurs and the final GOE must be negative, but if you decide that the combo had enough good qualities to be a plus one, than -2 is legitimate.
    Quote Originally Posted by ImaginaryPogue View Post
    Page 12 for jump errors
    IF the jumps is "One more or less revolution than required", the score: GOE -3. No ifs, ands or buts. It says the GOE must be -3.
    IF the jump, in the short program, the jump doesn't have any steps behind it, GOE - 3. There it is again
    HOWEVER, the fall doesn't say GOE -3. It says - 3. The heading: reduction/other.
    Is it some kind of special Page 12 that you are the only one aware of? I am talking about ISU Communication that is on the official site. I can make a screen shot for you (let me know) because it seems like judging by your posts you are reading a different text. Have no idea which one. Errors for which final GOE must be in the minuses are:
    SP: One or more rev. less than required: GOE -3
    SP: Combo consisting of one jump only: GOE -3

    And that is all. There is no "automatic" GOE -3 for any "solo triple in SP doesn't come out of steps" or "doesn't have any steps behind it" as you claim. Where did you take it?

    For the errors Fall and in SP No required steps/movements preceding Jump the mandatory reduction is -3. The final GOE indeed can be upgrated if the jump had positive features, but still the final GOE must be in the minus. Still you apply the automatic GOE -3 for a jump that "doesn't come out of steps in SP/ doesn't have any steps behind it" (btw not necessary triple, it can be any solo jump) but you don't apply it for falls while in fact both errors are treated the same way by ISU Communication: reduction -3. Sounds like either it's an honest mistake of yours or you are cheating with rules.

Page 27 of 27 FirstFirst ... 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •