I guess "better jumper" isn't the right word. Better quality jumping should be used instead. In term of quality, Gracie's jumps are better than Yuna's jumps. But Yuna's shown she's more consistent.
I guess "better jumper" isn't the right word. Better quality jumping should be used instead. In term of quality, Gracie's jumps are better than Yuna's jumps. But Yuna's shown she's more consistent.
Let's not just make conclusions without any evidence, OK?
I don't see how Gracie's jumps are better than Kim's. Please show us some examples.
I can understand claiming Gracie is more all-around jumper because of mastering all 5 triples, but comparing what they are doing right now... I don't get your conclusion.
Show me which example?
If you are talking about 3lz-3t, then show me a clip of Gracie's best 3lz-3t that is better than Kim's.
During 09-10 season, Kim's 3lz-3t is at least as good as Gracie's. The speed into the combo, the distance, the flow were all better than Gracie's. What Gracie did better in national was the height, but it's not like Kim under-rotated.
So considering everything, please show me a link and illustrate why Gracie's jumps is better. Or better, compare all the other triple jumps? I'll give you that Gracie has much better 3lo although not that consistent, which is why I said she's a better all-around jumper.
Well, uh, height is a factor in considering the quality of a jump. So maybe some people like Gold's 3-3's better for their height.
Others seem to prefer YuNa's proven track record of consistency.
There's nothing wrong with people having different preferences in what they look for in jumps.
I'm not saying it's not a factor. It IS a very important factor when you evaluate the quality of the jumps. However, when you say xx's jumps are better than yy's, we have to make some models to rank. Obviously, ice coverage, speed, height, landing position, take-off position, rotations are all important. You can't say one's jumps are better, simply because of one factor. It's not objective. It's called biased sample and bad analysis.
If we try to build a linear model, we should take all the things into account. Assigning the weight is another story, though.
Last edited by McIce; 02-01-2013 at 02:19 PM.
Like I said in the post above yours, then it's not called quality evaluation, it's called personal bias.
FlattFan shouldn't say 'In term of quality, Gracie's jumps are better than Yuna's jumps.' She should say 'In terms of my preference, I like Gracie's jumps better than Kim's.'
Last edited by McIce; 02-01-2013 at 02:17 PM.
1. Midori Ito
2. Yu-Na Kim/ Shizuka Arakawa
3. Miki Ando
4. Mao Asada
5. Gracie Gold
6. Irina Slutskaya
7. Tonya Harding
8. Carolina Kostner
9. Michelle Kwan - beautiful landing positions and consistency!
10. Elizaveta Tuktamysheva/ Kristi Yamaguchi
Last edited by christinaskater; 02-01-2013 at 04:30 PM.
I agree. My work involves a lot of statistical analysis and modeling, so I like to be precise, especially when you try to draw conclusions.
Whenever make summary or judgment without stating 'it's my personal preference', you have to provide evidence, use statistics to support your ideas, and show correlation to the conclusions you make. That's what I will call good argument.
Talking about Yuna always drag out the best characters. LOL.
Thank you so much for finding a way to get Michelle on the list! (I'm always happy when she's on any list.)
I would squeeze Shizuka in there somewhere, though I know that several people here have pointed out that she underrotated sometimes. For me what is impressive about her triple-triples is their longevity. She maintained them way past her competitive career and also did quite a few different kinds.
Slutskaya had beautiful spring on her jumps. I seem to remember that another skater with that quality was Viktoria Volchkova (which I hope I spelled correctly), but that she was not consistent. Does anyone have any thoughts about her?
Talking about American ladies always drag out the best characters. LOL.
I also like when someone can't win the argument, he/she has to give in and make sarcasm instead which totally shows how weak his/her argument is. How typical it is! Love it!
Last edited by McIce; 02-01-2013 at 03:59 PM.
Bookmarks