2013 Worlds Men LP | Page 58 | Golden Skate

2013 Worlds Men LP

Kinga

Medalist
Joined
Feb 15, 2008
Patrick Chan keeps getting more and more annoying, on and off the ice. After being awarded 2 world titles he didn't deserve, I hope he finishes 4th next year in Sochi.

What did he do now? :scratch:

This way you are punishing the skaters twice. Elements are elements, presentation is presentation. (About PCS to be more affected by falls)
I disagree. Elements are the substantial part of presentation. Thus, if a skater fails on an element, it should be affected in PCS.
But if a skater falls yet still presents their program well I don't see any reason to deduct on the PCS.

Please define: 'if a fall does not affect the performance, there is no reason to deduct from PCS'. Where do you draw that line? It is obvious to me that it leaves room for judges to hold/low label skaters. Some would justify that the fall did not affect the performance, some would state otherwise. To me, a fall ALWAYS affects the performance, no matter how great your skate was. If you skate one of the greatest programs ever, but you fell/had a step out/you name it, I won't give you a perfect 10 for PCS. 9.75 maybe. But not 10.
One of the PE criteria is precision of execution. If you fell, you were not precise. It should be reflected in PCS.
Everybody would start skating conservative simple programs because taking risks would be too costly. You would be trying to make sure you never fall.
I don't want skating to be safe and conservative. I want it to take risks and excite.

But maybe it would be better for the sport if skaters started putting into their programs what they REALLY can execute well, instead of risking elements that they rarely succeed with? This would increase the quality of performances and it would leave audience more pleased. On the other hand, if you can execute difficult elements, then you won't have problems with including them into your programs. Taking risks when most of the time it equals failure is not excitement any more..
Additional 'punishment' for mistakes in PCS would encourage quality, I believe!
I don't see why punishing skaters twice is so bad in itself. You have to look at whether the proposed deductions for major mistakes are going to be more accurate in reflecting what the skater produced over what we have now.
I just it's funny that some are so nonchalant about big falls in a routine (and multiple falls) and can live with a performance that is mired in them winning a competition, but once you talk about underrotation and fluting or lipping, then it's the end of figure skating.
I mean, is anyone complaining that transitions are basically being rewarded twice (in jump GOE and in a separate category in PCS)?

Well said.

Essentially the judges are saying, I can see that you have great Skating skills, even though you fell. By that logic, they may aswell go to the practice sessions and mark the jumps based on the overall capabilities of the skaters.

I agree. It counts what you present on ice THAT night. If you fell, had other glaring mistakes on landings, etc etc it should reflect bunch of judging criteria: TES, skating skills, PE.

To me, this says that the problem is not with the annual tweaks but with the basic concept itself. If figure skating is not "that kind of sport'" (the kind where your performance is measured according to what you deliver on that particular evening), then why go through the charade of assigning points as if it is?
Mathman, you never stop to amaze me. You always phrase everything so perfectly, logically and concisely.

Chan does not have to work harder unfortunately. That is the message. Just do two perfect quads and the rest can be total garbage.

I would not worry that much. He almost lost to Denis Ten, so I actually think he got a different message: Please, work on you programs, execute them clean, because if Hanyu or Dai or Fernandez have a better competition, overcome their injuries/whatever issues and they skate the lights out, you are not going to win.

I'm really "angry" at Patrick. He had all the opportunity to shine in that LP. He had all the opportunity to make it his night. He could do justice to this wonderful program. He could prove that this LP is very artistic and that he is artistic. He wasted that opportunity. He allowed all his haters to tear him apart. :( Such a shame!!

Kudos to Max A. He really won me over :).
 

CanadianSkaterGuy

Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Some math that might temper the Chan/Ten debate a bit. Focusing purely on jumps (since that seems to be the issue, and their spins/footwork were comparable in value/execution):

In the FS: Ten's jumps' base value = 58.13; Chan's jumps' base value = 61.28
So, already, Chan has a 3 point margin up on him (and this is considering axel downgrade and the like). 2 points of that is lost on Chan's two falls.
Chan is now up 59.28 to 58.13, on jump base value.

Now we'll consider GOE deductions. The jumps Chan messed up rightfully had GOE deductions, of -3's for the falls (a loss of -2.1 for the 3Z, and -3 for the 3A), and -2's (a loss of -1.3) for the 3F-3S sequence (which, btw was an error but scored similar to Ten's 3-jump sequence because of its higher difficulty). So now, going off the errors Chan gets -6.4 points. So now it's Ten with 58.13 and Chan with 52.88. A difference of 5.25 points.

So if we take deductions into account, Ten now has a jumps point advantage of 5.25 points.

Now we'll consider GOE bonus for successfully completed jumps. Ten (having more cleaner jumps) gets a bonus of 8.88 points. However, even with 4 problematic passes, Chan gets a bonus of 7.16 points, thanks mainly due to his quads.... a difference of 1.72. So based on jump bonuses, Ten has widened his advantage to 6.97 points.

Now here's the critical bit, note that Ten not only didn't do a 3F, he had also could have done a 3F-3T, so instead of 10.34 points he only did a 2F-2T combo worth 3.41 points -- and left 6.93 points on the table. (Yes, Chan also left 4 points on the table by not doing a 3T on the end of his 2Z, although that would have been a split second decision and he's always trained his combo with a 2T.. whereas Ten wouldn't have risked Zayaking if either one of his 2F-2T was made into a triple, and has quite likely trained that combo with a 3T to max his program. The point is that Ten could have added a 3T onto his flip, but downgrading both the 3F and 3T cost him much more than Patrick downgrading his 3Z to a double). So essentially, Ten gave up his entire jumping advantage by not doing the 3F-3T.

And with comparable spins/footwork, you're left with PCS to determine who had the better skate. Chan had 2.12 points better PCS (this is arguably a fair margin because Chan's program is way better than Ten's but was skated technically poorly while Ten had no glaring errors... in reality, had Chan skated well, he would have cleared 90 points of PCS and had around a 4 point PCS gap over Ten... (btw Chan's personal best PCS mark in the FS is 3.5 points higher than what he got in this FS).

This 2 point PCS gap closes Ten's advantage to 4.85 points -- this is about the score he beat Patrick in the FS by 5.5 points (Ten was slightly better in terms of spins/footwork GOE -- including +3s almost across the board for his ChSp footwork, while Chan got mainly +2's).

Now you look back to the SP, which was pretty close -- I would say due to a superior program (plus better spins, a harder lutz vs. flip, and the greater difficulty in tacking on the 3T to the quad), Patrick deserved about a 6 or 7 point victory over Ten. Neither of them deserved 91 and 98 points, but I think 88 and 95 would have been fine with people. So the margin of victory in the SP for Chan is enough to make up for Ten's technical superiority in the freeskate.

Thus, Patrick won due to regaining points for his falls with quality quads, due to several points left on the table from Ten's 3-3, due to a considerable lead in the SP (which was the right margin, IMO, just 2-3 points higher than either deserved), and due to his chief rivals faltering in the SP and not really bringing in the LP either.

---

On paper, however, it reads as: clean SP (quad toe, triple axel, triple flip-triple toe) + clean FS with 1 quad and 6 clean triples (2 axels, at that) losing out to clean SP (quad toe-triple toe, 1 triple axel, 1 triple lutz) and flawed FS with 2 quads and 2 clean triples. So I understand why people are fuming.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
^ Well...what you did here is tally up all the points on the protocol sheets. No one is contesting the computer's ability to add.

I think the complaint is rather, points, schmoints. We just saw Ten clean Chan's clock. Yet the protocol sheets say otherwise. Something is wrong here. Adding and re-adding the same numbers will not get to the bottom of the problem. (JMO.)
 

Bluebonnet

Record Breaker
Joined
Aug 18, 2010
I think the complaint is rather, points, schmoints. We just saw Ten clean Chan's clock. Yet the protocol sheets say otherwise. Something is wrong here. Adding and re-adding the same numbers will not get to the bottom of the problem. (JMO.)

I have no problem with raising fall penalty and making the multi-fall skaters harder to win the whole competition. But, Math, I think many people who complain about this have forgotten how high Patrick Chan's PCS could be if he skated perfectly clean. I have no doubt that he would get multi 10s in PCS, and rightfully.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
I look at it this way. The program components are supposed to reflect the whole program, not just the part of the program between elements.

Jumps are choreographic punctuation marks and highlights to the musical interpretation. If you flub the spotlight moments of your choreography, that should be reflected in the choreography score. You did not deliver the choreography that was planned.

Likewise, in performance/execution, you did not execute your program, and - because of falls and other awkward moments -- you did not draw the audience in to your performance. You did not weave a spell of music and movement. This ought to be reflected in P&E as well as in Choreography and interpretation.

In this particular performance Patrick skated a 10 for the first minute, then a 4 for the rest. In addition to the falls it was lackluster and without pizzazz or grace.

Don't get me wrong. When Patrick is on, he's fantastic. But this was a forgettable year for him, and a forgettable performance. Hope he does better next year.
 

Skater Boy

Record Breaker
Joined
Feb 24, 2012
Chan won because of the current system. If you mark each category and total both programs all together he won. You are going to have to change the system if you want a different result but remember in years past Lambiel and Buttle have been held up because of their pcs - held up in a good way like Chan they earne dtheir marks in other categories. But once again skating is still subjective the idea of cop was to reward what you do otherwise we can have safer programs maybe figure skating should be pulled a sa judged sport. Like parents with little kids fighting if you cannot get along and behave then maybe the toy, the game should be taken away. Would that make you all happy.
 

evangeline

Record Breaker
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Chan won because of the current system. If you mark each category and total both programs all together he won. You are going to have to change the system if you want a different result but remember in years past Lambiel and Buttle have been held up because of their pcs - held up in a good way like Chan they earne dtheir marks in other categories. But once again skating is still subjective the idea of cop was to reward what you do otherwise we can have safer programs maybe figure skating should be pulled a sa judged sport. Like parents with little kids fighting if you cannot get along and behave then maybe the toy, the game should be taken away. Would that make you all happy.

Can you name a single competition in which Lambiel and Buttle skated as poorly as Chan did in the LP and still won?
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Chan won because of the current system. If you mark each category and total both programs all together he won.

Not so. What you mean is. if you add up the points that the judges gave him, he won.

If instead you mark each category according to what Patrick actually put on the ice, then no.
 

TontoK

Hot Tonto
Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Country
United-States
Mathman, you are spitting into the wind. He will never concede that Chan didn't deserve that win, nor that his artistry isn't the finest thing on ice since John Curry, even on an off performance. Never.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
^ You know, I have no quarrel with enthusiastic Patrick Chan fans. I am that way about my fave, too (Michelle).

It's the folks who have drunk the ISU/IJS Kool-aid who are so hard to talk to. ;)
 

Moment

Final Flight
Joined
Jan 18, 2013
After rewatching Patrick's and Denis' free skates, I do not change my initial notion that PChiddy fully deserves his title. If anyone received the most inflated score and was most held up by the judges in this competition, it's Denis not Patrick.
 

mskater93

Record Breaker
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
No way. PE of 9.75 for two falls and two other very visible errors? What would he have gotten if he was clean? 12?
 

Bluebonnet

Record Breaker
Joined
Aug 18, 2010
I look at it this way. The program components are supposed to reflect the whole program, not just the part of the program between elements.

I believe that the judges are trained to think like CoP now. They have broken down the program second by second. Other than those a few seconds of Patrick's mistakes (including his falls), he did to almost the maximum capacity of a performance in such details. It seems if you ignore those seconds of his mistakes, he has put his full emotion into his program. That was the reason that he could get such high PCS for his program with falls. Many skaters could not do that. They fall, then they lose something in the performance in the rest of the program.

You think like 6.0. You see the program as a whole. I don't think you are wrong in the sense of performing art. In fact, I believe it should be seen as a whole in PCS scoring for the sake of making connections with the general public. I do not object changing the idea of scoring PE in PCS. But under current set up for the system, I believe this was the result. I don't think Chan's scores were inflated.

No way. PE of 9.75 for two falls and two other very visible errors? What would he have gotten if he was clean? 12?

What are you talking about?!

You'd better re-check the fact! There was no such thing as 9.75 in PE for "two falls and two other very visible errors"!:laugh: 9.75 in PE was in Patrick's world record making SP!
 

emdee

Final Flight
Joined
Feb 27, 2012
After rewatching Patrick's and Denis' free skates, I do not change my initial notion that PChiddy fully deserves his title. If anyone received the most inflated score and was most held up by the judges in this competition, it's Denis not Patrick.

I personally felt that Dennis's emotion in the FS came after the skate and he was a little automated in the Long. In the Short he seemed to be in the moment more. This impression is from being there live.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
I believe that the judges are trained to think like CoP now. They have broken down the program second by second. Other than those a few seconds of Patrick's mistakes (including his falls), he did to almost the maximum capacity of a performance in such details. It seems if you ignore those seconds of his mistakes, he has put his full emotion into his program. That was the reason that he could get such high PCS for his program with falls. Many skaters could not do that. They fall, then they lose something in the performance in the rest of the program.

You think like 6.0. You see the program as a whole. I don't think you are wrong in the sense of performing art. In fact, I believe it should be seen as a whole in PCS scoring for the sake of making connections with the general public. I do not object changing the idea of scoring PE in PCS. But under current set up for the system, I believe this was the result. I don't think Chan's scores were inflated.

I will meet you halfway. Patrick's skating does have a quality that never abandons him even when things go wrong.

But Patrick himself said (in his interview for Icenetwork) that falling saps your energy. I think that happened here. After the first fall, the first half of the ensuing free skating sequence was not as fluid or energetic as we expect. Finally he got back in synch, only to fall again. The last half of the program petered out considerably. And unfortunately the lack of focus and attack made the music seem increasing dreary as the program wore on. I do not agree that he was able to "put his full emotion into the program." Quite the contrary.

What are you talking about?!

You'd better re-check the fact! There was no such thing as 9.75 in PE for "two falls and two other very visible errors"! :laugh: 9.75 in PE was in Patrick's world record making SP!

He did get a 9.50 in the free program, though. The same judge gave him component scores of 9.50, 9.25, 9.50, 9.50, and 9.50.

Patrick's total PCS for his record setting short program was 45.67. His unfactored PCS for the long was 43.50. Don't you see something out of whack here?
 

emdee

Final Flight
Joined
Feb 27, 2012
I will meet you halfway. Patrick's skating does have a quality that never abandons him even when things go wrong.

But Patrick himself said (in his interview for Icenetwork) that falling saps your energy. I think that happened here. After the first fall, the first half of the ensuing free skating sequence was not as fluid or energetic as we expect. Finally he got back in synch, only to fall again. The last half of the program petered out considerably. And unfortunately the lack of focus and attack made the music seem increasing dreary as the program wore on. I do not agree that he was able to "put his full emotion into the program." Quite the contrary.



He did get a 9.50 in the free program, though. The same judge gave him component scores of 9.50, 9.25, 9.50, 9.50, and 9.50.

Patrick's total PCS for his record setting short program was 45.67. His unfactored PCS for the long was 43.50. Don't you see something out of whack here?

Last year in Nice there was a visible loss of focus in the second half of the program. This year he really made an effort to get back into the program. Yes, it didnt flow as well as it would have should be not have fallen or doubled but there were whole sections which were really good. If you compare those sections with other performances of PC you will see what I mean. Keep in mind though that he changed his placement of jumps and some of the choreo at worlds.
 
Top