I always enjoyed reading Tony Wheeler's thoughts. He is very thoughtful and rational.
I do not understand why you and Wallylutz keep bringing up what Denis Ten did or did not do five years ago. Or what he might or might not do five years in the future.
It's what he did at this competition that we should be discussing.
Taking the short program together with the long, Ten had the best competition. If the point totals say otherwise, then shame on the CoP.
And that is definitely a very valid point.
It's not the falls themselves that were an issue but rather how Chan has let them affect his performance. I have also felt that it was very subpar, his heart wasn't really in it and he wasn't fully committed to presenting the program. He did not skate to the top of his ability.
A case can definitely be made for Ten winning and personally I have also felt that he probably should have won (and I'd definitely prefer to see Ten on top of the podium).
However, I can also see how Chan's many exceptional qualities could have made up for his mistakes, giving him the gold.
It's great if there are opposing views and if people point out good and bad things about skaters' performances because it's not possible for one person to notice everything. I just feel frustrated by knee-jerk 'OMG he fell, he should lose, this is so stupid, judges are corrupt' reactions.
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 can't even begin to lament Joubert's placement, because again, I understand how it happened within the framework. However, all that tells me is that the framework is flawed.
All codes and rules need to be tweaked in order to become solid and reliable, ISU need to learn from this.
Something has to give - under this iteration of COP they minimized the clean requirement, under previous iterations they minimized the quad. If they decide to place more value on "clean" programs, skaters will just sacrifice the jump that give them issues. Ie: Chan would keep the 3A just in short etc.
Something has to give - under this iteration of COP they minimized the clean requirement, under previous iterations they minimized the quad. If they decide to place more value on "clean" programs, skaters will just sacrifice the jump that give them issues. Ie: Chan would keep the 3A just in short etc.
I mean if there was a massive deduction for falls introduced, next year everybody would be complaining about the system being stupid and wrong because nobody does difficult jumps any more.
I've got to disagree with both you and Ziggy.I do see what you are saying and I agreed with your defense of Kostners scores in the short program. The thing about Chans performance though was it was not just one fall, it was 4 very disruptive falls or stumbles which were not only glaring technical flaws, but greatly took away and took all zest and energy out of the overall performance. Of course one or even two fall(s) that did not mar the performance could be easily forgiven and should be overcome by other strong things about the performance. You could tell he was rattled by the increasing number of mistakes and it affected the quality of his other elements and overall skating in the 2nd half of the performance too, yet not reflected at all in the scores.
I do respect your views and detailed analysis though and that you have done on all the disciplines here though, and do see where you are coming from.
Put it this way Math, .... *whole post*
And as for impossible to find a skater who gives everything cleanish programs, good spins, steps and jumps, quads. Well Ten provided us this. He wasn't perfect it wasn't the most beautiful performance I had ever seen. But it was a great all around skate. That's enough for me.
And this sums up the issue really well. You can never please everybody and there are serious consequences to any potential changes.
I mean if there was a massive deduction for falls introduced, next year everybody would be complaining about the system being stupid and wrong because nobody does difficult jumps any more.
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?
wallylutz said:This is true since the 6.0 era and many former greats have been the beneficiaries of this such as Kwan and etc.
I dunno about that...when has the Kween fallen twice and won against people who were totally clean? For that matter, she was frustrated twice at the Olys by newcomers. And she went clean at the 1998 Olys too! That's what sucks about the current system...it's even more corrupt than the old. Under 6.0, judges had a harder time justifying unfairness. With CoP, they can hide it under the guise of a complicated point scheme that most people don't understand.
I think a scoring system can only be fair if it's possible for an unknown to burst onto the scene, have the skate of their lives, and win, especially if the established skaters falter. Under CoP, that's just not possible, and it's really unfair. I don't care how much artistry someone has, this is still a sport and if they make major mistakes they should not win, period.