Page 74 of 80 FirstFirst ... 24 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 LastLast
Results 1,096 to 1,110 of 1187

Thread: 2013 Worlds Men LP

  1. #1096
    skating philosopher Mrs. P's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The land of Agent Dale Cooper
    Posts
    8,387
    Quote Originally Posted by jenaj View Post
    Me, too!
    Me three. I know Max has his shortfalls, but I like that he gives it his all every time and he continues to defy his critics. He just attacks it-- no hesitation what so ever.

    Go, you Honey Badger!

  2. #1097
    ISU, stop promoting 2-foot skating!
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Axis of Evil
    Posts
    2,516
    Quote Originally Posted by glam View Post
    What other men? Excuse me, but he has all the difficult jumps including two quads. He has been a victim of a strange judging in these Championships and last Worlds.
    - only one 3axel
    - only three of his jumping passes are after the halfway mark (his rivals have five)
    - repeats the flip even though he lips (why? why not repeat the lutz instead?)
    - no 3loop

    In this particular program:

    - no three jump combination
    - broken the Zayak rule

  3. #1098
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    4,147
    Quote Originally Posted by jamie View Post
    how many examples beyond Lambiel's flawed 05 win
    While I agree with much of your post that is not at all a good example, as that was a case that clearly nobody skated better even in the LP portion. Even with his 3 singled jumps he won by 24 points, so there was no question of anyone else deserving to win. Lambiel had by far the best qualifying round skate and short program, and in the long when he singled 3 jumps, a quadless Buttle fell twice, a quadless Evan won bronze with a so so skate, Joubert sucked, and just a really poor event that made even last nights look like a goldmine. Even under 6.0 Lambiel would have won that year easily.

  4. #1099
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    3,008
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    OK, but you didn't answer my question.

    As for base value -- anyone can turn in a jump card. Unfortunately, then you have to stand up on the jumps.

    (Oh wait...)
    What I meant was most of this forum posters hate Chan. They are willing to use anyone against him without foundation. The foundation was Ten has gotten sky rocket high SS which he did not deserve. So there was no room to give him even higher points unless he makes the 2F into 3F.

  5. #1100
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    5,609
    Flutzing Around's Thoughts

    He suggests that elements with falls receive 25% of their starting value and the fall deduction gets applied to P/E in 5% increments (1 fall, -0.5 from PE, 2 falls, -1.0 from PE, etc)

  6. #1101
    skating philosopher Mrs. P's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The land of Agent Dale Cooper
    Posts
    8,387
    Quote Originally Posted by ImaginaryPogue View Post
    I always enjoyed reading Tony Wheeler's thoughts. He is very thoughtful and rational.

  7. #1102
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,819
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    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.
    Put it this way Math, if the skating order was a little different in that Ten skate prior to Chan's, I guarantee you his score would be a lot lower. D10 got a huge psychological bonus, nothing to do with skating. But that bonus is temporary and situational. Taking that out, looking strictly at his skating, he is not yet a Top 5material even if he did not double his Flip.

    Sure, he may have skated better than most in an error filled competition. But you gotta ask, how did an error-filled S/S beat D/R in pairs when S/S failed to even get a single Triple credited in their SBS? All they did were SBS doubles + fall. Answer : S/S are so much more superior overall, individual elements notwithstanding. One thing is very consistent in judges' seat is that they look at what was put on the ice in that given competition but they also assessed the finer qualities which don't usually go out of the window just because the individual elements were missed. The latter is somewhat harder to assess especially for those who watch over scratchy / crappy internet feeds. This is why sometimes people think judges held up X skater over Y skater. While there is some truth to that, more often than not, it is the less visible qualities displayed that helped to hold these people up despite their visible errors. This is true since the 6.0 era and many former greats have been the beneficiaries of this such as Kwan and etc., including the one who tweeted "confused in Florida" - only if his memory is not so short that he was a skater without Quad in a world dominated by the 4 revolution jump. More recently, Kostner, Asada, Takahashi and Chan have all received such cushion as well.

  8. #1103
    Rinkside
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5
    I find some of the comments less than illuminating is that it seems less about how they would change the system and more about how to "fix" Chan's win. No one can agree on what should be the priorities under the scoring system. It is impossible to create one that rewards clean + quads + triple axel + awsome ss + fantastic spins + great presentation. There are very few skaters that could reliably meet all these criteria.

    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.

  9. #1104
    Custom Title bekalc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    3,083
    Quote Originally Posted by Ziggy View Post
    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.
    First of all if Patrick had fallen just once, I doubt anyone would have complained about his win. Nobody after all is complaining about V/T's win. What people are complaining about is the fact that Patrick had multiple falls in this program and then other glaring errors.

    I can live with a fall if everything else is good or two small mistakes if everything else is good. I frankly felt that there was a strong case for Daisuke winning the Olympics. But I can't bear to see slopply executed programs get rewarded on things like P/E.

    I have a hard time thinking how making a ton of glaring errors doesn't effect your overall performance, I'm sorry it at the very least affects the overall impression of your performance. One fall I can live with but multiples-no.

    Nobody's complaining that Patrick was on the podium. Based on his short that's fair.

    I don't want to see people getting medals for easy programs, but surely there has to be a balance. The system right now seems to encourage people to pack in overwhelmingly difficulty throughout regardless how well the difficulty can actually be executed.

    Why can't the system encourage a balance? Reward the skater who performs the program that best combines difficulty and execution. It is that person who should win.

    Ten combined this the best at this competition.

    The judges could have easily given Patrick PCS in lets say around 84 overall. Said PCS would still reward him for his good qualities but also showing the performance wasn't up to his great standards. That would have been fair.

  10. #1105
    ISU, stop promoting 2-foot skating!
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Axis of Evil
    Posts
    2,516
    Quote Originally Posted by jamie View Post
    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.
    But that's exactly what it is. He does have the best skating skills in the world even though he fell. Why do you find it frustrating?

    Figure skating will never be just about how somebody delivers on a particular evening. It's not that kind of sport. There are many different skills and they are acquired over years and years of practice and some of them will stay relatively constant throughout different performances. That's the way it is.

    Quote Originally Posted by jamie View Post
    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.
    You can't blame the system for Joubert's personal failures. It's not a secret how the system works and he needs to learn to play it better.

    Quote Originally Posted by jamie View Post
    All codes and rules need to be tweaked in order to become solid and reliable, ISU need to learn from this.
    They are tweaking the system all the time. There's been changes after each season and I wouldn't be surprised if they did increase the fall penalties slightly after this season.

    I think that not only does the corridor does need to go, there needs to be a better framework for marking PCS. But corridor will never go because it would make judges look like they are completely clueless (because there would be so much variation in the marks suddenly).

    And it never will possible to please everyone, whatever the changes. Chan won here partly because the quads he landed extremely well were worth so many points (which is something a lot of people have argued for).

    Quote Originally Posted by Jackbox9999 View Post
    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.
    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.

  11. #1106
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,269
    Quote Originally Posted by Jackbox9999 View Post

    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.
    But Patrick's mistakes were not on the quads. He made errors that a World Champion shouldn't have made--maybe one popped jump is excusable or one wonky landing but not both, with two falls.

  12. #1107
    Custom Title bekalc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    3,083
    Quote Originally Posted by Ziggy View Post
    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.
    Well I think this is a problem in ladies and would like to see the value of jumps rewarded more.

    However personally why not allow the judges with P/E get to evaluate the overall performance and with that understanding have it be an evaluation of the entire thing. I.e the technical content and how well its done.

    For example there could be directives that skates who are doing overwhelming less difficult program should perhaps get some docked on the P/E score. One could say Lepisto doubling all those jumps was not good technical performance and clearly was having execution issues in 2010. Why not hit her there? And also hit those who go out there and fall all over the place.

    P/E could be used to reward those who shockingly enough provide the most balanced programs in terms of difficulty, execution, and artistic value. How crazy would that be??

    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.

  13. #1108
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    653
    Quote Originally Posted by pangtongfan View Post
    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.
    I've got to disagree with both you and Ziggy.

    -The problem with Ziggy's approach, that for some reason all elements, or the failures thereof, should be qualitatively equivalent, notwithstanding quantitative differences in scoring values (I must confess that the justifying principle, or fundamental ground, for this escapes me) is that it leads exactly to the kind of reductio ad absurdum result that is Chan's victory. It doesn't pass the sniff-tests of both common sense and intuition for the vast majority of observers, it seems to me.

    I repeat the principle that seems sensible, coherent, and self-consistent to me: technical elements do not have an impact on the performance aspects of a skate, except in the cases where the technical element either heightens or detracts from the arc, design, structure, or mood of the program. In my view, the clear fall is the most obvious example of a technical phenomenon that plays double duty as a performance consideration.

    -The problem with your approach excusing some transgressions (eg Caro's SP fall) while not excusing others (eg Patricks errors) is that the potential for arbitrariness in judgment is high. As I'm sure you know, one fall in the SP is roughly equivalent to two falls in the LP. So, should an LP performance with two falls result in no penalty to PCS, while 3 falls trigger a repercussion? On what basis of principle? That two falls did not disrupt the arc and flow of the program enough, while a higher number would? Again, on what basis?

    -I would argue that it should be recognized that any obvious fall, must logically and necessarily be seen as having created a disruption, and therefore PCS ought to be impacted. There is, in other words, no such thing as a clear fall that has no performance impact; the idea itself is clearly absurd. Scoring should therefore reflect this truth. Further, to minimize arbitrariness, I suggest that the corrective that ought to be considered is to penalize clear falls equally, across the board.

    If there is more than one fall, the penalty does not have to increase in simple linear fashion. One could argue that each incremental fall or program-disrupting mistake causes relatively greater damage than the previous one, for example, and set the guidelines accordingly. The key points are the conceptual recognition of the damage that the fall(s) create in terms of performance quality, and to institute a scoring adjustment that makes at least a good-faith effort at limiting arbitrary judgment.

    It's possible that there is scope for nuance, eg if the skater does not make the effort to recover as quickly as possible, and/or allows the effects of the fall to linger after the program continues, then further penalties can be prescribed.

  14. #1109
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,253
    Quote Originally Posted by wallylutz View Post
    Put it this way Math, .... *whole post*
    Thank you. That was well reasoned.

  15. #1110
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    292
    No wonder the sport is dying. Forget about attracting new fans to the sport. Who would watch a sport that produces results such as the one in the Men's LP tonight.

Page 74 of 80 FirstFirst ... 24 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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