Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Results 121 to 125 of 125

Thread: Johnny Weir officially retires + joins NBC as skating analyst

  1. #121
    skating philosopher Mrs. P's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The land of Agent Dale Cooper
    Posts
    8,386
    Quote Originally Posted by emma View Post
    While I do agree that the bank thing might not be the best metaphor - I love, love, love that Weir is searching for ways to communicate the scoring system. I love that he said things like, some would think a clean Ashley should have beaten (was it Mao?) with mistakes...yet tried to explain how this happens with this system. I think we can debate and criticize the system (and should), but while we are using this system, I appreciate commentators that try to explain it.

    I also think he and Terry together did a little better - I love that Terry was throwing out skater stats and I love that they were both sort of catching viewers up on skater x from previous comps and so forth. It felt like sports talk to me - or the kind I like at least.

    My only nitpick is the whole "artistry" reference - I wish they would just call it the second marks and also try to explain them; but they (the components) seem very different to me than the old second/artistry mark....or perhaps 3 of 5 of them do enough to warrant some discussion. But, I'm thrilled with this change and only wish for more (literally!!!)
    Yeah, that was my nitpick with Johnny too... I think he could have explained the components better. But in due time, I hope!

  2. #122
    Celebrating the Excellence of #VirtueMoir golden411's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    4,800
    Quote Originally Posted by Mrs. P View Post
    I think cash flow is a better financial metaphor to use, which Johnny sort of was going that way with the whole bank account thing. Basically the skater's base value is like cash in the bank and I would describe mistakes/popped jumps/falls, etc as expenditures.

    So basically Javier, by having all those quads had like $1,000 in the bank or cash reserves, vs. someone like Adam Rippon, with one quad, having $350.

    Adam cannot afford to make a lot of expenses (i.e. mistakes) because he only has $350 to play with. As in Javier, has a more money (difficult content) to play with.

    So using my cash flow situation: Adam, too made mistakes, but basically, was clean elsewhere and actually gain interest (+GOE) on his cash (the elements executed), so he was able to have a bank balance of $400. (An arbitrary number, not meant to be a precise ratio)

    Javier, on the other hand popped a lot of jumps, including two of his quads. So basically his $1,000 went all the way down to $100, so in the end despite starting out with more money (difficulty) he executed (i.e. spent too much money) poorly, so ended up with less than men who started out with a lot less money.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    I agree that Johnny's bank account thing was not helpful. He could have made the same point by just saying that skaters with a lot of big elements planned can afford to make a mistake, but skater's with lesser content have to go perfect.
    Thanks, MM. I like your explanation much better than Weir's.
    And thanks as always to Mrs. P as well. Love that you keep pulling out new hats for us : Suze Orman + Entertainment Weekly + Nate Silver ... can't wait to see what's next. (I hope that my general idea of Suze Orman's turf is semi-accurate; the truth is that I don't know much about her.)

    I am not a financial whiz, but I guess I was wishing that Weir had likened planned elements to "projected earnings," if anything. Especially because I got the impression that the score tracker on-screen display seemed to start at zero for each skater, and then to add points along the way -- as opposed to giving initial credit for the total value of all planned elements and then subtracting as the skate proceeded. (I glanced at the score tracker only a few times, so I hope I am not mistaken.)

    Another quibble of mine is that IIRC, Weir implied that reputation judging is an official part of the scoring system for components. During Takahashi's FS, I could swear that Weir said (I'm paraphrasing) something about DT's polish and superior presentation also giving him a bigger pre-skate bank account.

    But again, my overall reaction to Weir was positive. I like Lipinski too.

  3. #123
    skating philosopher Mrs. P's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The land of Agent Dale Cooper
    Posts
    8,386
    Quote Originally Posted by golden411 View Post
    Thanks, MM. I like your explanation much better than Weir's.
    And thanks as always to Mrs. P as well. Love that you keep pulling out new hats for us : Suze Orman + Entertainment Weekly + Nate Silver ... can't wait to see what's next. (I hope that my general idea of Suze Orman's turf is semi-accurate; the truth is that I don't know much about her.)

    I am not a financial whiz, but I guess I was wishing that Weir had likened planned elements to "projected earnings," if anything. Especially because I got the impression that the score tracker on-screen display seemed to start at zero for each skater, and then to add points along the way -- as opposed to giving initial credit for the total value of all planned elements and then subtracting as the skate proceeded. (I glanced at the score tracker only a few times, so I hope I am not mistaken.)

    Another quibble of mine is that IIRC, Weir implied that reputation judging is an official part of the scoring system for components. During Takahashi's FS, I could swear that Weir said (I'm paraphrasing) something about DT's polish and superior presentation also giving him a bigger pre-skate bank account.

    But again, my overall reaction to Weir was positive. I like Lipinski too.
    Haha, I'm a woman of many hats, whee!

    Yeah, I agree the projected earnings would be the right equivalent to base value, i.e if everything goes to plan, this is what he expected to earned.

    But I agree with MM. The simplest way to explain it is look at past TES. Javier has the capacity to score 90+ in technical elements while Adam at his best has only earned 82, therefore has a slimmer margin for error.

  4. #124
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    355
    Quote Originally Posted by golden411 View Post


    Another quibble of mine is that IIRC, Weir implied that reputation judging is an official part of the scoring system for components. During Takahashi's FS, I could swear that Weir said (I'm paraphrasing) something about DT's polish and superior presentation also giving him a bigger pre-skate bank account.
    I don't remember whether he said that or not; however, although reputation scoring isn't official, it plays a role in scoring, and I can't see why the commentators should pretend it does not. The coaches at my rink definitely talk about reputation scoring as a fact--an unfortunate and annoying fact, but something the skaters have to learn to live with.

    I also think that it is quite inevitable that the judges, as well as avid skating fans, have higher expectations of skaters who have proved themselves in the past. It only gets problematic when that skater performs below expectations, but the lower-than-usual quality is not reflected in the PCS scores (and sometimes in GOE).

    Personally, I think Johnny is doing a great job. I feel like he would prefer to let the audience enjoy a good performance without commentary and comment before the skate and during the replays. I like Terry, but he definitely prompts Johnny to speak during the performance (maybe he has orders to do so?). I loved to hear that Akiko is as lovely off-ice as she is on-ice

  5. #125
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,618
    Referring to golden411's 'quibble'....it's entirely possible he was referring to reputation judging; but I didn't hear it that way. I thought he was trying to say how Dai's superior skills mean he can get those higher component scores. Obviously, he didn't say it clearly enough and perhaps he also was implying or thinking about reputation inflation. Or implying that many of the components seem to track together closely without the kind of variation some of us wish to see based on the component parts and the skate that day. Anyway, I'm just saying I'm not sure what he meant but I didn't hear it quite the way you did.

    But saying that, I think that there are things for Weir to work through or improve on in his commentating; But, I just can't hide how much I'm liking the commentary, liking it enough that I"m not even complaining about how they didn't show dance (well, guess I am complaining about that a little, but you know what I mean!).

Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Posting Permissions

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