How Sotnikova beat Kim - Move by Move | Page 8 | Golden Skate

How Sotnikova beat Kim - Move by Move

OS

Sedated by Modonium
Record Breaker
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Yuna did kind of "mail it in," in both programs. I do not think either program is among her best, though both were clean. I think she probably should have won, but by a small margin.

I really don't get this idea of she is 'mailing it' in. Why would someone put themselves through so much trouble, ie/ skate with pain killers, to take up one of the most musically demanding and stamina driven program instead of recycling one of their old safe well received programs. Taking up strenuous training on an injured foot, to put her personal health, reputation and legacy on the line against these crazy odds, of high pressures and even greater expectations... and apparently the most hostile crowd I have ever seen in figure skating? (Can someone name even more openly hostile crowd in figure skating history?)

She has been reported by the paparazzi who followed her secretly for months to be the last person leave the skating rink every night even switch off the lights herself because she trains hard. If the reports are true from her doctors, she has also skated with a cracked right foot which is frankly an amazing Olympic feats on its own. She could have easily pull out citing injury and just enjoy her fortune like many has done. Even with gold not possible after 149, even how she practically lost the SP (3lz3T vs 3T3T), she still insist on skate clean, last skater at the entire competition, her final performance, something she has only done twice in her career with many on this board calling her lucky at both times. She proved again, it is not luck but her personal standard of excellence. How is that mailing it in?

As far as I can tell she was clearly performing to the music and set the right mood mood for her interpretation. She was sincere and truthful to the that program, the only difference seems most people expect some sort of party girl to heckle to the crowd like Sotnikova, but clearly that was not the program she came to perform. She did her job properly, the audience and the judges on the other hand didn't, or have their own agenda.

This is a jazzy fusion Adios Nonino, more than any other romanticized version out there with greater languidness, sophistication and finesse, while it exist as a homage to the composer's father who passed away, imo it is also the composer's own defiance to uphold his art and the unconventional path he took. Conceptually, the performer and her circumstances matches well with the music and its inception. For the record, Adios wasn't written as a classic tango but a NUEVO tango that allows great deal of freedom to express via the natural physicality of movements of the performer, in this case, adapt particular skating kinesiology to the skating techniques, form and style best suited. I have originally identified this program about showcasing virtuosity and challenging perception of ladies figure skating. Taking a more 'cerebral' approach (Mathsman's term), possibly in the vain of Patrick Chan's Elegie, more about refocus on pure skating merits instead of the packaging that has more to do with an Olympic sport, less to do with audience entertainment. Where the aim is to create a well balanced great program that has good merits that will stand on its own in the years to come regardless of the rules du jour. To deliver this vision she must be perfect. There must be clarity in her choreographic movements, musicality precision, to keep up with the ever changing phrase of the mood intentions. Her choreographed movement must adequately match to respond/dictate the free flow but controlled rifting of notes, punctuation, phrasing through and through, particularly with this particular music cut of 7 major cut edit in the 4.30mins program. (Another major edit works in the grand tradition of her Gershwin, Homage to Korea, Les Miserable, now Adios) The performance imo was note perfect, even more amazing consider the circumstance she has to pull everything together.

If she is truly is mailing it in, this choreographed program is structured in such a way that if she had lost a beat here and there, lose of focus and concentration, then the overall grand vision of the program can collapse and ruined. There are literally no empty spots, no breaks. Any flaws will certainly be noticeable. This is a highly ambitious program with greater intricate musicality, more demanding choreographed movement crammed in - a thankless task under COP consider the risk and reward system (e.g improved step sequences, greater amount of movements done in shorter space of time), but it is a well balanced program of great maturity, detailing that has the hall marks of masterworks in how refined and effortlessly done it is even compared with Les Mis which is Epic and Grand in its own right, but more theatrical (more obvious) to match its west end show roots.

Actually I have often wonder if there are some sort of cultural divide prevented many to appreciate this program? Seems many failed to grasp the subtlety and nuances vs in your face type of program like her James Bond. My surveying of the Chinese figure skating boards has been Adios Nonino is highly regarded and especially well appreciated upon repeated viewing with the sense of feeling it evokes and details one notices. It is a program discussed more there while seems somewhat underrated in the western reports. I personally love the this music and thought it was a risky bold choice from Wilson to Kim which no other skater, male or female can deliver this program. It makes sense, because out of all skaters it is only Kim at this point of career with the extreme life experience, maturity of loneliness, loss/suffering, sophistication, strength, sensitivity, quiet sensuality, complex emotional intelligence and poignancy to convey the moods for this particular version of Adios, and most of all the technical proficiency to realize the grand vision in its entirety.

The original music (unedited)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgjUn4L_msg
 

capcomeback

On the Ice
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
There's already a [strike]conspiracy[/strike] controversy thread for all theories about how the results could not possibly have been arrived at through any means other than cheating.

In fact, several different threads were started within the day after the Olympic ladies' free skate, and every time someone suggested cheating, the whole thread got merged into the conspiracy thread.

And then there's this thread with a title drawn from an article that showed a few reasons why Sotnikova legitimately earned more points as those points alone told the whole story.

I don't know if the intention was to shut down all questions and insist that Sotnikova deserved the win, neither Kim nor anyone else deserved it, everyone who doesn't like the result just needs to accept it and shut up.

To me, I think that this competition was an exciting night of skating with four really strong free skates -- three of them from skaters who also had really strong short programs -- and I'd love to have a spirited intelligent discussion about how they each compared to the others in terms of strengths and weaknesses, how the various aspect of each program compared to the tech panel and judging rules.

But it's impossible to have that conversation if everyone has already made up their minds in advance -- not only about who they think deserved to win, but also about the honesty and motives of anyone who thinks differently. Posts that one skater had no strengths and another had no weaknesses say a lot about the poster's biases and not much of value about the actual skating.

I understand your frustration, but the bottom line is that based upon what we saw, the tech panel refused to look closely at Adelina's flutz and UR. I'm not buying that they don't have the technology. They have several different camera angles to look at the jump sequence. As the skater had a reputation for flutzing, this jump should have been examined closely to determine if she flutz. In other words, it the flutz was apparent to the angles the TV folks had, it should have been apparent to the tech panel.

I know what you'll say. The camera angles might have been observed and it seemed that Adelina had landed the lutz from a different angle. Aside from trying to dispute this from the laws of physics, I will tell you why I do not believe this. They missed the UR. This was totally obvious. My believe is that they did not give the jumping sequence the scrutiny it cried out for based upon the skaters reputation. With the Vice President of the Russian Ice Federation in charge of the cameras and ultimately determining the accuracy of the jumps, then you can see why unbiased people like me (I was not rooting for any of the skaters that had a chance at the podium), are bothered by the outcome (and are ready to look at things like GOE on jumps and PCS). it looks pretty darn suspicious.
 

Nadya

On the Ice
Joined
Mar 22, 2004
I understand your frustration, but the bottom line is that based upon what we saw, the tech panel refused to look closely at Adelina's flutz and UR. I'm not buying that they don't have the technology. They have several different camera angles to look at the jump sequence. As the skater had a reputation for flutzing, this jump should have been examined closely to determine if she flutz. In other words, it the flutz was apparent to the angles the TV folks had, it should have been apparent to the tech panel.

I know what you'll say. The camera angles might have been observed and it seemed that Adelina had landed the lutz from a different angle. Aside from trying to dispute this from the laws of physics, I will tell you why I do not believe this. They missed the UR. This was totally obvious. My believe is that they did not give the jumping sequence the scrutiny it cried out for based upon the skaters reputation. With the Vice President of the Russian Ice Federation in charge of the cameras and ultimately determining the accuracy of the jumps, then you can see why unbiased people like me (I was not rooting for any of the skaters that had a chance at the podium), are bothered by the outcome (and are ready to look at things like GOE on jumps and PCS). it looks pretty darn suspicious.
If you are truly unbiased, then you should have no difficulty with the following question: assuming they DID miss the UR, and I'm not saying that they did, was it a case of biased judging in favor of ONE particular skater, or was it a case of a particularly lenient panel? The answer is quite salient to the discussion if you are trying to make an argument that the wins were called unfairly.

To answer this properly, someone should review the jumping passes of, say, top ten ladies, count all the "obvious" UR and see if this was reflected in the scoring sheets. Then you'll see if the judges missed underrotations ONLY for Sotnikova, or if they gave a pass to the majority of underrotaters that night.
 

Big Deal

Final Flight
Joined
Jan 23, 2004
You know, the real consequence of this cheating (I mean the whole system, and most of the judges was deeply involved in that):

I used to check the topics here in a daily basis, and watched some great figure skating performances on youtube before.

Since it all did happen: I came up today after a whole weak without checking any topics, and I didn't watch ANY figure skating on the youtube since the Olympics.

So, I lost a great "hobby". Having some other one's, I concentrate on those now. But it is still sad......
 

capcomeback

On the Ice
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
If you are truly unbiased, then you should have no difficulty with the following question: assuming they DID miss the UR, and I'm not saying that they did, was it a case of biased judging in favor of ONE particular skater, or was it a case of a particularly lenient panel? The answer is quite salient to the discussion if you are trying to make an argument that the wins were called unfairly.

To answer this properly, someone should review the jumping passes of, say, top ten ladies, count all the "obvious" UR and see if this was reflected in the scoring sheets. Then you'll see if the judges missed underrotations ONLY for Sotnikova, or if they gave a pass to the majority of underrotaters that night.

I believe that Mao was dinged for at least 1. Ashley two footed one was dinged for a plain UR too. I'm not sure of any of the top ladies, but I saw none from Carolina, Yuna, Julia or Gracie (although the latter two fell, but I think those jumps may have been overrotated). Does anybody remember any others (either penalized or actually skated)?
 

Nadya

On the Ice
Joined
Mar 22, 2004
I believe that Mao was dinged for at least 1. Ashley two footed one was dinged for a plain UR too. I'm not sure of any of the top ladies, but I saw none from Carolina, Yuna, Julia or Gracie (although the latter two fell, but I think those jumps may have been overrotated). Does anybody remember any others (either penalized or actually skated)?
As scrutinized as Adelina's landings have been, do you think if you review slo-mo, zoomed-in landings of every single top ten lady, you might see something similar? I don't believe anyone's elements have been dissected to the degree that Sotnikova's were. It's an interesting question to dig into.
 

drivingmissdaisy

Record Breaker
Joined
Feb 17, 2010
You know, the real consequence of this cheating (I mean the whole system, and most of the judges was deeply involved in that):

I used to check the topics here in a daily basis, and watched some great figure skating performances on youtube before.

Since it all did happen: I came up today after a whole weak without checking any topics, and I didn't watch ANY figure skating on the youtube since the Olympics.

So, I lost a great "hobby". Having some other one's, I concentrate on those now. But it is still sad......

I became a bigger fan because it was nice to see someone win who did the hardest program and not based on reputation. It's been a long time since someone won a World or Olympic title with all the triples through the lutz. Adelina came in with a plan to out-jump, out-spin, and out-transition her competitors and although it was a bumpy ride through a season of struggles she delivered when it counted.
 

drivingmissdaisy

Record Breaker
Joined
Feb 17, 2010
As scrutinized as Adelina's landings have been, do you think if you review slo-mo, zoomed-in landings of every single top ten lady, you might see something similar? I don't believe anyone's elements have been dissected to the degree that Sotnikova's were. It's an interesting question to dig into.

Caro and Yuna are good about rotating their jumps although Yuna's 3T in the SP could have been < by a strict caller.
 

Sam-Skwantch

“I solemnly swear I’m up to no good”
Record Breaker
Joined
Dec 29, 2013
Country
United-States
For some reason I envision certain skaters having a "flutz watch" symbol in the corner of the TV when the judges are alerted to a chronic flutzing skater coming up. The judges could flip a switch that activates it when one is likely. Just like the tornado watches and little "tornado symbol" in the corner of the TV, in the US this is quite common when a storm is approaching. If a flutz is spotted then it could go from a watch to a full blown warning and we will all know one was spotted. Maybe this is only funny to me. I have been unable to sleep due to the fact I cracked my knee cap on the boards yesterday and am on pain meds and stuck awaiting multiple test results growing quite uneasy.
 

Nadya

On the Ice
Joined
Mar 22, 2004
Caro and Yuna are good about rotating their jumps although Yuna's 3T in the SP could have been < by a strict caller.
I agree with you re: Caro and Yuna but we are not supposed to have reputation judging, are we? Otherwise we can just draw "landing averages" or "underrotation averages" ratios for each skater and just go with those. Give them scores that have nothing to do with the performance in front of us, but are all about past averages, however computed.
 

Nadya

On the Ice
Joined
Mar 22, 2004
For some reason I envision certain skaters having a "flutz watch" symbol in the corner of the TV when the judges are alerted to a chronic flutzing skater coming up. The judges could flip a switch that activates it when one is likely. Just like the tornado watches and little "tornado symbol" in the corner of the TV, in the US this is quite common when a storm is approaching. If a flutz is spotted then it could go from a watch to a full blown warning and we will all know one was spotted. Maybe this is only funny to me. I have been unable to sleep due to the fact I cracked my knee cap on the boards yesterday and am on pain meds and stuck awaiting multiple test results growing quite uneasy.
Look at the bright side: you got good drugs. I hope.
 

skatedreamer

Medalist
Joined
Feb 18, 2014
Country
United-States
For some reason I envision certain skaters having a "flutz watch" symbol in the corner of the TV when the judges are alerted to a chronic flutzing skater coming up. The judges could flip a switch that activates it when one is likely. Just like the tornado watches and little "tornado symbol" in the corner of the TV, in the US this is quite common when a storm is approaching. If a flutz is spotted then it could go from a watch to a full blown warning and we will all know one was spotted. Maybe this is only funny to me. I have been unable to sleep due to the fact I cracked my knee cap on the boards yesterday and am on pain meds and stuck awaiting multiple test results growing quite uneasy.

Well, the pain meds might be skewing your sense of humor just a bit, but the fact that it's functioning at all after an accident like that is pretty impressive. :clap:

Having said that, I'm stone cold sober and still found the idea of a "flutz watch" funny. And for skaters who are prone to them, could we also add a "UR" icon? (Full disclosure: my untrained eyes can use all the help they can get.) There must be other possibilities as well.

Hope the docs have good news for you -- feel better!
 

Blades of Passion

Skating is Art, if you let it be
Record Breaker
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Country
France
If you are truly unbiased, then you should have no difficulty with the following question: assuming they DID miss the UR, and I'm not saying that they did, was it a case of biased judging in favor of ONE particular skater, or was it a case of a particularly lenient panel?

It was clear bias in favor of one skater. The panel was not lenient. Furthermore, there should be no such thing as "particularly lenient panel" in the first place. Get people on the panel who know what the hell they are doing and will be objective. Sotnikova's 3T was unquestionably underrotated.
 

capcomeback

On the Ice
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
It was clear bias in favor of one skater. The panel was not lenient. Furthermore, there should be no such thing as "particularly lenient panel" in the first place. Get people on the panel who know what the hell they are doing and will be objective. Sotnikova's 3T was unquestionably underrotated.

Agreed BoP. After reading the official tally provided G Kelly, a number of "<" were present. Mao did have 2 (so there goes the "lenient panel" argument).

S-S-

Sorry about your knee. Hopefully the pain meds will take the edge off. As far as "flutz watches" I don't think it's out of place for the tech panel to keep an eye on a skater with a reputation for an the inside edge on her a lutz. They certainly shouldn't turn a blind eye when she UR's.

Thanks again for Sinatra. :)
 

drivingmissdaisy

Record Breaker
Joined
Feb 17, 2010
It was clear bias in favor of one skater. The panel was not lenient. Furthermore, there should be no such thing as "particularly lenient panel" in the first place. Get people on the panel who know what the hell they are doing and will be objective. Sotnikova's 3T was unquestionably underrotated.

Apparently it was questionable because no one at NBC noticed it. I know you think Tara is not credible since you called her "fat" but she still has eyes and knows way more than you or me about skating. As do Johnny, Scott and Sandra.
 

capcomeback

On the Ice
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Apparently it was questionable because no one at NBC noticed it. I know you think Tara is not credible since you called her "fat" but she still has eyes and knows way more than you or me about skating. As do Johnny, Scott and Sandra.

Tara and Johnny were doing it live, but were Scott and Sandra? (there is a joke to be made there, but the answer to the first one is definitely no, and the second likely no lol). Was NBC running two teams concurrently or were Scott and Sandra responding to taped footage on Prime Time? Either way, they were probably told not to embarrass the home country. When Julia had an underwhelming skate, Johnny and Tara said very little from what I recall. I think Johnny was very surprised when he saw Adelina's PCS and reacted by referring to it as "very generous" but backed off the remarks. I'd be curious to see if he's seen the slow motion replay of her opening jumping pass.
 

drivingmissdaisy

Record Breaker
Joined
Feb 17, 2010
I think Johnny was very surprised when he saw Adelina's PCS and reacted by referring to it as "very generous" but backed off the remarks. I'd be curious to see if he's seen the slow motion replay of her opening jumping pass.

I was surprised by Adelina's score too, but I think while it was a point or two high she deserved the score. That performance was amazing, and every element except for the 3-2-2 was more secure than I have ever seen her do. Her landings were smooth and position upright.
 

Nadya

On the Ice
Joined
Mar 22, 2004
Agreed BoP. After reading the official tally provided G Kelly, a number of "<" were present. Mao did have 2 (so there goes the "lenient panel" argument).

S-S-

Sorry about your knee. Hopefully the pain meds will take the edge off. As far as "flutz watches" I don't think it's out of place for the tech panel to keep an eye on a skater with a reputation for an the inside edge on her a lutz. They certainly shouldn't turn a blind eye when she UR's.

Thanks again for Sinatra. :)

The point is not that some underrotations were recorded. The question in point is how many OTHER underrotations were missed, and who else benefited from this leniency?
 
Top