To recap the Cup of Russia event 2010, Chan fell 4 times between the SP and LP. In the FS, his PCS was only 3 points higher than Verner which is about right since as you said he was better than Verner in every aspect. Verner, as you said, skated well but a measured performance, and in the FS he made minor errors on his 3A and 2A, and no quad attempt. As for the "5th fall", Chan had a 2A+3T negated because of the Zayak Rule. It was a pretty big mental error, because after falling on his opening quad, he did a 3A+3T (one of the only ones I've seen him do, actually) and with two axel attempts and two lutzes, he should have just done a 2A+2T for the win. With that error, Verner won the FS by 11 points, and without any quad attempt or as good spins/footwork as Chan, and even Chan did a 2A+2T, Verner still would have won the FS by 6 points (although lost overall). However, you can't consider Chan actually falling 5 times because of the Zayak rule, and at any rate, he lost the FS and the competition (as he should have).
The reality is, Chan has won exactly once with 4 falls, and never with 5 falls. If he did just a 2A+2T, he would have won CoR 2010 with 4 falls. Saying you actually were referring to an 'equivalent' of 6-7 falls when he fell 4 times SP+LP combined - and lost the competition at that - is pretty lame. I agree that the Oda result was wrong (and yes, Oda was screwed left right and centre), and 2013 Worlds (Ten unfortunately not having the last name Hanyu/Fernandez/Takahashi), and when he beat Javier at Skate Canada. But those are his controversial wins in my opinion (you like to argue 2012 Worlds but you already know my stance and the CoP justification for that win... essentially the same justification for Hanyu winning the GPF).
In the past, you have made it sound like his career is littered with controversial wins - even starting threads seemingly about some skaters like S/S and making it about Chan - and saying he can win with 5 falls (or even 4 when that only happened a single time) when you're referring to a result where he came 2nd with 4 falls, is frankly misleading, not giving him credit for the elements he does execute and his skating ability overall, and trivializing an otherwise stellar career for him where the vast majority of his wins were merited. When you have an artistic skater, they're bound to have controversial wins/placements - hence Takahashi's placements or when Buttle won Four Continents with 2 falls or Kostner being 2nd at Worlds last year after an SP fall, or the Germans over the Canadians last year with their LP problems. It's frankly something that has to be fixed with the sport, but to smear the skaters for judging that's beyond their control is unfair.
Here are the exact protocals of COR 2010:
The first quad toe was not only a fall but downgraded. He lost 3.1 points for the downgrade so close to 2 falls worth of mistakes alrady. Triple axel fall so now almost 3 falls worth of errors. Triple lutz turned into a sequence, scored as a fall, so now roughly 4 points worth of errors (adding the little bit lost of a sequence ratio of the element). The double axel-triple toe discounted, done late that is worth about 8 points (approximately 2 falls, considering each fall is -3 and another 1 for a fall) so now up to 6 falls worth of errors. There he could have done a double axel-double toe-double loop combination which done late would be worth almost 7 points in base value. Fall on the 3 axel in the short so that makes 7 falls worth of errors just as I said. For him to come that close to winning overall vs a clean (even if unspectacular and quadless) Verner is just plain wrong. As for what to change about the scores (other than so much of the nonsense that makes up COP) PCS for a skate with that many disruptive falls should never be that high, and many of the GOE for his good elements were excessive, as they often are.
Then there was Skate Canada before that where he did literally fall 4 times and win over Oda who fell only once. At Cup of Russia he did have 7 falls worth of falls of mistakes and nearly won (would have won with only 6).
So again my 4 and 5 fall worth of mistakes reference was from those events and it was based on reality and actual events. I did even cut him some slack for COR as I didnt refer to his 6 or 7 fall margin anyway (and plus I know there are better skaters than Verner by that point).
As for the number of controversial results, even if all those you mentioned were all there were that is still alot for any skater to have, and some of those are in the extreme. Most people view the scoring of the 2012 Worlds and 2011 Grand Prix final controversial as well, whether you choose to accept it or not. Just like drivingmissdaisy refuses to accept the 2014 ladies result is a major controversy does not make it so. So those get added to the list too, regardless your opinion, as that is clearly what most people believe. It is not just about the final result but the scoring. Takahashi getting PCS closer to Amodio in than Chan in the 2012 Worlds LP is completely unaccpetable and cannot possibly be justified with any amount of attempt to. The same with Chan winning the LP phase of the 2011 Grand Prix final (where he skated worse than worlds) over Takahashi, regardless of the overall result.
If you're going to apply this falls-equivalent "logic" with Chan, then you should also apply that type of "equivalence" logic to Verner. By virtue of opting for lutzes instead of matching Chan's attempts at quads, along with his stepout/handdown on the 2A, Verner technically made "2 falls worth" of errors... choosing a 3Z instead of a 4T in the SP (a base value loss of 4.3 points to Chan), and opting for 3Z instead of 4T in his LP (a base value loss of 1.2 points to Chan's 4T<), and then the 2A error - he was not "clean" in the FS as you had suggested - lost him about 1.5 points -- about 7 points lost = 2 falls. Oh yeah, and if Verner didn't have a lip in both his SP and LP and landed his solo 3A cleanly in both programs, he would have gotten GOE bonus instead of deductions, so technically, he gave up almost 1 fall's worth of points there. So, really, Verner made about "3 falls worth" of errors, even though he didn't actually fall.
Originally Posted by pangtongfan
One more thing, Chan didn't lose 8 points with the 2A*+3T*, because he only could have done a 2A+2T (worth less than 5 points) given the content he had already executed.
Let's see... with your equivalent "logic", Takahashi at 2012 Worlds technically made 3 falls worth of errors: in his SP by getting a downgraded 3T -- a combo with a BV of 14.40 turned 11.6 turned 8.74 after GOE reduction, he lost about 5.7 points, in his LP the 3F< cost him 3 points, and him doing a 3Z instead of a second quad to match Chan was giving up 4.3 points... a total of about 13 points lost.
With this logic, Denis Ten had the "equivalent of 2 falls" worth of errors in his 2013 FS by doubling two triples (a loss of about 7 points compared to a 3F+3T) and a loss of 1.5 points of BV for doing a quad and 2 axels to Chan's 2 quads and axel. See how ridiculous this is starting to sound?
A fall is a fall. There's no "equivalent falls". You can't say Takahashi won silver at 2012 Worlds in spite of 3 falls worth. Just as much as you can't say Chan won silver at CoR 2010 with 6 or 7 falls worth.
You really need to stop making this comparison. If Amodio was scored lower, it wouldn't make it suddenly okay that Takahashi was underscored (which he was, although only by about 2-3 points of PCS). Even if Takahashi's PCS was 90, Chan still would have won. And if you think Chan getting 90.14 with 1 fall in the 2012 Worlds FS was too high, Hanyu's 1 fall in the FS of the 2013 GPF scored him PCS of 92.50 and in Sochi with 2 falls Hanyu scored 90.98. You can bet if Hanyu has a similar skate at Worlds in Japan his PCS will be 92+. I don't think it'll be as ridiculous as Plushenko's 95+ Nationals FS, or Sotnikova's Olympics PCS, though.
Originally Posted by pangtongfan
I used to be a Chan hater, petty much like many members in this forum. But later I realized why he deserved most of the wins and he actually has made huge progress on the artistic aspect. One thing many people are not always aware of is that a downgraded (and many times two-footed) quad jump is scored way less than a fully rotated quad with a fall. A 4T for example, in the first case is worth at most 2+, and in the second case worth 6+ if we take into account the additional -1 deduction. But the general public and the audience always visualize the latter one as a way more serious mistake than the first case. That's why people don't understand why Patrick won despite the falls. Is the rule reasonable? Maybe. Because a fallen quad is probably much harder than a quad that is underrotated by more than 180 degree, which is actually less than 3.5 revolutions.
Originally Posted by CanadianSkaterGuy
I agree that although nowhere near Plushenko's consistency in his era, Patrick has actually been at least the top 2 most consistent top skaters for the last 4 years, definitely more consistent than Takahashi, Fernandez and many others. The reason why many men's skaters can't be as consistent as in the past is because almost everybody attempts quads and at the same time does intricate in-between stuff and step sequences. In Plushenko's era or before, the steps and transitions were far less complex and that was why it was easier to deliver a clean skate even with the quads included.
If you look at the protocol for 2012 worlds, Takahashi, with a virtually clean skate, still lost to Chan on the technical side by less than 1 point, who made two mistakes, one fall on the 2A and a doubled 3S. Takahashi's TES was also 3 points lower than Hanyu who also had 1 quad and two 3As in the FS and actually fell on the step sequence. Therefore, even if Takahashi received the same PCS as Chan (even though I personally think that program deserves at most 87+), he still wouldn't be able to win. The thing is, the quality of his jumps are not comparable to either Chan or Hanyu, or even 2011's Kozuka-- GOEs made the difference. In fact, with virtually identical jump base values, the TES of Takahashi's "clean" FS in 2012 was 10 points lower than Kozuka's FS in 2011. 88+ vs 98+. The high PCS for Chan's FS at 2012 is acceptable to me given the quality of that program both technically and artistically. His consistency that season also contributed to it. He delivered two virtually clean skates for that intricate LP at 4CC and nationals prior to the worlds .
Back to Kozuka's PCS. His consistency is truly the problem. Seems like he can deliver at most one good skate for each program per season for the last few years, whereas Machida has been quite consistent this season and no wonder he gets higher PCS. It looks like if you can keep giving clean skates consecutively through competitions, your score will be boosted up each time even if you just skate exactly the same way. It is true almost for every skater. Hanyu's SP at TEB this season was actually slightly better than at GPF (where he messed up the last spin), but he got a higher score at GPF (maybe partly because of home ice advantage too). Then he gave another two clean skates for the SP at the Olympics, where his PCS went up notably in the individual event. The same thing happened to Jason. He never made any big mistakes in his SP for the whole season, and every time he competed, he got a new personal best I think for the judges, consistency means credibility. They don't want to reward people too much for skating cleanly pretty much due to luck. I think this is pretty fair.
Thank you Violet! I agree with both of your posts. You should post more often!
I also agree that skaters should be rewarded for consistency, although one hopes that they don't simply give clean performances and expect their PCS to rise without making any improvements or upping the difficulty. For example, Mirai's Nationals LP and Plushenko's Sochi team skates both got exceedingly high PCS, simply because they were "visibly clean" skates (even with Plushenko's doubles) and little heed was paid to the lack of content in between their elements.
Hi CanadianSkaterGuy, after reviewing some of the past competitions and protocols, I now find myself agree with the judges 99% of the time. After all, they are judges that have gone through years of professional training to qualify. Of course, they should be much better in giving fair scores than us amateurs. Due to the subjectivity of this sport, it can never be completely equitable. In fact, many times, the gold medal can go to either one of two skaters and it really depends on the judges, like Yuna vs AS or Chan vs Yuzu (They could very well have given Yuzu 85+ PCS or lower for that performance, given that a better performance at TEB got only 81+). But a true champion would always want a definite win with huge margins.
Originally Posted by CanadianSkaterGuy
It is funny that I find people argue about similar things over and over again in different threads, and I find it hard to change people's opinions and convince them even if you give hard evidence and reasonable arguments. So instead, why not take the time to enjoy more figure skating programs?
I wouldn't say I agree with them 99% of the time. Many times they have shown bias and skewed PCS scores that affect results. However, I do think that most of the IJS results I agree with once you take a look at what the skaters landed, what their difficulty attempted was, their levels, their GOE being factored in, etc.
I really think before people run their mouth claiming so-and-so was robbed, scandal, etc. they should take a look at the protocols.
Hah, some posters here neglect to even look at the video or protocol before deciding that a result is scandalous or rigged. I know, crazy eh!
Thus far, looks like Machida and Hanyu are getting home PCS at their home Worlds competition.
Kozuka still has to find a judge to hug
Hanyu's score was fine. He fell but didnt skate badly otherwise and got 10 points lower than he got at the Olympics. Machida's score was the official opening of Japanese inflation at these worlds though.
The European commentators thought he deserved a world record for his performance. Perhaps the fact that Machida just had the skate of his life had something to do with his PCS?
Originally Posted by Anna K.
And that shouldn't though. Having a skate of your life doesn't change the choreography, the transition, and the skating skills. Even at nationals Machida's PCS for a comparable skate was 42.40 unless the argument there was that he was being held down for Hanyu. The judges were being generous in front of a home crowd - it happens and people eventually move on.
Originally Posted by chloepoco
I liked majority of your post but I don't agree with that part. That is not fair at all. Besides which, being able to skate a clean program requires tons of practice. Yes, some may get lucky that day and some may have a diarrhea all day, but unless we have rules accommodating all those nuances before a competition, there should not be any reward for past performances on any given performance. No one argues Michael Phelp coming back and winning 4 more golds without breaking records ilegitimate. Figure skating fans are a little too hung up on the notion of desert, IMO.
Originally Posted by Violet
Originally Posted by FTnoona
Of course it does. If you do your crossovers and your transitions with more speed, committment, attack etc., the scores for skating skills and transitions should go up. I admit the score for choreography shoud be relatively stable but we all know that, sadly, the judges do not differenciate between the diferent components anyway.