Page 10 of 114 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 60 110 ... LastLast
Results 136 to 150 of 1710

Thread: Analyzing Sotnikova and Kim's footwork in the FS

  1. #136
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    253
    Quote Originally Posted by gmyers View Post
    There is no reason to believe the call is incorrect at all. I think the only thing that could is a beleif the panel was corrupt and overscoring sotnikova which the op stated they didn't call an underrotated triple toe as well.
    The OP, and a few others, disagree, based on a rule currently being discussed. This is why the discussion exists. I don't know what the rule is, which is why I haven't said anything about the actual step sequence being level 3 or level 4, I'm learning as I go along. To me it does seem, as OP stated, the burden of proof is on you. Your response is basically, it's correct because it was called correct. For the more inquisitive mind, that's not a good enough answer. at least DMD is discussing the actual rule that this argument basically hinges on.

  2. #137
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,205
    Quote Originally Posted by Glen Parry View Post
    Sorry, but I must take umbrage with this statement.

    If, as seems to be the case, you have edited the text of the rules in sucha way that their interpretation is able to be changed, then it is not that others are incapable of correctly comprehending them, rather it could be argued that you have muddied the waters &, thus, made the comprehension of the rules more difficult than might otherwise be the case.
    Blades of Passion can be feisty, but he did not "edit the text of the rules." He copied and pasted verbatim from pages 8 and 9 of ISU Communication 1790. (In particular there are no commas in the sentence in question.)

  3. #138
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    217
    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    The burden of proof is on YOU. Show me ANY Level 4 step sequence from the past four years where my "interpretation" of the rule is wrong.
    This much is true. The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. BoP made a claim about A's StSq being L3, it was based on his/her personal interpretation of the rule, and he/she has given us some evidence to back it up.

    Anybody who wants to claim it was L4, based on their personal interpretation of the rule, ought to make a case for it (I would like to see two more breakdowns - one from a skater who scored L3, and one from a skater who scored L4 - Maybe Gold and Kostner? That would give us a better idea of where A's skills fit in).

    ps- thank you daisy for steps vs. turns!

  4. #139
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3,588
    From an objective perspective, I could see making an error that would prevent level four by missing one turn. However, for her to do as many steps as she did but only do 1/3 needed in both directions makes me think her program was choreographed in this way, and for her to get level 3 multiple times this season would suggest she would review the footage and change the choreography needed to get level 4.

  5. #140
    Rinkside
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Bolton, Lancashire
    Posts
    22
    It wasn't the Bold text, which is an obvious emphasis, but the insertion of punctiation, that was lacking from the source material, which has given rise to the debate regarding the OP's interpretatrion of the rules.

    As I said previously, this may have been done with the aim of further emphasising the point they wished to stress but, by potentially changing the meaning of the quoted text, has possibly served to obscure the meaning of the original text.

    This may have been unintentional but for the OP to then start casting aspersions on the ability of others to either read English, or to comprehend printed material, when they point out this potential for misinterpretation, is rather arrogant and undignified.

  6. #141
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    253
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    Blades of Passion can be feisty, but he did not "edit the text of the rules." He copied and pasted verbatim from pages 8 and 9 of ISU Communication 1790. (In particular there are no commas in the sentence in question.)
    Mathman, do you know what the "correct interpretation" of the rule is?

  7. #142
    Rinkside
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    7
    The art of letting go is an essential life skill.

  8. #143
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Istanbul
    Posts
    879
    Now I'm curious about what Kostner (level4), Asada (level4) and Yu-Na Kim (level3) did in their step sequences too. Hoping for analysis

  9. #144
    Skating is art, if you let it be. Blades of Passion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Hollywood, CA
    Posts
    3,997
    Quote Originally Posted by drivingmissdaisy View Post
    Doing one step and four turns in both directions does not mean she did a total of one type of step and four types of turns. Unless my English is as bad as you say it is.
    What you just wrote is an example of poorly worded sentence. "One step" as you wrote it could mean simply one step. It is not connect to the "four turns in both directions" later in the sentence. If you had said "one step and four turns all in both directions", that would make it clear.

    Face the facts - EVERY Level 4 step sequence in the past four years has shown 5 different types of steps, all executed in both directions, and 3 different types of types, all executed in both directions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    Blades of Passion can be feisty, but he did not "edit the text of the rules." He copied and pasted verbatim from pages 8 and 9 of ISU Communication 1790. (In particular there are no commas in the sentence in question.)
    Well that's what people are having trouble with (since they have no valid arguments and are grasping at straws). What I wrote has a comma in the sentence, the ISU text does not. But it doesn't matter AT ALL either way. The rule is clear.

  10. #145
    On the Ice
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    26
    Do we really need all this technicality to demonstrate that Sotnikova was overscored?

  11. #146
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3,588
    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    Face the facts - EVERY Level 4 step sequence in the past four years has shown 5 different types of steps, all executed in both directions, and 3 different types of types, all executed in both directions.
    Wow, you've done the same analysis for every level 4 step sequence in the past four years? Or are you just saying that to blow off a legitimate question?

  12. #147
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    253
    Quote Originally Posted by drivingmissdaisy View Post
    Wow, you've done the same analysis for every level 4 step sequence in the past four years? Or are you just saying that to blow off a legitimate question?
    this is just a nonsense nitpick of wording. let's assume he did - then, do you know of one that doesn't?

  13. #148
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    3,643
    Quote Originally Posted by kslr0816 View Post
    The OP, and a few others, disagree, based on a rule currently being discussed. This is why the discussion exists. I don't know what the rule is, which is why I haven't said anything about the actual step sequence being level 3 or level 4, I'm learning as I go along. To me it does seem, as OP stated, the burden of proof is on you. Your response is basically, it's correct because it was called correct. For the more inquisitive mind, that's not a good enough answer. at least DMD is discussing the actual rule that this argument basically hinges on.
    The way the rule is written the listing of elements performed by sotnikova in the step sequence can be called level 4.

  14. #149
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    253
    Quote Originally Posted by gmyers View Post
    The way the rule is written the listing of elements performed by sotnikova in the step sequence can be called level 4.
    great. can you support your statement with another example of a performance that follows the guidelines (solely interpreted in this way) which received level 4?

  15. #150
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3,588
    Quote Originally Posted by kslr0816 View Post
    this is just a nonsense nitpick of wording. let's assume he did - then, do you know of one that doesn't?
    No, but I'm not the one telling people to "face the facts" and accept everything someone says as true. I'm trying to have a dialogue, not trying to shut people up by criticizing their reading comprehension.

Page 10 of 114 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 60 110 ... 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
  •