Page 111 of 114 FirstFirst ... 11 61 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 LastLast
Results 1,651 to 1,665 of 1710

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

  1. #1651
    Keepin' it real gsk8's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    2,801
    No its called trying to have an honest intellectually honest discussion.
    I have yet to see many of these. Mostly what I come across are "rants/ravings", "bickering", and redundant posts spewing sarcasm and hostility -- especially when one side does not agree. Very seldom do I see an "honest intellectual" debate taking place that doesn't contain a condescending tone and/or insults.

    That said, warnings and infractions (which are discussed by the entire staff), are private (unless you choose to make them public). If you don't like this forum, there are always others.

  2. #1652
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    156
    Quote Originally Posted by gsk8 View Post
    I have yet to see many of these.
    I believe you.

  3. #1653
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    92
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    ^ It is!

    I guess that's what I am really ranting about. Any post containing the words "Yuna Kim" is enough to send half the skating world into a mean spirited rant, and "Adelina Sotnikova" will do the trick for the other half (replacing the former flash words, "Mao Asada").

    That would be bad enough. But when the ranters start backing up their rants by lengthy analyses of protocols and ISU communications, not to mention stop-frame You Tubes -- to me, that's an awful lot of energy expended that could be -- I don't know -- more usefully channeled?
    I am so happy to read this! No more lengthy analyses of protocols and guessing games of how many judges put your skatet above another. It was so boring to read. Not a sarcasm, it is what I really feel. Glad that you moved on.

  4. #1654
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,340
    Quote Originally Posted by mich2 View Post
    I am so happy to read this! No more lengthy analyses of protocols and guessing games of how many judges put your skatet above another. It was so boring to read. Not a sarcasm, it is what I really feel. Glad that you moved on.
    All that stuff about how many dedicated judges would be required to skew the results of a competition held under IJS rules was intended to be musings about the IJS itself, as opposed to 6.0 ordinal judging, not about the 2014 Olympics in particular. About the Olympics, my opinion has always been that Yuna Kim may be the superior skater but Adelina Sotnikova skated her heart out when it mattered most. To me, this is far, far, far more important than how many degrees short of rotation a particular jump might have been on replay.
    Last edited by Mathman; 07-11-2014 at 12:34 PM.

  5. #1655
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by gsk8 View Post
    I have yet to see many of these. Mostly what I come across are "rants/ravings", "bickering", and redundant posts spewing sarcasm and hostility -- especially when one side does not agree. Very seldom do I see an "honest intellectual" debate taking place that doesn't contain a condescending tone and/or insults.

    That said, warnings and infractions (which are discussed by the entire staff), are private (unless you choose to make them public). If you don't like this forum, there are always others.
    I don't mind sarcasm. I mind when people create fake rules like 2.25 revolutions or use 6.0 judging system for IJS like ranting on how many judges put one skater above another. I see nothing constructive in it and find it confusing for casual fans like myself who came here to learn something.

  6. #1656
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,340
    Different people have different interests and different bees in their bonnets. What I don't enjoy is the anger and bellicosity.

    I, for instance, am interested in the differences between 6.0 judging, where majority of ordinals carries the day, and the current system, which is not guaranteed always to have this feature. Others are not interested in this topic. OK.

    As for the 2.25 thing, think of it like this. A skater is usually allowed to pre-rotate up to almost 180 degrees and still get full base value. She is permitted to under-rotate the landing by almost 90 degrees and still get full base value. If a skater pre-rotates by 180 degrees and under-rotates by 90 degrees, how many degrees of rotation does she achieve in the air? Whatever the answer works out to, it is nothing to get annoyed about. (JMO)
    Last edited by Mathman; 07-11-2014 at 01:54 PM.

  7. #1657
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    132
    If you are not talking to me, I apologize in advance for misunderstanding. If you are talking to me, I assure you I am not angry at all. I expressed my opinion that no one has to share- I do not appreciate when people fabricate rules. I see mathguys daily at work, those who claim that if the law says when they don't give a 30-day notice, they must pay one month pay (salary, rent, depends on the contract), then they rant that if their notice was 10 days late, they must pay only a 10 day portion of the 30 day notice. Guess what- they never win in courtroom. The law says you either pay zero or you pay one month pay. There is no third option like a partial pay. They know that. They do it to stall the case, to exhaust the plaintiff or simply because they are lawyers on payroll who has to act like they do some work. They don't hide their true intentions under some we do it for the sake of theory mask.
    ISU rules allows 1/2 pre-rotate and 1/4 under-rotate. Those are unpunishable by < or << errors. It would be not a perfect jump that doesn't deserve +3 GOE. Skaters don't have to have those errors of 1/2 and 1/4, because they know if they don't, then they will likely get high GOE. The idea of triple as 3-0.5-0.75=2.25 means everyone must have 1/2 and 1/4 error to put skaters in an equal bed. It's not true.
    The current system doesn't ask judges to put one skater above another. They can give them equal GOE and PCS. That is what I know.

  8. #1658
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,340
    I think it is lawyers that you don't like, not mathematicians.

    I also think that there is a general misunderstanding about the word "minimum" in the phrase, "the minimum number of revolutions in a triple jump is 2.25." It means that 2.25 revolutions are necessary but not sufficient to avoid an under-rotation or downgrade call. This is not an ISU rule, it is just a fact. Look at all the triple jumps you can find that receive full base value. They all have 2.25 revolutions or more in the air.

    Example 1. You do a triple Lutz. There is no pre-rotation at all and the landing is under-rotated by 135 degrees. You have done 2.625 revolutions in the air. This is more than 2.25, but even so you get a <. Why? Because 2.25 revolutions is necessary but not sufficient to avoid the <. In addition the judges will probably dock you some more in GOE for the under-rotation. (This pretty much describes Yuna Kim's solo Lutz in her long program at Sochi, but she got away with it.)

    Example 2. You do a triple loop. You pre-rotate by 135 degrees and then you under-rotate by 45 degrees. You did 2.50 revolutions in the air. This time you are OK (no <), even though you actually rotated fewer degrees in the air than in example 1. This is just the mechanics of the loop jump. The judges can still take off points in GOE for the slight under-rotation if they caught it and if there were no positive features of the jump to counteract this negative.

    Skaters don't have to have those errors of 1/2 and 1/4.
    That's it exactly. We are on the same page here.

  9. #1659
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    132
    There are two minimum numbers of revolutions in any triple with unpunishable by < or << errors:
    Case #1: A skater has 1/2 pre-rotation, allowed to have 1/4 under-rotation, the minumim number of revolutions is 2.25
    Case #2: A skater doesn't have 1/2 pre-rotation, allowed to have 1/4 under-rotation, the minimum number of revolution is 2.75
    What happened here in the discussion of Yuna's lutz was her fans took the minimum of 2.25 and tried to apply it for a case #2 skater who doesn't have 1/2 pre-rotation, saying she is allowed to have more than 1/4 under-rotation. It's cheat. That is what I mean when I say I mind when people fabricate rules. Or facts. Lawyers or mathematicians.

  10. #1660
    On the Ice
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Components View Post
    Adelina's other jumps aren't up for debate because she lands most of them almost straight backwards. There isn't anything to review. The 2Lo was over rotated almost half a revolution. It wasn't two footed (the take-off was clean, just off-axis), so I'm not sure where that came from. She stepped out of it. If she had rotated another quarter rotation she ran the risk of the technical panel calling it a triple and eliminating the entire jump pass. That would have given Kim the win as she would have lost over 8 points on that jump pass in that situation. Also, If Kim had done a +2 GOE Triple Loop in her program, she could have won the title outright.
    That is not true. Yuna would have lost even if she had a 3Lo and 2A-3T (x) in place of her 2A (x) and 3S-2T, notwithstanding the fact that Adelina stepped out of her 2Lo.

    In the FS, Yuna would have scored 144.19 - 6.5 (3S-2T) - 4.42 (2A) + 5.1 + 1.4 (3Lo with +2 GOE) + 8.14 + 1.4 (2A-3T (x) with +2 GOE) = 149.31.

    149.31+74.92=224.23, which is still lower than Adelina's 224.59.

    Evidently, Adelina would've still won. Adelina's winning margin fueled the controversy - it just doesn't make sense for her to win by such a margin, or does it?

    The argument that Yuna lost because she attempted only 6 triples (playing safe) and would have won if she had attempted 7 triples (2 3Lzs, versus Adelina's 2 3Fs and a step-out) does not make sense mathematically. And as I said before, Yuna would only have won if she had attempted a fully ratified 3A. Not a 3Lo. (i.e. what was missing in her program was a 3A not a 3Lo! Ha!) Russian advantage, maybe?

  11. #1661
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3,637
    Quote Originally Posted by DarR View Post
    Evidently, Adelina would've still won. Adelina's winning margin fueled the controversy - it just doesn't make sense for her to win by such a margin, or does it?
    Sure it does. In the SP, Yuna had exactly a 1 point edge in base value, but adding in GOE Adelina pulled ahead slightly in the TES. So Adelina won the GOE by a point. In the LP, Adelina had a 4 point edge in base value and after factoring in GOE had about a 6 point lead, so in the LP Adelina won the GOE by about 2 points, which is about the same margin as she won the SP GOE (since LP scores count double). So the margin is primarily due to the difference in BV, with the remainder due primarily to Adelina's better spins: LSp 3.77 vs 3.04, CCoSp 4.71 vs 4.21, FC 4.56 vs 4.43.

  12. #1662
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    1,212
    Quote Originally Posted by Mrs. P View Post
    This goes back to my earlier point that just because people, i.e. non South Koreans/Yuna fans have opted out of the discussion doesn't mean they accepted or agreed with Adelina's win.

    At this point of the game, most will either view it as a controversial result or not and move on.
    Yes, we will move on to other things. Figure skate is an athletic art and not a real sport. Enjoy the shows and never forget the rigged and paid for judging brought to you by the shameful ISU and IOC.

    Anyone who continues to support the ISU or their federations and continues to watched the rigged farces of competitions deserves to see all of this repeated again and again.

  13. #1663
    On the Ice
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by drivingmissdaisy View Post
    Sure it does. In the SP, Yuna had exactly a 1 point edge in base value, but adding in GOE Adelina pulled ahead slightly in the TES. So Adelina won the GOE by a point. In the LP, Adelina had a 4 point edge in base value and after factoring in GOE had about a 6 point lead, so in the LP Adelina won the GOE by about 2 points, which is about the same margin as she won the SP GOE (since LP scores count double). So the margin is primarily due to the difference in BV, with the remainder due primarily to Adelina's better spins: LSp 3.77 vs 3.04, CCoSp 4.71 vs 4.21, FC 4.56 vs 4.43.
    My argument is that Yuna would have still lost even if she had a full 7 triple program (with 2 3Lzs). How can you explain that? Does that actually make any sense? It doesn't to me.

  14. #1664
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    1,212
    Of course she would have lost even if she did 8 triples. The competition was rigged. You can't win a rigged competition against you no matter what you do.

    She could have gone out there and skated Les Miserables (Mathman's favorite) and scored 148 and change just as she did at Worlds -- and she still would have lost because the competition was rigged.

  15. #1665
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    130
    The difference was in the GOE, not the base difficulty. Adelina had the loftiest and most dynamic jumps in the competition (and I don't even think it's a close contest), whereas Yuna's jumps were flat and not nearly as dynamic as they were in 2010 or even 2013. Same goes for the spins. There was no way to justify giving Yuna the high GOEs she garnered in those competitions (and in some cases, i.e. the lutz, she still got more than she deserved anyway). That lost her the title (though the slightly pulled-back technical program played its role as well. even with high GOEs this pulled-back program would have only won by the skin of its teeth).

    The sketchy part lies in the PCS and the calling of the step sequences levels. We can make sense of the PCS by merely acknowledging how arbitrary a designation it is (there's been much discussion on here about that and some have even called PCS a disguised ordinal system) so Adelina's huge jump shouldn't surprise us for that reason, especially when she had the two skates of her life. The step sequences are harder to explain and I'm certainly not the one to do so. Nevertheless, I'm dissatisfied by the breakdowns presented throughout this thread.

    (Oh and random tangent but is anyone else sick of those videos on youtube that put the video of Adelina's sochi FS next to some previous clean but lower-scoring FS of hers from that season to "prove" that the scores were rigged even though the earlier FS was either missing something technically, or was really really unpolished and would understandably not have garnered the high PCS and GOEs that the sochi performance did.)

Page 111 of 114 FirstFirst ... 11 61 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 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
  •