Page 5 of 114 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 55 105 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 1710

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

  1. #61
    Landing 3As in my dreams! skatedreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    814
    Quote Originally Posted by I♥Yuna View Post
    Great analysis, BOP - that's the best one I've read so far.

    Question for everyone: who else disagrees with the results and knows the rules in-depth like BoP? It would be awesome if you could get a group together for a collaborative blog to dissect the results in Sochi, and gear it towards the casual fan - at the very least it would help people learn more about the sport and what goes into the scoring.
    Speaking as a casual fan, I'd really appreciate something like this to help me understand scoring in general and especially to get a better grasp of the Sochi results. My podium would have been:

    1 -- Yuna
    2 -- Carolina
    3 -- Adelina

    This is only based on my gut feeling/response and untrained eye, though. I've followed skating for years and thus consider myself a somewhat more-than-casual fan, but the current scoring system just boggles my math-challenged brain. My lack of technical knowledge has never stopped me from being seriously opinionated so it would be nice to be able to back up the opinion with better understanding. Thanks!

  2. #62
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,799
    Quote Originally Posted by capcomeback View Post
    Does the tech panel even analyze this or is it the judges?
    The tech panel determines the level of the step sequences. The judges never know the levels (unless they check the published protocols after the whole event is over).

    Aren't the step sequences fairly understood ahead of the actual skate (as the announcers seem to know what they are supposed to be and comment on them), so it is just a matter of determine whether a skater actually executed the footwork elements well enough to receive credit for a level four?
    Skaters/coaches might make public statements about what level they're aiming for, and levels earned at past competitions are public knowledge, so TV commentators could use those sources of knowledge to tell viewers what the skater is planning.

    If the skater writes "StSq4" on the planned program content sheet, the tech panel ignores the 4 and analyzes the actual step sequence as performed on that day. Same as they'd ignore 4T on the sheet if the skater only did a 3T.

    Tech specialists and controllers may watch practices to note whether there's anything unusual they should be on the lookout for during the competition. They're not going to remember every step for every skater from what they saw during practice, and of course skaters won't execute the steps exactly the same in competition as they did in practice, or exactly the same from one practice runthrough to another.

    My guess is that when Adelina received Level 3's at other events, it was in response to her not executing the proper footwork elements she was attempting to show for Level 4 credit.
    I'm sure it was.

    According to BoP, it seems that she failed in Sochi as well, but perhaps benefited from some home-cooking to get extra credit for something she failed to execute.
    Could be.

    I'll try to look at all the medalists' step sequences when I get a chance. I can't do it here at work. It takes several replays of the sequence for one less experienced person (me) to see all the details that three experienced people dividing the tasks see in real time, with higher definition slow-motion replay if needed.

    So kudos to BoP for taking the time, but as others have noted a thread focused on analyzing the one skater who has been the source of every effort to discredit every possible point is not the most evenhanded way to approach the question.

  3. #63
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    829
    Quote Originally Posted by I♥Yuna View Post
    Didn't Yuna say she lost a level in the short program step sequence? Maybe we should compare the Olympic sp stepsequence w/another competition where she got it right, to see if she missed the right number of turns. If she did, then that might settle the question.
    Yes, she acknowledged that she made a mistake in the SP footwork, so the level 3 there is justifiable.

  4. #64
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    394
    Quote Originally Posted by jaylee View Post
    Yes, she acknowledged that she made a mistake in the SP footwork, so the level 3 there is justifiable.
    It depends on what kind of mistake. It probably would show in the GOE, not the levels.

  5. #65
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    829
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    So kudos to BoP for taking the time, but as others have noted a thread focused on analyzing the one skater who has been the source of every effort to discredit every possible point is not the most evenhanded way to approach the question.
    I don't agree that the one skater who has been the source of "every effort" to discredit every possible point is Adelina Sotnikova. There's been plenty of trashing of Yuna Kim's skating to go around, done by posters here and by Tatiana Tarasova herself, whose comments were full of lies (Yuna does not do 8-10 crossovers between jumps) or irrelevant nastiness (she didn't like Yuna's dress). Tarasova's remarks were just disgusting and a disgrace. There has been no one equivalent to the level of Tarasova, with her prominence, on the "other side" of the argument who criticized Adelina in such a way.

    Yes, Adelina has been harshly and overly criticized (she is not a bad skater and you don't get into contention for an Olympic medal of any color without talent and ability), but so has Yuna, by people who think tearing down Yuna and acting as if she didn't belong on the podium further justifies Adelina's win and margin of victory. Neither deserves it, but I can't agree that Adelina is the only target of discrediting efforts. And this thread is not about discrediting, but rather, objective analysis regarding a technical issue. It thankfully has none of the propaganda tossed around by Tarasova or by similar-minded folks on the other side of the aisle who just want to tear down Adelina and act as if she didn't belong on the podium either.

  6. #66
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    394
    Quote Originally Posted by gmyers View Post
    the isu rule wasn't even posted. The isu rule has been discussed and sotnikova fulfills the isu rule of step sequences level 4.
    Which segment of BoP's analysis fulfills the level 4?

    Quote Originally Posted by gmyers View Post
    You don't even know what smoking gun is. Smoking gun is proof and evedience that a score is corrupt due to undue influence or bias.
    capcomeback has already explained what the smoking gun is, and it fits your very own definition.

  7. #67
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    270
    Thanks for explaining that gkelly. I'm hoping that in addition to you, BoP does an analysis for the other podium hopefuls. he may have already done so, but did not feel it necessary to post (as he felt the others were deserving of their marks).

    My problem is, as a sports fan, every major sport that I follow has even the most minor controversy, has made a point of explaining why a call was made or decision reached. Aside from denials from the IOC (I don't remember hearing anything from the ISU), we are getting no official explanation. Considering the size of this controversy and its checkered past, the ISU needs to explain what happened officially. If it is determined that no mistakes were made and that no collusion occurred, then why not release all of the video that the tech panel used to scrutiny of the skating community? Sadly, I'm not sure if the judge can be identified by their score sheet, but at least release those too.

  8. #68
    Skating is art, if you let it be. Blades of Passion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Hollywood, CA
    Posts
    3,967
    Quote Originally Posted by gmyers View Post
    The isu rule has been discussed and sotnikova fulfills the isu rule of step sequences level 4.
    No, Sotnikova does not fulfill the ISU rule of step sequences for Level 4. What is posted at the very start of this thread is the exact ISU rule. Here is the link to the communication which states the rules - http://static.isu.org/media/108107/1..._2013-2014.pdf

    Unless you have poor reading comprehension, there is no confusion over the meaning of "5 different types of turns and 3 different types of steps, all executed at least once in both directions." That means THOSE SPECIFIC types of turns and steps must each be executed in both directions.

    Notice the requirement for Level 3 step sequences: "9 turns and 4 steps, none of the types can be counted more than twice." Again, noting that each TYPE of turn and step is what's being counted. A level 3 step sequence requires at least 5 different types of turns in total, the same as a Level 4, but the difference in a Level 3 is that those types don't need to be executed in both directions. THIS is the clear distinguisher between a Level 3 and a Level 4.

  9. #69
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    217
    Quote Originally Posted by mskater93 View Post
    In Yuna's SP, I saw one step that ended up being a Mohawk that was supposed to be a Choctaw
    Thanks My reasoning was that the easiest way to clear up the ambiguity would be to compare identical programs side-by-side that scored differently in BV (L3 in olympic sp vs. L4 in korean nationals, for example). But I think the quote and link you provided pretty much settles it now.

  10. #70
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    270
    Quote Originally Posted by leafygreens View Post
    Which segment of BoP's analysis fulfills the level 4?



    capcomeback has already explained what the smoking gun is, and it fits your very own definition.
    Just to clarify, "the smoking gun" I'm talking about does not necessarily mean corruption. It could also mean an error or something overlooked, but yes, corruption is not out of the realm of possibility. The sport sadly has that reputation.

    gmeyers-

    A "smoking gun" does not mean a crime has taken place either. I may mean that it just went off by mistake (as in maybe the judges/tech panel just made mistakes).

    Also, I may have kidded about Adelina, but I've never said anything truly "hateful" about her. If saying that someone doesn't deserve a gold medal, because she is greatly lacking in certain areas and was on the receiving end of questionable judging, is truly hateful, I wonder what your definition of the word "hate" is. I suppose you're one of those people who uses the word "hate" casually. Like "I hate to do dishes". Not everyone uses the language so loosely, so don't be surprised if you offend people. Hating someone (let alone "extreme" hatred of" them) is a serious business and I'd like to think I'm not the kind of person who'd hate a 17 year old girl for just for winning a hunk of metal (regardless if I agree with that medal's composition).

  11. #71
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3,556
    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    Unless you have poor reading comprehension, there is no confusion over the meaning of "5 different types of turns and 3 different types of steps, all executed at least once in both directions." That means THOSE SPECIFIC types of turns and steps must each be executed in both directions.
    The rule actually reads: "Complexity must include at least 5 different types of turns and 3 different types of steps all executed at least once in both directions." I've copied and pasted from page 9 of your link. The comma you added and the bolding which would clarify the rule do not exist in the document. If instead you added a comma after "once", any 5 counterclockwise turns and 5 any counterclockwise turns would meet the requirement. There is in fact no comma so the rule isn't clear. Again, why don't you take the time to do the same analysis on Yuna and see if her steps would be level 4 under either interpretation?

  12. #72
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    217
    Quote Originally Posted by TMC View Post
    That's an AWESOME idea! Especially gearing it towards the casual fan in order to help them understand COP.
    Quote Originally Posted by skatedreamer View Post
    Speaking as a casual fan, I'd really appreciate something like this to help me understand scoring in general and especially to get a better grasp of the Sochi results.
    That makes 3 of us I was thinking, if we can't find other people to do it, maybe we can do it ourselves? There would be a learning curve, and it might take forever, but it would be a fun project (we can call it "CSI: Sochi" or something )

  13. #73
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    3,622
    Quote Originally Posted by leafygreens View Post
    Which segment of BoP's analysis fulfills the level 4?

    capcomeback has already explained what the smoking gun is, and it fits your very own definition.
    Sotnikova fulfills level 4 based on the isu definition. Bop is choosing to preset the rule In an anti sotnikova way because he hates her and her win

    There is no smoking gun that proves illegitimate scores or any evidence anything was wrong in the score at all. I guess I missed he evidence and proof of illegimate scoring?

    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    No, Sotnikova does not fulfill the ISU rule of step sequences for Level 4. What is posted at the very start of this thread is the exact ISU rule. Here is the link to the communication which states the rules - http://static.isu.org/media/108107/1..._2013-2014.pdf

    Unless you have poor reading comprehension, there is no confusion over the meaning of "5 different types of turns and 3 different types of steps, all executed at least once in both directions." That means THOSE SPECIFIC types of turns and steps must each be executed in both directions.

    Notice the requirement for Level 3 step sequences: "9 turns and 4 steps, none of the types can be counted more than twice." Again, noting that each TYPE of turn and step is what's being counted. A level 3 step sequence requires at least 5 different types of turns in total, the same as a Level 4, but the difference in a Level 3 is that those types don't need to be executed in both directions. THIS is the clear distinguisher between a Level 3 and a Level 4.
    You are purposefully misreading the rule to conform to you hatred of stonikova and her win! This thread is illegitimate lies.

  14. #74
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3,556
    Quote Originally Posted by gmyers View Post
    You are purposefully misreading the rule to conform to you hatred of stonikova and her win! This thread is illegitimate lies.
    Apparently doing less is better to BoP, as doing all 6 turns and 5 in each direction is somehow worse than leaving a type of turn out completely. The system isn't designed to punish skaters who show more variety.

  15. #75
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    203
    Can we just stop labeling people as "xx haters?"

Page 5 of 114 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 55 105 ... 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
  •