Let's do this more graphically
For example, Shin Amano is known for generous calls on steps. Just check the protocol of this year's junior worlds ladies. Many of them are rewarded their first "level 4" in their careers.
as for the base value.. yuna had more difficulty w/ her 3lutz/3toe in the sp.. and yet adelina who had the inferior bv in the sp still managed to tie w/ yuna in the sp.. so i don't agree w/ this argument about strong base values should be rewarded more..because yuna was not even rewarded for it in the sp.. adelina had more difficult program because of her base values in the lp.. but she didn't execute them.. she never got called on her flutz and the underrotated toe.. not to mention the 2 footed jump..
anyway, the point gap between Sot and Kim is bigger than one arbitrary call can explain. It only explains that Sotnikova was favored over Kim. Even so, it's not like "Plushenko lost to quadless Lysacek". A six triples skater (the only one in the top ten at Sochi) was beaten by a seven triples skater.
Here we go again
This news did not warrant a new thread, especially since it of course immediately turned into YET ANOTHER another platform for everyone to wheel out their Sochi arguments.
Pointless exercise, because everybody has made up their minds by now.
There is nothing new to be said.
Everybody is entrenched.
Nobody is going to convince anybody to change their minds about anything.
and sotnikova didn't have a 7 triple program.. she didn't execute it.. she wasn't called for her obvious flutz and the underrotated 3toe..
Here are the total GOEs of the nine judges, in two different orders.
KIM 27 26 22 21 20 20 19 17 16
SOT 26 23 22 19 16 15 31 29 26
If this matching of judges' scores is the correct one, then five judges favored Kim with one tie. Three judges greatly over-scored Sotnikova while simultaneously lowballing Kim. With this pairing the three Sotnikova judges, by giving exaggerated scores, dominated the majority, who favored Kim.
SOT 31 29 26 26 25 22 19 16 15
Kim 27 26 22 21 20 20 19 17 16
Now six judges favored Sotnikova, with one tie, and only two thought Kim's elements were better.
Which scenario is the factual one? We will never know.
Last edited by Mathman; 06-06-2014 at 11:15 AM.
The only real point is that nobody will remember the lawyer's name, sore fans' posts or even the bad KSU. The legacy will go to Kim personaly. Hardly a favour.
6.0: Judge 1 gives first place ordinal to skater A. Judge 2 gives first place ordinal to skater A, judge 3 gives first place ordinal to skater B.
Skater A wins, two first place ordinals to one.
CoP. Judge 1 gives 9 points to skater A and 8 points to skater B
Judge 2 gives 9 points to skater A and 8 points to skater B
Judge C gives 6 points to skater A and 10 points to skater B.
Do the math. Skater A is favored by the majority of judges, but who wins?
One further point:
It is not the size of the discrepancy that is at issue. It is the method of determining the winner. Here is another example:
Judge 1 gives skater A 9.00 and skater B 8.75
Judge 2 gives skater A 9.00 and skater B 8.75
Judge 3 gives skater A 8.50 and skater B 9.25.
Skater A was favored by the majority of judges, but skater B wins. None of the marks is outside the corridor that triggers an investigation.
But we do not have to make up numbers. In post 86 and in post 137 I used the exact numbers from the protocols. The point is that because of anonymous judging and randomization of judges' scores, we do not know our right foot from our left, our hat from our glove. (We are as helpless as a kitten up a tree.)
Last edited by Mathman; 06-07-2014 at 05:03 AM.