Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 131

Thread: What held back Asada's PCS?

  1. #31
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    941
    Mao has always been an artistic skater from the very get go.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTldsaCXDds

    Can't believe how narrative changes so quickly. Yuna became an artist from a "machine" this year and now Mao is a "technical" skater rather than an artist?

  2. #32
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    161
    Quote Originally Posted by os168 View Post
    Another thing I don't like about the PCS. It is easy to ensure PCS boosting by ensuring you have as much home advantage/friendly competitions as much possible, and that is something only a powerful federation only like Japan, US, Russia, Canada can afford to provide for their skaters. It is something all skaters want, but only a few can get. Everyone else, you better be doing something exceptionally special or the judges will use it as an excuse not to award you.


    The system is inherently flawed to allow artificial momentum building at home events. In which case, Kostner can do many b events in Europe to boost her PCS, Mao and Hanyu in Japan, Patrick in N. America etc. In the 2013-14 Olympics season campaign, out of all ladies, Mao really has the best advantage to have all friendly competitions geared to boost her PCS when she had Japan Open, NHK, GPF and of course the world championship all in Japan (of course she is all 1st there) so of course she has the highest PCS ever at the end of it all, plus a new WR with the new 3A point change with its own GOE scale value and be allowed as a single jump not a combo, plus higher PCS in FS than Yuna at Vancouver. The judges has been kind to her here so I failed to see the problem.

    Perhaps the thread complaint was not that it was low but why did it not beat Kostner. I'd say if is marked correctly, it should! Problem is there also truth in how a European biased panel can change things, not just with Kostner's mark but arguably was to ensure Yulia's mark don't drop, after all she is the new Euroean Champion and ISU don't want to shoot themselves in the foot with what went on at Sochi.
    The judges weren't exactly kind to Mao. They dropped her tech score from 76 to 65 by calling URs on a triple axel that Pluschenko said was beautiful and that even Eurosport announcers called "clean as a whistle" and "I'm sure she's got it" even after looking at it on slow-mo replay, not to mention another triple / triple they called clean. All the judges were North American or European. Mao had no score inflation. Rather she was judged too strictly in tech scores. And as far as inflating her PCS by entering Japanese competitions, it "helped" her get the fifth highest PCS score at Sochi for what many consider to be one of greatest free-skate performances in history. With gifts like that thieves are a blessing. I haven't criticized Kim in my post and have even written on other posts how much she deserved to get a Gold at Sochi. Kim has received higher PCS that Mao did at Worlds in other competitions and Mao has worked hard to earn her PCS.

  3. #33
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    142
    Quote Originally Posted by gotoschool View Post
    The judges weren't exactly kind to Mao. They dropped her tech score from 76 to 65 by calling URs on a triple axel that Pluschenko said was beautiful and that even Eurosport announcers called "clean as a whistle" and "I'm sure she's got it" even after looking at it on slow-mo replay, not to mention another triple / triple they called clean. All the judges were North American or European. Mao had no score inflation. Rather she was judged too strictly in tech scores.

    How about the triple axel in the SP which was about 1/4 underotated and still generously got credit from the caller and positive GOEs from the judges? Or what about the positive GOEs for underrotated jumps she got in the LP?
    People in this thread have called Mao's LP from Sochi "perfect" even thogh many of her jumps were underrotated, weren'tcalled and got generous GOEs from the judges as well. Mao isn't too strictly scored in TES.

  4. #34
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    300
    Mao's GPs and GPF are all to help her building momentum. there is no doubt about that. However, these momentum seemed so trivial when it comes to against Russia Fed. Mao's under-rotation thing seems become another way of how judges manipulate competition result. I never understand Mao's under-rotation call nowadays. But I had a feeling that, if Mao cleaned her SP in Sochi, somehow she will got more under-rotation calls in her LP (the exact same performance)....

  5. #35
    Custard Title
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    989
    Quote Originally Posted by David21 View Post
    How about the triple axel in the SP which was about 1/4 underotated and still generously got credit from the caller and positive GOEs from the judges? Or what about the positive GOEs for underrotated jumps she got in the LP?
    People in this thread have called Mao's LP from Sochi "perfect" even thogh many of her jumps were underrotated, weren'tcalled and got generous GOEs from the judges as well. Mao isn't too strictly scored in TES.
    Her triple Axel deserved credit in the SP. Duh. And her triple Axel in the LP was actually more rotated, yet it got called, completely against the rules. Prior to the tech panel judgments, Mao had nearly 22 points in TES from her first two jumping passes alone (i.e. big positive GOE), and as the judges gave her flat zero GOE after the downgrades they clearly took the calls into account. I'm sure when Kostner underrotated her 3-3 by nearly a quarter in her 2013 Worlds LP (with a less secure landing than either of Mao's 3Axels here, btw) you weren't talking about how the judges were "generous" in giving her credit or nearly straight +1s. Or for that matter when she fell on her 3F-3T attempt in this year's Worlds and yet 4 judges gave her -2 GOE.

    Quote Originally Posted by yyyskate View Post
    Mao's GPs and GPF are all to help her building momentum. there is no doubt about that. However, these momentum seemed so trivial when it comes to against Russia Fed. Mao's under-rotation thing seems become another way of how judges manipulate competition result. I never understand Mao's under-rotation call nowadays. But I had a feeling that, if Mao cleaned her SP in Sochi, somehow she will got more under-rotation calls in her LP (the exact same performance)....
    Lol, does anyone? On occasion they give her things like half the jumps she did at 2013 NHK Trophy, and then on other occasions they downgrade jumps that while not landed completely backwards were definitely within 1/4 like her 3A in the GPF SP. Basically depends on whether the tech panel has had their coffee or not.

  6. #36
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    4,147
    Mao was way underscored at worlds LP with a bunch of ridiculous and phantom < calls. A couple deserved, but the rest were terrible. I hope she continues but I wouldnt blame her for wanting to get out of this dirty sport which has often treated her poorly. She is such a fighter though that she might continue anyway, especialy as she seems at peace with herself and thrilled with her own skating, and that is what is most important to her, not the old foolish seniles who deem her PCS 5 points inferior to Flopnitkova, deem her clean short program with a triple axel combination 5 points inferior to Yu Na Kim in Vancouver, and so on.

  7. #37
    On the Ice
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by David21 View Post
    How about the triple axel in the SP which was about 1/4 underotated and still generously got credit from the caller and positive GOEs from the judges? Or what about the positive GOEs for underrotated jumps she got in the LP?
    People in this thread have called Mao's LP from Sochi "perfect" even thogh many of her jumps were underrotated, weren'tcalled and got generous GOEs from the judges as well. Mao isn't too strictly scored in TES.
    The triple axel in the short was obviously rotated enough. From the technical panel point of view, the decision to call it rotated was right. From the judges point of view, some may argue that a jump cheated by almost 1/4 should not receive +2 but, honestly, no skater is receiving negative GOE for a slight underotation unless two-foot landings or other noticeable mistakes are involved. If you check some of the men's triple axels, you'll see how they prerotate the jump as much or more than Mao, and in many case the blade touches the ice again after having rotated 3-3.25 turns in the air. And yet, I'm sure that no technical judge is replaying those axels in super slow-motion to check the rotation because everyone expects men to jump triple axels quite "easily".

    The problem when you scrutinize some particular elements aiming to find mistakes is that you actually end up finding one thing or another. I'm sure this is what happened with Mao's 3-3 in the LP. Okay, the flip was very close, but I'm quite sure the technical panel was checking the rotation in the loop and finally ended up noticing the problem in the flip. And I think that the fact that the technical score decreased in 11 points is an indication of bad judging...how on Earth a so-called technical expert and a bunch of judges who are supposed to be experts too can be so wrong when watching a performance live in front of them? I know that sometimes you need to replay some jumps to check the landings but this was just ridiculous.

    BTW, as for Sochi LP...which jumps were underotated and weren't called? As far as I know she got her 3F-3L and 2A-3T called...

  8. #38
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    156
    Quote Originally Posted by os168 View Post
    Relative perception.

    See this is the problem I have with PCS since the very beginning and really think this part of the COP need to be fixed. The numbers themselves are meaningless UNLESS is relative to other competitors during the season, and relative how they did they did on the day, at previous competitions, but it is rarely ever applied correctly due to limited time factor that increases human error. There are too much wiggle room for manipulation. Whenever there are wiggle room, you bet there are certain judges will take maximum advantage of anonymity.

    The general impression I had seeing Mao live is she looks great on camera, great at close ups as she hold her positions well with excellent ballet posture, but skated smaller with the likes of Kostner and Kim in direct comparison. I won't go into the criticism i have of her program construct in recent years, where for me the performance is only in the step sequence, the rest about setting jumps up, so of course that affect her PCS. I have always thought Kostner's speed is greatly exaggerated since it is one thing to be capable of great speed during step sequences but if she deliberately slowed down for the rest of the program like in recent years with clever choice of music and simplified movement, what is the point of having great speed? Are points suppose to be rewarded based on what is performed or how the skaters are perceived? It is a particular problem with Patrick and Hanyu's marks in recent years as well. It makes them beyond reach of most upcoming skaters even if they skated perfect. By the way, the cross over argument is misleading, because it comes down to style and the mechanics of speed. There's a reason Yuna's difficult combos have the highest and furthest trajectory and flow when it is done properly. Her 96% success rate (including missed/aborted attempts 88%) up to 2013 season in delivering difficult 3/3s more than support the good practice and in theory, and that is why many young skaters with true lutz follow that approach (Gracie, SoYoun, Nathalie, Anna to name a few etc)

    Actually Mao shouldn't have to do anything and she should see her PCS rise up automatically if she continue. Especially Kostner and Kim are no longer in the race. Kostner's PCS has improved during Kim's absence and Mao's technique adjusting slump, and it never came down largely because Kim did not take part during the GP series for 2 years so the judges never had the proper recalibration process. I'd even argue Kostner is needed in Europe as a benchmark for the Russian babies to boost their PCS (if what happened at Sochi is to believed).

    At recent WC FS in Japan, it is completely outrageous Carolina is still awarded 10s for composition/choreography and 9.75 for interpretation consider what she brought that day.

    I personally think if PCS is to applied accurately, the judges can continue to do what they are doing, but there must be a separate factoring process according to the success/failure rate of program and possibly the entire competition. There're bell curve in some exams, why not in figure skating competitions too? The best performed program deserve better awards regardless of reputation.

    May be an algorithm can be devised to take in consideration of things like falls, UR, edge calls, difficulty, ice coverage, complexity etc.
    For example - a simplified algorithm can be something like if the skater is only able to fulfill 80% of their program successfully (Something like BV+ 1GOE average.) Then what ever PCS they get from the judges should by factored by 0.8 and that should be their factored PCS. If the skater were able to exceed the average grade execution with 100% of their BV + average of +2 GOEs, then the PCS can get factored by something like 1.02 for example.

    This simple algorithm only illustrate the rough 'principle' behind the idea. I am not a mathematician but there should be an ideal algorithm to take in account of difficulty and higher levels as well. It should encourage skating clean and greater presentation and ideally with difficulty (even if it may not result in positive GOEs). Overall the idea is to encourage more audience friendly programs and better presentation due to the bell curve.
    In February people were saying Kostner deserved to Win the Olympics with an easy (but 7 Triple) program and some wonky landings in her second half jumps (and weak spins). Now, people are questioning her high PCS and pointing out the exact issues others have pointed out in her skating:

    1. Ridiculously telegraphed jumps (if you add all her telegraphs up, a whole chunk of her program is basically jump setups with literally no choreography or "performance quality"). Significantly more than a lot of other skaters (contenders).
    2. She does a lot of Transitions, but a lot of them are on or to/from TWO FEET.
    3. She skates fast (like Yuna Kim), but she uses a METRIC TON OF CROSSOVERS and quite a bit of TWO FOOTED skating to achieve that.

    This is why, looking at the PCS criteria, it has always struck me as odd that some skaters were able to get these huge scores. It's almost as if there was a different rulebook written specifically for them while everyone else had to throw in everything and the kitchen sink just to get decent PCS scores.

    Personally, the PCS scoring seems less objectionable once you get to 5th (I include 4th place because it often includes a skater who does amazingly, but is held back so a veteran can get onto the podium) and lower in the standings, but the judges really go to town on using them to "place" skaters on the podium.

    What they need to do is combine Perf/Exec and Choreography into one PCS criteria and make the other categories even more technical. Also, the technical callers need to be as strict on Edges/Turns as they are in Ice Dance. Decrease the Weight of PCS a bit and then it will be less of an issue.

    Even with a flawless performance, those issues should affect Kostner's score, but they never do. When she was injured the and couldn't do harder jumps the judges went out of their way to keep her in contention by boosting her PCS and it made her formidable once she got the Lutz and Flip (and could increase her technical BV) back because they didn't bring them back down to earth.

  9. #39
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    142
    Quote Originally Posted by FS_rrb View Post
    The triple axel in the short was obviously rotated enough. From the technical panel point of view, the decision to call it rotated was right. From the judges point of view, some may argue that a jump cheated by almost 1/4 should not receive +2 but, honestly, no skater is receiving negative GOE for a slight underotation unless two-foot landings or other noticeable mistakes are involved. If you check some of the men's triple axels, you'll see how they prerotate the jump as much or more than Mao, and in many case the blade touches the ice again after having rotated 3-3.25 turns in the air. And yet, I'm sure that no technical judge is replaying those axels in super slow-motion to check the rotation because everyone expects men to jump triple axels quite "easily".

    I'm only saying what should happen based on the rules of CoP. If you say that other skaters get away with cheated jumps as well then I agree with you but two wrongs don't make a right. Fact is also that Mao gets more calls than other skaters because she tends to underrrotate her jumps more than other skaters.

    Quote Originally Posted by FS_rrb View Post
    The problem when you scrutinize some particular elements aiming to find mistakes is that you actually end up finding one thing or another. I'm sure this is what happened with Mao's 3-3 in the LP. Okay, the flip was very close, but I'm quite sure the technical panel was checking the rotation in the loop and finally ended up noticing the problem in the flip. And I think that the fact that the technical score decreased in 11 points is an indication of bad judging...how on Earth a so-called technical expert and a bunch of judges who are supposed to be experts too can be so wrong when watching a performance live in front of them? I know that sometimes you need to replay some jumps to check the landings but this was just ridiculous.

    Yeah, how can they be so wrong? They have super-slo mo technical euquipment and get it right more often than wrong that's for sure. It must be a world-wide conspiracy that poor Mao who seldomly underrotates by a little is getting > calls so often. Or maybe the real problem is Mao's jumping "technique"?


    Quote Originally Posted by FS_rrb View Post
    BTW, as for Sochi LP...which jumps were underotated and weren't called? As far as I know she got her 3F-3L and 2A-3T called...

    She underrotated plenty of jumps as far as I remember..the triple axel for sure and also her double loops in combo and got away with it. Let's talk seriously for a moment...Mao even regularly underrotes her double loops in her 3 jump combo which is simply embarassing for a top skater. Her jumping is simply not good, her jumps are lacking in distance and rotation and considering all that, the judges tend to be very lenient towards her in the GOEs for her jumps. She is (1) benefitting from her reputation as a top skater and (2) benefitting from the fact that the judges cannot detect her smaller underrotations and therefore do not adjust the GOE according to rules. Any complaints that Mao is hard done by the judges for her underrotations are to me completely ridiculous because the opposite is true.

  10. #40
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    142
    Quote Originally Posted by Components View Post
    Even with a flawless performance, those issues should affect Kostner's score, but they never do.

    How do you know that? Maybe her PCS would be even higher if she had more difficult transitions.

  11. #41
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    4,147
    David21 is obsessed with underrotations. Even under 6.0 thinking, before IJS was in place. I remember him saying Chen should have had a 5.0 or 5.1 for technical merit at the 98 Olympics. He also agreed with the two judges who put Hughes 4th in the LP of the 02 Olympics.

  12. #42
    On the Ice
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by David21 View Post

    Yeah, how can they be so wrong? They have super-slo mo technical euquipment and get it right more often than wrong that's for sure. It must be a world-wide conspiracy that poor Mao who seldomly underrotates by a little is getting > calls so often. Or maybe the real problem is Mao's jumping "technique"?
    I was not necessarily implying that judges got it wrong after replaying the jumps, I'm only saying that I find it funny that a jump that initially earns 10.3 points like the initial triple axel suddenly becomes < (it was not, in fact) and with negative GOE. Did the technical panel detect something wrong with the jump or did they replay the axel just to see if they found something? I understand that Mao has a tendency to underotate some jumps, but I think it's unfair to check all jumps even when they looked clean. Just an opinion...

    Quote Originally Posted by David21 View Post
    She underrotated plenty of jumps as far as I remember..the triple axel for sure and also her double loops in combo and got away with it. Let's talk seriously for a moment...Mao even regularly underrotes her double loops in her 3 jump combo which is simply embarassing for a top skater. Her jumping is simply not good, her jumps are lacking in distance and rotation and considering all that, the judges tend to be very lenient towards her in the GOEs for her jumps. She is (1) benefitting from her reputation as a top skater and (2) benefitting from the fact that the judges cannot detect her smaller underrotations and therefore do not adjust the GOE according to rules. Any complaints that Mao is hard done by the judges for her underrotations are to me completely ridiculous because the opposite is true.
    The axel was not "for sure" underotated by more than 1/4. It was close, but that's all. I agree that her double loops lack a little more power, but I think that the problem is that she attacks them too softly, don't know why. It's obvious she can rotate them since she has been doing combos ending with triple loop. I think that having two double loops after the triple flip is not the best idea since the last jump always has a tendency to become underotated. I'm not a skater but I guess that getting the momentum to rotate the loop is quite difficult and you may have problems if you don't land the previous jump properly. Anyway, saying it is "embarrassing" is a little too much IMO.

    And no offense but I think that you are a little too "strict" with underotations as Pangtongfan said...Seriously, I'm not attacking you or anything, just a comment

  13. #43
    Custard Title
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    989
    Quote Originally Posted by FS_rrb View Post
    The axel was not "for sure" underotated by more than 1/4. It was close, but that's all. I agree that her double loops lack a little more power, but I think that the problem is that she attacks them too softly, don't know why. It's obvious she can rotate them since she has been doing combos ending with triple loop. I think that having two double loops after the triple flip is not the best idea since the last jump always has a tendency to become underotated. I'm not a skater but I guess that getting the momentum to rotate the loop is quite difficult and you may have problems if you don't land the previous jump properly. Anyway, saying it is "embarrassing" is a little too much IMO.
    I've seen several skaters get called for underrotating 3-2Lo-2Lo combinations. Miki Ando (for her 2A-2-2), Kanako Murakami to name a few. Doing two loops in the 3 jump combinations is not that common among the top skaters and underrotating them sometimes is hardly embarrassing. Carolina couldn't even do her 3-2Toe-2Loop at Worlds and popped the last jump which tells you all you need to know about how "embarrassing" it is to have issues rotating the 3-2Lo-2Lo combos. I suppose popping a 3Loop almost every time you attempt it is also "embarrassing."

  14. #44
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    142
    Quote Originally Posted by FS_rrb View Post
    I was not necessarily implying that judges got it wrong after replaying the jumps, I'm only saying that I find it funny that a jump that initially earns 10.3 points like the initial triple axel suddenly becomes < (it was not, in fact) and with negative GOE. Did the technical panel detect something wrong with the jump or did they replay the axel just to see if they found something? I understand that Mao has a tendency to underotate some jumps, but I think it's unfair to check all jumps even when they looked clean. Just an opinion...

    Why is it unfair to check a jump if it looks clean? The jump initially earned so many points because of (1) the judges aren't able to see the UR and gave Mai positive GOEs because the jump looked "good to the naked eye" and (2) at first the full base value is given to the jump and later the jumps (mostly those who looked supsicious) are checked in replay and slow-mo.
    Mao is the only women who currently attempts triple axels, I'm quite sure that if another women would attempt it, it would get checked as well just like Mao's because it is something special in ladies skating.


    Quote Originally Posted by FS_rrb View Post
    The axel was not "for sure" underotated by more than 1/4. It was close, but that's all. I agree that her double loops lack a little more power, but I think that the problem is that she attacks them too softly, don't know why. It's obvious she can rotate them since she has been doing combos ending with triple loop. I think that having two double loops after the triple flip is not the best idea since the last jump always has a tendency to become underotated. I'm not a skater but I guess that getting the momentum to rotate the loop is quite difficult and you may have problems if you don't land the previous jump properly. Anyway, saying it is "embarrassing" is a little too much IMO.

    And no offense but I think that you are a little too "strict" with underotations as Pangtongfan said...Seriously, I'm not attacking you or anything, just a comment

    No, you're not attacking me and unlike CarneAsada aren't trying to bait me by trying to change the topic which I appreciate.

    But what I want to say to you and also to judgejudy aka pangtongfan is that some of you (and also the judges) apparently tend to take the issue of underroations too lightly, which is one of the reasons why I'm posting so much about this topic. Underrotating and finishing your rotation on the ice is not a technicality and is simply wrong technique which should be punished according to the rules and unfortunately, often it doesn't. Other skaters are falling immediately when they underrotate a jump by more than 1/8 but some skaters who have gotten used to their wrong technique (yes, Asada is one of them, Hughes was even worse) often get away with it and make the jump easier and don't do them the way they are supposed to be performed which is simply wrong.

  15. #45
    Custom Title Minze2001's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    589
    Hey David21 remember that thread that you loved about Mao's under rotations....

Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 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
  •