06-17-2014, 04:12 PM
This is a good example of why you can't compare PCS from event to event. In the team LP, you had only 5 skaters so there was plenty of room to spread marks around as needed, and no need to use the upper end of the spectrum. In the individual LP, you had 24 skaters in which to use that same spectrum, so both the lower end and higher end are going to be utilized more. In the case of medal contenders like Gracie and Julia who skate later in the evening, they are going to benefit from the judges placing their marks ahead of skaters who performed well earlier in the evening.
Originally Posted by CanadianSkaterGuy
06-17-2014, 04:35 PM
Or it's a good example of PCS being a free-for-all point grab with no benchmarks, which renders it moot as a standard of measurement.
06-17-2014, 04:47 PM
Anything subjective is going to be considered "moot as a standard of measurement" if people don't like the outcome.
Originally Posted by lilahozi
06-17-2014, 05:07 PM
My thought is, the first fall is a mistake and it does mar the program, but it can be forgiven as one single error in an otherwise good performance. However, if you fall multiple times, the program as a whole starts looking exponentially sloppier. The increasing deductions is to account for the increasing sloppiness in the program. Ideally, this should be reflected in PCS and we wouldn't even need this, but currently sloppy programs aren't getting PCS hits or said hits aren't that severe. (See: Kostner gets higher PCS than Mao Asada for that mess of an LP at Worlds 2014).
Originally Posted by drivingmissdaisy
06-17-2014, 05:12 PM
The land of SnuggleBat and Cuddlepie