Now that you've seen it
OK everyone, there has been a lot of noise out there, and now we have had a broadcast of the events. It is time to discuss.
I think Terry, Susie and Paul, as well as ESPN, did an excellent job of explaining the situations and how the marks came up. I followed along the competition with my laptop and looked at the judges marks for each element as each skater performed. I have a few comments.
1. There does not seem to be any scandal whatsoever in terms of the technical marks for jumps, spins, spiral/steps. Irina did poorly in the jumps, and she was placed 9th in jump points, which was fair. Susanna was rated second in jumps, also making sense because she missed her double axel and a second triple flip. Those yelling foul may just be counting jumps, or demanding that the second mark also come down due to jump mistakes in total, when really, the performance component mark should have been low for Slutskaya because she had trouble performing her jumps.
2. It seems that a skater is not penalized for jump misses outside the technical scores. The component scores seemed unaffected by mared jumps.
3. This CoP system is really no different than the old 6.0 system at all, mainly because, I think, that it uses the same judges who are used to ranking the skaters within whatever system they use, and they will manipulate it to get the results they want.
4. The Component Scores are the same as the old presentation marks, and are used and manipulated the same way as the old system.
There was no scandal here! Sadly, it was ISU business as usual. How sad that this happened in the first major ISU event to utilize the system.
I think we can all relax and expect figure skating and the judging to be the same as it has been for decades. There will be no lasting change if things continue as layed out currently.
I was bored actually, by seeing the same things as always.
That is what is going to kill figure skating as a great spectator sport on television and in the world spotlight. Due to predictable judging *b.s.* and the continued subjectivity making skating competitions like Worlds and Olympics more of a popularity and beauty contest (ice dance is a pagent), the general population is bored, bored, bored.
People don't watch boring things on tv. Figure skating is in real danger of being a total bore in terms of competitions where the skating doesn't really matter, but the judges shennanigans and biases and subjectivity rule. People who watch and believe a certain skater should be judged highly get discouraged quickly when the judges put out differing opinions. General population viewers feel the injustice, and won't bother to tune in only to be disgusted and puzzled by the results.
I believe that the general opinion out there amongst viewers who are not total skating avids is that the results are fixed, so they don't get into watching.
Anyway, I digress. I ddn't see any scandal here, only ISU business as usual.
Last edited by ChiSk8Fan; 02-06-2005 at 08:23 PM.
I don't know all the technical stuff of the scoring and what not, but now that I've seen the Euro's on tv.....
I can understand why Irina pulled ahead to first place....she wasn't the only one to make mistakes and some of the things she did not make mistakes on were done better or were more difficult than what others did. Most of what I had read on the net had just talked about Irina falling but still winning, no mention of the fact that the other skaters had mistakes and falls.
I won't begin to try to comment on ice dance as I still have trouble knowing what is more difficult in dance moves, etc. But I believe there was some speculation that dance was not properly judged/scored....???
As a side note, I noticed a lot of the skaters were having difficulty ending with their music thru-out the competition.
Firstly - Irina's SP was shown and it was quite good. Given the field of contestants in this competition, I would agree Irina's win despite not seeing the SPs of the others.
There was a comparison at the end of the show which was to make the public understand Irina's win over Susanna. Susanna got more for jumps and Irina got more for spins (I guess those 2 hand-held blade spins pack a wallop over the more balletic camel (arabesque) spins). There were two more comparisons which I didn't catch but in one of them Susanna got placed at no. 10. What did she do that was so bad?
As for showing flexibility, how many Bielman positions can you do to prove that? If you finish every spin in a Bielman, and move in Bielman spirals only, that's showing flexibility over and over and over and over again. Am I correct?
I believe Susanna had lower level difficulty on footwork and spiral but can't remember which one placed 10th (I am too lazy to watch the tape right now).
Originally Posted by Joesitz
Irina has different positions in her spins, not just the Biellman. She does a very good catchfoot spin, foot to head positions, and the Biellman. She also does the Biellman on both sides, something that is very rare. Also I think the idea is not just to display flexibility, otherwise Sasha would have won every competition.
Irina had better edges, power, and more command from the performance aspect. She never gave up on the performance. She kept fighting back. She could have lost if Sebestyen had taken advantage of the situation.
One thing that may have helped Irina's marks is that she did the 3t-2t (tano) combo toward the end and it may have earned her extra 10% (I have not timed the program to see if it is in the final minute; I am just wondering). Poykio, OTOH missed that opportunity by doubling her triple toward the end (she also singled the double axel).
Whether you like her skating or not, the point really was whether the competition was judged according to rules, and it seems it was, except for perhaps the component marks being too high. (Were the component marks too high for other contestants too? ) There was no scandal here. Just a poorly skated competition.
On the Ice
I'm going to have to go back and watch the competition again, but my first impression is everyone skated about the same; they all made notable mistakes, and no one was really the clear winner. So, I really don't have a problem with Irina taking first. And I think the people crying foul over the judging at this competiton are kind of overblowing things. That's not to say that I think the accusations made against the ISU, in terms of issues such as anonymous judging, corruption, collusion, etc., are overblown; they are serious issues that must be properly addressed by the ISU in order for figure skating to continue as a respectable sport. But just within the context of this competiton, I didn't see it as the huge example of bad judging some are making it out to be.
That was the whole point....calling Irina's win due to corrupt judging, collusion, etc. was incorrect. There was a lot of overreaction. Quite often the discussions turned into Irina bash fest, instead of a discussion about the COP which is not perfect any means. Many of those people had not even seen the competition.
Originally Posted by ATW27
Yes, we all know the ladies were NOT up to par, but even the men were a let down. Plushy was not at his best. Several of his jumps were very scratchy and a two footed quad and a doubled jump. N and K in the dance had several trips and seemed cautious. It's interesting how a lot of these skaters started out really strong the beginning for the year and now seem to have more flaws. Maybe it just wasn't in the air for these skaters in Torino? I was very glad to see T and M in the pairs look like they are back...Good for them!
I have questioned the Big Scandal all along...
And seeing the Ladies event on TV confirmed for me that I don't think this competition rises to the level of "SCANDAL!" at all. As others have said, that doesn't take away from Speedy's challenges fixing the perception of FS judging, and also implementing real penalties for real judging problems that are identified.
While Susanna is a lovely skater, I don't think her spirals or footwork rise to the level at all of the top ladies in the world. So she can't afford any jump mistakes at all I don't think. It also didn't help her that her program really started to fade at the end. I think the last impression of the judges has more impact than the first impression, so if you're going to have a "bad half" I think it's better to have a bad first half.
I was really sad for Julia who had an excellent opportunity to keep her title, and just fell apart. She was in the best position to waltz through the wide open door.
Given the mixed reviews of Irina's skate (good on everything but the jump mistakes v. a complete bomb) I wasn't sure what to expect. It certainly wasn't a "bomb" on the level of Julia, that's for sure. Far from her best skate of the season, but at least she recovered in the back half.
That event was disappointing overall, but no complaints here about the results.
Originally Posted by equestrianguy
plushy wasn't perfect but he was no doubt the best.
Bona Fide Member
Well, it seems to be unanimous on this thread. Irina was the best of a field bedeviled by miscues. Susanna is a vision of loveliness, but I have to say, IMHO, compared to Irina, not really ready for prime time. Liashenko was OK -- she skated about like she always does. (That's my expert analysis, LOL.)
I agree with ChiSk8Fan -- as scandals go, booorrrrring.
I do, however, have to go back and read the protocols for the two program components entitled Skating skills and performance/execution. Evidently falling and popping jumps does not detract from these scores, in which Irina got 7.32 and 7.21, respectively.
Sort of like Michelle getting four 6.0s at Nationals -- it leaves us scratching our heads wondering what these marks are supposed to mean.
Speaking of Michelle, I wish I would have seen only the long programs at Euros. Then I would be saying, ha, ha, Michelle is a shoo-in at Moscow.
But no -- they had to show us Irina's short program. Wow!
I consider this the real scandal. IMO Delobel & Schoenfelder (sp?) should have been ahead of N&K, certainly in the FD. I was also un-impressed by G&G this time - I think they haven't fully gotten back in shape yet. I would put De&Sc 1st, N&K 2nd, C&S 3d, and G&G 4th (though I could justify G&G being ahead of C&S).
Originally Posted by equestrianguy
The scandal is that after all the time and money spent on implementing CoP what we really have is the same old system without the 6.0s.
Instead of 6.0s we have unreasonably high PCS scores for awful performances, that seem to be based entirely on the skater's reputation instead of on the performance happening on the ice.
The PCS scores are entirely too uniform across the judges. Look at Liashenko's PCS scores. All fit into the range 6.0 to 6.75. ALL! How can that be? It's as if the judges researched all the skaters' CoP numbers, or had those records available, and decided across the board to keep scores close to what the skaters had received before (for those skaters who had CoP history). I guess for skaters who'd had no competitions scored under CoP, they translated presentation marks into PCS scores.
All that work, all those documents describing how to score the components, all for nothing. It is a gigantic CROCK.
I agree about the dance scores, too. It isn't who does the best programs, it's who's the flavor of the year with the ISU judges.
Last edited by chuckm; 02-07-2005 at 03:20 PM.
Chuckm, you raise exactly the point that I brought up earlier this year.
For each skater, the PCS scores are too consistent. In other words, all of a skater's PCS categories tend to be scored within the same, very narrow range. This raises a clear red flag. If the judges can't differentiate between different areas of the PCS in scoring skaters, then what is the point of having all the different categories at all? As I've said before, there ARE skaters who are great with basic skating skills, say, but not so great with interpretation. And vice versa. This is never reflected in the actual marks. I generally like the new judging system, but this aspect of it is a serious problem.