Confused about short program results

One of the younger Chinese pair (sorry, I forget which) had several mistakes, including very poor synchronization of side-by-side spins, yet were scored higher than Inoue & Baldwin, who had no mistakes that I saw and the throw 3A to boot.

Did I miss something? During the interview, Baldwin said something about, "We knew going in that we wouldn't get the scores, anyway." Was he right?

Spirit said:

One of the younger Chinese pair (sorry, I forget which) had several mistakes, including very poor synchronization of side-by-side spins, yet were scored higher than Inoue & Baldwin, who had no mistakes that I saw and the throw 3A to boot.

Did I miss something? During the interview, Baldwin said something about, "We knew going in that we wouldn't get the scores, anyway." Was he right?

Click to expand...

The only chinese pair that had more than one mistake was Shen & Zhao, but I would hardly call them young. Pang & Tong were the only one who wasn't synchronised in the sbs spin, but they didn't have any other mistakes. Zhang & Zhang's pairspin wasn't really centered, but they didn't do any other mistakes either..

Okay, thanks. No one else is talking about it, so I guess it's just me. My VCR is recording, so I can't re-watch the competition right now.

I was confused about the SP results, too. I was shocked to see Rena and John were placed lower than the Chinese pair (can't remember which pair) that made several mistakes. I would like an explaination or opinions on that. Seems like the judges slept through Rena and John's program. The throw triple axel didn't seem to mean much, considering Rena and John are the ONLY pair in the world that has it.

flutterby1145 said:

I was confused about the SP results, too. I was shocked to see Rena and John were placed lower than the Chinese pair (can't remember which pair) that made several mistakes. I would like an explaination or opinions on that. Seems like the judges slept through Rena and John's program. The throw triple axel didn't seem to mean much, considering Rena and John are the ONLY pair in the world that has it.

Click to expand...

Yeah but the throw triple axle also isn't everything ,although it IS quite remarkable and I'm extremely happy for them. The judges, I'm sure, took into account the artistry, the level of their elements, how they execute their elements, etc. It's like the quad in the CoP it doesn't necessarily mean you get higher marks, lots of other elements count for something too.

Just my thoughts on it.

Baldwin did indeed say that the 3a was to shove it in the judges faces. They upped their teck because they knew the judges would never give them the second marks. No matter how bad the Russians and/or Chinese skated, they would get higher numbers in the fudge-factor perf marks. And they performed their hearts out and how many of those marks were over 7? Anyway, good for them. Hope they have a great skate Monday. And maybe they actually CAN win that bronze.

(check out DorisP's remarks cuz she is the queen of pairs judging.)

I did not appreciate Baldwin's language but I do believe I&B should have placed slightly higher than S&Z and Pang-Tong. I&B's sbs 2A had fewer points than the sbs 3t, but the difference was not that big. I&B should have received +2 on the GOE for the throw because it was text book perfect. One judge even gave them -1 GOE for the throw which was baffling.

S&Z may have had more speed- it is hard to tell on the TV screen. I&B are not the fastest skaters. I felt that S&Z were given the benefit of doubt as past 2x world champions, and because of Hongbo's injury.

S&Z had a few small mistakes, in addition to the obvious one on the sbs 3t's. Pang & Tong may have had a two-foot in the sbs 3t's (I will have to watch the tape) and their unison was not good. However, both Chinese pairs had great height on the split double twists. Again, part of this goes back to the COP not rewarding technical difficulty (in jumps and throws) adequately. The point differential between jumps or throws is not that big when we go to the very difficult ones. When a pair/skater does something this extraordinary (throw 3A) he/she/they should be rewarded more.

Vash

flutterby1145 said:

I was confused about the SP results, too. I was shocked to see Rena and John were placed lower than the Chinese pair (can't remember which pair) that made several mistakes. I would like an explaination or opinions on that. Seems like the judges slept through Rena and John's program. The throw triple axel didn't seem to mean much, considering Rena and John are the ONLY pair in the world that has it.

Click to expand...

What they gained on the throw triple axel they lost by doing only SBS double Axels and not only did they go for the easier jump but they didn't do them particularly well, which you would hope given the easier jump they would. The drifted quite far apart on the entrance and John's jump was straighter than Rena's so she curved even further away on the landing and they didn't come out going in the same direction.

I think John and Rena's SBS spins were the best int he competition in terms of speed and unison - they never went out of synch at all.

Chorepgraphically and artistically for me their programs weren't even close to the Chinese pairs and Shen & Zhoa's program artistcally was in a class of its own in the whole pairs competition. Just my opinion.

Ant

Vash01 said:

I did not appreciate Baldwin's language but I do believe I&B should have placed slightly higher than S&Z and Pang-Tong. I&B's sbs 2A had fewer points than the sbs 3t, but the difference was not that big. I&B should have received +2 on the GOE for the throw because it was text book perfect. One judge even gave them -1 GOE for the throw which was baffling.

S&Z may have had more speed- it is hard to tell on the TV screen. I&B are not the fastest skaters. I felt that S&Z were given the benefit of doubt as past 2x world champions, and because of Hongbo's injury.

S&Z had a few small mistakes, in addition to the obvious one on the sbs 3t's. Pang & Tong may have had a two-foot in the sbs 3t's (I will have to watch the tape) and their unison was not good. However, both Chinese pairs had great height on the split double twists. Again, part of this goes back to the COP not rewarding technical difficulty (in jumps and throws) adequately. The point differential between jumps or throws is not that big when we go to the very difficult ones. When a pair/skater does something this extraordinary (throw 3A) he/she/they should be rewarded more.

Vash

Click to expand...

Can anyone tell me where the protocols are listed? Thanks. One comment to add to teh above, its absolute lunacy that a throw triple flip has the same rank as a throw triple loop because its much harder to do. I didn't realise that in paris the throw jumps are apired up in difficulty so toel loop and sal have the same ranking and loop and flip (and lutz) are given the same ranking...pretty stupid if you ask me.

Ant

Calling

Anyone else notice that Rene calls the spins in that pair?
Linny

antmanb,

protocols are on the NBC Olympics site. For this and other events, click the results and schedules in upper left corner. Then figure skating.

http://www.nbcolympics.com/results/1501431/detail.html

The protocols are on the
NBC Olympics results website

And the protocols are very helpful at evaluating the following post:

"What they gained on the throw triple axel they lost by doing only SBS double Axels and not only did they go for the easier jump but they didn't do them particularly well, which you would hope given the easier jump they would."

Click to expand...

Well, this plain is not true in several ways:

What they gain by the 3a: They scored 8.64 points on the 3A.
They scored 3.30 exactly on the 2A sbs
total 11.94

Now if they had done the loop and the toe loop for similar GOE's:
They would get 6.14 on the 3Lp (and that would be more than they got at any ISU championships on a lp this season.
They would get 4.00 on the 3toe-and chances are, at best they would have gotten less than 4 pts, since there would have been some problem.
total 10.14

So the transaction netted them 1.9 points and probably closer to 3 points.

Second point, that they did their axels poorly. No they didn't. They did them for a GOE of 0 which is average, not exceptional.

Let's contrast: T&M 3t GOE 1.0
Z&Z 3s GOE 0.57
petikh 3t GOE -0.71
pangtong 3t GOE 0
Shenzhao 3t GOE -1.29

So no, compared to those ahead of them, only T&M and Z&Z did their jumps with better quality. Considering I&B changed the choreo to go with 2A's in the last week, I thought they did fine on these--would I have liked to see them better, sure, but the 2A's were fine.

And make no mistake, the program is very different. The 4C's and US Nationals program was 3T, lift, death spiral, 3loop throw, spin, 2 twist, step sequence, pair spin., The Olympic program was lift, throw 3A, death spiral, death spiral, double axel, spins, 2 twist, step sequence, pair spin. So it was completely rearranged, not just plug and plug out jumps and throws.

Now the next point is the implication that by doing 2A's they should be hugely marked down in PCS. Again wrong. Consider Lysacek, Buttle, and Weir who do no quads, but only 3A's. That does not affect their PCS scores, and it's not supposed to affect them. Their unison in the jumps was better than the unison of any of the Chinese skaters in the spins. And I&B's quality and unison in the jump was scored the same as Pang and Tong, but frankly I thought it was better, since not only do Pang and Tong have the same distance issues as I&B, Pang jumps a lot lower than Tong and therefore has much faster rotation than Tong. Plus I thought Pang had a slight 2 foot. I thought Pang and Tong were definitely overgraded in PCS on this program.

There are many skaters who find the axel takeoff troublesome, so the fact that I&B can reliably do one is not a contemptible thing.

Finally, as to the dead easiness of the 2A: Please look closely at your Euros coverage. You will find Julia Obertas had trouble with a 2A. Last year Pang and Tong didn't successfully land one done as a sbs jump (although their 2A / 3t sequence done early in the program was successful) Dorota Zagorska has trouble with the 2A. In fact, the 2A and the 3T are of similar difficulty, only .7 apart.

The reason Baldwin knew exactly what he would get for PCS was because that's what he got for PCS at 4C's where they skated the best SP in the competition without a slight turnout on the 3t and everything else good quality. If the judges wanted to reward them, they had every excuse and didn't do it. I&B had the throw 3lp and scored only 57.51 overall with PCS of 25.23.

At Olympics I&B got 61.27 with PCS of 25.74, so actually the 2A sbs 3ath was a better deal even on PCS because they were able to pick up their transitions grade slightly (.2 below skating skills vs .29 below skating skills).

If Baldwin wants to increase his PCS at Worlds, what he should do, other than buy the judges bottles of vodka, is add some transitions into the 2a's-preferably spread eagle in and out-as they they used to do in one of their old exhibitions., and add some steps before the 2twist. And practice them some more. 2 week choreo, which is what this program is, is never wonderful. And do a little more work with arms and emoting.

Great post, Doris - and good corrective criticism for I&B. However, I fail to see any team with good transitions. Even T&M, if I remember correctly, did mostly cross overs for transitions, and their mirror image footwork was very simple.

IMO, transitions are the things to watch in Pairs. Pairs tend to concentrate on convuluted lifts which all of them do one way or another; side by side jumps and spins are a mixed bag. One thing about I&B I liked was their pair spins which had less wrestling in it than others. But esthetics seem to have been dropped from Pairs skating.

T&M are clearly doing the right things. The lifts are not high but they are convoluted enough for high marks. Their technique is second to none. I have not checked the details of the scoring but for me their PCS scores should be low because they are too mechanical with all that technique.

Joe

DORISPULASKI said:

The protocols are on the
NBC Olympics results website

And the protocols are very helpful at evaluating the following post:



Well, this plain is not true in several ways:

What they gain by the 3a: They scored 8.64 points on the 3A.
They scored 3.30 exactly on the 2A sbs
total 11.94

Now if they had done the loop and the toe loop for similar GOE's:
They would get 6.14 on the 3Lp (and that would be more than they got at any ISU championships on a lp this season.
They would get 4.00 on the 3toe-and chances are, at best they would have gotten less than 4 pts, since there would have been some problem.
total 10.14

So the transaction netted them 1.9 points and probably closer to 3 points.

Second point, that they did their axels poorly. No they didn't. They did them for a GOE of 0 which is average, not exceptional.

Let's contrast: T&M 3t GOE 1.0
Z&Z 3s GOE 0.57
petikh 3t GOE -0.71
pangtong 3t GOE 0
Shenzhao 3t GOE -1.29

So no, compared to those ahead of them, only T&M and Z&Z did their jumps with better quality. Considering I&B changed the choreo to go with 2A's in the last week, I thought they did fine on these--would I have liked to see them better, sure, but the 2A's were fine.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the link to the protocols. I'll go and have a look at them now...

DORISPULASKI said:

And make no mistake, the program is very different. The 4C's and US Nationals program was 3T, lift, death spiral, 3loop throw, spin, 2 twist, step sequence, pair spin., The Olympic program was lift, throw 3A, death spiral, death spiral, double axel, spins, 2 twist, step sequence, pair spin. So it was completely rearranged, not just plug and plug out jumps and throws.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure i understand that point you're making in terms of the marking. I understand that they changed their program at the last minute to include the SBS axels and throw axel...how does this affect the marking?

DORISPULASKI said:

Now the next point is the implication that by doing 2A's they should be hugely marked down in PCS. Again wrong. Consider Lysacek, Buttle, and Weir who do no quads, but only 3A's. That does not affect their PCS scores, and it's not supposed to affect them. Their unison in the jumps was better than the unison of any of the Chinese skaters in the spins. And I&B's quality and unison in the jump was scored the same as Pang and Tong, but frankly I thought it was better, since not only do Pang and Tong have the same distance issues as I&B, Pang jumps a lot lower than Tong and therefore has much faster rotation than Tong. Plus I thought Pang had a slight 2 foot. I thought Pang and Tong were definitely overgraded in PCS on this program.

DORISPULASKI said:

I don't know who you are responding to but i certainly never stated nor implied that because they did SBS double axels they should be docked marks in the PCS. The point i made about PCS i made based on how i found their choreogaphy, interpretation and transitions. I don't think they're a particulalry musical couple and thought the program was lacking chorepgraphy and transitions compared to sy the transitions in the chinese teams programs or the transitions in Obertas & Slavnov's program which i thought worked well this time, usually i think they have a tendancy to rush through teir programs and look sloppy.

As to Pang &Tong, from memory on the replay i think the jump was clean. While i do think and John & Rena had a great solid skate and that Pang & Tong were a little rough round the edges i think overall the quality of the skating and choreography was, for me, better in Pang and Tong's program.

DORISPULASKI said:

There are many skaters who find the axel takeoff troublesome, so the fact that I&B can reliably do one is not a contemptible thing.

Click to expand...

Absolutely, and i don't think anyone said that doing an axel is contemptible. The point i made is that a double axel is an easier jump than a triple toe loop and that by doing SBS triple toe loops they might have gotten another point and given that the people they're grouped with in the results are all within a point or two of each other, that could have made a difference, though maybe the trade in not performing the 3 toes as well as the double axels is a fair trade for them.

DORISPULASKI said:

Finally, as to the dead easiness of the 2A: Please look closely at your Euros coverage. You will find Julia Obertas had trouble with a 2A. Last year Pang and Tong didn't successfully land one done as a sbs jump (although their 2A / 3t sequence done early in the program was successful) Dorota Zagorska has trouble with the 2A. In fact, the 2A and the 3T are of similar difficulty, only .7 apart.

Click to expand...

And who said that a double axel is "dead easy" i certainly have not and anyone who thinks the jump is dead easy needs their heads examining. It is a very difficult jump, for some it is more difficult than the easier triple jumps. Many skaters struggle with the double axel as you rightly point out. I've already explained why it thought triple toes might have been better given the small points differential between the skatrs at this point, and one point i make below.

Click to expand...

At Olympics I&B got 61.27 with PCS of 25.74, so actually the 2A sbs 3ath was a better deal even on PCS because they were able to pick up their transitions grade slightly (.2 below skating skills vs .29 below skating skills).

Click to expand...

If Baldwin wants to increase his PCS at Worlds, what he should do, other than buy the judges bottles of vodka, is add some transitions into the 2a's-preferably spread eagle in and out-as they they used to do in one of their old exhibitions., and add some steps before the 2twist. And practice them some more. 2 week choreo, which is what this program is, is never wonderful. And do a little more work with arms and emoting.[/QUOTE]

So that's good then - they made the right decision and i'm pleased it worked well for them. I enjoyed their program but think it placed correctly. The only other thing about the doing the SBS double axels is that some of the judges may hae put some stock in that when considering the PCS i think the judges now do use the PCS marks to manipulate the placings of the skaters and maybe the judges thought that by not showing a SBS triple jump they don't have the "skating skills" required of the final group or wherever some think they should have been placed.

While i don't think that is the way the judges should be marking, i think it does happen.

Ant

Joesitz said:

Great post, Doris - and good corrective criticism for I&B. However, I fail to see any team with good transitions. Even T&M, if I remember correctly, did mostly cross overs for transitions, and their mirror image footwork was very simple.

IMO, transitions are the things to watch in Pairs. Pairs tend to concentrate on convuluted lifts which all of them do one way or another; side by side jumps and spins are a mixed bag. One thing about I&B I liked was their pair spins which had less wrestling in it than others. But esthetics seem to have been dropped from Pairs skating.

T&M are clearly doing the right things. The lifts are not high but they are convoluted enough for high marks. Their technique is second to none. I have not checked the details of the scoring but for me their PCS scores should be low because they are too mechanical with all that technique.

Joe

Click to expand...

Really? I thought their lift was the most dissapointing part of their program. It was very simple, there was no change in position and the entry and exit were relatively simple.

Honestly i didn't feel anything from their program and raised an eyebrow with the nearly 4 point lead they have because i don't think they were 4 points better than the Zhangs. While T&M looked so solid and smooth and in great unison i don't think the program had many transitions, it was emotioanlly lacking and that trully heinous spread eagle entrance should get b=marks knocked off.

Ant

antmanb, The point I was trying to make with the trick list is that I&B completely redid their SP arrangement between 4C's 1/23 to 1/29 and skating on 2/11. They didn't just plug elements into the spaces left when other elements were taken out. That's about 2 week old choreo. Not surprising that it's a bit bare at this point, but they need to do better. I would have had them about 4th, ahead of S&Z and Pang&tong.

The German pair had good transitions. It appears to me that the judges are not using the pcs scores as intended. All the scores are within about .25 for each pair. I think T&M should be marked lower on interpretation, since I don't think they have much, but they do have excellent skating skills, and should be marked accordingly. The Germans should be marked higher on transitions, Shen and Zhou (sp) higher on interpretation, etc. Instead, they basically give the same marks for each component of pcs and use it to place skaters/pairs where they want them (or so it seems to me). Whether this would have changed I&B's placement or not, I'm not sure, since I think they do have less choreography than some of the other pairs and far less emotion than S&Z, and as was stated earlier, the throw triple axel isn't everything, although that WAS a BEAUTIFUL throw triple axel and I would have given it higher GOE (not that I'm a skating judge or anything).

Doris is the Queen!

De-lurking to tell Doris that I want to be you when I grow up. Your pairs insight and willingness to comb over protocols (which I don't have the time or patience for) is unmatched.

Keep it up! I can't wait to read your analysis of the long programs.

From Ice Skating International: Online:


"In looking over the Short Program protocol I offer a few observations.

1. -1 for Inoue & Baldwin's throw triple Axel? Give me a break. Two judges had it at +2. -1 to +2 is a ridiculous spread of opinion. And that's just what it is. For all the talk of objectivity, it is still just opinion. Only two judges gave Program Component scores in the 7s. Apparently the judges are in the same mindset as many of the skaters. This is a Russia/China party, and everyone else can sit at the children's table.

2. Shen & Zhao ended up with a level 1 on their death spiral. Zhao did not hold the pivot position for one revolution, in which case most of the level features do not come into play. The death spiral level features are:

* Difficult variation of entry and/or exit. (Both counts twice.)**blue text**
* Change of lady’s arm hold (1 revolution in each hold.)
* Opposite arm hold of the man (1 revolution in this hold. In SP, only after 1 revolution in regular hold.)
* Change of Lady’s body position. (1 revolution in each position.) (Not for SP.)
* Each full revolution after the first revolution. (Multiple credit for each full rotation.)
* Performed in both directions. (One after the other.)**blue text**
* Change of man’s pivot position. (1 revolution in each position.) (Not for SP.)

Only the features in blue could potentially be earned in a death spiral with less than one revolution on the first foot. So if the element is short, not only does the team get a negative GoE for the element, they also lose on the levels too.

3. There were several cases where a skater put one or both hands down. Hard. At other competitions this has received a deduction for a fall. But not here. Why is it so hard for the ISU to enforce a uniform policy on the decisions of the Technical Panel? What is being done to rectify this? Not much it would appear.

4. The second through eighth place teams scored within 4.5 points of each other; only 7% of the scores. Did these teams really differ by just 7%. Zhang & Zhang seemed significantly better than Obertas & Slavnov; by a lot more than just 7%. Why is the system incapable of separating the competitors by an amount that truly reflects their relative ability. Why are the judges still so stingy with +2s and +3s? Out of 160 elements in the Short programs and only 4 had a majority of 2s or better. If the best skaters in the world can't get 2s and 3s, one might ask if the standard has anything to do with reality."

DORISPULASKI said:

antmanb, The point I was trying to make with the trick list is that I&B completely redid their SP arrangement between 4C's 1/23 to 1/29 and skating on 2/11. They didn't just plug elements into the spaces left when other elements were taken out. That's about 2 week old choreo. Not surprising that it's a bit bare at this point, but they need to do better. I would have had them about 4th, ahead of S&Z and Pang&tong.

Click to expand...

Oh ok - i get it...so did their 4CC's SP have more transitions and choreography then the version they put out in the SP?

Do they plan to go the worlds?

Ant