Can Takahashi Close The Gap On Patrick Chan?

[let`s talk]

The problem has been that Chan has been consistently held up by the judges. Takahashi is a great skater and a great performer. He is not some immature kid who knows no basics. Recently Chan with 4 mistakes was placed over Daisuke who made just one mistake. Chan has great basics, but Daisuke is not a third rate skater to put him below Chan for THAT performance. It's biased judging that causes anti- reactions from some fans. When Chan makes mistakes, he has to pay for them. Unless that happens he is unbeatable because even Chan knows that no matter how anyone skates, he is going to win. No pressure at all.

If I didn't know that Vash01 is a long-term poster on FS forums, I would say that it's a let`s talkbot who wrote a summary of what I have been saying in a gramatically correct English. :thumbsup:

 

[let`s talk]

Outstanding post and very well said on all counts. All it will do is continue draining the almost non existent popularity of figure skating to virtually nothing in North America, so they cook their own goose it turns out. Funny how even Golden Boy Chan complained about sometimes not being able to afford a taxi ride home earlier this year, so even he isnt really benefitting from the sheer stupidity that figure skating is spitting out (especialy regarding scoring) these days.

Well, why are you watching and talking figure skating if you hate figure skating?

Obviously, because some true FS fans are worried about the future of the sport. It has nothing to do with "hate". On the contrary.

 

[Skater Boy]

It is ironic how complaining about bad judging which is subjective in the first place and can often be argued in favour of your skater of choice is what probably in part destroys or hurts figure skating from being popular. COP arguably requires so much knowledge (and by the way probably explains how Chan can win with many errors or a lutzless and often flipless Kostner can win and how S and S can win often with errors) that the average watcher would get confused and lost - only diehards who often go on these sites would know or probably really care. When we talk of injustice right now some of you arguing Chan is overmarked (to be blunt) and people look at 2002 with Sale and Pelletier and the Russians who I believe could have won gold legitimately as artistry was the tiebreaker back then. Really I am sure there are other injustices probably in 1994 the greatest or greater than 2002 was M and D losing to G squared in pairs. I wonder if skating wouldn't have reached such a popular level if that scandal had been brought to the media's attention and followed with such vigor as 2002??? It may be that there was so much going on in 1994 at the olympics - return of the retired, Nancy and Tanya, the orphan waif Oksana Baiul, the ice dance scandal of the no. 1 and 2 teams having affairs with each other and physically fighting. Pangtonfan may have a point about draining the almost non existent popularity of fs - though rather harsh. It's a double edged sword whining and complaining versus...

 

[pangtongfan]

It is cute how the Chan squad is so insistent on declaring his wins with 4, 5, or 6 mistakes over good skaters who make 0 or 1 are all valid, how that doesnt mean he is a lock to win every event are events are guaranteed in his favor, how everything is perfect, blah, blah.. Just adoreable how one can be so delusional and persistent in repeating such delusion. Meanwhile figure skating audiences especialy in North America dwindle down to next to nothing. Soon the 12 member Chan quad (the only quad in the arean at that moment, as Chan per usual will have fallen or stumbled out of his) will hear chirps as they sit in an empty arena which they will be the only 12 people sitting at, insisting on inciting the same things as a 6 fall Chan is given a 200 LP at a competition.

 

[enlight78]

It is cute how the Chan squad is so insistent on declaring his wins with 4, 5, or 6 mistakes over good skaters who make 0 or 1 are all valid, how that doesnt mean he is a lock to win every event are events are guaranteed in his favor, how everything is perfect, blah, blah.. Just adoreable how one can be so delusional and persistent in repeating such delusion. Meanwhile figure skating audiences especialy in North America dwindle down to next to nothing. Soon the 12 member Chan quad (the only quad in the arean at that moment, as Chan per usual will have fallen or stumbled out of his) will hear chirps as they sit in an empty arena which they will be the only 12 people sitting at, insisting on inciting the same things as a 6 fall Chan is given a 200 LP at a competition.

It is so cute how some fans would like to make paranoid delusional accusations about judges(they never met) instead of taken the time to acknowledge the rule book and apply simple mathematics of a scoring system to two skaters objectively and respect the outcome. Of course Patrick Chan is beatable. That is common logic. If Patrick Chan stands on the ice and completes no elements I am sure he will score low enough for someone to beat him. It doesn't matter how many time he falls if no one else scores more points. I can skate a brilliant clean program with double jumps. Should I beat patrick three quads? People open mind and eyes will take you places, just saying.

 

[Mathman]

If I didn't know that Vash01 is a long-term poster on FS forums, I would say that it's a let`s talkbot who wrote a summary of what I have been saying in a gramatically correct English. :thumbsup:

I'm not saying I agree with you and Vash, but that was funny.

 

[pangtongfan]

It is so cute how some fans would like to make paranoid delusional accusations about judges(they never met) instead of taken the time to acknowledge the rule book and apply simple mathematics of a scoring system to two skaters objectively and respect the outcome. Of course Patrick Chan is beatable. That is common logic. If Patrick Chan stands on the ice and completes no elements I am sure he will score low enough for someone to beat him. It doesn't matter how many time he falls if no one else scores more points. I can skate a brilliant clean program with double jumps. Should I beat patrick three quads? People open mind and eyes will take you places, just saying.

Nobody is doing a program with only double jumps, and nobody is saying a program full of only double jumps deserved to beat Chan, so your point is moot.

As for the bolded part: Of course Patrick Chan is beatable. That is common logic. If Patrick Chan stands on the ice and completes no elements I am sure he will score low enough for someone to beat him. This example only makes the situation all the funnier, as A) that is literally what Chan would have to do for the judges to not put him 1st in any competition at this point. B) I wouldnt even be too sure on that even then. They might decide his slight nose or hair twitching was so full of transitions, interpretive, and displayed such skating skills he deserves all 10s for PCS, then gives him credit for some of the elements he visualized in his head, dock others GOE and PCS further to compensate, and voila Chan standing on centre ice doing nothing is year winner once again.

 

[pangtongfan]

On another note an earlier poster mentioned Buttle and Lambiel. I liked both skaters but I dont see where there was any controversy over their results. Both were weak and inconsistent jumpers who usually missed several jumps per competition. Both were considered excellent artists who outscored the whole field, minus PCS inflation days Plushenko. The acknowledged difference seemed to be Lambiel was attempting quads (some of them landed) and Jeff was not, giving Lambiel a higher base value. Lambiels spins were also better, Jeffs were excellent, but Lambiels were above all other men at the time. I dont recall one instance Lambiel beat Jeff, or where Jeff beat Lambiel where the result was controversial either way. If one can think of a single example feel free to do so.

 

[gkelly]

On another note an earlier poster mentioned Buttle and Lambiel. I liked both skaters but I dont see where there was any controversy over their results. Both were weak and inconsistent jumpers

Compared to the likes of Plushenko and Joubert, maybe a handful of other top jumpers at the time. Compared to the whole senior men's field, they were quite strong jumpers. It's all in your perspective.

They did sometimes manage to win medals ahead of other skaters who landed more clean or more difficult jumps but who had less content and/or quality in other areas where Buttle or Lambiel excelled. So those results might be considered controversial, especially from the perspective of someone who thinks jump count should be the most important determinant. Or who just liked Joubert better in general.

who usually missed several jumps per competition. Both were considered excellent artists who outscored the whole field, minus PCS inflation days Plushenko. The acknowledged difference seemed to be Lambiel was attempting quads (some of them landed) and Jeff was not, giving Lambiel a higher base value. Lambiels spins were also better, Jeffs were excellent, but Lambiels were above all other men at the time. I dont recall one instance Lambiel beat Jeff, or where Jeff beat Lambiel where the result was controversial either way. If one can think of a single example feel free to do so.[/QUOTE]

 

[Mathman]

...gives him credit for some of the elements he visualized in his head...

Never mind Patrick Chan, this is the one knock on the CoP that its supporters just cannot rationalize away.

At the International Challenge Cup going on right now, Jeremy Abbott visualized himself rotating and standing up on a quad, then he visualized himself landing a triple Axel. He got 77 points.

 

[spikydurian]

It is cute how the Chan squad is so insistent on declaring his wins with 4, 5, or 6 mistakes over good skaters who make 0 or 1 are all valid, how that doesnt mean he is a lock to win every event are events are guaranteed in his favor, how everything is perfect, blah, blah.. Just adoreable how one can be so delusional and persistent in repeating such delusion. Meanwhile figure skating audiences especialy in North America dwindle down to next to nothing. Soon the 12 member Chan quad (the only quad in the arean at that moment, as Chan per usual will have fallen or stumbled out of his) will hear chirps as they sit in an empty arena which they will be the only 12 people sitting at, insisting on inciting the same things as a 6 fall Chan is given a 200 LP at a competition.

How 'adorable' that there are so many personal and bitchy attacks on Chan and blaming him for the decline of figure skating and lack of men competitors in the USA. What a venomous lot. They have used you as a scapegoat, and you are right Chiddy. It doesn't pay to listen to people who are full of hatred and venom. The people who cares and kind are all that matters. As for the decline of figure skating, they won't be watching anymore and it doesn't matter. The sport will outlive fans as do all institutions. Skating will not die because of these people. People will.

 

[Orange Cat]

In response to the very first question/post... as much as I adore Takahashi and would watch him any minute of any day over PChiddy, possibility of falls included, I don't think so. It's awesome that he's motivated to work harder, and that he's trying to bring his quad back (hopefully he doesn't injure himself in the process), and I think he has a fabulous work ethic. But even so, I don't think so.

Chan is simply the better athlete. Even when he falls on his jumps they are massive and rotated, and Takahashi apparently has a tendency to UR his jumps (not that I can see it myself a lot of the time but tech callers do). The CoP values athleticism more than artistry- even the PCS are not 'artistic' marks per se, but depend more on skating skills and transitions, with performance and choreography only being a relative minority of the marks available.

That said, Dai will always hold a special place in my heart, along with that of many other people (or so I assume, having been a longtime lurker on this forum). And no matter how he places in competitions, I'll always rewatch his performances simply because he is enthralling to watch.

 

[ImaginaryPogue]

While I don't agree with pangtongfan, I'd argue his basic contention is correct: if people don't understand how insert-skater wins, they don't want to watch. Recall that the North American media went ape over the SLC scandal, where a clean but-technically easier S/P lost to B/S who had the more complicated program but a minor error. I can't blame people for not taking the time to learn the rules when what's presented doesn't appeal to them. I won't deny that the persistant attacks on Chan's skating/character/scores/life/the universe/everything as articulated by pangtonfan/let's talk/etc are frustrating to deal with, but I can't deny that there isn't a little part of me that wonders just how true their assertions are.

Then I see that Jeremy Abbott can score 77 w/ two falls, including a 42.91 on PCS and that causes nary a ripple. I can point out that Chan, with two falls, beat out a skater with one fall, by three points, which would suggest that he doesn't have a multi-fall advantage if another skater does skate well (Skate Canada, 2011), but I know exactly what glib, illogical riposte will be hurled back. So what's the point?

As for the initial question - Daisuke Takahashi has earned his spot as one of the most interesting and worthwhile figure skaters of our time. Maybe of all time. I hope he is able to close the gap - in his eyes as well as the judges' eyes. If he doesn't, I'll be more than impressed with what he has accomplished and his programs - Blues for Klook, Hip Hop Swan Lake, La Strada, Eye Tango, In the Garden of Souls - are masterpieces.

 

[fscric]

..... but I know exactly what glib, illogical riposte will be hurled back. So what's the point?

Agree.

 

[skateluvr]

The prize for this thread (last post) is rumored to be a week with pangtongfan, lol.

 

[Mathman]

Jeremy Abbott can score 77 w/ two falls, including a 42.91 on PCS[/url] and that causes nary a ripple.

Ahem. I have been splashing away on that thread.

Bad CoP, bad CoP!

 

[dorispulaski]

Unfortunately in skating, under COP and under 6.0, reputation judging is alive and well, "Winners win; losers lose." Jeremy at International Challenge, Daisuke at Japanese Nationals, and Patrick at Skate Canada have all benefited under COP.

It isn't something that makes me happy.

 

[spikydurian]

The prize for this thread (last post) is rumored to be a week with pangtongfan, lol.

Count me out. The feeling is obviously mutual (responding on behalf of pangtongfan).

 

[gkelly]

Unfortunately in skating, under COP and under 6.0, reputation judging is alive and well, "Winners win; losers lose." Jeremy at International Challenge, Daisuke at Japanese Nationals, and Patrick at Skate Canada have all benefited under COP.

It isn't something that makes me happy.

How much is reputation judging -- the judges "holding up" the skater -- and how much is quality of the skating and other elements even when one or two elements are failed --i.e., the skating holding up the skater.

If you look only at the number of mistakes, then you can't see a reason for a skater with failed elements to score higher than one who completes all elements, with comparable difficulty. But the judges are looking at a lot more than just number of mistakes. The best skaters build up a lot of points (or whatever you consider the equivalent under 6.0 scoring -- mental plus marks?) for everything good that they do, which gives them a cushion to absorb a few minuses for mistakes.

So those strongest skaters will often place well even with some mistakes and will place very well indeed when they don't make mistakes. That will earn them a good reputation. But that doesn't mean that the reputation alone is what earns them the high scores in later events with mistakes. The other strengths in the skating will usually be there to do earn the scores on merit.


That said, undoubtedly judges are subconsciously influenced by their past knowledge of a skater's abilities and expect to see more of the same. So there probably is some reputation effect in 6.0 judging and in PCS.

I just think that more often than not, when we see strong skaters place well with mistakes, the placements are largely earned and the reputation is largely lived up to, aside from those mistakes. Winners win because they're better at skills that might matter just as much or more than avoiding mistakes.

 

[Mathman]

I wonder if it wouldn't be a good idea to have a different scoring system for men's skating than for women's.

Jeremy spun around three-and-a-half times in the air and fell down. That was his quad. Then he spun around another three-and-a-half times and fell again. That was his triple Axel. Having gotten the big manly scoring elements out of the way, he proceeded to get high PCSs for gliding along looking pretty.

For some reason I don't mind when Carolina Kostner, Alissa Czisny, and Mao Asada get big points for gliding along looking pretty. This is in the tradition and spirit of figure skating. Or am I just being old-fashioned and chauvinistic?