Emily Hughes - What happened to her fans?

[Tonichelle]

um, I think he said Rachel should have been higher... I see nothing of Emily being the 'rightful winner'...

really there's no use getting upset over something that happened several seasons ago. There's no reason to go back 'that far' and demand a recount... get over it and move on lol...

 

[Particle Man]

Someone was listing Emily's medal accomplishments. I don't find it "going back too far" to list the Nationals gold she missed out on, which would have been the clear prize in her collection. And are you claiming a downgraded 3-3 put Rachael in 6th place instead of 1st?? That's hard to believe...

 

[Tonichelle]

okay, see "higher" does not just equate to FIRST...

 

[Particle Man]

1 	Kimmie Meissner 	181.68 	1 	3
2 	Emily Hughes 		180.86 	3 	2
3 	Alissa Czisny 		177.74 	5 	1
4 	Beatrisa Liang 	167.15 	2 	4
5 	Rachael Flatt 		159.75 	6 	5

The reason that Kimmie was "so far" ahead of Emily (3.57 points total) in the short program was that Kimmie's combination was 3Lz+3T (10 points) and Emily's was 3F+2T (6.80).

What was controversial about the SP was whether or not the second jump of Kimmie's combo was fully rotated. It looked short in the replays, leaving the impression that she got a break because she was world champion and was expected to win anyway.

What really brought attention to the judging was that Rachael Flatt also did a 3Lz+3T combination -- a better one than Kimmie's -- but Rachael's was downgraded leaving Rachael way down in 6th place.

OK Toni -- downgrade Kimmie's 3-3, and upgrade Rachael's -- who wins? :sheesh:

 

[chuckm]

At 2007 Worlds, Emily underrotated the solo 3F, the 3F in combination and the solo 3Z. So who is to say that Emily didn't also underrotate jumps at Nationals but the URs were overlooked by the USFS judges (it wouldn't be the first time) because Emily was the reigning US bronze medalist?

Emily finished 13th in the FS at 2007 Worlds because of the URs, below even Alissa Czisny, who also underrotated 3 jumps, but got higher PCS scores and higher GOE on her non-jump elements.

 

[Particle Man]

At 2007 Worlds...

Emily finished 13th in the FS at 2007 Worlds...

A competition shouldn't be about someone's record. It should be about what happens that night. Why do I always have to work so hard to explain obvious things...

 

[antmanb]

In your opinion, maybe, but certainly not in mine.

I think her not winning that Nationals was a huge blow to Emily. At 2007 Worlds, the US champion (Meissner) was 4th and Hughes was 9th. The USFS judges would seem to have been right on.

So the judges at nationals were using their crystal balls and judging the future worlds competition instead of the national championships they were watching :scratch:

Unless Hughes and Meissner skated exactly the same way at both nationals and worlds that has to be the most bizarre statement about nationals judging ever.

At 2007 Worlds, Emily underrotated the solo 3F, the 3F in combination and the solo 3Z. So who is to say that Emily didn't also underrotate jumps at Nationals but the URs were overlooked by the USFS judges (it wouldn't be the first time) because Emily was the reigning US bronze medalist?

Again, what on earth does how she skated at worlds have to do with how she skated at nationals?

It is possible that you could use your eyes to watch the competition and look at the jumps and actually give an opinion about whether they were or weren't fully rotated rather that guessing how she performed based on a competition she hadn't yet competed at!

Ant

 

[antmanb]

Never mind

 

[Mathman]

Agreeing with me in the first place would have been faster.

I a-a-a-a....I agr-r-r-r....I agree w-w-w...

No, I just can't force myself to say it.

Anyway, the rightful winner is Alissa. :yes:

If USFS were "right," they would have been using 6.0 judging. Alissa (fifth and first) has factored placement 3.5, tied with Kimmie (first and third). Alissa wins the tie-breaker (the LP).

I bet Alissa wishes she could have that popped Lutz back -- she lost 5.7 points on that element in the SP. Overall she lost the gold by only 4 points.

 

[nylynnr]

Don't know why anyone gets the idea USFS has callers deliberately overlooking URs. The last two seasons almost all of the top ladies have multiple URs at USFS events almost all the time. Lysacek had URs at 2009 nats as well. Seems the rules are the same for all.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Don't know why anyone gets the idea USFS has callers deliberately overlooking URs. The last two seasons almost all of the top ladies have multiple URs at USFS events almost all the time. Lysacek had URs at 2009 nats as well. Seems the rules are the same for all.

You know, I am not really doubting you but I need proof in Instant Replay. Is there some way that you know of that could show me the judges tape? I really can't see making a judgment on what one sees on TV as solid proof of a UR.

Maybe someday, the Americans will permit Intant Reply for the audience as is does in Tennis.

 

[nylynnr]

You know, I am not really doubting you but I need proof in Instant Replay. Is there some way that you know of that could show me the judges tape? I really can't see making a judgment on what one sees on TV as solid proof of a UR.

Maybe someday, the Americans will permit Intant Reply for the audience as is does in Tennis.

The type of replays you see at ATP tennis matches are similar to those shown to audiences at USFS and ISU events. That is, the big screen in the arena (or court) replays shots and jumps in slo-mo. In skating, they do this before the marks are displayed. (ATP of course has Hawkeye for non-clay events, which can be used to challenge calls -- and guess what, players still argue about calls.) I don't think we'll ever see the day fans are invited to come down to the technical panel table to view jumps, although if they're willing to cough up a lot of dough for the privilege it might be considered.

JMO but I think the proof is in the protocols. For the last two or so seasons callers have been very stringent about UR's. Until this season, when the ! was added, they were similarly vigilant about take-off edges on flips and Lutzes. What has always surprised me about callers is that the two-foot take-offs on Salchows and especially throw triple Salchows have not be similarly scrutinized, but that's even more off topic.

 

[antmanb]

You know, I am not really doubting you but I need proof in Instant Replay. Is there some way that you know of that could show me the judges tape? I really can't see making a judgment on what one sees on TV as solid proof of a UR.

Maybe someday, the Americans will permit Intant Reply for the audience as is does in Tennis.

Maybe someday the skater will skate through a trillion laser beams that criss-cross the ice surface and can determine the speed of the skater between two points, the height and length of jumps, the degree and speed of rotation in jumps and spins etc etc and the winner will drop out at the end.

If it does get to that i suspect i will not longer be watching.

Ant

What has always surprised me about callers is that the two-foot take-offs on Salchows and especially throw triple Salchows have not be similarly scrutinized, but that's even more off topic.

That is one of my pet peeves too!

Ant

 

[Tonichelle]

OK Toni -- downgrade Kimmie's 3-3, and upgrade Rachael's -- who wins? :sheesh:

sorry i went to bed last night at a reasonable hour and slept soundly without worrying about supposed juding robberies that happened several seasons ago. *whew* :sheesh:

 

[Particle Man]

Maybe someday, the Americans will permit Instant Replay for the audience as it does in Tennis.

Seems unavoidable. Many competitions have hinged on underrotations, while the audience gets left in the dark and goes home angry. The least they can do is explain and highlight the reasons why people won or lost. Worse yet is when URs are clearly not judged consistently. If it's intentional, that's clearly not something they want scrutinized. Does USFS fudge the calls because they don't like the rigidity of the CoP system? I don't like CoP, but I don't support judges arbitrarily overlooking the rules. It's dishonest. If they don't want to consistently obey the rules of CoP, they should do as Mathman said and go back to 6.0 or to another system. Heck, Speedy is already crapping all over Skate America and the USFS. Why play by his rules anyway? Maybe the US should just lead the charge and "buck the system", literally...

 

[janetfan]

Maybe someday the skater will skate through a trillion laser beams that criss-cross the ice surface and can determine the speed of the skater between two points, the height and length of jumps, the degree and speed of rotation in jumps and spins etc etc and the winner will drop out at the end.

If it does get to that i suspect i will not longer be watching.

Ant

I can agree with your comments and part of why some of us watch sports is to discuss/argue about the performance, outcome and judging.
Recently I watched a soccer/futbol match in the UEFA champions league - Chelsea vs Barca. This may be off topic but this was one of the most poorly officiated sporting events I can recall seeing in quite a while. I think this game's outcome would have been much different if a form of instant replay with a replay official had been used.
I feel the same way about skating and have seen too many bad decisions from the judges over the years to accept the scores as always being accurate and honest. I don't have the answer - but wish the scoring system was better.
As to Emily I don't quite get it. I have a few friends and family members who liked her cheerful approach and fighting spirit. I liked it too - but never confused her personality with skating technique and artistry. This may not be true or fair, but if her last name was not "Hughes" would she have received as much notice and attention?
Coming in first or second at nationals is nice and important. Also realizing a certain skater has a very slight chance to make a World podium can be taken into consideration. So while it is nice to be an Emily fan I don't think she has been cheated or been marked inappropriately. IMO she is a great girl, a good skater but has never showed World class skill or consistency.
I think Caroline has been on the receiving end of some low marks at natls and saw how that outcome led directly to USA only having two ladies at the Olympics this year. Many feel that Rachael and Caroline would have earned us three spots and Alissa's controversial marks have comeback to slap us badly.
So with all respect to Emily and her fans I wish her a successful comeback, and hope she makes top 10 at natls this season. Much more importantly I hope we get our two best and most deserving girls to Vancouver.

 

[Particle Man]

As to Emily I don't quite get it. I have a few friends and family members who liked her cheerful approach and fighting spirit. I liked it too - but never confused her personality with skating technique and artistry. This may not be true or fair, but if her last name was not "Hughes" would she have received as much notice and attention?
...while it is nice to be an Emily fan I don't think she has been cheated or been marked inappropriately. IMO she is a great girl, a good skater but has never showed World class skill or consistency.

Irrelevant. She was cheated out of Nationals gold by judges ignoring Kimmie's underrotation. Someone's potential, history and name shouldn't matter. What should matter is how people skate in that competition. Period. Why is that so hard for people to grasp?

And if Emily had no potential to earn any higher than Nationals silver / gold at that moment in time -- all the MORE reason to score her fairly, instead of robbing her of the one important gold medal she should have gotten.

 

[chuckm]

I think there is evidence that the USFS judges ignored Emily's underrotations which had been frequently dinged by the ISU judges that season. In the 2006-2007 GP, she had popped both flips and a lutz in her FS at Skate America, and at the Cup of China FS, she doubled one lutz and underrotated the other, and underrotated and fell on the flip. It's just odd that she was underrotating her triples in the GP and at Worlds, but at Nationals, suddenly she wasn't?

OTOH, Kimmie won gold at 2006 Skate America, and she got credit for rotating all her jumps, including the 3Z+3T, in the FS. At TEB, Kimmie underrotated and fell on her 3A attempt, but she again got credit for rotating the 3Z+3T in the FS.

At least the USFS judges were in sync with the ISU Judges as far as Kimmie was concerned. IMO, Emily was given a huge break by the USFS judges, and I think they were more than ready to award her the championship if she hadn't fallen in the FS.

 

[janetfan]

Irrelevant. She was cheated out of Nationals gold by judges ignoring Kimmie's underrotation. Someone's potential, history and name shouldn't matter. What should matter is how people skate in that competition. Period. Why is that so hard for people to grasp?

And if Emily had no potential to earn any higher than Nationals silver / gold at that moment in time -- all the MORE reason to score her fairly, instead of robbing her of the one important gold medal she should have gotten.

I agree with you on that point. I did not express myself properly. I do think it is what happens on the ice that should be the sole criteria for marks - not reputation or potential. Even if this is not fair, I meant to say that whether Emily finished 1 or 2 was not such an issue with me at the time. What I cared about more was how she would do at Worlds.
The point which I also raised about Alissa's 09 Natls marks (which ironically agrees with your point, and disagrees with mine).
Upon reflection - I think if Emily won the competition, in this case, US Natls, then by all means it was an injustice to place Kimmie over her based on reputation or potential. I am against that no matter which competition, or in other types of sporting events.
Thankyou for pointing out the unfair thoughts in my previous message and for re-directing my thinking back to a better, and more consistent and fair way I thinking.

 

[Spun Silver]

I agree with you on that point. I did not express myself properly. I do think it is what happens on the ice that should be the sole criteria for marks - not reputation or potential. Even if this is not fair, I meant to say that whether Emily finished 1 or 2 was not such an issue with me at the time. What I cared about more was how she would do at Worlds.
The point which I also raised about Alissa's 09 Natls marks (which ironically agrees with your point, and disagrees with mine).
Upon reflection - I think if Emily won the competition, in this case, US Natls, then by all means it was an injustice to place Kimmie over her based on reputation or potential. I am against that no matter which competition, or in other types of sporting events.
Thankyou for pointing out the unfair thoughts in my previous message and for re-directing my thinking back to a better, and more consistent and fair way I thinking.

OT: You have the nicest way of taking criticism!