Joubert / Buttle debate nature of sport

[Geesesk8]

"...Frenchman Brian Joubert, who staged a comeback from sixth place after the short program to finish second to Canada's Jeffrey Buttle, expressed dismay about judging changes that he said made it more important to be accurate than bold...."

From Reuters, 3/22/08 -
"Joubert and Buttle debate nature of their sport"
http://www.reuters.com/article/sportsNews/idUSL221630820080322

 

[bleuchick]

Come on Joubert.

Someone need to show him the protocol. i.e. the base level between him and Jeff.

The answer to why Jeff won is all in there and some.

 

[Kikigirl]

I don't think that's what Brian is getting at. I believe he's talking about the base value of a quad versus the base value of a triple-triple. Paul Wylie spoke about it yesterday on ABC. There's relatively little difference between the two, which rewards those who are safer in doing a triple-triple than a quad. Wylie thinks that the value of the quad should be increased and so do I.

Note: I am a fan of Brian's, and I do think that Jeff deserved to win yesterday. Both of them turned in great performances.

 

[Brandi_DeLain]

Buttle, asked after Joubert's comments if he felt he had to apologize for not trying a quad, said: "No, absolutely not."

Right on, Jeff!

Joubert is showing himself to be a very sore loser. It is nobody's fault but his own that he played it safe and only went for one quad in the FS. Buttle more than deserved the World title, and Brian should be ashamed for raining on his parade.

I don't think that's what Brian is getting at. I believe he's talking about the base value of a quad versus the base value of a triple-triple.

Maybe so, but if he considers a triple-triple to be so much easier than a quad, why did he only do one in his FS? His only other combo was a 2A-1T.

 

[NatachaHatawa]

I do share Brian's vision of skating as a sport, and I completely agree that quads are underated, but when one compares their programs, Brian's jumps are of better quality, however he only did 2 combos and one of those was a 2A-1T, so although I'd have loved Brian to win, Jeff's victory isn't unfair, eventhough the difference in the technical score is a little excessive.

But also may I just say that Brian's comments blamed the system, here's an article in which brian explains himself: http://http://fr.news.yahoo.com/afp/20080322/tts-glace-patinage-artistique-mond-cr-pr-c1b2fc3.html

here's the translation of what Brian said: "When the results were announced I was upset because Jeffrey did a perfect program, but didn't do a quad. Stephane attempted two, Daisuke too. Quads will have to be better awarded in the future. I don't (*have anything against, hatte, resent, blame) Jeffrey, who is a good/strong competitor, and I'll know to remember that, but it's the system that's like that."

* In order to translate best, I gave several words to give the general idea.

As I said, I agree with Brian on quads, but I do think his anger was a little strong. However, I appreciate his honesty and his fair-play attitude towards his fellow competitors. (he doesn't agree with the judges, but doesn't say nasty things against Jeff.)

 

[Matt]

I do think the quad should have a higher base value as a solo jump. As it stands right now in CoP, a 4t-2t is only .3 more than doing a 3lz-3t. That being said, I don't think it's necessary under CoP to do a quad in order to win, which is something I think has actually done the sport a lot of good. A quad is a quad; it is one of (if not the) hardest jumps in FS, but it's only 3 seconds worth of a four and half minute program. Joubert does arguably the best quads in the world, but he's judged on the rest of the program as well. He especially needed to skate clean coming from 6th after the SP, and unfortunately (to use one of the most overused FS announcer clichés ) that 2a-1t was the last thing the judges saw

 

[sindarin]

ITA with Jeff. I came to respect him even more after reading this article. Quad is merely an optional element that he can choose not to put in the program. It is his choice, so what? Even without the element, he is still one of the most well-rounded skaters I have ever seen and he proved it well last night.

So, thank you Jeff for bringing back the full-packed program that presents every aspect of figure skating, something that has been missing from this sport for a long long time. And I believe the judges and even the press can't seem to agree more with me.

 

[Ximena]

While I do think he is a sore loser for the stuff he said, though eventually he seemed to cool down and congratulate Jeff, I do think Brian has a fair point when it comes to the quad.

But not also about the quad, I think the system should fix some scores in the combo, how is it fair that a 3a-3t and then a 3t it's wort the same than a 3a, 3t-3t.
It takes more skill and it's harder to put the combo in the axel and then at the end it's the same.
It sames goes with the quad, which is why now the guys when they do one, they do it as a solo jump since they can put the combo with an easier jump before.

I think that had Brian would have made that point clearer before lashing out as he did, more people would take in consideration his words. And it's not only him, if I'm not wrong at the GPF press conference, Lambiel and Evan made the very same point about jump values.

 

[SamuraiKike]

Im very happy than someone actually can still win a world championship without a quad. It shows the sum of its parts was more important than relying in one big trick. Congratulations to Jeffrey!!

 

[rain]

I disagree with Joubert about the quad. I don't want to see it become the prohibitive factor in competition. I think as it stands now, any guy with the quad has a big advantage going in.

But you know, if you don't execute, the way a number of the big guns didn't, than why should attempting one save you over others who skated very, very well? There are guys (Lambiel springs immediately to mind) who have more difficulty with the 3axel than with the quad — so why shouldn't we argue that the 3axel should be worth more, as it is clearly the hardest jump for some? Why should the quad be worth so much more, relatively?

A quad shouldn't be worth so much that you can just rely on that and leave other things (like maxing out your combination windows) out of your program. I don't think one element alone should have the power to dictate who can win and who can't. That takes a lot of the sport out of it, reducing it to the point where they might as well just go out onto the ice, build up some speed and do a quad, or not, and be done with it.

 

[ks777]

ITA with Jeff. I came to respect him even more after reading this article. Quad is merely an optional element that he can choose not to put in the program. It is his choice, so what? Even without the element, he is still one of the most well-rounded skaters I have ever seen and he proved it well last night.

So, thank you Jeff for bringing back the full-packed program that presents every aspect of figure skating, something that has been missing from this sport for a long long time. And I believe the judges and even the press can't seem to agree more with me.

Jeff doesn't choose to put the quad in his program! He doesn't have one so he can't put it in his program. I am sure Jeff would put it if he had one.

 

[BigJohn]

I agree that just adding a quad to a programm should not garantee you a place on the podium. A quad is less than a second, a free skate is over 4 minutes.

If adding value to a quad is considered, then there should be bigger deductions for a failed attempt. A two foot landing, a hands-down or a step-out should significantly be worth less than a clean triple-triple, and a fall on a quad should be a lot more than a 1 point deduction.

Any fall on a jump should be more than just 1 point deduction. If there is a downside to the new scoring system, it is that. If you are not on your skate after the jump, it should be 0 for the jump.

And Joubert, well, il est une petite ***** qui se plaint.

 

[ks777]

I agree that just adding a quad to a programm should not garantee you a place on the podium. A quad is less than a second, a free skate is over 4 minutes.

If adding value to a quad is considered, then there should be bigger deductions for a failed attempt. A two foot landing, a hands-down or a step-out should significantly be worth less than a clean triple-triple, and a fall on a quad should be a lot more than a 1 point deduction.

Any fall on a jump should be more than just 1 point deduction. If there is a downside to the new scoring system, it is that. If you are not on your skate after the jump, it should be 0 for the jump.

And Joubert, well, il est une petite chienne qui se plaint.

actually a fall on a jump would loose more than 1 point. You get -3 on GOE on top of 1 point deduction.

 

[BigJohn]

actually a fall on a jump would loose more than 1 point. You get -3 on GOE on top of 1 point deduction.

The automatic deduction should be more than 1 point, that is my point.

 

[DivaDes]

ITA with Jeff. I came to respect him even more after reading this article. Quad is merely an optional element that he can choose not to put in the program. It is his choice, so what? Even without the element, he is still one of the most well-rounded skaters I have ever seen and he proved it well last night.

So, thank you Jeff for bringing back the full-packed program that presents every aspect of figure skating, something that has been missing from this sport for a long long time. And I believe the judges and even the press can't seem to agree more with me.

In order for him to choose to add the quad he would have to in fact be able to land one and as it stands he still has difficulty landing the axel with any great degree of consistency.

Also I have a post in the Men's free thread (page 31) where I talk a bit about the free programs and marks etc.

~D

 

[ChrisH]

I don't think that's what Brian is getting at. I believe he's talking about the base value of a quad versus the base value of a triple-triple. Paul Wylie spoke about it yesterday on ABC. There's relatively little difference between the two, which rewards those who are safer in doing a triple-triple than a quad. Wylie thinks that the value of the quad should be increased and so do I.

I do think the quad should have a higher base value as a solo jump. As it stands right now in CoP, a 4t-2t is only .3 more than doing a 3lz-3t. That being said, I don't think it's necessary under CoP to do a quad in order to win, which is something I think has actually done the sport a lot of good. A quad is a quad; it is one of (if not the) hardest jumps in FS, but it's only 3 seconds worth of a four and half minute program.

Two relevant aspects of CoP could be improved. The base value of the 3Lz and 3F (and to a lesser extent a 3Lo) could be about 0.5 less. (So rather than increase the value of the 4T, I would decrease the value of the 3F and 3Lz.) With regards to Joubert, a bigger GoE scaler for quads would've helped him more. Joubert wasn't rewarded enough for doing excellent quads. The judges gave him grades of 1 and 2 for his 4T+3T and his 4T. This gave him GoE bonuses of 1.29 and 1.29, which were too small because the scaler for quads is the same as it is for triples. If the scaler were twice as large, Joubert would've been accurately rewarded for the quality of his quads. These two things, however, would've only improved his standing against Buttle by about 3 points.

There's no getting around the fact that he fell on his 3Lz and he could've done a 3A+2T and a 3Lz+2T instead of the 2A+1T and the solo 3F(e), which together cost him about 13 points.

 

[DivaDes]

Two relevant aspects of CoP could be improved. The base value of the 3Lz and 3F (and to a lesser extent a 3Lo) could be about 0.5 less. (So rather than increase the value of the 4T, I would decrease the value of the 3F and 3Lz.) With regards to Joubert, a bigger GoE scaler for quads would've helped him more. Joubert wasn't rewarded enough for doing excellent quads. The judges gave him grades of 1 and 2 for his 4T+3T and his 4T. This gave him GoE bonuses of 1.29 and 1.29, which were too small because the scaler for quads is the same as it is for triples. If the scaler were twice as large, Joubert would've been accurately rewarded for the quality of his quads. These two things, however, would've only improved his standing against Buttle by about 3 points.

There's no getting around the fact that he fell on his 3Lz and he could've done a 3A+2T and another 3F+3T instead of a 2A+1T and solo 3F, which together cost him about 13 points.

Good point, I never thought of that. I have always thougth that the range for the PCS should be wider. 10 points isn't much even with the increments being .25, I think that the range should be 15 or 20 because it allows for more growth and will really separate the skaters. Maybe in order for there to be a large scale for the quad the range of points for the GOE should be expanded to -5 to +5.

JMO

~D

 

[Hikaru]

While I do think he is a sore loser for the stuff he said, though eventually he seemed to cool down and congratulate Jeff, I do think Brian has a fair point when it comes to the quad.

But not also about the quad, I think the system should fix some scores in the combo, how is it fair that a 3a-3t and then a 3t it's wort the same than a 3a, 3t-3t.
It takes more skill and it's harder to put the combo in the axel and then at the end it's the same.
It sames goes with the quad, which is why now the guys when they do one, they do it as a solo jump since they can put the combo with an easier jump before.

I think that had Brian would have made that point clearer before lashing out as he did, more people would take in consideration his words. And it's not only him, if I'm not wrong at the GPF press conference, Lambiel and Evan made the very same point about jump values.

Playing Jane Bennet here, maybe Brian's words have not been taken the way he would have wanted to (I think he is not the type of skater to say bad things about others, but rather express his view of the way points are awarded).

I do think, however, like many have said, that the quad is only one element within a program. It doesn't determine who wins, unless you do like three of them, or you are in a field where everyone is doing it. Other things have to be taken into account: skating skills, spins, footwork, etc.

I do agree with Brian, and Ximena's post that they way the points are given for jump elements (which in my opinion are the hardest elements) could be reviewed. It is not the same to do a combo of two jumps, than doing those same jumps as solo. The effort to pull a combination is greater, I think. I don't know if a quad should be more than a 3A-3T because in the latter you are pulling off a total of 6.5 rotations, but I don't know, maybe it takes more energy to pull the necesary speed and height for the quad. This is something that only skaters know best. It must be hard, because we don't see many skaters doing quads.

 

[bleuchick]

I do agree with Brian, and Ximena's post that they way the points are given for jump elements (which in my opinion are the hardest elements) could be reviewed. It is not the same to do a combo of two jumps, than doing those same jumps as solo. The effort to pull a combination is greater, I think. I don't know if a quad should be more than a 3A-3T because in the latter you are pulling off a total of 6.5 rotations, but I don't know, maybe it takes more energy to pull the necesary speed and height for the quad. This is something that only skaters know best. It must be hard, because we don't see many skaters doing quads.

The same can be said for skaters not attempting complex and very difficult programs but *simpler programs* jam-packed with 1-3 quads. They too know best. It must be hard to do a program that is choreographically difficulty, hence, why we don't see many skaters doing such programs.

The way that I see it is, it all comes down to relativity here.

Brian says that he puts in ALOT OF HARD WORK and does 3 quads and therefore, his hard work should have a higher base value. And I say to Brian, that Jeffrey puts in ALOT OF HARD WORK to do complex, difficult and intricate programs to the point that most people, including some of his fans, have all wondered if it is better to do simpler programs and therefore leave some room to focus on his jumps. His hard programs - i.e spins, in-betweens, stroking, and choreography really merit a higher base value whatever that is.

 

[Skye]

With regards to Joubert, a bigger GoE scaler for quads would've helped him more. Joubert wasn't rewarded enough for doing excellent quads. The judges gave him grades of 1 and 2 for his 4T+3T and his 4T. This gave him GoE bonuses of 1.29 and 1.29, which were too small because the scaler for quads is the same as it is for triples. If the scaler were twice as large, Joubert would've been accurately rewarded for the quality of his quads.

I agree with this, because even with a fall on a quad toe, you're still racking 5 points and that is more than a good triple toe. I would say increase the scale of GOE (both upwards and downwards) for quads, just like they decrease the scale for elements with less base value.