I'm surprised you actually know "you don't need a class to learn to think before you speak"!
Chan v. Hanyu: 2015-16
- Thread starter OS
- Start date
- Status
I'm surprised you actually know "you don't need a class to learn to think before you speak"!
Guys, cmon...
It's true that there were times when Chan shouldn't say anything, but he did, like in GPF 2013 when he said he let Hanyu win this competition to win Olympics if I remember, but it's not end of the world. He is not judged on ice for what he do off ice.
Please, just close this thread until GPF :handw:
It's true that there were times when Chan shouldn't say anything, but he did, like in GPF 2013 when he said he let Hanyu win this competition to win Olympics if I remember, but it's not end of the world. He is not judged on ice for what he do off ice.
Please, just close this thread until GPF :handw:
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2015
What I want to say , this discussion about what Chan say is pointless. For me there were things that he said that for me wasn't the most pleasant to hear, let's put it this way, but I don't think he is bad guy. Obviously under competition pressure you can say many things that you really woudn't say normally
I didn't make up that story---that is what I heard Chan say while I was watching the scores come up live on the Ice Network broadcast. Other people on the chat board I was on at the time commented on what he said as well so I know I'm not the only one who heard those words from Chan.
So no, I don't feel guilty at all for telling the truth. And furthermore, I don't see that as particularly bad behavior from Chan. I wouldn't classify it as bad behavior----it's just typical Chan behavior. He is unaccustomed to getting marks in the same range as anyone else, and was startled and clearly unpleased to be in a dead heat with two other skaters. Later, he grinned nastily when Hanyu struggled with his SP. And the IceNetwork cameras captured it all. Clearly, IN is aware that Chan is a good subject to follow because he doesn't hide his reactions to what happens around him.
So don't blame me if I happened to notice what IN captured.....
So no, I don't feel guilty at all for telling the truth. And furthermore, I don't see that as particularly bad behavior from Chan. I wouldn't classify it as bad behavior----it's just typical Chan behavior. He is unaccustomed to getting marks in the same range as anyone else, and was startled and clearly unpleased to be in a dead heat with two other skaters. Later, he grinned nastily when Hanyu struggled with his SP. And the IceNetwork cameras captured it all. Clearly, IN is aware that Chan is a good subject to follow because he doesn't hide his reactions to what happens around him.
So don't blame me if I happened to notice what IN captured.....
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2015
what people are blaming you for to use your own words:
1) inventing stories : CHAN had no way to know that he was in a dead heat with two other skaters…. he skated in the first group before any of the top contenders skated… he was simply upset at the two major mistakes he had made… and probably and note how i say probably because i am not in his head, even more upset about doubling his 3Lz.
2) quoting things out of context: anyone can grin at any times and be shown on camera… you are the one who is taking a grin (which btw, i haven't see as I watched another channel) that could be related to anything, like for instance, a little girl stuffing her face with cotton candy, and assigning it a meaning that only someone in Chan's head i.e. Patrick himself, could know about.
for goodness sake… chan may have been grinning because he was simply over his nerves, over his anger…. or even better… because the camera pointed at him… that's something people do as a reflex… grin when the camera is there…
as for grin nastily… erm… how do you even assign an adverb on something so subjective…
this is why people say you are making up things…
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2014
Very much on the same page here! Although it seems like the decision to apply or not this unwritten rule is left to the judges' discretion. In some competitions it could be favoured a clean program over a difficult but flawed one, in others 'difficulty but not perfect' gets the reward against the cleanliness (in both cases I'm not talking about a major flawed program but more about a program that has some little imperfections both on tech and performance sides BECAUSE of the difficulties). So in those case scenario the wind could blow in either direction despite the fact that we're under the same set of rules.
Maybe there would have to be a "Gestalt component/general impression score" that allows to evaluate the program in its impact as a whole (separated from TES and PCS) but it really sounds like placement score from 6.0; also I wouldn't even know what the criteria for this extremely subjective component should be displayed. Actually, the execution/performance component should serve this purpose but it doesn't look like it's used this way.
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2012
I think the current scoring system favours Hanyu. But if they do the stuff technically in the short then most likely Chan should lead (yes, I know there will be a debate on pcs but if we accept Chan is superior in that area. If they skated in their long program then Hanyu has a 10 to 15 point lead tech. So even if Chan won by say 4 points in the short and pc wise 7 or 8 points in the long it still favours Hanyu slightly or about a tie. I think the sad thing about some of the posturing on this site is that we have to realzie we have two amazing skaters/athletes that both are ogm worthy. Yes, Javier is nice, brown is good, the Chinese have great jumps, the Russians are interesting, Aaron can jump and trying to improve his components, and there re some Japanese men up and coming but like I said not everyone can be special and there will be times when no one is that special ie right now in ice dance. Sadly when you read some of these posts I do not want to say haters but the extreme biases tend to clog or at least fog our judgment. The attempt to make the other skater look bad well that is mean and causes fights and sometimes in the world wars. Some of us will never be persuaded about the relevancy or position on others. But can we not admire the virtuosity of Hanyu technically and how he enters his triple axels or the pure brilliance of Chan's blades caressing the ice? , These two may not be best buds in part because they do not train together but for those who have ever worked with some of the skating shows you will note they get along fine and even joke around. I really wish there were two OGM's for these guys They are mortal but really Fernandez, Ten, Brown, the other Japanese and American men are not in the same league.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
Actually, I do think that the USFSA holds sessions on interviewing skills and handling the media, in their annual August "Champs Camps." (Smile, Gracie, smile!
)To me, it goes both ways. People shouldn't hate on anyone. But at the same time people shouldn't be reviled as "haters" for offering their opinions, and fans should not go lookng for haters hiding behind every bush.
MAXSwag said:
In my opinion, it would help a lot if you did. Social skills -- that sort of thing.
A couple of general remarks on this discussion. Um, how is Brian Joubert being discourteous to Jeff Buttle a while back relevant to whether Patrick Chan should think twice before he speaks about Yuzura Hanyu and Javier Fernandez?
Then there is the question of whether Patrick had a Satanic grin on his face when a rival messed up, or whether he was just smiling for the camera. One of my favorite Michelle Kwan quotes was one time she said that she never watched the other skaters' performances on the monitor backstage, because she didn't want a television camera to catch her going, "Fall! Fall!"
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2015
Actually, I do think that the USFSA holds sessions on interviewing skills and handling the media, in their annual August "Champs Camps." (Smile, Gracie, smile!
To me, it goes both ways. People shouldn't hate on anyone. But at the same time people shouldn't be reviled as "haters" for offering their opinions, and fans should not go lookng for haters hiding behind every bush.
In my opinion, it would help a lot if you did. Social skills -- that sort of thing.
A couple of general remarks on this discussion. Um, how is Brian Joubert being discourteous to Jeff Buttle a while back relevant to whether Patrick Chan should think twice before he speaks about Yuzura Hanyu and Javier Fernandez?
Then there is the question of whether Patrick had a Satanic grin on his face when a rival messed up, or whether he was just smiling for the camera. One of my favorite Michelle Kwan quotes was one time she said that she never watched the other skaters' performances on the monitor backstage, because she didn't want a television camera to catch her going, "Fall! Fall!"
HEHE
thank you!!!!! made my day so far :hap93:- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
Chan was upset to be in a dead heat with two other skaters who were in the second flight and had yet to even skate?!
You're insufferably desperate in your attempts to vilify Chan (I mean, come on, "grinned nastily"?!) and this particular flub you just made proves it.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2014
One of my favorite Michelle Kwan quotes was one time she said that she never watched the other skaters' performances on the monitor backstage, because she didn't want a television camera to catch her going, "Fall! Fall!"
UAHUAH
Thanks for sharing!
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2014
You're mistaken (maybe it's the revisionist history
). I've never said anything negative about Max Aaron. Unless you count my opinion that his components should be 5+ points lower than what he got at SA as "mean"...that's not my problem. Obviously my username doesn't have anything to do with this particular Max but I've never "attacked" him. What difference does it make whether I say "Liza's plague program" or "Liza's bad program"? It doesn't. It's conveying the same thing: that I think the program is bad.And you're still going on about that? Everyone knows he has an eye issue. That has nothing to do with saying he has "dead fish eyes" (especially since I said Yuna and Mao sometimes skate like this too so obviously it's not a "smear"). Even if he didn't have an eye issue I'd still use that description.
Anyway, as I've said before - IN MY OPINION - he's one of the best ever in the sport and his skating is fantastic but nothing about him draws me in or gets me excited. I can appreciate his refinement and skating skills but Yuzu does evoke excitement from me and his emotional commitment to his programs comes across much more than Patrick. His programs are okay, a win is a win, and I give credit where credit is due but I find it very funny that he stated Yuzu (who had a completely different SP for him in Chopin, and this season the most different of any of the top men with Onmyoji) and others aren't doing anything "new" and then he comes out with typical Patrick programs.
They both have equal chances at winning and are almost automatic locks for gold and silver medals in any competition they're in together (frankly, their the only "tier 1" skaters) but if both go absolutely clean, I think Yuzu has the edge with the technical content. Either of them also have equal chances of bombing at any time.
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2008
Oh, that was easy, problem solved!
Was this new weighed factoring already included into your "complete guidelines.."? (I think so but can't quite remember and cannot find the original thread).
I hadn't yet spoke about PCS factoring adjustments in the CoP changes that would help the sport, but the standard has also increased since that time. It's only natural that the PCS will have to increase as the standard of tech difficulty increases, to keep the technical elements and the entire program approximately equal in value.
People are aware of it but I'm not yet sure if there is a ton of urgency for them to change anything yet.
So what you're saying is we shouldn't trust the judges' scores, even though 99% of the time you take their scores as if its they are infallible. GOE can be used to manipulate results too. This argument is nonsensical. Obviously the problem is in the judging itself, not the idea that technical elements should be worth approximately half the score.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
No, your assessment of my argument is nonsensical. I don't say judges' assessments are infallible, and never have. I'm saying that judges choose favourites and have already established a PCS gap of their favourites and the rest of the field. In the past where the best skaters would get 8-8.5 and the second tier would get 7's, the PCS margin wasn't as significant, so even popular skaters still had to be technically strong. Now judges are doling out 9's and 10's while still keeping the rest of the field in the 7's, creating a gap that essentially negates any technical superiority/cleaner skates in second tier skaters and is more forgiving of errors by top skaters.
It's obvious you're suggesting that PCS be worth more because skaters are starting to do harder elements and the scales are tipping in favour of difficulty and clean technical performances, where artistic skaters are no longer the de facto winners. Part of your ongoing "figure skating is dying as an art" lamentation, no doubt.
You're so skeptical of the judges and the legitimacy their scoring, so it's interesting and rather paradoxical that you would give the judges you apparently dislike/trivialize even *more* power (if not for the obvious fact that your PCS scoring changes would be disadvantageous to artistically inferior "technical" skaters, who you seem to apparently dislike/trivialize too).
It's obvious you're suggesting that PCS be worth more because skaters are starting to do harder elements and the scales are tipping in favour of difficulty and clean technical performances, where artistic skaters are no longer the de facto winners. Part of your ongoing "figure skating is dying as an art" lamentation, no doubt.
You're so skeptical of the judges and the legitimacy their scoring, so it's interesting and rather paradoxical that you would give the judges you apparently dislike/trivialize even *more* power (if not for the obvious fact that your PCS scoring changes would be disadvantageous to artistically inferior "technical" skaters, who you seem to apparently dislike/trivialize too).
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
I'm sure if he gets a low SP score, he will somehow again foresee his yet-to-skate competitors getting similar scores as him, leading to another "outburst" of outlandish proportions! :sarcasm:
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2008
You constantly do, or at least you try to use the judges' scores as some kind of concrete reasoning that the outcome of a certain competition was undeniably correct. But, if you never again say "the judges scored xxx skater as such-and-such, so it must be accurate", then sure, I'll believe you.
So what you're saying is the judging needs to be better. Yes, we know that.
Trying to argue PCS should be worth less is like arguing that there should be no Supreme Court because they don't always arrive at the correct decision. Judges in figure skating need to be better, we can't be building the scoring system around poor judging. Plus, as I already said, the judges incorrectly use GOE scores as well (and tech panel calls can be blatantly cheated too). PCS isn't the problem.
Artistic skaters have never been the de facto winners no matter what and I've never said they should be, you can stop it with putting words in my mouth. Artistry, however, is certainly important and needs to be a large part of the sport. The fact is that the sport and the scoring system has ALWAYS been built around an approximate 50/50 split of the technical elements and everything else that goes into skating.
As the technical standard rises, so too does the PCS need to reflect an accurate scoring ceiling to match it in some degree. The importance of the programs and performing and skating doesn't become frozen in time just because people are doing more difficult elements. If CoP existed 40 years ago, when a woman doing 1 Triple jump was considered a huge technical feat, the PCS factoring would have been such that the PCS ceiling probably would have been something like 35 points in the LP. Does that mean 35 PCS should still be the ceiling now in the woman's LP? No, of course not. The PCS ceiling is going to have to increase to evolve with the sport.
We've just seen "PCS adjustment" at Cup of China when Boyang Jin maxed out his TES at 99.6 with 4 quads and 2 3As. The judges capped Jin's PCS at 72.58 (6th highest of the 11 who'd already skated) for a leading score of 171.18+90.05=261.23.
Reigning World Champion Javier Fernandez skated next. He could manage only 3 quads and one 3A with a TES of 86.84 for his lively Guys and Dolls program, so the judges gave Javier a PCS of 91.52, bringing hiis FS score to a winning 177.36+93.19=270.55.
Reigning World Champion Javier Fernandez skated next. He could manage only 3 quads and one 3A with a TES of 86.84 for his lively Guys and Dolls program, so the judges gave Javier a PCS of 91.52, bringing hiis FS score to a winning 177.36+93.19=270.55.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
Your argument that it's "always been 50/50" so we need to increase the value of PCS makes very little sense.
PCS for the short program is perfectly fine -- the tendency is for a skater to get a higher technical score than in the free program which makes sense because the short has always been the "technical program". And in the FS, skaters have usually had higher components scores than TES. Just look at Worlds 2015 where 22/30 men had higher TES than PCS in the SP (30/35 in ladies) and 7 out of 24 men (11/24 ladies) had higher TES than PCS in the FS with the current scaling. That's perfectly fine.
You're basically advocating for an increase in the significance of the artistic mark, in order to negate any technical advancements or advantage skaters have worked towards. Diminishing the overall weighting of points that skaters *earn* for technical ability, and increasing the weighting of subjective artistry points that skaters are *given* by a panel that often exhibits bias.
I'm not arguing PCS should be worth less (though frankly I'd be fine if it were, since it's still used to prop up skaters). I'm arguing that it shouldn't be worth more as it widens an already problematic, bias-based PCS gap. We already agree that judging can be inaccurate and biased, so why would you suggest something that gives even *greater* power to their bias like increasing the value of the marks that are SUBJECTIVE? Such a PCS change certainly wouldn't help average skaters like your fave wunderkid Pitkeev given how far behind his PCS is (and will continue to be with his current programs) from all of those superior/more popular skaters, so it's odd you would suggest to increase the gap.
And I've never said that judges are completely accurate (and indeed, countless times have called out judges for improper scoring). Although I will say that the judges are *immensely* more accurate in their assessment of skaters than you continue to be in your assessment of my posts (heck, even Sotnikova's tech specialist in Sochi was more accurate by comparison).
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
