2016-17 State of Russian Ladies skating | Page 18 | Golden Skate

2016-17 State of Russian Ladies skating

hugo said:
I found something perhaps interesting. Detailed analysis of each SP and LP of top 6 female skaters in last WC. Jump height, prerotations, underrotations, step sequences...
Because this is in russian, so:
высота = height
преротейшн = prerotation
недокрут = underrotation
в воздухе = in air
http://forum.fsonline.ru/index.php?/topic/2393-разборы-программ-женский-турнир-на-чм-2016/

Generally, it confirms that the most powerful jumps has Gracie and Pogo, and the smallest Satoko, of course
Click to expand...

What method do they use to determine the height of the jumps?

A lot of they calls and scores they make are really dumb. They tried to call Miyahara's step sequence as only Level 3 with +1 GOE. The hell? Then they note how her 3Toe has just about 2 rotations in the air, yet they don't give it an underrotation call, and at the same time they try to call Wagner's 3Toe as 3/8 short when it is only 1/4 short. I'm a big critic of Miyahara's jumps, but trying to give her 3F a -3 GOE is ridiculous.

They also try to knock off the "8 rotations" feature from many of the spins, when those spins all had them. Very perplexing. The +3's they assign to a couple of the Russian's spins as well, just no.
 
Real truth I came to terms with today: I love Evgenia and Yulia (desperately want to see a more consistent and happy Yulia this season!), and Elena has so much charm even when her programs are garbage. I love these Russian ladies. But I'm rooting for Anna Pogo to be the number one lady. And honestly? This could be her year to do it, IF Evgenia has growth-related struggles. The only promising new senior is Sotskova, and she seems unlikely to surpass the current top Russian ladies. Evgenia has the puberty monster to potentially face, we're not sure what to expect in program quality from Elena, and Liza/Adelina/Yulia are all underdogs. It's Anna's time to shine.

If Anna wants to make a statement before Olympic decision time, I think this is her best opportunity given the depth of her competition (and in 2017-2018 new seniors will be more formidable.)

My dream Olympics team is Evgenia/Yulia/Adelina, but since I think it might be unrealistic to expect Adelina to be good enough to make the Russian team, I'll take Anna for my third spot.
 
Blades of Passion said:
What method do they use to determine the height of the jumps?
Click to expand...
They measured time in the air (by counting frames).

Blades of Passion said:
A lot of they calls and scores they make are really dumb. They tried to call Miyahara's step sequence as only Level 3 with +1 GOE. The hell? Then they note how her 3Toe has just about 2 rotations in the air, yet they don't give it an underrotation call, and at the same time they try to call Wagner's 3Toe as 3/8 short when it is only 1/4 short.
Click to expand...
For each element they list corresponding numbers for rules they used for GOE increase and deduction. Which number corresponds to which rule is expanded under second spoiler on top of the page. For example that 3Toe did get deduction for lack of rotation (16) rather than underrotation (15). I don't necessarily completely agree with this review, but most of their rulings are explained in detail, though obviously you need to read Russian to make sense of those explanations.

Blades of Passion said:
I'm a big critic of Miyahara's jumps, but trying to give her 3F a -3 GOE is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Points [3,12,15,17] for GOE reduction: flat edge, underrotated, poor height, long gap between jump and preceding steps. If those calls are right (and there is a demonstration gif) then -3 is adequate.
 
Last edited:
hugo said:
I found something perhaps interesting. Detailed analysis of each SP and LP of top 6 female skaters in last WC. Jump height, prerotations, underrotations, step sequences...
Because this is in russian, so:
высота = height
преротейшн = prerotation
недокрут = underrotation
в воздухе = in air
http://forum.fsonline.ru/index.php?/topic/2393-разборы-программ-женский-турнир-на-чм-2016/

Generally, it confirms that the most powerfull jumps has Gracie and Pogo, and the smallest Satoko, of course
Click to expand...

Interesting read! Thx! Sounds solid.
 
Pracygr said:
Points [3,12,15,17] for GOE reduction: flat edge, underrotated, poor height, long gap between jump and preceding steps. If those calls are right (and there is a demonstration gif) then -3 is adequate.
Click to expand...

The jump being underrotated is already accounted for with the underrotation call and there wasn't a "long" gap there with the preceding steps. The jump was cleanly landed with flow out, which they need to account for on the positive aspect side of the jump. You can't give a cleanly landed jump -3 GOE, otherwise how are you supposed to score the exact same jump when it is poorly landed? The one exception is with the solo Triple of the Short Program if it has no preceding footwork at all, but that's also a flaw in the scoring system - the "required preceding footwork" deduction for the solo jump in the Short Program should be a deduction on the base value of the jump. GOE scores should be only about the quality of the element itself.
 
Blades of Passion said:
The jump being underrotated is already accounted for with the underrotation call and there wasn't a "long" gap there with the preceding steps. The jump was cleanly landed with flow out, which they need to account for on the positive aspect side of the jump.
Click to expand...
You going to need to argue that with the author of this review. I don't know his baselines and would need to go through and compare all similar cases and I'm not doing that. However even without that last point underrotation, unclear edge, and poor height can net you up to -6 GOE.

Blades of Passion said:
You can't give a cleanly landed jump -3 GOE, otherwise how are you supposed to score the exact same jump when it is poorly landed?
Click to expand...
Actually yes you can and under current scoring system you also should. Mistakes on landing have no priority over any other mistake associated with a jump. You simply add up all reductions and if total reaches -3 or lower you give that element -3. That's how it supposed to work, and it's probably one of the reasons GOE range is going to be extended next Olympic cycle - so you can account for more mistakes without overloading the scoring scale.
 
Giving a -3 to a cleanly landed jump, aside from a solo triple in the SP with no required preceding movement, is simply bad judging (and again it shows a flaw in the scoring system that a cleanly landed jump can get max deduction and the exact same jump being poorly landed would score the same). You do not "simply add up all reductions". That's not how judging works; the rules being quoted are guidelines and the positive aspects of the jump must be taken into consideration as well. She had flow out, it wasn't just landed at a total standstill. It annoys me that people can misuse the system like this and then propagate bad information.
 
Blades of Passion said:
Giving a -3 to a cleanly landed jump, aside from a solo triple in the SP with no required preceding movement, is simply bad judging (and again it shows a flaw in the scoring system that a cleanly landed jump can get max deduction and the exact same jump being poorly landed would score the same). You do not "simply add up all reductions". That's not how judging works; the rules being quoted are guidelines and the positive aspects of the jump must be taken into consideration as well. She had flow out, it wasn't just landed at a total standstill. It annoys me that people can misuse the system like this and then propagate bad information.
Click to expand...
So the system is bad and actually following it is "bad judging"? And the good judging is, I presume, to follow an arbitrary and unpublished set of conditions that is more to somebody's liking? Yes she had good flow out. For every 2 positive aspects you get +1 GOE. If there's only one positive aspect you get nothing. Also as I mentioned there is plenty of potential in the negatives to overcome any positives.

But if it annoys you so much that ISU guidelines are being "propagated" here then perhaps you can share better sources of information that overrule them? Something that looks more like a document and less like an opinion? I'd very much want to have a look at them.
 
Pracygr said:
For every 2 positive aspects you get +1 GOE. If there's only one positive aspect you get nothing.
Click to expand...

The positive is still taken into consideration.

Pracygr said:
But if it annoys you so much that ISU guidelines are being "propagated" here then perhaps you can share better sources of information that overrule them? Something that looks more like a document and less like an opinion?
Click to expand...

The rules of the scoring system are continually changing exactly because of how they are deemed to not most accurately serve the skating and the judging. There are also aspects of skating that are known only through experience and knowledge and will never be accounted for exactly on paper in binary form.

The guidelines are guidelines. A reference point to take into consideration in order to reach the most accurate judging conclusion. The annoyance isn't so much about how the guidelines are being propagated, although they are flawed, it's rather how a misusage of them is being propagated.

As you wrote about how "for every 2 positive aspects you get +1 GOE", it's similar with negative GOE. There are small gradients to take into consideration and it can be said that "for every 2 negative aspects you get -1 GOE". The rules as currently written just list -GOE deductions as larger gradients, hence how they are guidelines.
 
Blades of Passion said:
The positive is still taken into consideration.
Click to expand...
Yes, although not every consideration will affect the end result.

Blades of Passion said:
The rules of the scoring system are continually changing exactly because of how they are deemed to not most accurately serve the skating and the judging. There are also aspects of skating that are known only through experience and knowledge and will never be accounted for exactly on paper in binary form.

The guidelines are guidelines. A reference point to take into consideration in order to reach the most accurate judging conclusion. The annoyance isn't so much about how the guidelines are being propagated, although they are flawed, it's rather how a misusage of them is being propagated.

As you wrote about how "for every 2 positive aspects you get +1 GOE", it's similar with negative GOE. There are small gradients to take into consideration and it can be said that "for every 2 negative aspects you get -1 GOE". The rules as currently written just list -GOE deductions as larger gradients, hence how they are guidelines.
Click to expand...
Of course guidelines isn't everything there is to judging. That's the very reason I refused to argue about whether the gap between steps and jump in Miyahara's program was too long. I don't have the baseline for "too long". Just as I have no baseline for "too low", "too slow", and a whole lot of other relative terms used in the guidelines. This is what judges go to seminars and trainings for - to make sure they're on the same page about those things. And this is why I'm generally skeptical of most user made scorings, be it the one we discussing right now, or some other "Your" scoring of the..." type of thread.

This however doesn't mean that ISU guidelines, the document every line of which is being meticulously scrutinized during every ISU congress just to change a couple of lines and formulations, the text full of very specific instructions, is just there for fun. Nor does it mean that ISU documents can be amended or reinterpreted to whichever judge's desire for "more accurate" judging.

And forgive me this, maybe it's strange, but I trust text of an official ISU document over a vaguely worded opinion I read on an Internet forum. Any opinion, however, can be given more weight for as long as there is good reliable source to support it.
 
Last edited:
Finally, the distribution of juniors among JGP stages makes sense:

France: Tarusina (1), Zagitova (1)
Czech: Gubanova (1), Lozko (1)
Japan: Samodurova (1), Fedichkina (1)
Russia: Lozko (2), Konstantinova (1), Nugumanova (1)
Slovenia: Zagitova (2), Tsurskaya (1)

What does it say? First of all, all big old and new names are present during the first 5 stages. The line-up is much more impressive than during the last season. 7! new names and all of them are known and all of them but Zagitova have their fan pages here already!

Despite Zagitova is an outlier who does not have a fan fest page yet, she and Lozko are the only two who have 2 competitions already. Dudakov says Zagitova is a big talent. I guess, she showed good promise during test skates.

The question is who will get the remaining 4 spots? Fedichkina and Tsurskaya are big question marks. If Tsurskaya recovers the question will be what is more important - to get competitive practice or to keep her safe. For her the key is to get the world title which she was supposed to get last season. Fedichkina is not bullet proof against competition, I think. If she scores less than the newcomers she might not get the second spot. Anyway, there are 7 strong skaters for just 4 second spots in Tallinn and Dresden.

Russian Fed is much smarter this year. If Lozko fails in Ostrava and someone among Tarusina, Gubanova, Samodurova or Fedichkina shines she can replace her for the second spot in Saransk. Then there are only 6 skaters for the last 4 spots. The same is true for Ljubljana and Zagitova: they put everyone as substitutes there as well.

Of course, I wish that Alisa Lozko wins her both stages and the final - I admire her!

I don't know how it will end up. But at the first sight this is the most impressive line-up of juniors that Russia ever had.
 
[email protected] said:
I don't know how it will end up. But at the first sight this is the most impressive line-up of juniors that Russia ever had.
Click to expand...

Man, this is such a bonkers statement - don't get me wrong, I trust you're right, but Russia has had really strong teams all those last seasons. An even stronger team is such a crazy thought!
There are a lot of new names for me, I'm excited to see how they'll do. Good luck to all the new Russian baby ballerinas! :cheer:
 
^^^^

I do believe this year is different. Look at the results of the last Russian junior championship. In bold are this season newcomers. If there was not a disaster skating by Gubanova they would have occupied all 7 places after 3 leaders (2 of whom are still there). It also means that the previous seasons' second tier: Kayumova, Yuschenko, Mikhaylova, Mitrofanova, Pervushkina, and Mukhortova seem to be gone. Pity, especially Pervushkina, Mitrofanova, and Mukhortova showed sometimes good promise but looks like this year stars are much brighter.

1 Tsurskaya
2 Sotskova
3 Fedichkina
4 Nugumanova
5 Lozko
6 Samodurova
7 Tarusina
8 Konstantinova
9 Zagitova
10 Mitrofanova
11 Mukhortova
12 Gubanova
 
Last edited:
Last year Russian junior champs in Tchelabinsk had some weird outcomes though. There were spots at next year's JGP at stake, perfect organization, fantastic youtube stream, exclusive prizes, overall glamour and big attention. I bet many of those kids have never skated in front of so many viewers in such exquisite environment and simply got a bit spooked. Plus some of the skaters complained about high temperature inside the rink. In the the result, there were many falls and tears in K&C, especially in SP. Only the most seasoned managed to cope with their nerves.

I feel this year, with all the experience from last year and after international voyages, all the babies are gonna put on much better show in Sankt Petersburg. It's gonna be fantastic! :)
 
Last edited:
Blades of Passion said:
You can't give a cleanly landed jump -3 GOE, otherwise how are you supposed to score the exact same jump when it is poorly landed? The one exception is with the solo Triple of the Short Program if it has no preceding footwork at all, but that's also a flaw in the scoring system - the "required preceding footwork" deduction for the solo jump in the Short Program should be a deduction on the base value of the jump. GOE scores should be only about the quality of the element itself.
Click to expand...

But if GOE is Grade of Execution and the element is "solo jump with required preceding footwork", then the preceding footwork is part of the jump's execution, and thus should be part of the grade it is given - and of course, omitting it should be accordingly deducted.

I'm actually less of a fan of deducting the base value of the jump - like calling an "e" or an !, that points swing puts too much power in the hands of the technical specialist.
 
I would assume that Zagitova's 2nd spot is pending her placement in the first assignment. All the girls are listed as subs and can replace her if they finish higher...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Mathman
Is GOAT a meaningful concept?
5 6 7
Replies
124
Views
6K
4everchan
4everchan
AlexBreeze
2027 Russian Nationals: General Info & Pre-game Chat
Replies
1
Views
413
lariko
lariko
tsuyoboogie
2026 Aqua Cup | Jul 17 - 18
4 5 6
Replies
102
Views
7K
hermine17
hermine17
gsk8
News Minkyu Seo focused on growth ahead of senior debut
Replies
2
Views
778
ladyjane
ladyjane
tsuyoboogie
2026 Sainichi Holdings Cup Spring Figure Skating Competition | May 02~04
4 5 6
Replies
103
Views
5K
hermine17
hermine17
Back
Top