The Underrotated Jumps of Evgenia Medvedeva

[jenaj]

It's an interesting question whether Medvedeva would still win under 6.0. If she is against the current field, probably. I think her closest competition would be from Satoko and Mao. Those two skaters could beat her on the second mark. Mao would probably not be severely penalized (if at all) for her jump errors and if she did the triple axel with no falls or pops, she would probably place first. But she usually makes at least one mistake and her triple axel is iffy. Satoko does only 2 3-3s--one in the long (sometimes none) and one in the short--and Med does 3 overall. I think Med would easily get all 5.9s (maybe even some 6.0's) on the technical mark. It would all come down to the placements on the second mark. (ETA: Med would also have to add a spiral sequence in the short program and comply with the other required elements and place top three, which I assume she could do).

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

It's an interesting question whether Medvedeva would still win under 6.0. If she is against the current field, probably. I think her closest competition would be from Satoko and Mao. Those two skaters could beat her on the second mark. Mao would probably not be severely penalized (if at all) for her jump errors and if she did the triple axel with no falls or pops, she would probably place first. But she usually makes at least one mistake and her triple axel is iffy. Satoko does only 2 3-3s--one in the long (sometimes none) and one in the short--and Med does 3 overall. I think Med would easily get all 5.9s (maybe even some 6.0's) on the technical mark. It would all come down to the placements on the second mark.

Under 6.0, Medvedeva would be "Goebeled" so to speak. Even if she is exceedingly strong technically, you know that she'll be given a 5.9 for technical, and lowballed like 5.6/5.7 for artistry and then somebody putatively more artistic like Wagner or Mao even with URs/tech errors would be placed ahead of her with a 5.7/5.9. So, in the SP Medvedeva would have the advantage but obviously the FS is worth more, so overall she would be at a disadvantage.

Satoko would probably fare moderately well because under 6.0 her pre/under-rotations wouldn't face scrutiny, and artistically she's solid enough.

Under 6.0, the marks were often very arbitrary and you'd see favourites get 5.8/5.9 for technical even with a fall or doubled jump. Judges would "save" their favourites with higher artistic impression scores and hold back skaters who were strong technically but were seen as second-tier/new on the scene/juniorish, etc.

If a skater like Kwan hypothetically executed Medvedeva's/Satoko's jumps exactly the same way, same height, same execution, same transitions, she'd be given higher technical scores.

That's what I love about the system - it evens the playing field. The only way a judge can prop up skaters is PCS scores, which is obvious... but in 6.0, a judge would face wayyy less scrutiny for an abnormally high score than they would under IJS. I mean, how many times have you heard commentators talking about 6.0 scores being too high (compared to them pointing out when judges lowball a skater)... even in the SP they get away with not applying deductions.

 

[drivingmissdaisy]

Not just Mirai/Murakami/etc. Even skaters who aren't prone to underrotations would have to have their takeoffs and landings all scrutinized. #LongestKissAndCryWaitsEVER

Really, every skater should skate, and the judges provide their PCS, and then we'll have the tech panel spend the next 2 hours scrutinizing landings, the judging panel reconvenes to apply their grade of execution on each jumping panel now that they know what is and isn't pre/under-rotation, and 3 hours after the competition scores will be released to the general public, along with accompanying screenshots of each takeoff/landing, and this will ENSURE the system works.

That's totally feasible and amenable to audience enjoyment of the event, right?

And still, there would be many controversial calls. Sometimes I almost prefer the simplicity of 6.0 because it doesn't try to be overly precise about things that are subjective. These days, people interpret missed calls as bona fide evidence of cheating when so many of the rotation calls are really close.

 

[Blades of Passion]

It wouldn't take much longer for tech panels to look at pre-rotation more thoroughly. In fact, it shouldn't take them any longer at all. They already look at jump entrances and then at jumps as they are landing. Just do it all at the same time, paying attention for a few seconds longer on the entrance to where the skate is really leaving the ice. Moreover, since there is no actual specific standard, tech panels just fumble around and try to come up with a call that they feel is right. If there was a SPECIFIC method of measurement in place, then they would be able to follow it and look closely at the jump and come to a very clear and understandable conclusion.

That's what I love about the system - it evens the playing field. The only way a judge can prop up skaters is PCS scores, which is obvious... but in 6.0, a judge would face wayyy less scrutiny for an abnormally high score than they would under IJS.

PCS is not the only way judges can prop skaters up. There are the GOE too. You're incorrect about 6.0 judges not facing scrutiny for their scores. Abnormally high/low scores were always commented upon and here for example a judge was suspended for giving out a very high score to a bad performance and trying to hold up the skater from their country.

The issues of the 6.0 system were simply never dealt with very well (bad judges being allowed to continue, for starters), which led to it all collapsing. Bad judging hasn't been fixed by the new system and it's arguably been worse than ever, even though the system itself is potentially better, because there hasn't been much quality control with regards to the actual performances. We've constantly seen disastrous performances scoring high because of the system and the assignment of GOE/PCS, and good performances (even great performances!) scoring low for the same reason, in addition to nonsensical calls being made.

But why ignore everyone else? Judges didn't make mistakes with anyone else?

Nobody else is being ignored. Perhaps you've missed the thousands of posts I've made over the years about the calls and technical issues for skaters from all different countries. I've talked in detail about wrong calls for others at Skate Canada, in this thread even. This thread was made for Medvedeva because she is currently the only top Senior competitor with a significantly wrong technique issue who is being left off the hook by the judges. In talking about the problems on her jumps, the conversation can naturally extend to other examples. Yet, you've offered nothing of value to the thread. No counter-points, no analysis. Just baseless accusations about people having an agenda against Russians.

You are the only person I've ever seen to advocate: [blah blah blah] [you did not once in your history of previous posts ever advocate for rotation to be assessed this way]

Keep telling yourself that. You've been told countless times to stop, including by mods, and yet you still keep doing it. I wonder when you will stop. I've talked about the pre-rotation issue since 2007 and have advocated for it to be called exactly in this way (punishing excess pre-rotation and taking into account jumps with little pre-rotation) ever since then. Don't sit there and try to make it sound like this is something new and that all of my hard work and learned expertise over the years is something that I personally invented to attack Russian skaters.

Furthermore, you don't know any specialists or have any skating experience, so "what you have seen" with regards to analysis of this issue is actually of almost no value for readers who would like to form a knowledgeable, objective basis. The same goes for the step sequences at the Olympics, which were certainly called wrong. Instead of ignoring reality and wasting all of our time, you should personally take it upon yourself to try and interview tech specialists and have them cross-check the work I did. Then come back to us and let us know the results of your investigation.

 

[Meoima]

This thread was made for Medvedeva because she is currently the only top Senior competitor with a significantly wrong technique issue who is being left off the hook by the judges.

Are you sure she is the only one?

 

[Blades of Passion]

At the moment I'd say so, yes? Ashley and Satako are getting called by the panels. Gracie and Pogorilaya are getting the "!" calls on their Flips (Pogorilaya got an "e" at Finlandia, in fact). Medvedeva finally got a "!" on her Lutz too. Now her toeloops (and PCS) just need to be judged fairly.

 

[jenaj]

Under 6.0, Medvedeva would be "Goebeled" so to speak. Even if she is exceedingly strong technically, you know that she'll be given a 5.9 for technical, and lowballed like 5.6/5.7 for artistry and then somebody putatively more artistic like Wagner or Mao even with URs/tech errors would be placed ahead of her with a 5.7/5.9. So, in the SP Medvedeva would have the advantage but obviously the FS is worth more, so overall she would be at a disadvantage.

Satoko would probably fare moderately well because under 6.0 her pre/under-rotations wouldn't face scrutiny, and artistically she's solid enough.

Under 6.0, the marks were often very arbitrary and you'd see favourites get 5.8/5.9 for technical even with a fall or doubled jump. Judges would "save" their favourites with higher artistic impression scores and hold back skaters who were strong technically but were seen as second-tier/new on the scene/juniorish, etc.

If a skater like Kwan hypothetically executed Medvedeva's/Satoko's jumps exactly the same way, same height, same execution, same transitions, she'd be given higher technical scores.

That's what I love about the system - it evens the playing field. The only way a judge can prop up skaters is PCS scores, which is obvious... but in 6.0, a judge would face wayyy less scrutiny for an abnormally high score than they would under IJS. I mean, how many times have you heard commentators talking about 6.0 scores being too high (compared to them pointing out when judges lowball a skater)... even in the SP they get away with not applying deductions.

If Irina could get second marks of 5.8 and 5.9, so could Med. And as the number one Russian lady, I think she would.

 

[Blades of Passion]

Medvedeva would be skating entirely different if it was 6.0, so that's a whole other thing. She would be doing long, extended spirals and flowing footwork and graceful spins, and her jumps wouldn't have as many transitions into them and instead would have more speed and pop. The way she skates now is like a laboratory formula designed to maximize the current rules on paper. Smaller jumps that she twists her body into = easier to do a tano on them = easier to land = easier to do transitions in and out. Lots of transitions with shallower edges = more to point at as an example of skating skills, quantity over quality.

 

[Alexz]

Medvedeva would be skating entirely different if it was 6.0, so that's a whole other thing. She would be doing long, extended spirals and flowing footwork and graceful spins, and her jumps wouldn't have as many transitions into them and instead would have more speed and pop. The way she skates now is like a laboratory formula designed to maximize the current rules on paper. Smaller jumps that she twists her body into = easier to do a tano on them = easier to land = easier to do transitions in and out. Lots of transitions with shallower edges = more to point at as an example of skating skills, quantity over quality.

Quick question. Judges seem to like her way, so it seems the path ISU and judges want to take figure skating to. So what is stopping other skaters to do the same type/style routines? Just asking.

 

[whatif]

LMFAO, BoP is now Slutskaya fan???? She was the epitome of evil according to his endless bashing posts back in the day. History revision, if I ever seen one.

 

[Blades of Passion]

"whatif", you seem to have a serious problem. Not only with reading comprehension (I've never called Slutskaya evil and when in this thread did I appear to be a "fan"? Her skating was often problematic in many areas, I've always maintained that) and personal attacks based on fabrication, but also using an alt account to constantly up-vote your posts.

Quick question. Judges seem to like her way, so it seems the path ISU and judges want to take figure skating to. So what is stopping other skaters to do the same type/style routines? Just asking.

Well other skaters are doing this for the most part. Medvedeva has just been the most consistent (and she still skates "bigger" than Miyahara) to date and there is a snowball effect in the judging where as soon as someone becomes a favorite, their scores go up and stay there as long as they remain consistent. And of course any set of rules benefits a certain group of people more than another. Her body type and natural tendencies are ideal for the current state of affairs.

Although when it comes to jump technique there are different schools of thought. Even if the current rules reward these kinds of jumps, there is a sense of "honor" that the Canadian school, and others, have about how jumps should be. While it may not give them easy victories now, the rules can always be advocated to be changed and skaters who are doing it "the right way" will always have that strong basis in their skating. The opposing school of teaching gives their skaters more spindly jumps that satisfy the current state of judging and are all about "getting the job done" instead of doing something spectacular or ideal.

 

[sc8]

She's cheating, and the anonymous judging panels are biased AF.

I'm so proud of Ashley Wagner for being outspoken on the anonymous judging. More skaters should join her, in my opinion, and then the skater representative(s) and member nations of the ISU (esp. US, China, Japan, Russia, Canada, France - the Grand Prix host nations), should call for the change to open the transparency of judging and show, hopefully, that there is no bias among the judges. It is important to the integrity of the sport after the many judging controversies even since the Marie-Reine Le Gougne and French Federation scandal about B-S vs S-P that caused the new system . Unfortunately, instead of keeping exposure of judges' scores, which allowed for identifying potential cahoots, ISU decided to have anonymous judging. It is so perplexing and troubling.

But, in cases like Medvedeva's under-rotation, I'm more at ease with the technical caller and the judges' scores when they are all in Unison like they were with her. If she got all but one +GOE, the large majority of judges saw it favorably, meaning the majority of US, Canada, and Japan judges also found it favorable. It becomes more problematic when the panel is clearly spilt (suggesting block judging) or when one or two judges is way outside the standard deviation of other scores (suggesting orchestrated support or slamming) for skaters specifically or from particular nations.

 

[drivingmissdaisy]

Furthermore, you don't know any specialists or have any skating experience, so "what you have seen" with regards to analysis of this issue is actually of almost no value for readers who would like to form a knowledgeable, objective basis. The same goes for the step sequences at the Olympics, which were certainly called wrong. Instead of ignoring reality and wasting all of our time, you should personally take it upon yourself to try and interview tech specialists and have them cross-check the work I did. Then come back to us and let us know the results of your investigation.

I'm going with the panel of experts. They judged the footwork. That's hardly "ignoring reality." Yuna's own choreographer asserted her lutz was under rotated. You countered that he is basically an idiot who knows nothing about jump mechanics. If you're the one saying these calls were wrong, why don't you cite experts other than yourself? Why don't you cite an expert who agrees that the rule stipulates that rotation should be measured from take-off to landing, without regard to where the jump takes off or lands? It's not a personal knock against you, I just feel like you have the burden of proof here for your wild theories when you accuse these panels of such egregious incompetence. Are there blogs or YouTube videos from actual experts who back-up anything you say? Everyone blogs and makes videos these days. Many of us are here to learn more but you tend to bully your beliefs on everyone with really no unbiased expert opinions to back you up.

 

[Blades of Passion]

Anonymous judging is partially gone now, sc8 (you can check the scoring protocols), although we still don't see their scores at the actual competition and we really should. Also still can't see how each member of the technical panel called the elements, transparency there is equally as important, and I do think we will need to fight for that now.

I'm going with the panel of experts. They judged the footwork.

Ah, yes, the age-old "because it's written on a piece of paper it must be true" argument. Yeah, they judged the footwork...and judged it wrong. Of course none of them are going to publicly admit to it, though, and of course the ISU didn't want to put it in the spotlight (nor do other people involved in ISU competitions like to publicly get involved in such matters). However, you should note that Lakernik did take the criticism to heart and another person on that technical panel is now a friend of mine. But by all means, keep looking at what is on paper only and think it is correct.

When the evidence was presented 2+ years ago, you argued incorrectly about what the rules actually were. It has been made abundantly clear why you were wrong, why do you keep tying yourself to that sunken ship? Not to mention you even now admit that, yes, Sotnikova did indeed flutz and underrotate. You can't have it both ways. You yourself now admit that wrong calls were made. You just choose to ignore the step sequence issues because it would potentially flip the result of the competition, something that would contradict your initial feeling and thus make you feel embarrassed, I suppose.

 

[Alexz]

Well other skaters are doing this for the most part. Medvedeva has just been the most consistent (and she still skates "bigger" than Miyahara) to date and there is a snowball effect in the judging where as soon as someone becomes a favorite, their scores go up and stay there as long as they remain consistent. And of course any set of rules benefits a certain group of people more than another. Her body type and natural tendencies are ideal for the current state of affairs.

Although when it comes to jump technique there are different schools of thought. Even if the current rules reward these kinds of jumps, there is a sense of "honor" that the Canadian school, and others, have about how jumps should be. While it may not give them easy victories now, the rules can always be advocated to be changed and skaters who are doing it "the right way" will always have that strong basis in their skating. The opposing school of teaching gives their skaters more spindly jumps that satisfy the current state of judging and are all about "getting the job done" instead of doing something spectacular or ideal.

Ok, just for giggles let's assume Med's technique is not "honorable" and "not proper". Because according to you (as I understand so far) there is only one "the right way". And the rules and judges are wrong? So... We need to fire all FIS?

What do you propose? We fire all "dishonorable" judges which per you point of view are "judging it wrong"? Until we find those whom you approve and who will stick to the only holy rules (although I might say: "imaginable rules", which exist only in your fantasy world). We raise the stink, we sign another petition until... what? Until you are happy with that self-proclaimed (by you) "honor" of Canadian school and others as you said and how you see jumps should be. What do we do? I simply want to understand.
We start yet another thread (like many other countless threads like this) where you can b!tch and moan yet some more?... Oh, wait...

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

Ah, yes, the age-old "because it's written on a piece of paper it must be true" argument. Yeah, they judged the footwork...and judged it wrong. Of course none of them are going to publicly admit to it, though, and of course the ISU didn't want to put it in the spotlight (nor do other people involved in ISU competitions like to publicly get involved in such matters). However, you should note that Lakernik did take the criticism to heart and another person on that technical panel is now a friend of mine. But by all means, keep looking at what is on paper only and think it is correct.

Ah, yes, the age-old "because somebody agreed with me (and now I'm friends with someone who was on a tech panel, y'all!), it must be true".

 

[Blades of Passion]

What do you propose?

What I've been proposing for years now - there needs to be clear, definite rules about measuring the entire rotation of jumps and the GOE guidelines need to be changed to give more importance to the amplitude of jumps and completing the rotations in the air. And of course continuing to educate judges better.

 

[Alexz]

What I've been proposing for years now - there needs to be clear, definite rules about measuring the entire rotation of jumps and the GOE guidelines need to be changed to give more importance to the amplitude of jumps and completing the rotations in the air. And of course continuing to educate judges better.

Seems like you are in minority. It's you and your imaginary world with rules created by you against the whole world. I'm sorry, but no.

 

[drivingmissdaisy]

When the evidence was presented 2+ years ago, you argued incorrectly about what the rules actually were. It has been made abundantly clear why you were wrong, why do you keep tying yourself to that sunken ship? Not to mention you even now admit that, yes, Sotnikova did indeed flutz and underrotate. You can't have it both ways. You yourself now admit that wrong calls were made. You just choose to ignore the step sequence issues because it would potentially flip the result of the competition, something that would contradict your initial feeling and thus make you feel embarrassed, I suppose.

You asserted yourself as the sole expert on the footwork analysis. Another poster, gkelly, disagreed with you and said the footwork was judged correctly. So we have the panel and another knowledgable poster who agreed with the levels awarded and you who disagreed alone. You mention talking to experts who agree with every thing you say but never post any links that would be helpful to read. You are free disagree but it is very strange that you take this so personally. Nothing about a figure skating result being right or wrong would make me feel "embarrassed."

 

[Blades of Passion]

Seems like you are in minority.

We would have to poll the entire skating community to find out, I suppose. I highly doubt I'm in the minority with regards to this issue, seeing as how pretty much everyone agrees that Tuktamysheva has excellent jumps, for example, and this is the good technique I am talking about. In any case, I will keep fighting for what I believe is right, because that's how you make change happen in the world. I have more experience in this area and have put more thought in this problem than almost anyone out there, so of course I'm going to trust in my own well-informed opinion, the same as any other time I've fought for flaws in the system to be changed.

There just aren't good ISU rules in place right now with regards to measuring and scoring jumps. It's easier to go along with what is in front of you instead of questioning and crafting the exact the details of why and how something needs to be changed. The scoring system is a patchwork headache for people and there needs to be a shared understanding of why something is wrong for something to change. More and more people should look at and compare jumps for themselves, see what the difference is, and come to the conclusion on their own that there is definitely a significant problem in the judging system. If I can provide information and viewpoint, then great. That helps the process.

You asserted yourself as the sole expert on the footwork analysis. Another poster, gkelly, disagreed with you and said the footwork was judged correctly.

I didn't assert myself as the sole expert, there are others out there who are capable of doing the same, of course. Although it's not something that anyone ever did online before. I simply chose to publicly post about it, here, because it was important to me and important to the sport of skating itself and this is the website I have chosen to be involved with when it comes to public skating discussions. Hardly anyone wants to put the effort into these things, though. It is boring.

And as I already said, virtually nobody involved with the ISU wants to come forward and openly call someone out or admit to doing a bad job. But, plenty of people in the community HAVE looked at the footwork and come to the same conclusion, you can even see the change in how competitors have approached the footwork sequences since then and the rule adjustments (which is not to say that the current rules are good enough yet). As for gkelly, they mis-identified the footwork based upon video footage they recorded on TV and then later said they did see it wrong when looking at more clear footage that was given to them.

[the usual contrarian retort]

Think for a moment why a person would want to be friends with someone who openly called their work out as being faulty (or at least potentially did, since they were on the technical panel). It's not hard to see the implication: they find merit in the opinion, whether it be from personal realization that something went wrong or because they already disagreed with the actions of the other 2 people on the panel to begin with.