What's the point?
Plushenko started to complain after what happened at the Olympics, D/R are complaining because they want to win even with mistakes?
Duhamel, Radford frustrated by system
- Thread starter Taan
- Start date
What's the point?
Plushenko started to complain after what happened at the Olympics, D/R are complaining because they want to win even with mistakes?
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2014
D/R aren't complaining about winning or not winning (which you would realize if you read the quote in question), they are advocating for technical difficulty to count for more points in order for the sport to progress athletically, which is exactly what Plushenko wanted (in order for him to have won, but also for the sake of the forward progression of the sport.)
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2015
- Country
-
It's strange what they are saying because on the one hand i do agree with them that some elements should be rewarded more, but that's an old issue: i mean how many times we've seen an Olympic champion with a program actually way easier than some other programs from the contenders?
On the other hand when they're saying
I've to disagree, first because it's not true that in today's figure skating artistry counts more than the technique, they are confusing artistry with quality in my opinion: sometimes you don't have to have the most difficult programs when you can rely on the quality of your elements.
Second, it's like they are hoping ISU ditches the second mark: figure skating would be really boring without the artistry (that doesn't mean you can win with an high second mark, but it should be important anyway)
That second part is not "pushing the sport forward", it's more adjusting the scoring system on their tastes. (because we all know their weakness is the artistry)
Also Plushenko had never touched that topic back in 2010.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2015
- Country
-
as I said, I have less of an issue within the same level (triple) but of a different type of jump... but it still gives the judges a lot of room to mess up with the system... if 3Ts with a sloppy tano become +5 and outscore really hard 3Lz.. I am not sure I will be happy.. Because the bullets are problematic... a bullet item can be there but not be of great quality.... I don't need to elaborate here as I already have mentioned one example.
I am afraid especially of a throw triple +5 overscoring a throw quad with neutral GOE... that shouldn't happen.
I think what makes the sport exciting is that there are more than one style right now. We can see the classical beautiful lines some pairs opt to focus on, some focus on technical difficulty, some focus on power in throws and lifts... any of these styles can win it... but it may not be the case if BV is not addressed and new GOE is installed...
Pairs could become the most boring event ever... and well, I am just starting to love it again after 10 years of being bored with it...
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2014
I think you'll have to wait to see how it shakes out before getting too afraid. And also remember that oftentimes higher GOE = higher difficulty.
Also, I think ALL top pairs are really bringing it in regards to technical difficulty. Quad twists, quad throws, triple-triples, 3A throws. D/R aren't the only ones, though they are the ones who have doubled down on it the most.
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2015
- Country
-
so if all top pairs are bringing it on, why so much vitriol directed at D/R? I am confused...
Regarding being afraid about the new rules... sure... I am going to wait and see how it pans out.
Because other pairs just bring it on silently, and do not advocate for "give more points for what we do best so what we do is better rewarded because other folks can score as much as us".
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2015
- Country
-
that's not really accurate
there are people who are more outspoken than others.... true but it's not the first time i see athletes talk openly about the system... also, IMHO, it's of great value when athletes discuss their sport. I don't see it as whining... I don't see it as "having their own agenda" .. I see it as loving their sport, being passionate about it, and hoping that if they express their concerns, the sport will get better and that, for everyone.
I find it shameful that most of what I have read here has nothing to do with discussing the system but is directed to them as a pair, whether they are artistic enough, whether they are complaining with ego, or trying to get more points to make sure they win...
They are not stupid... they know there won't be any changes before they retire... however, they are raising the issue, while they have a front seat to do it. I admire that.
Keep in mind, this is coming from a couple who just a few weeks ago asked the fans if they should ditch the 3A throw... and the answers were quite obvious.... "why bother if you get more points with the easier content".... that says a lot about the sport.
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2010
D/R know perfectly well and say that any scoring change will not at all likely to happen for them and they are speaking up for the sport and the future generations. And what they say is quite indisputably true. Why insist on assigning such motive to them? Wait, the answer is rather obvious and reflective of your own motive.
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2010
that's not really accurate
also, IMHO, it's of great value when athletes discuss their sport. I don't see it as whining... I don't see it as "having their own agenda" .. I see it as loving their sport, being passionate about it, and hoping that if they express their concerns, the sport will get better and that, for everyone.
I find it shameful that most of what I have read here has nothing to do with discussing the system but is directed to them as a pair, whether they are artistic enough, whether they are complaining with ego, or trying to get more points to make sure they win...
They are not stupid... they know there won't be any changes before they retire... however, they are raising the issue, while they have a front seat to do it. I admire that.
Keep in mind, this is coming from a couple who just a few weeks ago asked the fans if they should ditch the 3A throw... and the answers were quite obvious.... "why bother if you get more points with the easier content".... that says a lot about the sport.
:2thumbs:
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2014
D/R get a lot of vitriol because there is a contingent of posters on GS/skating fans in general who really like to crap on successful North American skaters (to be fair, there is also a separate contingent of fans who really like to crap on successful Russian skaters).
Because D/R have somewhat weaker skating skills than the rest of the field and because their on-ice connection isn't a romantic one, it's easy for people to point at those two flaws and use them to make broad, obnoxious, and blatantly untrue generalizations about everything else they do.
If they were executing the 3A throw well, this wouldn't be a problem. Let's remember that there is technical difficulty in executing elements well, too! In order to incorporate a harder element, you're going to mess up at lot with it in competition, and you've just got to grit it out and stick with it, then once it's better integrated and more well-trained, you'll execute it better, and be better rewarded for it. I think that's perfectly fair. But if the 3A throw just really isn't working out for them and they aren't often able to execute it well, then it's not worth it - also fair.
In singles, should a 3A fall be worth the same as a gorgeous 2A? They should come out pretty darn close to the same so that people don't plan falls just for the heck of it. Should a 3A fall be worth the same as any other type of gorgeous triple? I would say no.
There is technical difficulty in making elements perfect. A Chinese throw 3Lo is probably much harder than....idk, the average American pairs 3Lo. Lots of height, distance, smoothness, effortless are all athletic feats that should be rewarded - as is an additional revolution.
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2010
Incorporating a new highly difficult and risky element into a program in competition takes time and competition practice, no matter how well the skaters can execute the element in practice. In Pairs, risks and penalties far exceed reward for the attempts and the procedure may be damaging to the attempting Pair. D/R has very limited time left in their career and careful consideration and decision are necessarily needed.
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2012
Yes, this is quite true - this is, for example, from GPF 2015:
https://www.instagram.com/p/_NPbH3my-n/?taken-by=plushenkoofficial
And last worlds':
https://www.instagram.com/p/BD1IjJ6my57/?taken-by=plushenkoofficial
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
I think I'm referring to people assuming just because D/R or S/K are trying harder elements, they're not focussing on developing artistic aspects of their skating. So people think doing a quad is what is holding them back from having better presentation. As if an extra rotation on a SBS jump or throw is what's killing pairs skating.
It's 5 seconds in a 4-minute LP, so people saying it detracts from the program (at least, detracts significantly) is a little bit unfair. It's a quad throw. Any big element will have a more tentative, controlled setup -- after all, 2 seconds less setup probably isn't as important as the successful execution of the jump, and you know, the woman's safety. Note that S/K have a more controlled setup into their 3T+3T compared to when they've just done 3T or 3T+2T.
Yes, it is ideal if a big element can be executed without hesitation but that isn't realistic to expect that from everyone, and hold it against them. There are plenty of skaters trying easier elements with long/easier set-ups, but that's what they feel comfortable and safe executing.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
They are complaining that it's not worth enough points for the risk it presents. So their desire to push the sport is conflicting with their desire to win. D/R could easily just do a 3S and call it a day... it's no skin off their backs, and it's less risky. But that's not how it is. The reason they do a SBS 3Z is because it's a valid risk given the 1.6/1.7 extra points from a 3S/3T to a 3Z. But adding a rotation on a throw is way harder than just a few points more than a clean triple.
To reiterate:
Singles: 3S BV = 4.4 points, 4S BV = 10.5 points -- difference of 6.1 points
Pairs: 3STh BV = 4.5 points, 4STh BV = 8.2 points -- difference of 3.7 points
So, not only is the BV of the quad salchow throw worth 2.3 less points than a quad salchow, the BV of the 3S throw is actually worth more, so the gap between a triple and a quad is even less.
D/R aren't asking for preferential treatment - they're not the only team attempting quad throws. They want the sport to be pushed, and so greater incentive needs to be given to doing a quad or 3A.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
Not enough base value on the 3A throw/quad throw wasn't the only reason they lost the GPF to T/M. Sure it could have won them silver, but it was their SBS jumps that cost them gold.
D/R could have done an easier 3Z throw in the SP - 6.2 points with +1's - instead of a 3A<(fall) - worth 1.4 points after the deduction, a difference of 4.8 points, not to mention lower PCS for the fall. But in doing a gamble with the 3A, it cost them a ton of points. So what's the point of even trying for the 3A in the SP? Especially when a 3L throw like T/M's is worth 6.5 points with GOE, so a 7.7 point BV 3ATh hardly seems worth the risk if any medium -2 error is going to drop it below 6 points.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
But the 4S isn't something they do best - teams like Sui and Han do it better; and the 4STh is one of their weaker elements, quality-wise.
Also, they have 2 World championships, which would have been won even with a 3STh instead of a 4STh.
Also, many people, not just them, have advocated for more points given to throw quads -- and this was even before D/R started winning with it.
The reality is, a throw quad is worth less than double of a throw triple, but in singles a quad is worth more than twice the base value of the corresponding triple.
It's quite obviously deliberately meant to discourage teams from attempting them, not because it truly reflects the actual difficulty of executing the element -- which is what base value SHOULD reflect.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
Even he wanted it so badly, he should have done a 3-jump combo, and made use of the 2nd half bonus instead of front-loading. And also incorporated better choreography/transitions into his programs instead of just relying on landing the big tricks and calling it a day.
The result is controversial, yes... but he really needs to get over it.
Although, if Nathan Chen ends up beating Hanyu/Fernandez with 5 quads to their 3 quads, I wonder what his reaction would be. It's not like he was advocating for Goebel to win silver in 2002 with his 3 quads (including harder 4S) over him.
Last edited:
Similar threads
