Olympics Results You Disagreed With

[Skatesocs]

Hopefully, this new page will come with people talking about Olympic results they thought were wrong.

 

[drivingmissdaisy]

That's why I'm wondering about the 2 other judges, who both placed Slutakaya 2nd in the LP and Kwan 3rd, yet both had Slutskaya below Kwan on the second mark. It's possible they voted as such because they felt Hughes deserved to win the Gold, and that was the only way to make it happen.

Either that, or that's really how they felt they should be ranked based on the LP performances. While that isn't how I would have ranked them, I think the ordering is defensible. Hughes was clean and had the the 3-3's, Slutskaya was clean-ish but didn't have 3-3's, while Kwan had the fall and another possible two-foot, also with no 3-3. Irina and Michelle were clearly tight, and different people have varying opinions about the extent to which the nerves affected their performances (and the second mark they deserved).

 

[Mista Ekko]

If reputation is so important in this sport how could Sotnikova win? She has had never won any World title, any GPF title, any GP title, only a B event title. So how it is possible?
Edit: She has had not even medaled at Worlds or GPF. Only at GP events.
Unlike Sarah Hughes who medaled at Worlds and GPF. And won a GP event.

Sotnikova's win was a singular case, An exception to the rule,
Which was brought on by politics,
I think even the people who thought her win made sense could agree with that,
Just based on data and knowing the sport

 

[Mista Ekko]

What matters is how they ranked Slutskaya and Kwan against each other, to determine who places 2nd or 3rd in the LP. 6 of the judges sided with Slutskaya, and 4 of them had her 1st, so those 4 clearly wouldn't change their opinion. That's why I'm wondering about the 2 other judges, who both placed Slutakaya 2nd in the LP and Kwan 3rd, yet both had Slutskaya below Kwan on the second mark. It's possible they voted as such because they felt Hughes deserved to win the Gold, and that was the only way to make it happen.

I would always like to think the judges judge based on performance, So i hope they didn't,
But i also assume they probably did, Because this is figure skating

The "conspiracy theory" back then was that Slutskaya, Who was consistently the best scored SP skater
for a while leading up to the Olympics, Was ranked second behind Kwan who had an underrotated jump
because they were trying to keep all 3 US ladies in contention,
Assuming at least one of them would perform in the free,
Increasing the chance for a US gold in this main event in the US Olypmic games right after 9\11

Now you could call that far fetched, but like you said Blades, And i know you're a reasonable person
If you're these 2 judges, And Irina is 1st heading into the free, Do you still rank her above Kwan,
And give Slutskaya the win instead of Hughes?
All things considered?

 

[lesnar001]

Either that, or that's really how they felt they should be ranked based on the LP performances. While that isn't how I would have ranked them, I think the ordering is defensible. Hughes was clean and had the the 3-3's, Slutskaya was clean-ish but didn't have 3-3's, while Kwan had the fall and another possible two-foot, also with no 3-3. Irina and Michelle were clearly tight, and different people have varying opinions about the extent to which the nerves affected their performances (and the second mark they deserved).

I cannot find it now, but there was an article in which Joe Inman explained in detail how and why he scored the Ladies LP (for the top 4 skaters). He thought Sarah Hughes clearly had the performance of the night. He went into the most detail with Michelle Kwan and Irina Slutskaya's ranking. It was fascinating to realize just how complicated the judging was under 6.0. I really don't know how they could keep it all straight.

What I remember most was this was the first time that Sarah Hughes had done 2 3-3's in a program. Also that her coach had revamped the LP significantly since US Nationals. Even though the odds were pretty astronomical for her to win Gold, I believe the result was correct.

I say the odds were astronomical not just because she was 4th after the SP. But in the LP she just barely squeaked out 5 1st place ordinals. I think one judge even had her in 4th place. The stars really aligned correctly for her that night.

Of course, under COP coming from 4th place after the SP to win has become fairly common.

 

[Skatesocs]

I cannot find it now, but there was an article in which Joe Inman explained in detail how and why he scored the Ladies LP (for the top 4 skaters). He thought Sarah Hughes clearly had the performance of the night. He went into the most detail with Michelle Kwan and Irina Slutskaya's ranking. It was fascinating to realize just how complicated the judging was under 6.0. I really don't know how they could keep it all straight.

What I remember most was this was the first time that Sarah Hughes had done 2 3-3's in a program. Also that her coach had revamped the LP significantly since US Nationals. Even though the odds were pretty astronomical for her to win Gold, I believe the result was correct.

I say the odds were astronomical not just because she was 4th after the SP. But in the LP she just barely squeaked out 5 1st place ordinals. I think one judge even had her in 4th place. The stars really aligned correctly for her that night.

Of course, under COP coming from 4th place after the SP to win has become fairly common.

I'm pretty sure it was in the one TSL interview I've ever watched.

 

[lesnar001]

I'm pretty sure it was in the one TSL interview I've ever watched.

Thank you very much. But I also remember it was in a newspaper article at the time of the SLC Olympics.

 

[Skatesocs]

Thank you very much. But I also remember it was in a newspaper article at the time of the SLC Olympics.

Oh! Maybe it will be in an archive someone can link

 

[cohen-esque]

Is it ths article? OLYMPICS: THE VERDICT; At Last, The Judges Are Able To Explain

 

[Arbitrary]

Is it ths article? OLYMPICS: THE VERDICT; At Last, The Judges Are Able To Explain

It was American Olympics and it's not wise to leave the host without a gold medal. Neither politically correct, not financially.

The USSR could fight for her pets, but Russia is a weak force...

 

[lesnar001]

Is it ths article? OLYMPICS: THE VERDICT; At Last, The Judges Are Able To Explain

Thank you very much. I think that must be it. I remembered incorrectly, though. I thought it was just Joe Inman who was interviewed. This is even better because it showed the thought process of a number of judges.

 

[cohen-esque]

Thank you very much. I think that must be it. I remembered incorrectly, though. I thought it was just Joe Inman who was interviewed. This is even better because it showed the thought process of a number of judges.

Well, there is also an article on Inman, too, although it’s from shortly before the Olympics: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...54b8c484bf9/&usg=AOvVaw23MFKVn7bn8TMZFG3TACQY

 

[drivingmissdaisy]

I cannot find it now, but there was an article in which Joe Inman explained in detail how and why he scored the Ladies LP (for the top 4 skaters). He thought Sarah Hughes clearly had the performance of the night. He went into the most detail with Michelle Kwan and Irina Slutskaya's ranking. It was fascinating to realize just how complicated the judging was under 6.0. I really don't know how they could keep it all straight.

This shows one of my biggest pet peeves with 6.0 judging: that the scores were merely used for the judges to rank skaters. It's fine that the outcomes came out right most of the time, but the scores give an illusion that the judges are assessing technical merit and artistry, when in reality they are just scoring an overall impression of a program and then manipulating those two scores to assign skaters a ranking the judge thinks is fair. From that perspective, COP is a huge improvement because the judges are more focused on assessing each element independently, and the results are derived from that rather than an impression the program leaves with a judge.

 

[Blades of Passion]

They were assessing elements in 6.0, writing down each element and the quality of it (the better judges anyway), there just wasn't a standardized "base value" for things. That can be both bad (lack of consistency and transparency) and good (not being dictated by set values that can be illogical or flat out wrong). There's nothing stopping judges from assigning GOE's in CoP based upon favoritism either.

Judges are still judging on "overall impression" with the PCS too, except now those scores are perhaps more confusing, and often less impactful, both because the margin assigned by the judge may not be significant enough, and because the technical elements at this point have far overtaken the value of PCS.

6.0 would've had less problems if the SP and LP were simply separate events. They still should be separate events with CoP too. The skaters deserve more medal opportunities.

Now you could call that far fetched, but like you said Blades, And i know you're a reasonable person
If you're these 2 judges, And Irina is 1st heading into the free, Do you still rank her above Kwan,
And give Slutskaya the win instead of Hughes?
All things considered?

I mean, I put Slutskaya 4th in the LP (as did the thoughtful Italian judge), because that's what she deserved. But considering the implications of the 6.0 system and how placements don't always reflect who is most deserving between 2 (or more!) separate programs, then yeah I might rank someone 3rd in the LP when normally I would consider a 2nd place ordinal, if that means the winner of the competition is correct. After all, it's most important to get the Gold medal result correct. It would still have to be a reasonable assessment though, I wouldn't just rank someone 3rd in the LP if they were clearly 2nd best.

Let's say Slutskaya had ended up 1st in the SP and also didn't have that wonky 3Flip landing in the LP (but still skated the program rather tentatively and lacking in artistry). At that point, it would be a difficult assessment for me of who should be 2nd in the LP between Slutskaya and Kwan; I would be looking at a 5.6/5.8 for Kwan and a 5.8/5.6 or 5.8/5.7 for Slutskaya. If I go 5.6 on presentation for Slutskaya, she ends up 3rd in the whole competition, if I go 5.7, she wins the whole competition. This a really good example of why a ranking system across multiple programs to determine a winner is not good. I would end up putting Slutskaya 3rd, though. If I did already prefer the SP of Kwan (and Slutskaya was ranked 1st there against my judgement), and now have to decide between two LP's of approximately equal value, then in the end Kwan still makes the most sense. This would also happen to facilitate Hughes being the deserving winner of the competition.

Kwan being marked 1st in the SP is what actually creates the most problem for my own desired outcome, because then I have to ask myself if I am ranking Cohen 2nd in the LP, in order for Hughes to be the winner. I probably would not do that, certainly not in actual 2002, where I would be giving away Kwan's Olympic victory (back then, even if I was just an unqualified teenager at that point, I did think Kwan deserved to win the SP, and thus the whole competition with a 2nd place LP, so...)

 

[AshWagsFan]

I don’t care if people come for me, 2014 Olympics was complete robbery. IMO, Sotnikova should’ve been 3rd at best (even though I’d probably put her 4th).

My Sochi Results:
1/2: Kim, Kostner - both of these ladies were fabulous in both the SP and LP. I’d give the SP to Carolina and the LP to Yuna, but I’m not sure who I’d give the OGM to, both were deserving!
3. Gold - despite having a fall in the free skate, Gracie executed the best and most difficult jump content in both programs (outside of the top 2 of course). She was also a bit more refined than Sotnikova IMO.
4. Sotnikova - although she had great spins, energy, and charisma, her jump content and PCS didn’t add up to the OGM. She only did a 3Toe-3Toe in the SP, and she did a 3Fluts-3Toe(ur) and double footed the 3 jump combo in the LP. Overall, the LP just came off as a bit sloppy to me. It may be harsh to give her 4th, and, since the event was in Russia, I could live with her being the bronze medalist.
5. Asada - it’s a shame the SP was a disaster... she could’ve won the event!
6. Wagner - she skated ok here, not her best, not her worst.
7. Lipnitskaya - I loved Yulia, I wish she had skated cleanly, she could’ve been on the podium! Unfortunately, with the 2 falls, I couldn’t see her beating Mao with the FS Mao did. I’d put her in front of Ashley in the SP, but I felt Yulia did not deserve to be 10 points ahead of Ashley in the LP. It should’ve been closer between Wagner/Yulia, again not sure who would’ve came out on top.

 

[anonymoose_au]

What does an error mean? I found Lysacek's choreography to be a pretty huge error. It's just not how skating is judged. And I don't see how he made fewer errors than Plushenko anyway.

Ha ha as a someone with no idea of how the scoring system works I watched Plushy at Vancouver with mad respect, thinking "OMG how did he land that?! That's incredible! He laughs in the face of gravity!" I also liked his costume the best, so my judgement is definitely questionable.

To be honest the only time I side eyed an Olympic result was the Pairs at Salt Lake, I truly believe Elena and Anton deserved to win outright, they were stunning. Also the commentators outright favouritism of P/S and them going on how the "Totally deserved it, no-one could think otherwise" made me go "What were you guys watching?"

 

[lesnar001]

Ha ha as a someone with no idea of how the scoring system works I watched Plushy at Vancouver with mad respect, thinking "OMG how did he land that?! That's incredible! He laughs in the face of gravity!" I also liked his costume the best, so my judgement is definitely questionable.

To be honest the only time I side eyed an Olympic result was the Pairs at Salt Lake, I truly believe Elena and Anton deserved to win outright, they were stunning. Also the commentators outright favouritism of P/S and them going on how the "Totally deserved it, no-one could think otherwise" made me go "What were you guys watching?"

Which broadcast were you watching?
I remember that in the USA Scott Hamilton made a point of emphasizing the slight error of B&S in the LP.
Which was ironic because in 1994 he downplayed a couple of small errors from G&G's LP.
And he made a point of showing that Grinkov's technique in throw jumps was smoother than Dmitriev's as a mitigating factor.

 

[Imagine]

I disagree with the US Olympic Team for 2014. Mirai Nagasu is a 3 time Olympian in my eyes.

 

[drivingmissdaisy]

I disagree with the US Olympic Team for 2014. Mirai Nagasu is a 3 time Olympian in my eyes.

Eh, she was better off in the end. She wouldn't have been selected for the team event and would not have won an individual medal. The disappoint fueled her return to the Olympics, where she landed a 3A (a big deal at the time) and won a bronze medal. I'm not sure if the 2018 success would have happened without the lows of 2014.

 

[anonymoose_au]

Which broadcast were you watching?
I remember that in the USA Scott Hamilton made a point of emphasizing the slight error of B&S in the LP.
Which was ironic because in 1994 he downplayed a couple of small errors from G&G's LP.
And he made a point of showing that Grinkov's technique in throw jumps was smoother than Dmitriev's as a mitigating factor.

Yeah the Scott Hamilton commentary. It was weird, because it wasn't like Anton fell or anything.

I also remembered how S and P fell at the end of their SP and I was pretty sure it was before the music ended so I thought there should have been a deduction for that