Irina Slutskaya and Olympics 2002

[Skatesocs]

I get that Slutskaya wasn't doing it for you, and artistically she was very ho hum, but 5.4 is way harsh. That puts her on par artistically with Robinson who was lovely... but no.

Well (and post open for everyone else of course) how do these four people work out for you across SP and LP in terms of ordinals and scores? I also asked how people would do UR calls using a certain criteria but no one responded, everyone's just arguing Maybe this can be the next rescore - use CoP for 2002 ladies would just need a tech panel. Maybe you and Blades can talk about that

I'd need to dig my SP impressions out, but I definitely remember Hughes doing a 3S<+3Lo in the LP. Lol. Managed a +3Lo but couldn't rotate the 3S... (And the worst flutz ever!)

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

This might be somewhat more compelling if you didn’t rely on mandatory short program deductions that were not applicable to the free skate.

But when a skater makes errors or have tight jumps, deductions still have to be incurred. Otherwise a skater could fall multiple times in a freeskate but theoretically get awarded a 6.0 because there are no mandatory deductions imposed in a freeskate.

I get that judges are more lenient with their deductions in a freeskate (heck some are lenient even in an SP), but technical issues don't get absolved altogether in the freeskate. Kwan and Cohen both FELL, and they were bad falls too. While the rest of their programs were artistically great, a fall immediately removes a chunk of their potential tech score (unless you're like those super generous judges who gave them 5.8 for a fall, some tight jumps, and no 3-3 combo).

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

Well (and post open for everyone else of course) how do these four people work out for you across SP and LP in terms of ordinals and scores? I also asked how people would do UR calls using a certain criteria but no one responded, everyone's just arguing Maybe this can be the next rescore - use CoP for 2002 ladies would just need a tech panel. Maybe you and Blades can talk about that

I'd need to dig my SP impressions out, but I definitely remember Hughes doing a 3S<+3Lo in the LP. Lol. Managed a +3Lo but couldn't rotate the 3S... (And the worst flutz ever!)

I would say Sasha's flutz was worse than Hughes. Hughes at least started her entry edge on a distinct outside edge (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-Au7ZvpO2E#t=2m22s) before flutzing over onto the inside edge. Cohen on the other hand had her entry "outside" edge on pretty much a flat before shifting over onto the inside edge. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SH7VV3RlG4k#t=3m17s

I also don't think we could rescore the ladies using CoP as it was a different system with different parameters. Plus there would be tons of flutzing and UR calls that I'm sure even getting the tech calls agreed upon (especially if certain people are involved...) would be an ordeal in and of itself. But hey, feel free to organize that and I'll watch from a distance.

 

[Skatesocs]

Ok then this is a survey post: would anyone be interested in doing a CoP rescore of this event?

ETA: If we do it, we would be doing it as
1. For spins, spirals, and step sequence: the level and GOE rules and also the BV for spins, spirals, and steps from 2005-06 OR we can call them as level 1 and assign additional features as GOE
2. For jumps and choreography sequence: the 2012-13 BV, UR and zayak rules, and GOE assessment
3. For the LP: 7 jump passes (in order of appearance, maximum of three combos), 3 spins (in order of appearance), 2 choreography sequences (with validity determined by whoever is on the TP, and also in order of appearance - if the LP has a step sequence and a spiral sequence, those are the two choreography sequences in this way)
4. Ignore the +1Lo in any combos, so Slutskaya doesn't lose that one combo she did
5. The top 6 at the 2002 ladies event

 

[cohen-esque]

But when a skater makes errors or have tight jumps, deductions still have to be incurred. Otherwise a skater could fall multiple times in a freeskate but theoretically get awarded a 6.0 because there are no mandatory deductions imposed in a freeskate.

I get that judges are more lenient with their deductions in a freeskate (heck some are lenient even in an SP), but technical issues don't get absolved altogether in the freeskate. Kwan and Cohen both FELL, and they were bad falls too. While the rest of their programs were artistically great, a fall immediately removes a chunk of their potential tech score (unless you're like those super generous judges who gave them 5.8 for a fall, some tight jumps, and no 3-3 combo).

I’m fairly sure there was a 0.1 deduction from both marks for falling added sometime in the 1990s. But at least between 1980 and then, there really *was* no reason why multiple falls couldn’t earn 6.0 in tech except for a nebulous convention that the scores actually meant something when they were really only a qualitative ranking. And it’s why rare skaters, namely Midori, *did* score 6.0s and 5.9s for programs with errors, because what mattered was that they still ranked higher than others. If Skater A falls twice and it’s still better than everyone else, but Skater B got 5.9s, then Skater A has to score 6.0s.

And then you have to combine that with factored placements, which was a terrible idea designed solely to devalue figures and were totally obsolete after 1990, and ask whether judges think about the overall placements or only the segment placements. The 6.0 system post-1980 was a fascinating dumpster fire of a judging system that would take way too long to dissect.

I get that Slutskaya wasn't doing it for you, and artistically she was very ho hum, but 5.4 is way harsh. That puts her on par artistically with Robinson who was lovely... but no.

In this case Slutskaya had the *dis*-advantage of skating last so she can just be marked by direct ranking. You don’t wan’t to give Slutskaya 5.4 in presentation because you think that she was better than Robinson and Robinson got ~5.4s. But, if Skatesocs thinks Slutskaya was worse than at least six other skaters in that area then they can’t honestly score her higher unless they have others tied ahead of her. Personally I think Slutskaya was worse overall than than the rest of the Top 5, but would tie Cohen and Suguri, so at best she’d be looking at a 5.7 from me... but that’s working down from the assumption that I have someone at 6.0, when I would have had to save room earlier on. So probably that 5.7 becomes a 5.5 or something. And I might even have gone way down in the standings and put her behind... whatever that was from Gusmeroli, so it could be even lower.

 

[drivingmissdaisy]

Sasha's scores weren't inflated at all, she had amazing quality and was was undermarked if anything, being a newcomer. What reputation was she resting on LOL? Her spirals were on edges and the positions were otherworldly. Trying to degrade her because of that is folly. It's also ridiculous to say someone shouldn't complain about their artistry not being sufficiently rewarded when that was 1/2 of the score. She moved to the music better than Slutskaya and had much better carriage and extension. These things are supposed to matter. She also actually landed more clean Triples in the LP than Slutskaya, depending on how someone wants to view the lutzes.

I was talking about Slutskaya disputing her artistic scores. Sasha never complained about her placement.

I think a clean Sasha might have deserved gold. But the fall is a huge flaw, and with that mistake she didn't deserve Kwan-like artistic scores in 2002 when her skating ability was closer to Surya's than Irina's or Michelle's.

 

[Skatesocs]

I think a clean Sasha might have deserved gold. But the fall is a huge flaw, and with that mistake she didn't deserve Kwan-like artistic scores in 2002 when her skating ability was closer to Surya's than Irina's or Michelle's.

This is a confusing comment.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

I’m fairly sure there was a 0.1 deduction from both marks for falling added sometime in the 1990s. But at least between 1980 and then, there really *was* no reason why multiple falls couldn’t earn 6.0 in tech except for a nebulous convention that the scores actually meant something when they were really only a qualitative ranking. And it’s why rare skaters, namely Midori, *did* score 6.0s and 5.9s for programs with errors, because what mattered was that they still ranked higher than others. If Skater A falls twice and it’s still better than everyone else, but Skater B got 5.9s, then Skater A has to score 6.0s.

And then you have to combine that with factored placements, which was a terrible idea designed solely to devalue figures and were totally obsolete after 1990, and ask whether judges think about the overall placements or only the segment placements. The 6.0 system post-1980 was a fascinating dumpster fire of a judging system that would take way too long to dissect.



In this case Slutskaya had the *dis*-advantage of skating last so she can just be marked by direct ranking. You don’t wan’t to give Slutskaya 5.4 in presentation because you think that she was better than Robinson and Robinson got ~5.4s. But, if Skatesocs thinks Slutskaya was worse than at least six other skaters in that area then they can’t honestly score her higher unless they have others tied ahead of her. Personally I think Slutskaya was worse overall than than the rest of the Top 5, but would tie Cohen and Suguri, so at best she’d be looking at a 5.7 from me... but that’s working down from the assumption that I have someone at 6.0, when I would have had to save room earlier on. So probably that 5.7 becomes a 5.5 or something. And I might even have gone way down in the standings and put her behind... whatever that was from Gusmeroli, so it could be even lower.

The thing is, a skater can have the same artistic scores as other skaters, and in fact because most Olympic skaters get 4.0 or higher, in a field of more than 20 skaters you will have to give one skater the same artistic mark as another skater. Same in IJS, where two skaters could get 9.0 for the same component and the judges doesn't necessarily have to place one over the other.

Me giving Slutskaya a 5.7 is on the basis of what she put out there, but also if I had given 5.4 to Robinson, by comparison it would be hard for me (personally) to justify giving Irina the same artistic score - another judge may say otherwise which is fine. But you're right - the shady part of 6.0 is that you still needed to "rank" the skaters in terms of ordinals, and thus you had to tweak your scores/leave room to allow skater to wedge in between one another. And judges would go into a competition with an "idea" of where they wanted skaters to rank to accommodate for any slight positional changes depending on how well or poorly a skater performed. It was a really flawed system, that didn't truly distinguish between good and bad skates.

It would have been super ballsy of a judge to give Irina a 5.4 given that she didn't fall, and while she was slow/tentative, that is tricky to justify dropping her from her usual 5.8/5.9 to a 5.4, especially when Cohen and Kwan DID fall and got 5.7's and 5.8's.

Granted some of the judging was ridiculous for Irina too, namely the 5.9's for artistry and more laughably the 5.9 for technical - although the same judge gave Kwan with a fall a 5.8 for technical so they kinda forced themselves to give Irina higher.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

This is a confusing comment.

I think dmd meant Sasha's skating ability was closer to Sarah's, than Cohen's skating ability was to Slutskaya or Michelle. Of course, that's subjective and some people think Cohen's skating was sublime and on par with Slutskaya/Michelle right off the bat, which is their prerogative to think so. I also think Sarah's skating ability wasn't bad either - she had some nice details in her programs and while I dislike her posture/arms in her stroking, she still has good speed and flow across the ice which complemented her music very well.

 

[Skatesocs]

I think dmd meant Sasha's skating ability was closer to Sarah's, than Cohen's skating ability was to Slutskaya or Michelle. Of course, that's subjective and some people think Cohen's skating was sublime and on par with Slutskaya/Michelle right off the bat, which is their prerogative to think so. I also think Sarah's skating ability wasn't bad either - she had some nice details in her programs and while I dislike her posture/arms in her stroking, she still has good speed and flow across the ice which complemented her music very well.

I thought they were literally only talking about skating skills since they said "Surya".

 

[Skatesocs]

Also, if my calculations are correct, wouldn't we be able to rank 12 skaters ahead of someone with 5.8/5.8?

Why did no one mark the first skater in the LP with (I think) 5.6/5.6 to leave room for (more than) 23 others above them...?

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

I was talking about Slutskaya disputing her artistic scores. Sasha never complained about her placement.

I think a clean Sasha might have deserved gold. But the fall is a huge flaw, and with that mistake she didn't deserve Kwan-like artistic scores in 2002 when her skating ability was closer to Surya's than Irina's or Michelle's.

I also think a clean Sasha could have earned gold with a 3Z+3T. It certainly would have placed her ahead of Sarah Hughes, but we're talking a night and day difference of a downgraded fall and a clean triple triple (which I don't think Cohen ever cleanly landed in competition, even though she had a clean one in the 2002 LP warmup). As mentioned, a 3-2 would have been safer but she did land one in the warmup and Nicks probably told her to go all out based on how Hughes skated. She would have probably been placed 3rd, but might have beaten Slutskaya and likely have beaten Kwan for the bronze (even staying on her feet on the 3-3<< might have been enough for bronze). Huge respect for going for the 3-3 though inspite of a bad lutz with not enough speed coming out, but that cost her a medal in the long run. Ironically Michelle did the same with her 3-3 but was smart enough to do just a double to avoid a major error. That 3-3 might get you an additional 0.1 versus a 3-2, but a fall on a 3-3 that isn't rotated can cost you -0.3.

Let's keep in mind though that in 2002, landings weren't scrutinized because URs weren't a thing unless they were an obvious severe UR like Cohen's -3T.

It's interesting how fortunate Hughes was with the ordinals too - in the SP she won a 5-4 split against Butyrskaya and in the FS she won a 5-4 split against Slutskaya. In the SP, if Slutskaya won the split against Kwan (5-4 in Kwan's favour), it would have been enough to hold off Hughes, but then again in the FS Slutskaya got silver instead of bronze thanks to a 5-4 split. As far as 6.0/ordinals go, this is one of the most fascinating events given how the placements mattered and nothing was clear-cut.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

Also, if my calculations are correct, wouldn't we need able to rank 12 skaters ahead of someone with 5.8/5.8?

Why did no one mark the first skater in the LP with (I think) 5.6/5.6 to leave room for 23 others above them...?

Not sure how you got 12 possible marks above 5.8/5.8... here's the possible TE/AI combinations above 5.8/5.8 in the FS in order of highest to lowest

6.0/6.0
5.9/6.0
6.0/5.9
5.8/6.0
5.9/5.9
6.0/5.8
5.8/5.9
5.9/5.8


Think about a judge doing that math though. They would literally need a rubric of how the skaters rank in order to award them the marks they saw fit - not to mention 5 out of these 8 scores involve 6.0... 2 out of 8 are on the technical score, which is very rare to get in singles, unless you're the last skater and go lights out.

 

[Skatesocs]

5.6/6.0
5.7/5.9
5.7/6.0
5.8/5.9
5.8/6.0
5.9/5.8
5.9/5.9
5.9/6.0
6.0/5.7
6.0/5.8
6.0/5.9
6.0/6.0

But of course, maybe I've just forgotten how it works.

 

[cohen-esque]

Not sure how you got 12 possible marks above 5.8/5.8... here's the possible TE/AI combinations above 5.8/5.8 in the FS in order of highest to lowest

6.0/6.0
5.9/6.0
6.0/5.9
5.8/6.0
5.9/5.9
6.0/5.8
5.8/5.9
5.9/5.8


Think about a judge doing that math though. They would literally need a rubric of how the skaters rank in order to award them the marks they saw fit - not to mention 5 out of these 8 scores involve 6.0... 2 out of 8 are on the technical score, which is very rare to get in singles, unless you're the last skater and go lights out.

In Order:
6.0/6.0
5.9/6.0
6.0/5.9
5.8/6.0
5.9/5.9
6.0/5.8
5.7/6.0
5.8/5.9
5.9/5.8
6.0/5.7
5.6/6.0 (wins tiebreak)
5.7/5.9 (wins tiebreak)

5.8/5.8

5.9/5.7 (loses tiebreak)
6.0/5.6 (loses tiebreak)

Not figuring it out to 5.6/5.6 tho.

Not realistic at all, but possible. Nightmare to keep as 14 inter-related rankings.

 

[drivingmissdaisy]

I also think a clean Sasha could have earned gold with a 3Z+3T. It certainly would have placed her ahead of Sarah Hughes, but we're talking a night and day difference of a downgraded fall and a clean triple triple (which I don't think Cohen ever cleanly landed in competition, even though she had a clean one in the 2002 LP warmup). As mentioned, a 3-2 would have been safer but she did land one in the warmup and Nicks probably told her to go all out based on how Hughes skated. She would have probably been placed 3rd, but might have beaten Slutskaya and likely have beaten Kwan for the bronze (even staying on her feet on the 3-3<< might have been enough for bronze).

Cohen probably would have won even with just 7 clean triples and no 3/3 (like she attempted at Nationals). With that, I'd put her a tenth behind Sarah on tech and a tenth ahead on presentation. I believe Sasha still won two ordinals over Hughes in the LP, so she'd just have needed to convert three more judges, and one extra triple and no fall would have certainly done that.

 

[jenaj]

Fun to read all the attempts at re-scoring. But that is micro-analysis. My macro-analysis is this: Under 6.0, Sasha Cohen would never have been allowed to win gold and Irina would never have ended up off the podium. Maybe she would never have finished lower than second, but her 2006 meltdown suggests the possibility of a bronze at worst.

 

[drivingmissdaisy]

Fun to read all the attempts at re-scoring. But that is micro-analysis. My macro-analysis is this: Under 6.0, Sasha Cohen would never have been allowed to win gold and Irina would never have ended up off the podium. Maybe she would never have finished lower than second, but her 2006 meltdown suggests the possibility of a bronze at worst.

Why not? They let Sarah win gold, and she finished behind Sasha almost every time they skated against each other (including the SP).

 

[astronaut]

Interesting comments and thank you. I remember it well. Hughes had the skate of her life and I still figured Slutskaya or Kwan would take the gold. I still miss the olde 6.0 scoring system.



Mike

 

[Blades of Passion]

Except you disregarded the issue on Cohen’s spin because she does a nice position later in it. This was 6.0 - if a skater makes an error they should get deducted for it.

There is no set "deduction" like that. When your overall spinning is better than a competitor's, a small error on the entrance to a spin does not mean you suddenly deserve a lower tech score. Minor spin issues in the LP were hardly even recognized at all; people having a swingy entrance in one spin was relatively common and it was just whatever. Unless people are perfectly matched in other content, it's not going to be a deciding factor. It's in the SP where there was a more rigid assessment of those elements, and Slutskaya had her own minor spin error in the SP, yet it still made no difference really.

But the reality is Sasha FELL. That jumping pass alone cost her a medal. That is typically a 0.3 deduction. Wrong edge takeoffs (ie both of Cohen’s lutzes which were WAY more flutzes than Irina's, if we are being fair) is 0.1-0.3. And underrotation is -0.3

That's not at all how 6.0 scoring operated, LOL. Where are you pulling these random numbers from? You didn't even apply them in your own supposed marks and you also didn't rate Slutskaya more than .1 above Cohen technically, so this whole thing makes no sense. You're just arguing and doing the typical straw-man routine for the sake of it.

Sasha fell on a more difficult element than what Slutskaya attempted. It wasn't a good moment but at the end of the day her presentation was still better and her technical showing was very close. It would be more fruitful to analyze the programs/performances themselves and all of the details we see and how that should play into what presentation marks each competitor deserves. I already started doing that with Cohen's program but you chose to ignore it.