Judging Critiques/Continuation of Plushenko’s Allegations

[nussnacker]

Let's not divert the conversation away from the original topic in the jungle of demagoguery. The scores of the PCS are not set in stone forever, yesterday they were some points, tomorrow the skater will earn others.
You directly accused me of lying, I proved my case to you with the numbers from the competition protocol. Dot . To apologize for slander in your area is probably not accepted?

You have intentionally or unintentionally presented your fact out of context. You have provided it later on, after I pointed it out. Providing that context makes your argument flawed. End of story.

you proved what I was saying to begin with, Sasha was scoring higher PCS than Aliona at the same point of time you’re focused on. I can’t believe you can’t see what this means.
I’m actually more inclined to think you don’t do it on purpose, just how your thinking works.

Adding this to explain even better: I said that you excluded the fact that Sasha scored higher than Aliona in PCS. Your numbers prove that fact, and the fact that you did not mention this part in your argument.

 

[Alex65]

You have intentionally or unintentionally presented your fact out of context. You have provided it later on, after I pointed it out. Providing that context makes your argument flawed. End of story.

you proved what I was saying to begin with, Sasha was scoring higher PCS than Aliona at the same point of time you’re focused on. I can’t believe you can’t see what this means.
I’m actually more inclined to think you don’t do it on purpose, just how your thinking works.

Adding this to explain even better: I said that you excluded the fact that Sasha scored higher than Aliona in PCS. Your numbers prove that fact, and the fact that you did not mention this part in your argument.

If you read this simple phrase:
"Shcherbakova was not always ahead of Trusova in the PCS."
without investing in it any other meaning, except what it contains, perhaps you will understand. It is difficult for me to express my thoughts in a language that is foreign to me, and this sometimes leads to embarrassment. But in this case, everything is simple.
-there are numbers-
-there is my statement-
All.
Why and for what purpose do you constantly involve Alena in this discussion? She was not even mentioned initially, not in the original post that I answered, nor in my answer.

 

[flanker]

Again you've totally missed the point and are twisting facts. Shcherbakova's spin was not "just" level 2 because of some random quirk in the rules where she held a position for slightly less time than required or something; it was level 2 because she BLEW IT on her flying entrance and had an UGLY spin that lost speed and centering and positioning, factually making the program worse for that duration of time.

Why are you talking about other performances of Trusova's? ALL that matters is what happened in the Russian Nationals SP. That's it. At that competition, Trusova skated her best SP ever, better than Shcherbakova. Yet despite skating better, she was scored 5 points lower. It was a clear attack of totally incorrect judging bias.

What a difference it makes for evaluating the whole program how Anna gained spin lvl 2? Completely none. It's one sole element lvl 2 in a wholeprogram where all the other leveled elements reached 4, jumps were solid, performance was great. This doesn't give you any any foundations for the structure you're building, because a rule that would say a skater with lvl 2 spin can't win the segment simply don't exist.

It's your right tio think Sasha skated her best SP ever and others were losers, ok but that's it, it's your personal evaluation that is not commonly shared. Even if that would truly be Sasha's best SP ever (it could) it doesn't say Anna can't be better and in my opinion Anna was truly better in overal performance even with one lvl 2 spin which can't change the result. It is also my private opinion, as the other one is yours, but that doesn't make a difference what we think privately, the thing that matters is that just because of one lvl 2 spin you don't have to be worse than someone with all spins lvl 4 but possibly worse other things. Figure skating and it's evaluation is complex and one miskate can always be compensated elsewhere. Those are the protocols from the SP and whatever other way you would evaluate those programs you will do it only by your private opinion that is not higher truth.

Your question why I am talking about "other performances" si just as silly as all this. You simply chose this one case to push Sasha through and you're holding it like a tick, so I'm giving examples of other cases, that, considering your furious involvement in just one sole case, raise justified question why "ALL that matters is what happened in the Russian Nationals SP" (in your view) and other cases (IMO much more problematic even if would find your claims true) shouldn't matter at all.

 

[gsk8]

It's perfectly ok to disagree and/or debate with someone, but please don't insult and/or call each other names while doing so. Keep it mature folks. Thanks!

 

[Blades of Passion]

What a difference it makes for evaluating the whole program how Anna gained spin lvl 2? Completely none.

Incorrect. It's factually an element that she lost a significant amount of points on and the mistake was factually something that disrupted the choreography. It's unbelievable you are arguing competitors should be allowed to blow it on a flying spin and it should make "completely no difference".

Your question why I am talking about "other performances" si just as silly as all this. You simply chose this one case to push Sasha through and you're holding it like a tick, so I'm giving examples of other cases

All that matters is evaluating exactly what happened at a single competition. Not sure what you don't understand about performances needing to be judged exactly by what the skaters do at the competition, and nothing else. A skater who previously scored less than someone is capable of outscoring them at a new competition.

The scores at Russian Nationals did not accurately reflect the skating that was done. Go through each SP and explain exactly in full detail why Shcherbakova deserved to be awarded some of the highest scores ever on skating skills, and how her overall scores deserved to be so far ahead, for a program that is essentially identical to others. Defend the marks, lets hear your analysis of the actual skating.

 

[esteticlove]

Why are you talking about other performances of Trusova's? ALL that matters is what happened in the Russian Nationals SP. That's it. At that competition, Trusova skated her best SP ever, better than Shcherbakova. Yet despite skating better, she was scored 5 points lower. It was a clear attack of totally incorrect judging bias.

Trusova had a 3Lz-3T, whereas Shcherbakova 3Lz-3Lo. It's logical for the harder content to get more points, no?

 

[Novalis]

Go through each SP and explain exactly in full detail why Shcherbakova deserved to be awarded some of the highest scores ever on skating skills, and how her overall scores deserved to be so far ahead, for a program that is essentially identical to others. Defend the marks, lets hear your analysis of the actual skating.

Wow! Quite the request. Or more like order. Yes, sir!

What if flanker has a life. I mean I don't, but he might. You know, there could be other stuff...

 

[flanker]

Incorrect. It's factually an element that she lost a significant amount of points on and the mistake was factually something that disrupted the choreography. It's unbelievable that you are arguing competitors should be allowed to completely blow it on a flying spin and it should make "completely no difference".

"Significant amount of points":
FCSp.2 BV: 2.30
FSSp.4 BV: 3.20

So, it makes 0.9 point difference in BV, Anna also received -0.30, that's 1.2. As for possible compatison we can use Anna's GOE for that spin she received at cup stages 1 and 3, which was 1.02 and 0.96, let's count it as 1 to simplify the thing. So, Anna lost around 2.2 point of her potential score (44.71). Is it significant? If we take 44.71+37.80, it gives us 82.51. Of this 2.2 point point is 2,6 %. That's math, though the word "significant" is subjective evaluation and everybody is free to call it significant, I guess. It doesn't matter because those 2.2 points lost in any way prevent Anna from being better (and higher scored) than Sasha, it's as elementary as that.

As for "disrupting the choreography", see the table.

All that matters is evaluating exactly what happened at a single competition. Not sure what you don't understand about performances needing to be judged exactly by what the skaters do at the competition, and nothing else. A skater who previously scored less than someone is capable of outscoring them at a new competition.

The scores at Russian Nationals did not accurately reflect the skating that was done. Go through each SP and explain exactly in full detail why Shcherbakova deserved to be awarded some of the highest scores ever on skating skills and how her overall scores deserved to be so far ahead, for a program that is essentially identical to others. Defend the marks, lets hear your analysis of the actual skating.

I'm repeating my words:

that, considering your furious involvement in just one sole case, raise justified question why "ALL that matters is what happened in the Russian Nationals SP" (in your view) and other cases (IMO much more problematic even if would find your claims true) shouldn't matter at all.

In fact now it's not even raising the question, it is an answer itself. You chose this particular case and you also chose to ignore other cases that don't fit your position (that you don't have any foundations for your position even for the nationals is spread through this whole topic), what value this have. None. It's worthless, it's the position of biased specator who chose when to rant based simply on his symapthy/antipathy. BTW it's you who makes your claims about that program, it is you then whose duty is to explain why she was so bad as you claim, or at least worse than those you praise. So far your claims to support your position were only:

Your claim	Debunk
Anna had spin lvl 2.	So what. Not a single rule says with lvl 2 spin you are not allowed to win the short program. There are seven elements in the short program, not one (and thanks to @sinus for comparing the whole value below).
Anna's bad spin disrupted the choreography.	It didn't. Choreography could be eventually considered "disrupted", if we use such term, in case of long pause because of the fall for instance, which didn't happen. Just for comparison Anna's SP from stage 1, same moment, to give us rough imagination how it should look according to creator of the choreo (mr. Danny G). Though as you say, we are evaluating just this particular skate's moment, not others, we should not compare. In this program there's not such a moment as "disrupted choreo" (though such term can't be found in the rules, the parts that could somehow matter this talk about flow, matching and timing the music etc. and none of this was violated the way that would in all honesty allow to say anything about "disrupted choreo"). There's still movement, involvement into the music, flow, which is what matters.
Sasha skated her best SP.	Maybe yes. Doesn't say others can't be better.

 

[Novalis]

Maybe he doesn't either

 

[sinus]

Trusova skated her best SP ever, better than Shcherbakova. Yet despite skating better, she was scored 5 points lower. It was a clear attack of totally incorrect judging bias.

Shcherbakova lost to Trusova 2.3 points on her FCSp2 vs. FCSp4
But she won everything else:
0.72 on the other two spins
0.85 on her 3Lz+3Lo vs. Trusova's 3Lz+3T
1.14 on her StSq4 vs. StSq3
1.51 on her 3F vs. Trusova's 3F!
0.28 on her 2A
2.35 on her PCS
Do the math.

 

[flanker]

Maybe he doesn't either

I have home office and I'm bored

 

[Alex65]

Trusova had a 3Lz-3T, whereas Shcherbakova 3Lz-3Lo. It's logical for the harder content to get more points, no?

No. Let's see the FP. Trusova had 2x4Lz + 3Lz-3Lo, Valieva has 2x4T, + 2T combo. It's logical for the harder content to get more points . But for some reason it does not work.

 

[flanker]

Trusova had a 3Lz-3T, whereas Shcherbakova 3Lz-3Lo. It's logical for the harder content to get more points, no?

Well, I have something to oppose this. Some months ago we were persuaded that what happens on domestic competitions in fact doesn't happen at all. So, I guess all those conversations are the real example of much ado about nothing

 

[Alex65]

Shcherbakova lost to Trusova 2.3 points on her FCSp2 vs. FCSp4
But she won everything else:
0.72 on the other two spins
0.85 on her 3Lz+3Lo vs. Trusova's 3Lz+3T
1.14 on her StSq4 vs. StSq3
1.51 on her 3F vs. Trusova's 3F!
0.28 on her 2A
2.35 on her PCS
Do the math.

Why are you publishing this? Everyone already knows how many points Shcherbakova won over Trusova. 5 points. There is no arithmetic error. The same goes for FP. 13 points. The point is that there is a dissonance between these 18 points in total and what happened on the ice.

 

[sinus]

The point is that there is a dissonance between these 18 points in total and what happened on the ice.

There is no dissonance.

 

[Blades of Passion]

Trusova had a 3Lz-3T, whereas Shcherbakova 3Lz-3Lo. It's logical for the harder content to get more points, no?

Shcherbakova's combo was not as high quality (worse lutz). She gains .77 on base value but then should lose .59 on the GOE evaluation. So there's almost no advantage there.

Shcherbakova lost to Trusova 2.3 points on her FCSp2 vs. FCSp4
But she won everything else:

0.72 on the other two spins
0.85 on her 3Lz+3Lo vs. Trusova's 3Lz+3T
1.14 on her StSq4 vs. StSq3
1.51 on her 3F vs. Trusova's 3F!
0.28 on her 2A
2.35 on her PCS
Do the math.

Saying "do the math" is completely ignorant to the problem being discussed. It is the opinion of many people that those scores are WRONG. She did not deserve to be so far ahead on PCS. Her axel was not better and she deserved only .35 more for the combo spin, the laybacks were same quality (also her bad flying spin was not evaluated properly, one judge gave it +3, and few judges took much of a deduction). Her footwork is +2 GOE quality only, it's truly fraudulent that some judges even gave +5. She did not deserve more points on the 3Flip, there's nothing better about it. The amplitude, form, speed, flow, rotation - all essentially identical between each skater. The ! call for Trusova was dumb and should only result in a .53 differential anyway, if someone really thinks her edge was slightly wrong.

As for "disrupting the choreography", it's this single and short moment remaining completely within the spin itself. Claim about "disrupting the choreography" makes me to doubt you've even watched the program.

It was not a "short moment". Aside from the bad entrance to the spin, it disrupted the whole element for many seconds afterwards, as she displayed poor form and speed and centering. Everything in a program is choreography. You don't seem to understand that, and doubling-down on insisting that this wasn't a disruption to the program shows a further lack of credibility.

You have the ludicrous audacity to claim I haven't watched the program, when I went through and judged them all in detail? Something which you are still failing to do? You need to defend the marks with actual analysis of the skating. Can't just blankly repeat the same thing over and over, that nothing was wrong with the judging. You need to prove it.

 

[sinus]

It is the opinion of many people that those scores are WRONG. She did not deserve to be so far ahead on PCS.

No, it is opinion of MANY MANY people that those scores are RIGHT! She deserved to be so far ahead on PCS!

 

[Blades of Passion]

She deserved to be so far ahead on PCS!

Nope, not in the Short Program. Again, her choreography there (including transitions) is nearly identical to the others, except with a messed up flying spin that makes it worse overall. Her skating skills were absolutely not better; where are the deeper and longer held edges, the more complex or rhythmic steps, the superior flow, more speed? It doesn't exist. The performance was somewhat muted, she was a lot better in the Long Program. Finally in terms of interpretation, it's hardly anything groundbreaking or creative, and at many points the music was ignored and not given movement that truly expressed it (which is a problem for all skaters these days, but she was no better there). She didn't deserve more points compared to Trusova on any PCS category for these performances.

 

[flanker]

It was not a "short moment". Aside from the bad entrance to the spin, it disrupted the whole element for many seconds afterwards, as she displayed poor form and speed and centering. Everything in a program is choreography. You don't seem to understand that, and doubling-down on insisting that this wasn't a disruption to the program shows a further lack of credibility.

You have the ludicrous audacity to claim I haven't watched the program, when I went through and judged them all in detail? Something which you are still failing to do? You need to defend the marks with actual analysis of the skating. Can't just blankly repeat the same thing over and over, that nothing was wrong with the judging. You need to prove it.

Three seconds of the first postition are a short moment. There was the bad entrance, that's why Anna didn't fulfill required number of turns in the first position and there's no dispute about that. Then what. Then she continued to other position, balanced and finished. Then continued. I mentioned what is important, your introduction of personal terms like disrupted choreo doesn't give the required response. overestimation of such a short moment and one element to devaluate the whole program makes no sense. I would even nod to your "disrupting the choreo" if Anna would put her left leg down, disrupted the whole element paused in confusion and to realize what to do now or something like that, but that didn't happen at all.

Considering your claims that hardly match the reality yes, I have my problems to believe. And what you probably consider "judging all in detail" doesn't help much. It's full of subjective terms, not defined words of which true sense in regard of evaluating the elements is unclear. Just taking your first claim: "doesn't have the amplitude to deserve higher". What's that? Or "very pleasant but not the best". And on other place "plesant in all regards". Where are the actual positive aspects? I can't take anything of that. That's not judging in detail, that's pure subjective description maybe good to make clear for yourself why you personally like (or dislike) something, but has nothing to do with the actual evaluation in the sense of points. Entry, height and length, air position, taking off, matching the music, actual bullets is what's what matters for the purpose of evaluation by points. Not this personal confession. No value for me at all. Just like there is hardly any value in claims like "many people this or that".

 

[flanker]

No, it is opinion of MANY MANY people that those scores are RIGHT! She deserved to be so far ahead on PCS!

Exactly. We can introduce voting system for public to see what think a few people, what think many people and what think many many people and turn figure skating into "XYZ has talent"

In the TV show Yes Prime Minister there was an advise how to reply on a claim "many people this or that" and it was "name six of them". Well, we would surely find many more people than six who disagree with the final order or scoring on the RusNats, but we would surely find many who actually agree. That's why there are judges and even them as specialists have to be multiplied to get at least to some rate of reliability.