1994 Worlds ladies' results: Surya Bonaly and Yuka Sato

[blue dog]

A lot of skaters didn't skate in that competition out of respect/support for Nancy... even though it'd been 5 years after the whack heard round the world they still sent the message... *shrugs*

Sorry to get slightly OT, but those skaters should've sent Tonya a thank-you note. Many of them wouldn't have made as much money as pros had it not been for Tonya's "misdeed."

Back to topic--I think part of the reason the judges didn't give it to Bonaly was that they felt she still had a lot of room to grow. Room to be more artistic, and to stop underrotating her 3/3's. Yuka was already the full package (sans the 3/3). They were sending Bonaly to contend with the new wave--Szewczenko, Kwan, and Bobek-- and, some thought, Baiul (though she never returned).

 

[Tonichelle]

going slightly OT with you blue dog - I think most begrudgingly acknowledge that without the scandal in 1994 they wouldn't have had the super star status that they held for the few years of the 'golden age'... I think Scott Hamilton said as much in his book... but if I were a skater in that part of skating history I'd have a hard time looking at it with completely rose colored glasses... not the best thing that happened to the sport, and yet it was... if that makes sense

I really wish Bonaly would have learned to have a more fluid style... I'm not saying she should have tried to become a Yuka Sato type skater (I don't think that's her style) but something a little less jerky would have been nice... talk about just going from element to element...

 

[antmanb]

It is true that Baiul's triple lutz was big , and it is true that she two-footed it, but the degree of the two-footing was pretty small in the overall scheme of things, often referred to as a "touchdown."

For an example of what I consider a "big 2ft," see this triple lutz (also underrotated):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaapd0kLAjE

To be fair Petrenko's landing of the triple lutz there was landed on the wrong foot with a touch down my the landing leg.

Ant

 

[gkelly]

Here's Tanja Szewczenko's LP from 1994 Worlds. How does it hold up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emE_wIVEPs0

The triple lutz (second jump) is two-footed by about the same amount as Baiul's in the SP at the Olympics. How would you describe it?


Just for fun, I tried watching my tape of the seven ladies' LPs that NBC showed us from that Worlds with criteria of the new judging system in mind.

For Skating Skills, I'd say that Bonaly's performance had plenty of power/energy and acceleration and was fine on balance and rhythmic knee action, but it was quite deficient in precision of foot placement; flow and effortless glide; cleanness and sureness of deep edges, steps and turns; multidirectional skating; and one-foot skating. Therefore she would have to be marked way down in Skating Skills, lower than the rest of the ladies in this broadcast.

On the other hand, these are the areas where Sato excelled the most, so she would have very high scores for Skating Skills.

If I were judging, I'd go up a bit on Bonaly's Transitions, but not that much (she had some good moves between elements and sometimes entering the elements, but she also had a lot of telegraphing), and down a bit on Sato's; I'd still have them far apart on that mark.

Performance/Execution, Choreography/Composition, and Interpretation would be closer, but I'd still give the edge to Sato there.

Josee Chouinard was the one who really stood out for Choreography and Interpretation. Her program had a level of detail and finesse that we rarely see under the old system or the current one. Brilliant program -- too bad she didn't give a brilliant performance technically.

On GOEs, Sato would also have an advantage. Bonaly would have had negatives on her triple lutz (similar mistake to Szewzenko's, and Baiul's at the Olympics . . . and a smaller jump), triple loop, and triple flip-triple toe combination (the triple toe would have been downgraded), as well as most of the spins. If you count the ending spins on both feet as one spin, FCUSp, it would be level 2. The only elements I could really see giving positive GOE for would be the double axels, and the split flip if it were counted as a single flip.

For Sato, I'd expect negative GOEs for the triple flip and the first triple salchow, and maybe the combination spin, or the flying camel if we're being strict about number of rotations. I would definitely give positives to her step sequence and final spin, probably +2s.

Taking all that into account, Sato would come out well ahead on the PCS, and she might even end up slightly ahead on TES; if not, then only slightly behind.

In the old system, there weren't separate numbers for each of those aspects of the programs, and some of them would have been defined or conceptualized differently, but they were all part of what judges kept in mind when coming up with two marks, even if there is a tendency for fans and commentators to boil it down to jump content and general performance/execution, mentioning spins or skating skills or choreography only when they really stand out one way or another.

 

[antmanb]

Here's Tanja Szewczenko's LP from 1994 Worlds. How does it hold up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emE_wIVEPs0

I think that was barely two footed. A slight brush on the ice by the free foot. I haven't seen the footage of Baiul's two foot but i wouldn't think it that serious. Back under 6.0 what was the mandatory deduction for two footing a jump in the SP? 0.2/).3?

Also i am amazed that Tanja landed those triple loops - she was so bent over/off axis for the first couple of revolutions i'm amazed she landed either.

Ant

 

[gkelly]

I haven't seen the footage of Baiul's two foot but i wouldn't think it that serious.

See for yourself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6zKfZVurJY

Back under 6.0 what was the mandatory deduction for two footing a jump? 0.2/).3?

In the short program, the deduction for a touchdown of the free foot, as in the examples mentioned here, was 0.1 to 0.2 depending on severity.

http://ww2.isu.org/news/980.html

For "starting or landing on two feet," it was 0.3. That means significant weight on both feet, not an incidental touchdown.

In the long program, there wasn't a mandatory deduction. Jumps "landed on two feet" (significant weight on both) were supposed to not count at all. For touchdowns, judges would just give partial credit and would each have their own methods for determining how much.

 

[antmanb]

See for yourself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6zKfZVurJY



In the short program, the deduction for a touchdown of the free foot, as in the examples mentioned here, was 0.1 to 0.2 depending on severity.

http://ww2.isu.org/news/980.html

For "starting or landing on two feet," it was 0.3. That means significant weight on both feet, not an incidental touchdown.

In the long program, there wasn't a mandatory deduction. Jumps "landed on two feet" (significant weight on both) were supposed to not count at all. For touchdowns, judges would just give partial credit and would each have their own methods for determining how much.

I must have watched at the time ( iwasn't that into ladies skating then) but i didn't remember it. I must say i really liked it as an SP. I think the two footed triple lutz was worse than Tanja's though. Tanja's looked more incidental whereas Baiul's looked more like the toe pick went down and took some weight on it. I think definitely a 0.2 deduction and arguably 0.3.

Ant

 

[dorispulaski]

A copy of Surya's 1994 World's LP can be viewed here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udTs6Kge67Y

 

[Bennett]

Thanks for sharing the video. Bonaly had a hand down on the loop and URed the latter jump of the 3-3 combination from the flip. I feel that her spirals are somewhat questionable. Perhaps Yuka had better centering in her spins even though Bonaly had more difficult positions (Yuka's final spin was just a regular stand spin). Yet, I still feel that she was not bad if we see only the elements. She is actually great. She had 3-3-2 sequence and one of her lutzs was in a combination.

Somehow her performance doesn't really flow. Fewer transitions and the very long entrances stand out.

Please forgive me for being somewhat off-topic, but I wonder why the long entrance has never been a problem for Carolina Kostner, but it was for Bonaly. Carolina is less awkward in her upper body movements, but her entrance is as long as that of Bonaly.

ETA: Back to the topic, I also realize that judging was pretty close. Five judges gave Yuka the first place, whereas four judges gave Bonaly the firsrt place. So I suppose that final outcome could have been the opposite.

Many of the judges on this panel were from Europe. There was one French judge and he/she gave Bonaly the first. But no Japanese judge was included in the panel of FS.

 

[Mathman]

Thanks for the post, DorisP and Gloryday.

At the time, I thought Surya should have won. But now that I see it again, and I know a little more about skating than I did then, I see a lot of little mistakes and flaws in Surya's program.

Yuka Sato's skate was thrilling. One of those whole-greater-than-the-parts thing.

 

[Tonichelle]

well, Yuka's just awesomeness squared...

 

[Mafke]

Yuka Sato's skate was thrilling. One of those whole-greater-than-the-parts thing.

In other words, exactly the kind of skating that CoP is meant to put an end to.

How can you count beans if the pile of beans is greater than the sum of the individual beans?

 

[Mathman]

In other words, exactly the kind of skating that CoP is meant to put an end to.

Case in point: Sato's last move, a plain upright spin, fast and well-centered -- the perfect exclamation point to a world championship performance.

We will never see that again. It's only a level one spin, and does not even have any extra "bullets" that would give it a positive GOE.

 

[gkelly]

Case in point: Sato's last move, a plain upright spin, fast and well-centered -- the perfect exclamation point to a world championship performance.

We will never see that again. It's only a level one spin, and does not even have any extra "bullets" that would give it a positive GOE.

It was well centered and very fast and had 17 revolutions, which is why I said I would give it +2. I can't imagine that most judges wouldn't give at least +1. The GOE bullets are primarily about quality.

Could she get a higher level without changing the spin much from the way she actually did it?

You'll notice that (like Bonaly's final spin) it was entered directly after a brief flying upright backspin on the other foot. It's questionable whether that change from backspin to forward spin would count as a change-foot upright spin or as two separate spins -- there was only the one step forward, but on a long enough edge that it could be considered starting a new spin. Any technical specialists out there want to chime in? Even if it were called as one spin, it's possible that judges would ding it for recentering.

I mentioned that if Bonaly's were called as one spin, it would be level 2 -- because of the difficult (butterfly) flying entrance, and the difficult position in the forward spin.

It's hard to get credit for a difficult variation in a scratch spin because some of the features (8 revolutions in the same position and speeding up) are pretty much built into the basic definition of the spin and even relative beginners can achieve that, so they don't count as features. Except that it's not even really 8 revs in exactly the same position because of the change in arm and leg position.

I wonder if a skater was able to hold the opening, slow rotating position of the scratch spin with the arms and free leg fully extended for 8 full revolutions before pulling in and speeding up, whether s/he would get credit for the 8 revolutions feature. For upright spins that feature needs to be in a difficult variation; I would argue that that position is difficult to hold still, but we'd need a ruling from a technical specialist.

Even the "headless" version of the scratch spin will only get credit as a difficult position if performed in such a way (speed, number of revolutions, etc.) that the technical panel considers it

So the best option could be entering the forward scratch spin from a backspin of some sort, as Sato did here but in such a way that it would definitely be called as one spin. Either the backward entry itself or a difficult flying entry would add one feature, and I would suggest a simple upright edge change on the backspin as a second feature (personally I find it easier to change from backspin to forward spin if I change edge, although I usually can't hold both edges long enough to qualify for that feature).

Then just do the forward scratch spin straight, aiming to increase the GOE rather than to increase the level further beyond level 2.

If it could be done in such a way as to get credit for another feature without decreasing the quality, then something like holding the free leg to the side for 8 revs before pulling in, bending the head backward for several revs, or going to a crossfoot position with both feet crossed on the ice could also be options to get up to level 3 or 4.


Another point to note is that it is still fairly common for skaters to end combination spins that end on the backspin foot with a fast back scratch spin.

 

[Mathman]

So the best option could be entering the forward scratch spin from a backspin of some sort, as Sato did here but in such a way that it would definitely be called as one spin. Either the backward entry itself or a difficult flying entry would add one feature, and I would suggest a simple upright edge change on the backspin as a second feature (personally I find it easier to change from backspin to forward spin if I change edge, although I usually can't hold both edges long enough to qualify for that feature)...

If it could be done in such a way as to get credit for another feature without decreasing the quality, then something like holding the free leg to the side for 8 revs before pulling in, bending the head backward for several revs, or going to a crossfoot position with both feet crossed on the ice could also be options to get up to level 3 or 4.

I guess that is why I keep going back and forth on the whole CoP thing. I just do not see how holding your leg out to the side for eight revolutions or crossing your feet on the ice adds anything of value to a skating program. If you spun with your finger stuck in your ear, that would be hard, too -- but don't...please.

The basic scratch spin is the one thing that distinguishes figure skating from every other human endeavor (lots of sports feature jumping, for instance.) Why take a thing of sublime beauty and bawd it up?

A little OT, but how would this spin be scored? (Sonia Henie, first spin )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoRfwgDLN7Y

 

[gkelly]

The basic scratch spin is the one thing that distinguishes figure skating from every other human endeavor (lots of sports feature jumping, for instance.)

Why the scratch spin more than any other spin?

Here are some similar effects without skates:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfiP8lHsQc0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDkRpx4NQb0

Spinning in a sitting position seems to be less common outside of skating, although this comes pretty close:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnvmT9E7JhA

Why take a thing of sublime beauty and bawd it up?

Why take a jump than can be performed exquisitely with 1-2 revolutions in the air and mar its beauty attempting 3-4?

That's sport -- higher, faster, stronger, more difficult. To find beauty for beauty's sake, look to show skating.

A little OT, but how would this spin be scored? (Sonia Henie, first spin )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoRfwgDLN7Y

Well, I think it would be CoSp1, and I would probably give it +2; I'm sure there are some judges out there who would go with +1 or +3.

Why does she hold her blade up in front of her thigh for most of the upright spin, "bawding up" the basic position? Does it help her spin even faster? For variety or visual interest? Does it make the spin more difficult and therefore more impressive? Did she do that in her competitive programs?

Would it count as a "difficult position" to a 2008 technical specialist, to earn one feature for the difficult position itself and another for 8+ revolutions in a difficult upright variation? I don't know. If so, would choosing that position instead of just a plain scratch spin, and/or holding the sitspin for 8 revs instead of 6 as well for another feature be bawding up the spin if a 2008 skater chose to do the spin almost exactly as Henie did it?

I've said many times that if it were up to me personally I'd adjust the scale of values so that a spin with only one "feature" would be worth more than a spin with none, rather than requiring two features to raise the base mark by raising the level, and I would also make it always more valuable to earn a one higher GOE point than to go up one level.

In that case, a level 1 spin with +2 GOE would be worth more than a level 3 spin at 0 GOE, so there would indeed be clearer incentive for skaters to choose quality over difficulty if they can't achieve both. But the very best spinners can do both at the same time, so why shouldn't the sport reward them for it?

 

[Mathman]

Why the scratch spin more than any other spin?

I don't know...it just seems more elemental to me. Also you can do it fasater than any other kind of spin. But a good sitspin and a classic layback are cool, too.

Here are some similar effects without skates:
...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDkRpx4NQb0

Do not try this at home.

Why take a jump than can be performed exquisitely with 1-2 revolutions in the air and mar its beauty attempting 3-4?

Well, my fave for ladies is the double Axel. For men, the triple Axel is the manliest of jumps.

As far as jumps are concerned, the change I would like to see in the "well-balanced program" is fewer of them and more "well balancing," such as moves in the field and choreography, using highlight elements like jumps to punctuate the choreo. Instead, we usually see the opposite -- choreography is something you toss in during those few seconds between the landing of one jump and the preparation for the next.

That's sport -- higher, faster, stronger, more difficult.

I agree with that. But then again, "more difficult" is not part of the Olympic motto. Higher jumps, faster spins, stronger stroking, yes indeed! Difficulty -- if by that we mean spinning in outlandish positions -- is not necessarily a good thing by itself, IMO.

 

[gkelly]

But then again, "more difficult" is not part of the Olympic motto.

Not in the motto, no. But one way or another degree of difficulty is part of the scoring of judged sports such as gymnastics, diving, aerial skiing, snowboarding, rhythmic gymnastics, synchronized swimming, etc., as well as figure skating . . . along with "form" or quality of execution, which is not part of the motto either.

 

[chrissy51]

Surya Bonaly vs Yuka Sato

I love the way Yuka skates but on that performance Surya should have been the winner. Her content was fabulous heads and toes above Yuka.

 

[sweetime]

well...

bonaly's jump was so good, but...

jump is not at all!

truly, i didn't like sato's performance.

not charming,not impressive...

but bonaly's performance.......is.....



someone said...

sato was very! very! lucky! skater!