Yuna Kim vs. Mao Asada – Vancouver 2010

[gsk8]

Feature Friday Debate

At the 2010 Winter Olympics, Yuna Kim delivered a near-flawless, record-breaking performance to win gold. Meanwhile, Mao Asada landed multiple triple Axels — one of the hardest elements in the sport — on her way to silver. In the end, there was over a 23-point gap.

This is not to debate whether Kim deserved the gold, but to discuss this wide gap.



Let’s break it down:

• Did Kim’s overall quality make the result undeniable?
• Should Asada’s technical content have closed the gap more?
• Were the PCS scores fair… or too wide?
• Would this result look different under today’s judging trends?

Back in the day, some say this was perfection rewarded. Others say difficulty wasn’t valued enough. Where do YOU stand? Was the gap justified — or closer than the scores suggest?

Judges Scores (pdf) - Short Program
Judges Scores (pdf) - Free Skate

Yuna Kim - Short Program | Free Skate
Mao Asada - Short Program | Free Skate

 

[yfan1]

I actually had my scores with me at some point. I'll try to find them lol.

Funnily, I thought they both deserved low 8s for some of their components at the time... place them next to the current day skaters, and I'd be giving them 11s.

 

[4everchan]

Interesting thread. I will read along.... my contribution was that though everyone expected the Kim/Asada showdown, in the end, it was Joannie Rochette, with her stellar performance under very difficult times as her mother passed away just a couple days before the short program, that is memorable for me. I remember pretty much nothing else from the women's competition. I cried with Joannie. I think the entire country cried with her.

 

[Ares]

A lot of the big gap in their score had to do with the old Code of Points & rules that put Mao Asada that at a serious disadvantage. She couldn't perform her money jump (3A) instead of 2A in her SP and the zayak hurt her score in the FS more than it would if the rules were as they are now (they're better these days), she somehow was close to losing silver to Rochette which would be very unfair. But even with all that mind Yuna Kim for me was an incontestable Olympic Champion in Vancouver with her pristine 3-3 combinations that Mao lacked (and she was deservedly gaing GOE on Mao on most jumps) and a very strong presentation. The result should have been considerably closer though.

 

[4everchan]

A lot of the big gap in their score had to do with the old Code of Points & rules that put Mao Asada that put Mao at serious disadvantage. She couldn't perform her money jump (3A) solo in the SP and the zayak hurt her score in the FS more than it would if the rules were as they are now (they're better these days), she somehow was close to losing silver to Rochette which would be very unfair. But even with all that mind Yuna Kim for me was an incontestable Olympic Champion in Vancouver with her pristine 3-3 combinations that Mao lacked (and she was deservedly gaing GOE on Mao on most jumps) and a very strong presentation. The result should have been considerably closer though.

the rules are the rules... Mao benefitted from them too being allowed to use the 2lo three times in the LP .

of course, Kim was allowed to use the 2a three times too

I revisited the scoring cards a bit

1) Mao doing a triple axel with only a double toe was leaving her with a lower base value than Kim with her 3-3 combo. It's a bit the same thing as some guys not able to add a triple after a quad nowadays... it really puts them at a disadvantage. I agree with your point that because it had to be in combo, Mao was at a disadvantage but there were two bigger issues that had nothing to do with the rules here : Mao didn't have a stable 3-3 and didn't have a lutz.
2) In the LP, Mao had an under-rotation call as well as a popped jump. She lost the base value advantage a triple axel may have gotten her just like that. Back then, the 3a was worth 8.2 and the lutz 6.0. Yuna was repeating the lutzes and Mao the axels so it would bring Mao a 4.4 advantage in BV... but not if she were to pop a 3t into a single and under-rotate her flip, performing only 4 triples to Yuna's 6.
3) Joannie wasn't advantaged by the code of point back then. What we see in the protocol as a sequence, 3t-3s with a lowered BV ( I don't remember for sure but I think it was 70%) was in fact what we have today as a 3t-eu-3s which gets right now a full base value. She did a 7 triples program so I am not so sure it would have been that unfair if she had beaten Mao just based on the base value. Of course, Joannie was tighter in the LP than in the SP. At the same time, her performance level was high. She outscored Mao on PCS.

So while it's an interesting debate to evaluate Mao vs Yu-Na, maybe there is another debate : should Joannie have won silver at the Olympics ?

Was she held down by the sequence rule ? Was Mao over-hyped because of the triple axels when she had a rather less decisive LP with popping a jump and under-rotated another one, leaving her with only 4 rotated triples ?

 

[Ares]

the rules are the rules... Mao benefitted from them too being allowed to use the 2lo three times in the LP .

of course, Kim was allowed to use the 2a three times too

I revisited the scoring cards a bit

1) Mao doing a triple axel with only a double toe was leaving her with a lower base value than Kim with her 3-3 combo. It's a bit the same thing as some guys not able to add a triple after a quad nowadays... it really puts them at a disadvantage. I agree with your point that because it had to be in combo, Mao was at a disadvantage but she there were two bigger issues that had nothing to do with the rules here : Mao didn't have a stable 3-3 and didn't have a lutz.
2) In the LP, Mao had an under-rotation call as well as a popped jump. She lost the base value advantage a triple axel may have gotten her just like that. Back then, the 3a was worth 8.2 and the lutz 6.0. Yuna was repeating the lutzes and Mao the axels so it would bring Mao a 4.4 advantage in BV... but not if she were to pop a 3t into a single and under-rotate her flip, performing only 4 triples to Yuna's 6.
3) Joannie wasn't advantaged by the code of point back then. What we see in the protocol as a sequence, 3t-3s with a lowered BV ( I don't remember for sure but I think it was 70%) was in fact what we have today as a 3t-eu-3s which gets right now a full base value. She did a 7 triples program so I am not so sure it would have been that unfair if she had beaten Mao just based on the base value. Of course, Joannie was tighter in the LP than in the SP. At the same time, her performance level was high. She outscored Mao on PCS.

So while it's an interesting debate to evaluate Mao vs Yu-Na, maybe there is another debate : should Joannie have won silver at the Olympics ?

Was she held down by the sequence rule ? Was Mao over-hyped because of the triple axels when she had a rather less decisive LP with popping a jump and under-rotated another one, leaving her with only 4 rotated triples ?

Ok, I forgot about those other rules that changed like being able to do 2Lo three times. It's peanuts though. And the sequence rule was indeed different too which didn't help Rochette. Oh and it wasn't even zayak that hurt Mao in the FS, she got one of her triple axels downgraded to 2A value (it wasn't like 1/2 rotation short for me to consider it acceptable) - she landed what looked like a 3A and then got the score for it nixed which I think was an overkill, but the rules were cruel for URs then. All things considered though I still think the rules/CoP back then favoured Yuna Kim quite a little more. But it didn't make a difference at the end because of how well Yuna skated two programs. If Mao didn't pop a jump, had slightly better performed tech elements and had a FS that matched her more (I never liked much Bells of Moscow and possibly judges shared the sentiment) and lost to Yuna narrowly then the outcome could have been debatable in 1994 Lillehammer Nancy vs Oksana way. And now I can see a better argument for even an Olympic Silver for Rochette due to your remarks.

 

[4everchan]

Ok, I forgot about those other rules that changed like being able to do 2Lo three times. It's peanuts though. And the sequence rule was indeed different too which didn't help Rochette. Oh and it wasn't even zayak that hurt Mao in the FS, she got one of her triple axels downgraded to 2A value (it wasn't like 1/2 rotation short for me to consider it acceptable) - she landed what looked like a 3A and then got the score for it nixed which I think was an overkill, but the rules were cruel for URs then. All things considered though I still think the rules/CoP back then favoured Yuna Kim quite a little more. But it didn't make a difference at the end because of how well Yuna skated two programs. If Mao didn't pop a jump, had slightly better performed tech elements and had a FS that matched her more (I never liked much Bells of Moscow and possibly judges shared the sentiment) and lost to Yuna narrowly then the outcome could have been debatable in 1994 Lillehammer Nancy vs Oksana way. And now I can see a better argument for even an Olympic Silver for Rochette due to your remarks.

I don't see a downgraded 3a in the protocols for Mao but a downgraded flip.

Back then, I remember people arguing that Nagasu really deserved bronze over Rochette which was crazy to hear for me... and I was like, if you guys think Nagasu deserves bronze then the podium should be Kim, Rochette Nagasu.

Unfortunately for Mao, despite all her great qualities, she couldn't put two great skates back to back at the Olympics. Her tech content meant she had to go for risk... and well, it didn't always pay off.

 

[yfan1]

A lot of the big gap in their score had to do with the old Code of Points & rules that put Mao Asada that put Mao at serious disadvantage. She couldn't perform her money jump (3A) solo in the SP

Mao Asada absolutely could be doing her solo jump 3A out of steps. She could have done 3A, 3F+3Lo (or+3T) and 2A.

The worst rule that disfavoured her was the UR rule, which back then was an automatic downgrade for anything marked <. It hurt Mao because of the content she used to attempt.

Yuna also used to ridiculously beat Mao on the GOE for spirals, and the levels were quite flawed because they let her get away with the lack of extension on them.

Spins were quite a lot more even for them at this point of their careers, and jump quality went to Yuna.

 

[Ares]

Mao Asada absolutely could be doing her solo jump 3A out of steps. She could have done 3A, 3F+3Lo (or+3T) and 2A.

The worst rule that disfavoured her was the UR rule, which back then was an automatic downgrade for anything marked <. It hurt Mao because of the content she used to attempt.

Yuna also used to ridiculously beat Mao on the GOE for spirals, and the levels were quite flawed because they let her get away with the lack of extension on them.

Spins were quite a lot more even for them at this point of their careers, and jump quality went to Yuna.

I got it mixed up, I wanted to say that she couldn't do 3A instead of 2A like female skaters can do now in the SP. 2A is no longer mandatory. Maybe this would benefit Mao.

 

[4everchan]

I got it mixed up, I wanted to say that she couldn't do 3A instead of 2A like female skaters can do now in the SP. 2A is no longer mandatory. Maybe this would benefit Mao.

It would have helped but not enough. She wasn't able to do a fully rotated 3-3 at the point if I recall correctly so it wouldn't have compensated entirely for that loss.

 

[Mista Ekko]

I remember knowing Mao was fighting windmills when the judges gave her 126 points
for her 4CC winning (practically) clean FS with two 3As a couple weeks prior to Vancouver,
If you compared that to Yu-na winning the recent Worlds with 131 doing only 5 triples
and missing an entire spin you understood the judges and the system were in Yu-na's corner.

 

[jaylee]

Oh, this old argument.

I watched the 2006-2010 quad quite closely and I would say that the real cause of the point gap at the 2010 Olympics was not the rules regarding downgrades (which were more favorable to Mao in 2009-2010 than 2007-2008 -- judges couldn't see if the < symbol was given and could still award +GOE) or the judging, but Mao's perplexing strategy regarding jump layout, questionable choreographic choices, and overall physical condition that caused her to not execute to the best of her (previous) ability. On the other hand, Yuna Kim was at the peak of her ability, upgraded her jump combinations, added jump transitions for even more +GOE, had two crowd-pleasing and judge-pleasing programs, and executed flawlessly.

Mao 2006-2008 made way better choices in jump layout/choreography/transitions and was in better condition (at least in terms of jump consistency) than Mao 2009-2010. Any of her SP programs from 2006-2009 were better than the recycled Masquerade choice in 2009-2010. Either of her FS programs from 2006-2008 were better than Bells of Moscow. Her jump layouts were optimized and she had fewer meltdowns, in particular the one 3A / 2 triple/triple layout from 2007-2008; the choreography and transitions were more complex then as well. She won every competition except GPF in 2007-2008, and then split with the coach and discarded the jump layouts that got her the best results; unquestionably, the results for 2008-2010 were inferior to the 2006-2008 period. Tarasova choreographed nice SPs (Ladies in Lavender) and exhibitions for her but the music choice and FS choreography in 2008-2010 were not good.

If you look at Mao's 2008 Four Continents FS (or 2008 Worlds FS, minus the triple axel attempt and fall) and 2010 Olympics FS and watch them back to back, there's no comparison. She's faster, has more complex (and better) choreography and transitions, and her program is packed and yet well-balanced with the 3A, two 3/3s, and even a 2A towards the very end.

The most disappointing thing about the 2010 Olympics is not the point gap, but rather that Mao didn't bring her best to it -- not her best programs, not the best jump strategy, and not her best execution. The point gap is because Mao wasn't at her best and Yuna was. The closest thing we got to Mao's best versus Yuna at her very best during this quad was probably the 2007-2008 GPF. Both skaters made bizarre mistakes but both were healthy; Yuna didn't have her best programs of her career but skated with incredible speed and precision for the elements she did execute; Mao did have one of her best combination of programs and she hit her 3A and 3/3s (though the quality wasn't perfect; she had some two-footed landings). That was a more interesting and close competition than the 2010 Olympics. Some folks seem to have expected the 2010 Olympics to be like 2008 Worlds, an extremely close competition between Mao and Yuna when Mao was at her peak but Yuna was not; she was competing extremely injured and with some of her weaker programs.

As for Joannie Rochette, regardless of the emotional context, I think she deserved her bronze. Her SP jump layout is still curious to me -- for someone with a reputation as a strong jumper and who had previously done 3Lz/3T and landed quads in practice, I don't know why she couldn't at least do a 3T/3T and 3Lz in the SP, boosting her base value a bit. She skipped an entire 2A in the FS and so don't think she merits much more.

Mirai Nagasu was wonderful and delivered a very memorable FS. It didn't win a medal, but she won a lot of fans that night. And she could've leveraged that momentum into a world medal later...but she didn't.

 

[skatedreamer]

Interesting thread. I will read along.... my contribution was that though everyone expected the Kim/Asada showdown, in the end, it was Joannie Rochette, with her stellar performance under very difficult times as her mother passed away just a couple days before the short program, that is memorable for me. I remember pretty much nothing else from the women's competition. I cried with Joannie. I think the entire country cried with her.

this American cried with Joannie, too...

 

[4everchan]

As for Joannie Rochette, regardless of the emotional context, I think she deserved her bronze. Her SP jump layout is still curious to me -- for someone with a reputation as a strong jumper and who had previously done 3Lz/3T and landed quads in practice, I don't know why she couldn't at least do a 3T/3T and 3Lz in the SP, boosting her base value a bit. She skipped an entire 2A in the FS and so don't think she merits much more.

Back then, the toe was 4 points and the flip was 5.5 points. If she had done 3t-3t + the lutz = 14 points. Her layout gave her 12.8 points. I guess that she felt it was good enough and less risky.

I am not so sure why you say she skipped an entire 2a in the LP. She has the exact same number of jumping passes as what was required. Doing an extra 2a would have meant removing a triple jump. What is missing from her layout is a third combo. She could have added a double toe on any jumping pass. Doing so would have made her win second place in the LP, but probably not enough to win silver overall. She couldn't do an axel sequence because back then, the Euler combo was counted also as a sequence. She probably preferred doing that Euler sequence because it does look like a 3-3 combo which she didn't show in the SP nor the LP.

 

[jaylee]

I am not so sure why you say she skipped an entire 2a in the LP. She has the exact same number of jumping passes as what was required. Doing an extra 2a would have meant removing a triple jump. What is missing from her layout is a third combo. She could have added a double toe on any jumping pass. Doing so would have made her win second place in the LP, but probably not enough to win silver overall. She couldn't do an axel sequence because back then, the Euler combo was counted also as a sequence. She probably preferred doing that Euler sequence because it does look like a 3-3 combo which she didn't show in the SP nor the LP.

I was referencing Joannie as she reviewed her own FS mistakes. This quote appeared in the New York Times and other places. She was referring to the solo 2A, which was meant to be a 2A+2A sequence, but she had a bad landing on the first and skipped the second.

“Tonight she was telling me: ‘What went wrong with that triple flip? It looked so good in practice,’ ” Rochette said. “And: ‘Why did you take out that second double axel? You can do that in your sleep.’

More than one sequence was allowed in the FS; Akiko Suzuki had two sequences.

The gap between Mao and Joannie was less than three points. Doing the second 2A in the FS (cleanly) and doing a 3/3 in the SP would have closed the gap. Mao’s popped triple toeloop and downgraded triple flip were costly. But as it is, I think the results worked out fine.

 

[4everchan]

I was referencing Joannie as she reviewed her own FS mistakes. This quote appeared in the New York Times and other places. She was referring to the solo 2A, which was meant to be a 2A+2A sequence, but she had a bad landing on the first and skipped the second.



More than one sequence was allowed in the FS; Akiko Suzuki had two sequences.

The gap between Mao and Joannie was less than three points. Doing the second 2A in the FS (cleanly) and doing a 3/3 in the SP would have closed the gap. Mao’s popped triple toeloop and downgraded triple flip were costly. But as it is, I think the results worked out fine.

OK. Hard to keep track with all the rules. With a second double axel, Joannie would have definitely placed 2nd in the LP and perhaps even overall. She didn't need a 3/3 in the SP and she wasn't planning one.

 

[Ares]

A lot of the big gap in their score had to do with the old Code of Points & rules that put Mao Asada that at a serious disadvantage. She couldn't perform her money jump (3A) instead of 2A in her SP and the zayak hurt her score in the FS more than it would if the rules were as they are now (they're better these days), she somehow was close to losing silver to Rochette which would be very unfair. But even with all that mind Yuna Kim for me was an incontestable Olympic Champion in Vancouver with her pristine 3-3 combinations that Mao lacked (and she was deservedly gaing GOE on Mao on most jumps) and a very strong presentation. The result should have been considerably closer though.

Ok, I really mixed up different things in my original post. Anyway what I think did really put Mao at a disadvantage was her not being able to put 3-3 in the SP. She had to jump a 2A solo like all women had back then, and for Mao it was too risky to do 3T or 3Lo after her 3A. I don't think she had the right to perform 2A & 3A solo in one program.

 

[usethis2]

Kim was the queen of GOE, but Asada's 3A's did the job in that the first two elements between the two scored roughly the same.

Kim: 3Lz+3T (10.00+2.00) 3F (5.50+1.80)
Asada: 3A (8.20+0.80) 3A+2T (9.50+0.20)

So Kim's biggest jumps got her 19.30, Asada's 18.70. The rest of the programs were decisive.

Perhaps what was slightly unfair back then was that GOE was an absolute value regardless of the base value, which rewarded quality more than difficulty. For example a well performed 2A in theory (3.50 base +3 GOE = 6.50) could beat a meh 3A (8.20 base -2 GOE = 6.20) but in case of Kim v. Asada there just was not much difference in base value outside the first couple jump elements.

I have to mention that Kim's team left some points on the table because Kim's 2A+3T did not get the 10% bonus which she got on TEB 2009. It must have been borderline at the end of the 1st half of the program and a slight tweak at the program or the music would have prevented the loss of points.

 

[usethis2]

I rewatched Kim's FS in Vancouver, and it is weird. The music starts at 0:54 mark, and it seems to me the aforementioned 2A+3T starts at 2:55, or 2:54 if you are super strict about the take-off preparation. Shouldn't it have gotten the 10% bonus?

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com