- Joined
- Mar 16, 2005
After taking a small break from the board after all the great skating at Nationals, I'm back to throw in my two cents on this thread.
First of all, both Rachael and Mirai skated great. Both are going to the Olympics and I think most everyone can agree that they are deserving of that honor. As a Mirai fan, I too question the downgrades. However, even if Mirai were rewarded all those lost points, she still may have come up short to Flatt. The competition was close, and the results do inspire some head scratching, for sure.
I think it's really obvious to see from this thread that the judging system is still suspect, and there is just as much opportunity for "cheating" by the judges as there ever was. Whether this is the case for this particular event can continue to be open to a lively debate. It's clear though, that judges can inflate GOEs or PCS in order to give a particular skater an advantage. What happened to questioning the judges' credibility on rulings? I remember often hearing a lot about judges who, when grossly over-marking or under-marking skaters in the 6.0 system, would be subject to disciplinary committees or something of that sort. Is it just assumed that our new system is infallible?
The other really clear thing is that jumps just don't seem to be well understood by anyone: fans, judges, coaches, and skaters alike. I think Mafke (is that right?) and maybe silverlake22 have contributed some really intelligent posts to this thread on that matter. It certainly does seem as though the ISU has suddenly concocted a criteria for jumping that runs completely counter to the way they've been executed (especially by female skaters) for ages, and somewhat to the laws of physics. I've tried at length to explain this before, but there really is so much more to a jump than whether it's got 2 3/4 turns in the air or 2 2/3 (especially when, in reality, most have even less). The ISU protocol is a joke to me "the toe loop is the most commonly cheated take off jump." That's because the jump does take off forward. I've also tried to explain the difference between a properly executed triple toe with forward take off and a toe axel. Shouldn't the governing body for the sport have precise knowledge of just how these things work. And we've got all sorts of posters arguing that they did or didn't see the under rotations in real time or saying there's a cut off point that must be observed or that there's a difference between 91 and 89 degrees. Those skaters who agree with downgrading call out those fans who dispute them, saying "are you a technical specialist, qualified to make that judgment?" But are they any more qualified to say a jump is downgraded, or are they simply agreeing with the call that's been made by the judges? And no one can tell the difference between 2 degrees of rotation, definitely not with the naked eye, and most likely not with a mere slow-motion video playback. As I've said before, jumps are in fact somewhat objective. I always say, no educated skating professional would watch Mirai's performance at Nationals and say she landed 3 triples and a bunch of doubles. We all know that's not true, so then why, despite the semantics of what these jumps are termed on the judging protocols, are they given the same point value?
Also, in regards to whomever said that a flip and true lutz cannot be pre-rotated, both those statements are simply false. Now I may be getting into semantics, but there is always a measure of pre-rotation on every jump. Even a single toe loop isn't much more than 1/2 a turn in the air. It is a physical impossibility to generate rotation after jumping straight up into the air. Give it a shot at home, and you'll find it rather difficult. If a flip jump pre-rotates a quarter turn, the laws of physics do not dictate that at the point the skater leaves the ice, he will suddenly start to move in that direction. The forces of momentum and inertia, as well as rotational inertia beginning to be created on the ice, will ensure that the skater continues to travel in the same path of the take off.
In regards specifically to Mirai's issues. I think a lot of it has been her growth. She has been hit with UR calls as far back as US Nationals in 2007, and probably before that, but compare the jumps from 2007 and 2008 to this past season. Though she's always had somewhat "round" landings, her jumps were often more backwards in the past. I find it odd that so many people are criticizing her technique since it is basically very good. One thing I did notice though is how early she is with her upper body, especially on flip and Lutz. She manages to keep the body in line, but it would surely help her if her upper and lower body were a little more in synch. I think the calls were questionable. The first toe loop should have been called clean in my opinion. The second one was noticeably cheated. The second Lutz was very close, and could have gone either way. Perhaps the judges had a different camera angle for review, but I would have given her the benefit of the doubt.
Based on her progress this season, I'd say she and Frank are going to be continuing to address this issue for the next three weeks, the remainder of the season, and into the next year of skating. And I hope the judging system will catch up too, in the meantime.
First of all, both Rachael and Mirai skated great. Both are going to the Olympics and I think most everyone can agree that they are deserving of that honor. As a Mirai fan, I too question the downgrades. However, even if Mirai were rewarded all those lost points, she still may have come up short to Flatt. The competition was close, and the results do inspire some head scratching, for sure.
I think it's really obvious to see from this thread that the judging system is still suspect, and there is just as much opportunity for "cheating" by the judges as there ever was. Whether this is the case for this particular event can continue to be open to a lively debate. It's clear though, that judges can inflate GOEs or PCS in order to give a particular skater an advantage. What happened to questioning the judges' credibility on rulings? I remember often hearing a lot about judges who, when grossly over-marking or under-marking skaters in the 6.0 system, would be subject to disciplinary committees or something of that sort. Is it just assumed that our new system is infallible?
The other really clear thing is that jumps just don't seem to be well understood by anyone: fans, judges, coaches, and skaters alike. I think Mafke (is that right?) and maybe silverlake22 have contributed some really intelligent posts to this thread on that matter. It certainly does seem as though the ISU has suddenly concocted a criteria for jumping that runs completely counter to the way they've been executed (especially by female skaters) for ages, and somewhat to the laws of physics. I've tried at length to explain this before, but there really is so much more to a jump than whether it's got 2 3/4 turns in the air or 2 2/3 (especially when, in reality, most have even less). The ISU protocol is a joke to me "the toe loop is the most commonly cheated take off jump." That's because the jump does take off forward. I've also tried to explain the difference between a properly executed triple toe with forward take off and a toe axel. Shouldn't the governing body for the sport have precise knowledge of just how these things work. And we've got all sorts of posters arguing that they did or didn't see the under rotations in real time or saying there's a cut off point that must be observed or that there's a difference between 91 and 89 degrees. Those skaters who agree with downgrading call out those fans who dispute them, saying "are you a technical specialist, qualified to make that judgment?" But are they any more qualified to say a jump is downgraded, or are they simply agreeing with the call that's been made by the judges? And no one can tell the difference between 2 degrees of rotation, definitely not with the naked eye, and most likely not with a mere slow-motion video playback. As I've said before, jumps are in fact somewhat objective. I always say, no educated skating professional would watch Mirai's performance at Nationals and say she landed 3 triples and a bunch of doubles. We all know that's not true, so then why, despite the semantics of what these jumps are termed on the judging protocols, are they given the same point value?
Also, in regards to whomever said that a flip and true lutz cannot be pre-rotated, both those statements are simply false. Now I may be getting into semantics, but there is always a measure of pre-rotation on every jump. Even a single toe loop isn't much more than 1/2 a turn in the air. It is a physical impossibility to generate rotation after jumping straight up into the air. Give it a shot at home, and you'll find it rather difficult. If a flip jump pre-rotates a quarter turn, the laws of physics do not dictate that at the point the skater leaves the ice, he will suddenly start to move in that direction. The forces of momentum and inertia, as well as rotational inertia beginning to be created on the ice, will ensure that the skater continues to travel in the same path of the take off.
In regards specifically to Mirai's issues. I think a lot of it has been her growth. She has been hit with UR calls as far back as US Nationals in 2007, and probably before that, but compare the jumps from 2007 and 2008 to this past season. Though she's always had somewhat "round" landings, her jumps were often more backwards in the past. I find it odd that so many people are criticizing her technique since it is basically very good. One thing I did notice though is how early she is with her upper body, especially on flip and Lutz. She manages to keep the body in line, but it would surely help her if her upper and lower body were a little more in synch. I think the calls were questionable. The first toe loop should have been called clean in my opinion. The second one was noticeably cheated. The second Lutz was very close, and could have gone either way. Perhaps the judges had a different camera angle for review, but I would have given her the benefit of the doubt.
Based on her progress this season, I'd say she and Frank are going to be continuing to address this issue for the next three weeks, the remainder of the season, and into the next year of skating. And I hope the judging system will catch up too, in the meantime.