Plushenko wants to become a legend of figure skating

[Mathman]

Has the ISU ever defined the exact point in which a skater "lands" on the ice? Is it when the toe pick hits the ice or when the entire length of the blade is in contact with the ice? Is it simply at the discretion of the tech specialist?

I cannot find any explicit directives about this, for instance, in the Technical Panel Handbook

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...chnical+Panel+Handbook+Single+Skating&ct=clnk

or in various "clarifications." The consensus of people posting on figure skating boards is that it is the moment any part of the blade (i.e.. the toe-pick), first makes contact with the ice. I don't know what actual technical specialists or ISU officials think.

In any case, the skater is twirling at a rate of a couple of revolutions per second, so it is not really humanly possible to decide exactly how many degrees of rotation are achieved entirely in the air. The rule book says, give the skater the benefit of the doubt if the under-rotatopn is not clear.

 

[Krislite]

I cannot find any explicit directives about this, for instance, in the Technical Panel Handbook

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...chnical+Panel+Handbook+Single+Skating&ct=clnk

or in various "clarifications." The consensus of people posting on figure skating boards is that it is the moment any part of the blade (i.e.. the toe-pick), first makes contact with the ice. I don't know what actual technical specialists or ISU officials think.

In any case, the skater is twirling at a rate of a couple of revolutions per second, so it is not really humanly possible to decide exactly how many degrees of rotation are achieved entirely in the air. The rule book says, give the skater the benefit of the doubt if the under-rotatopn is not clear.

Thanks! I never read that tech panel handbook before. Interesting stuff.

I think they should change the rule so that all three people on the panel make a call on UR or downgrade. If at least 2 out of 3 say UR, then UR. Otherwise no. The current set-up is misguided, since any "review" by the tech controller comes off as a little too confrontational, questioning the tech specialist's judgment (and competence) in the matter. As a result, you can expect very few if any reviews in order to avoid such conflicts.

 

[Mathman]

My understanding is that the three tech people divide up promary responsibility for the various calls among themselves. The reason being, there is too much going on for one person to see eveything.

For instance, on footwork sequences one of the three is timing it to see whether they are turning in the opposite difrection at least one-third of the time, someone else is watching their feet and counting the number of rockers, counters, etc., the third might be responsible for decisions about ice coverage or use of the upper body.

On UR calls, I believe that the procedure is this. If any one of the three thinks (in real time) that the jump might have been under-rotated, he shouts out "review." Then they all three look at the replay at the end.

By the way, the rule says that the under-rotation should be apparent in the replay without slo-motion. Except when the camera angle is such that they can't really tell in normal time, then they can go to slo-motion.

I think it is more the three of them working together, rather than challenging the tech specialist's call.

 

[janetfan]

My understanding is that the three tech people divide up promary responsibility for the various calls among themselves. The reason being, there is too much going on for one person to see eveything.

For instance, on footwork sequences one of the three is timing it to see whether they are turning in the opposite difrection at least one-third of the time, someone else is watching thei feet and counting the number of rockers, counters, etc., the third might be responsiblke for decisions about ice coverage or use of the upper body.

On UR calls, I believe that the procedure is this. If any one of the three thinks (in real time) that the jump might have been under-rotated, he shouts out "review." Then they all three look at the replay at the end.

By the way, the rule says that the under-rotation should be apparent in the replay without slo-motion. Except when the camera angle is such that they can't really tell in normal time, then they can go to slo-motion.

The tech panel in theory is a great idea and certainly a necessary part of the CoP.

But why does it feel like the judges are no different than 6.0?

With so many complaints about the PCS why not have a specialist for choreo and how it goes with the IN?

If the tech panel can't see everything themselves and divide the responsibilty can't we say by the same token the judges can't do it either?

Why not more specialists? The CoP scoring appears to be badly in need of a specialist just for the TR.

This system now feels like three "experts" are concentrating on the tech and the others are overwhelemed trying to figure out an accurate score from one r/t impression.

Some judges are more knowledgeable about music and we see a judge like Inman have different opinions about IN than other judges.

Some will say that judges will have different ideas so it is natural for their scores to vary. Certain tech judges have different ideas about what constitutes a UR.
But atleast three of them confer with the point of trying to get it right.

I guess now what happens is that people like Lori are telling the judges what is good choreo and IN. Wouldn't it be better to have an independent member of the tech panel working as some sort of PCS expert?

Would it hurt the CoP if a TR specialist let the judges know who has TR and is using it effectively?

Otherwise we will continue to see laughable scores in this area and PCS that at times feel wrong because they are primarily based on reputation and politics.

 

[Bluebonnet]

I don't think CoP is worse than 6.0.

 

[BackStage Barbie]

"I am man, I do quadruple jump in Mens Figure Skating. I am only Platinum medalist of Olympic Game of Mens Figure Skating. I am legend in sport of Mens Figure Skating."

 

[janetfan]

I don't think CoP is worse than 6.0.

And yet you can't ever stop complaining about Evan's PCS.
Did the judges do a good job last season on Evan's PCS?

I did not say one system was better. I pointed out the role of the judges in 6.0 and the Cop is very similar.

The tech panel is a big difference in the systems and I suggested more specialists with the goal of more accurate scoring.

Or maybe you have changed your mind and believe Evan's PCS were a credit to the CoP? :think:

 

[Mathman]

But why does it feel like the judges are no different than 6.0?

The main difference that I see in the judges' responsibilities in the two systems is this. In the CoP the judges must enter a separate evaluation of each element, together with a separate judgment about each of five different program areas. This is a a lot more work than under 6.0.

But on the other hand, judges are no longer burdened with juggling relative weights of pros and con in their heads so much. Under 6.0, for instance, a skater with great jumps was certain to recieve high marks in tech, even if his spins, footwork, moves in the field, etc., were not up to par. Under CoP., that's all taken care of by the computer. Most judges like that aspect of the CoP, despite the extra work, I think.

Intriguing idea about an expert panel for choreography/intepretation. It is not so easy to decide who is an expert, though. What qualifications would be required for this job? (Joe Inman is a piano teacher in real life. )

By the way, one official qualification to be a tech specialist is that the candidate must himself/herself have been an expert competitive skater, "at least on the national level" (to quote from the rule book).

 

[janetfan]

The main difference that I see in the judges' responsibilities in the two systems is this. In the CoP the judges must enter a separate evaluation of each element, together with a separate judgment about each of five different program areas. This is a a lot more work than under 6.0.

But on the other hand, judges are no longer burdened with juggling relative weights of pros and con in their heads so much. Under 6.0, for instance, a skater with great jumps was certain to recieve high marks in tech, even if his spins, footwork, moves in the field, etc., were not up to par. Under 6.0., that's all taken care of by the computer. Most judges like that aspect of the CoP, despite the extra work, I think.

Intriguing idea about an expert panel for choreography/intepretation. It is not so easy to decide who is an expert, though. What qualifications would be required for this job? (Joe Inman is a piano teacher in real life. )

By the way, one official qualification to be a tech specialist is that the candidate must himself/herself have been an expert competitive skater, "at least on the national level" (to quote from the rule book).

I don't always have the answers for suggestions/questions I bring up.

The CoP still has alot of room for reputation/political scoring. We see this in the PCS.

When a noted skater like Jeremy Abbot says publicly that a quad in your program will automatically boost your PCS we know for sure that there is a problem in the system.

When a legendary skater like Plushy admits he and Joubert lack TR and yet still get very good TR scores there is a problem in the system.

Part of he problem is the judges at times can have trouble processing so much information so quickly based on one r/t viewing.

TR is not an element so the tech panel doesn't bother to give it a level. Too often it seems to just get a reputation score. Or a politcal score. Or a quad bonus score which is not just wrong but ironic since in the past the quad jumpers were not typically skating with as much TR as some of the others.

I dunno, maybe this doesn't bother most fans but I see the PCS being used at times to prop up favorites and that seems to be an obvious flaw in the CoP that needs some attention.

If levels were called on TR we would see Jeremy with an advantage over Joubert and Plushy which he only gets now if he lands a quad.

With or without a quad Jeremy's skating looks much more intricate than Joubert or Plushenko. If the judges want to score based on politics or boost TR based on non-related factors maybe a tech specialist needs to keep them straight.

This is just one issue. Looking at Alissa's skating at Worlds and then Alena the judges seemed off. No doubt Alena won the jumps but did she really earn higher PCS?

If tech specialists can confer about tech issues why can't there be a little more help or guidance from a specialist regarding the pcs?

Or is it better just to leave that area political and reputation based :think:

 

[Mathman]

^ I hate to sound like a pessimist. No doubt it is possible to improve the CoP. (Blades or Passion has some specific ideas that could be implemented quite easily, I think.)

But to tell the truth I fear that the complaints about politics, reputation judging, bias, bizarre outcomes, etc., are features of judging per se, not just of this or that particular system of judging.

I look back (nostalgically) at old 6.0 competions, back when the nationalities of the judges were listed along with their scores. The national bias is right their unashamedly in our faces. Every once in a while some statistician decides to do a study of this phenomenon. Sure enough (duh!), almost every judge on the panel is inflating the scores (relative to the opinions of other judges) of skaters from their own countries and holding down the scores of their rivals. (I won't mention which country consistently and dramatically won the "super-homey award" time after time in theses studies. Hint: It wasn't the Soviet Union. )

Nowadays we can't do this because the ISU won't tell us which judge gave which marks. No one believes sweeping the problem under the rug made it cease to exist. But what we don't know won't hurt us. right, Speedy?

I think critics of the CoP are expecting too much of it. Yes, people will still get reputation scores for non-existent transitions, along with quad bonuses in choreography. Neither the CoP nor all the king's horses and all the king's men can prevent this. (Just my opinion, of course).

 

[dorispulaski]

And without a 3A, Jason Brown's skating is more intricate and interesting than Jeremy Abbott's (3A0 or Ryan Bradley's (4T). However, Jason didn't get the PCS he should have earned either.

Sometimes you gain by the system and sometimes you lose by it. This is also true of Jeremy.

Nothing is stopping Jeremy from getting at 4T that is consistent. Or from skating without a 4T without major errors. Except his own abilities...

 

[ImaginaryPogue]

I look back (nostalgically) at old 6.0 competions, back when the nationalities of the judges were listed along with their scores. The national bias is right their unashamedly in our faces. Every once in a while some statistician decides to do a study of this phenomenon. Sure enough (duh!), almost every judge on the panel is inflating the scores (relative to the opinions of other judges) of skaters from their own countries and holding down the scores of their rivals. (I won't mention which country consistently and dramatically won the "super-homey award" time after time in theses studies. Hint: It wasn't the Soviet Union. )

Heh. You can say it's Canada. Than I'll proceed to explain that if you have thirteen countries (say, the former USSR countries) working in concert, the inflated scores don't stand out as much. I'll also point out that the USSR remains the only nation to have it's judges banned from judging (in the late 70's) due to chicanery.

 

[blue dog]

Heh. You can say it's Canada. Than I'll proceed to explain that if you have thirteen countries (say, the former USSR countries) working in concert, the inflated scores don't stand out as much. I'll also point out that the USSR remains the only nation to have it's judges banned from judging (in the late 70's) due to chicanery.

I remember Canada does get the "super-homey" award, but I guess their way around it is to boost everyone else's marks. Unlike some Soviet/Russian judges like the infamous Tatiana Danilenko:

http://youtu.be/71j523P23Ig

She even gave Sarah Hughes a 10th place ordinal in the SLC short program, when every judge had her in the 3-4-5 range.

 

[janetfan]

Heh. You can say it's Canada. Than I'll proceed to explain that if you have thirteen countries (say, the former USSR countries) working in concert, the inflated scores don't stand out as much. I'll also point out that the USSR remains the only nation to have it's judges banned from judging (in the late 70's) due to chicanery.

I always felt the Canadians reached new heights of pettiness when they gave the Duchesnays such poor marks.

They should have been big enough to admit they screwed up in the first place. Instead they tried to keep them off the podium.

 

[ImaginaryPogue]

I always felt the Canadians reached new heights of pettiness when they gave the Duchesnays such poor marks.

They should have been big enough to admit they screwed up in the first place. Instead they tried to keep them off the podium.

Is there a specific program you have in mind, because I thought a lot of judges undermarked them in general.

 

[janetfan]

Is there a specific program you have in mind, because I thought a lot of judges undermarked them in general.

The 5.3 tech mark the Canadian judge gave them for "Savage Rite" at Worlds was by far the lowest mark, and soundly criticized by Toller Cranston at the time.

The next lowest mark was a 5.5 and the rest (Soviet bloc) were mostly 5.8 and 5.7
Can't ever recall that happening.

At 1990 Worlds the Canadian judge also gave them the lowest tech mark.

The low scoring from the Canadians continued at the '92 Olympics but although the marks were not questionably low the Canadians did cast a decisive vote that placed the Russian team over the Duchesnays (by 5 to 4) in the second dance of the competition that pretty much decided the Gold medal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7yyqicWPT8&NR=1

Remembering this team through their career they were controversial, and also ahead of their time.
They were the talk of the skating world and I can't ever remember a Dance team other than T/D who were so well received by the crowds.

D/W and V/M are not even close to the excitement level the Duchesnays brought to ice dancing back in their day.

ETA: I did go back and look at a few more scores and found several events where the Canadians marked them in the middle but never higher than that.

 

[dorispulaski]

I never understood why the Duchesnay's had such a hard time getting a foothold in Canadian ice dance, to the extent that they had to emigrate and skate for France in order to get to Worlds. The issue wasn't beating Wilson and McCall (where of course W&M were very, very good) AFAIR, but of beating the brother and sister team of the Garossinos, who were not all that good ).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYTXQh6u1e8

 

[fairly4]

for me he is a figure skating legend.
lets see he has 1 olympic gold medal, 2 olympic silvers, 3 world titles, i think 4 russian national titles, plus numerous others.
so yes i would quality him as a legend.

but for me also it is how they react to situations good and bad in life and skating as well.
how they react when things go their way and when they don;t.
skating wise he is. i don't know what more he needs to prove or do in skating.
personality wise.--- that is more debateable.

 

[Tonichelle]

I never understood why the Duchesnay's had such a hard time getting a foothold in Canadian ice dance, to the extent that they had to emigrate and skate for France in order to get to Worlds. The issue wasn't beating Wilson and McCall (where of course W&M were very, very good) AFAIR, but of beating the brother and sister team of the Garossinos, who were not all that good ).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYTXQh6u1e8

The compulsories... I miss them...

 

[dorispulaski]

Yes, so do I