- Joined
- Jun 3, 2009
What changes were made that specifically devalued the quad and when were they made?
Lysacek out of Grand Prix; at odds with USFS
- Thread starter Violet Bliss
- Start date
Gmyers, this is figure skating not figure jumping.
Why is it that everyone who whines about Evan's win (and that's exactly what it is) looks at the competition so two dimensionally?
Evgeny would still have lost and probably lost big behind not only Evan, but Takahashi and Lambiel (who did or attempted quads) if he had gone quadless without making adjustments to the rest of his program. The argument that you're making is hollow. It never made sense to not do quads. It made sense to maximize each skater's particular strengths while minimizing weaknesses as dictated by the rules of the time. By all means, do quads if that's what you're good at, but don't rely exclusively on them. Make sure you have something to fall back on. Maybe you did not watch skating in the era of figures or have forgotten that period, but back then, this sort of thing happened all the time. Winners often only had to be good enough at certain things in order to allow their own strengths to make up the difference. This is really no different and no less legitimate so long as the rules are equally applied. (BTW, from a scoring standpoint, this "controversy" is extremely similar to the 1980 games where Hoffman arguable outjumped Cousins-landing a huge lutz and a higher number of triples, but lost in a squeaker because his overall skating was clunkier. Had the new rules of 1981 been in place, he would have won.)
Most of the men at the top struggled with the quad for a variety of reasons during that cycle (injury, under-rotations, weaker jumping skills, etc.) so they stopped doing it. The quad itself never lost any value it just was not being done very well by most skaters at the time. So in a risk averse era imposed by heavy emphasis on under-rotation, many skaters went the safer route. It may have been worth more than its allotted base score in principle, but there was no intentional effort to reduce its value by the ISU or otherwise. It had a defined value which was duly applied to his score and anyone else's who attempted it. He lost nothing for including it. He was simply weaker in other areas. Had he improved them sufficiently, he likely would have won easily. Lambiel also came in with a glaring handicap, no 3a. If he had done them cleanly, he could have been challenging for the gold. Takahashi was really the only one of all the top competitors who came in with no real weakness on paper. He simply made errors.
In fact, I'd argue that if Plushenko, or some other skater for whom the quad came easily, had competed consistently during that cycle the other skaters would have felt more compelled to attempt it. Especially if Plushenko had made the requisite improvements to his step sequences, spins and overall choreography which failed him in the Olympics. Instead most followed Buttles example and crafted cerebral programs that could milk points wherever possible. If Kostner can be lauded for squeezing every single possible point out of her often technically marred programs, then why can't Evan when he goes clean? Because he's a guy. Is the point that male skaters should be judged by jumps first and foremost, but women should be judged for executing the finer details? That makes no sense to me.
IMO, Evgeny was a far more complete skater in many ways in 2002 than in 2006 or 2010. He had a rival he respected and who forced him to stretch and not get comfortable in his own skin. Once he felt unchallenged, I feel he got lazy in the approach to creating his programs. He felt anything he did would be good enough (and often was) to beat back any challengers. He created a false sense of security for himself. Evan on the other hand, was never dominant and always knew he could be beaten, so he too greater care to figure out a way to engineer wins. He never took anything for granted. Were his programs masterpieces to be displayed on a vid screen in the Louvre? No, but most skating programs aren't, especially for non-skating fans who think it's all an overblown, schlocky mess anyway. What they were were good enough under the rules to make him competitive. The rest was up to how he and his competitors performed on the day. That's the essence of sports. Never make assumptions or rest on your laurels.
Why is it that everyone who whines about Evan's win (and that's exactly what it is) looks at the competition so two dimensionally?
Evgeny would still have lost and probably lost big behind not only Evan, but Takahashi and Lambiel (who did or attempted quads) if he had gone quadless without making adjustments to the rest of his program. The argument that you're making is hollow. It never made sense to not do quads. It made sense to maximize each skater's particular strengths while minimizing weaknesses as dictated by the rules of the time. By all means, do quads if that's what you're good at, but don't rely exclusively on them. Make sure you have something to fall back on. Maybe you did not watch skating in the era of figures or have forgotten that period, but back then, this sort of thing happened all the time. Winners often only had to be good enough at certain things in order to allow their own strengths to make up the difference. This is really no different and no less legitimate so long as the rules are equally applied. (BTW, from a scoring standpoint, this "controversy" is extremely similar to the 1980 games where Hoffman arguable outjumped Cousins-landing a huge lutz and a higher number of triples, but lost in a squeaker because his overall skating was clunkier. Had the new rules of 1981 been in place, he would have won.)
Most of the men at the top struggled with the quad for a variety of reasons during that cycle (injury, under-rotations, weaker jumping skills, etc.) so they stopped doing it. The quad itself never lost any value it just was not being done very well by most skaters at the time. So in a risk averse era imposed by heavy emphasis on under-rotation, many skaters went the safer route. It may have been worth more than its allotted base score in principle, but there was no intentional effort to reduce its value by the ISU or otherwise. It had a defined value which was duly applied to his score and anyone else's who attempted it. He lost nothing for including it. He was simply weaker in other areas. Had he improved them sufficiently, he likely would have won easily. Lambiel also came in with a glaring handicap, no 3a. If he had done them cleanly, he could have been challenging for the gold. Takahashi was really the only one of all the top competitors who came in with no real weakness on paper. He simply made errors.
In fact, I'd argue that if Plushenko, or some other skater for whom the quad came easily, had competed consistently during that cycle the other skaters would have felt more compelled to attempt it. Especially if Plushenko had made the requisite improvements to his step sequences, spins and overall choreography which failed him in the Olympics. Instead most followed Buttles example and crafted cerebral programs that could milk points wherever possible. If Kostner can be lauded for squeezing every single possible point out of her often technically marred programs, then why can't Evan when he goes clean? Because he's a guy. Is the point that male skaters should be judged by jumps first and foremost, but women should be judged for executing the finer details? That makes no sense to me.
IMO, Evgeny was a far more complete skater in many ways in 2002 than in 2006 or 2010. He had a rival he respected and who forced him to stretch and not get comfortable in his own skin. Once he felt unchallenged, I feel he got lazy in the approach to creating his programs. He felt anything he did would be good enough (and often was) to beat back any challengers. He created a false sense of security for himself. Evan on the other hand, was never dominant and always knew he could be beaten, so he too greater care to figure out a way to engineer wins. He never took anything for granted. Were his programs masterpieces to be displayed on a vid screen in the Louvre? No, but most skating programs aren't, especially for non-skating fans who think it's all an overblown, schlocky mess anyway. What they were were good enough under the rules to make him competitive. The rest was up to how he and his competitors performed on the day. That's the essence of sports. Never make assumptions or rest on your laurels.
obviously there was the downgrade rules that were applied to all jumps 2007 but really affected the mens willingness to do the quad but also the increase in value of a 3A that went along with raising the value of the quad so you had the quad worth more but insanely more risky to do compared to a triple axel. And then if you did a 3a at the halfway point it was worth only .78 less than a quad at 9.8 for quad 9.02 for 3a at halfway point. That right there is when quad started to vanish and not worth doing and lots more 3a at exactly 2:15 in a program. BUt then you also had the .2 or .3 increase in value for spins and steps and with GOE making them worth more to do. It's all there in the protocols the devaluing and discouraging and the not worth doing anymore.
Last edited:
The 1998, 2002, 2006 winners all did quads. It was thought to be an gold Olympic standard. If an Olympic champion doesn't do something it doesn't make any sense to do. The triple axel in womens skating hasn't gone anywhere because no one has won an Olympics with one so there is no reason to learn it or do it or risk it ever. That would hve happened with the quad in mens skating. world and olympic champions don't do it anymore no reason to learn it or practice it or do it in programs anymore. Mens skating was already becoming quadless at the gold medal winning level. Joubert winning bronze at the 2009 worlds encouraged no one to do quads. Plushenko winning silver at the olympics with quads l ike midiri ito winning silver in Albertville win triple axels encouraged few women to do triple axels- maybe only Mao Asada.
Pluishenkos spins and steps did not fail him at the olympics. they were all level 3 and 4.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2009
The downgrade rule first applied in 2007. At the 2007 Worlds, the top five LPs all had quads. So it couldn't have hurt that much.
There were actually four spins in the LP in 2007 (and 2006, when Plushenko won the Olympics), but that was brought down to three, so the increase in value to the spins was counteracted by losing one of them. (six increases of 0.3 = 1.8; level two spin = 2.3)
Level four footwork did indeed increase in value from 2006 to 2010, but 0.5 points. Of course, it's worth mentioning that at the Olympics, Plushenko was doing level four footwork alongside is 4-3 (and he was the only guy to do a level four footwork sequence).
What else?
There were actually four spins in the LP in 2007 (and 2006, when Plushenko won the Olympics), but that was brought down to three, so the increase in value to the spins was counteracted by losing one of them. (six increases of 0.3 = 1.8; level two spin = 2.3)
Level four footwork did indeed increase in value from 2006 to 2010, but 0.5 points. Of course, it's worth mentioning that at the Olympics, Plushenko was doing level four footwork alongside is 4-3 (and he was the only guy to do a level four footwork sequence).
What else?
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2010
2008-10 was the dark-age of men's skating in recent history. I'm so glad it was over!
Obviously 2007 was a good year for attempts and successes with quads except for Jeff BUttle who fell and got no points but in 2008 that was all reversed and you saw lots of failures but not with Buttle who dropped the quad from his Free skate and beat all the people who tried quads and failed or ured and got 1 or no points. So in his skate in 2008 you saw all the great value of not doing quads as opposed to trying quads and failing. So now there is a big reward for trying and falling if it is fully rotated so the quad had great value again and maybe in 2008 you wouldn't have had such a nasty trainwreck if the men had been rewarded for trying but failing as they are now.
And the SPs were largely quadless which is even changing now as more men actually consider and try quads in SPs.
And the SPs were largely quadless which is even changing now as more men actually consider and try quads in SPs.
Are you sure, Bluebonnet? Wasn't that the time we got to see Takahashi and Lambiel? And Oda was breaking out as well.
3As did not come into use because Cousins or Hamilton were doing them. Two Canadian skaters (one relatively undistinguished- Taylor and one who had yet to make his mark-Orser) in the 70s and early 80's did that. They came into place as a way to become competitive with them. Their exponents realized there was more than one path to success and pursued what they were best at to get there. Quads were similarly not popularized by an OGM. Lots of average and great skaters were training that jump going back to the 70s and some came darn close in the 80s. Browing was the Canadian #2 when he's credited with 1st landing one and still placed 8th at worlds that year. The second man to land one was an unsung Soviet kid (Urmanov) no one had ever heard of at the time (1991). OGMs didn't get in on the game until seven years later.
Evan and his contemporaries were not incapable of doing quads, they largely chose not to do them during one season. They sporadically attempted and sometimes landed them from 2007-2009. An so what if they did? No man landed a 3Z after Don Jackson for 12 years until Kubicka did so. Even after that, all the medalists at worlds and Olympics (except maybe Hoffman) until the late 70s chose not to attempt the jump either. Should we dismiss all the men who competed during that time because they focused on other things? Oh well, buh bye Wood, Curry, Cousins, Cranston, Nepala, Tickner, Petkivich, Shelley, Tchetveroukin. Sorry I wasted my time on you.
Evan attempted them frequently until he got injured. BTW, he was not the only OGM to go with a more conservative program to ensure greater success. Cousins was training a 3Z leading to 1980 to be more competitive with Hoffman. He was even doing them in practices at Lake Placid. He didn't do one in the event. Still won. Boitano and Orser both dumped the quad toes they had been training and attempting by the time Calgary came around despite attempting them for several of the prior seasons. Urmanov took it out in Lillehammer. Stojko tripled his. Yagudin deliberately watered down his LP in SLC. So what is your point? Evan played the game better. You can break down percentage increases in value of spins and steps and 3As versus quads as much as you want. In the end, the change was the same for everyone. They all had to find a way to win under that system. After 20 plus years of men's skating being entirely devoted to jumps, I did not mind seeing emphasis on other things. A little re-balancing every once in a while is not a bad thing.
Anyway, in what way does any of this support your original assertion that Lysacek is guaranteed to lose to Chan by 40-50 points if he came back because he'd obviously be unable to compete technically? Is that based on something concrete or did it come out of thin air?
AS for Midori, she screwed up the SP in Albertville even after choosing a simple combo. It's not like she jumped flawlessly in both programs and still lost. She actually fell in both. Yes she landed the 3A in the LP, but she also fell during it. She was properly rewarded by pulling herself together midway through the program and skating well enough to earn silver. She still might not have done that if Kerrigan had not also screwed up. That did not discourage women from doing 3As. Harding stuck around 2 more seasons and was still trying them. Kwan was training them until her body changed. Bonaly was trying quads. What happened was that the women who were doing 3As retired and were thus no longer around to push that particular envelope. In addition, that period from 94 to 2004 was largely dominated by women who were simply not as naturual at jumping. It happens in all discplines, somtimes some skills stagnate or regress, but frequently other skills improve at the same time.
To finish, here's a thought for everyone to consider. Skating has had three primary periods in terms of its competitive structure. 1. Figures/Free Skating 2. Free Skating only 3. COP. Under figures, fans came to terms with the fact that jumping was not the be all and end of the sport. After 1990, under a free skating only format, fans became used to a system that favored rapid advancements in and focus on jumping. Other aspects which were nutured by figures diminished in importance. Initially, the reaction against such a change was not universal acceptance, but rather resistance. Since 2005, COP has been reforming the sport by incorporating old school moves from figures into free skating, likely the last revent of the old supporters of figures. I suggest that what we are going through now with COP is a readjustment in our thinking about what is a winning performance. We're still applying the thining of 6.0 minus figures to COP. As with figures, you don't have to have the winning free skate, just the hightest point total. That's hard for some to swallow. Little details end up making the difference rather than just jumps. (Watch the women's SP from the 88 Olympics with modern eye and tell me if you come to the same conclusion on standings that the judges did back then.
Quadless conservatism should not have lead to olympic gold in 2010!. It will always be horrible.
I did not say CHan would win by 40/50 PTF did - I thought Olympic champion bonus would mean lysacek would be much closer to chan.
Lysacek was fine the whole 2009-2010 season. Scott Hamilton said he was doing quad after quad at US nationals practice. He fell in US nationals FS and it was gone. He was all about quadless conservatism and not doing them to remain at a lower level so he could maximize eaiser elements.
Don jackson was not Olympic champ or world champ more than once. Three olympics had been won with quads and 10 worlds in a row. Three Olympics! 10 worlds!
the women from 1994 to 2004 had no motivation to learn the 3A because it barely won anyone anything.
Watered down yagudin did three quads SP LP
I did not say CHan would win by 40/50 PTF did - I thought Olympic champion bonus would mean lysacek would be much closer to chan.
Lysacek was fine the whole 2009-2010 season. Scott Hamilton said he was doing quad after quad at US nationals practice. He fell in US nationals FS and it was gone. He was all about quadless conservatism and not doing them to remain at a lower level so he could maximize eaiser elements.
Don jackson was not Olympic champ or world champ more than once. Three olympics had been won with quads and 10 worlds in a row. Three Olympics! 10 worlds!
the women from 1994 to 2004 had no motivation to learn the 3A because it barely won anyone anything.
Watered down yagudin did three quads SP LP
Last edited:
I apologize for confusing you with Pangtongfan.
Nevertheless, dismissing facts when they are presented to you simply because you don't like the result doesn't prove your position. Whether Jackson won an OGM was not the point. The point was that he set a technical mark that went unmatched for more than a decade yet the sport still evolved. This perpetual focus on OGMs as the pinnacle of all skating is getting a little tiring, especially considering that three of the universally accepted greatest skaters of all time (Brwoning, Kwan and Lynn) won no OGMs. Their quality is all that matters in assessing them. Just because you declare that OGMs always set the technical direction of the sport does not make it so. Jackson's achievement in 62, not just the lutz but the whole program and the way it revolutionized both jumping and choreography at the time, is a seminal moment in the sport. Not every major hallmark has to be at the Olympics or by an OGM to matter.
My other examples support that position. Up to 1988, most OGMs from 64 onward did not have the most technically difficult and completed LP when they won. Boitano's win was significant not just because of his rivalry with Orser, but because of how he won. They were so even in the figures and the SP that it had to come down to the LP. The fact that he won on the basis of his superior jumping was an uncommon occurrence up to that point. More often such things came down to the second mark. As I stated previously, that trend changed over the next 20 years, but it was not always the case over the course of the entire history of the sport. That's not a guarantee that every successive OGM is going to break technical jumping marks set by their predecessors. Skating existed before the quad after all but previous technical milestones still existed but were not always determinative.
The Cousins-Hoffman analogy is a good one simply because the situations were so similar. Check it out, if you are unfamiliar. Much of the top ten did one or more jumps that were harder than Cousins (lutzes, flips) and more of them in total. He won on the strength of his overall skating even with a slightly messy 3R. Hoffman jumped lights out and had one of his very best LPs and lost by a whisker. Much of the same controversy as now erupted and the scoring system was changed far more radically, in part to address those concerns. Still in hindsight, most would agree that the right decision was made.
http://www.winter-olympic-memories....d/13_lake_placid/13_figure/13_figure_m_ex.htm
Nevertheless, dismissing facts when they are presented to you simply because you don't like the result doesn't prove your position. Whether Jackson won an OGM was not the point. The point was that he set a technical mark that went unmatched for more than a decade yet the sport still evolved. This perpetual focus on OGMs as the pinnacle of all skating is getting a little tiring, especially considering that three of the universally accepted greatest skaters of all time (Brwoning, Kwan and Lynn) won no OGMs. Their quality is all that matters in assessing them. Just because you declare that OGMs always set the technical direction of the sport does not make it so. Jackson's achievement in 62, not just the lutz but the whole program and the way it revolutionized both jumping and choreography at the time, is a seminal moment in the sport. Not every major hallmark has to be at the Olympics or by an OGM to matter.
My other examples support that position. Up to 1988, most OGMs from 64 onward did not have the most technically difficult and completed LP when they won. Boitano's win was significant not just because of his rivalry with Orser, but because of how he won. They were so even in the figures and the SP that it had to come down to the LP. The fact that he won on the basis of his superior jumping was an uncommon occurrence up to that point. More often such things came down to the second mark. As I stated previously, that trend changed over the next 20 years, but it was not always the case over the course of the entire history of the sport. That's not a guarantee that every successive OGM is going to break technical jumping marks set by their predecessors. Skating existed before the quad after all but previous technical milestones still existed but were not always determinative.
The Cousins-Hoffman analogy is a good one simply because the situations were so similar. Check it out, if you are unfamiliar. Much of the top ten did one or more jumps that were harder than Cousins (lutzes, flips) and more of them in total. He won on the strength of his overall skating even with a slightly messy 3R. Hoffman jumped lights out and had one of his very best LPs and lost by a whisker. Much of the same controversy as now erupted and the scoring system was changed far more radically, in part to address those concerns. Still in hindsight, most would agree that the right decision was made.
http://www.winter-olympic-memories....d/13_lake_placid/13_figure/13_figure_m_ex.htm
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2008
I thought your analysis was interesting, but I hate the "it's figure skating not figure jumping" line. It's also not figure spinning or figure transitioning. The argument at least some of us make is that a top-of-the-podium skater should be able to combine all these things successfully - including quads. Let me go dig up my very first post here... you can see from the skaters referenced how long ago this was:
p.s. if it really were a figure skating competition, Trixie Schuba could make a comeback and beat all of the current lot.
Lambiel debuted at Euros in the 2000-1 season, Takahashi moved to senior in 2002-3. Lambiel was nowhere near as good in this timeframe as he'd been earlier in his career; Takahashi's breakthrough came before 2008, and he missed a full season with the ACL injury (and was consequently inconsistent in the Olympic season). So while I wouldn't necessarily refer to that period as a dark age, Stephane and Dai are not the skaters I'd bring up to persuade someone otherwise.
The quad was devalued during this time; the proof is that fewer skaters were doing it, because there was no good reason for them to. I would attribute this to the URs calls becoming very frequent; the way a URd quad was punished both by being knocked down to triple base value and getting negative GOEs, so that you could end up with about as many points as for doing a double toe - not an attractive option for many skaters; and the discrepancy between the + and - GOE values for quads (+3 gave you +3; -3 was -4.8. That's an awfully big risk to take). And then when Buttle won in 2008, it pretty much made it clear how to win without a quad, and a lot of skaters took notice - including ones whose non-jump elements and presentation were nowhere near as good as Jeffrey's. So it made for some awfully dull skating.
Last edited:
Buttercup, this may be a matter of semantics between us, but as I see it, it was the skaters choice not to attempt the quad but its actual value was not affected by that choice. That has always been the case, as have concerns over its risk/reward. How that is quantified may change, but the situation transcends scoring systems. BTW, all of these arguments have happened regarding every jumping advance. When triples eclipsed doubles, the same complaints were made during transitional and occasionally regressive or stagnated periods (e.g. when Roz Sumners routinely did fewer triples than Fratianne yet frequently beat Zayak who did more triples-repeated or not- routinely.) My point through all of this is that it's absurd and unfair to single out Lysacek for something which is not isolated and will happen again.
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2008
I also suspect it's semantics... "its actual value was not affected by that choice" - I meant the opposite: that the value affected the choice, not that the choice affects the value. Also, in absolute terms, the value of the quad has changed: the base value is now higher, the negative GOE units are the same as the positive ones, and there's the midway UR designation. Also, triple GOEs are now lower than they were in 2010. All these together have made the quad more rewarding and less risky, and thus more skaters are doing them.
Evan Lysacek shouldn't be blamed for putting together programs that fit the system; it was smart. The system should be blamed for allowing a skater with no quad, dodgy 3A technique, and, IMO, mediocre presentation to get as far as he did just because he is consistent. Some of his scores in the Olympic season were not in line with what he was showing on the ice, the PCS especially; it was a masterful politikking job. But Evan himself simply did what he needed to do to win, and I don't feel he should be blamed for playing it safe when the system was geared toward such a thing. And if the other skaters had done their jobs, he wouldn't be an OGM. Last season we did see some skaters put it all together, and they would have blown Lysacek's Olympic performance out of the water. I suspect he knows this, and I imagine his decision regarding this season is not wholly due to contractual issues with his federation. But we shall see.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2009
Here's the thing - I recognize I get really irate when dealing with gmyers on this topic and come off as rude. I don't mean to and I apologize for that. I believe gmyers deserves credit here because he's clearly holding a point of view with conviction and it's not like he's changing his opinion based on who has the quad or whatever.
My problem stems from the assumption here of the cause-and-effect. If you assume that the quads were gone because the system devalued them, then that's fine. I just don't agree that's the case, but more than that, by misunderstanding the problem, you create a solution wherein Patrick Chan can win with three falls. Which is exactly what they did.
Buttercup, the post you quoted from that debate gets to the heart of the debate. The fact is, quads and artistry/complex choreography/other skating skills etc aren't mutually exclusive. But the skaters were treating them as if they were, and therein lies the rub. The fact is, the top of the podium skaters WEREN'T combining everything. So how do you judge a competition when the elite skaters all have a range of glaring flaws, whether it's the lack of a quad, poor/absent triple axels, mediocre skating skills, terrible choreography, etc etc. You do it by measuring the differences between them on each and giving a number.
Plushenko won gold in Turin by a large margin. He won gold because, according to the judges, he was the best at jumping, steps, choreography, transitions, performance/execution, skating skills and interpretation (seriously - go check it out. He came second in spins.... to Lysacek. He also tied Buttle on transitions for the LP, but won the SP's transition scores). Was he? Frankly, I have a hard time seeing him ahead of Matt Savoie in transitions or interpretation, or ahead of Shawn Sawyer in Transitions, etc, but that's not what the judges said. And frankly, it shouldn't have made a difference - his level of skating was so dominant that he deserved to win.
In Vancouver, Takahashi won Skating skills, Lambiel won Interpretation, Plushenko won performance, etc etc. There's a reason it was so tight.
Buttercup, which skaters do you think WOULD have been attempting the quad but didn't because of the rules?
My problem stems from the assumption here of the cause-and-effect. If you assume that the quads were gone because the system devalued them, then that's fine. I just don't agree that's the case, but more than that, by misunderstanding the problem, you create a solution wherein Patrick Chan can win with three falls. Which is exactly what they did.
Buttercup, the post you quoted from that debate gets to the heart of the debate. The fact is, quads and artistry/complex choreography/other skating skills etc aren't mutually exclusive. But the skaters were treating them as if they were, and therein lies the rub. The fact is, the top of the podium skaters WEREN'T combining everything. So how do you judge a competition when the elite skaters all have a range of glaring flaws, whether it's the lack of a quad, poor/absent triple axels, mediocre skating skills, terrible choreography, etc etc. You do it by measuring the differences between them on each and giving a number.
Plushenko won gold in Turin by a large margin. He won gold because, according to the judges, he was the best at jumping, steps, choreography, transitions, performance/execution, skating skills and interpretation (seriously - go check it out. He came second in spins.... to Lysacek. He also tied Buttle on transitions for the LP, but won the SP's transition scores). Was he? Frankly, I have a hard time seeing him ahead of Matt Savoie in transitions or interpretation, or ahead of Shawn Sawyer in Transitions, etc, but that's not what the judges said. And frankly, it shouldn't have made a difference - his level of skating was so dominant that he deserved to win.
In Vancouver, Takahashi won Skating skills, Lambiel won Interpretation, Plushenko won performance, etc etc. There's a reason it was so tight.
Buttercup, which skaters do you think WOULD have been attempting the quad but didn't because of the rules?
I understand your point about the system Buttercup. But I see things from a different perspective so that the same concerns you raise don't really bother me. Part of the beauty of skating is that over the course of its history, the ISU has made one attempt after another to shift the technical direction of the sport. People complain and fuss, but in the end skaters adjust and quality performances emerge. I think that constant tweaking is a good thing. It keeps things from getting stale and forces skaters to be creative.
In other sports, this sort of thing happens as well and quite often. In tennis, over the last 12 years or so, the sport has collectively made an effort to address the fact the over the previous 15 years from 84-99, tennis had become exclusively a power game, particularly focused on the serve and it's raw pace. Other things which used to be valued including placement, spin, depth, angles, volleys and how they were strategically and tactically applied were becoming irrelevant. So to rebalance the playing field, they literally made changes to it. Courts were slowed down (hard courts added more sand to the paint on the top layer or more cushioning below it to slow down the bounce of the ball; grass courts used firmer types of grass to create more consistent and steadier bounces); the balls used were changed in favor of heavier ones on fast surfaces and lighter ones on clay: racquet and string technology evolved to incorporate more spin on the ball to harness the power they already produced. The point was to reduce the impact of raw power on the final outcome of matches to the fairest extent possible in order to allow the other elements I mentioned to shine through. The result has been obvious in the case of Roger Federer. He is certainly capable of hitting serves at speeds about 135 mph like Roddick or others, but he rarely does so because he had other weapons in his arsenal. He won his championships on the basis of his completeness, which was often as powerful as it was subtle. That combination proved to be virtually invincible for years until his opponents made the necessary adjustments, none of which involved hitting the ball particularly harder than him. Tiger Woods was in a similar position for a time. After a spectacular debut which centered primarily on his ability to out drive everybody else, he refined his game in the face of explicit efforts to make golf courses more complicated and tricky to navigate. He became far more complete, relying less often on raw power and far more on accuracy.
If skating comes down to the quad exclusively for so many people, thrn what's of the point of doing all the rest? Just have it be like the floor exercise in men's gymnastics. Run through the various tricks and move on. As for your opinions of Evans presentation, that is a matter of personal preference rather than fact. Everyone sees him and all skating performances differently. BTW, most of the skaters in Vancouver skated as they normally do. Oda made silly errors as is his pattern, Lambiel and Takahashi got a little sloppy in places, Chan's 3A failed him, Abbott collapsed post Nationals, Weir actually skated well but with less complexity in his program, Verner blew up as usual. How was any of that different than what had been happening on and off all cycle? Wonky 3A or not, Evan made the fewest mistakes. It may not be spectacular, but it's often how skaters win competitions. Always has been. As I have said consistently, most Olympic victories are messy and not the idealistic fairy tales we wish them to be or recall. It's not fair to pile on Evan when plenty of others were far messier.
In other sports, this sort of thing happens as well and quite often. In tennis, over the last 12 years or so, the sport has collectively made an effort to address the fact the over the previous 15 years from 84-99, tennis had become exclusively a power game, particularly focused on the serve and it's raw pace. Other things which used to be valued including placement, spin, depth, angles, volleys and how they were strategically and tactically applied were becoming irrelevant. So to rebalance the playing field, they literally made changes to it. Courts were slowed down (hard courts added more sand to the paint on the top layer or more cushioning below it to slow down the bounce of the ball; grass courts used firmer types of grass to create more consistent and steadier bounces); the balls used were changed in favor of heavier ones on fast surfaces and lighter ones on clay: racquet and string technology evolved to incorporate more spin on the ball to harness the power they already produced. The point was to reduce the impact of raw power on the final outcome of matches to the fairest extent possible in order to allow the other elements I mentioned to shine through. The result has been obvious in the case of Roger Federer. He is certainly capable of hitting serves at speeds about 135 mph like Roddick or others, but he rarely does so because he had other weapons in his arsenal. He won his championships on the basis of his completeness, which was often as powerful as it was subtle. That combination proved to be virtually invincible for years until his opponents made the necessary adjustments, none of which involved hitting the ball particularly harder than him. Tiger Woods was in a similar position for a time. After a spectacular debut which centered primarily on his ability to out drive everybody else, he refined his game in the face of explicit efforts to make golf courses more complicated and tricky to navigate. He became far more complete, relying less often on raw power and far more on accuracy.
If skating comes down to the quad exclusively for so many people, thrn what's of the point of doing all the rest? Just have it be like the floor exercise in men's gymnastics. Run through the various tricks and move on. As for your opinions of Evans presentation, that is a matter of personal preference rather than fact. Everyone sees him and all skating performances differently. BTW, most of the skaters in Vancouver skated as they normally do. Oda made silly errors as is his pattern, Lambiel and Takahashi got a little sloppy in places, Chan's 3A failed him, Abbott collapsed post Nationals, Weir actually skated well but with less complexity in his program, Verner blew up as usual. How was any of that different than what had been happening on and off all cycle? Wonky 3A or not, Evan made the fewest mistakes. It may not be spectacular, but it's often how skaters win competitions. Always has been. As I have said consistently, most Olympic victories are messy and not the idealistic fairy tales we wish them to be or recall. It's not fair to pile on Evan when plenty of others were far messier.
Last edited:
BTW I forgot to mention that through the 88 season, the SP was a rigidly mandated event. The solo jump was mandated, so was the double jump in the combo and often the spins. All of that was a deliberate water down the jumping attempt to eliminate over-reliance on it as a cover for other skating deficiencies. It allowed for more even comparisons between skaters, apples to apples. Of course skaters could still choose the triple jump in the combo, but most often, the top men chose the triple toe from 76-84. (only a handful tried the 3A in 88) Same for the women up to 88. Why? Because they were usually being evaluated on the quality of what they did versus the difficulty of the jump they were attempting. Other skaters were doing harder combos than Witt, Thomas, Hamilton, Cousins. But the mindset was different, thus affecting the way the judging was completed. I acknowledge and accept that that change to emphasize difficulty over quality, but that does not mean it could not and did not change again. Pendulums swing.
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2009
This thread is such an entertaining read. <3
Oda was a skater that stopped doing quads. Morozov is a coach who has shown how closely he pays attention to how things are scored and doesn't have a philosophy of someone like MIshin who things all the high level men should have quads. So several of his students reduced jumping difficulty. While MIshin was still having Gachinski learn and do quads all the time. It paid off when Gachinksi medaled at worlds. You had Brezina's veru COP coach holding him back on quads and doing a 3/5 triple midload program. I guess Brezina too then. 2009-2010 during all his comepetitions commentators would so he does the best 4S.
I think far too many demand spins and steps at the highest level but are like quads? who cares? Highest level jumps include quads. And they should have won in 2010. It is not enough to have level 4 spins like Plushenko did but you have to get all +3 in GOE as well and that defines a good skater rather than quad ability.
Out of all his competitions in 2009-2010 ISU and russian nationals. Plushenko was the cleanest and best in Vancouver. No doubling of triples - no tripling of quad attempts but it is weirdly the most criticized as being a bad skater when it was the only time he was really clean in both the SP and LP all season.
I think far too many demand spins and steps at the highest level but are like quads? who cares? Highest level jumps include quads. And they should have won in 2010. It is not enough to have level 4 spins like Plushenko did but you have to get all +3 in GOE as well and that defines a good skater rather than quad ability.
Out of all his competitions in 2009-2010 ISU and russian nationals. Plushenko was the cleanest and best in Vancouver. No doubling of triples - no tripling of quad attempts but it is weirdly the most criticized as being a bad skater when it was the only time he was really clean in both the SP and LP all season.
I agree with Prettykeys that this thread is getting more and more fascinating--and edifying!
Jcoates, I had never thought about your point referenced above, that most of the skaters in Vancouver skated true to character. What a tremendous way of looking at that competition!
As for your second point, it's true that except in rare cases, the singles OGM is won by a performance that isn't the greatest one ever by that particular skater. Peggy Fleming was dissatisfied with her long program in 1968, and it was really her superiority in figures that clinched it for her. Likewise in 1984, Hamilton's short and long were less than stellar (I think Orser won both? or at least one of them), but he was ahead in figures. Kristi Yamaguchi fell in her long program in 1992. We can all come up with other examples. (Oddly, the silver is frequently won by someone with the skate of a lifetime, notably Elizabeth Manley in 1988, Midori Ito in 1992, and Paul Wylie also in 1992.) It's rare that the clinch night in the Olympics is so breathtaking that it's talked about ever afterward. Boitano in 1988 and of course Lipinski in 1998 summoned up the best they had to take their respective golds, and they both had equally splendid competitors nipping at their heels. John Curry's 1976 long program was in that exalted company for sure. He left nothing undone that night.
That's one more reason I so loved the ladies' long program in Vancouver: Kim had the skate of her life when it mattered the most, and the other ladies in that final six all did amazingly as well, with I believe no falls in the entire flight. A phenomenal night for skating. Sorry it wasn't exactly that way for the men. (...If it had been, Takahashi would have won the gold!)
Similar threads
