Men's Long Program

[Poodlepal]

Nobody falls on purpose. But whether you don't get credit for a jump because you fall, do it wrong, do it twice and don't get credit for it, decide not to do it because you just can't do it, or can't do it because you have a doctor's note--what does it matter? The jump's not done. Under the current system, doing enough transitions or one-footed footwork (or whatever) can apparently more than make up for it. Good for the winning skaters who fall or don't do the hardest jumps--they found a way to rack up the points legally, and their medals are well-deserved. They did nothing wrong, it's the judging system that has a loophole that needs or needed to be plugged.

I can only speak for myself, but a lot of the drama has been taken from the sport. I used to sit on the edge of my seat waiting to see if someone would fall, knowing that it would be the end of a dream, or waiting to see if some underdog would have the clean skate of his or her life and win it all. Now it's like, oh well, he or she fell, but she skated with such deep edges, I'm sure she'll be all right.

On another topic, could somebody send me a link to a skater with deep edges and one without, and tell me what I should be looking for?

 

[Spun Silver]

I can't resist even though I'm totally ignorant. See the spread eagle here. He did them at Nats and I've been drooling over them ever since.
http://figureskatersonline.com/jonathancassar/

 

[Ilvskating]

I can't resist even though I'm totally ignorant. See the spread eagle here. He did them at Nats and I've been drooling over them ever since.
http://figureskatersonline.com/jonathancassar/

Being an engineer, I can "see" how fast he was ! You wouldn't be able to lean that much without very fast speed and of course, good edge quality. Good job!

Poodlepal, to me the simple way to judge edges is to look at the angle between the body(skating leg side-way) and the ice. 90 degree of course that is flat, no edge (or to say both edges). the smaller the angle, the deeper the edge. and usually you really need good speed to maintain deep edge. It is not totally true the other way. People could be fairly fast without good edge quality.

 

[Bluebonnet]

I don't think a sliding scale for penalizing falls is a good idea at all. Elements aren't punished harshly enough when they are sloppy, that's the real problem.

I know that you favor clean programs. Could you please elaborate why a sliding scale for penalizing falls isn't a good idea?

 

[clairecloutier]

Just watched the men's competition last night. (I have two toddlers and not much time to watch, so I'm always behind.) Anyhow, some random thoughts . . .

Patrick Chan Two main thoughts on Patrick. 1) The final footwork sequence in his LP shows exactly how he is blowing the field away. Many guys still labor over the now-predictable straightline footwork at the end of their LPs, just trying desperately to keep the movement going and make it look half decent. Meanwhile, Chan is doing a serpentine sequence (much harder), with great speed and, most of all, incredible difficulty. I mean, right at the end, he does a series of twizzles that would make an ice dancer proud. What other guy in the world is even capable of that kind of footwork sequence, with that kind of speed, at the end of a program? That sequence encapsulates everything that leads to his incredibly high PCS scores. 2) That said, I continue to feel that despite his impressive technical skills, Chan has little true musicality and artistry. By this, I mean that while Chan does everything well, he just doesn't really capture the highlights of the music, and he doesn't make me feel anything as I watch it. There is a lack of good phrasing in his interpretation: no sense of the lows and highs of the program. Everything is skated at the same level. Chan's is a largely technical brilliance--based on incredible skating skills--but I think he still has miles to go in terms of true artistry.

Javier Fernandez. What an exciting new talent. Loved his short program. The long program was more cookie-cutter and a bit boring. Can't wait to see more of him though, and I'm sure he'll develop a lot over the next year or two.

Daisuke Takahashi. I really loved his blues long program. Obviously it wasn't his best skate, and he can do this program much better. Nonetheless I thought the choreography was great and his interpretation excellent. Dai has, in spades, what Chan lacks most: great musical phrasing, or the ability to express beautifully both the highlights and quieter passages of the music. He's always excelled particularly at interpreting dramatic music, so it's kind of neat to see him stretch and take on a more difficult, less dramatic type of music. I love him. Hope he can improve the jumps as the season goes on. The only thing I'm not sure about is the straightline footwork at the end; I wonder if a serpentine sequence like Chan's might work better with the sinuous, mellow blues music.

Adam Rippon. I really like his long program, especially the second half, with the organ section. It's rare to hear skaters using organ music (which I love). Did Yuka choreograph this program? Very nice. I thought he skated well . . . except for those triple Axels. Hmm, until he gets those solid, things are going to be tough.

Ross Miner. I enjoyed Ross's program. I think The Untouchables is good music for him, and it's definitely an improvement over last year's long. He's really becoming a strong competitor for the U.S. As Peter alluded to, his strength is his athleticism; although his jump content isn't the hardest, he performs his jumps very consistently. I'm impressed with his ability to finish long programs with few or no jump mistakes; this sets him apart, as many men get sloppy in the second half of their long programs. He has a strong base to work from; now he needs to improve his speed and performance level. I think it will come with time and maturity.

Denis Ten. He's looking good this season. I like the costume and program. Needs to clean up jump errors in the second half of the program.

Andrei Rogozine. This was the first time I've seen him. Definitely lots of talent and potential there. Look forward to seeing more of him.

 

[skatinginbc]

There is a lack of good phrasing in his interpretation: no sense of the lows and highs of the program. Everything is skated at the same level.

Agree.

 

[Bruin714]

As far as the idea of exponential mandatory deductions for falls, I think the suggestion is worth considering though this proposal does run contrary to the long standing convention in figure skating. Even in the 6.0 era, the ISU, through its rules, make it clear that falls themselves are not impediments for someone to win. In other words, it is a long standing directive that falls are not to be given disproportional consideration and that dates way way before Chan was even born. Numerous World and Olympic Champions have won with falls in their program in the last two decades is a testament to this. Somehow, this suggestion seems to be aimed at one particular skater due to the recency effect of certain performances just comes across as a little malicious and unfair to me. And such proposal wouldn't really address the fairness of figure skating as a competition as a whole but rather a feel good / band-aid quick fix due to knee-jerk reactions. I think it's dangerous to give in to such impulses.

I actually can't remember any World or Olympic Champions winning with three or even two falls. But maybe you can remind me.

The scoring system is fixed every year with or without Chan. I want to be clear that I was just using Chan as an example as he is representative of someone clearly ahead of the pack. And I am a big fan of Chan. Still, he shouldn't win with three falls. Yuna Kim would be another good example. I think in the 6.0 system, it's fair to say that falls were more harshly penalized, as it should. Even Kwan, Browning, and Gordeava & Grinkov (some of my favorites) could not and should not win with multiple falls.

 

[jaylee]

The scoring system is fixed every year with or without Chan. I want to be clear that I was just using Chan as an example as he is representative of someone clearly ahead of the pack. And I am a big fan of Chan. Still, he shouldn't win with three falls. Yuna Kim would be another good example. I think in the 6.0 system, it's fair to say that falls were more harshly penalized, as it should. Even Kwan, Browning, and Gordeava & Grinkov (some of my favorites) could not and should not win with multiple falls.

Not sure why you name Yu-Na Kim as a good example. She's only had one LP in her entire career where she had more than one fall in the LP, at 2007 Worlds, and she did not win. She came in 4th in the LP, and came in 3rd overall because of her perfect SP, and the fact that the skater who finished 3rd in the SP had a poor LP (Kosnter) and the skater who finished 3rd in the LP was 4th in the SP, so not enough to move ahead (Meissner). And it's kind of crazy, but I think as a senior she only fell in the SP once (2008 Worlds). Yu-Na never won a competition with multiple falls in the LP, never won a competition with a fall in the SP, and she never won with multiple falls per competition either.

 

[Bruin714]

Not sure why you name Yu-Na Kim as a good example. She's only had one LP in her entire career where she had more than one fall in the LP, at 2007 Worlds, and she did not win. She came in 4th in the LP, and came in 3rd overall because of her perfect SP, and the fact that the skater who finished 3rd in the SP had a poor LP (Kosnter) and the skater who finished 3rd in the LP was 4th in the SP, so not enough to move ahead (Meissner). And it's kind of crazy, but I think as a senior she only fell in the SP once (2008 Worlds). Yu-Na never won a competition with multiple falls in the LP, never won a competition with a fall in the SP, and she never won with multiple falls per competition either.

I mentioned Yu-Na as an example of a skater in her own league. If she is clean, no one can touch her. But if Yuna has multiple falls, she should not win.

 

[Art&Sport]

eyria, It seems to me that you use your time wisely and efficiently (I guess being forced to with two young children). Thank you so much for your thoughtful assessments of the men competitors at SC. In particular, I enjoyed your insights regarding Patrick, Dai, and Ross.

Enjoy the rest of the season.

 

[wallylutz]

I actually can't remember any World or Olympic Champions winning with three or even two falls. But maybe you can remind me.

So how many times did Chan fall on route his World title last season? Zero

Yet, it is clear there is this misconception that he falls multiple times whenever he wins and I quote:

Still, he shouldn't win with three falls.

The only time he fell three times in a same program and win is Skate Canada 2010 in a relatively weak field and those skaters also had errors. He won three ISU Championships: 2009 4CC, 2010 GPF and 2011 Worlds and his combined total of falls in these 3 competitions = 0 So much for falling 3 time and still win...

The scoring system is fixed every year with or without Chan.

Minor changes such as changes in value of elements, yes, but knee jerk reactions changes are rare and never seemed to work out terribly well. The last of such change was allowing ladies to do Triple Axel in lieu of Double Axel in SP, a decision that was quite controversial and I personally opposed. Well, two years later, we know how well it worked out and there was only one person who even bothered to attempt all this time and almost never successfully. In other words, a phantom rule change that served no practical purpose. Compared to when men were allowed to do 3A in SP and ladies, a 2nd Triple other than combination - virtually all the top 10/15 skaters immediately started to take advantage of it.

Further to that, if as you said, nobody ever won a World Championship with 2+ falls, including Chan, so what's the motivation for such change then? To demand a change based on the results of a single GP event is hardly prudent or logical.

It seems as though the whole discussion is based on some what if scenario that has not actually happened. I have to ask, what's the motivation? And even if we apply your proposed system for Skate Canada 2011, Chan would receive an additional -2 deduction but still beat Fernandez for Gold so the end result is still the same. :sheesh: Why -4 for for two falls, why not -10 then? What do you do with Pairs and Dance where both partners falling are quite common? If a couple fell on SBS Triples, should they get deducted for -4 in addition to most likely, GOE-3 across the board?

Just beware of the unintended consequences that almost always accompany knee-jerk reactions that are not rooted in careful consideration with a real and pressing need for change. If there is a not a real problem, why fix it? The "problem" you suggest here was similar to the irrational fear that some people had about Double Axel scoring higher than a Triple Lutz. Two seasons ago, 2A with GOE+3 could theoretically score higher than a 3Lz and some people used that as an example of what's wrong with CoP. Trouble is, no one ever scored 2A with GOE+3, neither men or women, under an ISU sanctioned competition.

Please wake me up again when you actually see someone win a World Championship with 2+ falls.

 

[bekalc]

Still, he shouldn't win with three falls.
The only time he fell three times in a same program and win is Skate Canada 2010 in a relatively weak field and those skaters also had errors. He won three ISU Championships: 2009 4CC, 2010 GPF and 2011 Worlds and his combined total of falls in these 3 competitions = 0 So much for falling 3 time and still win...

I wouldn't call Nobunari Oda a weak skater Wally. Oda is kind of boring but he's a fabulous basic skater and the quality of his jumps are better than Chan's. He's a great spinner too. Nobunari also landed a quad in the short, and I believe at least two triple axels in the competition (at least one in the short, one in the long). Sure Oda made a mistake, but overall he made far less mistakes than Chan. This is hardly the case of Brezina vs KVP-by any stretch of the imagination. Which is exactly why people were angry. Oda's a better basic skater than Javier.

Please wake me up again when you actually see someone win a World Championship with 2+ falls.

If Patrick can beat a quality skater like Oda, and a very good skater like Adam, when both skaters make FAR less mistakes than he does even if neither are perfect. And if that system can be "justified" under IJS than. Theoritically Patrick can win Worlds with 4 plus falls. Now you may say that won't happen, and I'll say You bet that likely won't happen, and why pray tell is that?

Oh right because if Patrick were to fall that many times at a World Championships either one or two things would happen. Either Patrick's PCS would go signficantly down, or some other skaters would go up. Or probably both. And it would be for likely the exact same skates.

So let me ask you how fair is that? Frankly how fair is that even to Patrick? The judges need to have a system that is judged the same way every time. Its not right tell Patrick we don't care if you fall 4 times at Skate Canada (or to tell someone looking at the GPF we don't care if Patrick falls 4 times at Skate Canada). But we do care if you fall at worlds. The whole thing then is completely subjective, and its a judging scandal absolutely waiting to happen. Now it seems to me looking at Javier's Pcs raise, that the judges pretty much decided this time at Skate Canada, that they were not going to give Chan such a significant advantage again, which is a good thing. Perhaps they realized they were doing no one any favors not even Chan by doing things the other way.

 

[wallylutz]

I wouldn't call Nobunari Oda a weak skater Wally.

Neither did I. My words were: "relatively weak field". However you want to put it, the 2010 SC only had one male skater who ever made it to the World podium and that was Patrick Chan. It was a weaker field than you would expect normally at a GP event.

Oda is kind of boring but he's a fabulous basic skater and the quality of his jumps are better than Chan's. He's a great spinner too.

The only thing that mattered is how he was judged overall. You may feel that all of the above are true but others may disagree. That's why there were 9 people on the judging panel.

Nobunari also landed a quad in the short, and I believe at least two triple axels in the competition (at least one in the short, one in the long). Sure Oda made a mistake, but overall he made far less mistakes than Chan.

Yeah, Oda fell on his Triple Axel, not just a mistake. Oda placed 1st in the SP but 3rd in the LP. Chan placed 4th in the SP and 1st in the LP. Chan's 3 falls happened in the SP, his LP had only one error. Under the 6.0 ordinal system, Chan would still be the overall winner at the 2010 SC. Seems to me no matter how you want to tweak it, whether blaming it on the CoP or that falls are not penalized enough, the end result is still the same. That says to me the complaint has no merit.

This is hardly the case of Brezina vs KVP-by any stretch of the imagination. Which is exactly why people were angry. Oda's a better basic skater than Javier.

As you said yourself, he is boring. Oda scored 80+ for TES but in the mid 70s for PCS. Seems to me, the panel was reflecting what you said - reward him for TES but ding him for PCS. It just so happens that when everything considered, the end result didn't turn out the way you wanted to see and therefore, it's scandalous? What kind of logic is this? A result I disagree with = unfair & biased judging?

If Patrick can beat a quality skater like Oda, and a very good skater like Adam, when both skaters make FAR less mistakes than he does even if neither are perfect. And if that system can be "justified" under IJS than. Theoritically Patrick can win Worlds with 4 plus falls. Now you may say that won't happen, and I'll say You bet that likely won't happen, and why pray tell is that?

I am sorry, I am not a fortune teller. But I know how to count. The number of If, if, if in your text is giving me headache. I am unable and unwilling to discuss based on pure hypothetical conditions because there are simply no way to assess their likelihood. Who would have thought Fernandez was one error away from beating Chan? Even if Chan didn't stumble on his footwork on his way to the 3Lz+1L+3S combo and fall, had Fernandez simply stayed on two feet for his 1st 3A or actually landed the 3Lo, he would mostly likely have beaten Chan. I don't know anyone who predicted or foresee that would be possible - it just goes to say trying to predict the future is not a good idea.

So let me ask you how fair is that? Frankly how fair is that even to Patrick? The judges need to have a system that is judged the same way every time. Its not right tell Patrick we don't care if you fall 4 times at Skate Canada (or to tell someone looking at the GPF we don't care if Patrick falls 4 times at Skate Canada). But we do care if you fall at worlds. The whole thing then is completely subjective, and its a judging scandal absolutely waiting to happen.

Sorry to tell you all of the above are your personal interpretation and imagination. As far as I am concerned, nobody ever told Patrick Chan we don't care if you fall 4 times as if he intentionally did so on purpose just to test how lenient the judges can be. I think you need to simply get over it and move on.

Now it seems to me looking at Javier's Pcs raise, that the judges pretty much decided this time at Skate Canada, that they were not going to give Chan such a significant advantage again, which is a good thing. Perhaps they realized they were doing no one any favors not even Chan by doing things the other way.

Excellent, then I am sure you are happy now then.

 

[bekalc]

Yeah, Oda fell on his Triple Axel, not just a mistake. Oda placed 1st in the SP but 3rd in the LP. Chan placed 4th in the SP and 1st in the LP. Chan's 3 falls happened in the SP, his LP had only one error. Under the 6.0 ordinal system, Chan would still be the overall winner at the 2010 SC. Seems to me no matter how you want to tweak it, whether blaming it on the CoP or that falls are not penalized enough, the end result is still the same. That says to me the complaint has no merit.

No Patrick would not have won under 6.0. And you know why,. Because under 6.0 skaters would be docked .5 for every element that they had a major error on in TES. So Chan with not just 1 but 3 major errors on required elements, woud have had a mandatory deduction of 1.5 on his Technical marks. It would be nearly impossible for him to make it up in the Artistic marks. Chan would have been so far behind that being first in the long wouldn't have mattered. And that was people's main issue. In fact that was one of people's main issues-Chan's scores in the short.

 

[Violet Bliss]

No Patrick would not have won under 6.0. And you know why,. Because under 6.0 skaters would be docked .5 for every element that they had a major error on in TES. So Chan with not just 1 but 3 major errors on required elements, woud have had a mandatory deduction of 1.5 on his Technical marks.

Where did you get this tidbit from? The numbers in 6.0 were just for ordinal purposes. They were not marks or had fixed point deductions. They were not "points".

And what 3 major errors in either of Chan's programs are you refering to? And which required elements?

 

[dorispulaski]

Chan's SC short program of last year with 3 major errors, I presume? That always seems to come up in Chan discussions, but isn't relative to SC this year. And yes, in the SP, there were mandatory .5 deductions in the technical score for missing a required element. And yes, there were a list of SP required elements. I'm not sure whether it was .5 for falling on the step sequence though, or rather not entirely sure if falling part way through a step would count as totally missing the element.

So if Chan last year were graded in 6.0 in the SP, there would have been 1.5 removed from his technical score. (Leaving a max of 4.5 on it) if he were scored correctly (never a sure thing) Even if he got a lower deduction for the step, we're talking 4.8, say, on the technical. And I never recall the judges having the guts to give a 6.0 to a program with 2 falls in the SP-maybe 5.5 there. So overall, 10.3 max. In other words, any skater able to get 5.2/5.2 would have beaten him in the sp, putting him down in maybe 6th place. Even winning the long, he could not then have won gold.

 

[bekalc]

Where did you get this tidbit from? The numbers in 6.0 were just for ordinal purposes. They were not marks or had fixed point deductions. They were not "points".

And what 3 major errors in either of Chan's programs are you refering to? And which required elements?

He fell on the quad (missed element), fell on the tripel axel missed element, and he fell on the step sequence missed element. There were mandatory deductions in 6.0 and no such thing as GOE points. Patrick, according to the rules would have been slammed. Yes people had been placed in 4th for a mess up in the short, ala Plushenko but that was with ONE major element missing, not multiple.

 

[wallylutz]

No Patrick would not have won under 6.0. And you know why,. Because under 6.0 skaters would be docked .5 for every element that they had a major error on in TES. So Chan with not just 1 but 3 major errors on required elements, woud have had a mandatory deduction of 1.5 on his Technical marks. It would be nearly impossible for him to make it up in the Artistic marks. Chan would have been so far behind that being first in the long wouldn't have mattered. And that was people's main issue. In fact that was one of people's main issues-Chan's scores in the short.

Chan's SC short program of last year with 3 major errors, I presume? That always seems to come up in Chan discussions, but isn't relative to SC this year. And yes, in the SP, there were mandatory .5 deductions in the technical score for missing a required element. And yes, there were a list of SP required elements. I'm not sure whether it was .5 for falling on the step sequence though, or rather not entirely sure if falling part way through a step would count as totally missing the element.

So if Chan last year were graded in 6.0 in the SP, there would have been 1.5 removed from his technical score. (Leaving a max of 4.5 on it) if he were scored correctly (never a sure thing) Even if he got a lower deduction for the step, we're talking 4.8, say, on the technical. And I never recall the judges having the guts to give a 6.0 to a program with 2 falls in the SP-maybe 5.5 there. So overall, 10.3 max. In other words, any skater able to get 5.2/5.2 would have beaten him in the sp, putting him down in maybe 6th place. Even winning the long, he could not then have won gold.

First of all, it would have been helpful that you actually get the deduction correct in the Required Elements as opposed to making up numbers as you go to support any conclusion you may have. Falls in jumps at SP under Required Elements carries deduction of 0.4 each, not 0.5 Fall in a step sequence carries a deduction of 0.3. Because one of his falls were on a 4T attempt, it stands to reason his base mark in RE if clean would have been either 5.9 or 6.0 because he would have a Quad, Triple Axel and Tripe-Triple.

Secondly, it would have been also very helpful if you didn't make a calculation error in the ordinal ranking. Using the actual results from the event: http://www.isuresults.com/results/gpcan2010/CAT001RS.HTM

Chan didn't even need to finish 4th in the SP. He could be 5th in the SP and still win overall. If so, there would be a three way tie in the ordinal ranking of 3.5, between Chan, Rippon and Oda. But given the tie breaker is based on Free Skating Ranking, Chan would be 1st, Rippon would be 2nd and Oda, 3rd.

But for the sake of argument, let's examine and see if Chan could possibly finish 4th in the SP as he did under CoP. With the base mark derived above, that means after the correct amount of deduction, his Required Element score should range approximately 4.7-4.9 whereas the Presentation score would likely be 5.8-5.9. If it were up to me, I'll go 4.8/5.8 for a total 10.6

The skater who finished 5th in the SP at SC 2010 was Alban Preaubert who had an error in his Triple Axel and whose solo jump was a Triple Loop (vs. Quad Toe) and mediocre footwork sequence (level 2) and passable spin. If he were clean, he'd probably score about 5.4-5.5 at most for RE but with error on the 3A, the psychological difference between a clean vs. not clean program could disproportionally lowered his first mark, one of the downfalls of 6.0 system. It stands to reason, for doing a Triple that is easier than anyone's at the competition and yet not skating clean, his Required Elements score would probably be 5.2 +/- 0.1 so ranging from 5.1-5.3 Given that judges chose to award him lower 2nd marks vs. the first mark, it stands to reason his Presentation score would be at a slightly lower range as well, about 5.0-5.2. Presentation score of 5.1 for someone whose last appearance at Worlds was 2007 and finished 11th seems quite realistic. Plus, he was fighting to land all his 3 jumps. The mid-point score for Preaubert could be around 5.2/5.1 for a total of 10.3

Conclusion: We will never know for sure though when you applied the correct deduction, it was quite possible that the scores would be around (4.8/5.8) 10.6 vs. 10.3 (5.2/5.1), giving Chan a 0.3 cushion to stay ahead of Preaubert for 4th in the SP. Keep in mind, if a judge wanted to be really generous with Chan, he/she could go 4.9/5.9 and still easily justified the decision, give Chan a cushion of 0.5 instead. In any event, as stated previously, even if he didn't Preaubert and finished 5th in the SP, the end result would be the same for winning the FS.

Let's cover the guy who finished 6th in the SP just in case someone will later attempt to whine about that ranking no matter how meritless that may be: 3A, 3Lz+2T with an error, 3F and the combination spin completely messed up with a deduction of 0.3. VS. Chan, no Quad, no Triple-Triple, not clean, bombed a combo spin - forget it. There is not even a need to put an estimate on the score range, it ain't happening.

So overall, 10.3 max. In other words, any skater able to get 5.2/5.2 would have beaten him in the sp, putting him down in maybe 6th place. Even winning the long, he could not then have won gold.

Correcting for your errors in applying the wrong amount of deduction, even using your estimate it would suggest the Preaubert and Chan would be about tied, with the call going either way. I can see that happening, then again, I can also see a case for 4th place. Either placement is plausible to me. But the 6th place finish in the SP is not plausible and would have been helpful if you actually reviewed the relevant protocol to know the 6th place finish messed up quite a bit and didn't have a Triple-Triple, therefore, can't possibly finish 5th. Necessarily, you conclusion was most likely incorrect.

 

[wallylutz]

Scoring under 6.0 with multiple falls and errors - when a famous skater messed up

Educational video, Michelle Kwan 1997 US Nationals Free Skate

2 Falls + 1 step out on three different jumps

Technical Merit: 5.3-5.7, average around 5.5

Presentation: 5.6-5.9, mostly 5.8

Difference between SP and LP is the mandatory deductions in place for SP. No difference in the 2nd mark between the two. Using the above as benchmark, it demonstrates that judges were giving out mostly 5.8 for 2nd mark in a program with 3 major errors and 2 falls.

 

[wallylutz]

He fell on the quad (missed element), fell on the tripel axel missed element, and he fell on the step sequence missed element. There were mandatory deductions in 6.0 and no such thing as GOE points. Patrick, according to the rules would have been slammed. Yes people had been placed in 4th for a mess up in the short, ala Plushenko but that was with ONE major element missing, not multiple.

I have an issue with your incorrect use of the figure skating vocabulary and not bothering to get your facts straight before complaining. Falling on a jump is not a missed element. Missed element means omission, falling isn't an omission. Only an omission had a deduction of 0.5, a number which you used incorrectly in your complaint. You were applying the wrong deduction and not distinguishing the difference between elements and now, using confusing & incorrect figure skating terms that would confuse even more people who either weren't exposed to the 6.0 system or have forgot about it.

Here is the bottom line, for your whining to have any merit under 6.0 system re: 2010 Skate Canada results, you will have to justify Chan's SP placement to 6th or lower, not whether he is 4th or 5th. Know that the 6th place guy didn't have a Quad or Triple-Triple in the SP and would have a 0.3 deduction for the mistake on his combination spin and at the time, and never placed in the Top 10 of the world. Even if he were to skate clean, he would lucky to be above 5.0 for Required Elements without a Quad or Triple-Triple, not to mention combination spin was seriously messed up and the mandatory deduction that came with it. There was simply no chance for Chan to place 6th or lower.

It amazes me we have to spend so much time discussing the 2010 results in the 2011 thread. :scowl: I think someone ought to start a thread in the Edge called: I hate Patrick Chan because... thread and keep all complaints there.