- Joined
- Aug 18, 2010
Great post, as always. You again expose how ridiculous, stupid and hypocrite those 'smart' CoP apologists and Chan fanatics are.
These kinds of venomous languages can only show that you are desperate.
Great post, as always. You again expose how ridiculous, stupid and hypocrite those 'smart' CoP apologists and Chan fanatics are.
Wait, so it's not okay he won with mistakes. But it's okay others with mistakes? I don't know, EVERYONE made mistakes. PCS is always subjective, you don't see it, others do.
I find it's very funny that all the bitching and whining about the same thing over and over and over again and most people who complain seem to only count how many mistakes Chan makes, but nothing else.
Ironically, in view of Patrick's complaints of insufficient acclaim, he would probably be more beloved if he skated cleaner (with a bit less of the fantastic difficulty that can't even be seen on TV) and lost occasionally, allowing for a genuine rivalry for people to chew on. Imagine the people new to skating who hear about this Wunderkind, and take up the trouble to see his gold medal winning performances. Don't you think they would be mightly confused?
Okay, seriously. First, when it comes to RG the Russians are that far ahead. The trio of Kanaeva, Kondakova and Dmitrieva are head and shoulders above everyone else, so end of discussion. Chan is a lot like the Russian trio in rhythmic gymnastics, he IS that FAR ahead. I don't know if you have ever attended a live skating event with Chan in it, but there it becomes so much more obvious how much better he is than everyone else. I'm not kidding you, I was surprised how much better he really is the last time I saw him. Also consider here that he has a 5 points buffer in base value alone compared to Takahashi, so he can actually afford some mistakes.
If Chan stops making mistake, the 'bitching' will stop, or
If Chan continues to make mistake but judges mark it correspondingly, the 'bitching' will stop.
It is really that simple.
I don't think ppl are complaining about the TES. What gave Chan that huges score was the PCS. I'd agree with the TES. What he messed up on the two blotched quads he got back with his two 3-3s and footwork GOEs.
As someone's brought up before, why would one judge give Dai a 6.75 in Choreo while giving Patrick an 8.25. Dai got a 7.75 for interp from one judge and that same judge gives Patrick a 9.25. For me both choreos were wonderful and I think Dai did a good job with expressing his music as with Patrick, but why the huge discrepancy? I can understand that Patrick would have better SS than Dai. Patrick's knees are to die for My complaint and confusion isn't with the skater but with the judging criteria. I know that some may say that I should read the rule books, but that would take a long time hehehe
If you want to get so personal, let's see who's the fanatic. In this thread, I wrote 3 posts concerning Chan's scores while you had about 10 posts slamming him and his fans. Do haters have more rights?
I totally agree. You said it perfectly.
The fact is, the sport is being won on stuff that the average viewer isn't that impressed by. Patrick Chan can go across the ice on one leg where the others have to switch somewhere in the middle. Those who have skated are very impressed. But you know what? Until it was pointed out to me, I never noticed if a skater switched legs in the middle of his footwork. You know why? It looks good either way. In fact, it might be visually more appealing to switch legs in the middle.
A skater underrotates. You know what? I can't tell. A flutz? You can't really see it.
But falls are visible. And when someone who falls wins over someone who doesn't, it doesn't seem fair. Yes, if the faller is doing something never done before, I'd give him a break. But everyone now does the same triples and quads, more or less.
And to some extent, the results are predetermined. I mean, how much does one vary in skating skills, or transitions, or choreography from event to event? I would think, probably not that much, since you're doing the same program. The jumps were what might change from event to event. But if
a skater gets such a tremendous lead in non- jump related elements, it's no longer a competition. They can fall or elect not to do the harder jumps, and there's no real penalty.
There is no explaining logic when people really don't want to understand.
I've been reading about 17 pages of these posts on this subject, and I can separate the comments into 2 categories:
- Patrick Chan did not deserve his marks because he didn't skate clean. He shouldn't win when he falls or makes mistakes. Therefore, the only reason he won is because of politics, bad judging, etc.
- Patrick Chan didn't have a great night, but he had enough of a buffer from the SP, and the total of what he skated tonight was enough to win. It was significantly below what he would earn if he skated clean.
For all the people crying foul over Patrick's win, think about this:
- If only the people who skate clean and perfect win an event, we will have a much simpler competition. There would be no reward for trying harder things, since an error would knock one off the podium. If the goal is clean, don't try hard things. I don't think that's really what you want. It's exciting to watch skaters push the boundaries of the sport. How much angst was there on forums over skaters who have a quad and those who don't? And look how the sport is progressing in terms of overall difficulty. It was on display with so many skaters tonight.
- COP was designed to reward all sides of skating...technical elements as well as skills and artistry. It's not just a jumping contest. It's also about spins, footwork, and all the in-between skating.
- The intent of COP is to reward points for what you do. Spins can be worth almost as much or more than jumps. There's a pretty good base value on footwork, as well. You start with a base-value, and depending on how you skate, you get rewarded below, at or above that base value for elements. That's the first mark.
- The PCS portion is designed to take the elements out of the picture, and judge things like edges, difficulty in choreography, how the program is designed, speed, quality of movement, flow, how a skater moves from one element to the other, etc.
In looking at the competition tonight, Chan and Takahashi and Hanyu scored almost the same, within 0.54 points, on the technical elements. Hanyu actually scored slightly more than Takahashi on the first mark. That makes sense because Hanyu scored higher on the 4T by about 4 points. He missed the 3S, but that has much lower base value when compared with another of Dai's triples. Dai beats Hanyu by quite a few points on PCS, which is right. When I compare the score sheet with Chan's, I see all sorts of deductions. The one fall earns him -3 GOE across the board. The 4T + 2T combo earns -2's and -3's across the board, even though he didn't actually fall. The wonky 4T earns mostly -2's, a couple -1's, and even a -3. No one is gifting him anything here. The other elements, which were wonderful, earned him positive GOE's, but nothing ridiculous. He has even only two +3's for his circle step. Dai scored more than that. Dai earned a whopping 15.43 points on his 3A + 3T. Dai's 3A also scored more than Chan's. There is nothing out of sorts in the technical score card.
On the PCS marks, there were only 1.50 points separating Dai and Chan. Dai and Chan are tied on Performance and Execution. The biggest difference between them is on Transitions/Linking Footwork and Choreography/Composition. In those areas, Chan's program earns points on all the extra movements and quality, at a high rate of speed, he puts into Transitions. His choreography is exceptionally complex, and it is well spread throughout the program, not front-loaded or providing many opportunities for a "rest". On the other items, they really aren't that far apart. Chan received some 9.00's, but so did Dai. Chan received a 7.50. There were no 10's in sight. Chan's skating skills and flow and speed, and overall quality of movement is fabulous. And Dai is also judged very close. Really, on PCS, Dai and Chan are the best in the world in my opinion. There is nothing out of sorts on the PCS scoe card.
So given all this, for those continuing to stubbornly hold on to the idea that there was some great "inflation" or mis-carriage of justice, please help me understand because I'm not seeing it. Show me from the scores where Chan was gifted and others were robbed. Show me where there was bias in the judging. Just saying it is so, does not make it so.
I wonder if CoP glasses can be blinding sometimes. A poster remarked, "The components marks always seem so close together for a given skater; they should be judged separately." It seems to be arguing that those glasses might blur one's view.casual fans are not seeing programs with CoP glasses. They are using more subjectiveness than the judges in judging skating.
SkateFiguring said:If you want to get so personal, let's see who's the fanatic. In this thread, I wrote 3 posts concerning Chan's scores while you had about 10 posts slamming him and his fans. Do haters have more rights?
That's what I'm wondering too!
They are starting to use hatred, venomous languages because they are lack of ability in reasoning.
Wait, so it's not okay he won with mistakes. But it's okay others with mistakes?
Sigh....
At the end of the day, Chan won, some whined about it. Just another day in the office.
Anyway, Congrat to Chan for being unbeatable in 2011! All the best for 2012!
I hope mine wasn't counted. I may be "bashing" the judging system, but not Chan. He skated a seasonal best and of course deserved a higher score compared to his previous ones. I think a lot (though not all) of so-called "Chan bashing" is about the system, not him personally.more than 10 pages of Chan bashing
I wonder if CoP glasses can be blinding sometimes. A poster remarked, "The components marks always seem so close together for a given skater; they should be judged separately." It seems to be arguing that those glasses might blur one's view.
Cleanness of the performance is an objective measurement. It can be judged even by a casual fan, uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices. The CoP glasses dilute such an objective measurement. It makes the fans wonder what color the judges actually see through those glasses.
I would agree there should be more education on TV, online, and basically wherever fans or the public might come across skating as to what is measured and how in both the TES and PCS scores. Canadian TV does a fairly good job of this from time to time. There needs to be much more education. .
Wrong. Even a 10-year-old can tell that Chan fell but Dai did not. Chan also had two messy jumps whereas Dai only had one. It is objective and straightforward. Of course, I'm not arguing it should be the only measuring stick. It is a measuring stick nonetheless.Cleanness wouldn't have been a possible measuring stick today.
Maybe it's true that we all need to educate ourselves to understand the CoP. But I'm not sure we'll attract new fans (which skating needs) by saying in effect, "You're welcome to come watch skating, but you must bone up on the rules first." People don't get attracted to a sport by being told they don't qualify to be audience members until they fulfill the requirements. Why bother, when hockey is so easy to understand? People skate around, each team guards a goalpost, sometimes the puck gets in. As viewers get more interested, they learn the subtleties. But understanding who wins and why should be the easy part for newbies. I'm just saying.
The sport under CoP has become a joke to the general public. The solution? More education on CoP. LOL. If more education can solve the problem, I'm wondering why Chan is whining about lack of public attention and financial benefits. Some people just need to pull their heads out of the sand.
Maybe it's true that we all need to educate ourselves to understand the CoP. .