Analyzing Sotnikova and Kim's footwork in the FS

[Meoima]

Figure skating got intensely popular in the '90s because the whole Nancy-Tonya debacle brought unprecedented attention to the sport. Its popularity declined because after Michelle Kwan retired, there weren't any (female) US stars remaining. Perhaps that is why there is such push/hype behind Gracie Gold--the sport needs another star.

This is the main reason I suppose. Figure skating is getting more and more famous in Japan thanks to Mao, Dai... and now Yuzuru. All of them have a star quality that attract Japanese people to the sport. With Korean it's Kim Yuna, what a pity she retired. And currently I see no other ladies have the same star quality as her.

Same thing with Russian skaters, I have to say both Plushy and Yagudin had more star quality than Kovtun and Gachinski will ever have. Yulia has more star quality than Adelina...
Jason Brown also has that star quality, it's just unfortunate for him to join the game when the sport is declining in U.S. And Jason only is not enough. Gracie and Wagner are not remarkable enough for the casual viewer, I suppose. They need different programs, and more successes.

 

[MiRé]

It's not just the numbers. Having a solo 3A allows a skater to add another 3-3 in her program (in sp). The rule change did benefit Mao in a sense that she could execute both 3A and 3-3 in the short program. However, Mao couldnt take an advantage of that since she doesnt have 3-3.

 

[Sandpiper]

Figure skating's rising popularity in Asian is why I think the "need for a star" is even more important than "IJS being incomprehensible." Of course, the two are related--FS wasn't as popular in Asia back in the 6.0 days, so they don't have to deal with the old nostalgic fans/people who know the judging used to be simpler. For the new fans, they've only known the new system and don't have a comparison.

I'm a bit confused about how popular figure skating is in Russia at the moment. I was appalled to watch some of the Russian Nationals videos from the past few years and realize the rink was empty. Just compare Plushy's Saint-Saens Medley video with the Nijinsky one back in the day! The crowd has all be disappeared. However, IIRC, figure skating was still ranked #3 in terms of what Russia cared about most at the Olympics, and Plushy still sometimes comes on top of polls despite barely competing. So perhaps Mathman is right, and we're simply entering a new technological age--it's not that people don't care about the sport (in Russia, at least); it's that the internet has made it hard to monetize it.

EDIT: Mao does have a 3-3 (I think she did 3F-3Lo in Saitama? I can't remember exactly). She just doesn't have 3Lz-3T.

 

[Meoima]

It's not just the numbers. Having a solo 3A allows a skater to add another 3-3 in her program (in sp). The rule change did benefit Mao in a sense that she could execute both 3A and 3-3 in the short program. However, Mao couldnt take an advantage of that since she doesnt have 3-3.

Then I don't think it's possible to say the rules change for Mao's benefits you know. They couldn't change the rules simply for her. The new girls are going for 4T now. I think they only want to encourage skaters to go for more difficult jumps.

And Mao often got UR call. It's not an advantage at all.

Mao does have a 3-3 (I think she did 3F-3Lo in Saitama? I can't remember exactly). She just doesn't have 3Lz-3T.

Yes, 3F-3Lo and an Ur call.

 

[CarneAsada]

The rules did benefit Mao, though. Her solo 3A is typically of better quality than her 3A-2T. The 4 jumps she's attempted in the SP since the changes were 3A, 3F, 3Lo, and 2Lo vs. 3A, 3F, 2A, 2T before. She would have benefited more had she retained a consistent 3-3 throughout her career, but that is still a tangible benefit (more difficult set of jumps + she can get higher GOE on the solo 3A). As for her not having a 3-3, she regained her 3F-3Lo back in 2012-13 but didn't choose to put it into her SPs, probably because of how hard it is to get 3-3Lo combinations ratified and because she'd have to choose a different solo triple.

Yes, 3F-3Lo and an Ur call.

4 UR calls on 4 3F-3Lo combinations that deserved full credit (the last 2 unquestionably so).

 

[MiRé]

Then I don't think it's possible to say the rules change for Mao's benefits you know. They couldn't change the rules simply for her if they know she didn't have it.

It still is a benefit of having a 3A, but I do understand your point. I think the logical way to solve this or give a fair distribution of points is to get rid of 2A requirement. But that's just my opinion

 

[Sandpiper]

Oh, no doubt the rules benefited Mao. I'd forgotten the SP and was thinking too much about the LP anyway.

Now, maybe this is a crazy idea but... can we not require women to do an axel jump in the SP? I mean, Michelle Kwan was running around doing 7-triple LPs back in the 90s, and she wasn't even the best jumper of her generation. Why can't women just do 3-triple SPs? Make the axel jump required in LP, of course. Reward Mao heavily for her 3A... but allow other skaters to do 3-triple SPs as well so they can all be competitive. ...I suspect there's a major problem with this, and that is why the axel jump is still required, but I'm short on food and can't think clearly.

EDIT: Melon beat me to it.

 

[gkelly]

(BTW, I don't see the rule changes as a way to screw over Yuna.

I don't think any of the rule changes are to screw over any specific skater. They're about what the sport wants to reward in general. Recent top skaters may serve as examples -- especially if they've been doing something difficult that seems to not be rewarded sufficiently.

Why shouldn't the triple axel be well rewarded and encouraged? That Mao is the only one who throws it down should add to the 3A's value and be in her benefit. If she is better than any other lady when she skates clean, she should be rewarded. She shouldn't be held down by rules to make way for Queen Yuna. It's unfair that Yuna's 3-3 was worth more than Mao's 3A-2T, imo.)

The funny part is that a 3Lz-3T (6.0+4.1=10.1) is still worth more than a 3A-2T (8.5+1.3=9.8). All the rule changes that are supposedly for the sole benefit of Mao Asada, and the ISU couldn't even fix that.

Oh, it is still worth more? Geez, just when I think there couldn't be even more wrong with the rules for combinations...

Mao is the only skater in the ladies' field who has been putting out triple axels since 2010, since the rules changed.

Yukari Nakano had also been trying triple axels under the old rules, but she retired before she could take advantage of the new ones (especially the < vs. << distinction).

There are probably a couple hundred men out there worldwide doing triple axels. The base values affect the men's field much more than the ladies'.

Both men and women have the option to do one or two triple axels in long programs, if they're able. If two, one of them has to be in combination. They also have the option to do one or more triple-triple combinations if they can. Or both. Three combinations are available in the LP. At most two can use triple toe as the second jump, and doing two 3T combinations is not necessarily wise since it precludes the possibility of repeating two harder triples (or one harder triple and one quad). If a skater is only capable of putting one kind of triple (usually 3T) at the end of a combo, then they'll need to use double jumps in at least one of their combos anyway. Across 7 or 8 jump passes, there are different ways to spread out the jump difficulty -- including one or two extra-difficult combos will often mean that the other combo is a relatively easy one, so the average difficulty of the three combos alone, or of all 7 or 8 jump passes, may be greater for a skater who does only medium-hard combos.

So for long programs, for both sexes, a variety of options for how to spread the difficult jumps and combos across the allowed jump passes gives more options and allows skaters with different skill sets to maximize their own jump strengths.

It makes more of a difference in the short program, where only one combo is allowed. That's where 3A+2T being worth less than 3Lz+3T is most relevant, and it was only relevant for the ladies between 1999 and 2010 -- men already had the option of doing a difficult combo and solo 3A since 1998-99.

When you think about potential rule changes that affect base values and technical calls, the long and short program implications for all relevant disciplines need to be considered.

Rule changes that affect what elements are required/allowed specifically in the short or long program can be more targeted to a specific discipline. But unless it involves an element that only one or two skaters in the world in that discipline have shown the ability to do, it's unlikely that the rule is directed specifically at one skater.

 

[Sandpiper]

I personally don't think the 3A should be worth the same for men and women.

Most of the top men in the world can do a 3A. It's harder than the 3Lz, but it's been a mainstay in the sport since the '80s.

Mao Asada is the only woman who can do a 3A. Imo, that implies, for women, the difference between 3Lz and 3A is greater than the difference is for men. It's probably closer to the difference between 3A and 4T for men. That is why I think Mao should be rewarded heavily for her 3A--in a way that doesn't change something about the men's discipline.

 

[Meoima]

There is one thing I am very confused. The Russian girls are going for the 4T, it seems they don't bother for the 3A at all. But 4T is more difficult than the 3A, isn't it? Why don't they go for both if they believe they can do the 4T?

 

[wanpe]

The Russian girls are going for the 4T

Are they really practicing 4T? I thought the girls said that they are trying 4T just to get more media attention.

 

[Sandpiper]

Well, it depends on person. I dunno how it is for women, but there are men who stink at the 3A (Patrick Chan, and Stephane Lambiel even more so).

Now, could someone give me one good reason why the 2A is still a short program requirement? I feel like it's a relic (while 3A is still fairly difficult for the men).

 

[Sam-Skwantch]

Are they really practicing 4T? I thought the girls said that they are trying 4T just to get more media attention.

Maybe in Tuk's case but Lipnitskaya and Sotnikova most likely want less media now. My guess is Adelina is the next to get a 3a and she won't attempt 4t anytime soon. Why didnt Yuna ever do 3a? She gets plenty of height and rotation on her 2a.

 

[Sandpiper]

I suspect Yuna didn't get the 3A because in the beginning, she didn't really need it (to beat Mao). And later on, after the "rules changes to benefit Mao" (quotes because we can't seem to agree on how much it benefited her), injuries were already taking a toll on Yuna, so it was probably better for her to keep doing what she already did well. Orser talked about getting the 3A after Vancouver, IIRC. Dunno where the plan went.

Or, it's possible Yuna just didn't adapt to the new rules well.

 

[elif]

There is one thing I am very confused. The Russian girls are going for the 4T, it seems they don't bother for the 3A at all. But 4T is more difficult than the 3A, isn't it? Why don't they go for both if they believe they can do the 4T?

Maybe they don't want to lose their 2A and 2A+3T combo. I read somewhere training 3A can effect 2A. I think its true because Gracie Gold has videos with 3A but this year she had many problems with her 2A.

 

[dorispulaski]

gkelly, rule changes are voted on by people. People divide into classes- one such set is Those Who Feel The Right Set of Things Are Already Rewarded and Those Who Disagree. Another such split is Our Skaters Are Overly Penalized or Underrewarded and Those Who Disagree.

One split that always has a majority is Those Who Think the Winner Had Too Big of an Advantage vs the Federation Whose Skater Won. The Winner, especially an overwhelming winner, is always a target , since unarguably, the sport is more interesting when competitions are close. Changes, typically are not made to increase the advantage of an overwhelming winner, and I would argue, they should not be.

Quite often, the reason behind a rule change may have a reasonable rationale, like limiting triples to two per FS.

Others are more dubious, like allowing unlimited 2As while limiting triple toes, and saying a toe walley and a toe loop are the same jump, while not saying a flip and a lutz are the same jump.

Rule changes always happen-the question is how athletes respond to such changes. Mao worked, not always successfully, to improve her jump technique. YuNa chose to change her jump layout without adding new content. The youngsters added harder combinations. And 2010's winner did not win in 2014, a not surprising result.

 

[begin]

I suspect Yuna didn't get the 3A because in the beginning, she didn't really need it (to beat Mao). And later on, after the "rules changes to benefit Mao" (quotes because we can't seem to agree on how much it benefited her), injuries were already taking a toll on Yuna, so it was probably better for her to keep doing what she already did well. Orser talked about getting the 3A after Vancouver, IIRC. Dunno where the plan went.

Or, it's possible Yuna just didn't adapt to the new rules well.

Sort of. Yuna actually did have the 3A as something she wanted to master but chronic spine problems + varying injuries in her earlier years made training the jump impossible (and eventually cost her the 3Lo as well). This was way before Yuna became the dominating competitor.

Is a 2A really that easy to master? I would assume the axel's forward takeoff alone makes the jump type worthy of being a requirement.

 

[Sandpiper]

I'm sure there are people who can do 3T better than 2A. That's why I think it's still necessary for an axel jump to be a requirement in the LP. But for the most part, the girls are throwing down 2A like it's nothing, so the good of eliminating it from the SP outweighs the bad, imo. I can't think of any top ladies with a terrible 2A who will suddenly start dominating if it were eliminated from the SP (Men's 3A, for instance, is a totally different matter).

Of course, with the new edge rules, Mao's going to suffer even with her 3As. So I dunno if she can dominate even if she does a 3A + 3-3 SP.

I dunno about how 3A affects 2A. Mao's 2A is fine, IIRC. She did have a stumble on it in Saitama but it doesn't seem to be a chronic problem. Of course, Mao has been throwing around 3A for a long time, which is different from someone trying to acquire 3A after they've been going without it for most of their career.

 

[Ven]

YuNa chose to change her jump layout without adding new content. The youngsters added harder combinations. And 2010's winner did not win in 2014, a not surprising result.

But this is not how the competitions are supposedly scored.

1. Sotnikova's UR and edge calls were overlooked, presumably because the fix was in for her and Lipnitskaia, while Asada was judged harshly, presumably to help the Russians as well.

2. The levels (including step sequence, which this thread was about) were not graded accurately, in order to benefit the Russians at these Olympics.

3. In combination with the corrupted technical panel, some unknown number of judges used grade of execution and components scores to further goal-seek the results.

-----

This competition cannot be reduced to one explanation, such as Skater A did 7 triples and Skater B did 6 triples, so Skater A wins. For one, Sotnikova did not even complete 7 triples, and the corrupt tech panel fraudulently gave her credit for the extra one ... but second, there are more to the scores than just number of jumps. That's why the skaters do spins, and step sequences, choreo sequences, get judged on skating skills and transitions, etc. Otherwise they would just go out and do a bunch of jumps and be done with it all.

So I think it's particularly disingenuous when people cherry pick one thing and try to use it to verify the results ex post facto, like many of the NBC commentators did. In 2010, Plushenko did harder jumps, but Evan did a lot of other things well, and since the fix was in for Evan over Plushenko, well ... the party line is "you have to do more than jumps". But this time, the fix was in for a Russian jumper, so the party line becomes "it's all about the jumps". What will be the ex post facto explanation at the next competition? One could easily imagine a scenario next season where a more mature skater beats a superior jumper, and Scott Hamilton shrieks "you have to do more than jump these days!"

And this is where the split has occurred between fans and figure skating. You have an easily manipulated and confusing scoring system that -- I believe -- purposefully exists to confuse fans into submission, so they don't feel they have the expertise to question the scores and placements. Prior to CoP, the scoring was simple enough and more qualitative that the fans could confidently express an opinion of who deserved to win ... and this ran contrary to the ISU and the federations' goal of being able to manipulate the results at will. The fans could lock onto a particular judge's score and easily notice that cheating had occurred. As a result, the ISU went to anonymous judging, and now CoP, and now ever-constant rule changes and ex post facto explanations, all to basically give the audience the following message:

"Look, you don't understand the scoring system, and that's the way we like it, because now you will not be able to question us with confidence when we fix the results to make one skater win over another."

And in turn, people just don't care anymore. And why should they?

 

[Vanshilar]

So you're not counting failure to penalize for prerotation of one of the many errors in the scoring of these two skaters that you complain about. Fair enough.

Well if pre-rotation is fine as long as the toe pick skate doesn't actually face directly forward, then it's fine (I assume there's no GOE penalty for it until it gets counted as cheated). And now looking at the videos, if someone starts saying that pre-rotation (less than facing directly forward) does count as an under-rotated jump ("<"), I can quickly pull out gifs of other skaters at the Olympics such as Kostner whose toe picks were nearly facing directly forward when they left the ice, but weren't called for under-rotation.

Both Sotnikova and Kim jumped high, and both were rewarded for it in GOE. It's only one bullet point for each jump.

Yes, but they jumped pretty much the same height (at least in the short program, I haven't looked at the jump heights for the long program yet). So my point is that it would be unfair to say one skater had really good height as an argument for being a better jumper than the other or for the scoring.

From what I have observed at the local level (where no replay is available to judges -- only to tech panels, except at very small club competitions where it's all done by hand and eyeball with no computers or video) -- during the performance judges are watching the skater, barely looking away from the ice to make notes and/or input GOEs.

I wonder if this is why they don't allow slow motion replay? So that judges don't get complacent in their ability to gauge jumps without being able to freeze-frame it.

Not sure. But remember that the official video camera will be next to the technical panel seats, not the judges. If the fan cam was closer to the judges, that could make a difference in the angle available in the replay.

Ah. I guess it's a matter then of where the technical panel was sitting. The fan cam was way out in the bleachers, showing the entire rink, but you can see the little grey dot on the ice moving directly away from where the judges was sitting when the combo was done.

Well, it's not "clearly" 92 degrees. The human eye can't measure that precisely, even with slow-motion video replay. 92 will look very similar to 90, so that would likely be a benefit-of-doubt situation.

That's the point though -- if fans start arguing that it was just slightly above a quarter turn under-rotated using slow motion, then it's just a matter of pointing out the part about benefit of the doubt in the rules.

It's very very rare for jumps to be called as underrotated or downgraded due to prerotation, especially at the elite levels. That call should only happen in very obvious examples of very bad technique. The tech panel is not allowed to use slow motion for those calls.

Is it because elite skaters usually don't pre-rotate past directly forward, or is it because they do but judges will usually ignore it? And for many of the jumps that I've seen discussed, even in slow motion it's fairly obvious (or at least, marginal) that they weren't facing directly forward on take off; most of the arguments I've have been that the toe pick skate was in the forward direction (i.e. the forward half), not that it had rotated past directly forward, so it's a matter of telling them what the correct interpretation is. (I know I'm smoothing over how difficult it may be to tell some people what the correct interpretation is.)

Even so, with PCS, different judges use the numbers differently. So a fan (or judge) could argue why they would have scored this elite skater only 2 ("poor") in a certain component for good reasons, and I might be convinced that that is a valid score for this performance according to that fan's or judge's use of the numerical scale (if it's clear that the fan has a frame of reference that includes familiarity with the full range of lower-level skaters who do often earn scores in the 2s). But other fans or judges might make equally convincing arguments in favor of different scores according their own use of the scale.

There's another factor at work I think though: how substantially different the scores would become. If two performances were very close in scores, I'm sure some fans might start saying "hey the judges gave 9.25, it should really have been 9.5" or something to argue that their skater should have won. But I think most casual people would just say well if it's really a toss-up then it's a toss-up and default then to the scores the judges gave (I'm thinking of the 2014 Men's Worlds, but I haven't actually looked at the performances in detail). And fans that construct all sorts of elaborate arguments as to why their skater deserved fractions of a point more would generally be dismissed I think (under the "all that work for just a small change?" tendency that people have).

In other words, if the judges gave a 9 for a component in a close competition, I wouldn't find people arguing it should really have been 8.75 or 9.25 to be particularly persuasive, and if that's enough to make the difference in the rankings, then I would just take the scores to be a toss-up in the first place. If some people started arguing that the skater should have gotten a 6 instead, I don't think (or at least I hope not) people could give convincing arguments why the skater deserved a 6 while some other people simultaneously gave convincing arguments why it should have been a 9. Or are the PCS scores really that subjective that this wide of a range is acceptable? I always thought people would generally agree within half a point or a point or so.

This thread started to analyze step sequence calls, primarily as technical panels do. We can also make those kinds of analyes for jumps and spins (and pair elements where relevant).

We can also look at GOEs and program components as judges do.

I love to do those kinds of analyses. I wish we could have had a thread looking at the ladies' event in Sochi in an objective spirit of honest inquiry. Watch all or many of the performances as if we were technical specialists, or as if we were judges, and compare notes on what we come up with.

Yeah the biggest disappointment is how few people are actually looking at the step sequences, and instead just provide commentary to support their favorite skater(s) (or to insult other skaters or their fans) by giving unjustified statements without, you know, actually giving any support or evidence. I think I can probably count on one hand (possibly two) the number of posters that have actually looked at the step sequences out of the more than one thousand posts this thread has ballooned to. Which is a disappointment considering the amount of resources available for anyone that wants to actually "get at the truth of the matter" so to speak; there are knowledgeable people here, videos elsewhere, etc. I've even made gifs of the step sequences available (and have scripts to extract the images from videos and put them together into a gif so it's easy for me to do it for any of the sequences with different parameters such as replay speed on request). Instead people seem to have an already-established position and are simply looking to say anything, backed by evidence or not, in support of their position. That's politics (viewpoint-driven reasoning), not science (evidence-based reasoning). Unfortunately, I doubt it will be not-emotionally charged any time soon, so it's a matter of, taking the thread as it is. Hopefully forum-goers will be able to read for themselves and figure out which posters are actually giving reasons and evidence and which are just spewing napalm.

Maybe in Tuk's case but Lipnitskaya and Sotnikova most likely want less media now. My guess is Adelina is the next to get a 3a and she won't attempt 4t anytime soon. Why didnt Yuna ever do 3a? She gets plenty of height and rotation on her 2a.

I don't think it's so easy. Mao's triple axel is massive, and even then it's somewhat inconsistent. I know a triple axel is more about getting into the rotation quickly rather than height, but Mao's height on her triple axel is still bigger than any of Adelina's or Yuna's jumps. Her double axel is also bigger height-wise than their axels (it's just as high as the triple lutzes they used to start off their programs, and she did it in the second half), and rotates (slightly) faster. Mao rotates her triple axel significantly faster than her double axel; to give you an idea, Mao's rotation on her triple axel is slightly faster than even Yulia's rotation on her triple lutz. Granted, I know there's more than this to getting a successful triple axel, but from what I can look at easily (how quickly the skater rotates in the air and how long the skater is in the air i.e. height), there's still a fairly big gulf.

Having said that, I do think who will do 3A or 4T next will be interesting to see.