Why are you treating all of sotnikovas performances as If they were the same! Pcs can reflect her performances and most of the time they were a mixed bag. Mixing success with huge mistakes. Never in her life did she skate as well as she did in sochi! But you in your analysis of pcs are saying explicitly and totally sotnikova skated the same way she did in sochi every time she competed. Just a ridiculous absurd assertion of total weirdness and defiance and denial of reality.
Analyzing Sotnikova and Kim's footwork in the FS
- Thread starter Blades of Passion
- Start date
- Status
Skating Skills:
During the ISU Grand Prix season, Sotnikova's skating skills were in the 7s. The entire season before that they were in the 7s.
Suddenly, overnight they jumped into the 9s just 0.03 points behind Kim and ahead of Kostner.
How someone's basic skating skills can improve so much overnight is beyond explanation, other than the scores are arbitrary, and made up in order to goal-seek a desired outcome for the Olympics.
Transitions / Linking Footwork:
Her transitions / linking footwork scores were even lower (still in the 7s but lower) during the Grand Prix season.
Suddenly, overnight they jumped to 8.96, a tie with Kim.
How someone's basic footwork and same transitions they've been using all year can magically jump like that overnight, is beyond explanation, other than the scores are arbitrary, and made up in order to goal-seek a desired outcome for the Olympics.
Execution:
Her execution score also jumped astronomically and tied Kim, despite noticeable jarring moments in Sotnikova's skating and a stumble on one of her jumps.
Choreography:
Sotnikova's choreography was ridiculed by nearly everyone on GS all season. It's not her strong suit even to her defenders, like Scott Hamilton, who claimed Yuna was more artistic but Adelina was a better jumper and that's all that matters these days. But it turns out that Sotnikova scored higher than Kim and received what I believe is the highest choreography score of all time.
During the ISU Grand Prix season, Sotnikova's skating skills were in the 7s. The entire season before that they were in the 7s.
Suddenly, overnight they jumped into the 9s just 0.03 points behind Kim and ahead of Kostner.
How someone's basic skating skills can improve so much overnight is beyond explanation, other than the scores are arbitrary, and made up in order to goal-seek a desired outcome for the Olympics.
Transitions / Linking Footwork:
Her transitions / linking footwork scores were even lower (still in the 7s but lower) during the Grand Prix season.
Suddenly, overnight they jumped to 8.96, a tie with Kim.
How someone's basic footwork and same transitions they've been using all year can magically jump like that overnight, is beyond explanation, other than the scores are arbitrary, and made up in order to goal-seek a desired outcome for the Olympics.
Execution:
Her execution score also jumped astronomically and tied Kim, despite noticeable jarring moments in Sotnikova's skating and a stumble on one of her jumps.
Choreography:
Sotnikova's choreography was ridiculed by nearly everyone on GS all season. It's not her strong suit even to her defenders, like Scott Hamilton, who claimed Yuna was more artistic but Adelina was a better jumper and that's all that matters these days. But it turns out that Sotnikova scored higher than Kim and received what I believe is the highest choreography score of all time.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
Half and half. When you give an excellent overall performance, skate with enthusiasm, don't fall, and get the crowd behind you -- yes, in figure skating judging you automatically get higher scores in skating skills, choreography, etc. Especially at the Olympics, where the emphasis is on putting on a show for the TV cameras. In general, the program components will usually rise to match the tech score whether the skater interprets the music, does a lot of transitions, etc., or not.
This is not surprising. Nothing makes the choreography pop like landing your jumps.
Of the points that you raise, the one that is most convincing is the GOEs that Sotnikova got on her elements. This is where the judges went beyond reason. and make us long for 6.0. (Only, in spite of everything, not many people are longing for 6.0.)
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2014
This is where the judges went beyond reason. and make us long for 6.0. (Only, in spite of everything, not many people are longing for 6.0.)
I'm one of those few people.
Never liked or agreed with IJS. The "world records", PCS etc. are simply ridiculous for me. Every time I hear them I'm like
. It doesn't mean anything in FS. 
hwell:
I agree. World records are pointless in a sport like figure skating, especially when the rules change every time the wind blows a different way (that's fine, of course; the rules often do need tweaking). Hence why I care more about who's in which spot, rather than what the actual scores were. I'm not concerned, for instance, whether Mao breaks Yuna's Vancouver FS record or not. Just more concerned she scored less than skaters that I thought she outskated in the Sochi LP.I'm one of those few people.
Every time I hear them I'm like
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
I'm one of those few people.
Every time I hear them I'm like
To me. the current system also suffers from dishonesty (as discussions like this one attest to). In ordinal judging, it was the job of the judge to say, this skater was best, this one was second best. It was the job of the skater to get first place ordinals from a majority of judges.
I do not think anything much has changed. Ven is using the term "goal-seeked" ("goal-sought?") for the practice of deciding who you want to win, then arranging the numbers to make it come out that way. But this is how it has always been.
The only problem is that "who you want to win" should not be decided beforehand, but rather as a result of the unfolding competition.
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2013
Exactly. I couldn't agree any more
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2010
Or that she was undermarked before.
It really doesn't matter what her previous scores were. The judges saw great skates from Caro, Yuna, and Adelina almost side-by-side. If a judge preferred Adelina's performance, why should they feel forced to overmark Yuna's flat performance because she normally gets high marks? Yuna has given elite skaters one competition in the last 3 years (Worlds 2013) to have a side-by-side comparison prior to Sochi. She skated much better than everyone else last year, but when the competition is close as it was in Sochi the judges have to more closely examine the programs.
Yes, goal-seeking is the practice of validating pre-determined results with manipulated "data". Imagine an interviewer conducting a poll, but changing the wording of the question until they get the response they want. Or a government changing the way it calculates inflation in order to make it seem more benign.
In figure skating, IJS was supposedly created to make the scoring more fair and objective. Now there are quantifiable points that skaters can obtain, which adds to the illusion of objectivity. However what is really going on is that there are political forces at work heading into competitions. The degree to which politics might influence the results of any particular skating event can vary, but under the right circumstances, as we witnessed in Sochi, the results can almost entirely be determined off the ice, so long as the skaters manage to stay on their feet. Imagine going to a basketball game between an NBA team and a high school or college team, where the referees only call fouls or violations on the NBA team, but not on their opponent. Suddenly, the game is inexplicably close near the end, and the referees start giving 3 points to the youngsters when they make a lay-up, and only 2 points to the NBA squad when they shoot 3s. There is a scoring system in place and the score is kept on the scoreboard, but in reality it's all a farce until the buzzer sounds and the predetermined winner finishes with the higher score.
Well, that's what is going on in figure skating. Who would show up to watch a basketball game like that? Nobody really, and not surprisingly fewer and fewer people every year bother to watch figure skating, especially among younger demographics.
-----
This is a problem that figure skating has had for a long time. As you mentioned before, Sonja Henie defeated then-Olympic and World Champ Herma Szabo only because the judging panel was stacked with Norwegians that year. All the Norwegians voted for Henie and everyone else voted for Szabo, and Henie won. Herma Szabo quit and retired, and later the rules were changed to allow only one judge per country. At the end of her career, Sonja Henie almost certainly should have lost to Cecilia Colledge in 1936 -- who invented the layback and camel spins, and was the first woman to do double jumps -- but Sonja Henie was a personal favorite and acquaintance of Hitler, who just happened to be hosting the Olympics that year in Nazi Germany. Sonja Henie won her final OGM.
After Sonja Henie the next great skater of her era was Eva Pawlik, who had the prime of her career wiped out by World War II and post-war politics (Austria was initially banned from competitions by the ISU). She held out long enough to compete at the 1948 Olympics, but finished 2nd to Barbara Ann Scott. One of the reasons given for her defeat was that her costume and boots and appearance were not on par with Scott's -- a product of Austria being dirt poor after the German occupation and the War. Another possibility is that the judges were dominated by western allied nations, and Pawlik was skating for a former eastern axis country. Of course, Barbara Ann Scott might have just been better that year too, but politics certainly played some factor.
Next came a steady stream of Olympic champs from the victorious allied nations ... Barbara Ann Scott (Canada), Jeannette Altwegg (U.K), Tenley Albright and Carol Heiss (U.S.), Sjoukje Dijkstra (allied Western Europe). Each of these women were great skaters and probably all deserved their wins, but the procession was still political. These were the countries in the skating world least affected by World War II ... as a result they had the most money and best training environments compared to other countries. Jeannette Altwegg was the last ladies champ from the U.K. which faded from global superpower status, and the torch was passed to the United States and all of its political might.
The U.S. team was tragically killed in the 1961 plane crash, but quickly recovered by the end of the decade when Peggy Fleming won in 1968. This continued a trend of decade after decade -- from the 1950s all the way until Sasha Cohen and the end of 6.0 -- when American ladies were always in contention and often winning competitions and OGMs. How much of this was due to the United States having wealth and a stable training environment, and a large population, among other things? And how much was due to political judging? I'm sure both were involved. It makes sense, from a logical point of view, that the United States could develop so many of the best skaters in the world during those 50 years. But it also seems likely that lesser skaters were propped up through political deals, and may have been given the nod over evenly matched or superior skaters from other countries.
-----
Finally, to better understand the evolution of politics in figure skating, we need to better understand the evolution of figure skating's popularity. Let's go back to the 1960's.
Prior to then, figure skating was a niche sport and not popular like it eventually became. The interest in figure skating increased once they began showing competitions on TV, including the Olympics. Now people could see figure skaters on television, they could enjoy watching the sport, and talking about the sport, and the little kids could dream about being figure skaters themselves when they grew up. But there was one problem ... the best skaters on TV did not win the competitions. The audience was dumbfounded....how could this be? Well, it turns out that the scores were heavily weighted towards compulsory figures, which the public never saw this part of the competition. The public only saw the free skates on television, and since the free skaters were often not the best at figures and vice-versa, the best skaters that the audience saw did not win the competitions.
For the public this was an outrage, and led to a gradual change in the scoring system. For various reasons, the sport was not as corrupt in those days* and the ISU was willing to do whatever it took to improve the sport and make it more popular. First, figures and free skate scores were made equal (50/50), but through practice it became apparent this change was not enough, because the difference in scores in figures was often larger than the difference in free skate scores, which still made figures the most important scoring component. In order to fix this, the short program was introduced, and eventually figures were eliminated altogether.
*The ISU and presumably USFSA were not as corrupt in those days because of lack of competition. In the later years of the Cold War, the Soviet Union's sports machine ramped up and began producing more and more talented Eastern European skaters, and they started backing them with resources, better training, and political capital. Eventually, Asian skaters entered the fray too ... and politics became ever more important in the world of figure skating.
-----
So that takes us to the East vs. West bloc era of 6.0.
Some idiots believe that -- in order for figure skating to be popular -- we need good guy judges and bad guy judges that we can cheer and boo. Hopefully I've shown through this post that this is the last thing figure skating needs ... it was a backwards era no different from the idiotic nationalism the Russians displayed in 2014. Great skaters should not be differentiated by which country or bloc they come from, or which country the competition takes place in, or which groups work together the best to produce the outcomes they find most desirable.
But that is what happened during the later 6.0 years ... as Eastern European skaters challenged the American skaters, and Japanese and Chinese skaters emerged too ... competitions were decided less and less on the ice and more and more through political deals. At first this went unnoticed, because the audience was behind the game. With the abolition of compulsory figures, the skaters had more time to train for short and long programs, and the performances became better and better. Imagine how this process was perceived by the audience ... imagine you have never tasted ice cream in your life, ok? You have your first taste and you like it ... who are you to question which ice cream tastes better than another? It all tastes good!
Well the same process happened with figure skating. People saw it on tv and loved it because it's a beautiful sport. Then they saw the right people winning for a change, and they loved it more. Then they saw the performances getting better and better, and they loved it the most of all. But then the audience reached a point where it became competent ... not all of the ice cream flavors tasted equally as good anymore. People discovered they had built up the experience to decide one flavor of ice cream tasted better than another, but the people selling the ice cream tried to persuade them differently.
Fan: Skater A is the best
ISU: nope, this time Skater B was the best
Fan: uhh...are you kidding me?
And this is what happened by the 1990s and 2002. In the 70s and 80s, the Cold War was going on and people took sides. Plus the skates got better and better.
But then in the 90s the Cold War was over...most people didn't care about East vs. West anymore, and the audience had caught up with the learning curve in skating. It no longer accepted fixed results.
-----
From the ISU and Federations' point of view, these people like to fix results. It makes them more powerful to make deals and network, and it makes them feel more important. It was an inconvenience for them that the audience could attach simple numbers to certain judges and cry foul, and that figure skating could be threatened with the ban-hammer by the IOC. But unlike the 60s and 70s, this time around the figure skating world was cutthroat competitive and rife with corruption. These people -- who are still in charge -- were not willing to do anything and everything to resuscitate the sport and put it back on a positive path towards growth and popularity. Instead, these people were more interested in preserving their position and their power, and would do anything to keep those positions and that power -- including killing the sport itself.
So instead of eliminating cheating from the sport -- which the audience finds unacceptable -- the ISU and its Federations determined the best course of action would be to eliminate the appearance of cheating.
And that is what IJS really is...it takes 83 pages of posts multiple paragraphs long to determine whether a skater has a Level 3 or Level 4 step sequence, and whether it was called correctly or incorrectly. Then there are the jumps, which may or may not be called correctly. Then there are the Grades of Execution and PCS scores, which are seemingly arbitrary and made up depending on which way the wind blows that time of year.
Both IJS and anonymous judging were only created as a ruse to give the appearance of objective and fair results. Now the audience has no idea what's going on, which is what the ISU wants. Not surprisingly, the audience doesn't care anymore, and that's the state figure skating is in.
-----
So I support those who wish to clean up the sport and put it back on the right path. In order for this to happen, the current leaders must be purged and banned for life. The results must be fair and objective. The scoring must be simple enough that the audience can enjoy the play and the scoring at the same time, but remain true to the principles of figure skating -- half art and half sport, not half politics and half make-believe.
I don't know, Ven - I'm sure you'll say I'm just not understanding your argument but to me it seems like on the one hand you're arguing for transparency and fairness (which is great), while at the same time arguing that the Sochi ladies' scoring was wrong because Sotnikova's scoring wasn't in line with the scores she got at past competitions, some of which were total bombs. It kind of seems like an argument for reputation judging instead of judges being free to judge what they see on the ice - a contradiction to your call for fairness, in other words. Don't forget it's not unusual for scores across the board to rise during an Olympic season, and also not unusual for the scores of young skaters without an established reputation to rise. That last bit shouldn't be the case but it's always been like that. Also, I'm impressed you guys are still talking about this after all this time!
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2013
I don't know, Ven - I'm sure you'll say I'm just not understanding your argument but to me it seems like on the one hand you're arguing for transparency and fairness (which is great), while at the same time arguing that the Sochi ladies' scoring was wrong because Sotnikova's scoring wasn't in line with the scores she got at past competitions, some of which were total bombs. It kind of seems like an argument for reputation judging instead of judges being free to judge what they see on the ice - a contradiction to your call for fairness, in other words. Don't forget it's not unusual for scores across the board to rise during an Olympic season, and also not unusual for the scores of young skaters without an established reputation to rise. That last bit shouldn't be the case but it's always been like that. Also, I'm impressed you guys are still talking about this after all this time!
That's been my point the whole time. You can't simply score based on past events or compare skaters jumps side by side. They don't look at one skaters 3 flip and compare it to another...or at least that's not the intention of the current judging system. They don't award the height bullet to the biggest jump only for example.
Counting positive GOE's is ludicrous for example as in Lips case because twenty of her high marks out of twenty-five were on her spins and nearly given across the board. She has a great spiral and Ina Bauer sequence which always gets high marks ie +3's. You can't just count GOE and leave it at that. It's very misleading.
I do agree that Sot recieved rather generous scores but the way GOE is awarded was in no way a violation of ISU guidelines. I may not agree and I may prefer Yuna over her and feel comfortable saying Yuna is a better skater. That just simply isn't evidence of fraud IMO. You need to break rules for that to be the case. The truth in all this is written in the rules as follows:
My personal "conspiracy" theory is that the ISU recognizes the growing market in youth FS at the moment and have been in general pushing the next generation to continue the growth in Russia and to some degree the USA. The writing is on the wall. This next quad is likely to be Russia vs USA. That's not to discount some of the other potential threats like Park but just to see the big picture. ISU is a business and as such needs to gain a new fanbase in the absence of some pretty big names. It would make sense to push for the young ones to score well in order to carry the sport forward. Overall I think the kids they pushed for skated well and honestly better than expected in some cases. This is more a gut feeling I've had and thought about pre-Sochi. No one really knows what really went down. I fully admit what happened in Sochi was odd but I don't feel the whole sport is as corrupt and evil as is presented by some. All the politicking in the world still needs to be shown blade to ice.
Without focusing on Sochi solely I think the skaters wound up where they should based on the entire year and their overall standings. To me that is the bottom line.
I really wonder if Yuna had competed in the GP if she would have helped control the rate of inflation. That is pure speculation but had she shown up and established herself this year I can't help but wonder if that may have curbed some of the enthusiasm and dampened some of the surge. I guess like many things well never know.
My apologies for confusing you.
If Components scores are determined by what they are supposed to be determined by, skating skills should not vary much within a season, and only gradually over time. It's kind of absurd to have skaters like Sotnikova and Lipnitskaia receive higher SS scores than Kostner, Asada, Suzuki, and on par with Kim. For all of the things each skater does well, and they all have their strengths, the scores should accurately reflect those strengths, and skaters should not be receiving similar skating skills scores when their skating skills are indeed not similar.
Transitions and choreography should not vary much either, unless programs are changed. The skaters skate the same programs all season ... how can the same choreography go from 6s and 7s to 9.5 at the end of the season?
Execution and timing should go up or down, however, depending on performance IMO. I agree with you there, and I would expect Sotnikova to receive higher scores than she did all season in these categories, with her best performance. However I again have to point out that her execution score was the exact same as Kim's. How can this be when Sotnikova made a clear mistake? She had other jarring moments as well, but most noticeably the stumble. Neither Kim nor Kostner messed up, so while Sotnikova's higher score relative to her own previous scores is explainable, her higher score in relation to her top competitors was not.
But at the heart of it, the PCS scores are not accurately reflective of anything, other than the fact they are easily manipulated to help the panel contrive the results they wish for the most.
I think we need to look at this in relative terms. Did Sotnikova's skate match Kim's and Kostner's? Most people -- as witnessed by all of the petitions, threads, newspaper articles, etc. -- seem to think no. She skated well and deserved the bronze medal, but not more. I think she had her best skate ever, and her PCS score should have reflected that. But should she have received higher PCS than Carolina Kostner? Should she have entirely closed the PCS gap between herself and Kim?
Is there not a noticeable gap in the skating skills and artistic quality between Sotnikova and Kim+Kostner? Why is this not reflected in the score?
The answer can be found in my first lengthy post on the previous page ... this was not the only part of the scoring that was questionable. All aspects of the scoring were biased in favor of Sotnikova. The tech panel gave her the wrong levels and did not judge her jumps correctly. The judges were excessive in the GOEs as much as they were with the PCS. If one mistake somewhere had been made, a person could be excused for thinking it was unintentional. But when every scoring category shows anomalies in favor of one skater ... that shows willful intent to manipulate the scores and rig the results.
Also, I'm impressed you guys are still talking about this after all this time!
I'm also impressed you took the time to read my overly long posts. :thumbsup:
In the "real" world you speak of Mao Asada should have broken the world record for free skating because of the circumstances of the skate, and the historic nature of its technical content. It is not that under 'real world' figure skating politics, Mao seemed cautious. It is that YOU are projecting Mao being cautious onto the competition to justify the results. This is not some 'insider logic.' It is grafting a narrative onto the competition that suits your bias for evidently not liking Mao's performance.Well, here's what I think. When it comes to figure skating judging, there are two separate worlds. The real world, and the fantasy world populated by folks who take the published rules of the IJS and ISU documents as an infallible guide. People in the fantasy world delight in doing technical and statistical analyses to prove that figure skating judges are not actually operating in the fantasy world. No, they are not. They are judging in the real world.
In the real world, no set of rules, however detailed, tells the whole story. There are always unstated "rules behind the rules" involving tradition, history, interpretation, context, and even politics that color the black-and-white text.
Here is an example. Both Julia Lipnitskaia and Adelina Sotnikova zoomed up the ladder in terms of program component scores coming into Sochi. In the fantasy world -- the world where we go strictly by the published rules of the CoP -- this would not be possible.
But one of the unwritten rules in the real world (which every skater and coach knows) is that to get high program scores a skater must first work her way up the reputation ladder by delivering a series of convincing programs over several competitions. Is this "right"? Well, it's real.
Please don't shoot the messenger. I am not saying this is a good thing. I just think it is far too facile an interpretation of events to say "conspiracy" and let it go at that. The true situation is always more complicated than can be distilled down to a single word.
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2014
I agree that comparing different competitions is kind of not a strong basis for inaccurate scores that were given in a single competition because of the difference in judges, environment and skater's performance but I do get Ven's point of view. Forget about all the other competitions these skaters competed in prior to the Olympics or their reputation and just look at what they performed in Sochi. IMO, Sotnikova and Lipnitskaia were/are nowhere near Yuna, Caro and Mao both technically and even more so, artistically. If you look only at what they performed on Sochi ice, I believe Sotnikova would only get Bronze at best, Mao would win the free skate, Caro would get Silver and Yuna would win overall.
Even if we do not compare Yuna and Yulia's jumps side by side, you can still see the big difference between the two and I don't see why Yulia can score higher than Yuna on flip when Yulia had somewhat unstable and full blade take-off, lacked good distance and height, and not the best air position and flow. She practically did not fulfill enough bullet points for a +2 GOE but got +2s across the board anyway and even a +3 from one judge. Whereas Yuna's flip was high and covers good distance, had a good flow in and out, good air position, was immediately followed by deep edge steps, effortless and in my opinion, musical. Furthermore, Yuna doesn't pre-rotate as much as others like Lipnitskaia which clearly indicates how much better jumper she is than the others. So Yulia scoring higher than Yuna on Flip is, I believe, scoring/judging incompetency, or "corruption", depends on what people believe in.
I agree with this. And maybe Yuna not competing on the grand prix to promote the sport hurt her as well. It shouldn't have but it did unfortunately. I just wish they had promoted and encouraged the younger generation and potential audience in a better way. Yulia's talent was already recognized in the Team Event and attracted a lot of viewers. So I don't get why they did what they did [as I firmly believe something fishy happened in Sochi].
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2013
My intention isn't to prove to anyone that Yulia is better than anyone let alone Yuna. I know and understand how good Yuna is and she is one of my all time favorites. The thing is I want the scoring to be fair and as such I really want it to be fairly discussed too. Yulia had one good jump in her FS and it was the 3 flip. It's one of her best jumps. She fell on it on the SP and came out the next day and hit one of the best in her life. The judges are allowed to remember things like this and as such have a certain freedom to reward skaters as they see fit. See my last post and the quote from ISU guidelines. Maybe this is what it was intended for. On this particular 3 flip she was as secure as ever and absolutely stomped it with great flow. If you want ammo to criticize the judging that's not it. It would be the judge that scored her 3lz-3t a +3. That was a sketchy jump. When she lands the lutz it's on a very unstable edge and for once her flow, arguably her best aspect in jumping, was very disrupted. I don't know how she fought thru it and got off a clean 3t. Maybe that judge was impressed by that but I would have scored it a plus 1 only considering the fact it was a combo which I would tend to score higher across the board for everyone.
Again my point is to dissect the scoring and not convert fans to like anyone here. For obvious reasons I can dissect Yulia's programs best. The thing is picking on her GOE total and not disclosing the fact that nearly all of them are well deserved is misleading and it bugs me. It's not like I'm discarding everything Ven presents. It's just the reputation smearing to prove a theory.
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2014
If you have a bad skating the marks will reflect that in all aspects of skating. We had a discussion about this on this forum regarding Carolina's performance on her FS at Worlds and her PCS's marks. The majority of those who partecipated in that topic think that her fall or missing the jumps should've been reflected on her CH as well, which was not the case. I don't know who is right or wrong, my opinion is that it depends from how big mistakes are and how many.
Now, Adelina had from 7.50 to 7.71 for SS, TR and CH in GPF and she had a bad skating there, finished 6th. For me she was overmarked in Sochi, I'm not disputing that but yes, a program can be improved, especially TR, and marks in those areas often reflect the whole performance. If it's good it will get high marks in almost all areas. You can't compare a choreo and TR at the beginning of the season of te end. Skaters are constantly testing their programs during the whole season to be at max. in major competition, especially during the Olympic season. Mao's marks improved as well in those areas if you compare her marks with GPF and Worlds
Yulia got from 7.18 to 7.68 and for me she was marked low in TR and CH. Not only at GPF but also at Euros, Worlds and Olympics. Except for the individial event where she got (well Averbukh actually
) a well deserved 9 for the CH.Carolina got 8.50 at Euros to 9.07 in TR for basically telegraphing the elements. In my book she can never get a 9 for TR. The judges think differently and I'm fine with that. I think they know better than I do, or maybe I'm missing something.
Anyway, she as well improved her marks in SS, TR and CH from Euros to Olpympics and Worlds. Carolina's LP was much better at the Olympics for example than at Euros, including the choreo.
Carolina LP
Europeans: SS-8.89, TR-8.50, CH-8.79
Olympics: SS-9.14, TR-8.71, CH-9.21
Worlds: SS-9.29, TR-9.07, CH-9.46
Adelina LP
Europeans: SS-8.64, TR-8.50, CH-8.86
Olympics: SS-9.18, TR-8.96, CH-9.50
Worlds:
Yulia LP
Europeans: SS-8.43, TR-8.14, CH-8.54
Olympics Individual: SS-8.68, TR-8.46, CH-9.00 – Team Event: SS-8.64, TR-8.43, CH-8.82
Worlds: SS-8.54, TR-8.39, CH-8.61
p.s. Osmond getting for TR-6.96 only - she got 7.25 at worlds - and 7.14 for CH is ridiculous. She had an Amazing SP full of transitions and she was really good.
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2014
Sorry but sometimes your views confuse me. So you want the scoring to be fair but is okay with Yulia getting high GOEs when she doesn't even clearly meet the required bullets for it? It doesn't matter whether it was her best jump that night. What matters is if that jump met the requirements for high GOEs or higher GOE than Yuna, a person who clearly executed that single jump better. And you said this "You can't simply score based on past events or compare skaters jumps side by side." but now you are saying that the judges "are allowed to remember" when a skater bombed or performed better and score based on that. Doesn't that contradict your own words?
I've watched her performance several times in slow mo and I can confidently say that her edge on take off was shaky and it had an almost, if not complete, full-blade take-off and so much pre-rotation and based on the ISU rules about handing out GOEs, she CLEARLY didn't meet enough requirements for +2 GOEs or higher GOEs than the person who did that jump well AND correctly. Also, the thing you posted about the judges ignoring all other other requirements if a skater did 1 bullet extraordinarily well doesn't even apply to Yulia on her Flip IMO. For once, she did not do a single bullet extraordinarily well. Not height or distance, not the entrance, not the flow, not the air position, not in musicality, not effortlessness. She did it nicely and landed it but it was not excellent enough to deserve +2s IMO.
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2013
You're being extremely unfair if you can't find at least one bullet point to award that 3flip. It was textbook. Are you watching the correct jump? I'm beginning to wonder if you can properly identify it? Are you perhaps thinking of the lutz before her last spins and ChSeq which recieved and edge call and -GOE? At what point in her FS are we talking? Time? Preceding/preceding elements?
Comparing and ranking skaters from different events is not the same as comparing them from SP to FS of the same event IMHO.
Comparing and ranking skaters from different events is not the same as comparing them from SP to FS of the same event IMHO.
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2011
Julia's 3F (Worlds version, but not too different)
GOE criteria:
1) unexpected / creative / difficult entry (meh)
2) clear recognizable steps/free skating movements immediately preceding element (not really, but there is stuff before her 3F)
3) varied position in the air / delay in rotation (definitely not)
4) good height and distance (not really, Carolina, Yuna, and Mao all get much more time in the air)
5) good extension on landing / creative exit (no creative exit but good extension)
6) good flow from entry to exit including jump combinations / sequences (it's pretty good flow)
7) effortless throughout (I guess)
8) element matched to the musical structure (sort of?)
If you're generous, you can squeeze out a +2. It was a pretty standard 3F, not a +3, but not godawful like everyone claims. And by the way, "full blade takeoffs" are not listed anywhere in ISU communications as cause for deductions, nor is "less pre-rotation" listed as cause for +GOE.
GOE criteria:
1) unexpected / creative / difficult entry (meh)
2) clear recognizable steps/free skating movements immediately preceding element (not really, but there is stuff before her 3F)
3) varied position in the air / delay in rotation (definitely not)
4) good height and distance (not really, Carolina, Yuna, and Mao all get much more time in the air)
5) good extension on landing / creative exit (no creative exit but good extension)
6) good flow from entry to exit including jump combinations / sequences (it's pretty good flow)
7) effortless throughout (I guess)
8) element matched to the musical structure (sort of?)
If you're generous, you can squeeze out a +2. It was a pretty standard 3F, not a +3, but not godawful like everyone claims. And by the way, "full blade takeoffs" are not listed anywhere in ISU communications as cause for deductions, nor is "less pre-rotation" listed as cause for +GOE.
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2014
Don't get me wrong. I am not being unfair to Yulia, I'm just being honest. I did not say or mean she did not fulfill even a single bullet point. Please read. I said she did not execute a bullet point EXTRAORDINARILY WELL for the judges to ignore all the other requirements to reward her with high GOEs which is actually based on your own post. No need for angry accusations. And yes, I can tell a Flip from a Lutz. No worries. Is it just me or did you just somehow called me stupid because I scrutinized your favorite skater's flip jump? But anyway, if I may ask, do you think she met enough requirements for +2s or did 1 bullet extraordinarily well? If so, what were those or which was it? I'd like to be corrected if I'm wrong.
- Status
Similar threads
