Analyzing Sotnikova and Kim's footwork in the FS

[Alain]

There is no minimum of 2.25 revolutions in ISU rules. Pretty clear who has no credibility. The rest is a toxic personal attack.

 

[drivingmissdaisy]

There is no minimum of 2.25 revolutions in ISU rules. Pretty clear who has no credibility. The rest is a toxic personal attack.

Yeah, personal attacks is all they can do to keep this "controversy" alive. I think once a reasonable person looks at the composition of the SP judging panel and sees the LP panel essentially scored Yuna and Adelina similarly, they are comfortable with the decision. That doesn't mean they necessarily agree with the decision, as Yuna has many fans who wanted to see her win, but they recognize that an objective judge could have gone with either skater.

 

[MiRé]

Clearly, you guys gave no clue what kind of person ultra is. Perhaps you all three are the same person talking to yourself. And for the record, personal attack started with you anyways so don't even classify me as toxic when you're the same.

Btw, since there is no rule for revolution, I can pre-rotate my single lutz 1/2 and land within 1/4 and call it a triple right?
See how important revolutions are?

 

[drivingmissdaisy]

Btw, since there is no rule for revolution, I can pre-rotate my single lutz 1/2 and land within 1/4 and call it a triple right?
See how important revolutions are?

You can call it a quint if you want. So from that you draw the conclusion that the 1/2 and 1/4 that are in the rules are completely meaningless? Typical fan of you-know-who complicating what is simple to understand for anyone else. The allowable prerotation and rotation at the end under the rules are the allowable leeway given. Rotating 1/8 at the end is viewed the same as rotating 1/4 at the end. Prerotating 1/4 is viewed the same as 3/8. No more leeway is given in addition to what is already given at the beginning and end of the jump. Are you still not getting it? Regardless, Yuna and Adelina could have both had their jumps < but they did not, so it didn't matter in the end.

 

[Mathman]

I think the question that Melon raises in post 1640 is not so much about the significance of 2.25 revolutions but rather about why we are expending so much energy obsessing over this one particular instance of a triple Lutz attempt, as if the fate of the world hangs on whether Yuna Kim rotated x number of degrees or y.

 

[drivingmissdaisy]

I think the question that Melon raises in post 1640 is not so much about the significance of 2.25 revolutions but rather about why we are expending so much energy obsessing over this one particular instance of a triple Lutz attempt, as if the fate of the world hangs on whether Yuna Kim rotated x number of degrees or y.

I thought post #1640 was a mean-spirited rant, but I suppose we each have our own interpretation.

 

[Mathman]

^ It is!

I guess that's what I am really ranting about. Any post containing the words "Yuna Kim" is enough to send half the skating world into a mean spirited rant, and "Adelina Sotnikova" will do the trick for the other half (replacing the former flash words, "Mao Asada").

That would be bad enough. But when the ranters start backing up their rants by lengthy analyses of protocols and ISU communications, not to mention stop-frame You Tubes -- to me, that's an awful lot of energy expended that could be -- I don't know -- more usefully channeled?

 

[Mrs. P]

That would be bad enough. But when the ranters start backing up their rants by lengthy analyses of protocols and ISU communications, not to mention stop-frame You Tubes -- to me, that's an awful lot of energy expended that could be -- I don't know -- more usefully channeled?

This goes back to my earlier point that just because people, i.e. non South Koreans/Yuna fans have opted out of the discussion doesn't mean they accepted or agreed with Adelina's win. Nor is the opposite true, that the people who are still arguing for Adelina at this point are the only people who agreed with the win.

At this point of the game, most will either view it as a controversial result or not and move on. Life is too short to over-analyze, IMO. For me personally, as a skating fan, my time is better spent on looking at skates I enjoyed this season as well as do fun stats about quad attempts.

 

[Components]

^ It is!

I guess that's what I am really ranting about. Any post containing the words "Yuna Kim" is enough to send half the skating world into a mean spirited rant, and "Adelina Sotnikova" will do the trick for the other half (replacing the former flash words, "Mao Asada").

That would be bad enough. But when the ranters start backing up their rants by lengthy analyses of protocols and ISU communications, not to mention stop-frame You Tubes -- to me, that's an awful lot of energy expended that could be -- I don't know -- more usefully channeled?

No its called trying to have an honest intellectually honest discussion.

And I found out those aren't allowed (literally) unless it falls within their realm of favor.

I don't personally waste much energy. This isn't affecting my quality of life and neither did the results at the Olympics. Others act like they got a pay cut cause Sotnikova beat Kim at the Olympics.

And I'm not sure how they're allowed to post that way when I got an infraction for "sarcasm."

 

[Mathman]

^ I guess it depends on whose ox is being gored. To me, it seems more like there are a few people out there who think they will get a pay raise if they can prove that Kim's solo Lutz was under-rotated. (It was. Can we stop now?)

 

[gsk8]

No its called trying to have an honest intellectually honest discussion.

I have yet to see many of these. Mostly what I come across are "rants/ravings", "bickering", and redundant posts spewing sarcasm and hostility -- especially when one side does not agree. Very seldom do I see an "honest intellectual" debate taking place that doesn't contain a condescending tone and/or insults.

That said, warnings and infractions (which are discussed by the entire staff), are private (unless you choose to make them public). If you don't like this forum, there are always others.

 

[Components]

I have yet to see many of these.

I believe you.

 

[mich2]

^ It is!

I guess that's what I am really ranting about. Any post containing the words "Yuna Kim" is enough to send half the skating world into a mean spirited rant, and "Adelina Sotnikova" will do the trick for the other half (replacing the former flash words, "Mao Asada").

That would be bad enough. But when the ranters start backing up their rants by lengthy analyses of protocols and ISU communications, not to mention stop-frame You Tubes -- to me, that's an awful lot of energy expended that could be -- I don't know -- more usefully channeled?

I am so happy to read this! No more lengthy analyses of protocols and guessing games of how many judges put your skatet above another. It was so boring to read. Not a sarcasm, it is what I really feel. Glad that you moved on.

 

[Mathman]

I am so happy to read this! No more lengthy analyses of protocols and guessing games of how many judges put your skatet above another. It was so boring to read. Not a sarcasm, it is what I really feel. Glad that you moved on.

All that stuff about how many dedicated judges would be required to skew the results of a competition held under IJS rules was intended to be musings about the IJS itself, as opposed to 6.0 ordinal judging, not about the 2014 Olympics in particular. About the Olympics, my opinion has always been that Yuna Kim may be the superior skater but Adelina Sotnikova skated her heart out when it mattered most. To me, this is far, far, far more important than how many degrees short of rotation a particular jump might have been on replay.

 

[Alain]

I have yet to see many of these. Mostly what I come across are "rants/ravings", "bickering", and redundant posts spewing sarcasm and hostility -- especially when one side does not agree. Very seldom do I see an "honest intellectual" debate taking place that doesn't contain a condescending tone and/or insults.

That said, warnings and infractions (which are discussed by the entire staff), are private (unless you choose to make them public). If you don't like this forum, there are always others.

I don't mind sarcasm. I mind when people create fake rules like 2.25 revolutions or use 6.0 judging system for IJS like ranting on how many judges put one skater above another. I see nothing constructive in it and find it confusing for casual fans like myself who came here to learn something.

 

[Mathman]

Different people have different interests and different bees in their bonnets. What I don't enjoy is the anger and bellicosity.

I, for instance, am interested in the differences between 6.0 judging, where majority of ordinals carries the day, and the current system, which is not guaranteed always to have this feature. Others are not interested in this topic. OK.

As for the 2.25 thing, think of it like this. A skater is usually allowed to pre-rotate up to almost 180 degrees and still get full base value. She is permitted to under-rotate the landing by almost 90 degrees and still get full base value. If a skater pre-rotates by 180 degrees and under-rotates by 90 degrees, how many degrees of rotation does she achieve in the air? Whatever the answer works out to, it is nothing to get annoyed about. (JMO)

 

[Alain]

If you are not talking to me, I apologize in advance for misunderstanding. If you are talking to me, I assure you I am not angry at all. I expressed my opinion that no one has to share- I do not appreciate when people fabricate rules. I see mathguys daily at work, those who claim that if the law says when they don't give a 30-day notice, they must pay one month pay (salary, rent, depends on the contract), then they rant that if their notice was 10 days late, they must pay only a 10 day portion of the 30 day notice. Guess what- they never win in courtroom. The law says you either pay zero or you pay one month pay. There is no third option like a partial pay. They know that. They do it to stall the case, to exhaust the plaintiff or simply because they are lawyers on payroll who has to act like they do some work. They don't hide their true intentions under some we do it for the sake of theory mask.
ISU rules allows 1/2 pre-rotate and 1/4 under-rotate. Those are unpunishable by < or << errors. It would be not a perfect jump that doesn't deserve +3 GOE. Skaters don't have to have those errors of 1/2 and 1/4, because they know if they don't, then they will likely get high GOE. The idea of triple as 3-0.5-0.75=2.25 means everyone must have 1/2 and 1/4 error to put skaters in an equal bed. It's not true.
The current system doesn't ask judges to put one skater above another. They can give them equal GOE and PCS. That is what I know.

 

[Mathman]

I think it is lawyers that you don't like, not mathematicians.

I also think that there is a general misunderstanding about the word "minimum" in the phrase, "the minimum number of revolutions in a triple jump is 2.25." It means that 2.25 revolutions are necessary but not sufficient to avoid an under-rotation or downgrade call. This is not an ISU rule, it is just a fact. Look at all the triple jumps you can find that receive full base value. They all have 2.25 revolutions or more in the air.

Example 1. You do a triple Lutz. There is no pre-rotation at all and the landing is under-rotated by 135 degrees. You have done 2.625 revolutions in the air. This is more than 2.25, but even so you get a <. Why? Because 2.25 revolutions is necessary but not sufficient to avoid the <. In addition the judges will probably dock you some more in GOE for the under-rotation. (This pretty much describes Yuna Kim's solo Lutz in her long program at Sochi, but she got away with it.)

Example 2. You do a triple loop. You pre-rotate by 135 degrees and then you under-rotate by 45 degrees. You did 2.50 revolutions in the air. This time you are OK (no <), even though you actually rotated fewer degrees in the air than in example 1. This is just the mechanics of the loop jump. The judges can still take off points in GOE for the slight under-rotation if they caught it and if there were no positive features of the jump to counteract this negative.

Skaters don't have to have those errors of 1/2 and 1/4.

That's it exactly. :yes: We are on the same page here.

 

[Alain]

There are two minimum numbers of revolutions in any triple with unpunishable by < or << errors:
Case #1: A skater has 1/2 pre-rotation, allowed to have 1/4 under-rotation, the minumim number of revolutions is 2.25
Case #2: A skater doesn't have 1/2 pre-rotation, allowed to have 1/4 under-rotation, the minimum number of revolution is 2.75
What happened here in the discussion of Yuna's lutz was her fans took the minimum of 2.25 and tried to apply it for a case #2 skater who doesn't have 1/2 pre-rotation, saying she is allowed to have more than 1/4 under-rotation. It's cheat. That is what I mean when I say I mind when people fabricate rules. Or facts. Lawyers or mathematicians.

 

[DarR]

Adelina's other jumps aren't up for debate because she lands most of them almost straight backwards. There isn't anything to review. The 2Lo was over rotated almost half a revolution. It wasn't two footed (the take-off was clean, just off-axis), so I'm not sure where that came from. She stepped out of it. If she had rotated another quarter rotation she ran the risk of the technical panel calling it a triple and eliminating the entire jump pass. That would have given Kim the win as she would have lost over 8 points on that jump pass in that situation. Also, If Kim had done a +2 GOE Triple Loop in her program, she could have won the title outright.

That is not true. Yuna would have lost even if she had a 3Lo and 2A-3T (x) in place of her 2A (x) and 3S-2T, notwithstanding the fact that Adelina stepped out of her 2Lo.

In the FS, Yuna would have scored 144.19 - 6.5 (3S-2T) - 4.42 (2A) + 5.1 + 1.4 (3Lo with +2 GOE) + 8.14 + 1.4 (2A-3T (x) with +2 GOE) = 149.31.

149.31+74.92=224.23, which is still lower than Adelina's 224.59.

Evidently, Adelina would've still won. Adelina's winning margin fueled the controversy - it just doesn't make sense for her to win by such a margin, or does it?

The argument that Yuna lost because she attempted only 6 triples (playing safe) and would have won if she had attempted 7 triples (2 3Lzs, versus Adelina's 2 3Fs and a step-out) does not make sense mathematically. And as I said before, Yuna would only have won if she had attempted a fully ratified 3A. Not a 3Lo. (i.e. what was missing in her program was a 3A not a 3Lo! Ha!) Russian advantage, maybe?