This turned out to be a very bad year for Alissa.

Red Dog said:

Czisny may be inconsistent, but Zhang is unproven. Just like Rachel was, but she delivered at Worlds. That's what I meant. This would have been Caroline's first Worlds. How would she have handled it? How would the other competitors have responded? Questions that we cannot answer pop up. Look what happened at Junior Worlds.

My point is that we have a skater who is inconsistent, night and day, and we have another skater who is new to the scene, and is unproven. Look what happened to Ashley Wagner last year. So much promise, but she went to worlds and struggled big time. placement-wise she did even worse than Czisny this year (12th). THAT's what I mean when I say Zhang wouldn't necessarily have been all that much of a slam dunk like many of you seem to think. And keep in mind that I'm saying all this WHILE I believe that Zhang probably should have been at worlds instead of Czisny.



At the same time, the same 7-T performance at TEB barely gave her over 100 points. Keep in mind that Nationals was BEFORE 4CCs and JW, so at the time it seemed like Caroline's best may not have really been good enough for top 5/6 in the World. But it's possible that missing out ignited a fire in her and she felt she had something to prove, leading to the strong showing at 4CC, and fighting back at JW. Had she gone straight to the Worlds, we don't know if the same Caroline would have shown up. The X-Factor, as I have called it in the past, rears its ugly (?) head again.

Now, this is all moot, coulda-woulda-shoulda stuff.



I agree, but then again, it's something out of my control (and yours as well) so we'll just have to deal with it. The one thing we can hope is that the USFS learns its lesson and thinks twice now about putting Czisny on any World or Olympic team from now on. I don't envy Alyssa right now, that's for sure.

Click to expand...

Zhang is unproven only if you're talking about senior Worlds. She has competed against big names at major events with huge crowds (GPF and 4CC) and done remarkably well. I don't really think there was a lot of difference between this year's 4CC and Worlds in many respects, for instance. Czisny, OTOH, has only been to senior Worlds once before, and is proven, yes -- proven to be unreliable at major competitions, that is. Even if you negate the proven/unproven factor, Zhang should still have been sent over Czisny because of her stronger performance at Nats.

Zhang's jumps looked the worse I've ever seen them at the start of the season, TEB included. It was reported that she had been growing and was recovering from an injury. Even then, it is a testament to Zhang's consistency that she stayed upright during TEB and was credited with at least 5 triples in her LP. From Nationals on, her jumps looked superior and the scores reflected that. And yes, USFS decided to name the World team straight after Nats, which I think was another boneheaded decision, as 4CC would've served as a better indicator of competitiveness, given that the top guns were competing there. But again, if you want to go solely by their performances at Nats, Zhang was vastly better than Czisny in the LP and should've been sent to Worlds instead. As mentioned by others, Alissa would not have received such unearthly PCS anywhere other than Nats.

Bottom line: Caroline has been tested before at major events and showed competitiveness and consistency. Caroline also had a much better LP than Alissa did at Nats and should have beaten her overall.

Alissa has been tested before at major events and showed herself to be mostly unreliable. Alissa also had a much worse LP than either Rachael or Caroline, and should have been below them in the final standings at Nats. Her SP was not so superior that she should have received that much of a cushion. Despite all of this, she was still crowned National champion and sent to Worlds.

Red Dog said:

I agree with you. However, because Alyssa was national champ, USFS hadn't a choice (they had to send her). So ultimately it falls on the judging in the Nationals LP. Was it right? That's up for debate.

Click to expand...

Exactly. And the debate is about two months too late.

The time to complain about the judging at U.S. Nationals was then, not now. The results of Words are irrelevant to that debate. All anyone can say now is a lame, I told you so.

Red Dog said:

I agree with you. However, because Alyssa was national champ, USFS hadn't a choice (they had to send her). So ultimately it falls on the judging in the Nationals LP. Was it right? That's up for debate.

Click to expand...

This is what some of us are bemoaning: the idiocy of the U.S. Nats judges. A strong case could be made for Rachael being crowned National champion over Alissa. That leaves Caroline with silver and possibly Alissa with bronze. USFS could have decided then and there that the World team should consist of Rachael and Caroline, and there would be nary a complaint. Or if they were so in love with Alissa and were determined to have her go to Worlds, let 4CC be a skate-off between the silver and bronze medal finishers. There's nothing in the rules that prohibits this scenario, is there?

Naturally, since this situation would've made a whole lot of sense, USFS decided not to follow that route.

Mathman said:

Exactly. And the debate is about two months too late.

The time to complain about the judging at U.S. Nationals was then, not now. The results of Words are irrelevant to that debate. All anyoine can say now is a lame, I told you so.

Click to expand...

If I recall correctly, there were more than quite a few posts about the judging at US Nationals right after the US Nationals, then during 4CC, then during Junior Worlds, then after the SP at Worlds, and...now. It is definitely too late to do anything but say some lame "I told you so"-type comments, but hey, it's the off-season and what else can we do?

Andalusia said:

This is what some of us are bemoaning: the idiocy of the U.S. Nats judges.

Click to expand...

What do you think is the reason for this "idiocy?" Do you think that the judges had an irrational liking for Alissa, so much so that they gave her an extra 8 points of PCSs just because she is a nice girl, even at the cost of getting three spots at the Olympics?

Something must have been going through their minds.

Plus, all of the judges were more or less in agreement, so they must have got together and talked it over before tihe event(?)

Mathman said:

What do you think is the reason for this "idiocy?" Do you think that the judges had an irrational liking for Alissa, so much so that they gave her an extra 8 points of PCSs just because she is a nice girl, even at the cost of getting three spots at the Olympics?

Something must have been going through their minds.

Plus, all of the judges were more or less in agreement, so they must have got together and talked it over before tihe event(?)

Click to expand...

I am afraid this might have happened.

In gymnastics everyone knows Marta Karolyi owns the judges.One gymnast fell 6 times between Nationals and the Olympics trials and they over scored her so badly she was still second.

In the past I have always gotten the impression that the Nationals judges have tried to take that title away from Michelle but so many skaters they wanted to win just fell a part and it just could not be done. Skating judges from Nationals now have a way to hide the cheating. They give them PCS.

Mathman said:

Exactly. And the debate is about two months too late.

The time to complain about the judging at U.S. Nationals was then, not now. The results of Words are irrelevant to that debate. All anyone can say now is a lame, I told you so.

Click to expand...

IIRC, there WAS a dispute back then as well. It didn't just pop up now- this is solely the time for them to say "I told you so" - and boy, are they.

TripletA said:

I am afraid this might have happened.

In gymnastics everyone knows Marta Karolyi owns the judges.One gymnast fell 6 times between Nationals and the Olympics trials and they over scored her so badly she was still second.

Click to expand...

That is kind of what I was getting at. In gymnastic Bela and Marta Karolyi rule the roost. Does Julie Berlin (who? Alissa's coach) have the same influence in the corridores of power in the USFSA? Is it the delicate hand of Brian Boitano pulling the strings?

To me, this just doesn't add up.

In the past I have always gotten the impression that the Nationals judges have tried to take that title away from Michelle but so many skaters they wanted to win just fell a part and it just could not be done.

Click to expand...

I am not sure about that one. Many people felt the opposite, that the USFSA saw that Michelle was Big Money. They rode her hard and put her away wet (as they say in horse racing. )

In any case, as you suggest, year after year Michelle brought her A-game to Nationals, and there just wasn't anything anyone could do. Like Tiger Woods sinking that long birdie putt on the 72nd hole of the Arnold Palmer Invitational yesterday -- if you were the other guy, all you could do is watch it roll into the cup.

Mathman said:

That is kind of what I was getting at. In gymnastic Bela and Marta Karolyi rule the roost. Does Julie Berlin (who? Alissa's coach) have the same power in the corridores of power in the USFSA? Is it the delicate hand of Brian Boitano pulling the strings?

To me, this just doesn't add up.

Click to expand...

Alissa's coach does not have the power but USFSA.org has the power. Maybe they thought Alissa being hit or miss could possible hit and by luck get the US 3 spots. They didn't think she could totally impload and lose them two spots.

I am not sure about that one. Many people felt the opposite, that the USFSA saw that Michelle was Big Money. They rode her hard and put her away wet (as they say in horse racing. )

In any case, as you suggest, year after year Michelle brought her A-game to Nationals, and there just wasn't anything anyone could do. Like Tiger Woods sinking that long birdie putt on the 72nd hole of the Arnold Palmer Invitational yesterday -- if you were the other guy, all you could do is watch it roll into the cup.

Click to expand...

Exactly on the second part. IMO they tried to give Sasha the title and others but they all had good SP and bad LP's and there is no way they could take a way the title from a nearly perfect Kwan. Who like you said owned Nationals.

Mathman said:

What do you think is the reason for this "idiocy?" Do you think that the judges had an irrational liking for Alissa, so much so that they gave her an extra 8 points of PCSs just because she is a nice girl, even at the cost of getting three spots at the Olympics?

Something must have been going through their minds.

Plus, all of the judges were more or less in agreement, so they must have got together and talked it over before tihe event(?)

Click to expand...

I have no earthly way of knowing why they did what they did. There's no reason to idiocy, I suppose.

Someone on FS Universe suggested that Boitano might have some clout. He's remained active in the FS scene, and has been pretty vocal about the need to have a woman's champion as opposed to a little girl's champion, and how tiny tots are killing interest in the sport. I agree, and think the Boitano factor may have been an issue, although this is all just speculation at this point. They went with a young girl (Mirai) last year and that didn't pan out too well...Alissa did better than expected on the GP circuit...the judges may have been desperate for an alternative to the young 'uns, all of whom are having growing pains and technique issues. Who knows, any of these reasons could have contributed to Alissa being sent to Worlds. Why USFS would go out on such a limb in a year when Olympic spots are on the line beats me.

I could ask you the same question: Why do you think Alissa was given sky-high PCS (scores she would not have received anywhere else for such a sub-par LP), crowned National champion and sent off to Worlds when Fragility is her middle name...in a year when consistency and competitiveness are crucial at Worlds?

museksk8r said:

It's irrational and childish to get so defensive like you do whenever people don't agree with your thought processes and you constantly present your opinions as facts.

Click to expand...

Except I've been stating facts. It's a fact that contacting USFSA about their judging is clearly more constructive than whining about it here. And no, I don't have any tolerance for people disagreeing with facts.

Mathman said:

Exactly. And the debate is about two months too late.

The time to complain about the judging at U.S. Nationals was then, not now. The results of Words are irrelevant to that debate. All anyone can say now is a lame, I told you so.

Click to expand...

Uh, wrong? The time to complain to the judges is NOW, right after they have seen the outcome of (what you claim to be) their indiscretion. Before Worlds it was theoretical, whoever supposedly boosted Alissa wouldn't have listened to criticism because they would have believed in their decision. Now they KNOW they made the wrong decision, they have seen the results, and now is the time to make them face it.

Andalusia said:

I could ask you the same question: Why do you think Alissa was given sky-high PCS (scores she would not have received anywhere else for such a sub-par LP), crowned National champion and sent off to Worlds when Fragility is her middle name...in a year when consistency and competitiveness are crucial at Worlds?

Click to expand...

I don't know. I have tried to figure these things out, but I am none the wiser for my efforts.

The first question that I don't know the answer to is this. Do the USFSA judges try to judge the contest they see before them, or are they influenced by other factors that boil down to "who do we want to send to Worlds?"

In the best of all possible worlds, that last question should not play a role.

There seem to be two disctinct notions being put forward on this thread.

(1) The USFSA judges should have placed Alissa lower at Nationals because Caroline Zhang would have done better at Worlds. To me, this is a faulty argument. Zhang's prospects at Worlds should have nothing to do with Czisny's scores at Nationals.

(2) The USFSA judges should have placed Alissa lower at Nationals because her skating did not deserve the scores that she got. To me, that is a suberb argumnent (although others might argue that she did deserve her marks.)

Particle Man said:

Uh, wrong? The time to complain to the judges is NOW, right after they have seen the outcome of (what you claim to be) their indiscretion.

Click to expand...

The arguent that I have been trying to make -- so far with little success -- is that improper scoring (if such there was) at Nationals is wrong per se.

The question is not wether the improper judging had a good or bad outcome, it is the thing itself that must stand scrutiny.

Mathman said:

There seem to be two disctinct notions being put forward on this thread.

(1) The USFSA judges should have placed Alissa lower at Nationals because Caroline Zhang would have done better at Worlds. To me, this is a faulty argument. Zhang's prospects at Worlds should have nothing to do with Czisny's scores at Nationals.

(2) The USFSA judges should have placed Alissa lower at Nationals because her skating did not deserve the scores that she got. To me, that is a suberb argumnent (although others might argue that she did deserve her marks.)

Click to expand...

I really see only one argument in these two related points. The way I see it,

1. The USFSA judges should have placed Alissa lower at Nationals because her skating did not deserve the title when two other girls clearly outskated her.

But the judges gave her the title anyway, so now she is required by rule to go to Worlds.

2. This is unfair because Caroline most likely would have done better than her, and the US probably would have 3 spots now.

So the real problem is #1, because #2 would not exist without #1.

LeCygne said:

2. This is unfair because Caroline most likely would have done better than her, and the US probably would have 3 spots now..

Click to expand...

I agree with the red part and I agree with the blue part. What I do not agree with is that these two parts should be joined by because (a subordinating conjunction )

Bad judging is unfair because it is unfair, not because of costly consequences down the road.

Mathman said:

I agree with the red part and I agree with the blue part. What I do not agree with is that these two parts should be joined by because (a subordinating conjunction )

Bad judging is unfair because it is unfair, not because of costly consequences down the road.

Click to expand...

Of course Mathman. Bad judging is unfair because it's unfair. But when you consider the consquences you could argue that Rachel was might be doubly screwed and Caroline might be tripely screwed.

So yes it's bad that events are judged unfairly because it's wrong that events are judged unfairly.. But when events have far reaching consquences like this years' US Nationals had, it's even worse.


Double screw for Rachael
1. The fact that she likely deserves the Title.

2. The fact that Rachael did her job at Worlds. She skated her heart out, and with a decent teammate, because of Rachael's placement, there would be three spots for the Olympics. Can you imagine how it will be for Rachael if she finishes third next year?

Triple screw for Caroline
1. Does Caroline deserve the National Title?
2. Not only Worlds. But the once in a life time opportunity to compete at Worlds in her hometown.
3. Olympic spots. It must have killed Caroline to know she'd do better. She probably watched thinking I could finish at least 8th. If Caroline finishes third, once again... how will it make her feel.


And really all of the US girls were screwed when the US didn't do their job and ensure that the best team was sent to Worlds. And I'm sorry US Nationals showed that Rachael and Caroline were our best team. It's what I don't understand. Is why they'd make such a stupid thing when Olympic spots were on the line.

I'm rooting for Rachael and Caroline to either make the team or both finish lower than 3rd at US Nationals... It will break my heart to see one of them finish 3rd at next year's Nationals. Especially in many ways Rachael Flatt. Utterly break my heart, and I don't even like their skating.

kittyjake5 said:

The US does not have any women elite skaters at this time. Rachael and Caroline may get there along with some of the other newbies, we will have to wait and see.

Click to expand...

I beg to differ. Rachael finished 5th at Worlds, and that makes her an elite skater. She was beaten only by Kim, Rochette, Ando and Asada.
She beat the reigning Euros Champ (Lepisto), the former World silver and bronze medalist (Kostner) and the current 2009 Junior World Champion (Leonova).

Mathman said:

I agree with the red part and I agree with the blue part. What I do not agree with is that these two parts should be joined by because (a subordinating conjunction )

Bad judging is unfair because it is unfair, not because of costly consequences down the road.

Click to expand...

You're right. Like bekalc said, the costly consequences down the road just make the unfair bad judging even harder to bear.

This whole thread sidesteps the real problem - that countries are limited to a certain number of spots (or at least such a small number of spots) for Worlds/Olympics. People should be rallying for the system to be changed.

Tennis, my other favorite sport, (well okay I like track and baseball too) has an international ranking system which changes according to how an individual skater does in individual events after each event. The rankings are frozen at the end of each season until a new season begins. Players who are allowed to compete in the majors do so based on their rankings. It has nothing to do with nationality. Players who are not in the top hundred must compete in qualifying rounds to make it to the main draw. Perhaps in FSing national competitions should be just that, separate comps that have no impact on who does and does not get the chance to compete automatically.

Now regarding the matter at hand, Alissa tried. She did not intend to do poorly. She just did in the SP. In tennis (and other sports), it's called choking. Caroline might not have choked but ice is slippery and she might have slipped. She might have banged into the boards like Candice Didier. Who is to say she would have been a better bet to do better. Rachel (kudos to her) exceeded expectations. She might have wound up a respectable 7th overall as she did in the SP. Alissa might have wound up 8th overall and that would not have resulted in three slots for the US women next year anyway. We are, many of us, very very disappointed with the results. I do hope that Rachel goes to the Olys next year. I also hope that Caroline goes and Mirai and Kimmie get their jumps back and go and that Michelle and Sasha come back and get to go. Of course, I can't get my wish. C'est la vie. Let's try a ranking system. And maybe more competitions so skaters can rack up more ranking points.