Czisny -- Another Nikodinov?

TtonyV7 · Jul 4, 2009

It's summer, so i'm rewatching some of my tapes from Nationals/Worlds, and I couldn't stop comparing the great quality of skating that both Nikodinov and Czisny brings to the table. The potential they both have/had, and how they didn't quite reach it on many levels.

Let's be honest. Until the night that Nationals comes, we won't really know what we'll get from Czisny and whether she'll make the Olympic team or not. We can start comparing her SP Meltdown at Worlds, Sasha Comback, the whole Flatt/Zhang controversy....I can go on.

The matter of fact is, Czisny like Nikodinov were pure classic skaters with great lines, spins, and flow. Something that seems so simple but is missing in so many skaters especially today. I remember 2002 Nationals, and seeing the wonderful nuances Nikodinov had in her skating, but also how she melt down half way through the program, off the podium and team (could u had imagine if she had did bump Hughes off the podium...?).

But with Czisny, I can't help but recognize the similarity between her and Nikodinov. I just hope history won't repeat itself...

Tonichelle · Jul 4, 2009

Angela's career stalled because of the horrific accident in 2005 at the Portland nationals... I can still remember where I was when I heard the news (on the metro on the way to the arena... and my best friend called to say it was all over the news)... the arena was buzzing... though a lot of people didn't know in my section until I blurted it out as I met up with friends...

Angela is still a goregous skater. One of those classics that proves it's not the medal that defines a person/skater... just maybe what type of competitor they are. I truly believe had it not been for the car accident we'd have seen a different Angela (and that she'd have made the team in 06)

CzarinaAnya · Jul 4, 2009

Angela's career was in a rut before the accident. She was on her way to trying to comeback, when tragedy struck.

Tonichelle · Jul 4, 2009

I don't think she was in a rut at all, granted her coach's passing somewhat stalled her skating - but she wasn't washed up. Kimmie overshadowed both Angela and Jenny, and was the new media darling, but Angela was becoming more dependable...

and her skating was gorgeous to boot!

janetfan · Jul 4, 2009

TtonyV7 said:
The matter of fact is, Czisny like Nikodinov were pure classic skaters with great lines, spins, and flow. Something that seems so simple but is missing in so many skaters especially today....

Alissa is simply a beautiful skater. She has been a favorite of mine for years for the reasons you stated.
I think she was born to late though. Under 6.0 the lovely qualities of her skating would have meant much more when it came time for marks. Even a fall might not have stopped her as her second set of marks for artisitry would have been very high.
I hope Alissa has a great season and look forward to enjoying her performances this year.

Mathman · Jul 4, 2009

janetfan said:
I think she was born to late though. Under 6.0 the lovely qualities of her skating would have meant much more when it came time for marks. Even a fall might not have stopped her as her second set of marks for artisitry would have been very high.

I have to disagree about that. Under the current system, Alissa's "second marks" (the program component scores) were sky high at U.S. nationals and allowed her to win the championship despite completing only three triples in the long program.

Under 6.0 judging, a single fall could take you completely out of the competition. Under CoP all it means is that you lose a few points for that element.

By the way, I believe that Angela Nikodinov competed under the new judging system only once, at 2004 Skate America. She won, beating Ando, Phaneuf, Czisny, and Poykio. It was the only major championship of her career, except for 2000 Four Continents.

To me, the difference in jump consistency between Angela and Alissa is this. With Alissa, every jump is a fresh roll of the dice. Anything can happen.

With Angela, in most of her performances she hit all the jumps in the first half of the program beautifully, then missed one, lost her confidence, and doubled/popped all the rest from that point.

janetfan · Jul 4, 2009

Mathman said:
I have to disagree about that. Under the current system, Alissa's "second marks" (the program component scores) were sky high at U.S. nationals and allowed her to win the championship despite completing only three triples in the long program.

Under 6.0 judging, a single fall could take you completely out of the competition. Under CoP all it means is that you lose a few points for that element.

To me, the difference in jump consistency between Angela and Alissa is this. With Alissa, every jump is a fresh roll of the dice. Anything can happen.
:

I guess you are right but over the years many skaters fell and still beat or were placed higher than opponents who did not fall under 6.0.
And certainly Alissa's second set of marks would have been just as high or higher under 6.0
There was alot of controversy over Alissa being placed 1st and Rachel 2nd at Natls. Under 6.0 Alissa would have beaten Rachel by a mile on the artisitic marks and I think she would have won by a bigger margin than she did under CoP. Is that possible or were Rachael's marks at Natls much lower than Alissa's for artistic presentation? Just curious how that worked out.

evangeline · Jul 4, 2009

janetfan said:
I guess you are right but over the years many skaters fell and still beat or were placed higher than opponents who did not fall under 6.0.
And certainly Alissa's second set of marks would have been just as high or higher under 6.0
There was alot of controversy over Alissa being placed 1st and Rachel 2nd at Natls. Under 6.0 Alissa would have beaten Rachel by a mile on the artisitic marks and I think she would have won by a bigger margin than she did under CoP. Is that possible or were Rachael's marks at Natls much lower than Alissa's for artistic presentation? Just curious how that worked out.

I also would have to disagree with you. Under 6.0, Alissa would have probably been crushed by both Rachael and Caroline in the technical score, given her glaring jump mistakes and three triples--no matter how high her presentation scores were. 6.0 values a clean program and I would say that Rachael and Caroline skated more cleanly to the naked eye than Alissa. Also, since URs were less penalized under 6.0, Rachael and Caroline's 3-3s and other URs would've probably not have been considered URs and they would've been given even more of a case to win.

Additionally, the big lead that Alissa built up under CoP with her lovely short program wouldn't have mattered under 6.0--she would've certainly received the first-place ordinal after the SP, but the skater who won the LP would've won the championship provided they were between 1st-3rd place after the SP. And Rachael and Caroline were certainly in those positions.

janetfan · Jul 4, 2009

evangeline said:
I also would have to disagree with you. Under 6.0, Alissa would have probably been crushed by both Rachael and Caroline in the technical score, given her glaring jump mistakes and three triples--no matter how high her presentation scores were. Also, since URs were less penalized under 6.0, Rachael and Caroline's 3-3s and other URs would've probably counted and they would've been given even more of a case to win.

Additionally, the big lead that Alissa built up under CoP with her lovely short program wouldn't have mattered under 6.0--she would've certainly received the first-place ordinal, but the skater who won the LP would've won the championship provided they were between 1st-3rd place after the SP. And Rachael and Caroline were certainly in those positions.

Yes, very true. But under 6.0 Alissa would crush Rachael with her superior spirals (which could be done for more than 2.8 secs

) better spins, more attractive laybacks, better positions in general. And, under the technical marks her speed and edging and everything else would be considered superior - because it is.
Basically I am suggesting that every aspect of Alissa's skating last year was superior to every aspect of Rachael's except for the jumps. And come to think of it, the jumps Alissa landed were also better than either RachaeI's or Caroline's.
I don't think a 6.0 judge would be so quick to place developing "works in progress" skaters like Rachael or Caroline over Alissa. I saw this happen with other girls that could land more triples but the rest of there skating was not as good. Remember how Tonya tried to handle a similar situation

One has to consider the beauty of Alissa's skating and how much more dominant a factor it would be under 6.0. Alissa could and would skate a totally different style.
How do you think Kat won so many titles. She was rarely the best jumper at events - but her overall skating skills were superior and were rewarded.
Just some thoughts for a holiday weekend.

evangeline · Jul 4, 2009

janetfan said:
Yes, very true. But under 6.0 Alissa would crush Rachael with her superior spirals (which could be done for more than 2.8 secs ) better spins, more attractive laybacks, better positions in general. And, under the technical marks her speed and edging and everything else would be considered superior - because it is.
Basically I am suggesting that every aspect of Alissa's skating last year was superior to every aspect of Rachael's except for the jumps. And come to think of it, the jumps Alissa landed were also better than either RachaeI's or Caroline's.
I don't think a 6.0 judge would be so quick to place developing "works in progress" skaters like Rachael or Caroline over Alissa. I saw this happen with other girls that could land more triples but the rest of there skating was not as good. Remember how Tonya tried to handle a similar situation
One has to consider the beauty of Alissa's skating and how much more dominant a factor it would be under 6.0. Alissa could and would skate a totally different style.
How do you think Kat won so many titles. She was rarely the best jumper at events - but her overall skating skills were superior and were rewarded.

Ideally, a scoring system--whether it be 6.0 or CoP--would reward weigh the other aspects of figure skating more heavily in proportion to the jumps. But we live in cold hard reality and I would argue that 6.0 valued jumping as much as, if not more, than CoP. For instance, Tara Lipinski was given the gold medal over Michelle Kwan in the 1998 Olympics, despite Michelle's superior spirals, edging, positions, etc (I will concede that Tara was faster). But in the end, those aspects of skating mattered for naught--Tara's 3Lo-3Lo, 3-3 sequence and big smile conquered all.

Katarina Witt was indeed rarely the best jumper at the events she competed in, but I would say that she won so many titles not only because of her overall skating skills but because she was the consummate competitor: she knew (and often did) what she had to do to win, especially when it came to capitalizing on the mistakes on others--whether this meant scaling back on her planned jump content or unleashing an unforeseen 3F.

Medusa · Jul 4, 2009

evangeline said:
Ideally, a scoring system--whether it be 6.0 or CoP--would reward weigh the other aspects of figure skating more heavily in proportion to the jumps

No way! Isn't the disaster that is ice-dance enough?

Jumps are the only halfway objective element in figure skating. Reduce the importance even more and you have 4 ice-dance competitions, where the Top Eight do exactly the same thing and nobody knows why DomShabs are supposed to be so much better than the Kerrs, and why Belbin/Agosto are better than Davis/White.

I am still miffed that Préaubert, who landed 8 Triples and a Quad in both his Grand Prix LP performances and also had clean short programs, didn't make the Grand Prix Final. And a guy like Verner, who didn't have one clean program in the competitions - made the Final. That's not good, that shouldn't happen.

And while we are at it and people are used to that from me anyway these days: Same goes for the World Team Trophy. I don't care if Patrick Chan has transitions and edges coming out of his butt, I don't care if his transition from a spin to the next jump includes a Triple Backflip in Spread Eagle position while he is grooming his hair - 152 points for a Long Program without Triple Axel, without maxed out combos, with only 6 Triples, with a fall; that's what I call a hilarious joke. And then placing above Joubert in the long program, who admittedly had three minor mistakes on the jumps, but at the end still laid down a Quad and 8 Triples - without falling on his butt.

I love artistic performances, I love brilliant choreography, I regularly worship at the Lambiel shrine. But a sport should be to some point objective and especially obvious. I also fumed like a locomotive when Lambiel got these really high scores in the 07-08 Grand Prix series - despite the fact that he fell about 3 times in each performance. That shouldn't happen.

evangeline · Jul 4, 2009

Medusa said:
No way! Isn't the disaster that is ice-dance enough?

Jumps are the only halfway objective element in figure skating. Reduce the importance even more and you have 4 ice-dance competitions, where the Top Eight do exactly the same thing and nobody knows why DomShabs are supposed to be so much better than the Kerrs, and why Belbin/Agosto are better than Davis/White.

I am still miffed that Préaubert, who landed 8 Triples and a Quad in both his Grand Prix LP performances and also had clean short programs, didn't make the Grand Prix Final. And a guy like Verner, who didn't have one clean program in the competitions - made the Final. That's not good, that shouldn't happen.

And while we are at it and people are used to that from me anyway these days: Same goes for the World Team Trophy. I don't care if Patrick Chan has transitions and edges coming out of his butt, I don't care if his transition from a spin to the next jump includes a Triple Backflip in Spread Eagle position while he is grooming his hair - 152 points for a Long Program without Triple Axel, without maxed out combos, with only 6 Triples, with a fall; that's what I call a hilarious joke. And then placing above Joubert in the long program, who admittedly had three minor mistakes on the jumps, but at the end still laid down a Quad and 8 Triples - without falling on his butt.

I love artistic performances, I love brilliant choreography, I regularly worship at the Lambiel shrine. But a sport should be to some point objective and especially obvious. I also fumed like a locomotive when Lambiel got these really high scores in the 07-08 Grand Prix series - despite the fact that he fell about 3 times in each performance. That shouldn't happen.

Medusa, you really know how to phrase your arguments in such a way so that I don't have the heart to muster up any objections against such hilarity.

But I will soldier on! Well, I would firstly object by arguing that jumps are not the only halfway objective element in figure skating--perhaps to the casual observer they are, but spins, spirals and such can be evaluated with more than a smattering of objectivity. For instance, I think we can objectively say that Lambiel's spins are superior to Joubert's, or that Czisny's spirals are objectively better than Flatt's. Footwork, edging and such are negotiable.

My second objection is more frivolous--by your line of argument, it appears that a super-jumper like Kevin Reynolds should be World Champion or whatever. In that case, let's just do away with the pretensions of 'music' and 'choreography' and have the soulless jump-fest type of competitions Lysacek was babbling about a couple of seaons ago.

ImaginaryPogue · Jul 4, 2009

Yeah, are jumps really that more objective than any other element? A quick glance at the protocols suggests otherwise.

janetfan · Jul 4, 2009

evangeline said:
:My second objection is more frivolous--by your line of argument, it appears that a super-jumper like Kevin Reynolds should be World Champion or whatever. In that case, let's just do away with the pretensions of 'music' and 'choreography' and have the soulless jump-fest type of competitions Lysacek was babbling about a couple of seaons ago.

Good posts from evangeline and medusa. :clap:

Here is an interesting article that is bound to cause a few laughs (it did for me) and possibly irritate a few others.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/ol...o/figureskating/news/1998/02/16/albom_column/

Tinymavy15 · Jul 4, 2009

janetfan said:
Good posts from evangeline and medusa.
Here is an interesting article that is bound to cause a few laughs (it did for me) and possibly irritate a few others.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/ol...o/figureskating/news/1998/02/16/albom_column/

lol. He has some points...but I guess the Nagano judges missed the memo about sending Tara a message!

Mathman · Jul 4, 2009

janetfan said:
There was alot of controversy over Alissa being placed 1st and Rachel 2nd at Natls. Under 6.0 Alissa would have beaten Rachel by a mile on the artisitic marks and I think she would have won by a bigger margin than she did under CoP. Is that possible or were Rachael's marks at Natls much lower than Alissa's for artistic presentation? Just curious how that worked out.

I guess I disagree pretty much 100% on the differences between 6.0 judging and the CoP. I think it was 6.0 where the jumps were everything and nothing else counted for much. The whole point of the CoP was to elevate other aspects of skating (spins, spirals, footwork) and to reward a "balanced" program.

As for Alissa versus Rachael at U.S. nationals, it is just inconceivable that under ordinal judging they would give the title to a three triple oerformance over a seven-triple program with a triple flip-triple toe. I don't think anything remotely comparable ever happened during the 6.0 era once triple jumps came on the scene, nor could it have.

Even taking the placements as they were, under ordinal judging the factored placements would have worked out like this

Rachael: 2nd in the short, 2nd in the long, factored placement 3.0
Alissa: 1st in the short, 3rd in the long, factored placement 3.5
Caroline: 3rd in the short, 4th in the long, factored placement 5.5.

The reason Alissa won under CoP was that she was allowed to carry over her 5 point lead in the short program. As Evangeline mentions, under 6.0 judging carrying over points was not allowed. Rachael beat Alissa in the long, but not by 5 points, so Alissa won overall.

Under 6.0 judging, Rachael beat Alissa in the long, and hence overall, end of story.

The other point (also mentioned by Evangeline) is that under CoP judging Rachael lost about 4 points because the second jump of her triple-triple was downgraded. Under ordinal judging she probably would have got full credit for it -- especially since none of the other ladies attempted a triple-triple at all.

Alissa only planned 5 triples altogether, fell on her Lutz and turned her triple toe-double toe combo into a double-double. Under CoP judging, the extra points she got in the second mark (about 7 points higher than Rachael's) kept her in the game overall. Under 6.0, no way. Giving Alissa full credit for her wonderful spins and spirals, and giving her extra credit for looking like a million dollars every time she steps onto the ice, and taking away as much as possible from Rachael just on general principles -- Alissa might have gotten 5.2, 5.8 to Rachael's 5.8, 5.6.

Mathman · Jul 4, 2009

janetfan said:
Here is an interesting article that is bound to cause a few laughs (it did for me) and possibly irritate a few others.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/ol...o/figureskating/news/1998/02/16/albom_column/

I have followed the career of Mitch Album (Detroit Free Press) for many years. He used to be a pretty good sportswriter. Then they let him have a general opinion column.

If you think he doesn't like figure skating, you should read what he thinks of Michael Jackson and of people who want to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay.

Figure skating is what it is. I guess Albom thinks he is some sort of wit. OK.

janetfan · Jul 4, 2009

Mathman said:
I guess I disagree pretty much 100% on the differences between 6.0 judging and the CoP. I think it was 6.0 where the jumps were everything and nothing else counted for much. The whole point of the CoP was to elevate other aspects of skating (spins, spirals, footwork) and to reward a "balanced" program.

As for Alissa versus Rachael at U.S. nationals, it is just inconceivable that under ordinal judging they would give the title to a three triple oerformance over a seven-triple program with a triple flip-triple toe. I don't think anything remotely comparable ever happened during the 6.0 era once triple jumps came on the scene, nor could it have.

Even taking the placements as they were, under ordinal judging the factored placements would have worked out like t

Rachael: 2nd in the short, 2nd in the long, factored placement 3.0
Alissa: 1st in the short, 3rd in the long, factored placement 3.5
Caroline: 3rd in the short, 4th in the long, factored placement 5.5.

The reason Alissa won under CoP was that she was allowed to carry over her 5 point lead in the short program. As Evangeline mentions, under 6.0 judging carrying over points was not allowed. Rachael beat Alissa in the long, but not by 5 points, so Alissa won overall.

Under 6.0 judging, Rachael beat Alissa in the long, and hence overall, end of story.

The other point (also mentioned by Evangeline) is that under CoP judging Rachael lost about 4 points because the second jump of her triple-triple was downgraded. Under ordinal judging she probably would have got full credit for it -- especially since none of the other ladies attempted a triple-triple at all.

Alissa only planned 5 triples altogether, fell on her Lutz and turned her triple toe-double toe combo into a double-double. Under CoP judging, the extra points she got in the second mark (about 7 points higher than Rachael's) kept her in the game overall. Under 6.0, no way. Giving Alissa full credit for her wonderful spins and spirals, and giving her extra credit for looking like a million dollars every time she steps onto the ice, and taking away as much as possible from Rachael just on general principles -- Alissa might have gotten 5.2, 5.8 to Rachael's 5.8, 5.6.

Thanks and I appreciate the explanation.
Only one thing puzzles me then - how do you explain that Irina didn't win eveytime she stepped on the ice in the old 6.0 era. She basically was the best jumper of her era and Michelle beat her through better artistry. Am I wrong about that as well?
Towards the end of her career, when Irina had greatly improved her presentation and artistry is when she began beating Michelle.
Something feels offf on this.........

Mathman · Jul 4, 2009

Michelle could beat Irina with scores like 5.7, 5.9 to 5.8, 5.8.

But Alissa cannot beat Rachael with 5.2, 5.8 to 5.8, 5.6.

PolymerBob · Jul 4, 2009

TtonyV7 said:
Let's be honest. Until the night that Nationals comes, we won't really know what we'll get from Czisny and whether she'll make the Olympic team or not.

Well, she will have two, possibly three Grand Prix events. That should give us an indication of what we will see at Nationals.

Czisny -- Another Nikodinov?

TtonyV7

Tonichelle

Idita-Rock-n-Roll

CzarinaAnya

Tonichelle

Idita-Rock-n-Roll

janetfan

Match Penalty

Mathman

janetfan

Match Penalty

evangeline

janetfan

Match Penalty

evangeline

Medusa

evangeline

ImaginaryPogue

janetfan

Match Penalty

Tinymavy15

Sinnerman for the win

Mathman

Mathman

janetfan

Match Penalty

Mathman

PolymerBob

Similar threads

Connect with us