Strange results in the men's short | Page 6 | Golden Skate

Strange results in the men's short

FlattFan

Match Penalty
Joined
Jan 4, 2010
Is that so, here is a direct quote from you: <<They all said the base should be worth more. Currently it's 4.3>>

In English, it refers to the last noun referenced, which is the word "base" in this case. In other words, your sentence can be re-written as Currently base is 4.3

I think I read you more than correctly. Just admit you made a gaffe and move on, it's not a big deal, nobody requires you to know the point table by heart in order to participate here. It's legitimate question that reasonable people can disagree. It is what is though, just as you can find some skaters who said it's undervalued, there will be tons other who disagreed. And all those opinions are valid. The point is these numbers aren't derived by some amateurs as you first implied and that I am insistant that you take it back because that's quite disrespectful towards the men and women who worked on the IJS project to get us where we are today.


The whole thread has been about 4.3 points difference between the 3F-3T and 4T-3T. Suddenly out of nowhere you started attacking me saying I didn't know what I was talking about because I said 4.3 is the base value for the quad. Follow the thread before sounding off.
Also, all the names I mentioned said base value should be higher. You couldn't even name a single person who didn't say it and you kept on saying I interpreted their non-verbal language.
So for that you're in the ignore list because whatever you will say just wastes my time responding.
 
Last edited:

wallylutz

Medalist
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
I watched too - and Johnyy being Johnny he sort of flip-flopped. I believe he initially said Brian should have won the SP. Then Johnny being Johnny (remember he is not a judge and hates CoP) he went back and said Dai won. The guy is such a flea brain I certainly would never feel comfortable using his opinion to back up an argument. :)

BTW - I hope Rachael has fixed up the jump problems she had in Vancouver (yea - they had bad air position, were all borderline ur and had some scratchy landings).

I have a hunch this is the last we will see of Rachael - atleast as a serious contender - so I wish her all the best. Maybe she will skate her way to bronze - or even Silver if Mao falls down.
Since Mirai is the better skater and will be around for the next few years I do hope Rachael does her best. She is NOT my favorite skater but I certainly think she is a nice girl. It would be kinda sweet if she ended her competitive career with a World medal.

Also, in Vancouver, Johnny was such a Plushenko sucker, no pun intented, but here, he is saying Evan deserved his win. Johnny shifts his positions quicker than babies changing their diapers.
 

FlattFan

Match Penalty
Joined
Jan 4, 2010
Well her 3f-3t is solid and she's consistent but her spins, flexibility, speed, and presence on the ice don't compare to Mirai's, her basic skating and edge quality is nowhere near that of Laura, and she doesn't get as much height in her jumps as Miki. All four of these skaters are fairly comparable, but I don't agree that Rachael is absolutely better than the other three. She can do difficult jumps, yes, but the jumps themselves aren't actually that impressive and she's a bit slow and sloppy in her spins/presentation. That's just how I see it. If they were all at their best, I would rank Rachael last among the 4, but Rachael rarely makes mistakes so if the others do and she is clean, then sure she should be ahead, but you're forgetting that Mirai and Miki skated clean LPs at the Olympics and Laura only doubled one jump.

Miki was slow. Her jumps were low at the Olympics.
Mirai interpretation was pretty bad. When I watched her doing Carmen, it's about as bad as the Zhangs doing Scheherazade. Her step sequence in both SP and LP were a lot more simpler compare to Rachael's.
Laura had skating skill, but that was that.

Base on what they did at the Olympics, I would put Rachael in front.

If they were all at their absolute best, I would put Rachael behind Miki and Mirai and in front of Laura. Remember, at the Olympics Rachael was at her best, the other 3 weren't.
 

Poodlepal

On the Ice
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Re: Patrick and his edges
When I said my original quote about Patrick's DEEEP edges, I was mocking a little on Paul Wylie, who was carrying on and on about them. I have no doubt that Patrick is the skater's skater, with his superior edges and transitions. Good for him. No doubt he'll get many medals in years to come. He is pretty to look at when he is clean. Actually, although I'm making fun of him, I liked his skate better than Daisuke's this time around. If he's clean, they can reward his edges as much as they want, I won't complain.

The problem is: figure skating is failing as a spectator sport when things deep edges, underrotations or flutzing, (which mean little to non-skaters or seriously avid fans)seem to count more than jumping and falling. If two people skate clean, and the one with the deeper edges gets the nod, OK. But when someone like Chan, who messed up noticeably in Vancouver is put ahead of someone like Johnny who skated clean (to the naked eye), or ahead of Brian here, who did a harder jump in a TECHNICAL portion of the contest, many people will get mad. They will question the judging system, and they will eventually stop watching. And I think that's why people get so annoyed with Patrick. He's not doing anything wrong, but he's benefiting from flaws in the judging system.
 
Last edited:

silverlake22

Record Breaker
Joined
Nov 12, 2009
Miki was slow. Her jumps were low at the Olympics.
Mirai interpretation was pretty bad. When I watched her doing Carmen, it's about as bad as the Zhangs doing Scheherazade. Her step sequence in both SP and LP were a lot more simpler compare to Rachael's.
Laura had skating skill, but that was that.

Base on what they did at the Olympics, I would put Rachael in front.

If they were all at their absolute best, I would put Rachael behind Miki and Mirai and in front of Laura. Remember, at the Olympics Rachael was at her best, the other 3 weren't.

Yeah well Mirai, Laura, and Miki are all beautiful while Rachael is just cute and while that shouldn't make a difference in the scores....it probably does.
 

janetfan

Match Penalty
Joined
May 15, 2009
Base on what they did at the Olympics, I would put Rachael in front.

If they were all at their absolute best, I would put Rachael behind Miki and Mirai and in front of Laura. Remember, at the Olympics Rachael was at her best, the other 3 weren't.

Again the judges disagree with you. And Rachael was far from her best in Vancouver. She looked nervous and skated nervous. Almost every single jump she took had a problem. Plushy landed his jumps - and so did Rachael - but as the judges and tech panel correctly saw these were not good jumps.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
doing quad should relieve TR a bit. So TR score should factor into a program with quad.

That is the one place where I cannot agree. The whole idea of the CoP is that you get credit for each thing you do. If you do a quad, you get credit for a quad. If you do a sit spin, you get credit for a sit spin. If you do transitions, you get credit for transitions.

I would never go along with a scoring system that says, well, he did a quad, so we should give him credit for a sit spin, too, even though he didn't do one.

Now if the argument is that quads should be scored higher than they are, with sit spins and transitions given lesser relative weight, that would be an OK change for the ISU technical committee to consider for next year. And maybe they will, as they did last year.
 

FlattFan

Match Penalty
Joined
Jan 4, 2010
That is the one place where I cannot agree. The whole idea of the CoP is that you get credit for each thing you do. If you do a quad, you get credit for a quad. If you do a sit spin, you get credit for a sit spin. If you do transitions, you get credit for transitions.

I would never go along with a scoring system that says, well, he did a quad, so we should give him credit for a sit spin, too, even though he didn't do one.

Now if the argument is that quads should be scored higher than they are, with sit spins and transitions given lesser relative weight, that would be an OK change for the ISU technical committee to consider for next year. And maybe they will, as they did last year.

That's quite a stretch to say he did a quad, he should get credit for the sit spin, too.
What I said was a quad needs a lot of pre and post prep work, it does not make sense to expect a lot of transitions. Something's gotta give. If someone does a quad and has transitions, sure, give him more credit for his transitions since it's apple to apple comparison. But if he doesn't do a hard element and claim he has more transitions then it's not a valid argument anymore. Did Chan's transition score go down when he couldn't connect the elements and had falls all over? No. So transitions score is just a way to prop certain skaters.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Again the judges disagree with you.

That is not so clear. The technical specialist downgraded two of Rachael's jumps, costing her about eight points. The judges, however, gave her the +.60 GOE on the first of the downgraded jumps, and mostly 0s on the second, so the judges did not seem to have thought that the jumps were under-rotated or that they had other problems or showed nervousness.

With those extra 8 points Rachael is far ahead of Laura and Miki and pulls even with Mirai. So I think the judges liked her performances just fine, but she ran into bad luck with the technical caller, who called Rachaels' LP jumps a little more severely than the jumps of the other girls.

What I said was a quad needs a lot of pre and post prep work, it does not make sense to expect a lot of transitions.

Well, of course it doesn't. Just like in American football, if you score a touchdown it does not make sense to expect you to kick a field goal at the same time.

You get points for what you do, not for what you might have done if you were an apple instead of an orange. If you score a touchdwn you get six points. If instead you kick a field goal you get three. Each team has to decide which to go for. Joubert went for a quad, Chan for transitions.

Anyway, if the purpose of your posts is to convince the ISU that they ought ot raise the value of quads and triple Axels, i think you are preaching to the choir. The ISU agrees with you, and at the meeting of the ISU Technical Committee last year they did raise the base values of these jumps. Very likely they will raise them some more at their next meeting in a couple of months. Everyone will be happy. :)

Except Patrick. :(
 
Last edited:

prettykeys

Medalist
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
The whole thread has been about 4.3 points difference between the 3F-3T and 4T-3T. Suddenly out of nowhere you started attacking me saying I didn't know what I was talking about because I said 4.3 is the base value for the quad. Follow the thread before sounding off.
Maybe if your English wasn't so bad, wallylutz wouldn't have poked at it and questioned your thinking ability by association. "Murakami [still] has good companies", I'm sure.

That is the one place where I cannot agree. The whole idea of the CoP is that you get credit for each thing you do. If you do a quad, you get credit for a quad. If you do a sit spin, you get credit for a sit spin. If you do transitions, you get credit for transitions.

I would never go along with a scoring system that says, well, he did a quad, so we should give him credit for a sit spin, too, even though he didn't do one.

Now if the argument is that quads should be scored higher than they are, with sit spins and transitions given lesser relative weight, that would be an OK change for the ISU technical committee to consider for next year. And maybe they will, as they did last year.
The problem with FlattFan's railing against quadless skaters in the case of skaters having 1 quad vs. those having 0 quads in a program is that it's inconsistent with his assertion that Yagudin was a deserving champion over Goebel in the 2002 Olympics (3 quads vs. 4 quads.). The difference is still the same: 1 quad. Apparently Yagudin had enough artistic ability to overcome Goebel's 1 quad advantage over him, but other skaters (with 0 quads) don't deserve to be able to be credited over less-artistic skaters with 1 quad? :think: OK, whatever. :laugh:

However, I do agree with the assertion that Transitions need to be credited differently between elements of different difficulty levels. The concept should at least factor in; that is, it shouldn't merely be an arithmetic process of e.g. transition + jump as independent processes, because they are not independent elements. A Transition score should take into consideration what can be reasonably expected out of transitioning into a more difficult 4T vs. the easier 3T. Besides, unlike individual jumps, the Transitions score is an overall assessment of the whole program.

If someone does a somewhat easier transition into a 4T and another skater does a somewhat harder transition into a 3T...and the rest of their programs is exactly the same, I do believe they merit the same Transition score.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
However, I do agree with the assertion that Transitions need to be credited differently between elements of different difficulty levels....

If someone does a somewhat easier transition into a 4T and another skater does a somewhat harder transition into a 3T...and the rest of their programs is exactly the same, I do believe they merit the same Transition score.

It's tricky. The "transitions" that you do leading up to a jump are not part of the "Transitions" program component score, but part of the GOE for that element.

Under the bullets for positive GOE on jumps it says (ISU publication1505), " "clear recognizable steps/skating movements immediately preceding element."

The program component "Transitions," is, I believe, more about what you are doing in the rest of the program when you are just skating along, not necessarily preparing for a scored technical element. The four criteria are "variety, difficulty, intricacy, and quality" of incidental steps and turns, as well as non-scored elements like Ina Bauers and split jumps.

I assume there is overlap in the minds of the judges, as for instance if a skater rose into a triple jump directly from a spread eagle.

Maybe the right way to do it would be to increase the positive GOEs for quads, using the same scale as negative GOEs. For a quad toe the GOEs are +3, +2, +1, 0, -1.6, -3.2, -4.8.

Ix-nay on comments about posters' language skills, even in retaliation. One big happy family. :)
 

FlattFan

Match Penalty
Joined
Jan 4, 2010
Maybe if your English wasn't so bad, wallylutz wouldn't have poked at it and questioned your thinking ability by association. "Murakami [still] has good companies", I'm sure.

The problem with FlattFan's railing against quadless skaters in the case of skaters having 1 quad vs. those having 0 quads in a program is that it's inconsistent with his assertion that Yagudin was a deserving champion over Goebel in the 2002 Olympics (3 quads vs. 4 quads.). The difference is still the same: 1 quad. Apparently Yagudin had enough artistic ability to overcome Goebel's 1 quad advantage over him, but other skaters (with 0 quads) don't deserve to be able to be credited over less-artistic skaters with 1 quad? :think: OK, whatever. :laugh:

However, I do agree with the assertion that Transitions need to be credited differently between elements of different difficulty levels. The concept should at least factor in; that is, it shouldn't merely be an arithmetic process of e.g. transition + jump as independent processes, because they are not independent elements. A Transition score should take into consideration what can be reasonably expected out of transitioning into a more difficult 4T vs. the easier 3T. Besides, unlike individual jumps, the Transitions score is an overall assessment of the whole program.

If someone does a somewhat easier transition into a 4T and another skater does a somewhat harder transition into a 3T...and the rest of their programs is exactly the same, I do believe they merit the same Transition score.

Maybe if you are so smart and have higher IQ you would understand what I said. 22yo and 2 years into some advanced degree. LOL. I need not defend my academic achievement, unlike someone who's so insecure and resorted to IQ and advanced degree to make a point.
Ok, ignore list.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
The problem with FlattFan's railing against quadless skaters in the case of skaters having 1 quad vs. those having 0 quads in a program is that it's inconsistent with his assertion that Yagudin was a deserving champion over Goebel in the 2002 Olympics (3 quads vs. 4 quads.). The difference is still the same: 1 quad.

I believe it goes like the logarithm: ln(4) - ln(3) = ln(4/3) = 0.29 extra points for Goebel over Yagudin.

But ln(1) - ln(0) = infinity extra points for Joubert over Chan.
 

prettykeys

Medalist
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
I believe it goes like the logarithm: ln(4) - ln(3) = ln(4/3) = 0.29 extra points for Goebel over Yagudin.

But ln(1) - ln(0) = infinity extra points for Joubert over Chan.
bwahahaha. Strangely enough, that's not a terrible way of looking at it. Or even extra points=quads^1/2 :p

Maybe if you are so smart and have higher IQ you would understand what I said. 22yo and 2 years into some advanced degree. LOL. I need not defend my academic achievement, unlike someone who's so insecure and resorted to IQ and advanced degree to make a point.
Ok, ignore list.
:rolleye: :laugh: 1) Diss English majors/degrees 2) Tell me to get one 3) Have me correct you about what I actually study, and challenge you to share your background, while showing how you are deficient 4) Dodge 5) Fail to understand the basis of mockery

It's tricky. The "transitions" that you do leading up to a jump are not part of the "Transitions" program component score, but part of the GOE for that element.

Under the bullets for positive GOE on jumps it says (ISU publication1505), " "clear recognizable steps/skating movements immediately preceding element."

The program component "Transitions," is, I believe, more about what you are doing in the rest of the program when you are just skating along, not necessarily preparing for a scored technical element. The four criteria are "variety, difficulty, intricacy, and quality" of incidental steps and turns, as well as non-scored elements like Ina Bauers and split jumps.

I assume there is overlap in the minds of the judges, as for instance if a skater rose into a triple jump directly from a spread eagle.

Maybe the right way to do it would be to increase the positive GOEs for quads, using the same scale as negative GOEs. For a quad toe the GOEs are +3, +2, +1, 0, -1.6, -3.2, -4.8.

Ix-nay on comments about posters' language skills, even in retaliation. One big happy family. :)
Hmm, ok. I did forget about the GOEs. I can see how the system has worked it in...sometimes it is difficult to see how proportionately the rewards and penalties are translated into the scoring.

Off topic, but I think one of the most beautiful things about language is when people share (or attempt to share) kind words, praise, or ideas through a language that is not their most fluent. It means that they are putting in that extra effort to learn and transmit those good thoughts and feelings across that invisible obstacle. Conversely, when people are putting in that extra effort to say nasty or rude things... :scowl:
 

jennylovskt

Medalist
Joined
Oct 20, 2006
... and at the meeting of the ISU Technical Committee last year they did raise the base values of these jumps. Very likely they will raise them some more at their next meeting in a couple of months. Everyone will be happy. :)

Except Patrick. :(

Oh, Mathman, I wish you were the ISU president. Everyone will be happy.:laugh: I do hope that they'll do what you said.

Why Patrick won't be happy? He's going to have a quad anyway, ... or it's just a talk of quad?;)
 

let`s talk

Match Penalty
Joined
Sep 10, 2009
Joubert with three quads and lower than the dancer Chan! Unbelievable... This scoring system sucks, with its GoE, blah-blah....

So sad.
 

sk8rdad

On the Ice
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
It's tricky. The "transitions" that you do leading up to a jump are not part of the "Transitions" program component score, but part of the GOE for that element.

Mathman: The TR score definitely includes these as does the GOE. The quote below is from the ISU document "Components with Explanations"

"In singles, pairs, and synchronize skating this also includes the entrances and exits of technical elements."

The GOE accounts for the fact that you did movements leading into a jump. The TR mark is more about the quality of those movements as well as the other non-element movements throughout the program.

Based on this I would assume that if skater A did transitions into a quad (I can't think of any skater actually doing this currently) that the judges would definitely consider the fact that a quad followed the transitions as being more difficult than if the jump had been a triple.

Most of the current crop of quadsters simply don't do much in the way of transitions likely due to that fact that most of their training energy is focused on the quad and not transitions. That's their choice and they shouldn't and likely don't expect to be gifted extra marks in that area.
 

sk8rdad

On the Ice
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
No problem... Having a skater in the system has given me cause to read the IJS documents over many times trying to understand why the marks are what they are. :)
 
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
Joubert with three quads and lower than the dancer Chan! Unbelievable... This scoring system sucks, with its GoE, blah-blah....So sad.
Absolutely. The plus GoEs belong in the PC scores under skating ability which is the only designation in the whole of the CoP to register Technique! However for errors, and the concept of 'partial credit', there is no choice but to score errors on minus GoEs.

IMO, the Short Program should be kept as a Technical contest and not go bananas over someone putting hand in the aire while doing a lutz, or doing a 3 turn into a flip. Embellishments belong in the PC scores for the opinions of the judges. Plus GoEs are the remains of the 6.0 system.
 
Top