- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
Bradley wants to 'bring home some hardware'
- Thread starter Violet Bliss
- Start date
- Joined
- May 15, 2009
Pleaae math, have mercy, you have me pissing my pants here
Thank god under CoP we saw no CONTROVERSIAL DECISIONS in Vancouver
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2009
Pleaae math, have mercy, you have me pissing my pants here
Thank god under CoP we saw no CONTROVERSIAL DECISIONS in Vancouver
Heh.......
Joesitz, Joubert won the PCS in the LPButtle, who won both the SP and LP, was actually sixth in PCS in the SP, and won thanks to his TES. And I think Joubert skated better a half dozen times at that point, imo.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2003
Mmmm. But sport is a form of Entertainment over here. And as a rule we don't want to have to think too hard to be entertained. People see these decimals and -/+1s and their head starts to hurt. Seeing 6.0 or 4.7 and knowing it means 1st or 2nd seems so much easier to so many.
Besides that we hate change - as a general rule - because it takes too long. We want immediate results.
And I don't think anyone is saying CoP has ruled out controversy. It just hasn't brought about that much more, much less fixed the problem. And It won't ever be fixed so long as humans are judging.
I pretty much agree with your choice of Yagudin, Lambiel, and Takahashi as the top three "go-to" guys of the century so far. I am compelled to add Plushenko, though I'm not a fan of his, because of his technique, command, and longevity. He made it to the podium rather young for a male skater and stayed there far later than most skaters of either gender. Chan hasn't proved himself at that level yet, but after this year, we may be saying something different. I look forward to that day! I'm always happy to see another spectacular skater take the stage. He's not Yagudin's equal yet, though, in my opinion either.
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2010
Oooh, I forgot about the American Math phobia and change resistence. I used to liken the unacceptance of CoP to that of the Metric system by the general public.
Mathman, you have a huge task. Don't duck your responsiblity!
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
I stand corrected. Thank you. I just ignore the mini LP called the SP and look only to the LP for the best that day. As I said, I do not need numbers, especially not mine, to judge a winner. It's all there just for the knowledge and viewing.
However, I would like a separate judgement of Tech without the PC scores to take away from the sporting section of the two part scoring. The SP is a joke and is used only for another emotional run for the ladies that lunch. Unfortunately for me, the SP brings in money at the box office. I'm not so sure it is shown on TV.
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2008
- Country
-
Despite the ranting of PangTongFan, Joubert was excellent at 2008 Worlds and was undermarked. I still think Buttle deserved to win the title, although by a smaller margin, and it's not an unfair statement to say you liked Joubert more. His performances were more confident and his jumps were bigger. His inbetweens were improved from the previous season. His massive Triple Flips were unfairly marked at the time because of "e" calls. They received -GOE when in fact they should have gotten +GOE even considering the wrong edge. Joubert's footwork at this competition was among his best ever, equally as good as Buttle's technically and perhaps more effective in terms of presentation even. His spins had good centering and most of them had good speed, although simpler positions (he actually was screwed over a little on the level calls of the spins as well...a couple of them should have been higher).
Joubert probably would have won the LP under 6.0 because it was a very strong performance and had a Quad (but since he would have been down in the standings after the SP he still would have ended up with Silver overall). Buttle gained a lot of extra points over Joubert by doing a bunch of double jumps in combination and some extra changes of edge in easy upright positions during his spins. Those double jumps and easy changes of edge in the spins would have been seen as superfluous under 6.0 and they SHOULD be seen as superfluous in CoP as well if better rules were in place (the spin issue has been somewhat corrected in the rules for this current season, because at least skaters can't do the same variation over and over, but the scoring of spins still isn't where it should be).
Buttle did have better transitions and overall choreography in comparison to Joubert but the gap actually wasn't that big. At 2008 Worlds, Buttle was the most un-Buttle-ish he has ever been. He watered down his program considerably in terms of the choreography AND interpretation. Look at his performance of the program at 2007 Nationals and then look at the program at 2008 Worlds. He took out the opening choreography, he frontloaded the jumps more, he changed the sequencing of his second footwork sequence such that it didn't go with the music as well, and he didn't end the program as well because since he put the jumps earlier in the program, he then crammed 2 spins in at the end which lessened the effect.
If Jeffrey Buttle had won in 2008 with his masterful choreography from the previous season (or other better programs in his career), then his victory would have been a brilliant triumph. Because, yes, the program IS more important (or it least it CAN be) than the extra technical difficulty of having a Quad. Unfortunately, I'd rank Jeff's performance from 2008 as at the bottom of his career artistically. Which is still a high level of artistry because he's amazing, but it wasn't masterful. Objectively speaking, I think Buttle deserved to win the LP mainly because of the slightly awkward moment from Joubert at the end of his program when he did a 2Axel+1Toe. Although I do believe the extra combination jumps and such of CoP are sometimes superfluous, competitors should still be encouraged to do two combinations in the LP (which was generally standard in 6.0) and that mis-queue from Joubert did actually have a bit of significance. Only being able to pull a single toe off a Double Axel? Cmon now. If the single toe had come after a 3Sal or 3Toe, which he still had a slot left in the program to perform before reaching the Zayak limit, then it wouldn't have been as important.
Joubert probably would have won the LP under 6.0 because it was a very strong performance and had a Quad (but since he would have been down in the standings after the SP he still would have ended up with Silver overall). Buttle gained a lot of extra points over Joubert by doing a bunch of double jumps in combination and some extra changes of edge in easy upright positions during his spins. Those double jumps and easy changes of edge in the spins would have been seen as superfluous under 6.0 and they SHOULD be seen as superfluous in CoP as well if better rules were in place (the spin issue has been somewhat corrected in the rules for this current season, because at least skaters can't do the same variation over and over, but the scoring of spins still isn't where it should be).
Buttle did have better transitions and overall choreography in comparison to Joubert but the gap actually wasn't that big. At 2008 Worlds, Buttle was the most un-Buttle-ish he has ever been. He watered down his program considerably in terms of the choreography AND interpretation. Look at his performance of the program at 2007 Nationals and then look at the program at 2008 Worlds. He took out the opening choreography, he frontloaded the jumps more, he changed the sequencing of his second footwork sequence such that it didn't go with the music as well, and he didn't end the program as well because since he put the jumps earlier in the program, he then crammed 2 spins in at the end which lessened the effect.
If Jeffrey Buttle had won in 2008 with his masterful choreography from the previous season (or other better programs in his career), then his victory would have been a brilliant triumph. Because, yes, the program IS more important (or it least it CAN be) than the extra technical difficulty of having a Quad. Unfortunately, I'd rank Jeff's performance from 2008 as at the bottom of his career artistically. Which is still a high level of artistry because he's amazing, but it wasn't masterful. Objectively speaking, I think Buttle deserved to win the LP mainly because of the slightly awkward moment from Joubert at the end of his program when he did a 2Axel+1Toe. Although I do believe the extra combination jumps and such of CoP are sometimes superfluous, competitors should still be encouraged to do two combinations in the LP (which was generally standard in 6.0) and that mis-queue from Joubert did actually have a bit of significance. Only being able to pull a single toe off a Double Axel? Cmon now. If the single toe had come after a 3Sal or 3Toe, which he still had a slot left in the program to perform before reaching the Zayak limit, then it wouldn't have been as important.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2009
I'm wondering if you're using two different standards, Blades. You seem to criticizing Jeff for not being as good as he could be in certain aspects, whereas in the aspects that Joubert was criticized for, since he was the best he'd ever been, you seem to be overrating him.
Additionally, if we're saying "objectively speaking" you can't say he was unfairly marked for the flips. The rules were what they were. You advocate ignoring the rules for Joubert here (by definition), which is unfair.
Anyway, I think Joubert was better in the 2006 Worlds LP. That remains my favourite performance from him.
Additionally, if we're saying "objectively speaking" you can't say he was unfairly marked for the flips. The rules were what they were. You advocate ignoring the rules for Joubert here (by definition), which is unfair.
Anyway, I think Joubert was better in the 2006 Worlds LP. That remains my favourite performance from him.
First I want to be On topic and say that Bradley is very ambitious but even if lands all his quads and 3a's he can't double anything of the lesser jumps. He must nail all his jumps to make up for the PCS deficit he will face.
The whole problem of 2008 is that it showed that COP has no standards for what makes a gold medalist! You can be quadless and win. I hope 6.0 would have made Joubert the winner over Joubert. Buttle just said to people like Lysacek and Chan not try quads don't do quads COP enables going backwards in jumps and triples is it-don't go for quads. If BUttle had attempted a quad and fell he still would have probably won. Someone said Lysacek was not intimidated by Plushenko and I don't dispute that because him and his coach and the western media absolutely said quads didn't mean anything and were not a sign of talent in skating but backloading triples was. They weren't in the same sport. Plushenko was "old" and "outdated" while Lysack was all "Modern" and "COP" and who cares if quads were done-if you did them you stunk at everything else. You can reform COP all you want but the 2008 through 2010 will always be the years of jump regression.
The whole problem of 2008 is that it showed that COP has no standards for what makes a gold medalist! You can be quadless and win. I hope 6.0 would have made Joubert the winner over Joubert. Buttle just said to people like Lysacek and Chan not try quads don't do quads COP enables going backwards in jumps and triples is it-don't go for quads. If BUttle had attempted a quad and fell he still would have probably won. Someone said Lysacek was not intimidated by Plushenko and I don't dispute that because him and his coach and the western media absolutely said quads didn't mean anything and were not a sign of talent in skating but backloading triples was. They weren't in the same sport. Plushenko was "old" and "outdated" while Lysack was all "Modern" and "COP" and who cares if quads were done-if you did them you stunk at everything else. You can reform COP all you want but the 2008 through 2010 will always be the years of jump regression.
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2008
- Country
-
I specifically said Buttle's program was still choreographically superior to Joubert's (although not as significantly as he had shown in the past). That doesn't mean the PERFORMANCE was necessarily better, though. Joubert performed with more confidence. There are 5 PCS marks.
That's the opposite of "objectively speaking", actually. Objectively the rule was incorrect. If we are comparing performances objectively then we do so by the universal standards of figure skating and not "the rules" (a rule which has changed since then). The quality of Joubert's Flips were amazing. Almost nobody else in the World could perform that jump the way he did. Objectively, he should be receiving a lot of points even with the wrong edge because it's more difficult do an ENORMOUS Triple Flip off of a wrong edge than it is to a tiny Triple Flip off of a correct edge. The rules instead ask us to alter the laws of physics and consider the jump as flawed and inferior to a "correct edge" Triple Flip of far lesser quality.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
Pleaae math, have mercy, you have me pissing my pants here
Thank god under CoP we saw no CONTROVERSIAL DECISIONS in Vancouver
I am not sure what this post means. I did not say anything about CoP or Vancouver. (?)
The point I was trying to make was that ranked voting systems (ordinals) is kind of a cool branch of discrete mathematical methods in applied political science (Voting and Social Choice), going back to the work of French mathematicians who were trying to put some kind of Republic together after the French Revolution. There are many ins and outs, even in judging whose strawberery jam is best at the county fair.
SkateFiguring said:
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
I do not see how you can claim objectivity in this judgment. If this were objectively true, then there could be no argument or discussion, except to educate those misguided souls who hold a different opinion.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2009
And the judges gave Joubert he win on PCS. They said that Joubert had better performance, interpretation and skating skills, and matched Buttle on choreography. Only in transitions did Buttle come out ahead.
Then I'll rephrase. The judges must judge according to the rules. So, when you say:
you are wrong, because the edge call by definition meant they didn't deserve +GOE. For them to break the rules and give Joubert +GOE would be unfair because breaking the rules for one skater and not another is unfair, regardless of your personal opinion of the rules.
- Joined
- May 15, 2009
I am not sure what this post means. I did not say anything about CoP or Vancouver. (?)
The point I was trying to make was that ranked voting systems (ordinals) is kind of a cool branch of discrete mathematical methods in applied political science (Voting and Social Choice), going back to the work of French mathematicians who were trying to put some kind of Republic together after the French Revolution. There are many ins and outs, even in judging whose strawberery jam is best at the county fair.
Oh dear, has your fever returned
I hope not, even if I liked your posts better with the fever And now that we have your thoughts on ordinals can you acknowledge that the CoP had a pretty big, "Hall of Fame" level dispute over scores and placements in Vancouver?
After that we can talk a little politics, French revolution, aboriginal Ice Dancing routines and the controversial future of bungee cords in figure skating.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
Oh dear, has your fever returned
And now that we have your thoughts on ordinals can you acknowledge that the CoP had a pretty big, "Hall of Fame" level dispute over scores and placements in Vancouver?
After that we can talk a little politics, French revolution, aboriginal Ice Dancing routines and the controversial future of bungee cords in figure skating.
Ordinal judging has more mathematical subtlety to it than add-up-the-points scoring.
To give a trivial example of what I mean, consider this “controversial” result from Vancouver.
Domnina and Shabulin: 207.64
Belbin and Agosto: 203.07.
There is no mathemnatical ambiguity about who won. There is no misuderstanding about why Domnina and Shabulin won. They won because they got more points.
If there is a controversy it not about the scoring system, it is about those lyin’, cheatin’, politickin’ judges that rigged the whole thing in advance and gave high marks for a crapola skate by the Russians, while unfairly lowballing Belbin and Agosto.
Bungee cords have nothing to do with point-total scoring versus ordinal scoring.
For contrast, consider these ordinals given to three skaters, A, B, C
…………....Judge #1….Judge #2…..Judge #3
First...............A...............B............C
Second...........B...............C.............A
Third..............C...............A............ B
Who won?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2008
- Country
-
I don't agree with that. There are always debates that lead to what the "object truth" actually is. It's all about perception, really. We no longer think the World is flat but I'm sure there is some other grand truth about the cosmos that we do not understand and will invalidate other theories that scientests currently hold as true.
I'm not wrong at all. The rule itself was unfair; it gave an incorrect assessment about what the skater actually accomplished. Just because the judges were the people in charge of executing the rule, it doesn't mean they were correct. It's not much different than "fair" policemen in the past who were in charge of putting certain people in jail for not sitting in the back of the bus. The law said that is what their job was and thus it would be unfair for them to go against that, right? No, actually not.
In actuality, a judge can give ANY score they want based upon their personal beliefs. If the ISU dislikes the judge's actions they can suspend them, but that is an entirely different matter. We all must do what we think must be done in life.
BTW, several judges gave Joubert's "e" call Flips a 0 rather than the "required" -GOE the rules said should be handed out. None of them were suspended.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
I think the difference lies between "is" and "should." We might not know what the shape of the earth is, and we might have conflicting theories about it, but there is an objective truth out there waiting to be discovered.
In figure skating we are debating whether a good wrong-edge flip should be penalized more than a bad right-edge flip. It's that "should" that forecloses objectivity, IMHO.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2009
Comparing fair marking in figure skating to endemic racism is perhaps NOT the best analogy to make.
But I'm also not convinced the rule was unfair either.
Hernando, read the article Mathman linked to. It delineates the differences in scoring and how it might be controversial quite nicely.
But I'm also not convinced the rule was unfair either.
Hernando, read the article Mathman linked to. It delineates the differences in scoring and how it might be controversial quite nicely.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
Should bungee cords be legal or illegal?
Should we use a system of adding up points or should we use a system of assigning ordinals.
Can you explain a little more about how these two questions are related?
Similar threads
